Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 03-28 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY Or BROOKLYN CENTER MARCH 28, 1983 (Following Adjournment of the Housing &Redevelopment Authority Meeting) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll: Call , 3. Open Forum # C ` 4. 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., 5. Public Hearing Regarding the Designation of a Housing Development' Project Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et. seq.,.the Municipal. Housing & Redevelopment Act, and the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78, inclusive, the Tax Increment Financing Act .(7:15 p.m.) -The Brooklyn Center City Council convened the public hearing on February 28, 1983, March,14, 1983 and continued the public hearing to this evening. 6. Resolutions: a. Authorizing the Finance Director to Issue Master Motes for Temporary Loan from the Investment Trust Fund to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority { -This resolution provides for interim financing of the Brookwood Improvement Projects Nos. 1983 -04 and 1983 -05 prior to the sale of bonds for the tax increment districts., *b. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Contract 1983 -A (Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1983 -01) The City Council rejected all bids at its February 28, 1983 meeting and authorized the rebidding of this contract. It is recommended the bid of the North Wood Company in the amount of $28,996.50 be accepted'. *c. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Contract 1983 -C (Well No -. 3 Reconditioning Project No. 1983 -03) It is recommended the low bid of A & K.`Construetion Inc. in the amount of $43,120 be accepted. d. Amending the 1983 General Fund Budget to Provide for Improvement of the Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning,System for the Civic Center e. Authorizing Execution of an Agreement, for Professional Services with Oftedahl, Locks, Broadston and Associates, Inc.. for Design of Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Improvements for the Civic Center ` `CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2 March 28, 1983 f. Approving Specifications for Furnishing, Loading and Delivery of Stablized Gravel and Fine Aggregate for Seal Coat Materials: Furnishing, Loading and Delivery of Plant -mixed Bituminous Mixtures:, Furnishing Bituminous Materials and Directing Advertisement for Bids *7. Approval of Contract with Funk Animal Hospital for Animal Impoundment -It is recommended a motion be made by the City Council approving the contract. 8. Public Hearing on an Industrial Development Revenue Bond Proposal for Byerly's The public hearing was opened at the February 14,'1983 City Council meeting § and continued to the first meeting in March. 9. Planning Commission Items (8;30 p.m.) a. - Planning Commission, Applications 83007 and 83008 submitted by DeVries ; Builders, Inc. for site and building plan and preliminary plat approval € for the 4th Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates,.located on Xerxes Place North, south of Freeway Boulevard. Planning; Commission Applications 83007 and 83008 were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its March 17, 1983 meeting. - 1. Final. Plat Approval - Earle Brown Farm Estates, 4th Addition b. Planning Commission; Application 83009 submitted by Martin Drinkwine for, amendment to the special use permit to operate a Tidy Car business from the residence at 5632 James Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application 83009 at its March 17, 1983 meeting. k 10. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Classifying Certain 'Land as being within the C1 Zoning District -The property - addressed -by this ordinance is the Northport Clinic property and the property located southwest of the intersection of Xerxes and Shingle Creek Parkway. The ordinance; was first read on February 28, 1983, published on March 10, 1983 and is recommended for a second reading this evening. b. An Ordinance Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements along the Easterly and Westerly `Lot Lines of Lot 5, Block 1, Earle Brown.lst Addition -At the request of the owner the staff has approached the various utility companies to determine the need to maintain easements along the side lot line of the property. Finding none, the staff recommends vacation of the easements. This ordinance is offered for a first •' reading this evening. 11. Discussion Items: a. Update on Cable Television b. Status of Crystal Airport c. Phaseout of Alarm Board -Fire and Security Alarms for Commercial Buildings in Brooklyn Center *12. Licenses 13: Adjournment Member introduced the following resolution and. moved its adoption.: RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO�ISSUE MASTER; NOTES FOR TEMPORARY LOAN FROM THE 'INVESTMENT TRUST FUND TO THE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUTHOR WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has received a report from the City Engineer regarding the feasibility of proposed construction within, and adjacent to, Brookwood Development, and WHEREAS, the City Council has established varioua improvement projects to further investigate the potential benefit of said proposed construction to the affected areas and the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by establishing the various improvement projects, has authorized the expenditure of finances through the Housing Redevelopment Authority to continue said investigations and /or construction: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE OITY;COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Finance Director is hereby authorized to provide the required financing of the various projects by transfer of funds from the Investment Trust Fund to the Housing Redevelopment Authority, by issuance of 'Master Notes according to the following schedule: Proms" ect_ Master Dote Number Brookwood Development Improvement Project No. 1983 -04 1983 -01 Brookwood Development Improvement Project No =. 1983 -05 1983 -02' 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- and adopted. Member introduced the fallowing resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.. RESOLUTIO ACCEPTING BID AND APFROVING , CONTRACT FOR CONTRACT 1983 -A (DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1983 -01) WHEREAS,: the City Clerk and the City Engineer have reported that on March 24, 1983, at 11:00 A.M., Local Time, they opened and tabulated bids received for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project "No.. 2983 -01, and that said bids were as ;follows: Bidder Bid Amount North Wood Company, $28,996.50 Design Tree Service $32,422.50 Arps Tree Service $33,000.00 WHEREAS, it appears that North Wood Company of Coon Rapids,: Minnesota is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of 'the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The 'Mayor and City 'Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract in the amount of $28,996.50 with North Wood Company of Coon Rapids, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1983 -01 according to the specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the 'City, Clerk,` 2. The 'City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be >retained until a contract has been signed. 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: a whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OF a R BR ©OI�LYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 ' TELEPH:QNE 561.5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE --FIRE ,C ENTER 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: March 25, 1983 RE: Evaluation of Bids Received for Contract 1983 -A , Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids were received and opened on March 24-,.1983, for diseased shade tree removal under Contract. 1983 -A. Upon review of the 'proposals, it has been determined' that the, lowest responsible bid was submitted by North Wood Company. North Wood Company is a tree removal firm that is not well known in the- metro- politan area, although the firm has been in operation for quite some time. During 1980 and 1981 the firm did a significant volume of work as a subcontractor to Bredwell Tree Service (Bredwell essentially served as a broker of tree removal services). Following is 'a brief summary of the interview responses provided by the references Bredwell Tree Service (Rosemary Oswalt) The contractor completed numerous tree removal projects as a subcontractor in 1980 and 1981. The contractor worked in Anoka and the City of Minneapolis and other municipalities and was considered by Bredwell to be one of the more respon- sible and able subcontractors. All clean up and damage; repair was completed ina timely, responsible fashion by North Wood Company. City of Anoka (Bob Muscovitz, City Forester) The contractor worked as, a subcontractor to Bredwell Tree Service in 1980. The contractor was responsible, completing the assigned work in =a timely fashion. Clean up and repair was completed as requested by the City and private property owners, and the contractor was considered to be very cooperative. U.D. Contracting (Jerry ,Solnitzky) The contractor` % as a subcontractor on a tree removal contract in ,1982. The work was completed in a timely manner, with clean up and damage repair also completed in a responsible manner. The contract did provide for tree removals adjacent to existing structures, and it was reported that the contractor did acceptable work. ?.i -Saad4v9 Now 64rY !! i March 25 1983 - G.G. Splinter Page 2 In consideration of the above references, the staff considers the firm to be capable of serving the City in a professional manner. Therefore, it is recommended the proposal of North Wood Company be forwarded to the City Council for acceptance. Respectfull submitted, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING. CONTRACT FOR CONTRACT 1983 -C {WELL NO. 3 RECONDITIONING; PRojECT NO. 1983 -03} WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement, Project No-1983-G3, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer.,on Larch 24, 1983..: Said bids were as follows. Bidder Bid Amount A & K Construction,: Inc. $ 43,120.10 ABE Construction Company, Inc. $ 48,000.00` NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City. of Brooklyn: Center, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager are her authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract in the amount-of $43,120.00 with A & K Construction, Inc. of Stillwater, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center,. for Improvement Project No. 1983 -03 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved-by the City Council and on file in the office 3 of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the estimated total cast of Improvement Project No. 1983 -03 is hereby amended from $69,450.00 to $53,757-.00. The estimated cost is comprised of the following: As Estimated As Amended Contract $57,390.00 $43,120.00 Electrical service modifications 5,750.00 5,750.00 Engineering Cast . 5,680.00 4,398.30 Administrative Cost 630.00 488.70 $69,450..00 $53,757,00 f 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� CITY OF 63 01 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY RO B KL � CENTER, M INNESOTA 55430 TE LEPHONE 561 -5440 � EN C TER EMERGENCY—POLICE—FIRE 911 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: 5y Knapp, Directo of Public Works DATE: March 25, 1983 RE: Evaluation of Sid Received for Contract 1983 -C Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids were received and opened on March 24, 1983, for the reconditioning of Water Supply We11 I4o. 3 (Improvement Proj No. 1983 -03) . Upon review of the proposals, it has been determined that the lowest responsible bid was submitted by A& K Construction, Inc. A & K Construction will serve as general contractor on the project, completing the mechanical and structural modifications. The subcontractor supplying 'labor, equipment, and materials necessary for the electrical modifications is Pike Paul Electric Company, Inc. and the well pump and motor installation is by Layne' Minnesota Company. Following is a brief summary of the interview, responses provided by the references. City of Shorewood (Jim Norton, Orr- Schelen- Mayeron & Associates, Inc., Engineer)> The three contractors listed above; completed the construction of a well and pump house in 1982. Work was completed in a satisfactory manner. It '`is advised` that the City monitor the activity closely to insure a'timely completion. (When given deadlines, the work was completed on time.) Mr. Norton recommends the City accept the pro posal of A & K Construction, In City of Apple Valley (John Director of Public Works) A & K Construction, Inc. was the general contractor for pumphouse construction in 1982. The work was completed in a timely: manner and the contractor was responsive to requests of the City. Mr. Gretz advises that the City accept the proposal of A & K Construction, Inc. City of Eden Prairie (Ed Sorenson, Water Superintendent) The three contractors worked together.on the construction of three pumphouses and wells in 1982. The work was completed in an acceptable manner, under the supervision of a full time inspector. Mr. Sorenson also recommends that the City accept the proposal of A & K' Construction,.Inc. March 25, 1983` - G.G. Splinter Page 2 In consideration of the 'above, the staff considers the firm of A & K Construction, Inc. to be.capable of providing for the coordination of the 'various electrical,; mechanical, structural, and well pump aspects of the project. Therefore, it is recommended the proposal of A;& K ;Construction, Inc.. be forwarded: to the City Council for acceptance.. Respectfully submitted, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO' RESOLUTION'AMENDING THE 1983 GENERAL FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, 'funds were appropriat<hl in the )renovation; 3 General Fund Budget to the Community Center Activity in the amount ,75r improvements to the heating, ventilating and air conditioning system; and painting of r the pool area ceiling; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works and the Director -of Parks and Recreation have determined that said improvements will.not resolve the heating,' ventilation amid air conditioning problems; and WHEREAS they have recommended an alternate method's that will resolve the problem and save energy costs; and that the method consists of installing two pairs of;heat reclaim coils at a total capital outlay of $28,000; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center deos oxide that the City Council may, by majority vote of its members, transfer cumbered appropriation balances from one office, department or agency to another within the same Fund's NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to amend the 1983 General Fund Budget: as follows: 1. Increase the Community Center Capital outlay Building Account (No. 4520) by $12,249 by a. Adding: Item 7. Installation of two heat reclaim coils $28,000 b.. Deleting: Item 3. Paint. -Pool Ceiling ($ 6,900) Item 4. Heat Wheel Renovations (.$ 4,000) Item 6. , AVAC System, C$ 4,851) c. Net Increase $12,249 F 2. Decrease the Community Center Equipment Repair Account (No. 4382) by $1,500. 3. Decrease the Government Buildings Equipment Repair Account (No. 43821 by $1,5004 4. Transfer an appropriation of $9,249 to the Community Center Activity 'from the Unallocated 'Departmental Expense Contingency Account (No. 4995) RESOLUTION NO. F 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. IN 7 7 7 7 7- 1 -CHECK - 4 - PRINCIPAL ,PRINCIPAL, YEAR 1 -- 'w xEAR 2 a -- YYAR 3 YEAR t DATE - AMOUNT E _ TOTAL f - 19 - Y9 t9 t3f #t - !1 it 1! it t f � t i } , i t R e. t .j i, 44 '71 L 11 1 I it I I 1 11 !1 'i �i i I I I i I i i 41- It i # t I � t -!- I; i j 4} ; } I I r 1 i it i I I i I I i ► ,E i i1 } I I ' 11 i t! .A:M �,'y�..: �• t4 .'".+'�./",'.,�+h*fwA"VMI��a.;Y ." i'tit � ,. '�. `.'��• + - ~,�.tf °}. .M y •. ^#. i „re1, :p + .. _ .�,� • 4._:�..+: r — :,L1 +' `.r +'r.,.s e + �. .� f ' ► �• 1� A e ( Y ' -d + \ la '?� __j {q ^u � . • v 7. tStr.- TpXI�`u�:J'3.i►Ya ,mss- - •••ITN�,v ��?'.•- `_.:.- w�7 f '.' S T.: UNITED S i'A' I S Ui' A.viI' 'RICA STATE`. OF MINNF5OTA : ? t HOUSING` AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY � � St s• '�i � r OPP b bP BROOKLYN CENTER' MINNESOTA . ' '! � -` � ' � - •' • �r' FA "y { GENERAL OBLIGATION MASTER NOTE _.>.�.:__ i c - -r KNOW ALL THESE BY THESE PRESENT that the Housing and . i4 Redevelopment,Authority of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, J t� I Mnnesotaackno ledges itself to be indebteded and for value - , �' pad to the C of Brook Center' #, received hereby promises to � y Y I'll 6�111 ` Investment Trust Fund the sum as endorsed on the reverse side,'' ` to pay.interest thereon from the date thereof�unt.il the " princi pal.arciuunt `is i , Da d at the rate `of ten percent "(10 4) Per annum.. Iif- ezest ' is to be accrued ,annually on - the 31st da of - Y y • December of each year until refunded not more than three (3) years from the date of this note. ; __ _. .. ,_ _ .. _ :. --;.- - - • � ,b This -note is issu @d for• the purpose of, interim financing'.; _.- �' '► o costs of land acquisition prepa ' on an isitid ration of the land fo i _" i, `" E f . building the Brookwood `Senior Irtousing Project. This note will`' be pain e from priacedit `qf a bond issue at such time when - final' costs have been determined. ra L,. IN TESTIMONY ; the Housing and Redevelopment cO. Autho of 'Brci ©Iclyn`Center, Minnesota, by its Com.TM?.ssioners, has caused this General obligation .taster Note. x= to be signed by' the. Chairman; and Executive DirectorTAnd sealed with the Authority Seal as of March 28, 1953 E' VA .. `fI �!'• T CY.AIWAN ,} "+mo � x�- _ - � � � - - -� - -,- �:_r, — t.-.. _,.,� -...�. , { -....f �-- '^- -• --�- _;� , - ER DIRECTOR " \ '� � , • :r • �.[. + w' ''..',.:�� :'.�::. i �'^d� i!..� ..d. f i L'..k i . L"�.A y t fit"+ � i ? ��„t, i •!Y �.1 '" =" " 'M �3». +a �� � 4 < amt ��t,a � : a ��r{M'�e"'"�I - , ,— �, .�,p� �� ` � '� pi ^ b.��`•��,+1 � �ayr 7�F,( ^ I db.�i.f ,4 y't t q �' :'`" 'i'n ��' .- � ..�Wi`� �� " q ty_ '� .. .�„���.. {'� -'` ��.,..�..:.'�"w•. 4 R��" � F:,'h.':. *�, wR.:� t y ,�+�1►.'"��^'�' � c �g4. 3� i..�^''C► -� h +'°c..' 3Qp a,r +�► "aEi1�dF - r `-�" •4 �v'-' ` °! t `' �� 'P �.� 4�'_ r EL * CITY OF 63111 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 RTR TELEPHONE 561 -5444 E R BKRGENCY--� -C E N 561 -5720 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works Gene Hagel, director of Park and Recreation DATE: March 16, 1983 RE: Recommendation For Improvements To Heating, Ventilation And Air Conditioning (HVAC) System At Civic Center As you know, we have been having problems with the HVAC' system at the Civic Center for at least ;5 years - possibly for the entire life of the building. The most notable problem is that the high humidity levels (with chlorine) are causing corrosion, peeling of paint, and deterioration ;of the concrete block and brick walls. The walls of the swimming pool area had to be repaired and tuck pointed about 5 years ago, and are showing new evidence of deterioration caused by freeze /thaw cycles in the moisture -laden walls. The 1982 budget for "Government Buildings" included $4851'for installation of a 3rd set of window panes in the pool area. After discussions with our mechanical contractors we concluded that this would not resolve the problem. Accordingly the City Council, at our request re- allocated the $4,851 for HVA'C system improvements to the 1983 budget. In addition, our 1983 budget for the Community Center provides $4,000 for Heat Wheel Renovation as recommended by our mechanical contractors. In December, 1982, because we felt uneasy with any of the "informal" recommen- dations we had received, we obtained your approval to employ Mr. George Broadston, a Mechanical Engineer with the firm of Oftedal, Locke, ;Broadston and Associates, Inc. to review the problem and submit his recommendations. (Mr. Broadston was recommended tows by Mr. Bob Pierce, the architect; who designed the building and continues to provide architectural services to the City for many of our projects. Attached hereto is a December 21, 1982 letter from Mr. Broadston in which he submitted his initial findings and recommendations:. You will note that he suggested 3 methods to resolve the problem. Since receiving this initial report, we have reviewed our current energy costs in some detail and have discussed the alternate` methods with 2' mechanical contractors and again with Mr: Broadston, As a result of these investigations we submit the following evaluations: " ?die `56*nat44cf Note �,. ,. March 16, 1983` - G.G. Splinter Page 2 "Method 1 " ( add a preheat coil system) This is the lowest capital 'cost method (estimated cost = $4,000`) but would increase energy costs approximately $8,00.0 to $10,000 per year.' "Method.2" - (install 2 heat reclaim coils) The capital cost for this method is estimated at $15,00€ (plus engineering costs). This would increase energy costs approximately $3,000 to $4,000 per year. "Method 3" - (install 2 pairs of heat reclaim coils) The capital cost for this method is estimated at $23,000 (:plus engineering costs). This 'method would keep energy costs at the same level as they would 'be with the heat wheels operating properly. "Method 3A" - (complete renovation of the old heat ;wheel' system) This additional method was considered. However, the capital costs are estimated at $28,000 (plus engineering costs)'. The energy costs would be slightly lower than those for "Method 3 ". However, because this is not a current production item, and is a more complicated system to operate, we do not feel it is as dependable as "Method 3". Accordingly, we recommend immediate consideration of a major improvement based on "Method 3" as described by Mr. Broadston. The estimated costs for this improvement areas follows: Estimated Contract cost to furnish and install new system . . $23,000 Estimated' Engineering costs (including services to date) by ,George Broadston . 5,000 TOTAL , $28,000 This will resolve the majority of our "moisture probiem. ( Note Mr. Broadston says he cannot guarantee` that this will resolve all of our moisture problems. However, he strongly recommends this as the best "'first step" and suggests that we not take any other action until we can monitor the results: of this improve - ment. Some additional modifications may, or may not, be needed. if they are, they will be relatively ;low -cost items I definitely agree with this approach.) Recommended Schedule and Purchase Considerations Because delivery time for the required equipment i:s 14 -to 18'weeks and installation time is estimated at 4 to 6 weeks, it will be necessary to proceed Stith dispatch to assure completion of the installation by October. ist. Accordingly, Mr. Broadston recommends that the City proceed with 'direct ` purchase of the major equipment, then take separate bids for installation of that equipment and other work and materials as .-needed to complete the project. This approach will not only speed up the delivery process, but should reduce our costs by saving sales tax iandhandling costs on that equipment. «` March 16, 1983 - G.G. Splinter P age ,3 Funding Considerations As noted above, the following funds have specifically been designated for HVAC system improvements: Reallocated funds from 1982 budget = $4,851 1983 funds for Heat -Wheel Renovation = 4,000 SUBTOTAL $ 8,851 In addition, the X1983 budget for the Civic Center provides $6,900 for painting the ceiling of the pool. It is our recommendation that these funds be reallocated for the HVAG system improvements, and that painting the ceiling be reconsidered in the 1984 budget. Funds from this source = $6,900 SUBTOTAL $151751 Also, it, is noted that our 1983 budgets _ for Government Buildings and for the Community Center contain appropriations of $5,758 and $5,640 (respectively} under line item 4382 "Contracted Equipment Repair ". It is recommended. than $1,500 from each of these appropriations be reallocated to the recommended HVAC system improvements: Funds from this source = $3,0000 SUBTOTAL,$18,751 Finally, it is recommended that the remaining costs be funded by transfer, from the "Unallocated Departmental Expense" fund contingency appropriation. Funds from this source = $9,249 SUBTOTAL $28,000 Summary We recommend that this. matter' be presented to the City Council on March 28, 1983. If the Council approves, we then recommend proceeding with the following schedule: March 28 `- adopt resolution amending the 1983 budget' as outlined, above adapt resolution approv i n g agreement for Engineering Services with Oftedal Locke, Broadstonn and Associates April 11 - adopt resolution accepting bids for furnishing of major equipment based on quotations received under the direction of Mr. Broadston .• r March 16, 1983; - G.G. Splinter P age 4 May or June accept bids and award contract for install ati on of the equipment and other work and materials as needed to complete the project. " Respectfully submitted, 37W Gene Hage Director of Public Works Director of Park and Recreation .• ��- •. f3FTEDAL, LOCKE, BROADSTON & ASSOCIATES,, INC. C O N S U L T I N G E N G t N. E E' R S A 620 SEXTON BUILDING MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5541s' Ut4 PHONE 333 -4341 AREA CODE 612 Associates De ce mber 21, 1982 Bruce E. Follestad Mr. Craig Huffman Department of Public Works 6 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center Mfii 55430 RE: Civic Center Pool Ventilation Problems Dear Si r: We have had-the time and opportunity to examine the plans', specifications, and automatic temperature- control shop drawings for the Pool at the Civic Center` Our original proposal was to determine the conditions and operation of the existing units and to determine that these units were operating as specified, with the exception of the Heat Wheel recovery system. The Heat Wheel has been damaged and is not operating. The original system was designed to recover; heat from the Pool exhaust air and use this heat to preheat the outside ai supplied to the Pool A check . of the heating coils for both of these, Pool Supply Unit indicate that these coils do not have the capacity to heat the pool using air entering these coils below 5U-667. This fact precludes the possibility of using more fresh 4 air for dilution of the space moisture content, due to evaporation from the pool surface. y The control's operating as specified, or not, will not result in a solution to the excessive moisture within the Pool without some additional modifications. Spending money at this time to check` controls and air volume is money wasted, in our opinion. There is only one solution to the problem of excess humidity and moisture. That solution is to increase the amount of fresh air introduced in order to absorb the excessive moisture and allow it to be exhausted. In order to introduce larger volumes of fresh air during the Winter requires use of energy to heat this cold but relatively dry outside air. There are three (3) methods to heat outside air to a temperature which when mixed with humid Pool return air will not cause condensation of moisture within the mixed air chamber above the ceiling. Page I = DATE: December 2'C, 1482 ' TO: Mr. Craig„ Hoffman � Dept. of • • Publi Works RE: Civic Center Fool METHOD NO. 1 - is to simply a preheat coil. system consisting of a "water to glycol convertor, circulating pump, (2') glycol - water preheat coils, piping, (2) coil control valves and associated controls. This method would use 'all near energy from the existing bo ler plant.. assuming there is su €ficient capacity. METHOD NO. 2 - is to use two (2`) refrigerant filled: heat' reclaim coils,` _ one for each Pool Unit, and treated for chlorine vapor, installed in revised ductwork to reclaim some of the heat exhausted from the Pool and use this heat to preheat outside air. A second pair of coils, using ; boiler water maybe necessary to add new eneM to discharge fresh air at a temperature warm enough to prevent condensation when mixed with Pool return air. METHOD HO. 3 - is to use a set of (2) heat reclaim coils for each Pool Unit. One coil treated for chlorine vapor, is installed in the exhaust � -air from the Pool. The other coil of the pai r 'i is installed in the outside air stream. These coils are connected by piping and the systems are filled with a solution of ethelyene, glycol and water,. Here again a second boiler water coil and associated piping and pump may be E necessary in the fresh air to obtain the suitable discharge temperature. A pump will circulate the glycol solution between the two coils using a three- way valve for control and associated temperature controllers. The'existng ductwork would have to be revised tq install these coils. Fan motors on these fresh air and exhaust .air fans might have to be increased in HP in order to handle the added static pressure due to coil resistance to air flow. It is our recommendation that you review these solutions and we can then get together to determine our next course of action. It is our opinion that any of the above solutions are going to be expensive and when one is decided upon we would recommend that cost estimates be Obtained from several contractors before final plans and specifications forbidding purposes are prepared. We believe we can help in obtaining these estimates within our $2000.€}Q maximum but any further design plans and specifications will have to be negotiated with another proposal. We will await your further direction. Sincerel - OFTED KE, B RDA DSIn ASSOCIATES INC. .- George Y. Br ton Page 2 - 6SBrs Member introduced the following :resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO t" RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF' AN AGREEMENT" FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH OFTEDAHL,. LOM, B ROADSTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR DESIGN OF HEATING, VENTILATING, LND AIR CONDITIONING IMPROVEMENTS >FOR THE CIVIC CENTER BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City Qf Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with Oftedahl, Locke, Broadston, and Associates, Ine."to provide professional services for the design of heating, ventilating, and air. canditioning improve- amt for the Civic Center. The cost of said services shall, not exceed - �3,JOQa4l0• C t _. Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk S The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the 'following voted against the same-. whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. OFTEDAL, L€3CKE.' BROADSTO & ASSOC,IATES, INC. C O N S U L T t N G E N "G t N E E R S A e- t + .. c . 620 SEXTON RUILOMs MtNNEAPOL 1&.1 M1N_1NESt1T SS41 �a Swart PHQNE 333 -f3dfi AREA 'C ODE BtZ March 17, 1983. Associates Bruce E. Follestad - Mr. Cy Knapp, City Engineer Director of Public Works CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 'Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: Civic Center Pool Ventilation }ear, Sir: As a result of our several conversations regarding the retrofit work necessary to eliminate the condensation problem at the Civic Center Pool we make the _following proposal. We will furnish the following engineering services: 1. Propose necessary specifications and equipment lists to obtain quotations for two sets of heat recovery coils for two existing Pool supply units. 2. Design and prepare necessary drawings and sketches for the piping of these heat recovery coil systems, . Details shall include equipment lists and outline specifications for piping, pumps, pipe insulation, sheet metal revisions and additions, demolition work, associated electrical and automatic temperature control work; all.necessa,ry to convert present inactive heat recovery systems to new coil recovery systems. ff 3. Checking of necessary shop drawings. 4 Several on site observations during construction anda final observation and subsequent punch list. We propose to furnish the above Engineering services for an hourly rated of $45.00/Hr. with the maximum fee not to exceed: 3504.00. Your signature hereon, will constitute your acceptance of this proposal and will act as a letter contract for these services.. Page 1 of 2 DATE: March 17, 1983 TO Mr. Cy Knapp - CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER' RE: Civil Center Pool' Venti 1 ati on Please return a signed copy for our records. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER QFTEDAL, OCKE,; BROADSTG ` ASSOC.,; INC.`. BY: BY: �Geolr Bro dston Title: Title: Treasurer GSB:is i G I. Page 2 of 2 - r (0 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption': RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, FOR FURNISHING, LOADING AND DELIVERY OF STABILIZED GRAVEL AND FINE AGGREGATE FOR SEAL COAT MATERIALS: FURNISHING, LOADING AND DELIVERY OF PLANT -MIXED BITUMINOUS MIXTURES: FURNISHING BITUMINOUS MATERIALS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn center, Minnesota as follows: 1. The `specifications for furnishing, loading and delivery of stablized. gravel and fine aggregate for seal coat materials, furnishing, loading and delivery of plant -mixed bituminous mixtures; furnishing. bituminous materials as prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed wit the Clerk. 2. The Cleric shall advertise for bids for such materials by publication at least once in the official newspaper, the date of first publication no less than ten days prior to the date; of receipt of }aids. Said notice shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed and accompanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, cashier's check or certified check payable to the City Clerk in an amount of not less than five per cent (5 %) of the accompanying bid. L10 3. Bid date is set for Tuesday, April 21, 1583 at 2:00 p.m. 4. The City Manager shall be authorized to ;open; and tabulate the bids. 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. A G R E E M E N T This Agreement made by and between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a municipal corporation, (hereinafter called the City) and the FUNK ANIMAL HOSPITAL, 7508 Jolly Lane, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, a sole proprietorship, (hereinafter called Poundkeeper). For and in consideration of the: covenants and agreements' herein contained, the parties agree as follows-., (1) That the Poundkeeper warrants that it has good and sufficient facilities for the impounding, keeping and care of dogs and cats which may be brought to it by the City.' (2) That the Poundkeeper will receive, keep, board and care for all animals entrusted to them by the City. (3) If any dog or cat shall not be reclaimed by the owner Within five (5) regular business days, as defined in M,,S.A. 35.7.1 the City shall have no right or interest in such animal and the f Poundkeeper may dispose of such 'animal in a proper and humane; manner or in accordance with M.S.A. 35.71 Subd. (3). This pro - vision shall also apply to all animals quarantined under Brooklyn Center Ordinance that are not reclaimed by the owner within five (5) regular business days after the end of the quarantine period. Animals which may have been impounded for the required five day period may be 'reclaimed by persons other than the owner upon payment of all fees to the City. (4) The City will impose fees for impounding and boarding said =animals, the amount of said fees to be established by Council' resolution. The City shall pay to the Poundkeeper the sum of $4.40 per day for each animal boarded but not to exceed six days on unclaimed animals. The City shall pay the Poundkeeper $9.50 for each animal destroyed in a proper and humane manner and $6.00 to dispose of already dead carcass. The City will not pay the Poundkeeper any impounding fees. (5) The collection of all 'fees shall be the sole responsi- bility of the City. During the normal business hours of the City Hall, said fees shall be collected by the City Clerk's Office,: (6) The Poundkeeper shall not release any impounded animal until proper proof has been shown that the necessary-fees have been paid to the City, For any unlicensed animal brought into the custody of the Poundkeeper, such animal,shall not be released until a license for the animal has been obtained by the owner. Nor shall any animal be released until proof of a current rabies shot is shown or until vaccine for rabies has been administered to the animal. a 3 P (7) In, addition to the $4 40 per day bearding fee and fees paid to destroy animals, the City shall pay to the Poundkeeper the sum- of`$110,00 per month as administrative fees and expenses by the Poundkee.per. {`$) Emergency after hours service will be made available at the Affiliated Emergency Veterinary Service Hospital Located at 1201 S. Turners Crossroad in Golden Valley at the flat fee, of 445.00 per animal, (9) The Poundkeeper shall keep the pound open during the normal business hours; of the City; Hall. Animals may be discharged to the owner directly at hours other than said normal business hours' by the city animal control agents. (10) The Poundkeeper shall. at all times keep accurate records offlall animals impounded, hoarded, and destroyed pursuant to this Agreement and shall furnish monthly statements to the City. (;1 1) The ` Pound shall be oxen at all reasonable times for inspection by the City through its agents or employees. (12) The Pound keeper shall be responsible for all damages, harm or illness suffered by the animals under its care and in its custody which may be due to the negligence of the Poundke;eper, Said Poundkeeper shall save the City harmless from any damages, costs, actions, or causes of action, or claims made against the City for any harm, losses, damages or expenses on account of bodily injury, sickness, disease, death and property damage re- sulting from the Poundkeeper's operation. To accomplish this, the PoundkeeAer shall procure and keep in force workers compensation insurance as required by the state statute and comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of not less than $100,,000 and $300,000 to safeguard and indemnify the City for any of the occurrences aforementioned. Such insur- ance policy must be filed with the City Clerk, or proof thereof. (13) The Agreement shall be in full force and effect as of the first of April, 1983 for a period of one year, provided, however, that the same may be terminated by the Agreement of the parties hereto or by either party upon giving sixty (60) days written notice of its intention to 'terminate this Agreement. - 2 - Date this day of , 1983. f Witnesses: By Mayer By City Manager FUNK ANIMAL HOSPITAL By _ j _ t 4 { 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 MARCH 17, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by g Chairman George Lucht at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman :George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Maleckir Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 3, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the 'minutes of the March 3, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner Malecki asked whether the figure of 110% of median income on the bottom of page 3 of the minutes was correct. The Planning Assistant explained that that figure was correct. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons,; Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Versteeg who was not at that meeting. Following the Chairman's explanation,: the Secretary noted that the applicant for Application Nos. 83007 and 83008 was not yet present and recommended that the Commission consider the next item of business. APPLICATION NO.' 83009 (Martin Drinkwine) The Secretary then introduced an appi.cation by Martin Drinkwine for an amendment to his special use permit to operate a Tidy Car business from the residence at 5632 James Avenue North. He reviewed the con- tents of the staff report (see Planning Commission' Information Sheet for Application No. 83009 attached). The Secretary explained that the original conditions of the special use permit would continue along with those that would be amended by the application in question. Chairman Lucht asked whether the applicant had anything to add. Mr. Drinkwine stated he had nothing to add to the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING C airman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner' Manson asked what other products would be used in the business besides the Tidy Car sealant. Mr. Drinkwine explained that he would be putting a sealer on the tires and would also apply a vinyl roof coating and an application to the inside upholstery. 3 -17_83 _1_ Chairman Lucht asked how 'many cars Mr. Drinkwine would likely be working on per month before he would seek out a commercial location. Mr. Drinkwine responded that it would probably have to reach 25 cars ,per month. 'Mr. Jos le the Sales<Mana r the Tidy Car business, then as ed permission s out brochures on the Tidy Car process. Chairman Lucht allowed Mr. Dingler to do so. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the garage door would be shut during the winter time. Mr. Drinkwine responded in the affirmative, explaining that he had a heated garage. Commissioner Malecki asked whether any calls had been received from neighbors. The Secretary responded in -the negative. He recalled for the Planning Commission that one neighbor had objected to the original special use permit on the.grounds of certain odors, which were later attributed to a different neighbor. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83009 (Martin Drinkwine) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83009, revising the conditions of approval to provide as follows: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. Service shall be on an appointment only basis between 4:00; p.m. and 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. However, at no time will there be work allowed on more than one car at a time in the garage. 4. All parking shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant. 5. Service to automobiles or other powered vehicles is limited to washing and application of appearance maintenance products of Tidy Car, Inc. Other' repairs are expressly prohibited. 6. The permit is subject to completion of any work required by the Building Official. 7. Noise, odor, and vibration shall not be perceptible beyond the premises to the degree that a nuisance is created, 8. Application of the Tidy Car sealant or any other chemicals or materials, shall be erformed only Y inside the ara <e of the residence at 5632 James g g Avenue North. 9. All combustible chemicals and materials used in the application process shall be appropriately stored as approved by the Fire Chief. ,3 -17 -83 -2- 10. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges the em- ployment on the premises on one nonresident during the hours specified in Condition No. 3. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons', Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against. none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NCS 83007 AND 83008 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for the Fourth Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates, located on Xerxes Place North, south of Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 83007 and 83008, attached). The Assistant City Engineer added briefly that the staff had worked with the de- veloper to obtain a sidewalk easement through the Fourth Addition. He explained that the easement cannot be shown on the final plat, but recommended that a fourth condition be added to the preliminary plat approval requiring the granting of the sidewalk easement in conjunction with the platting of the property. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the sidewalk was for people from the - residential neighborhood to the west using the bus. The Assistant City Engineer responded in the affirmative. He explained that the sidewalk would not be located directly adjacent to 67th Avenue North in order to avoid any cut - through traffic coming down 67th. Commissioner Manson asked what the effect of the NSP easement would be on the affected parcels. The Secretary responded that no structures could be erected within the NSP easement and that trees would have to be kept fairly low in nature to keep them from growing, into the power lines. Chairman Lucht asked whether any construction or use of the private back yard area behind individual townhouse ° units was controlled by the association. The Secretary answered that it would depend on the association documents. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons regarding overhead wires, the Assistant City Engineer stated that the power lines were not over the entire easement. He stated that the easement is wide enough to allow maintenance vehicles to service the power poles and lines when needed. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John DeVries stated that he nad nothing further to add to the staff report. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83008) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 83008 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 Ainas to Close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 3 -17 -83 -3- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83007 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) motion by Commissioner Manson secon -e y ommissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83007, 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 and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial g uarantee ( d , b in an amount o be determ ine y the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure com- pletion -of the approved site improvements for the 4th Addition prior to the issuance of building permits, 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. All common parking and driving areas shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter as shown on the approved roved draina a and grading plans. 6. Plan approval acknowledges a master plan for all P bases of the Earle Brown Farm Estates town- house project. However, each additional phase is subject to. preliminary plat approval and site and building plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 7. The developers shall take adequate. measures ur es to control dust and debris during construction. A viable `turf ` shall be established and maintained in those areas subject to future development. 8 The Fourth Addition of the Earle Brown Farm int the single Home in Estates shall be included g owners' Association for the entire development. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83008 ' Builders, Inc ) rues Buil (De Vries, Motion y Commissioner Manson seconded y Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 83008, 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 -17 -83 • - 3. The Fourth Addition shall be governed by the same Homeowners Association and bylaws as in effect for the previous phases.of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. 9. All easements necessary for construction and maintenance of a public walkway within the sub - division shall be granted by the owner /developer in conjunction with the platting of the ,property. Voting in favors Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki; Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACKNOWLEDGE WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83006 (Car -X Muffler Shop) The 'Secretary then noted that the applicant for Application No. 83010 would be delayed until: 8:15 p.m. or so. He ''stated that another item of business was the withdrawal of Application No. 83006, submitted by Car X Muffler Shop. He recommended that the Planning Commission take an action acknowledging this withdrawal. He also stated that the draft resolution of denial and the Planning Commission minutes regarding the application would constitute a formal file in the Planning Commission's records. ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO 83006 (Car -X Muffler Shop) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to acknowledge withdrawal of Application No. 83006, submitted by Car -X Muffler Shop for a car wash at 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard on the basis of a letter submitted by Mr. Brian Cook requesting that the appli- cation be withdrawn. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary then briefly told the Commission that staff had re- ceived two applications for review at the March 31, 1983 study meeting. He asked that the Commission accept the items for that meeting. By consensus it was agreed that the two items would be accepted. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Simmons would be unable to attend that meeting because her son is getting married March 31st. RECESS T e P anning Commission recessed at 8;12 p.m. and resumed at 8:30 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 83010 (Rod Bernu) Fo- owing the recess, the next item of business was Application No. 83010, submitted by Rod Bernu for site and building plan approval to construct 26 units on the remaining land at the Earle Brown Farm Patio at 69th Avenue North and York Place. Commissioner Ainas stated that he wished to be excused because of a possible conflict of interest concerning the application. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. <83010 attached ). The Secretary also reviewed with the Commission, a plan of the perspective roadway realignment which would go through the northeast corner of the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes complex. 3 -17 -83 ' -5- x. He reviewed briefly with the Commission, the proceedings for this re- alignment. He explained that the City Council had approved the wa with the owner of • n are under realignment and that negotiations y the common area at the Earle Brown Farm Estates to acquire the necessary land for right -of -way. The Secretary also explained that the density credit sought by the applicant to allow 26 town - house units was optional and that the Planning Commission need not approve the full 26 units if it does not feel the total plan is acceptable. The Secretary also explained that the applicant has P ry a - ' not yet submitted an acceptable preliminary plat and tha t the pp li cation should be tabled 'until a proper preliminary plat is submitted. Commissioner Simmons stated that a guest visiting one of the resi- dents in the 8`unit building would have to walk around the entire building to get to the front. door. She stated that this seemed unacceptable. The Secretary pointed out that visitors could park in the guest parking spaces which were closer to the :front of the 8 unit building. Commissioner Simmons stated that there was a need for a sidewalk ,system ' to allow people to walk up to the front doors of the units.`„ The Secretary completed his review of the staff report and explained that he and the Director of Public Workshad -met with some concerned :residents earlier in the week and noted that many of .them are present at the evening's meeting. He stated that there was no public hearing required with the site and building plan application, but recommended that the 'Planning Commission hear the concerns of the residents in the existing complex. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Rod Bernu briefly addressed the Planning_ Commission. He stated that he had met with the Homeowners Association and discussed matters pertaining to the remainder of the development and the roadway realignment. nment. He stated that the two parts of the development could be divided into separate associations if that was the preference of the existing residents. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not like the site plan. She complained that it was crowded and that the long buildings would create problems. She compared the proposal to a complex in Minne- apolis at 42nd and Bryant. Mr. Bernu stated that one of the buildings which had been planned as an 8 unit building was split because of access problems to the back of the building. He explained that the 8 unit building that remained has the opportunity for parking on both sides if guest parking is taken into account. The Secretary then explained that if a second Homeowners Association were set up, the density calculation for the new portion of the 'de- velopment would have to be looked at separately. Chairman Lucht then stated that he acknowledged density was a factor regarding the economic viability of the project. He 'told Mr. Bernu that he did not fault rim for seeking the maximum density, but added that the project does appear rather dense. He suggested dropping at least ' one unit from the 8_unit building. Mr. Bernu stated that he could 4 look at that suggestion. Chairman Lucht asked what the price of the units would be Mr. Bernu0 explained that the base price would be about $60,000.00 and that various options would increase the price from that point. Commissioner 3 -17 -83 -6 -: ' Versteeg asked whether all of the existing units were occupied. Mr. Bernu responded in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht explained that, although the staff report refers to the marketability of the existing townhouses, it was not his understanding that the existing townhouses were not saleable, but that new units of the same design' would be difficult to market at this location.` Commissioner Simmons expressed a concern regarding the amount of traffic that would have to go past the unit closest to the access to the townhouse: project. She also asked whether a $60,000.00 price for these units would be competitive considering their size. Mr. Bernu stated, that he felt the price was competitive. The Secre- tary stated that the townhouses at the Earle Brown Farm Estates adjacent to this development are single car garages and this allows for a front entrance on the same side as the garage. He stated that the double garages proposed in this case 'eliminate the possibility of .a front entrance and, conversely, a front entrance would eliminate the possibility of a double garage. MEETING OPENED TO PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for comments from those present. Mrs. Sanderson, of 6833 York Place, stated that she had moved into the project one year ago. She stated; that the units are not un- marketable. She also stated that she felt the proposed development would devalue her townhouse. She explained that the existing town- houses are built on one level and that this was a;good arrangement for elderly people. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how large the existing units were Another woman who lived in the existing town - house project explained that the main floor is about 1,000 sq. ft. with a full basement which most of the residents have finished off. She stated that this allows for a total of about 2,000 sq. ft. The Secretary explained that the term "unmarketable ", as used in the staff report, was referring to the developer's standpoint. He explained that the existing townhouses might sell today for $85,000.00, but that the builder, trying to build the same units, might not be able to for $85,000.00. Therefore, he could never recover his in- vestment in the land. He apologized if the term was misunderstood. Mrs. Irene Meyer, of 6839 York Place and Mrs. Ed Dilley of 6845 York Place, both stated that the townhouses were marketable and compared very favorably with other townhouses in the metro area. They stated that they did not want a high. - density development which would devalue, their townhouses. Mr.` Larry Ellis, of 6831 York Place, also stated that he felt the townhouses were marketable and stated that he opposed the proposed density. < He added that he did not want to see guest parking installed adjacent to his living room. He asked the Planning Commission whether they could address the action involving the roadway alignment through the project. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission does not get into right -of -way acquisition.' He stated `that ' the concern of the Planning Commission is land use and he noted that the roadway alignment has been looked at for at least three or four years. The Secretary stated that the roadway alignment at least dates back to when Shingle Creek Parkway was expanded to four lanes.' At that time, he pointed out, part of Shingle Creek Parkway was bounded by a 3 -17 -83 -7- bituminous curbing, rather than a concrete curbing in anticipation of a change in the roadway alignment. He stated that the acquisition of the right -of -way was being looked at now because of Mr. Bernu's and the <Cit 's need to reserve this area, for'ri right-of-way proposal y r g Y for future - construction. He stated that t the City has C directed the staff to negotiate the purchase rchase of the land and the City Attorney has in turn contacted Mr. Cy Sheehy who owns the other 20 lots within the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes project. Mr. Ellis asked what would happen if the City did not do the project. The Secretary stated that the City could "sell the land back to the association or to a willing buyer for the development. He explained that in the past the City had often acquired right -of -way by easement and that when such easements are vacated, the land goes back to the original owners who possess the underlying development rights. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the City would probably purchase the land outright in this case so as to have control over all develop- ment rights. Mr. Ellis expressed three concerns regarding the proposed realignment: 1. That access onto Shingle Creek Parkway would be difficult with the new alignment; 2. That access to the park across 69th Avenue North would be more difficult; 3. That the street would come too close to Mr. Sven- Schold's residence ' Mrs. Betty Anderson, of 6837 York Place, noted that she was one of the original owners in the project. She explained that the original four -plex contained all of.the four options offered by the builder at the beginning of the project. She stated that the original` proposal was for 28 units and 7`buildings. She asserted the townhouses are of high quality and added that she did not care whether there was a swimming pool `or tennis courts, which she would not use extensively, but would have to pay to .maintain. She stated that people who had bought into the project bought space as well as their units. She explained that under the original design she would have had two units across from her own unit and that under the proposed develop - ment, there would be 8 units. She stated that the Planning Commission should not allow the project to be ruined and for people's investment to be destroyed, Mr. Ed Dilley, of 6845 York Place, stated that he could not say too much about the quality of the urea. He stated that the proposed plan would not have much green area for the number of units involved. He also asked how far some of the easterly units would be from the power lines. The Secretary stated that the townhomes could be built up . t to the easement line. The Secretary also pointed out that the ori- ginal plat of the project had the same problems with units built right up to the easement. Mr. Dilley continued to discuss the NSP easement. He stated that it "# was his understanding that there was supposed to be a berm within the easement area as part of the Earle Brown :Farm Estates project. The Assistant City Engineer stated that there are berms within the easement for that townhouse project.' The Assistant City Engineer also explained that NSP possesses an over -sized easement to allow 3 -17 -83 -8- _ for maintenance of the power lines. He stated that the power lines themselves do riot extend over the entire easement. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the builder had reviewed the plans of the `existing ' buildings to see.whether` they could be built. Mr. Bernu responded in the affirmative and explained simply that he does not build that type of townhouse. He explained that he usually builds more moderate priced housing. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that there seems to be a lot of quality in the existing units and asked whether these units would not be able to sell in this location. Mr. Bernu answered that the land in question has not been sold ,for ten years because of the townhouse plan that went with the land. He stated that the units were nice, but could not be built in sufficient numbers on the property to allow a realistic return. There followed a. discussion regarding what type of units should be built on the property. Mr. Bernu explained that people were equating quality with square footage of the units He ;stated that he would be using quality materials even though his units were smaller. He stated that if Mr. Sheehy, the owner of the other townhouse lots in the development, were the builder, perhaps he could make money from the units. He pointed out, however, that his own land cost was higher and that it would take a greater number of units to pay for the land. Chairman Lucht acknowledged this and explained that a builder cannot build a $100,000 townhouse and turn around and sell it for only $85,000 and expect to make money. He stated that the Planning Commis - sion could not do a market study for the developer to determine what unit would sell and what unit wouldn't. Commissioner Simmons stated that she was not assuming that size was the same as quality. She stated that she simply did not like the layout. She stated that it was dull and that it nay have a difficult time selling as well. r Mrs.' Betty Anderson, of 6837 York Place, stated that the existing residents were concerned about density as well as quality. She stated that there were quad -type townhomes that were very attractive selling for a base price of $60,000 in Brooklyn Park. She stated that she considered,this roughly the same sales area and suggested that a similar type of unit be constructed here as well. Mr. Ed Dilley stated that he had contacted other contractors about completing the project. These other contractors stated that Mr. p Sheehy would not talk to them, he said. Chairman Lucht then asked whether there were any questions or comments from the Planning Commission. The Secretary suggested that if the Planning Commission has an idea of an acceptable density, it should let the developer know so that he can 'revise plans accordingly. Com- missioner Sandstrom stated that he was not trying to tell the developer how to do his project, but alsa noted that the people who live in the townhouseAproject wanted quality when they moved in and there should be other people who want the same kind of quality. He stated that he did not want to see the project deteriorate with cheaper units. Commissioner Manson stated that she considered 8 units in a row too` many and stated that she 'would like to see fewer units. Commissioner Simmons agreed and added that she felt there should be more imagi- nation in developing the plans. She stated that because of the expectations of previous buyers, the developer should go beyond the minimum to finish the development. She stated that fewer and better units, sold at a higher price, would perhaps do more for the developer's reputation than the proposed plan. 3 -17 -83 -9- Commissioner Malecki asked how _many units would be allowed without the density credit. The Planning Assistant answered that 21 units would be allowed. Commissioner Malecki asked what was the basis of granting the density credit in the past. The Secretary noted that in the case of the Humboldt Square Estates, the land was zoned for a higher density. He stated that, in the case of the Northbrook Estates, Mr. Kaufmann had sough an extra unit because he did not want any middle units in the townhouse plan, which consisted of four two -unit buildings. The Secretary also stated that, to utilize the quad concept in this case, would limit the total number of new units to perhaps 12 to 14. Commissioner Versteeg stated that he felt for the people who would be in the 8 unit building. He recommended that that be changed to a 6 unit building. Chairman Lucht stated, that the development would _ be more congested than it is now if it were built to the original specification. He stated that the developer has to look at the dollars involved. He agreed with the comment of Commissioner Versteeg and recommended :a total density of 24 units rather than'26 units. He stated that he did not think the Planning Commission could force the developer to adopt a quad concept in finishing out the project. Mrs. Dilley stated that she did not think it was fair that the new developer was proposing more units for the remaining land than the original development had called for on the entire area including the area to be taken by the City for right -of -way, The Planning Assistant explained that the original density of the project was not up to the maximum allowed by the ordinance. He stated that the original parcel of land, under the ordinance in effect at the time that the project was built, would have allowed for 35 units. He explained that denser developments were proposed at that time, but that the 28 unit concept* was eventually decided on. He explained further that the prospective taking for right -of -way would eliminate about three quarters of an acre, or six units, from the potential of the existing land. He stated that this would reduce the total number of units allowable to 29 and,; since '8 existed, only 21 more could be built without a density credit. He added that the density credit which could 'allow up to 26 units on the remaining land was also in effect when the original project was approved. Mrs. Dilley asked how many units could be built on the remaining land if 'a separate association were set up. Mr. Larry Ellis stated that he would like to maintain the character of the area which allows for a little elbow room.' The Planning Assistant explained that a separate association would require a separate parcel of land and that the number of units which could be built on this separate parcel would depend on how large it was. The Planning Assistant :also 'ex- plained , that the vacant area adjacent to these townhouses, which has not been developed for 10 years, is not a park; that it does belong to someone who has .a right to develop it.' Mr. Ed Dilley complained about the fact that the City was holding a bond for the landscaping of the project which it could have been foreclosed on some years ago, but hadn't. The Secretary acknowledged the existence of the bond, but stated that the City may not be able to foreclose on it at this time. He also stated that much of the value of the bond might be used up in foreclosure proceedings. 3 -17 -83 lU- Chairman Lucht then polled the Commission as to its feelings on the proper density for the project. Commissioners Simmons, Sandstrom and Malecki preferred no density credit and to allow only 21 more units. Commissioner Malecki stated that the credit has only been used on very small pieces of land in order to make projects more viable. She stated that this is a larger piece of land involving more units and that it would not be impossible to 'design a project for 21 townhouse units. Commissioners Manson and Versteeg and Chairman Lucht stated that they would allow up to 24 units on the project. Everyone stated that they preferred not to have an 8 unit building. Mr. Larry Ellis asked whether the Planning Commission could make any kind of recommendation regarding the roadway. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the roadway alignment had been reviewed a year ago. He stated that staff looked at the Industrial Park area and different alignments. He stated that none would have worked out nearly as well as alignment which does go through the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes. Chairman Lucht observed that the Commission was divided over the question of density. Commissioner Malecki pointed out that there was a unanimous agreement that people do not want an 8 unit building and that the plans should be more creative and imaginative. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83010 (Rod Bernu) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 83010 until a proper preliminary plat is sub- mitted and the development is designed with fewer units. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Com- missioner Ainas. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT' _Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom, and Versteeg. The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 10 :48 p.m. Chairman 3- 17 -83' 11 •' Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83009 Applicant: Martin Drinkwine Location: 5632 James Avenue North Request: Amend Special Use Permit for Home Occupation The applicant requests three amendments to the special use permit granted under Application No. 82019 for operation of a Tidy Car business in the garage of the residence at 5632 James Avenue North. That application was approved on April 26,; 1982 (both the City Council minutes and the Planning Commission minutes from April 15, 1982 are attached for the Commission's review):. The property in question is zoned R1 and is surrounded by other single- family homes. The applicant has submitted aletter (copy attached) dated March 4,;'1983:'in which he outlines three amendments which he requests be made to the conditions of approval. The amendments are: a) That Condition No. 3 which limits the operation to 10 cars per month, be amended to read: "that at no time will there be work allowed on more than one car at a time in the garage:" b): That Condition No. 5, which limits the service to application of the Tidy Car sealant, be amended to read: "Service to automobile or other power vehicles is limited to washing and application of appearance maintenance products of Tidy Car, Inc. Other repairs are expressly prohibited. (This amendment' allows use of other Tidy Car products besides the sealant). c) That a condition be added to allow up to one employee to work on the premises part -time in connection with the home occupation. Section 35 -406 (attached) of the Zoning Ordinance allows the employment on the premises of up to one nonresident in a home` occupation. The proposed amendment would fall within that limitation Mr. Drinkwine seeks these amendments because he has entered into an arrangement with a Tidy Car sales manager who will secure customers and also help do the work on the cars. Mr. Drinkwine also does not wish to come back for another amendment later should the business generate more than 10 cars per month. The business does not generate 10 cars per month now, but might exceed that figure if the new sales arrangement works out. In any case, only one car will be worked on at a time and any parking associated with the home occupation must continue to be on the applicant's driveway. The primary reason for the employee is to enable Mr. Drinkwine to complete work on a single vehicle on a weekday evening when the hours of operation are between 4 :00 p.m. and 9 :00 p.m. In general, we feel the amendments sought by the applicant are reasonable and fall within the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the amendment to do . away with the limit of 10 cars per month seems appropriate since there is no way staff can verify precisely how many cars have been worked on in a single month. The substitute condition is fairly easy to enforce: since a second vehicle would have to be worked on outside (this does not'include washing which is already, done outside) where a violation is readily detectable. Provided that all parking is off - street and all application and buffing Tidy Car products is in the garage, the addition of a part -time employee does not seem to present unreasonable burdens on the neighborhood. We recommend approval of the amendments as sought by the applicant. As wit original lication a public hearing has been h the special use permit app p 9 scheduled and notices have been sent. 3 -17-83 `- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83007, 83008 Applicant: DeVries Builders Location: Xerxes Place North, south of Freeway Blvd. Request: Site and Building Plan, Preliminary Plat The applicant requests site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for the Fourth Addition of Earle Brown Farm Estates. The applications comprehend 16 town- houses units and a common area. The area is in the southwesterly section of the Earle Brown Farm Estates development It is bounded by "Old" Xerxes Avenue North on the west, by 0utlot D on the south and east, and by the Second and Third Addition of the Earle Brown Estates on the north. The land is zoned R3 and townhouses are a permitted use in that zoning district. The plat covers an area of 1.7 acres. The density for this particular phase is 9.41 units per acre. However, the entire Earle Brown Farm Estates development amounts to 100 units on 12.96 acres for an average density of 7.72 units per acre, somewhat less than the allowable density of 8 units /acre. The site plan is unchanged from the original site development plan for the entire complex which was presented with the first phase approved' in June, 1981. The plan provides for the minimum two parking stalls per unit, plus guest parking for 8 cars for a total of 2.5 stalls /unit. The existing legal description of the property is Outlot C, Earle Brown Farm Estates First Addition The proposed legal description includes Lots 1 through 6, Block 1; Lots i through 6, Block 2; Lots 1 through 4, Block :3 and Lot 1, Block 4, Earle Brown Farm Estates Fourth Addition. There are two major easements .through the property. k One is a 55' wide NSP easement along the west edge of the common area and parts of the rear yards of Lots 1 -4, Block 3 and Lot 6, Block 2. This easement does not extend over any buildings. The other major easement is a 15' wide water main easement that extends from just opposite 67th Avenue North around the townhouse on Lot 4, Block 3, and up the private drive (Xerxes Place North)_ ultimately to Freeway Boulevard. A public hearing has been scheduled for the Preliminary Plat (Appli- cation No. 83008). It is recommended that approval of the site and building plans (Application No. 83007) stipulate a continuation of the conditions applied to ;approval of Application No. 81060 (the 2nd Addition) which are listed below: 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 and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer' prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager)` shall be sub - mitted to assure completion of the approved site improvements for the 4th Addition prior to the issuance of building permits. r 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. All common parking and driving areas shall be surrounded by 6612 curb and gutter as shown on the approved drainage and grading plans. 3 -17 -83 -1 t Application Nos 83007 and 83008 continued 6. Plan approval acknowledges a master an for all phases of the p Earle Brown Farm Estates townhouse project. However, each additional phase is subject to preliminary plat approval and site and building plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 7. The developers shall take adequate measures to control dust and debris during construction. A viable turf shall be established and maintained in those areas subject to future development: 8. The Fourth Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates shall be included in the single Homeowners' Association for the entire development. The preliminary plat is also recommended for approval, 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 Fourth Addition shall be governed by the same Homeowners Association and bylaws as in effect for the previous phases of the Earle Brown Farm :Estates. 3- 17 -83' -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83010 Applicant: Rod Bernu Location: Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant seeks site and building plan approval to construct 26 townhouse units on the land remaining in the Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes at 69th Ave. North and York Place The land in question is zoned R3 and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by the Earle Brown Farm Estates on the east, by Old Xerxes Avenue North and single - family homes on the south, and by single - family homes on the west. The complex presently has two quad homes for a total of 8 units. Construction of an additional 20 units was abandoned some years ago and the project has remained unfinished. The total land area of the site is 4.38 acres. The existing townhouses require a land area of 43,200 sq. ft. (approximately one acre) at one unit per 5,400 sq. ft. The proposed site plan then takes into account a prospective right -of -way acquisition of .73 acres for realigning the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway with 69 Avenue North (see layout attached) This leaves approximately 2.66 acres, or 115,870 sq. ft.` of land, remaining for additional townhouse development. Since the applicant intends to build townhouses with double tuck -under garages, the maximum permissible density is calculated at one unit per 4,400 sq. ft.,, rather than the normal density of one unit /5,400 sq. ft. (the Zoning Ordinance allows a credit of 500 sq. ft.Junder- buildi`ng garage stall /unit). The resulting calculation allows for 26.33 units or 26 units, as proposed. The complex presently obtains access off 69th Ave. North only. No access is allowed off "Old Xerxes Avenue North in order to prevent cut- through traffic through the townhouse development. This access off 69th will likely be modified when the City acquires land and realigns the 69th Ave. North /Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. The land area to be acquired for right -of -way will be patted into a separate lot (possibly an outlot), to separate it from the remainder of the complex. A preliminary plat has not yet been submitted. However, we expect it to be submitted by Thursday night's meeting: The site plan proposes two five -unit buildings, two four-unit buildings, and an eight -unit building. Each unit will have two indoor and two outdoor parking spaces. In addition, the site plan calls for 15 guest parking stalls. Total parking is more than adequate, and guest parking is adequate. The proposed landscape plan is generous in total plantings provided. However, no 6" diameter trees are listed (four are required for the 26 units). Scheduled plantings include: 30 Green Ash (22" to 4" diameter); 12 Russian Olives (12" 2" diameter); Flowering Crab (12" to 2" diameter); 17 Redwine Dogwood (2' - 3' ht.); 90 Cutleaf,Sumac (2' - 3' ht.); 43 Colorado Green Spruce (2' 5' ht.); and 15 Black Hills Spruce (4' 5' ht.). This is an abundance of plantings, but they do not all appear on the site plan. We recommend that the landscape - schedule -be revised to reflect what is shown on the plan as that seems more than adequate. The Green Ash tend to be located on the front side of units (opposite the garge side). Green Spruce are located along the periphery, of the site or adjacent to driving lanes. There are a number of Cutleaf Sumac and Redwine Dogwood along the east and south property lines, but again not as many as listed on the landscape schedule. A fence of unspecified height is indicated adjacent to the single - family homes for required screening, 3 -17 -83 -1- Application No. 83010 continued The grading and drainage plan provides for water to drain along the main driveways in a more -or -less southerly direction toward two catch basins along the south edge of the site. These two catch basins drain into a 15 storm sewer that flows through the Earle Brown Farm Estates property to the City storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. A utility easement exists for this purpose through the first Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates The utility plans are not finalized. The Earle Brown Farm Patio Homes were approved in 1972 for 28 units. Although only eight units were built, the utilities were installed for all 28 units based on a layout of seven four -unit buildings. These utilities will be partially abandoned and partially modified to serve the proposed layout of 26 additional townhouse units. The building exterior will be of prefinished 12" hard board siding, horizontal on side and rear elevations, vertical in front. Face brick is indicated along the lower 3' of the front elevation. The units will be two- bedroom units, split -level off the front entry. On the lower level will be two -car garages and a future rec room. The 'units are each 20' 6" wide and 37' 6" deep. The total living space of 'the units is roughly 1,070 sq ft., counting the unfinished recreation room. This is definitely smaller than the eight existing units in the complex which have been unmarketable for some years. The color of the new units has ,not yet been specified, but Mr. Bernu intends that they be compatible with the existing grey rough -sawn ceder exterior. The plan also calls for post lights with 18" globes interspersed at every other garage to provide security lighting and help set off the individual units.' The applicant has submitted the site and building plans for an initial review by the Planning Commission at this time. No action is recommended, however, until a pre -` liminary plat is submitted showing the land to be acquired for right -of -way in a separate lot. Mr. Bernu has stated his intention to complete the development as an owner - occupied townhouse project, compatible with the eight existing units. It is recommended that the Planning 'Commission table the application until an appropriate preliminary plat is submitted. 3 -17 -83 -2 CITY OF BPi�QiI,�J CQT Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will to held o i the 28t1i: d a March, 1933 at 8: p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle'- CreqA parKvxy, consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance by classifying certain land as being within the Cl Zoning District. ORDINANCE NO Ate OMINANCE MENI ING CHAP= 35 OF TTIE CITY ORDINANCES CLASSIFYING =AIN LAND AS BEING WI LN THE Cl LNG DISTRICT THE CITY COTJX -IL OF Z7�E CITY OF BR==4 CI�I DOES Q��d AS FnLI�7S c Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City 'ordinances of the City of ' Brooklyn. Center is hereby amended in the following manner Section 35 - 1170 SETT ICE /OFFICE DIS"TRIC (C -1) That part, of the south 180 feet of the north 450 feet of Lots 34 and 35, ;Auditor's Subdivision No. 216, Hennepin fbut�ty, t�iinnesota, south of the follow� described line-, Conmencing at the southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 3, Balrany Northport First Addition to the Citv of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, thence nort along the exten of the southeasterly line of said Irit 1, BlockL 3, a distance of 256.84 feet, thence n ortheasterly along a tangential curve to the right havizzg a radius o 4 38.97 feet, a distance of 196.64 feet, thence easterlv along the foment to said curve to the east line of said Lot 35, Auditor's Subdivision 1 T1GG Lot 1, Block 1, Earle Broom Farm Estates First Addition Section 2. This ordinance shall became effective after adoption and Upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor A2�ST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). I f s CITY OF , 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER,_ MINNESOTA 55430 ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY— POLICE —FIRE ENTER r 911: TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works. FROM: Jim Grube Assistant City Engineer ineer DATE: March 25, 1983 RE : Final Plat of Earle Brown Farm Estates Fourth Addition (Planning Commission Application No. 83008) Mr.' John DeVries has petitioned the City to final' the referenced plat in conjunction with the site and building plan and preliminary plat `approvals. The Planning Commission recommended the following conditions be placed on the plat. 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 Fourth Addition shall be governed by the same Homeowners Association and bylaws as in effect for the previous phases of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. 4. All easements necessary for construction and maintenance of a public walkway within the subdivision shall be granted by the owner /developer in conjunction with the platting of the property. Mr.. DeVries has provided the necessary easements required under item 4, and he has submitted necessary association annexation documents required under item 3. The documents e appear in order and are acceptable b the staff and City Attorney. At this writing, the City Attorney' has not received the fully updated y y Abstract of Title;. however, it is assumed that the Abstract will be in order and submitted for approval prior to the City Council meeting. Based upon the above, it is recommended the City Council approve the final plat of Earle Brown Farm Estates Fourth Addition subject to review and approval of the updated Abstract of'Title by the City Attorney. ... 74e So -xer"q Nau N �, ,�: q„zttra«l�w.r: �►.4 �. gnat• r. 41 r. ZQ 54°000 $ is 4opn`pO.E ,� O ` Li .R 250 15aa04'GOE + `:J t 16 1,1625 1625, st692 67 25 #. v �J All IV j O ary till � � Y t i6 +s 2b 25 67 s i 892 vl N4 °00 N4 0 000 0 W "000, W `: r All L li ° F,t, e�a r t CD .. - { t/ M„00, 9f o24 / ( M U09£ 2S w``e Cs i • / 7f, 9F M „0!+9f ZS .. a 1Y ♦ ' r e \ 25Sf we0 0'00 E �1411 G 9i . ;7S'Zf S ; q nx JI 91 i d, 2S ,t t5 2 6 R ' Ic W IN p' j. t f wd 13.1 UD rgyl Li tE 1 Z 2G @£ + iZ'95 S2 91 s £ f 3 tXl,9£ofN N 63 SIB +fir a t vxotam \ 3 „00,4£e2N 3�gf BN N oopO *. lyl M pepp0 0 +► Wit at •aloc% 4 1 .✓ Kx. :1:� i `'1' y 1 ... ”" 27 0 • pa° 32'4t "w .4-Or ADDltl'a cg . w, l y , -- Is CITY OF, BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 19 at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements Along The Easterly And Westerly Lot Lines Of Lot 5, Block 1, EARLE BROWN FIRST ADDITION,_ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LOT LINES OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, EARLE BROWN FIRST ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1_. The 10 foot drainage and utility easement lying parallel with and easterly of the west line of Lot 5, Block 1, Earle Brown First Addition commencing at a point on said west line 10 feet south of the north line of said Lot 5, Block 1, thence southerly to a point on said west line 5 feet north of the south line of said Lot 5, Block 1, together with a 5 foot drainage and utility easement lying parallel with and westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 5, Block 1, Earle Brown First Addition commencing at a point on said easterly line 10 feet southerly of the north line of said Lot 5, Block 1, thence southeasterly to 4L line located 5 feet north of and parallel with the south line of said Lot 5 Block 1, are hereby vacated Section 2 This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date E:A LE BROVVN I ST ADDI TIO i Ni 1 A n v C C I l i 1 i v v /-t 1 nv 1`1 S,5S 0 54 Q oh 70 0o AN 'C 'nt u t 1 � to � I� 'S2 � J'S.3,r �� t• �, t 'h A i 1 0 : I< h n � o o C- 54 60 7 A� 0 300 40 6.99- () CIO 340.00 99, 99 p \ a Z �a M 66TH AVENUE �- N. I 7 00 W� Cl. 4l6 �p t� h KI F 10, i Z, �is�� � X1 'Q � \ s T 700 47 00 L _ I 95. L___ � __ -___ —J 65.00 O �� - N" °33 '-5f7 "YY - -- 33 I B /oc,� y't, Sor,�i7 r17 t\ 77 7 wn ..,� •� � j I. i � / ^, L i (� I I i ' t n 1 ter Z • t CI'T'Y OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a,public hearing will be held on the day of , 19 at P.M. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating Drainage and Utility Easements Along The Easterly And Westerly Lot Lines Of Lot 5, Block 1, EARLE BROWN FIRST ADDITION_ i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE EASTERLY AND WESTERLY LOT LINES OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, EARLE BROWN FIRST ADDITION1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The 10 foot drainage and utility easement lying parallel with and easterly, of the west line of Lot 5, Block l, Earle Brown First Addition commencing at a point on said west line 10 feet south of the north line of said Lot 5, Block 1, thence southerly to a 2oint on said west line 5 feet north of the south line of said Lot 5, Block 1, together -with a 5 foot drainage and utility easement lying parallel with and westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 5, Block 1, Earle' Brown. First Addition commencing at a paint on said easterly line 1.0 feet southerly of the north line of said Lot 5, Block 1, thence southeasterly to a line located 5 feet north of and parallel with the south line of said Lot 5, Block 1, are hereby, vacated Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor_ ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning FROM: � g and Inspection / DATE: March 24, 1983 SUBJECT: Alarm Board Phase-out Attached is a copy of an October 20, 1982 report prepared by Richard Green, the then Police Department Administrative Assistant, relating to the discontinuation of fire and security alarm services currently provided by the City. This matter, to my knowledge, has never been brought to the attention of the City Council for discussion. Such discussion is scheduled for the March 28, 1983 City Council meeting. I feel the attached memo is quite detailed and informative and needs no further elaboration here The recommendation to get out of the fire and security monitoring business is concurred wi by the Police Chi ef, the Fire Chief and myself. The only matter that is out of date is the scheduling of such 'a phase -out should the City Council give us such direction. If the City Council concurs, I'd suggest we notify the concerned businesses of the phase -out; at the time of their renewal notification which will be sent out on or about April 15, 1983. Service charge renewals are due May 15 of each year at a cost of $12.00 per month or $144.00 annually. I'd also recommend that we only offer the service for six months which: would allow these businesses ample time to make the necessary arrangements for changeover to other alarm service monitoring companies. If the City Council does concur with the phase -out recommendation, the necessary ordinance amendments will then be prepared for Council action. M19 z I MEMO TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager;` James Lindsay, Chief of Police; Ron Warren, Director of Planning & Inspection;' Ron Boman, Fire Chief` FROM. Richard Green Administrative Assistant DATE: October 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Alarm Board - Phase -out Report The following is a report recommending the discontinuation of fire and security alarm services to Brooklyn Center businesses by the City. This recommendation is based on the following factors. First,' the City's existing alarm service is obsolete and in need of upgrading if it is to be continued. The cost of such an upgrade would be ex- tremely high and the new system would be underutilized by the City. Second, the central alarm monitoring industry can provide more compre- hensive and effective security and fire alarm monitoring than the City can, and with little increase in cost. The City currently provides fire alarm monitoring to 35 businesses, and security alarm monitoring to 26 businesses in the City. The alarm monitoring system is located in the police department's Communications Center, and consists of two alarm panels, one for fire.and one for security. Each panel contains 50 individual light modules, each light module representing a business. An alarm is signaled for a business when its designated light module lights up'and a buzzer is sounded. This alarm monitoring system was installed in the police department shortly after the completion of the Civic Center complex in 1971. At that time, the monitoring system was considered an advanced state of the art system. However, since that time, there have been many technological advancements and a very competitive alarm monitoring industry has developed. Today several businesses offer fire and security monitoring through central alarm monitoring stations. These systems are far more sophisticated and offer much greater security than the City's existing alarm monitoring- system can provide.. For example, ,a central alarm monitoring company can monitor specific points of access to the premises of a building and can also monitor specific areas within the perimeter and building of a business. The City's Memo To: Gerald Splinter, James Lindsay,, -2,- October 20,1982 Ron Warren & Ron Boman current system doe's not have this capability. It can only record the fact that a circuit has been broken somewhere on the premises of !a business. In order to continue an effective fire and security alarm monitoring system, the City would have to consider a substantial upgrade of the existing equipment This would require a mini,mum,investment of $10,000.00 for the City, plus several hundred dollars per alarm sub - scriber. Maintenance contracts for the equipment involved would cost the City and its subscriber several hundred additional dollars per year. Furthermore, an upgraded system would require additional personnel to operate and monitor it. Finally, an upgraded monitoring system would have the capability of monitoring several hundred alarm systems and could monitor them on a. nationwide basis. The City ;of Brooklyn Center would be drastically underutilizing the upgraded equipment. On the basis of =the cost involved, the additional personnel required, and because of the potential underutili:zation of upgraded monitoring equipment, I am recommending that the City not consider such an up- grade. Furthermore, because the City's monitoring station is obsolete by current standards, <and because the equipment is old and increasingly in need of repair,; I am recommending that the City's existing alarm monitoring system be phased out. Under the existing alarm monitoring system, the City charges permit fees of $12.00 per month to businesses for fire alarm monitoring and $5.00 per month for burglar alarm monitoring. These fees just meet the maintenance contract costs for the alarm monitoring equipment. These permit fees were established by City Ordinance (Chapter 5, section 5--504 and 5 -505) in 1972,, and have not changed,in amount since then. I am recommending that this permit fee system and all relevant ordinance language be repealed ,eoncurrently with the,phase -rout of the alarm monitoring system. The impact of this recommendation on local businesses who receive our monitoring service would vary. Private central alarm monitoring companies can in most cases retrofit existing alarm equipment to their systems for monitoring purposes. In most cases, any increase in costs for monitoring would be minimal, and many advantages would be gained (ie: regular testing of circuits to maintain integrity of the alarm sensors, and monitoring of specific areas within- buildings and their' perimeters). The costs for private central alarm monitoring services generally range between $30.00 and $100.00 per month depending on the extent of monitoring required. For a business that simply switched from City monitoring to central alarm company monitoring, this would' mean an increase in monitoring costs but also a much more effective monitoring system'. However, some businesses may find that they can save money by switching alarm system equipment as well,as monitoring services. For example, First Brookdale Bank- was leasing alarm system i Memo To: Gerald Splinter, James Lindsay, -3 October 20, 1982 1 Ron Warren & Ron Boman equipment at a cost of approximately $3.20.00 per month plus si g ni f icant repair costs ('over $2,000.00 to date during 198'2) and was monitored on ! the City's monitoring system. They are now switching to''Honeywell equipment and monitoring and will be facing an initial investment of $3,256.00 and a monthly lease cost of $235.00 per month overall. This lease cost will cover all maintenance costs for the system. This change will realize substantial savings for the bank in future years and they will receive more effective alarm monitoring service. A comparison of businesses "overall alarm system costs (on the City system and on private central alarm monitoring) shows that the costs do not vary substantially.` For example, a comparison of monthly alarm system costs for the Brook- dale J.C. Penney's store and the Brookdale Dayton's store shows little difference. J.C. Penney monthly alarm service costs (including monitor- ing) equal $440.00 per month, Dayton's monthly alarm system costs (in- cluding monitoring) equal $470.00 per month. Penney's and Dayton's have similar types of alarm systems with Penney's being monitored by k the City and Dayton's being monitored by Honeywell. In another comparison, Brookdale Pontiac (on City monitoring) is paying approximately $338.00 i per month `for fire; and security coverage while Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth (monitored by'ADT Company) has a similar system and is paying $243.00 per month It was also found that chain stores in Brooklyn Center who are on the City's monitoring system have alarm system costs comparable to those of other stores in the chairs who are on private central alarm monitoring. J.C. Penney Company and Red owl Country Store` chains are examples. Finally, I must emphasize that private central alarm monitoring com- panies are able to provide better and more reliable monitoring and at comparable rates. Most central alarm monitoring companies can test their equipment electronically and diagnose malfunctions at the same time. Furthermore, they can monitor specific paints within `and around a business and can thus know what specific area:of a premise is being f intruded upon or is developing a fire problem. Also, for purposes of' the City's new False Alarm ordinance, central alarm monitoring companies` have an advantage of being able to instantly test their incoming, alarms for malfunction and can thus avoid having to call out the police when such malfunctions occur. This gives local businesses a substantial amount of control over the number of false alarms they incur per year. I believe this is to the benefit of all parties concerned. ALARM BOARD PHASE -OUT SCHEDULE Should the City Council concur with the recommendations of this report I would` recommend the following steps for phasing out the City's alarm monitoring system. 1. Immediately following Council approval, I would recommend drafting and 'sending out letters explaining the phase -out of the alarm monitoring station to all businesses concerned. In that letter I would suggest a phase -out deadline of May ! 15, 1983. This is the beginning of the next permit period. Memo To: Gerald Splinter, James Lindsay, -4- October 20, 1982 Ron Warren &`Ron Boman 2. I would request acknowledgement of this notice from all businesses concerned within one month of the sending of the notice. 3. Upon the acknowledgements I would then consult with each business on their individual 'schedules and then monitor' those schedules over the phase -out period. Should some businesses find it impossible to phase-out of the City's monitoring station by the Play 15, 1983 deadline, I would recommend holding them, on the monitoring station not later than December of An appropriate fee could be assessed on a monthly prorated basis. 4. I would recommend that the actual alarm monitoring station be disconnected and removed from the Police Department Dispatch Center by December 31, 1983. APPENDIX TO ALARM PHASE -OUT REPORT . The following is a sample survey of Brooklyn Center businesses regard - ing their costs for alarm systems and monitoring. The survey includes businesses who are on the.City's monitoring,system and businesses who subscribe to private central .alarm monitoring companies. The City of Brooklyn Center requires UL approval for all fire alarm systems in the City. Therefore, of the businesses subscribing to private central alarm monitoring, only those who subscribe ~to monitoring companies who have this UL approval were surveyed. It is recommended that this UL standard be maintained. to insure that only high quality equipment is used for fire alarm systems. There are currently five alarm businesses offering UL approved equipment in the Cme&ro ` 'area. They are Honeywell, Floyd Security, 3 -M Company, and 5. Security r�?.G�„Y � It should be noted that the costs listed for each business reflect lease or purchase costs plus monitoring: costs. Private central alarm monitoring companies include monitoring costs in their lease or pur chase costs for their systems. The actual monitoring charge ranges between $30.00 and $100.00 per month for businesses depending on the extent of monitoring required. This 'survey shows that the costs for alarm systems and monitoring vary substantially depending on the needs and characteristics of the individual businesses. This is true for businesses who subscribe to the City as well as to private central alarm company monitoring.` However, it is significant that central alarm monitoring companies can separately monitor specific points within a single business's premises, while the City cannot. Also,, the central alarm monitoring company can test all of its alarm circuits, to see if they are function - ing properly., The City's alarm monitoring station cannot do this. 1. BROOKDALE BANK (City Alarm Monitoring) Recently contracted with Honeywell monitoring, was offered the following options. Fire and security coverage: Purchase option at $6,960.00 plus `$188.00 per month maintenance agreement. Lease option' at initial cost of $3,246,.00 plus $235.00 per month there- after. First Brookdale chose the Lease option. 2. J.C. "PENNEY B'ROOKDALE (City Monitoring) Lease; plus monitor- ing costs equals. $440.00 per month for fire and security coverage. 3. DAYTON'S.- BROOKDALE (Honeywell Monitoring) Lease /monitoring costs at $474`.00 per month for fire and security coverage. 4. BROOKDALE PONTIAC (City Monitoring) Lease /monitoring costs at $338.00 per month for fire and security coverage. -2- 5. BROOKDALE CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH: (ADT Monitoring). Lease monitoring costs at $243.,0-0., per mvnt for f ire, and security coverage.. 6, BIG WHEEL AUTO PARTS: (3- M - Monitoring) Lease /monitoring casts at 40. 60 per month for security alarm services 7. ACME TYPEWRITER Q -M Monitoring)- Lease/monitoring costs at $72.00 per month for security alarm services, 8. BOND TOOL & DIE COMPANY: I.ADT Monitoringy Lease /monitoring' costs of $75. per month for security alarm services, 9. RED OWL COUNTRY STORE (ADT Monitoring) Lease/monitoring costs; of $85.00 per month.for fire and security coverage. 10. BROOKDALE WEST OFFICE BUILDING ( Security Monitoring) Purchase cost of approximately $1,500,00 for security alarm equipmentt plus $208.00 per year maintenance agreement. 11. BRIDG (3 -M Monitoring] Lease /monitoring, costs of '�733t0.G per month for security coverage. 12. GROUP' HEALTH, INC (Floyd Security :Monitoring)_ Lease /monitoring' costs of '$278.00 per month.for fire and security coverage. 13. BURGER BROTHERS: (City Monitoring) Lease/monitoring costs of $163,00. per month-for security coverage. 14. GOODMAN JEWELERS (HHoneywell Monitoring)_ Lease /monitoring costs of $102.00 per month for security coverage. 15. F &M'MARQUETTE;BANK (.City Monitoring. Lease /monitoring costs of $117.00 per month.for security ;alarm coverage. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 28, 1383 O AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE -.OPERATOR K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr.�" O f Police FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE American Bakeries 4215 69th Ave. N. Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Canteen Corporation 6400 Penn Ave. S. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. CEAP 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave N. Cross of'Glory Church 5929 Brooklyn Blvd. Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N.. Garden City School; 3501 65th Ave. N. Happy Dragon Restaurant 5532 Brooklyn Blvd. Barron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave., N. Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave N. Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. Num- Num.Foods, Inc. 18420 Highgath In. Brookdale Snack Bar Brookdale Center Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. J.C. Penney, Co. Brookdale Center Red Lobster 7235 Brooklyn Blvd. St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. Sears Brookdale Center uper America Service Stations 6545 W. River Rd. Super America Service Stations 1901 57th Ave. N. Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Allied Metalcraft Co. 2300 Territorial; Rd. Atkins Mechanical, Inc. 6550 W. River Rd. Centraire, Inc. 13025 Pioneer Trail. Consolidated Plumbing & Heating 1530 E. Cliff Rd. Egan & Sons Co. 7100 Medicine Lake Rd. Gas 'Supply, Inc. 2238 Edgewood Ave. S. Harris Mechanical Contracting 2300 Territorial Rd. Horwitz Mechanical:, Inc. 5000 N. County Rd. 18' Noel's Heating & Air Cond. 6900 75th Ave. N. Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Ave. S. Pump & Meter Service, Inc. 1800 2nd St. S. Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 :K -Tel Dr. Sheridan Sheet Metal Co. 4116 Quebec Ave. N. Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Ave. N. Bui'ldik Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Beadles Market 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. Cass Screw, Co. 4748 Franco Ave. N. Country Boy Dairy 4401 69th Ave. N. Keehn. Brothers 3400 48th Ave. N. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Center Minnesota Fabrics 5712 Morgan Ave N. C` Sanitarian PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Ea. Hoffman Engineering 65 30 James Ave..N. N� Sanitarian ' RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Renewal: Manferc Rasmus.son & John Christensen. 7040 Brooklyn Blvd.. Roland 5cherber 5248 Fraam Ave- 9- Tracy Rice 7037 Fagan: ... X;. H. &Val J. Rothschild, Inc. 5300 -5322 Ponds,, Dr. 5301 -5315 Ponds Dr... 5319 -5333 Ponds Dr. 5401 -5423 ponds Dr- 5427 -5441 Ponds Dr. Fred Beier 5300,04 Vincent Ave.'N.. Catherine P. Shefeluk 3012 51st Ave. N. Young Ho Kang 1510 69th Ave. N Director of Planning' and Inspection Fe GE_ NERAL_ APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinte , City Clerk