Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 06-27 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 27, 1983 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 5. Approval of Consent Agenda -All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. 6. Approval - of Minutes City Council meeting, June 13, 1983 Board -of Equalization meeting, June 6,1983 7. Performance Bond Releases. a. K -Mart, 3600 - 63rd Avenue North b. Lynbrook Bowl, 6357 North Lilac Drive c. Quik 6, 6600 West River Road *8. Performance Bond Foreclosure - Brookdale Officer Towers, 2810 County Road 10 9. Resolutions: a. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1983 -H (51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07) -Bids for this project will be opened on Monday, June 27, 1983. *b. Approving Agreement No. 61255 with MN /DOT (Providing for Installation and Maintenance of the France Avenue /Soo Line Railroad Crossing) 10. Planning Commmission Items (7:30): a. Planning Commission Application No. 83022 submitted by Ground Round for site and building plan approval to construct a small addition to the southwest corner of the Ground Round Restaurant at 2545 County Road 10. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83022 at its June 6, 1983 meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA =2= June 27, 1983 b. Planning Commission Application No. 83023 submitted by Maranatha Nursing Home for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct two additions to the nursing home at 5401 - 69th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 83023 at its June 16, 1983 meeting. c. Planning Commission Application Nos. 83024 and 83025 submitted by DeVries Builders for site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for the Earle Brown Farm Estates, 5th Addition on Xerxes Place, south of Freeway Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application Nos. 83024 and 83025 at its June 16, 1983 meeting. 11. Ordinances: . a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of.the City Ordinances to Allow Manufactured Housing in the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts -This ordinance was introduced at the June 13, 1983 City Council meeting and was referred back to staff to allow them to prepare additional information on the ordinance. The ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances to Allow Truck Rental and Leasing as a Special Use in the C2 Zone -This ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening. 12. Discussion Items: a. Employee Assistance Program Consideration of contract renewal 1983 -1984 *13. Licenses 14. Adjournment CORRECTION Mayor Tyqui_st inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he' entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 83017. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers hhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Ihotka and seconded by Council - member Theis to deny Application No. 83017 due to the fact that the intense density on 51% of the property could not be justified by using the entire property for the density calculation. The City Attorney advised the Council if the plat meets the code requirements the City Council would have no discretion not to approve the plat. 11r. Seran stated that he does not believe the City Attorney's comments apply to this replat. Upon a vote being taken on the motion, the following voted in favor: Councilmembers I,hotka, and Hawes. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist, Council-members Scott, and Theis. The motion failed. There. was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 83017 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 final plat shall be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Homeowners' Association documents, declarations, articles, and bylaws shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval.. 5. All of the property contained in tjie original plat of the Earle Brown Townhouses shall be served by a single Homeowners' Association. Voting in favor: P -Iayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Theis. Voting against: Councilmembers Ihotka, Hawes. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Application No. 83010 subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial 5 -23-63 -17- X111 IJ'.:[ S OF TILT PF i?DINGS 01' '1'hE CITY COUNCIL OIL' TH CI'T -Y OF FROOV-1,Y11 Cll'JTER IN THE' COUE'TY OF �1 111 AIND T_ITE STATE 01' MINNhSOTA 7d,C� TLAR SESSION JU IE 13 , 1 983 CITY IIAIIL CALL TO O RDI'R the I >ruolr7_yn Center City Council met in re` filar session and i s called to order. by Tiayor Dean h`yquist at 7:00 p.m. R011 CALL T ayor Lean l y ui -st, Counci.l_melrber Gene I;hotka., Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City I tanager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul 11oI_mlund, Director of Planning ?c Inspection Ron Warren, City assessor Peter Koole, City Appraiser Joe DaBruzzi, and Administrative Assistant Tom B;ublitz. INV The invocation was offered by Pastor Cilke of the Brookdale Assembly of God Church. OPFIN FORT T ayor I�yquist noted he had received two requests to use the Open' Forum session this evening, and suggested that, since - they pertained to an agenda item, they should be addressed latter in the agenda. Mayor Nlyquist noted he had also received an Open Forum request from I1rs. Patricia Pol di sky, 7237 Logan Avenue ! - .orth, Frooklyn Center. IFe stated that Mrs. Polyd-!_sky's request concerned axe 171C bus route. r'iayor Nyquist recognized Ers. Polydisky who stated that the Brooklyn Par }c City Council requested a chant >e in one of the T. bus routes. She explained the requested route change concerns Route 8D which currently runs along Humboldt to 7 >rd Avenue Yorth, alonE_ 73rd to Tl.el Avenue, and from Neti�rton Avenue T orth into Brooklyn Park. She stated the Brooklyn Park City Council has requested that the buy. run only alone Klumboldt Avenue and not along T1 rd to T'cwton. She stated that sl e was opposed to the change since people from T would have to walk all the gray down to Humboldt to catch the bus. She also presented the City Council with a petition expressing opposition to the proposed route charEe. The City PIanaeer stated that the staff would investigate the proposed route change and would get back to 1 Polydi.sky with an explanation of their _findings. COE'I SI'ivT AGI1 1)A T� :ayc�r� >yquist inquired whether arty of the Council inellbers requested any items removed from the Consent Agendc . "he Ci iy ; ^.ttorney stated - that he would like to offer a. correction fcr the minute. r�c -,ardi ng type conditions far approval: of the prel in�.dnary plat for the Farle Frovn Toti Die stated that the correction should state that the entire property should be served by a single Pomeowners' Association. PT;RI'CI� ..'',TIC ' FC.`,I` R — Ci!h 1 OP, 6810 1 , RC' 0���12y 111 BCU I��'�' ^iFIP le oi�ncl7 - ,'on , : < <�i, t t � e� c�nuica by Cc�un ,iLmeirl z� I :1wes to reduce the perfol mane e o.n the Ca i of i 1(r phop, 0810 Lrookl, n boulevard , 6 -1 3 -8 3 -].- from """l to with n new Toad submitted by hK prOperty owner. Voting in favor: layor Nyquiot, CouncilmeAcrs Ifatkn, Scott, Wes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The notion josced unnnirously. TUTOILTIOES 10mber Celia Scott the following resolution and moved its adoption: ACCEPYIEG BID N1\D AI`PitCVING CCMINTRACT (BECOJKJ',/U,�' TRAILWAY I1.',-rR0V FROJECT NO. 1983-08) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded byrember Bill Hawes, and upon vote being tabon thereon, t iefollewing voted in favor thereof: .Dean hyquist, Cene Lhotka, Ccl-- Scott, Bill hawe� and Fich 'Lheist and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution wno declared duly passed and adopted. RE20LUTIM NO. 8�-86 TeAsT Celia Scott introduced the following recolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 00PH,"cG RLIECORDs i0"rJ1 The i-notion for the adoption of the fo.-egoing re�--,clut 7 -or 7.., d seconded 'byrienher Bill Tiat end upon vote being taken thereon, the f o vo ted -in favor thereof : Lean 1 yquist, Gene Uhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Awes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon . said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LIMSYS: T a motion by Councilmer.! Scott :end ceconded by Coiuncilm,�emlber Eaves to approve the following list of licenses: AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - OPERATOR Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - VENDOR Theisen Vending C 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Blvd. A & W 6837 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Babe Ruth 606 Noble Ave. N. Evergreen Park 7112 Bryant Ave. N. Grandview Park 1600 59th Ave. N. GAMBLING LICENSE - CLASS B St. Alphonsus Rosary Altar Society 7125 Halifax Ave. N. GARBAGE AND REFUSE HAULER'; LICENSE Block Sanitation 6741 79th Aire . M. Brooklyn Disposal, Inc: 7852 191st in. N.W. W-mge lkoch Co. 119 N.E, 14th St. 6-13-83 -2- ITINERA FOOD ESI'AI IJ L Brooklyn Center,. Fire Dept. w 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Brooklyn Swim Club 8124 Toledo Ave. N. Bill West's 76 2000 57th Ave. N. MECIIA S LI i Rick's Heating& Air Cond. 551 W. 78th St. NONPE VENDING MA CHINE LICENS Coca Cola Bottling _ 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Evergreen Park Manor 7224 Camden Ave. SIG HANGER' LICENSE Universal Sign Company 1033 Thomas Ave. SWIMMING POO L ICENSE Riverwood Townhouse Association 6611 Camden Drive TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING'LIC',ENSE Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilrembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPRM'.L OF I TUT 'S -- TAY 23, 1 983 The City Attorney stated that, wit1h re arc; to Application i1o. 83017 approved at the IIay 23, 1 x'83 Council meeting, he assumed it wa.s the intent of tae property corner to have a single Homeowners' Association. In light of this, he suggested that the minutes be corrected to reflect this, and that an additional item be added to the four conditions of approval indicated on pane 17 of the 'May 23, 1 083 mi. ?nutes. He stated that the additional, item should state that "all of the property contained in the original plat of the Carle Frown Townhouses shall be , served by a single Homeowners' Association". There was a notion b,j Councilmember Lhotl�n and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of 1Tay 23, 1 983 with the correction noted by the City Attorney. Voting in favor: Flayor I1 - 4yquist, Councilmembers Ihhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. CONITITIV1A 0' FOAR OF rC'LA ATIOT7 y FTTE"G i'� e ei - t i:ana{-e�~ IItr6-(1 � c y the li, t of cases which ich were carried over from the Board of i'c{u alization. L eeti rlfi held on dune 6, 198 to this evening's r: eeting. Fe explained the list consisted of that required follow up by the City Assessor's stuff. 6 -13 -83 -3- The City Assessor re vi owed the cases enrried over from the June (), I tn`7 for CmnuAl iwmbers - It noted thNt the wUh A ouffix were roferred to , 11;nff, and the cases with a F znd`fi,� ,,,eru .. , dvi duals who had irt made nn appa bAxont for the n June 6, 1985 meeting and were also referred to staff for f Theis Inquired NvIiether the City receives income information on apartment - WildirEn. The City Assessor explained that ,,, rental dwelling survey is sent out eadi year and that the is a 65n' return of the surv(?, of rental income data. There! pas a, motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the following reomamendation,­ rr,, by the City Assessor regarding appeals made to the Board of equalization of the City of Brooklyn Center: Case No 2 John Lescault 5507 62nd Avenue North PIN S4-119-21-40-0036 1983 EM - $57,000 Recommendation - Adjust 19,,83 OArket Value to $54,200. 3A) Vexas Air Orporation Vacant Land PIDJ 02-118-21-11-000I 198- FP V - $576,1 co Recommendation - No chanEe in value. 4A) Texas Air Corporation Vacant land PID# 02-1 m-21 -1 1 -0006 1983 11 - $429,5M Recominendatio 1 n o change in value 5A) Plitt Theaters, Incorporated 2501 County Road 10 PTD# 02-1 18-21-24-0013 1983 $716,000 Recommendation - Ad" 1983 1 Value to V07,900 which is the same as the 1 () �;z2 TIarket Value. 6A) Gabbert and Gabbert Company Westbrook Pall PID! 03-118-21-14-0022 1985 FKV - $2,908,200 Fern nme Ada tion - Adjust 1983 MOM Value to 02,879,900, the same as the 1982 Harket Value. A The Prudential InBursnne Comlony GE20 Shinplo Croeek Parkway P D# 35- 15 FIX - L2,664,200 Reconmendation - Adjuot 1983 QV to G2,519,30() as a. result of an analysis of the income and statcment. BA) The Prudential Insurnnee Company 040 Shingle Creek Parkway PID - N 35-119-21214=3 1983 11V - C2,024,900 Recommendation Adjust 1983 M to $1,914,700 as n. result of an nnnlyls of the income .3rd exIonse statement. 6-13-83 9A) Rayr and G. F, A€ r es L. 4 Plex - 1 425 55th Ave. N. PID // 01-11 8-21- 33 4Y-) 72 1 983 KV - $126,700 Recommendation - Adjust 198 Market Value to $118,000 due to excessive expense items due to water problems. 1OA) R. Z. Zych Fr d. F. Fahrer;holz 4 Plex -- 620 53rd Ave. N. PID# 01-118-21-43-007 1 963 E AT - )141,200 Recommendation - Adjust 1 983 Narket Value to $115,2CO due to analysis of 1 982 income and expense statement. 11A) Dale P1. Stone 4 Plex •- 5500 Bryant Ave. N. PID # 01- 118 -21 —31 - 0061 1 98� LI - � i 72 , 200 Recomme=ndation - Adjust 1583 T arket Value to 6155, due to recent purchase agreement and analysis of income data. 12A) William. F. & Bonnie L. Shutte P 4 - 4 Plexes Nelson S. Gr>eeg •Company PID a 35 -11 21- 11 -000 7 -- 6 7 1.9 Humboldt - 83 2iV $126,700 PIDN 35-119-21-11-0008 - 6 721 Humboldt - 83 11- x;,126, 700 PID f 35- 119- 21- 11 -ODQ9 - 6715 Humboldt - 83 D71 x'126 , 700 PIG 35- 119 --21 -1 1 -C O1 O -- 6 717 Humboldt - 83 D;°V $126,700 Recommendation - Adjust 1983 Market Value on each parcel to $120,0 00 due to analysis of submitted income and expense statements. 1B) H. E. Eklund 5712 Irving Avenue Yorth PID=' 02-11S-21-14-0076 - t, 1983 Ei V - x'53, Recommendation - No change in value. Petitioner called 6/7/83 and requested that their appointment for review be cancelled and appeal terminated. 2D) Ba.rbara. J. Schopf 4201 Lakeside, #'1 PID # 10-118-21-32-0085 1993 F X - 049,40 400 Recommendation - Adjust 1983 Market Value to 046, 40D due to removal of 75% of benefit of lakeside view. 3B) Richard &, F. Diane Curylo 7243 North Willow Lane PID #' 25- 119 -21 _41._00313 1 983 ENV - $95,200 Recommendat ion — Adjust 1 9:3 11arket Value to , 88, 4.00 due to building classification change. Voting. in favor: Oyer Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting a.`winst: none. The motion p assed un inin.ously . Tiayor 1\ytji;iist commended the City Aooe' sor fmd his st- ff for doira � an excellent job on the onses appealed at the 1 983 Board of i'qual eat i on. 6- 13 - -83 -5- introduced oduced n RePolution Approvinr' Ti<hns txnd Or der ing Advertisement for G .d , ``1 : -t Avenue fo r t i� ter FIN n - p ov m M Project 190 (Contract 198j- he explained the project pr ov ides for c xtcn, ion of varter mnin al_o.l Ast Avot - ai .' forth to a lo:r 1.'or a col:nt ct ion of . the residcnt:3 'It 41 (A) 51 Avenue forth to the munk i pail oystem. '7''lhe Director of Public ;.orks reviewed the project regiues ted by the property owner. He explained the property owner now ho a conta wn f :er supply obtn i,ned. from groundwater. It expl, A ned the total project coat on �',, X6,000 and that 2,W Omould be assessed to the property oLNer st 11 CU 51st Avenue e T orth. it explMned that, b e t � . n .a-.. � Ny � L r t he i t o 'i t, �• a i t hro u gh 1� OE � �'eei! l y ,nd. nOtti`, �-�lE' t.<� .t._:.E.2'1 fQ - C , Cl .�,..i' (_"_, n ^dam C�ull'ed t I Oti, 1 il'_�. City Attorney's office. Tie noted that, after the City Council endorses an inTrovement project, the project must. begin within hin one year from that order. It explained tI'1'c3: t :June 2S, 1 983 1.:.' the expira date for the project, and added that, if the project were not approved t':1 evening and the Council l -r,-ants to proceed with the proj ect, new proceedings would have to be s tarted. The City Attorney col,,-,cntcd that the property owner does not have an absolute ri ebt to have the City complete the project and that the Council must decide whether it wishes to authorize tiff_'. project. Coun an em,bier Ihotka inquired as to he Cc .se of the y;;`,ol11]_'Glon of the existlnE, well The Director of I'tzbl.lc Workq explaine that severe! e wells in - the area which are betueen 80' to 100' in depth Pre all polluted. 4 . Coun.11 } };�e;�,ber ?- !ayes inquired whether deferred aoce.._, ents vould, accrue int;eres,t, The City titJ �o!'L ey exl l .- I ed J a t the I ione - fo C c i ojec t comes frol,l ' �en6 rfa__ T d would be as d at, a _1 ester ante. The f i r ec:t � of i'lzbllc 1lor�s stated than he believed the 061 proceeding Lrotzlra allow interest to accrue on the Uosessments. The City Attorney explained that he would follow up on this question. "'he C it i at �, - �E.r el pl pined th the 1'`i j ec cou.l_d be handled by rne'ans of change in the hook-up charges levied. The Director of Fub1:.1c TIorks noted that the hookup charLe cannot be levied- unless a hookup is Dade. Rr; OLUITT_O' E'0. 8-87 I am er . T t ntroduned the follow>_ S resolution and moved its adoption: R�:� 1 r'T IOTI A TJ O 1 T' � Yi J ,T, < �'.•- l T m jrc4 ..J} Tjt ,l i �r� 'r' P_ ' S ,C,L�_ _U �; ��P�f,.✓J.I�,G r1��._�, ��, � , F� ,i r . Ca �t_ �:,> E�� Gl. ,..tl��.�� }_:'�- � R�_I��l.�., >`.',_: F I'>;, T A rEi E EC;RTH NM TER � ;, L`1 t l "-,;T «OTC r -' 2__ The motion. for, the adoption of the fort roinl rE o.'ut ox1 ,,a, duly seconded ty 1 -- 1 er Rich Theis, and uT6n vote beinl t,,-ken th,(- ,T`eon, he J_ol_lowl:tgvot.- in -' vor theileoa:: Dean 1'dyClu.ist, Gene iiho - ILk a, Ceiba Scott, Bill and Rich Thels; and the _FO_l..i_l7wI.11E tlOt,t:;d a,'c:l_I.i'Int the s y ._. �� i )! r.a7 i'tl i asp 1 I t.: me: Yoe €; v >her :u .,o_i sai re .oa_a or �r <. r "ec'_ta�1 : duly and ndopted. `i'he, City F nc)-Uer introduced e ;o t 01: Fa )I E "S1n ' Rccogni t? on of and for the 1'U.V.t is Service of Purt i n7 an s in the Froc,t:' ! yn Center NEd is ion Project. 1''a,yor Yyquist explained that l)E't,,;een 25 and 30 voluni; rwl hove Under,;! ?nE C, t;c:ns1.vo - ? r, iol t'i1. c� rti c participation in the P u project. 1U.0j .ct. I`e c al.l.ed uri . tr��lnll� _ to d I }c,us� e 6- 1 -3 - -83 -6- Mrs. Jensen explained that 26 persons volunteered for the project and 24 have u rid e cxten i,re training in Drd at -ion. She added that the training wa.s a significant c,czrmitmen t r7 the part o thc volunteers . with regard to time, ener r, and service to the community. She added that she hapr d that the mediation project will be u.,cd as €in alr;ernative to solve di, putes and problems in the City of Brooklyn Center. Lhi h.1 Gene Llytia introduced the fo_ll_owing, resolution and moved its adoption: R_'SOLTJJ TOTa i' plj'?S II;G R1 -J TOI< OF t, 2 ` 1 1,PPRE ATIO1 FOR TEE DEDICATED PUBLIC ,SI.RV.a CE Ot' i1 I'; VOLOi, i . i =t HEDIATORS CT `_" TL.' FRO0I f :iY C E i'1 R I1PTATION PROJECT The motion for - the adoption of the for epoirr resolution eras duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being; to ,en thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean hyquist, Gene Lhotka., Cc i:i a. ,',co and Rich l'heis; and the following voted ? ainst i l�,e same: none. '1he notion pa: -sed . Counci.Imerrber Hakes abstained from the vote. 1r'C SI !T .erg n CITSui:?tmu C7 F1t(7' TRAFFIC SAFET AD_VISOR � R '+ FC O1 ' 1 CNDIPG � —T � i'1 T Tl l (1 lY',1 � - x � ll Yii \ CVT`.t _.( ....��.. Y �-- 1 l!l .A 1� .�.11 I/t'�11.1 �.f11.I1 �'ali♦ "' Al t rrycr Yqui t rokenized Er. Phil Cohen, Chainnrah of the Traffic Safety Advisory Committee. He referred Council members to a. resolution from the '1 raff_ic Safety Advisory Committee, and also a newspaper article in the Brooklyn Center Eost regarding ding the Committee's discussion and recomnendations for 50th Avenue at T.H. 100. He explained that, at - tree 5, 1983 Traffic Safety Advisory Committee meeti.r:g, a petition was rreser ted to the CcT:n ittee opposing osi.ng the staff proposal to close the entrance to .11. 100 at SCih Avenue North. lie explained that the resolution passed by the Traffic Safety A; visory Comirrittee, and before the Council this evening, recommends leaving the acce .,s at 50th Avenue hor th and ''i' . H. 1 C0 as is . There was a motion by Councilmer:ber 1 av e, and seconded ly Councilmerber Ihotka to accept and concur with tie resolution froD the Traffic Safety Advi-sory Committee accepting staff recommendations on traffic I at'ters in the area of 'i'.1i. 100 at 50th Avenue ; orth. Voting , r_ favor: i eyor ,'yqui st, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Ilawes, and '_�heis. Voting, against: none;. The notion passed unanimously. RFSOrCTI `]S (M IINUIEP) "'he Citq' anager int. e; .,c.ed a Resolution Regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application 1b. 83021 , a request for a special. use permit for a board and care facility at 4408 69th Avenue north. bbyor Nyquist noted he had previously received two Open Torun: requests to address this resolution. Be explained the regae.-it , were from I:r. Tom Wilson, 3948 West 49 112 Street in Edina and Ms. Susan Lentz, I`innepolis. i,ayor ? reco Fr. 1orr; Li.lson who stated that he wa. Mn attorney representing Pirs. Prone G, °ieht. Le stra that the revolution before the Council this evz nj ing ccnta nti err ors and does no l < <`n vin in e nd of itself � round for denit'l of the permit. rye added !hat he vo ld z ec= yr,d the City Counci -I ndopt the Planning. Comm r, ._ ion recommendations re a ding !he application. he added that there is a 6-13-83 -1- unjor prohl-cm in the northwest area and that ike iwed for facilities of this type is evident in the community. it stAted that nothi, in the resolution addreuces Vie qualifications for n special use permit, and that prrking on the site could be expanded to accomj eight cars, which wotzld be in compliance with the City's, zoning ordinance. Qyor Vyquist inquired of , , i`ilson what in tlie resolution were erroneous. Er. 1Alson stated that the reference to the proximity of the nearest park in the resolution is irrelevant, and ht. the building iaveTs all the local requirements for R2 zoning and required space for residents. He stated that Tlothin,-f in the resolution addresses issues relevant to the denial of the special use permit. Payor Nyquist recognized Ns. Susan Lentz who stated that she was appearing this evening as an Attorney on behalf of Association of P'linnesota. She -added that she had written a letter - to 1 1",ayor Nyqaist regarding - the Planning Commission Application and added that the As� ic concerned with the availability of cot based irental ideal th facilities. She urged the Council to reconsider and approve the Planning Copirdssion Application. 1 'Yyquist inquired of i' ,`s. Lentz whether she was aware of any additional facts reErrding the application which the Council .'mould consider. Es. lentz replied that, to her knowledge, no facts eyist, for the denial of the permit and that she believed the perking and other requirements are amply Let by the application. RESOLUILIcTi 111;0. 8 TRATCURe a introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIOIL", RLCARDIT,G TILE PISPOSIIPTOi OF PUENT-ING CC 1 1-`ISSIOJE APPLICATIOIN FO. 83021 A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE A BOARD CARTE FACILITY AT 4408 69 AVFNUF The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ref ,l was duly seconded I y r member Celia Scott, and vpon vote being taken thereon, - the following voted in favor thereof: Lean Tyquist, Gene Lhotka,, Celia Scott, Bill Hhwes, and 'Rich �,`heis; and the follo ag - the san none, whereupon said resolution - was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDII�-AlIXTES 1, ORDINAIQE ARVIIING CHAP UR 35 OF TIM CITY 011DIENCES TO A_TLC'J,,T FINUACTURT1 ------ ed that the stitute re�. inspec -Jon exr..,, manu-factured housirg I is offered in response to .,, I .,-,2 sate. law ame nd 11 i Mi nneso ta Statutes 462.357, SuLdivision 1, which proviRs that the no reguletions can be enacted prohibiting manufoctured homes built in conformance. :, i-4.1-nnesota Statutes, Secti-ons 327.31 thr� obi 327.35- He referred Council me. to a numorandum from himself to the-City Thnaeter, June 10, 1983, regarding the zoning ordinance anondment on manufactured housing. Councilmember Lhatka inquired 320 sq. ft �.,­,,-, ­,pr.cifried in the ordinance. The Planning Director stated that the definition of a van ufactured hone� is of 320 sq. ft. Councilmenher Iholka stated that he wa,­.. Concerned with such a .I 7.l minimum oq. footage. 6-13--83 At the request of C unc i lrenbex I otl a, the Director of Planning Inspection reviewed Me requirrnents for permynr nt foundation;- in the City zoning ordinance. He added that, under the City',_ z(niint7 ord , r :ance mere is no mini iuui sq. foota`re for single fani.ly node;:.. He added that, t, t,he reason for the 18' width. rnd de pth requirement in the ordinance is to Wdra= the fact of how the manufactured homes would be situated on the lot. The City Attorney st .t -ed that, not a. practical matter, mobile homes are now manufactured in 1 41 w i dths. He noteu that n, double wide mobile home would. be 28 _i_n width. He added that he doubts that ariyo will manufacture an 18 ride mobile home unit. He stated that the purpose in increasing the width is related to the prever Lion of fire haw rd s , sine(. In Brous. i ng the wid t 1 reduces the fire hazard risk. The Director of Planning Q Inspection; stated that 320 sq. ft. is how the state law defines mobile homer. Fe added that, theoretically, i cally, someone could request a diY Tension of 1 by 18' under - the ordinance but that an individual could req??est the same size "stick built" home since there i.,s no minimum sq. footage currently under the City's zoning ordinance. Councilmember Ihotka, statec' that he would like to see the parti_cu7_ar section of the building coce regarding how a home Yrust be attached to a foundation. There vzas a motion by Councilmeriber I�hotk . and seconded by Councilmerlber Theis to delay the first reac,lrY{ of the O d:t_r�_nce , ­ end ing - Ater 35 of the City Ordinances to 111c;%T Tian,, acturrd T oiu� ng in 1 1?'1 .grid R2 Zoning Districts until additional infoln,ation on the ordinance can be pres ented at the June 27, 1 983 City Council meeting. Voting in favor: T;a- yor Counciisr Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and 5_heis. Voting aEainst: none. The ration passed unanimously. 1 TDI�riA T � I v ,, m�-G' , lM U �i rST 1 t> T F hI4 Or;1��i�,.f� 'CP } ">1',�.,,� .T;C Cr " .?�...�H 35 C� �_��_,' G..__ , i� T,D�_� ; ' A.I�:C1:�; .O C LASSIF Y - E" iCR_�IOTi O 69 AV! Y U 1 M All p t h �� ��f, I' t�uL_. The Ci t Ir 2na` e eta ted that - the Pori:, on c _i' 69th AveY - specified in the ordinance had previously been a county road and now the City owns the road, and the staff is recommending dr ;iEnation of the road as a indlor thorou _ -,fare so that it would apply to the proper City ordinances. There was a notion by Councilj er tior Scott and seconded by CouncilmeYr[)er Hawes to approve for first re, -,di _ Ordi naru e . r: eYac; in.z Ch. ptel° 35 of the City Ordinances - to Classify a Portion of 69th Avenue Korth as a ma 4 or thoroughfare, and to set the public hearing for the ordinance at WO p.m. on July 11 , 1983. Voting in favor: Pia 1`yquist, Courcilmerl erg. Ihotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. nie motion gassed unanimously. DISCUS MIQ (_ YN/ C "A �r�..� .�i 7 u1 , v- N, n1�it�, The City f rui er s tat T Eat the proposed changes in purl: regulations include prohibition of , ! nss cen1k:.1,.nc rs, bri r C rC refuse to City parks, and authorizing, the City Ean Eer to pCS certain re;=`1: ate r signs. He explained that t he Park & -, Recreation , ,ion n. I'evi_eY,(; Y ii di .'u' F d the v a s d t i vc riou:� propos< is and that if the Council grants the nut;hor nntion ho would prej re the nppropriate ordinance; la Tit u lie for Council consideration. . Councilme tuber rheas in jui.red whether l ao s coatn3 nets referred to Bever ar'e 6- 13 -83 - containers. The City Donagyr Mted that thu jUps conkiincry; prohibited would be limited to beverape containers. Coimcilmnler Shei,� t vii y refli,-o being addressed in the proposed ordimince clumee. The City exp - , , J_ lit -'d that, visi. tor's, to - t - ,inte l : < 1-1-so 's'e!re cclitrn.o tor., fi 11 the containers V nt h rubbish from their Fares or work sites. CouncilrMer Theis inqui red , how the situation of soreone emptying thOr car Psh trays irto the refuse contat ti e handled - The City At t%ted Pot he w6uld be woAkJ,nc on ordinance that t., differentiate between trash broveht in fro m and trash from legitimate activities in the park. Councilmember Theis stated that, i trl regard to the City Ennager posting certain regulatory signs, he is concerned v;ith posting item. that h , no le _­,­i,j_ teeth. He added than, <.e would like to see ite.-as come - ,o the City Council for final approval before they become law. The City Atorney stated that he believes eventually the 'courts will rule that cities must enforce safety coles. referred to by signs. He noted that, votes in the kinnesota Supreme Court in the area of ,fire safety in similar situations, have been five to four votes aEainot holding mupicipalities liable. A consid4ration of the courts nQtions ard trendls in areLi, he stated that he believes sib , ,n, ,, , should be signs only. eo he stated t 11 no swimsiinEll signs could be posted, but that no to vould be i sue-'C for violation. lie pointed out that other arer.:.o such , ).o ,.-,rctection of lardsca *,, , l,g, i 1 d I i f e , etc., should be enforced by - ta, , �ging. He rated that, other areas which cotild addressed by the authorization of the `City FanaEer to post certain re mater are situations where people are already breaking the law, such as allowin, the City Eanager to close a park due to n riot. There was a consensus of Counci I me (-. to authoriz-, t;he Staf - to pre - are O r d ina n c e, c language for the proposed chin es in part regulations. APPOIETWETS TO 1 SUBUR' CABIF CONAMCATIORS COATISSIONS Th C e ity Lan8., noted that t powers agreement, the terms of all 1,WSCCC Directors expire in June of e�(­.h year . The Counci I briefly discussed the reappointments of Counciltnember Scott and the City Manager. There was a, motion by Couricilrief, .12hotke. tind seconded by Councilmember Hawes to reappoint CouncilmeNer Celia Scott and City NanaEer Gerald Splinter as Brooklyn Center's Directors to the ho_rthwest .ub Cable Courumurnicat, ions Comf, _._, or a td r term of one year beghining in june 1983. A ng in favo : 1 1.ayor yq:uist, Councilmemibprs Lhotk2, 9co 11awes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 0AT_.T`,JjIRG LICEESE APPLICATIOI] - FRI01 , 11 1)10 ATUAR SOCIETY CIF ',�'�T. CAI__!'F (") L T C There'i a. motion by Councilmember ihoUvA end secorided by Councilmember Sco to approve the Class A } `?mblinp for the Posary War Society of St. Alphonsuc� Catholic Church. Voting in ryquist, Cmancilmenters MAW, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and 8oconded by Councilmimber Theis to n1prove the waiver ofa 510,00CIfidWity and for Cl�,,s A (, , ,,, -ing license for the Rosary Altar 'Society ot St. AQUUMVE Calt"Iliolic Ch ',�otin�! in Piyar hy Scott, immes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion pal _ unarjJ.mo­u,­,Iy. 6-13•33 APIjCIJF i';i' j `i �1 Tic i c ti: ".s <i, motion b. Ccunci.a_zr„_, ,car 'cc; ,:nu seccnded by Councilmember }Tavies to adjourn � > f eti n;T ��ot � rF; -i n F, � wrur. :yor I yqulst, Counc , r mbers 1_llotka, a ' d h l ; J� l t'. _ _;l? tl.n t . Yio..f j— i[.C.)t;lan i < ,red unani..rnou Sly• The Broo', lyn Center City at 8:> 5 p.r,. Clerk r p 0_13 - 83 1.1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRO0nYN1 CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HE 1 AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Board of Equalization June 6, 1983 City Hall CALI, TO ORDER The Brooms Center City Council met as the Board of Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:09 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Plyquist, Councilmembers Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, City Assessor Peter Yoole, Property Appraiser Joe DaBruzzi, Assessing Clerks Grace Geske and Julie Caswell, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Lhotka was out of town and would be absent from this evening's meeting. He also noted that Councilmember Scott would be arriving later in the meeting. PURPOSE OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The City Nanager reviewed the purpose of the Board of Equalization meeting and pointed out that the City Council was serving as the Board of Equalization to conduct a review of assessed valuation within the City, and to allow time for public inquiry regarding local assessments after the City Assessor makes his report. The City Man introduced Peter Yoole Ci Assessor, who p out that there Y g � Y � are various steps that individuals must take when seeking adjustments in their valuations and he explained that the meeting tonight is the first step, after which the inquiry is passed on to the County, and the County then passes it on to the State for their review. He explained that the values discussed this evening will serve as the basis for 1984 taxes. He added that the Board of Equalization reviews the City Assessor's work and he explained that the City appraisers are fully certified by the State of Minnesota. fie explained that the Assessor's responsibility is to treat the value of similar properties in similar ways with regard to valuations. He also noted that this year the Assessor's office has asked that people call his office prior to the Board of Equalization meeting to make an appointment with the staff to necessary, to register for an also, if c 'r articular request, and o discuss their , Y� g P q appearance at the Board of Equalization. He explained that the people who are pre — registered would be handled first at this evening's meeting. PROCEDURAL OF PROPERTY TAXATION The City Assessor explained the appeal process, stating the channel of appeal begins with the local Board, then onto the County Board, the State Board, and finally to the Tax Court if carried that far. He also explained that individuals may appeal to the Tax Court directly without going to the County Board or State Board. lie added that an individual must go to the Local Board first before they can qualify for the next step, which is the County Board, and that an individual must also appeal to the County Board prior to appealing to the State Board. The City Assessor then explained that the County Board of Equalization. is appointed by the County Commissioners and the Commissioner of Revenue . serves as the State Board of Equalization. 6 -6 -83 -1- The City Assessor stated that the duties and the procedures to be followed by the Local Board are set in Minnesota Statute 274.01 to "examine and see that all taxable property in the City has been properly placed upon a tax list and duly valued by the Assessor ". Furthermore, he stated, "on application of any person feeling aggrieved, the Board shall review the assessment and correct as shall appear just ". In reviewing the duties of the City Assessor, he noted the State. Statute reads "All real property subject to taxation shall be listed and assessed every year with reference to its value on January 2, preceding the assessment ". The Assessor stated this has been done and the owners of the property in Brooklyn Center have been notified of any value changes. He also pointed out that Minnesota Statute 273.11 states, "All property shall be valued at its market value ". The City,Assessor further explained the Statute states "In estimating and determining such value the Assessor shall not adopt a lower or different standard of value because the same is to serve as a basis for taxation; nor shall he adopt as a criterion and a value the price for which such property would sell at auction or at a forced sale, unless the Assessor determines the auction to be a market value sale, or an aggregate with all the property in the town or district; but he shall value each article or description of property by itself, and at such sum or price as he believes the same to be fairly worth in money" . He pointed out the 1983 legislature added the stipulation that the Assessor can use the price of property sold at auction if it is a market value sale. The City Assessor noted in cases where a property may be so unique as to make a comparative market value hard. to determine, Minnesota Case Law is clear as demonstrated in the case of Minnesota versus Fritch. In this case, the court stated, "It is up to the Assessor to form an opinion of the market value even when there is no market or sales to aid in fixing values, where there have been no actual sales for a long period of time, there is no way of determining values except by the judgment and opinion of men acquainted with the lands, their adaptability for use and the circumstances of the surrounding community ". The City Assessor explained that the Assessor's work is based on historical value and that their data is based on actual sales and not projections. THE, CITY ASSESSOR'S REPORT The City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He explained that the sales ratio study was a substantive part of what is done by the Assessing Department. He briefly reviewed the 1982 sales ratio study noting the aggregate ratio is 91 .1 %, the median ratio is 91.1 %, and the coefficient of dispersion is 6.0%. He then briefly discussed the definition of the coefficient of dispersion. He stated that the average sale price of a home in Brooklyn Center is $70, 000 and the average market value is $64, 000. He also explained the Assessing Department analyzes the sales by style, location, price, age, and neighborhood. He reviewed the valuations of several homes located in different parts of the City, including homes located on a lake or river, in proximity to a highway or freeway, commercial and multiple family units, and homes located near parkland. He pointed out the percent of increase in sale prices in the City's neighborhoods from 1982 to 1983 ranged from 1 .6% to 10.2; and that the average .increase in valuation City wide was 4.3% for residential property. Councilmember Scott arrived at 7:15 p.m. The City Assessor reviewed inspections by the appraisers. He commented that State law requires one - fourth of the properties.in the City be revalued and inspected each year. He showed the Council on a, map of the City which areas had been revalued and inspected in 1982 for the 1983 assessment. He noted, in addition to•the regular 6 -6 -83 -2- inspections made each year, the Assessing Department must also inspect the work on each building permit. Councilmember Theis inquired why the homes along the river had values Increased so much. The City Assessor explained that the sales ratio in this area was apparently decreasing v.hich indicated the homes in this area were undervalued. The City Assessor next reviewed a graph showing the average homestead property tax from 1974 to 1 983 and explained that current taxes are historically relatively low and have decreased from 1977 to 1981. He then reviewed a graph of the homestead property tax payments in Brooklyn Center as a percent of market value for the period 1974 to 1c83. He noted there was a trend to a lower tax payment expressed as a percent of market value for homestead property. He also pointed out that the trend for commercial property would be the reverse of that for residential properties. The City Assessor reviewed a table showing the property tax levies for the various taxing jurisdictions in Brooklyn Center for 1982 and 1983. The City Assessor explained that all residential properties in the City are now on the computer system and that, 95% of those properties in the City are valued through the use of the computer. He next reviewed legislative changes affecting property valuation. He then proceeded to review the average increases in assessed valuation for various priced homes pointing out that, if the mill rate in the City does not change, a $45, 000 house will increase in valuation approximately 5 a home valued at $64, 000 will decrease approximately 14 %, and a $90, 000 home will be down approximately 4%• He explained that with a mill rate increase, the $45,000 home in the City will experience a 20/ increase, the $64,000 home will remain unchanged, and the $90,000 home will experience a 101 increase. Continuing his discussion of new legislation, he explained the State legislature kept the $650 homestead credit intact. He noted that with regard to Section 8 housing, on January 1, 1984, the tax rate will be prorated to only those units where Section 8 eligible people live. He also noted that the legislature changed the due date for payment of taxes from lviay 31 and October 31 to 14ay 15 and October 15. PUBLIC INCUIRY REGARDING LOC ASSES ,-71TS h� -e City tanager explained that two individuals had pre- registered for this evening's r_eeting, Ex- Kenneth J. Bentzen, 5715 Emerson Avenue North, and TIr. John Lescault, 3507 62nd Avenue North. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. John Lescault who stated that he bought the property at 3507 62nd Avenue North in April of 1 983 at a sale price of $4 - 5,000. He noted the sale was handled by a law firm representing Twin City Federal. He stated to the Board of Equalization that his assessment on the property has been sent at $57,800, and that he believes this valuation to be too high in light of the $45,000 purchase price. The City Assessor referred the Board of Equalization to report No. 2 prepared for 3507 62nd Avenue North, PID# 34- 119 -21 - -0036. lie explained the property was inspected on June 3, 1 983 and consists of 9 sq. ft., which is close to the average for a home in Brooklyn Center. lie stated the market value was established at $58, 500 but it has been discovered that the City has no water service available to the property, presently, and that the estimated cost of water service would be $3,610. In light of the absence of City water to the property, the City Assessor 6 -6 -83 -3- recommended the assessed valuation be reduced to $54, 200. Mr. Lescault stated that when he talked to the City's engineering department, he was told that ,ter service would cost $ "l, CX)O. The City Tanager stated that the staff could review the cost and verify this figure with the engineering department. . Councilmember Theis inquired what the $3, 610 represented, as stated by the City Assessor. The City Assessor explained that this figure represented the special assessment plus special charges for trenching in the existing street. lie added that this cost does not include the on -site cost of a water connection. The City Manager recommended that the item be continued so that the staff could verify the figures. rayor Nyquist noted that the Council would continue the consideration of Mr. Lescault's property to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting to be held June 13, 198 'The City Manager introduced the next appeal, which was from Mr. Dennis Peterson who was appealing the valuation of the property at 4811 69th Avenue North. The City Assessor explained that Mr. Peterson was currently in the Soviet Union but that he would relay Mr. Peterson's appeal. lie explained that the property in question was inspected on November 2, 1982 with an assessed value of $70, 900. He explained the site is located on two platted lots and that the second lot was buildable. He stated that the staff_ recommendation would be to reduce the valuation because comparable homes are not assessed at 100% of market value. He recommended the market value on 4811 69th Avenue laorth, PID# 33- 119 -21 -11 -0030 be reduced from $70,900 to $66,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the staff recommendation to reduce the 1983 assessed value on the property located at 4811 69th Avenue Piorth, PID# 33- 119 -21 -11 -0030, from $70, 900 to $66,000. Voting in favor: Tayor T?yqui st, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Assessor next reviewed the non - personal appeals received by the Assessing Department. He, reviewed the following last and recommendations for Council members: Case # 1 -A) Dennis Peterson 4811 69th Avenue North PID# 33- 119 -21- 11-0030 1983 EM - 0 9 3 �7 900 Recommendation: $66,000. 2 -A) Brock Hotel Corp. Holiday Inn PID# 35 -119-21-41 --000 # .� 1983 EMV - $3, 308,200 Recommendation: 2 800 $ 000 . 3 -A) Texas Air Corp. Vacant Land. PID #02 - 118 -21 -11 -0001 1983 FMV - $576,100 Recommendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. - 6 6 -$3 - 4 -A) Texas Air Corp. Vacant Iy-md PID // 02- 118 -21 -11 -0006 1983 1111N. - $429,500 Recommendation: Refer to staff for -a report back at a continued meeting. 5 -A) Plitt Theaters, Inc. 2501 County Road 10 PIDb 02- 118 -21 -24 -0013 1983 H/N - $716,100 Recommendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. 6 -A) Gabbert & Gabbert Co. Westbrook Mall PID# 03- 118 -21 -14 -0022 1983 Fi',-lV - $2, Recommendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. 7 -A) The Prudential Ins. Co. 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway of America PID,# 35- 119 -21 -12 -0002 1983 B -1V - $2,664,200 Recommendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. 8-A) The Prudential Ins. Co. 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway of America PID# 35- 119 -21 -21 -0003 1983 L - $2,024, Recommendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. 9- A ) Rayrrond G. & Agnes L. 4 -Flex - 1425 55th Avenue North Janssen PID,j 01- 118 -21 -33 -0072 1983 �:t� N - . $126, 700 Recommendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. 1O-A) R.Z. Zych & J.F. 4 -flex - 620 53rd Avenue North Fahrenholz PID /j 01- 118 -21 -43 -0073 1983 111V - $141,200 Recommendation: Refer to-staff for a report back at a continued meeting- 11-A) Dale M. Stone 4 -Flex - 5500 Bryant PZD/�' 01 -11 8,41 -31 -0X,61 1 983 111V - $172,200 6 -6 -83 -5- Reconsnendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. - 12 -A) William F. & Bonnie L. 4 -Flex (4) Shutte PIP / 35- 11 21- 11-OCO 7 671 Humboldt 1983 TIN - $126,700 PID f k 35- 119 -21 -11 -0008 6721 Huunboldt 1 983 IT1V - $126,700 PID // 35- 119- 21 --11 -0009 6715 Humboldt 198 E1 V - $126,700 PID# 35- 119 -21 -11 -0010 6717 Humboldt 1983 TTIV - $126,700 Recommendation: Refer to staff for a report back at a continued meeting. -There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to concur with the staff recommendations regarding the non- personal appeals described above, and to approve the staff recommendations for the non- personal appeals with the exception of Case No. 1A, 7A, and 8A. Voting in favor: I Tyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Assessor introduced - the next inquiry from the Prudential Insurance Company. The appeal addressed the properties at 6820 and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway, PIDr' 35- 115 -21 -12 -0002 and PID // 35 -11 Q- 21- 21 --CM3 respectively. The City Assessor explained - the combined value of the properties was $4,689,100• Mayor Tyquist recognized Mr. James Holter who addressed the Council and stated that he was representing Prudential this evening, and that he was the Senior Vice President of Property Valuation Services. Tyr. Holter stated that he wa.s here to address the appeal for Prudential regarding the properties at 6820 and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway, PID 35 -1 19 - 21- 12 -0(�2 and PID# 35 - 119 -21 -21 -0003 respectively. He distributed Council members information regarding the Prudential Properties and requested that the data distributed this evening remain confidential. The City Assessor stated that it is within the State law to provide confidentiality for the information submitted by Mr. Holter. Mr. Holter stated that the buildings at 6820 and 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway were built in i 974 prior to the energy conservation era. He explained the buildings are one story structures with mezzanines. He proceeded to review the 1981 statement of income and operations for the buildings and explained that over the last three years the property has not exceeded 66.6% occupancy. he also pointed out that mezzanine space is not a popular type space in the rental market - today. He added that - there is also no median break at the site and as a result trucks must turn right only and cannot make a left turn on Shingle Creek Parkway. He pointed out that tenants have indicated that this is a problem at the site. Mr. Holter added that utility costs has also been rising over the past several. years. Mr. Holter next reviewed a prepared pro forma statement on the properties. lie then reviewed for Council members a table showing the commitments of $100,000 and over on multi- fani.ly and nonresidential mortp es made by 20 life insurance companies, and noted that the tables show that during the la -�t quarter rates dropped and resulted in a. higher capitalization rate. I.9r. Holter explained that the pro forma value of the properties was $4,196,420 and that he would look at this value and riot at historical data in determining the value of the property. Iie added that Prudential had an 6 -6 -83 -6- appraisal of the property done on February 4, 1983 by the American Appraisal Company. He explained that, at that time, the market value appraisal was $4,300,000. He submitted to the Council that the value for tax .purposes on the properties should not exceed ,4,300,000. The City Tanager recommended that Case Nos. 7A and 8A be referred to the staff to allow them to. prepare a report for the next meeting. There was a.motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to refer Case T?os. 7A and 8A, an appeal from the Prudential insurance Company regarding the properties at 6820 and 6840 Shingle Creek Paf PID# 35- 119 -21 -12 -0002 and PID /{ 35-119-21--21 -CO03 to staff, to allow them to prepare a. report to be submitted at the next regularly scheduled City Council_ meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Assessor next introduced the names of a number of persons who had requested a review by the Board of Equalization this evening but had not pre - registered. The Assessor noted the following names: 1. Barbara Schopf, 4 -201. Lakeside, Apt. 113, PID# 10 -32 -0085 2. Harold E. Eklund, 5712 Irving, PID# 02 -14 --0076 3. Richard & E. Diane Curylo, 7243 Willow Lane, PID# 25 -41 -0038 4. Gerald Salitros, PID# 16-41 -0003 The City Assessor stated that, with the exception of Mr. Salitros, he recommended that the remainder of the requests be referred to staff for presentation at the next meeting. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Richard Curylo, 7243 Willow Lane, who stated that he purchased a home on Willow Lane at a purchase price of ,88, C00 in June and that the home �,as assessed at $95, 000. He added that an appraisal had been done on the home for remortgage purposes and was $ ','-he City Manager stated that the staff will report on this item and make a recommendation at the next meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Haves and seconded by Councilmember Theis to refer the appeals from Barbara Schopf, 4201 Lakeside, Apt. 113, PID# 10 -32 -0085, Harold E. Eklund, 5712 Irving, PID# 02 -14 -0076, Richard & E. Diane Curylo, 7243 Willow I?ne, PID /I 25--41 -0038, to the City staff and to authorize the staff to prepare a report on the properties for the next regularly scheduled Council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council members Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Manager reviewed the _location of Mr. Salitros' property, pointing out that it was on the northwest side of Flan Lake and was the land discussed with regard to a possible de- annexation of property to either the City of Robbinsdale or Minneapolis. Mr. Salitros stated that in 1972 the property was obtained from his wife's mother and was zoned ligj industry. He added that in 1 974 he contacted the City to build a home on this site and ��as informed that the band was zoned 02. He pointed out a large percentage of the land is unbuildab_le. Tie stated that a property appraisal on the property was done by Mr. Norton hose, 400 13th Avenue South, zip code 55417, tel. 6 -6 -83 -7- no. 8j2 3 -4684. Fe explained that this apprnil-In.1 resulted in -a waluation of $1 2, X-0. N'Ir- Salitros, - then asked �r, the ta-xes, on this rarcel of :property increased. The City NanaCer explained that the - tax J.ncrenoe wa,­, a. result of the State leCislature Is shift in taxine ious c, var ori. 'ec of land. The City Assessor explained that the 02 zoning was indicated for this parcel on the old comprehensive plan of the City. ne stated that the City Planning Pepartment would be willing - to recommend to zone the property R1 and the City could take care of this. 1 added that he was not aware of any request received to rezone the land or for n building permit . He noted that the land consists of app roximately 18 acres, of land and water and is an appraisal problem. Ile noted it has been valued as a substandard single falmily lot. He noted the City paid $4,500 per acre for unbuilda land similar to this property perty and that T '.r - Salitros I land was valued at $700 per acre. I'Tr. Saltiros stated that he did ask for a rezoning and a building permit in 1975• The City FlanaEer stated that it appears that one buildable lot can be made from the property and that he . have no problem With recoir.mending an R1 zoning. The City Assessor stated his previous statement regarding the request for rezoning and a buildinE, permit vas incorrect since he had only checked as far back as 1976. He -added that it is difficult to establish a value for this type of land and that a Q012, 000 value is probably as accurate a,,:1$13,000. He recommended that th be valued at ';)'12,000. There w.-as a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmembe Theis to establish the assessed value of the property described by PIPS` 10-4 at $12,000. Voting infavor: 1 M , ,kyor J,`yquist, Coiincilmenbers Scott, Hawes, and Theis - Voting against: none. The motion passed. CO �,J T 1 16'1 1- 101�1 IFOIR E, UATI EFC OF BOAR C , )r YU2 LIZATION PUIETTEIG P o There was a motion - by Council-member Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to continue the Board of Equalization meeting to,7: CO p. m. on Monday, June 13, 1983 Voting in favor: T'layor Councilmember2 Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Board of Equalization adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Clerk Payor 6-6-83 -8- MEMO: TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Performance Guarantees DATE: June 21, 1983 The followin g performance guarantees arantees are recommended for release 1. K -Mart 3600 63rd Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 80038 Amount of Guarantee - $15,000 Bond Obligor K -Mart Original bond of $85,000.00 was reduced to $15,000.00 on September 13, 1982. All improvements had been installed at that time and the reduced bond was held through the winter to insure viability of landscaping. The landscaping has survived well. Total release is recommended. .2. Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Drive Planning Commission Application No. 81032 Amount of Guarantee - $5,000.00 Bond Obligor Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. - Original bond of $50,000 was reduced to $5,000.00 on November 22, 1982. All improvements had been .installed at that time and the reduced bond was held through the winter to insure viability of landscaping. The landscaping has survived intact. G a t. Recommend total release. 3. Quick Six 6600 West River Road Planning Commission Application 81064 Amount of Guarantee - $2,000.00 Obligor - Standard Oil Company Original bond of $22,000 was reduced to $2,000 on November 22, 1982. All improvements had been installed at that time and the reduced bond was held through the winter to insure viability of landscaping. The landscaping has survived. Recommend total release. It is recommended that the following performance guarantee be foreclosed on if possible. 1. Brookdale Office Tower 2810 County Road 10 Planning Commission Application No. 71025 Amount of Guarantee $7,500.00 Obligo Viewcon,' Inc. Performance Guarantees Page 2 June 21, 1983 The above - referenced bond has been held by the City for a number of years. No action has been taken by the obligor to complete the work since a status report was sent in 1977. The City Attorney has advised me that the bonding company, Summit Insurance Company of New ' York, went into receivership in 1977. He advises that we submit a claim to the New York Superintendent of Insurance. The dollar amounts for the remaining items are included in a letter to the City Attorney dated June 21,1983. Recommend that a claim be entered for no less than $4,820.00 as indicated on said letter attached. Approved by Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection ° CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY A: I B It U l BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 554; TELEPHONE 561 -5440 1% June 21, 1983 Richard J. Schieffer LaFevre, Lefler, Kennedy, O'Brien and Drawz 2000 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Claim for Unfinished Improvements at Brookdale Office Tower 2810 County Road 10 • Dear Dick: I apologize for being so slow in getting these figufes to you regarding the cost of unfinished improvements at the Brookdale Office Tower, 2810 County Road 10. I have been waiting for some numbers from the Engineering Department., and have only recently gotten them. The following is a list of costs for most of the iems in the June 29, 1977 status report, which have not been completed. ITEM COST 1. Five. Russian Olives on Northway Drive berm west of driveway at. west entrance $300.00 2. Scotch Pines and Lilac plantings on berm adjacent to Northway Drive exit 200.00 3. Row of I2" to 15" honeysuckle plantings on berm. adjacent ,to County Road 10 600.00 4. Two Scotch Pine missing and one dead at southwest corner of East parking lot 300.00 5. Three Willows along East greenstrip adjacent to Shingle Creek 180.00 6. Two Scotch Pines. at east entrance, one on each side of driveway 200.00 7. Three Canada Red Cherries, two • on «pest side of entrance to above ground ramp and one on east side 180.00 "'7lre $owerl(eng 7>l axe �i�y ,• .Richard J. Schieffer Page 2 June 21, 1983 8. Two Scotch Pines on east side of driveway at the west entrance 200.00 9. B612 curb and gutter to be installed alorig north edge of parking surface over underground garage 2,060.00 10. Outside trash disposal dumpster should be screened from view or placed inside underground *garage 600.00 Total $4,820.00 Bond Amount $7,500.00 We will take this matter to the City Council for direction to foreclose at the next Council meeting. If you have any questions, let me know by then. Sincerely yours, G ..a- .Gary S6allcross Planning Assistant GS:mlg File. No. 71025 f - Member 'introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION , NO. , RESOLUTIONI ACCEPTING BID AND.APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -H LJ (51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -07, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 27th day of June, 1983. Said bids.were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Hayes Contractors, Inc. $ 26,958.00 Bonin Excavating, Inc. 35,961.95 WHEREAS, it appears that Hayes Contractors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. .NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract in the amount of $26,958.00 in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The estimated total cost -of Improvement Project No. 1912 -07 is hereby amended from $36,140.00 to $29,653.80. The estimated cost is comprised of the following: As Ordered As Amended Contract $32,560.00 $26,958.00 Engineering 2,930.00 2,420.22 Administrative 325.00 269.58 Legal and Bonding 325.00 0.00 TOTAL $36,140.00 .$29,653.80 Date Mayor ATTEST: t Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoin resolution was duly seconded by x. merber , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: al"d the following voted against the same: '110reupan said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY f 0 0 L Y 1® BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 5543 �® TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EN TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: June 27, 1983 RE: Consideration of Bids Received for Contract 1983 -H (51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07) Bids were received on June 27, 1983 for the referenced water main extension along 51st Avenue North. Upon review of the bids, it has been determined that the proposal of Hayes Contractors, Inc. represents the lowest responsible bid. The Contractor recently completed the 63rd Avenue trunk water main installation between T.H. 152 and Beard Avenue North in an acceptable manner; therefore, I recommend the City accept their bid. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Re spe tfull submitted, SK: j n , � , 7ke Su�etlucg 1yl az �� w' � Member introduced the following r esolution and moved its adoption: i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 61255 WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (PROVIDING FOR INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FRANCE AVENUE /SOO LINE RAILROAD CROSSING) BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Brooklyn Center enter into an Agreement with Soo Line Railroad Company and the Commissioner of Transportation for the installation and maintenance of the crossing surface at the intersection of France Avenue North with the tracks of Soo Line Railroad Company in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and appointing the Commissioner of Transportation agent for the City to supervise said project and administer available Federal Funds in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 161.36 (1982). The City's share of the cost shall be 10 percent of the total cost. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they are hereby authorized to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote.being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. °Qp e �t CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY O T L BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EN TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: June 23, 1983 RE: Proposed Agreement No. 61255 with MN /DOT Providing for Installation and Maintenance of the France Avenue/ Soo Line Railroad Crossing On Novemeber 22, 1982 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 82 -221 (copy attached) giving preliminary approval to a plan to improve the France Avenue/ Soo Line Railroad Crossing. Although MN /DOT's estimate of cost at that time was $40,000, I noted that if the spur tracks could not be removed, the total cost for improvements could be as high as $80,000 (see my November 18, 1982 memo attached) . MN /DOT and the Soo Line Railroad have now determined that the spur tracks cannot be removed, have prepared more detailed plans, and have developed a new cost estimate $77,470 -. Accordingly, MN /DOT has now prepared proposed Agreement No. 61255 (copy attached) and are asking City approval of this agreement. A resolution for this is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully sub 'tted, SK:jn ".'7lce .Sa�xetlu.cg mate Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 82 -22 1_ r RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEME-NT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR RAILROAD /IiIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENT ON FRANCE AVENUE NORTH AND ESTABLISHING PROJECT NO. 1982 -29 WHEREAS, the'Minnesota Department of Transportation has advised the City of Brooklyn Center that the improvement of the Railroad /Highway grade crossing on France Avenue North is eligible for grant assistance under a Federal grant program; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of said improvement is $40,000.00 and the City's share will be ten percent (10 %) of the actual costs; and WHEREAS, France Avenue is designated as a Municipal State Aid Street No. 105 and the City's share of project costs is eligible for reimbursement from r the re . gular Municipal State Aid Street Account. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center,'Minnesota, that: 1. the City of Brooklyn Center hereby agrees to assume ten percent (10 %) of the actual cost of the improvement. 2. the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement(s) with the Minnesota Department of Transportation as may be required to provide for the accomplishment of said project on this basis; 3. the proposed project will be designated as Project No. 1982 -29; and 4. the accounting for this project will be done in the Municipal State Aid Fund, Account No. 2613. November 2 1982 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk t- The motion for th doption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 i TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: November 18, 1982 RE: Improvement of Railroad /Righway Grade Crossings on France Avenue North Attached hereto is a letter from MN /DOT advising us that federal funds are available for replacing the existing Soo Line railroad crossing on France Avenue with a rubber -type crossing. They estimate the total cost at $40,000, with the City's share set at 10% of actual costs. In a telephone discussion with MN /DOT, I have clarified the following items: - The existing crossing actually consists of 3 crossings, i.e. the mainline track a spur track to the Joselyn site (approximately 50 feet south of the mainline track) and a spur track to Dale Tile (approximately 125 feet south of the mainline track). MN /DOT advised that the Soo Line is considering the possibility of removing or relocating one or both spur tracks. The ;40,000 cost.estimate covers only the improvement of the mainline track crossing. If the spur tracks cannot be removed., the total-cost for crossing .improvements could be as high as $80,000. Under this program, Mrs /DOT assumes the responsibility for engineering and administration. The construction work is accomplished by the railroad company under agreement with MN /DOT. Accordingly, the City's involvement in "red tape" is minimal. - The time required to make this improvement is eatimated to be between 1 and 2 weeks. A detour will have to be set up to allow complete closing of the crossing during this time. - The local portion of costs for this improvement qualifies for the use of our regular Municipal State Aid Street funds. - If Federal funds were not available, the City's share of costs for this type of improvement would be between 25°% and 75 %. (MN /DOT has no state funds available for non - federally- assisted projects. So, the City's share would probably be in the range of 75 %.) Because this appears. to be our one and only-opportunity to obtain federal funding assistance for this project, I recommend that we accept this offer. A resolution for this purpose is submitted for consideration by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, AGREEMENT NO. 61255 DATED: S.P. NO. 27 -00171 (MSAS 105) Minn. Proj. RRS RRP- 0125(10) Railroad Crossing Surface France Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota S00 LINE RAILROAD COMPANY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FUNDS: FEDERAL AND CITY THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, hereinafter called the "City ", S00 LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, hereinafter called the "Company ", and the COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter called the "State ", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration, when acting in cooperation with the Transportation Department of the State of Minnesota, is authorized by Act of Congress to make Federal Aid available for the purpose of eliminating hazards at railroad grade crossings within the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the State, pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Section 161.36 (1982), is authorized to cooperate with the United States Government in supervising improvements of public highways within the State of-Minnesota not included in the trunk highway system, and to act in disbursing and accounting for Federal Funds in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, France Avenue North, as now established, crosses the track of the Company at grade in Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the location of said crossing and railway track being shown on the print .hereto attached, marked Exhibit "B ", and herein referred to and made a part of this agreement. WHEREAS, the City and the Company desire that the crossing surface should be replaced with a rubber crossing surface, and the Company is willing to install and maintain the surface upon the terms and conditions hereinafter stated. AGREEMENT NO. 61255 NOW, THEN, IT IS AGREED: 1. The State of (Minnesota, Department of Transportation, "Standard Clauses for Railway Highway Agreements " - , dated March 1, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit " A " , and hereinafter referred to as "Standard Clauses ". Except as hereinafter expressly modified, all of the terms and conditions set forth in the "Standard Clauses are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement with the same force and effect as though fully set forth therein. Standard Clauses Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8a, 10 and 11 are deleted from this agreement. 2. The Company shall furnish all material for and with its regularly • employed forces install a complete railroad crossing surface on France Avenue North, as indicated on attached plan marked Exhibit 'B ". Detailed plans, specifications and the work to be done shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Transportation of the State of Minnesota. Work of installing this crossing surface shall be prosecuted so as to be completed within 12 months after the date the Company is authorized to begin work. Once surface work in the field has begun, it shall be completed within 10 working days. If the Company shall determine it impossible to complete the work within the *period herein specified, it shall make a written request to the State for an extension of time for completion, setting forth therein the reason for such extension. AGREEMENT NO. 61255 3. The actual costs of the project herein contemplated, including pre- liminary engineering costs, are to be financed with 90% Federal Funds and 10% City of Brooklyn Center Funds. The State and City will reimburse the Company as provided herein for only such items of work and expense as are proper and eligible for payment with Federal Funds. Only materials actually incorporated into the project will be eligible for Federal reimbursement. The State's 90% portion (reimbursable with Federal Funds) will be paid to the Company in accordance with Article 9 of the Standard Clauses, Exhibit "A ". The'City's 10% portion will be paid to the Company when the project has been completed and the Final Bill has been approved by the State. It is understood that the following estimate is for informational purposes only. The estimated cost of the work to be done by the Company hereunder with its own equipment and regularly employed forces and in accordance with the Company's agreements with such regularly employed forces is as follows and in further accordance with detailed estimate attached hereto and marked Exhibit ttCVV . -Material $47,320.00 Labor (Including Additives) $ 30,150.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $77,470.00 Portion of costs allocated to City of Brooklyn Center (10% of actual cost.) $.7,747.00 Reimbursable with Federal Funds $69,723.00 -3- AGREEMENT N0. 61255 4a. In the event it is determined that a change from the foregoing statement of work to bed performed by the Company is required, it shall be authorized only by an amendment to this agreement issued by the State prior to the performance of the work involved in the change. ti. In the event it is found that the work has not changed from the foregoing statement of work to be performed by the Company, but the estimated amount in this agreement is less than the actual cost of performing the work, then an increase will be allowed to the extent of such actual cost without an amendment in accordance with paragraph 15 of Exhibit A. 5: The said grade crossing surface shall be maintained by the Company I upon completion of its installation, but this said obligation to maintain said crossing surface shall continue in accordance with the law of the State as it shall be from time to time in the future. 6. If the crossing surface is to be removed, the Company upon request of the State shall reinstall it at some other crossing within the State on the Company's tracks. The location and division of cost of such 'relocation shall be agreed upon between the Company and the State prior to such removal. In the event that either railway or highway improvements will necessitate a rearrangement of the crossing surface at said crossing, the party whose improvement causes said changes will bear the entire cost of the same without obligation to the other. 7. The term of this agreement shall be three years from date of agree- ment in which time it is expected that all work, inspections, billings, audits and payments shall be accomplished. Any extension the three year limit shall be with the approval of all parties to the agreement. �U" _ 4 _ AGREEMENT NO. 61255 S. It is understood that the City shall bear all costs involved in setting up detours for crossing surface installation. . . AGREEMENT NO. 61255 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have - caused this agreement to be duly executed. Attest: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER City Comptroller By: Mayor By: City Clerk SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY By: STATE OF MINNESOTA Recommended for Approval: CUNMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION By: Director, Railroad administration Assistant Commissioner Program Management Division Dated: 19 Approved as to Form and Execution: APPROVED: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Special Assistant By: uit Attorney General Authorized Signature // 6 e AGREEMENT NO. 61255 CORPORATE ACIuMLEMMENT FOR SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY STATE OF } } ss County of } On this day of 19 , before me appeared and , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that they are - respectively and of a corporation; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and,that said instrument was executed in behalf of P the corporation by authority of its board of directors; and they acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of the - corporation. (Notary Seal) NOTARY PUBLIC AGREEMENT NO. 61255 R E S O L U T I O N BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of'Brooklyn Center enter into an Agreement with Soo Line Railroad Company and the Commissioner of Transportation for the installation and maintenance of the crossing surface at the intersection of France Avenue North with the tracks of Soo Line Railroad Company in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and appointing the of Transportation agent for the City to supervise said project and administer available Federal Funds in accordance with Minnesota Statute, Section 161.36 (1982). The City's share of the cost shall be 10 percent of the total cost. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk be and they are hereby authorized to execute said agreement for and on behalf of the City. Dated this day of 19 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss C E R T I F I C A T I O N CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER) •I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a Resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center at a duly authorized meeting thereof held in the City Hall at Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on the day of 19 as disclosed by the records of said City Council in my possession. City Clerk o . • _ 7 e STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION W STANDARD CLAUSES FOR RAILWAY- HIGHWAY AGRF.IIMUS March 1, 1982 -1. The State will review plans and specifications for the con- struction of the grade separation structure and approve the separation of grades of the tracks of the Company and of the trunk highway, as shown in the plans and specifications referred to in this agreement. 2. The State agrees to let a contract pursuant to law for the con- struction of the highway project referred to in this agreement, in accordance with said plans and specifications referred to in this agreement. �. The State agrees that all work provided to be done by the State ` on the' right of way of the Company shall be performed and completed in accordance with said plans and specifications in a manner satisfactory to the Chief Engineer of the Company, or his authorized representative. The State agrees that any contract let by it, for the performance of any construc- tion work contemplated by this agreement, will require the contractor to comply with all of the provisions relating to work on railroad right of way contained in ►Tlinnesota, Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Standard Speci- fications for Highway Construction ", dated January 1, 1978, to furnish to the Company a Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy and to carry regular Contractor's Public Liability and Property Damage Insurance, both as specified in the Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 6, Chapter 6, Section 2, Subsection 2, and having limits of liability,' as specified -in the specifica- tions and special provisions referred to in this agreement. Said Railroad Protective Liability Policy and evidence of said Contractor's Public Liability and property Damage Insurance, executed by an insurer qualified to write such policies in the State of Kinnesota, shall be delivered to the Company prior to the entry upon or use of the Company's property by the Contractor. The State reserves the right to make such changes in the plans or character of the work, as the work under the contract progresses, as shall, in the Commissioner of Transportation's judgment., be reasonably necessary to cause the agreed highway project to be in all.things constructed and completed in a satisfactory manner, and to that end, and as supplemental to any contract let for the construction of said project, to enter into any supplemental agreement with the contractor for the performance of any extra work or work occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable.change in the plans. Any such changes in plan or the character of work, in}:olvi.ng the Company's facilities or property, will be subject to the approval of the Company. EXHIBIT "A" - Page 1 The State agrees to pay the entire cost of the work to be per formed under the contract to be let by the State, including the State's supervision of the contract work, provided, however: a.) that nothing herein contained shall prevent the State from pursuing and enforcing any of its common law and statutory .rights, which it may have against any tortfeasor, including any contractor and the Company; b.) that when the.Company has liability or obligation to the United States or the State for any portion of the railway highway project, the Company shall pay its share of the railway- highway project in the manner and to the extent set forth elsewhere in this agreement. 6. The provisions contained in Federal -Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 6 , Chapter 6, Section 2, Subsection 1, and Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 3, shall apply to the railway- highway project, regardless of the method of financing the project. 7. If the Company enters into ,a contract or agreement with a con - tractor, to perform all or any portion of the Company's work set forth in this agreement, the Company for itself, its assigns and successors in interest, agrees.that it will not discriminate in its choice of contractors and will include all of the nondiscrimination provisions set forth in APPENDIX "A ", attached hereto and made a part hereof, in any such contract or agreemnt.. 8. The Company agrees that its representative in charge of the work set forth in this agreement -shall furnish the State's Engineer in charge of the project: �) "Form 7094, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Payroll Monthly Report ", signed in duplicate, showing the number of men on payroll, classification, total.worked and starting, stopping, resumption and completion dates for each month, not later than the week following the month in which the work was performed. b.) -Upon request, full detailed information as to progress of work and amount of labor and material used as of the time of request. In addition to the foregoing records and acts, the Company will, from time t6 time, make such other reports, keep such other records and perform such other work in such manner and time as may be necessary to enable the State to collect and obtain available Federal Aida 9. To the extent set forth in this agreement, the State will re- imburse the Company for actual expense incurred performing the work set forth in this agreement. Payments will be made in accordance with the following; e EXHIBIT " A " - Page 2 3 -1 -82 a.) At least 90r0 of partial bills marked "Progressive Bill. No. 1, No. 2, etc. ", or "First, second, etc. ", signed by an officer of the Company, rendered in duplicate. Partial bills shall be based on actual costs that can be substantiated by checking the Company's records but do not need to be in detail: or, b.) At Least 75%o of partial bills marked and signed, as required above, based on the Company Engineer's estimate of the per - centage of completion of the various cost reimbursable items, as shown on the detailed estimate, which is attached to and made a part of this agreement, subject to the State Engineer's concurrence and approval of said completion percentage. In no event will a combination of partial billing based on actual cost, and Engineer's estimates, be reimbursable. !l c.) At least 9U% of final bill marked "Final ", signed by an officer of the Company, rendered in septuplet, in accordance with Federal- Aid Highway Program Manual Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 3.. Said final bill shall be a complete, detailed and itemized statement of all items of work performed by the Company, as shown in the appropriate exhibit or exhibits attached to this agreement. d.) Final payment will be made after audit of the final bill. The Company shall keep account of its work in such a way that said accounts may be readily audited. In the event that an amount previously � to the Com an is in excess paid Company Y P � of the actual cost determined by audit, the Company, upon notice of the State, shall pay to the State the difference. In the event that the State does not enter into a contract for construction s ruction of the ro'ect contemplated b t is cement on or before a da h P J Y � Y twelve (12) months after the date this agreement is fully executed, then either r art ma at time therea can u an e ere r serve i of can el on the other party Ys afte se notice Y , P party, by registered mail, and this agreement shall immediately be cancelled and terminated; provided, however, that the Company shall be reimbursed in full by the State for all reimbursable costs incurred after this agreement is fully executed and prior to said cancellation. r. The reimbursable maintenance costs shall not extend to the repair of any damage the bridge structure resulting from the operations of the Company for which the Company has any common law or statutory liability. The reimbursable maintenance costs shall be limited to the actual cost of labor and materials used and to rental value of equipment used. The actual cost of labor and materials and the rental value of equipment referred to shall be ascertained in: accordance with the provisions of the Federal -slid Highway Pro - gran Manual, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 3. Except as hereinafter provided in the case of emergency repairs, reimbursement shall be made only if the Company has submitted its proposed repairs to the State, including any estimate of cost of such repairs, and approval has been received from the.State in writing in advance of starting work by the Company. If the Company is unable to obtain the State's approval of the'proposed repairs, it may request and require the State to let a contract for the necessary work. In the event of an emergency requiring immediate repairs to said bridge structure in order to F=BIT "A" - . Page 3 3 -1 -82 maintain railroad traffic, the Company shall be only required to notify the State as soon as reasonably possible that'the emergency has arisen and that the Company is proceeding with the work. The Company hereby acknowledges that it may be necessary to file a legislative claim for reimbursement of any costs incurred before State Funds are encumbered in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of the work. In all events, reimbursable maintenance costs shall be limited to necessary repairs. If any maintenance work is such that it cannot be performed'by the Company with its own equipment and regularly employed forces, the Company may contract the work. However, the Company shall not award the contract or start work until the contract has been approved by the Commissioner of Transportation and the necessary State funds have been encumbered. 12. It is further agreed by and between the parties hereto anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, that the Commissioner of Transportation + . g P of the State of Minnesota is acting in his official capacity only and that he shall not be personally responsible or liable to the Company or to any person or persons whomsoever for any claims, damages, actions, or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or the performance or completion of the project provided for herein. 13. Before this agreement shall become binding and affective, it shall have received the approval of such State officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation. 14. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions as to the execution, nature, n construction, validity and performance h x o, a ure, obli.gatio , c s , y p of this agreement. 95. If it appears to the Company at any time subsequent to the date of this uch work that the actual cost of such t and prior to final completion , a reemen letion of s a p agreement shall immediately so notify the cost, the Company Y ceed the estimated work will ex , State in writing, thereof, and, after the additional funds are encumbered, notice of the encumbrance to the Company will have the affect of.amending this agreement 'so as to include the supplemental cost of such work. 16. As, provided under Minnesota Laws 1980, Chapter 614, Sec. 51, all books, records, documents, and accounting -procedures and practices of the Company relevant to this contract are subject to examination by Pin /DOT and either the legislative auditor or the State auditor as appropriate. 17. The ROBE requirements of 49CFR, Part 23, apply to this Agreement. The Company shall insure that minority business enterprises as defined in 49CFR, Part 23, have the maximum opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts, financed in whole or in part with Federal funds. In this regard, the Company shall take all. necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with 49CFR, Part 23, to insure that minority business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform any Contracts awarded under this Agreement. The Company shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of contracts under this Agreement. Failure to carry out the above re- quirements shall constitute a breach of this Agreement, and may result in termination of the Agreement by Mn /DOT, and possible debarrment from performing; other contractur, >l services with the Federal Department of Transportation. EXHIBIT "A" - Page 4 3 -1 -82 Wn /DOT 25252 (12/76) APPENDIX A Non- Discrimination Provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor "), agrees as follows: (1) Compliance with Regulations: The Contractor will comply with Regulations of the Department of Transportation relative to nondiscrimination in federally - assisted programs of the Department of Com- merce (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 21, hereinafter referred to asthe Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract. (2) Nondiscrimination: The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it after award and prior to completion of the contract work, will not discriminate on the ground of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor will not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination pro - hibited by Section 21.5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix "A ", "B" and "C (3) Solicitations for Subcontracts, In eluding Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiation made by the contractor for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurements of materials or equipment, each potential subcontractor or sub- plier shall be notified by the contractor of the contractor's obligations . under this contract and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination on the ground of race, color or nation origin. (4) Information and Reports: The contractor will provide all information and reports required by the Regulations, or orders and instructions issued pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the Depart- ment-of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders and instructions. Where any information required of a contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the contractor shall so certify to the Department of Transportation, or the.Federal Highway Administration as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. (5) Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the contractor's noncompliance with the nondiscrimi- nation provisions of this contract, the Department of Transportation shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Highway Administration may determine to be appropriate, including but not limited to, (a) witholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies, and /or (b) cancellation, termination or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part. (6) Incorporation of Provisions: The contractor will include the provisions of paragraph (1) through (6) in every subcontract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, order, or instructions issued pursuant thereto. The contractor will take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that, in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threaten- ed with, litigation with a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the contractor may request the State to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the State, and in addition, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. - k Ir IO�YI� I 0 5. J � 1 C ie. = tAnr�• -. r IIiy?s:s?^-' —,, r \��,� '�rj1l . [._�� _'�f...4"wr _—a C_�/ .� �...r•� `t'I -E"f! n ( ' lii� — "� u �r 1 �� l._W � "� •�e I ; � ? a�� ^'e =1 L �� __: �, _ �t tf"°c�3L e [ • �� i 'i / ;� II�TSif� I _�I�j ��7 L[[1:1J[�l �L�•_JY_ i�L�l_�L. a ►�I - nil L�f�'�[_ 1 �j All ���i't�ln _ ,� r r at., ��� - -- • a � �� � � �_._ � 1i�s.J� � - �+ 7 i (,.� r For „ M � i• . 1 t � �•/ e F� � � lw e 'y^1I *91k +�w,overa. ;,> h�.,,R� ,`:�� �a � a q• a oil (� jj V4 11K NOONO fir` • �.,c3c_ t �� � i I . C_� � � . • LLNGM OF CROSSING BY ?NNUFACTURPRS PAD LENGTH t 72� .39' 39' 40' ' — I , } M ini Length North Field Side of Rubber Gauge Side t ° '42 ' -� ---+- Crossing P. South Field Side - 39' 9' � Mfgrs Rubber Pad Length 18" 36" 6' -0" 6' -8" ar elm L/v^b�r/rC� Tie Spacing Required .7de ehar/ A r 1 ' •�` �„^. -�'° See Plana 7.1-41 and N- 11 -D -23. /OS' 4mlix/i /c Fs bnC gj ` � p Place tit. pads on all ties under the V O/j Off/ !%O55%n¢S, k ��- tubber pads and six ties beyond each end. : Cr.W' Crx'/QSU -e5 Q Ta h Of Q q W Z 14J r LQ IM OF CROSSING BY MANUFACTURERS PAD LENGTH J ~ \ s Gall Length of Crossing 37' ?/ 42' 4 ' I 3a`3.. J V1 y y fiber Pad Length 18" 36" 6' -0" 6' -B" b / LC� G/!a 40 b� ;Spacing Required IB" 18" 18" 20" i O � u U O G = JdGSGe7 ; Q 0 a 0- O / D w #- z � U Lu DD � L / F /I�/7CG r9Y�rrr�G ToZ-O.T� �/ \ i LENGTH OF CROSSING BY MANUFACTURERS PAD LENGTH erall.Length of Cro A2' bber Pad Length 18" 36" 6'-0" 6' -8" 5, tr{n{I prgriirr =i 38" 16" 18" 2014 Sheet 1 of 2 Estimated cost of work to be done by Railroad Company forces account proposed improvements to France Avenue North Crossing Main Line, Track #6 and Track r1I, of the Soo Line Railroad at grade at Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (Ice Spur). RAILROAD FORCE ACCOUNT WORK Estimated Cost Prepare Track Structure for Crossing Surface Material 111 Ea. Cross Ties, Treated $ 1,929 468 LF. Rail, 100; "r, Welded 707 8 Pr. Offsets, 801100r 1,003 16 Ea. Bolts .& Nutlocks 30 3.93 CWT. Spikes, 6" 176 288 Ea. Tie Plates, S.H. 76 304 Ea. Tie Pads 250 250 CY. Crushed Rock 1,986 6,157 5 Material Handling 308 6% Use Tax 369 $ 6,834 Labor L 3,102 41.555 %Payroll Additives 1,289 4,391 Relocate Parkwav Outlets Material 1 Lot Signal Material 440 5% Material Handling 22 6% Use Tax 26 488 Labor 110 41.555 Payroll Additives 45 155 ° s } c Y o .5 Si »9 J�urrd� d 7- o o/7 MS.9Ir 1 LIN Ai L �f'oflp�a 1 0 C AT _�jK ©afft e�NTER �1�! TRA ✓� No AiE i -41HIr �f N Sheet 2 of 2 Place Crossing Surface Mate ri al 124 LF. Rubber-Crossing 27,621 315 LF. Geotextile Fabric. 765 21 Ea. Oak Headers 462 45 Lb. Boat Spikes 26 865 FBM. Timber, Treated 407 60 Ea. Lags 83 8 CY. Blacktop - Contract 1,100 Freight Charges 2,750 33,214 5% Material Handling 1,468 6% Use Tay. 1,762 36,444 Labor 16,099 41.555`/o Payroll Additives 6,690 22,789 Engineering & Accounting 500 41.555% Pa y roll Additives 208 708 Employee's Liability Insurance 2,107 Transportation & Equipment Rental 900 Rental Traffic Control Equipment 3,000 Salvage - 800 Rail & Fastenings 346 Cr. $77,470 OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGItiEER SOO LINE RAILROAD COXPAiNY MAY 4, 1983 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 JUNE 16, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CAL Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. (It should be noted that Chairman Lucht stated at the May 26, 1983 meeting that he would be unable to attend the June 16 meeting). APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 26, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Versteeg seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the minutes of the flay 26, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. Commissioner Sandstrom arrived at 7:35 p.m. A PPLICATION NO. 83022 (Ground Round) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a small addition to the southwest corner of the Ground Pound Restaurant at 2545 County Road 10. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83022 attached). Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Richard Polk of Hammill and McKinney Architects, representing Howard Johnson's, the owner of the Ground Round, stated that he was concerned that the additional seating required by the liquor ordinance would crowd the exitways required. He explained that remodeling would involve moving the stage in the dining room from the center of the room to the east side. He showed the Planning Commission a new seating plan with 141 seats, rather than the 131 proposed. He acknowledged that the emphasis of the remodeling is on the liquor traffic rather than the dining, but, he added, that most of the seats in the lounge were capable of being used for dining seats. He explained that Howard Johnson's wants to develop a new image for their restaurant to lighten up the interiors by adding more windows and making the interior space less crowded. Regarding the relocation of the stage, Commi Simmons asked whether there would not be a visibility problem in the dining room with the one group of seats elevated above the rest. Mr. Polk answered that the stage would also be elevated by 8" to make it more visible from the back of the room. He explained that, in the lounge, there would be tables 42" high with bar stools for seating and there would also be tables 30" high with regular seats. He explained.that food was served in the lounge. The Secretary explained that the'Police Department had counted 144 seats in the dining room the previous week and had discussed the liquor ordinance requirements with the manager, who said he was willing to add six additional seats. Mr. Polk stated that he was sure it would be physically possible to put 150 seats in the dining room area,.but concern that there would not be enough aisle space. The Secretary answered that without 150 seats in the dining room, the liquor license could be jeopardized. 6 -16 -33 -1- There followed a brief duscussion as to how to meet the 150 seat goal. Commis- sioner Sandstrom asked whether the food -to- liquor ratio would not be jeopardized by the lounge addition. Mr. Polk pointed out that food is served in both the lounge and the dining room. Chairman Pro tem Manson stated that she felt that the City should stick with its ordinance and require the 150 dining seats. ACTI RECOMMENDING APPR OF APPLICATION NO. 83022 Gro und Round Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83022, 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. Seating in the dining room shall be no less than 150 and the seating capacity in the lounge shall not exceed 87. 3. The addition shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 83023 ( Maranatha Nursing Home) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit to construct two new additions to the nursing home at 5401 -69th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff 6 report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83023 attached Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. George t1ahl representing Maranatha Nursing Home, stated that he did not think that the Board of Directors would object to putting smoke detectors in the in- dividual patient rooms. He stated that he did not realize that the rooms were not so equipped at this time and stated that he would bring it up to the Board the following week. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Appli- cation No. 8302.3. She asked whether anyone present wished to speak to the application. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. C LOSE PUBLIC HEARI Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by.Commissioner Simmons to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PPLLCATI ON PL 830 Paranat Nursing Ho Notion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 83023, 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. All sleeping rooms shall be equipped with smoke detectors connected to a central monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances prior to the issuance of building permits. The newly constructed storage, garage and office space shall be equipped with smoke detectors 6 -16 -83 -2- connected to a central monitoring device prior to-occupancy. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. AP NO. 830 and 8302 De Vries Bui Inc. The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for the Earle Brown Farm Estates 5th Addition on Xerxes Place, south of Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 83024 and 83025 attached). Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything further to add. Mr. DeVries stated that he had nothing to add•to the report. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83025) Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Appli- cation No. 83025 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the preliminary plat. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. C LOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary recommended that Condition No. 6 under Application No. 83024 in the Information Sheet be stricken and that the last sentence of.Condition No._7 'be stricken also. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 8302 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83024, 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 9 erformance agreement and supporting financial guarantee p (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of the approved site improve- ments for the 5th 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 drainage and grading plans. 6. The developer shall take adequate measures to control dust and debris during construction. 7. The Fifth Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates shall be included in the single Homeowners' Association for the entire development. 6 -16 -83 -3- Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg: Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMM APPROVAL OF A NO. 83025 (DeVries Buil ders, Inc. Motion b Commissioner _ -- —� Y oner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 83025, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The Fifth Addition shall be governed by the same Homeowners' Association and.bylaws as in effect for the previous phase of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. Homeowners' Association agreements and bylaws are subject sect to review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: .none. The motion passed. Mr. John DeVries, of DeVries Builders, Inc., thanked the Planning Commission for the pleasant experience that he had dealing with the City during the Earle Brown Farm Estates project. DISCUSSION ITEMS a ) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING TRUCK RENTAL AND L The Secretary asked whether there were any comments'on the proposed ordinance amendment. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there would be any limitations on the truck rental and leasing. The Secretary answered that the 9 eneral standards for a•special use permit p would apply to truck rental and leasing. He explained that truck rental and leasing would be a special use within the C2 zoning district, the general commerce district. He stated that.regarding outdoor display of vehicles, truck rental and leasing would be subject to the same conditions as car dealers. The Secretary also explained to the Commission that amendments to the Zoning Ordi- nance do require the formal review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ainas asked whether neighborhood advisory groups ever had to be consulted. The Secretary answered in the negative. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING IN THE C2 ZONE Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment to allow truck rental and leasing as a special use within the C2 zoning district. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. by BROOK BOULEVARD PLANNING Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the access problems to the site at the south- west corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard could be solved. The Secretary suggested that the median in Brooklyn Boulevard be extended to prevent left turns in and out of the site. Commissioner Simmons stated that she had been past the site recently and noted that left turns were possible with the present location in the median in Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked whether this would be a City project to extend the median. The Secretary answered that it would probably be made a requirement of the applicant to obtain the special use permit to extend the median. He stated that this extension could be required as a condition of-the special use permit. 6 -16 -83 _4_ The Secretary stated that the major question for the Planning Commission to consider is whether offices should be allowed interchangeably with mid - density residential -along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that he preferred to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow flexibility between C1 and R3-type uses in various locations along the Boulevard. He stressed, however, that major commercial retail areas should be isolated and not allowed to proliferate along the Boulevard. Com- missioner Simmons asked how the Commission could control the type of office develop - ment that would go into an area otherwise designated for mid- density residential on the Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the R5 zoning district allows a lot of flexibility to have either low -rise apartments, townhouses, or offices by a special use permit. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommends mid - density residential at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that he preferred to have the flexibility to go with either an office use or mid - density residential in this location. The Secretary also pointed out that wholesale land conversions of existing develop- ment along the Boulevard were not likely to take place while vacant Cl land exists in the City. The Secretary noted that single- family homes can be expanded if the property is zoned residential, but cannot if the property is zoned commercial. He noted, therefore, a residential zoning along the Boulevard which might allow com- mercial uses by a special use permit would be the easiest way to preserve single- family homes until wholesale redevelopment should occur. He suggested also that the homes along Brooklyn Boulevard might be converted to rental use by expansion with accessory apartments. Commissioner Simmons stated that she favored flexibility accessory apartments s would be a e did not think that p on Brooklyn Boulevard, but she Y .positive change for the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked the Secretary whether he was asking for the flexibility to make decisions on a case -by -case basis. The Secretary answered in the affirmative some extent. He stated that R3, R5 and C1 type uses seemed fairly interchangeable to him, but that commercial retail uses should be isolated at specific intersections. Commissioner Ainas stated that he wished to add to his comment that he had sent to the Planning Commission at the last meeting although he was not present. He explained that he did not prefer C2 type commercial to be expanded along the Boulevard, but that office and mid - density residential should be allowed. He stated that he did not think the ultimate use of land along Brooklyn Boulevard 't should consider traffic access along the should be Rl. He stated that the C� s Y Boulevard in its redevelopment plan. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not think a developer would hesitate to buy four residential lots to put an office building on even though the cost of the land might run as high as $250,000. He stated that he felt the staff should be given flexibility in dealing with developers proposing change along the Boulevard. He also stated that he felt the pocket of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard should be commercial because of the traffic in that area. In response to a question from Chairman Pro tem Manson regarding an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Secretary explained that a public hearing would have to be held by the Planning Commission, that a draft of the plan amendment would have to be sent to the City Council 10 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and sent to the Metropolitan Council after Planning Commission action. The Secretary stated that the staff could begin drafting such a change if the Planning Commission has no problem with it. Commissioner Simmons stated that it should be worded so that not just any type of change can be sought from the original Plan recorimendations. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance is written so that offices are a special use permit the R5 zoning district, but that retail uses are not. In answer to another question from Chairman Pro tem Manson regarding land for an office development, the Secretary explained that Cl uses on major thoroughfares must have at least 150 ft. of width and one acre of land which would certainly 6 -16 -83 -5- require more than one residential lot. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it appeared the residents living along Brooklyn Boulevard are stuck with houses that are not good for residential and yet cannot be converted by themselves to com- mercial uses. The Secretary stated that such residences have been stuck for some time. He stated that residents along Brooklyn Boulevard often think that they have a small gold mine in their property, but this is not really the case. He acknowledges that it is not desirable for single - family use. The Secretary stated that similar types of redevelopment problems have been addressed in other communities where major thoroughfares have widened over time to the point where a residential use is no longer viable. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief review of upcoming business items, there was a motion by Commis - sioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Chairman 6 -16 -83 -6- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83022 Applicant: Hammill- McKinney Architects/ Ground Round Location: 2545 County Road 10 Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct an addition to the lounge at the Ground Round Restaurant at 2545 County Road 10. The restaurant property is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east by a joint parking lot shared with the Plitt Theatre, on the south by Dayton's Garden Center, and on the west by Brookdale (specifically a private road extension of Shingle Creek Parkway) . The restaurant is a permitted use in the C2 zone. The proposed expansion is to the southwest corner of the building and will add very little in the way of total seating. However, the expansion will allow a proposed in- crease in lounge seats from 73. to 89 while restaurant seating is to decline from 143 to 131. The Ground Round site holds 55 parking stalls and there is an easement for 71 additional stalls on the adjacent parcel to the east, for a total of 126 stalls. The original approval comprehended 237 seats and 15 employees which fit within the parking requirement of one space for every two seats plus one space for every two employees on the maximum shift. The original 237 seats were divided 149 in the restaurant and 88 in the lounge. Since then, the Ground Round replaced some seats in the lounge with video games and a large screen 'T. V. and have simply thinned out the seats in the restaurant. The proposal for a total of 220 seats is certainly within the parking capacity of the restaurant. Therefore, from a zoning perspective, there is no problem with the proposed addition. The concern we have is over compliance with the City's Liquor Ordinance. The City Liquor Ordinance requires that establishments serving in- toxicating liquors have at least 150 dining seats and that the majority of operating revenues come from the sale of food (ie. over 500). The Ground Round does serve food in the lounge, but certainly the main function of the lounge is as a drinking area. The receipts for food and liquor have run about 56% to 58% for food to 42% to 44% for liquor over the last three years. Staff are concerned that the increase in lounge seating, coupled with a decrease in restaurant seating, will perhaps put the food /liquor ratio below the ordinance requirement. We would, ,therefore, recom- mend that restaurant seating be at 150 seats and the lounge seating capacity limited to 87 which would be the maximum permitted by the available parking. The proposed addition involves no changes to the site plan or the grading, landscaping and utility plans. The building exterior will, of course, be compatible with the exist- ing building. There will be more windows in the addition, as it is intended to be a sun room. New windows will also be installed on the north and south elevations to allow more natural light into both the lounge and the restaurant. Alto gethez the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to the . following conditions: I. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes, prior to the issuance of Permits. 2. Seating in the dining room shall be no less than 150 and the seating capacity in the lounge shall not exceed 87. 3. The addition shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6 -16 -83 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 83023 Applicant: Maranatha Nursing Home Location: 5401 - 69th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan, Special Use Permit The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to make two minor additions to the front of the nursing home at 5401 69th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned RI and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by single - family homes on the east and south, and by an apartment complex in Brooklyn Park on the west. The nursing home is con - sidered a use necessary for the public welfare in an Rl zone. (A special use in the RI zone) . One of the proposed additions is for garage and storage space at the north end of the east wing. It would be 25' 4" deep by 57' 4 wide with a double garage door on the west side of the addition. The second addition would be to add by building addition or conversion approximately 925 sq. ft, of office space and a canopy adjacent to the front reception area. A new mansard is also proposed along the entire front of the building. With new construction, mansards and other exterior treatments are generally carried around the entire building, although there have been exceptions and there is no ordinance specific- ally requiring consistent exterior treatment. The Commission may wish to discuss with the applicant the possibility of extending the mansard treatment further . than proposed. The parking requirement for the nursing home is . not really affected by the proposed addition, since the formula is based on number of beds, staff and doctors which will not change as a result of the addition. The facility has 98 beds, 14 staff doctors and at most 50 employees on the maximum shift. This results in a parking requirement of 63 spaces. There will be 52 spaces available on the site and substantial green area which could be converted to parking space if necessary. Staff reviewed the site at about 3:00 p.m., during a shift change, and parking seemed ample at that time. The proposed changes will result in a loss of seven (7) parking stalls. Absent a parking problem, staff do not feel it necessary at this time to require the installation of additional parking (unless the applicant desires to) . No landscaping or grading changes are proposed. . There are no setback problems g g g P P P created by the addition. At present, the nursing home is not equipped with a fire sprinkler system. There are pull alarms connected to a remote monitoring station. There are also .heat detectors in hallways, common areas, and closets, but not in individual patient rooins. Smoking is not permitted in the building. Under the State Building Code; a newly construc -ted nursing home would have to be fire sprinklered: The extent of the proposed addition, however, is such that we do not feel we can require that the entire building be equipped with fire sprinklers though we believe that would be the best method of fire protection (and might well pay for itself in lower insurance premiums) . We do feel that smoke detectors should be installed in all sleeping rooms and in the rooms that are being added. Even though smoking is not permitted in the building, fires can result from other causes. Considering the vulnerability of the clientele, such an investment in smoke detectors does not seem unreasonable. 6 -16 -83 -1- Application No. 83023 continued Otherwise, the plans appear to be in Approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval b th g P J PP Y e Building Official with yespecf to applicable codes prior to the-issuance of permits. 2. All sleeping rooms shall be equipped with smoke detectors connected to a central monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances prior to the issuance of building permits. The newly constructed storage, garage and office space shall be equipped with smoke detectors connected to a central monitoring device prior to occupancy. , 6 -16 -83 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos. 83024 , 83025 Applicant: DeVries Builders Location: Xerxes Place North Request: Site and Building Plan, Preliminary Plat The applicant requests site and building plan approval for eighteen (18) townhouse units in the Fifth Addition of Earle Brown Farm Estates. This is the last phase of the Earle Brown Farm Estates development and involves the land at the southern tip of the 13 acre site. It is bounded by "Old" Xerxes Avenue North on the west, by the freeway on the south, by Xerxes Avenue' North on the east and by the Second and Fourth Additions of Earle Brown Farm 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 2.3 acres . The density for this particular phase is 7.83 units per acre and for the entire development is 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 first phase approved in June, 1981. Access to the townhouses is via Xerxes Place, a. private roadway off Freeway Boulevard serving the southerly portions of the project. The plan provides for two parking stalls per unit plus nine (9) guest parking stalls for a total of 2.5 stalls per unit. ( The Zoning Ordinance requires 2/unit). The existing legal description of the property is Outlot D, Earle Brown Farm Estates First Addition. The proposed legal description 'includes Lots 1 -6 for Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of Earle Brown Farm Estates Fifth Addition. The common area, including the private roadway, landscaping,and a play area north of the townhouses, is to be described as. Lot 1, Block 4 of the same addition. There are two easements shown on the plat: a 55' wide NSP easement along the west side of the plat, and a water main easement adjacent to the Fourth Addition which passes through the northerly corner of Lot 6, Block 3. A public hearing has been scheduled for the preliminary plat. Altogether the plans are in order and approval is recommended, subject to the follow- ing conditions For Ap plication No. 83024, the following conditions are recom mended: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to;.pplicable 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 submitted to assure completion of the approved site improvements for the 5th 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 drainage and grading plans. 6 -16 -83 -1- t , P Planning Commission Application Nos. 83024 and 83025 continued 6. Plan approval acknowledges a master plan for all phases of the 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 Fifth Addition of the Earle Brown Farm Estates shall be in- cluded in the single Homeowners' Association for the entire development. For Application No. 83025, the following conditions are recommended 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 Fifth Addition shall be governed by the same Homeowners' Association and bylaws as in effect for the previous phases of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. Homeowners' Association agree- ments and bylaws are subject to review by the .City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 6 -16 -83 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER �- Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the-14;t-day of July, 1983 at ,p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow manufactured housing. in the RI and R2 zoning districts. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE R1 A R2 ZONING DIST THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 - 900 Dwelling - A building, or portion thereof, designed or used predominantly for residential occupancy of continued nature, including one - family dwelling, two - family dwellings and multiple family dwellings, including eart sheltered homes and manufac home but n including hotels, tur • o s_ t of n g motels, commercial boarding or rooming houses,tourist homes and [trailers] r ecreational vehicles, such as travel trailers, camping trailers pick -up campers, motor coaches, motor homes and buses. M anufactured home - A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is ei i body feet or more in width or 40 Y body or more in length -141°r° r sit, and which is built on a permanent chassis and _designed to be used as a dwelling with a p ermanen t foundation when con to required util ities, and in the plumbing, heating, air conditioning ( if an and electrical term systems contained therein, except that the te Y P _ includes any structure which meets all the requirements, and which bears the HUD seal of certification of compl with the Federal standards as required by State law. Section 2. Section 35 -530 of the . City Ordinances shall be amended in the following manner: Section 35 -530. Buildings in RI and R2 Districts. 4. No basemenf, cellar, garage, tent [trailer] or accessory building shall at any time be used as a residence or dwelling, temporarily or permanently. 5. All dwel _shall b e on pe foundations which comply with the St Buil di ng Cod and whic are solid for the complet circum o f the dw except that accessory use s uch as scre or enclo porc hes, canopies, decks, balconies, stairs, etc may be on a noncontinuous permanent foundation as appr oved by the Building Of ficial_ ORDINANCE NO. 6 _ The width and th e depth of th ma in port o an dwellin built after July 23 1983 shall be n o less than 18.' Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this _ day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date ( Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted) . MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection" DATE: June 23, 1983 SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regarding Manufactured Housing At the July 13, 1983 City Council meeting, the Council' laid over consideration of an ordinance amendment allowing manufactured housing in the R1 and R2 zoning district -requesting further information on the matter. The Council specific- ally requested that they be provided with the State Building Code requirements on how structures are attached to foundations. Attached is a copy of Section 2907 (c) of the 1982 Edition of the Uniform Building Code relating to this matter. This provision would have to be met with respect to all manufactured homes as well as conventionally built homes. There was also much discussion regarding a portion of the definition of a manu- factured home that states "...or, when erected on the site is 320 or more sq. ft. ... ". This coupled with the fact that the ordinance also requires a minimum width and depth of no less than 18 ft. on new construction, seemed to imply that the City was encouraging the construction of 324 sq. ft. dwellings. I feel that it is important to point out that our ordinance currently has no minimum square footage requirement and if a person requested a building permit for a home less than 324 sq. ft. and could meet all zoning and building code requirements, the permit would be issued.. The purpose of requiring the minimum 18 ft. -width and depth is to assure double -wide, manufactured homes which would be in keeping with the vast majority of single- family homes in Brooklyn Center. It should be noted that the "practical affect of this provision would be to require a minimum 720 sq. ft. manufactured home. To alleviate the concern that the City is encouraging small homes, I'd recommend deleting the language in the definition of a manufactured home relating to the 320 sq. ft. It is also important that the recommended ordinance provisions be viewed in light of other State and local requirements affecting the construction of homes such as the State Building Code and the City's Housing Maintenance. and Occup- ancy Ordinance ( Chapter 12) . The State Building Code requires for all single - family dwellings at least one habitable room with a minimum of 150 sq. ft. and all other habitable rooms have to be at least 70 sq. ft. If there is no bedroom (an efficiency unit), the living room must be at least 220 sq_. ft. Kitchens and bathrooms are also required by the State Building, Code. The City's Housing and Maintenance Occupancy Ordinance requires sufficient space in the kitchen for adequate circulation and the kitchen must be equipped with the following: a kitchen sink: cabinets and /or shelves for food storage: adequate space for food preparation such as a table or counter, and a stove and refrigerator. The ordinance also requires a bathroom with a flush water closet and a tub or shower. The Housing and Maintenance Occupancy Ordinance has occupancy standards that require a minimum of 150 sq. ft. of habitable room floor space for the first occupant and an additional 100 sq. ft. of habitable room floor space for each additional occupant (bathrooms, closets, laundrys, furnace rooms, corridors, foyers, storage spaces and the like are nonhabitable rooms). In addition, all dwelling units must meet minimum light and ventilation requirements and have heating facilities. r' Memo to Gerald G. Splinter Page 2 June 23, 1983, Although these provisions do not designate in each case minimum square footages, the affect of these provisions does require space to be provided that make the likelihood of a 324 sq. ft. house very remote. I hope these points adequately address the concerns expressed regarding the proposed ordinance and recommend that the City Council hold a first reading on the matter. mlg 2907 UNIFORM BUILDING COME 1932 EOITIOn , 2905 -2907 bolts embedded at least 7 inches into the concrete or reinforced masonry or t5 may require that special provisions be made in the foundation design and con- inches into unreinfurced grouted masonry and spaced not more than 6 feet apart. sCUCtion to safeguard against damage due to this expansiveness. He may require a There shall be a minimum of two bolts per piece with one bolt located within 12 special i:ivcstication and report to provide this design and construction criteria, inches of each end of each piece. Foundation plates and sills shall be the kind of (e) Adjacent Loads. Where footings are placed at varying elevations the effect wood specified in Section 2516 (c). of ad;acent leads shall be included in the foundation design. - (f) Designs Employing Lateral Bearing. Construction employing posts or (f) Drainnge. Provisions shall be made for the control and drainage of surface poles as columns embedded in earth or embedded in concrete footings in the earth wale; around buildings. may be used to resist both axial and lateral toads. The depth to resist lateral loads Allow•abie Foundation and Lateral Pressures shall be determined by means of the design criteria established herein or other methods approved by the building official. $e:. 29C. The allo�.able foundation and lateral pressures shall not exceed the Design criteria: Nonconstrained. The following formula maybe used in values set fcrth in Table No. 29 -B unless data to substantiate the use of higher 1 determining the depth of embedment required to resist lateral loads where no \a,L'CS arc submitted. Table No. 29 -B may be used for dcsign of foundations on t constraint is provided at Ctie ground su. -face, such as rigid floor or rgid ground Mxh' or ncnctipansive soil for Typcs lI One -hour, II -N and V buildings which do surface pavement. riot ctcccd l.rcc stories in hcicht os for structures which have continuous footings t havin c a load of less than 2Ci0 pounds per lineal foot and isolated footings with ; 4.3fi t 102:s of less than 50,000 pounds. 2 \� + 1 + A ' Footings t ' Sec. 1 907. (a) General. Footings and foundations, unless otherwise specifi- t WHERE: call. id d shall be constructed of masonry, concrete or treated woad in 2.34P eenf.--n .ce %; U.B.C. Standard No. 29 -3 and in all cases shall extend below + A = .: frost li Footings of concrete and rttasor,ry shall be of solid material. St b Fi�ur.daticns suP Vrr,ag wood shall extend at least 6 inches ahove the ad;acent 1 P = Applied lateral force in pounds. f :risk pea c. Fox' :incs shall have a minin:utn depth below finish grade as indicated j $ = Allowable lateral soil - bearing pressure asset forth in Table No. 29 -B in Tat•le No. 29•A unless another depth is recommended by a foundation based on a depth of one third the depth of embedment. irncs ::ca,;o . , t $3 = Allowable lateral soil- bearing pressure as set forth in Table No. 29 B (b) Bearing Walls. Bearing walls shall be supported on masonry or concrete i based on a depth equal to the depth of embedment. I 1J1tionS or piles or other approved foundation system nhich shalt be of r b = Diameter of round post or footing or diagonal dimension of square post suf ": icnt size to support all loads, NChcre a design is not provided, the minimum y or footing (feet). foundation requirements for stud bearing wails shall be as set forth in Table 1`0 29-A. h = Distance In feet from ground surface to point of application of "P." ! d = Depth of embedment in earth in feet but not over 12 feet for put� £XC of F :1il0 \S: t. r1 one-story Nsa�d or metal frame building not used for human ar• .. not ,i%cr -:kk) square feet in floor area rna)' be constructed with computing lateral pressure. watt. `er ti ned on 3 .,w t urd,rrrn Plate when app r oved by the building official. Constrained. The following formula may be used to determine the depth of 2 1`lc Nup port of buiidincs by p. crntkdd ed in earth shall be'designed as embedment required to resist lateral loads where constraint is provided at the s,'•R'ctied in S;; twn -' (i) 1 \',� J Posts or rotes cnrl edded ire earth shall be ground surface, such as a rigid floor or pavement. rr - arc ttr.:'J - it, an lrrmscd presersative. Steel ruses or poles shall be pro• tc%tcd as (c) Stcpped Foundations. Foundations for all buildings where the surface of t' d= = 4 .25 S b Ole crt and slows more than i foot in 20 feet shall be level or shall be stepped so that top and bottom of such foundation: are level. k — idt F.krting Design. >:xeept for special provisions of Section 2909 covering Vertical load. The resistance to vertical loads is determined by the allowable the dcsign of piles all portions of footings shall be designed in accordance with soil - bearing pressure set forth in Table No. 29 -13. Lhc Previsions of this code and shall b- designed to minimize differen- 2. Construction requirements: Backfill. The backfill in the annular space tial x tt :eX,ent, around columns not embedded in poured footings shall be by one of the following (c) Foundation Plates or Sills. Foundation plates or sills shall be bolted to the methods: foua; anon or foundation wall with not less than Vi -inch nominal diameter steel 516 • _ 515 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1f b Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of July, 1983 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow truck rental and leasing as a special use in the C2 zoning district. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES TO ALLOW TRUCK RENTAL AND LEASING AS A SPECIAL USE IN THE C2 Z THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -322 C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT 3. Special Uses (n) Automobile and truck rental and leasing. Section 2. This ordinance shall become -effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 I le Mayor I ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) 's e e MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistan DATE: June 24, 1983 SUBJECT: Employee Assistance Program BACKGROUND In 1977, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a "statement of policy for the Employee Assistance Program ". The policy (attached) established a program in Brooklyn Center and defines the purpose of the program. The policy established a procedure whereby employees experiencing chemical, financial, marital or other problems which could affect job performance, could voluntarily seek professional diagnostic and referral services. When possible, employee benefits, such as sick leave, hospitalization, etc. can be used for treatment or counseling. All contact with the diagnostic and referral service is confidential. One other option available under the program is a supervisory referral, in contrast to the self referral under which the employee voluntarily uses the service, under a supervisory referral, a supervisor may refer an employee to the diagnostic and referral service if job performance is affected. The City Council selected the Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling, Inc., now part of Cromer Management Inc., to provide diagnostic and referral services under the City's program. The service is provided through an annual contract paid by the City and there is no direct charge to employees. If an employee is referred to some form of treatment and the employee chooses to participate in the recommended treatment, such cost is assumed by the employee or his or her medical insurance coverage_ COST Legislation adopted by the state in 1975 provided for state financial assistance for the first two years of the City's program. It was anticipated the program would become completely locally funded by the third, year. The first year costs were reimbursed at 90% and the second year costs were reimbursed at 50%. The first year cost to Brooklyn Center was $119. The second year cost was $605, and the third year cost was $1,020. The final billing for the third year (1979 -1980 contract) of the program was based on a utilization rate of 4.3 %. In other words, 4.3% of the City employees used the program during the 1979 -1980 contract period. During the 1980 -1981 contract period employees utilized the program to a greater degree than the previous year, and the final utilization rate- was 7.3 %. Based on the 7.3% utilization rate the cost per employee for the 1980 -1981 contract was $12, and with 123 full time employees the total cost of the program for the contract period was $1,476. The final billing for the 1981 -1982 contract period was $868. This was a decrease over the previous year since.the utilization rate for the program was 2.4% for the 1981 -1982 contract period. The total cost for the 1982 - 1983 contract period is $854. The $854 represents the base retainer fee and is the minimum fee under the contract. Only one person used the Employee Assistance Program in the 1982 -1.983 contract period and this represents less than a 1% utilization. -2- The Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling (Cromer Management Inc.) offers a fee schedule to public sector employees which is based on a utilization rate and is not available to private employers. Public sector employers are able to receive reduced rates through this schedule since private employers are charged a flat rate of $14 per employee, not based on utilization of the program. The fee schedule for the 1983 -1984 contract period remains the same as the previous years fee schedule with no cost increases. The fee schedule for the 1983 -1984 contract period based on 125 full time employees is as follows: BASE RETAINER FEE COST 0 - •3.00% utilization $7.00 x 125 = $875.00 Utilization Fee 3.01% - 4.0% $2.33 x 125 = $291.25 4.01% - 5.0% $2.33 x 125 = $291.25 5.01% and over $2.34 x 125 = $292.50 MAXIMUM FEE $1,750.00 Based on a maximum utilization rate and 125 full time employees for the 1983- 1984 contract period, the cost to the City would be $1,750. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is to renew the contract with the Metropolitan Clinic of Counseling Inc. (Cromer Management Inc.) for the 1983 -1984 contract period. However, if utilization of the program does not increase during this period some-other type of fee structure could be considered, such as a fee for service with no retainer. Should the Council approve this recommendation, funding will be provided for the program in the 1984 budget. Statement of Policy Employee Assistance Program City of Brooklyn Center ~ that wide range of problems, not The City of Brooklyn Center recognizes directly associated with an employee's job responsibilities, can affect job performance . In most cases, the employee will overcome such personal problems independently and the employee's job performance will not be affected. In other cases, usual supervisory assistance or discipline will serve to motivate or guide the employee to solve his or her problems and the employee's job performance will return - to an acceptable level. In some instances, neither the efforts and resources of the employee nor the guidance by the supervisor such cases , the employee's to s problems. In has the desired effect of resolving h p y unsatisfactory job performance may persist over a period of time, either on a constant or intermittent basis. The City of Brooklyn Center believes it is in the best interest of the employee, the employee's family and the City to provide an employee service which deals with such persistent problems. Beginning June 15, 1977 it is - the policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to handle such employee problems within the following - framework: 1. The City of Brooklyn Center is concerned with the health and well -being of its employees but it has no desire to interfere with employees' private lives. The administration will be concerned with an employee's personal problems only when job performance is adversely affected or when problems reflect dis credit on the City. 2. This policy applies to all regular full -time employees of the • i of Brooklyn Center regardless of their job title or t C Y Yn responsibilities. - 3. The program is available to families and dependents of employees as well as the employees themselves since it is recognized that at home can have an adverse effect on an employee's ability to function while at work. • 40 If employees or their dependents. realize that they have personal problems that may benefit from the assistance provided by the Employee Assistance Program, they are encouraged to seek assistance on their own and will be supported in efforts to do so. in the program will.not jeopardize an.employee's S. Participation p . job security, promotional opportunities,'. or reputation.. Page 2 Statement of Policy -Employee Assistance Program 6. All records and discussions of personal problems will be handled in a confidential manner as are other medical records. Records will be kept by the diagnostic and referral agency and will not become part of the employee's personnel file. 7. Past experience shows that a significant portion of the problems encountered in such programs are related to problems involving the use of alcohol and /or other drugs. It will be a Policy olic of the City of Brooklyn Center that chemical dependency is generally recognized as a treatable illness and assuming the cooperation of the employee in treatment, will be dealt with as such. B. When performance problems are not corrected with normal super - visory attention, employees may be referred to assistance to determine if personal problems are causing unsatisfactory per- formance. If performance problems are corrected, no further action will be taker -. If performance problems persist, the employee will be subject to normal corrective procedures. 9. In cases where it is necessary, employees may be granted sick leave, vacation or unpaid leave of absence for time for treatment or rehabilitation on the _same basis as it is anted for health a 9r' or disability bilit problems. bl Y P ems. 14: Employee compliance with the program is istrictly voluntary. If an employee is referred to the Employee Assistance Program in lieu of other corrective or disciplinary measures and chooses not to participate in the Employee Assistance Program, then ° normal corrective measures will apply. Refusal to participate cannot be used as evidence to evaluate job performance. 12. There is no charge for the diagnostic and referral services, however, if costs are incurred for rehabilitation services that are not covered by insurance or other benefits, that cost will be the responsibility of the employee. 12. The program is not designed to provide ongoing treatment or dounseling, but rather to provide early identification, motivation, and referral to appropriate care - giving resources in order to facilitate the resolution of any serious personal problems the employee might have. j 13. This policy does not alter or replace existing administrative Policy or contractual agreements, but serves as an adjunct to assist in their utilization. 4— d7 t4 i.S 4 re L 41 tv ",> CU� rJA JIr I-IN -5 "i I n td 7"T 4t c At en Vt IP f , Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT 1983 -H (51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -07, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 27th day of June, 1983. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Hayes Contractors, Inc. $ 26,958.00 Bonine Excavating, Inca 35,961,95 WHEREAS, it appears that Hayes Contractors, Inc. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CIT Y COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract in the amount of $26,958.00 in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 according to the plans. and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -07 is hereby amended from $36,140.00 to- $29,653.80. The estimated cost is comprised of the following: As'Ordered As Amended Contract $32,560.00 $26,958.00 Engineering 2,930.00 2,420.22 Administrative 325.00 269.58 Legal and Bonding 325.00 0.00` TOTAL $36,140.00 $29,653.80 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoin resolution was duly seconded by mer' r , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted i favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: '* eur-on said resolution was declared duly passed° and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY 'B 1"" 0 0% -K- j N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 5548:' �J TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ENTER ............ TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: June 27, 1983 RE: Consideration of Bids Received for Contract 1983 -H (51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07) Bids were received on June 27, 1983 for the referenced water main extension along 51st Avenue North. Upon review of the bids, it has been determined that the proposal of Hayes Contractors, Inc. represents the lowest responsible bid. The Contractor recently completed the 63rd Avenue trunk water main installation between T.H. 152 and Beard Avenue North in an acceptable manner; therefore, I recommend the City accept their bid. A resolution for this purpose is provided for consideration by the City Council. Re spe tfull/ submitted; SK: jn " ?lce So.,tietlucg X11 oz� � " . Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 27, 1983 AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - OPERATOR Picadilly, Circus Brookdale Ctr. Sears Brookdale Ctr. Ch a of Police AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSE - VENDOR Advance Carter 850 Decatur Ave. Punkin - Vending 3501 82nd Ave. N. Servomation Corp. 7490 Central Ave. N.E. , Twin City Novelty 9549 Penn Ave. S. ChlAf of Police w GARBAGE AND R VEHICLE LICENSE Bautch Disposal Service 70264 Xylite St. N.E. Bergstrom Trucking 5860.73rd Ave.. N. Crosstown Sanitation Box 12 Klein Sanitation Co. 10690 100th Ave. N. L & N Disposal 3417 85th Ave. N. MCS Refuse, Inc. 10050 Naoles St. N.E. Metro Refuse 8168 W. 125 St. Minneapolis Hid & Tallow P.O. Box 12547 Robbinsdale Transfer Co., Inc. 5232 Hanson Court Walters' Disposal Service, Inc. 2830 191st Ave. N.E. Waste Control 95 W. Ivy St. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Louis DeGidio, Inc. 6501 Cedar Ave. S. .� rban Htg. & Air Cond. 2050 Whitebear Ave. Buildin4 4. POOL & BILLARDS LICENSE Earle Brown-Bowl 6440 James Cir. . City Clerk RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Eugene J. Sullivan, Howard Oien 5329 -33 Brooklyn Blvd. Dennis F. Deering 5409 Fremont Ave. N. Robert J. Beugen 7001 Humboldt Ave. N. Gene & Carroll Anderson 5812 James Ave. N. Aquila Partners 5407 Lyndale Ave. N. Duane H. Dietrich 5301 70th Circle Renewal: . Lang - Nelson Associates Chalet Courts William E. Goins 7013 Drew Ave. N. Mike Sonnack 6637 Humboldt Ave. Richard & Elfreda Ploof 5319, 21 Queen Ave. N. Shingle Creek Tower 6221 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Robert Baltuff 5930 Xerxes Ave. N. � ymond &• Agnes Janssen 1425 55th Ave. N. acob & Bonita Heinonen 1107 57th Ave. N. . Edward Doll 1201 57th Ave. N. . John & Susan Byrnes 3019 63rd Ave. N. Dennis & Karen Peterson 4811 69th Ave. N. .0,,.y��. Director of Planning and Inspection SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE Richards Sign Company 965.Eustis St. . Buildiry official` GENERAL APPROVAL: Gerald G. Splinte City Clerk