Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1982 08-23 CCP Regular Session
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 23, 1982 7 :00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 0 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 be no separate discussion of these items unless a councilmember 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 - The August 9, 1982 City Council minutes will be included with the September 13, 1982 Council Agenda. *7. Performance Bond Release- a. Burger Bros. - 5927 John Martin Drive 8. Resolutions: *a. Designating Certain Tax Forfeited Land in the City of Brooklyn Center to be Used for Public Purposes -The parcel of land designating in this resolution is adjacent to Marlin Park. *b. Approving a Portion of Classification List NC -662 -This resolution approves the public sale of tax forfeited land in Brooklyn Center. *c. Declaring September 11 as National "Life, Be In It" Fall Festival d. Authorizing the Transfer of Funds from the General Fund to the Capital - Projects Fund -In accordance with the City's Adequate General Fund Balance Policy this resolution would authorize the transfer of $600,000 from the General Fund to the Capital Projects Fund *e. Memorializing the Honorable Rudy Boschwitz and the Honorable David - - Durenburger to Oppose Enactment by the United States Senate of Senate Bill 5.2172, the Cable Tele - Communications Act of 1982 -This act, if passed, would have the Federal government pre -empt local control of cable television. *f. Accepting Work Performed Under Contract 1982 -E (Central Park Athletic Field Fencing Improvement) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 23, 1982 *g. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Contract 1982 -H (69th /70th Street, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Main Improvements; Construction of Evergreen Soccer Field; and Alley Improvement Project between Dupont and Emerson Avenues, 53rd to 54th Avenue) *h. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract 1982 -K (Fuel Dispensing Control System at City Garage) i. Establishing Central Park Improvement Project No. 1982 -24, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -L) -This project provides for landscape plantings and construction of a satellite toilet station in Central Park. j. Establishing Palmer Lake Basin Improvement Project No. 1982 -25, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -M) -This project provides for construction of a parking lot with acePs drive, bituminous and woodchip trails, observation points and landscape improvements within the Palmer Lake Basin. k. Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments for the Following Improvements: Diseased Shade Tree Removals, Public Utility Hookups, and Delinquent Public Utility Accounts -This resolution provides for a public hearing to be held September 13, 1982 on the proposed assessment rolls for the cost of trees removed by the City contractor in 1981 and 1982, for water and sewer hookup charges for connections made during the past year, and for sewer and water utility charges which remain unpaid. 1. Approving Adoption Agreement for League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Dental Insurance Plan -This would allow the City to participate in the dental insurance plan offered by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. M. Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 82020 Submitted by Hussman Investment Company 9. Public Hearing (8:00 p.m.) a. Public.Hearing on Special Assessments for Improvement Project No 1982 -02 (Xerxes Avenue,.55th Avenue, 56th Avenue Reconstruction) - Notices of the proposed assessments and of this hearing have been sent to the owners of all benefited properties. Notice of the hearing has also been published in the official newspapers a 10. Planning Commission Items (8:15 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 82030 submitted.by Marie Reyes for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to "allow a two -car - garage to be set back 25 feet from the front property line at 5700 Camden Avenue North, rather than the normal 35 feet. This item was considered at the July 15, 1982 Planning Commission meeting and it was recommended that the application be denied. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 23, 1982 b. Planning Commission Application No. 82033 submitted by Advance- Carter Company requesting an amended special use permit approval to expand the existing recreation center at 1280 Brookdale Shopping Center. This item was considered at the August 12, 1982 Planning Commission meeting and it was recommended for approval by the Commission. C. Planning Commission Application No. 82020 submitted by Hussman Investment Company as a request to rezone from Rl to R3 two parcels of land on the south side in the 800 block of 70th Avenue North. This item was considered at the August 12, 1982 Planning Commission meeting and it was recommended for approval by the Commission. d. Planning Commission Application No. 82031 and 82032 submitted by Hussman Investment Company for a site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for an eight -unit townhouse project on the south side of 70th Avenue North. These items were considered at the August 12, 1982 Planning Commission meeting and were recommended for approval by the Commission. 11. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 Regarding License Fees for Kiddie Rides -This ordinance is offered for a first reading. It is recommended a public hearing on the ordinance be scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. 12. Discussion Items: a. Proposed Development Plan for Municipal Service Garage Site -The staff will be prepared to discuss this item at the Council meeting. b. North Crosstown Consulting Agreement and Financing -The staff will be prepared to discuss this item at the Council meeting. C. Earle Brown Farm Plat -The staff will be prepared to discuss this item at the Council meeting. 13. Consideration of Specified Licenses: a. Nonintoxicating Liquor License Application for the Pizza Factory. *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment I PROTE OUR CHILDRE -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. k u k � I fl 7 1 0 7 Al E 1U T N l II 77M .� PROT OUR CH I LD REN -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. < r `� J PROTECT OUR CHILDREN -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leadinq from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. A x OT, P ROTECT OUR CHILDREN _ -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. c g�a PROT ECT OU R C HILDREN .-. -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Fark, directley - into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluUcd area. p i PROTECT OUR CHILDREN -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, di rectley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. 1 � 4VIL- 700, - 70 /�& �b % J _ t -_ G J _P OUR CHI -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. trim C� �- ,) L .2 --Q v4e� �r ,4,qq PROTECT OUR CHILDREN -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. 7 0", 7 ���� 6 9/9 �� C PROT OUR CHILD -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. -T Nut" , ALL 71 �L) -7Zp b PROTECT OUR CH -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. 37 O v R I PROT OUR CHILDR the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from eAst Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer La a Basin, thru a very secluded area. 7 YCO -A C � t iv I 1 'p A ^� a C/Y- P' 5 -7 11,E �....�• �: ✓t �i_ -. �.. ,' ; fir J PR OTECT OUR CHILDREN -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. J a ffa , 7 Z 3 a. C�. 741 - Y'Y ctiduxjo© d, D-A l of 7!*� � "'Irf & l� C�1� �- rl�s ��� � ©�+q `�s� � � ►�1 14" � �4 � = �y� a-vy pIq -k-R- 9 L PROT OUR CHILD _ -We the undersigned are opposed to a path leading from East Palmer Lake Park, directley into the Palmer Lake Basin, thru a very secluded area. I 6 q t4-1 FA Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN TAX FORFEITED LAND IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO BE USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES WHEREAS, there is situated within the boundaries of the City of Brooklyn Center and the County of Hennepin certain tax forfeited land; and 3 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center desires to obtain the said land for park purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be instructed to make application for conveyance of tax forfeited lands as herein described and further, that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to sign such application for conveyance. The land is described as follows: Lot 9, Block 0 Auditor's Subdivision No. 025 Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of Lot 9 lying south and east of Northgate and west of Fairmeadows excluding road. (.P.I.D. #34-119 -31 -0003) Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly,passed and adopted. i s M ember introduced the following resolution and , moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PORTION OF CLASSIFICATION LIST 662 - NC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has received from the County of Hennepin, a list of lands in Brooklyn Center which became the property of the State of Minnesota, for nonpayment of real estate taxes, which said list has been designated as classification list No. 662 -NC; and WHEREAS, each parcel of land described in said list has heretofore been classified by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County, Minnesota as non- conservation land and the sale thereof has heretofore been authorized by said Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the parcels of land in said classification list are described as follows: A. Lot 9, Block 0 Auditor's Subdivision No. 025 Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of Lot 9 lying south and east of Northgate and west of Fair Meadows excluding road. (P.I.D. #34- 119 -21 -31 -0003) B. Registered land survey #1023 Hennepin County, Minnesota Tract 1. (P.I.D. #10- 118 -21 -42 -0022) C. Lot 28, Block 0 Auditor's Subdivision No. 216 Hennepin County, Minnesota Commencing at a point in the westerly line of State Highway 152 distant 100 feet south at right angles from the north line of Lot 28 thence west parallel with said north line 169.8 feet thence southerly parallel with said highway line 111.91 feet to the actual point of beginning thence continuing south along said parallel line to the northerly line of Pearson's Northport First Addition thence easterly to the northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 6 said addition thence northerly along the westerly line of Highway 152 to a point distant 200 feet south at right angles from the north line of Lot 28 thence westerly to beginning. (P.I.D. #03 -118- 21 -13 -0011) WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Brooklyn Center to consider a public use for Lot 9 Block 0 Auditor's Subdivision No. 025 Hennepin County, Minnesota. That part of Lot 9 lying south and east of Northgate and west of Fair Meadows excluding road. (P.I.D. #34- 119 -21 -31 -0003) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center acting pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, with the exception of the above mentioned parcel, that said classification list by said Board of County Commissioners of the land described in said list as nonconservation land be and the_same is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The County Auditor is hereby requested to restrict the sale of land in said classification list to owners of lands adjoining the land to be sold. RESOLUTION NO. 2. The County Auditor is hereby requested to restrict the sale of land in said classification list to the adjoining property owners upon the condition that the purchaser combine the tax forfeit land with his or her existing lot and upon the further condition that the tax forfeit parcel not be used to justify an additional building permit for a dwelling: 0 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, a - 118 -21 -13 -0011 P.l.t�. 0 ■ s 59 p e•i a ('a !` J.'. + N l S 11 r. ') •� T �\ r R T OF • ..1,4 3 14 1e � 9} .. - — r 14 PART�'OF LOT 13�� a j �) l � �_4 . �• �.i s�yl�. as s Jd5• o S a8 o tS's •r• • osc C ° o ,, ''^'' 13 ' ' : -)i i30.1•Q'3ij' ,•hiiLV 17 16" 5 '. �� :`' •Rn W ---r' \ 15.15 Go .. (�� .(, 4 9 3) :• 5 1 ' g , 5" 12 ' ' 4 � .` ' r /rJ a C 's '! _. � i�S, ?? ___ 193 r' _. ._.._..1�'3.%•Z_. ,•` � .� , _ r L 2 ( i'ry 0 7� Sit (� Z 't, (( 9 \ t 3 .f • J J 4 � .:8 . 3 34 �. 35 (�2� S L tl 3 10 LO ` �Iy� 4 h, I) Sad lot_ 135.6' ✓ �P . :r. 2�t a l 0 \ l y 1 a r38 Ba ( t ms s. ply � fa�6 >� 2L,ly x$14 z ��1 7 �f/ /4 `• 7 L b l l Q a 9a� L'9• ^� l)S.bL . :!S �I. Jeg _ G o `'S G', 3t3 ' 3 ?_ 3S ,� .` ,s ( o �.�',• � ,� f.1J .�r,�)6 � �) s � \� � t�� ��,,. N •�� :., •"w • jM 4 • St�s!'�t "� af� 1^d • IN, 5 65 1 I,c G 6v oo t Qo 80. 9'• ` �':, '''�' i c ' - Q,'' 1 fit /� 6r�Af'� •:� �.. t S y � � 'i . x:!01 _� -- �f1Vl�i:J _ � .,:,;o;,. -...�. �� ia,�s� c G ��r /� , ���7 , • wtfd _ � • ,:o a .s: o .3t .t e� - . �..._ _ � s w.1 1•S �rN 2.! t : _.� • � . � � • � l w , ! � t 1 B sr i • + N B o A Fd� �J. ; { +, y t \ • �V .,� `i �7'� r. "„� ;D / 1)i G . `('�,f: Y '� -.', l��" ja ... �_ .^j r Q, r, L'�ii�i / i P •.+� .+ \ \\ I 1 \ !�• '— V {�0'�� 2 Lj w a, ��g� a . 1 X. �.. .i+i s5.6C, • ! r. Q. �,yq1 t 1 r • .nV' t ,A \� \�O� 4 I }qa•.0 XyI 39 i {il3 l I!o : ,F � ' •� tip• �, ° d� (T� t 11 7 i/°/ • b _ i S I J j n 0 1 R . S . �% 'j� .•' �� of 5� 4� 1 6 D �`� • s Y ,5nr, '� s , 1 S1 S'`t t" g i5)� �u) �j {a Ra! -- 1 y 't2 r � r f 't '., �Sigq t. � -- �dy�'{J!i 1 `r' ISi.aJ -. + 1 �.,w5 i S'.'4o AS i fd -i ' Y / �, +L "� 6 ;A ✓��r::�•: 1 '�' _ "4 A, A 17 � • .n G - '. G ° ♦ l .• � r`� !� ?� �� ff �V (� %). J'w 15 C�I �l l+�J 1 .•r t o Aj ° 'o a • g 9 ! ` `�. \ ��.+\c�' �' `,) t'I"" 4 � 17 1 a5 z5__;� i,� �S r t3�' _ , a5 �• i 1 l 3 5�'J ° � N � 1.15' } •• (. x I� - 9 \ )j ,1ti0 {75 NO � - • ` J a�� •f.t5� .�h GfZ1.- � 11,� E. NO. T t Q: l � • roo4 � µ\ ?��\ 1 $ � \� � �tY� n - - -- - i _�_4i �SS._tA•�'2S'24; +e - ° a t �(51 ♦S �Sy... i" ..1• `o to ;.-'' .. 1f _,•_, iSd.!t 11Y to tit. 41 L4 ` t &���' r _ b • o Cfl ,d. X „ . +� �� 16�0...� +'�.+@irl 77 js A " s oa y Go5'' 34 4 \3 a � C�1� 4. 2� �'w Ra w w t ' < 1 i4,, bl " `� 3 s 1 C 1• F e Q �0 411 \ O 19 _ 3 / • � `ate i � 5 94 z 4 !! 1(. 416 �J28 5 , b (o • b l,, — 1 �. 7 1 i 6 �) 10 IO 3 � 1t � ; � f-, i` 13 �1� t J4 JS .'Q4 ;b 27 3 b 12 ,10 7 J zo 51 )26 7 1 10 7Z � i� 1, 3 j 4 Q ode 2 5 1 8 Yj 4 . 0 4Cp8.82 l w ✓b - 4 16 ,,r- � ^ 1 i r i4 04.5 � 110 •� '` 14 „ s`t�,,, jA 4 .� .A,.a 1 r`Sjl if�� f 7 � i � i �tl a w & •rs X 12 OR ! 3` 4 - 13 ! J a 3 il 1 `12 � ax� 5 's a� 1 J .S �, f, d /J t c 4 :i ?V �h f y ./F S M �\ S *�s ( {' F % 40r i9 w /14 y 2 (L rc 3 �j K; 4 1 / Lq \1 �'��} �\ q �sa�pY•� WY 134 ty "A a 1,3 a•L aw 7 t �c h �. yy 4> l i $ A f r+ L t ip ..1� e.4 .e ; �- •.ter l� "$' Ewe. w.ti„ ` 5 yc ♦ .o - -4 .: A � sJ t .i si n♦ j! /ift e 63rd AVE. k NOS 1 r r � • t � r 3 1�,' �I�l) ROOKY �, ! �,�� �"��t���� .� , 20 1'G� ? I �:� �O `wii l n•, Z 1 14 PD 1 � �t z f,a � � .. �' ♦ �, � d �'r. YN I 'j G�i �I v� '. ,• .�� r � a; � V 2 TA 2 13 �� 4\ c fi 4. 1, . ♦ i y � 4 I A a: r 14 15 J C7 ♦'. `+y.r., ,,. ''"• + ° . ,� �< < : { H.; 6+9) 1b � � i ot '' R 4 0 - 1 we - \ l a E a 8 ,8 •, ti 4 Q I •N..t4 f 9 k ,,R��� � I t �•' � "(j��,,, P�Sa1 � �nw C •V ��� � � oz'e n, ,i-�� W�' � sy�' . ,q, f��s�� � »t /.'� ( t + . J oz Z/ Z11 NV P N J t /y ��y,�� # �y�L`°� %�k�,k� */ \`/fir{, t ��,••_ -- — ... . s py IV qL / t o j Z i 12 �Z �. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. As RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 11 AS NATIONAL "LIFE. BE IN IT." FALL FESTIVAL WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center believes that all its citizens can benefit from increased physical and cultural activity; and WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation greatly contributes to our citizens' social conditions by fashioning a creative and balanced program of activities, ranging from sports to crafts and community tours; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the "Life. Be In It." program is one of the best vehicles for increasing citizen awareness about the values and opportunities for broadened recreational participation; and WHEREAS, the Department of Parks and Recreation is bringing the Nafiona- "Life. Be In It." Fall Festival to Brooklyn Center as part of a nationwide celebration of life and the change of seasons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Brooklyn Center hereby declares September 11, 1982 as the National "Life. Be In It." Fall Festival -and encourages all citizens to participate to the fullest. Date Mayor ATTEST; Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted e Information of the "Life. Be in It." Program "Life. Be In It." is a promotional campaign developed by the National Recreation and Park Association, NRPA, to generate increased public awareness.of the value of recreation and leisure. The program is designed to illustrate the importance of being active and to encourage Americans to balance their lives by participating in enjoyable, inexpensive forms of recreation. The purpose is not to advocate rigorous activity, but to demon- strate that there are a wide variety of leisure activities. NRPA has produced a series of animated TV spots which try to persuade people of the joys of living, of participating, or walking, breathing, feeling, seeing and smelling. The cartoons will be aired on a local and national basis in the near future. In addition to television exposure, NRPA has arranged to promote "Life. Be In It." through local park and recreation agencies. Involvement from other groups such as schools, senior clubs, youth agencies, and other leisure organizations will greatly increase the awareness of the program. f i e 6 Brooklyn Center Parks & Recreation Dept. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 561 -5448 Member introduced the following resolution and �t1. moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the'City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make permanent transfers between all Funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with the provisions of related covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or State Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City has established a Capital Projects Fund to provide funds, and to account for the expenditures of such funds, for major capital out - lays (which shall include but not be limited to, construction or acquisition of major permanent facilities having a relatively long life); and /or to reduce debt incurred for capital outlays; and WHEREAS, the City Council established an Adequate General Fund Balance Policy on December 22, 1980 (M & C No. 80 -31); and WHEREAS, the application of that policy to the current General Fund Balance determines that there is at least the sum of $600,000 which is in excess of the adequate Fund balance: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to transfer the sum of $600,000 from the General Fund fund balance to the Capital Projects.Projects Fund to be therein appropriated by the City Council for specific projects to be approved by the Council. 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 wa s declared duly passed and p Y adopted. p P A DEPARTMENT 5y:,r CITY OF 0 4 j BROOKLYN FINANCE ENTER MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Director of Finance DATE: August 2, 1982 SUBJECT: PROPOSED TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND In accordance with the. Adequate General Fund Balance Policy established by the City Council on December 22, 1980 (M & C No. 80-31 attached), I have applied the formula contained therein to the General Fund audited fund balance at December 31, 1981, and it is as follows: Unappropriated Fund Balance at December 31, 1981 $3,122,416 Less items not readily convertible to cash: Uncollected taxes $ 200,771 Accounts receivable 8,495 Inventory of supplies 61,381 270,647 Fund balance convertible to cash $2,851,769 Less amounts to be reserved for specific purposes: Working capital (25% of $5,950,779) $1,487,695 % $2,581,809) 129,09 v f r delinquent taxes 50 of Reserve o ( q Reserve for overestimation of other revenues (10% of $3,368,970) 336,897 1,953,682 Amount available per formula 898,087 Less amounts designated for 1983 Budget: Appropriated $ 5,000 Not appropriated, but pending* 49,267 54,267 Amount- available for transfer to the Capital Projects Fund $ 843,820 *Last'*statg aid reduction not reflected in the 1982 Budget. I recommend that the City Council authorize the transfer of $600,000 from the General Fund to the. Capital Projects Fund by adopting the attached resolution. The Council, at a later date, would specify the projects to which the funds would be appropriated in the Capital Projects Fund. Respectfully submitted, %44 Paul W. Holmlund 41074e 7&aie N o. December 19, 1980 . F FROM THE OFFICE • OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER , Subject: .Determination of Adequate Fund Balance in the General Fund and the Transfer of funds in Excess of That Balance to the Capital Projects Construction Fund To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: I have analyzed the fund balance in the City's General Fund (the operating fund) at December 31, 1979 and I am herewith offering my recommendations for a method to determine an adequate fund balance and for the subsequent transfer of funds ' Pro Construction- a determined fund balance to the City's Capital j e xcess of that e in e , Fund to be used for the acquisition of major, permanent facilities. The fund balance, at any given date, represents the City's equity in the fund, i.e., the assets of a fund in excess of its liabilities. The question of at what level the proper fund balance should be arises periodically. I will attempt to list those items that should properly be included in the makeup of the fund balance and then recommend appropriate amounts for each of those items. he fund balance is a product of one of two sources: (1) The excess of (or deficiencies) if revenues over expenditures of the fund, accumulated over the years since the inception of the fund; and (2) Permanent transfer of monies from another fund. Certain asset items contained within the fund balance are items which cannot be readily converted to cash and therefore must remain in the fund balance. Among these items are taxes _ accounts receivable, and inventories of supplies. In addition, monies receivable - 9 within the fund balance are needed for, and should be reserved for, other purposes. • �� �� t is funds i stated Among these, is a need for working capital W or ki ng capital, simply needed for expenditures which must be made prior to receipt of revenues in forthcoming periods of tine. The City has a fairly consistent level of expenditures, particularly PY 11 's of about 65 : of total expenditures), and a rather sporadic p ayroll which consists pattern of revenue receipts. This combination causes a cash flog problem. The working capital is the bridge over these gaps between expenditures and the receipt of revenue. The primary sources of revenue for the General Fund are local .real estate taxes and intergovernmental revenue. Revenue from these sources are usually received` on a quarterly (local government aid and federal revenue sharing) or semi- annual .(property taxes) basis. Major tax settlements are made in May through July and October through December, while major expenditures occur in'the early part of the budget year. The City must wait approximately five months into the budget year for a large amount of its revenues. If monies are not available during these periods the City must resort to tax - anticipation borrowing. . Tax - anticipation. borrowing is both costly and would be reflected in the City's bond rating. The absence of such borrowing is a positive factor in bond rating. Therefore ,a sufficient amount of working capital is needed to carry the City through these periods. I recommend that the working capital be set at a maximum of 255 of the total General Fund Budget. This would provide funds for three months of expenditures. Money should also be reserved ;to provide a "cushion" for the replacement of possible revenue short falls in the budget. The cutback of local government aid due to a projected State surplus deficit. As a good example of a need for some sort of cushion. An economic downturn can also December 19, 1980 r`. Page Two -- se a reduction in building and other permit fees, r e c reati o n revep ue, o he tax errovernmental revenue, charges foi o f c equal to 5% of the taxes , delinquencies. I recommend that e reserve an levied for General Fund purposes to hedge against loss of revenue from tax delinquencies and an amount equal to 1 0 of all other estimated budget revenues to hedge against overestimation and economic downturn. Funds should also be reserved for unanticipated needs which may develop during the budget year. However, Pncu an the City Charter does provide for a conting. appropriation within the budget 1 itself, and we do annually appropriate funds for that purpose. My final recommendation has to do with the use of that part of the fund balance the amount should properly be reserved. The City which I feel sh which exc eeds . to provide funds for tr coon Fund in 1963 - established a Capital Protects Cons u major capital outlays. These capital outlays include construction .or acquisition F of major permanent facilities having a relatively long life or to reduce the debt incurred for capital outlays. The source of revenue to finance these capital outlays was to be taxes, surpluses of other funds, issuance of bonds, interest ch would be available for earnings of the fund, and and .other source of funds r�rhi transfer to the fund. Many major acquisitions have been financed through the years. The Capital Projects Construction Funds unappropriated fund balance is now nearly depleted and there are still needs for capital outlay expenditures. I recommend the transfer of any General Fund balance which exceeds the minimum level to the Capital Projects Construction Fund. #rmula ced on the preceeding assumptions, the following is a recap of the recommended. for determining an adequate General Fund balance and determining that- Construction the Capital Projects Construction Fund: amount which can be transfered P mber 31, 1,79 a $2,538,211 Unappropriated fund balance at Dece Less items not readily convertible to cash: Uncollected taxes -_ $111,885 Accounts receivable 28,366 199,29 Inventory of supplies 59,043 ,;.2,334,917 Fund balance convertible to cash Less amounts to be reserved for specific purposes: 397 817 ..orking capital (25a of $5,541,2 f1 $1,397 Reserve for delinquent taxes (51 of $2,367,410) , 11 ° Reserve for overestimation of other 332,386 S1,848,573 revenues (100, of $3,223,856) {_ Amount available for transfer to the +� 490,344 Capital Projects Construction Fund It,should be noted that I have started with the December 31, 1979 fund balance. Although we are projecting a slight surplus for the 1930 budget, experience has taught us that projecting surplus is a dangerous art and we have therefore taken a conservative approach and are dealing with known factors. The State's current O budget problems which resulted from surplus forecasti is an exar:ole of what can happen when using a less than conservative approach. . M A C No. E0-31 December 19, 1980 Page Three ally, I recommend that the Council take action to approve the level of fund alance in the General Fund as set forth in this memorandum and authorize the transfer of $490,000 from the General Fund to the'Capital Projects Construction Fund. I further recommend that the Council review the fund balance of the General Fund again during the 1982 budget considerations and again determine an adequate fund balance. Respectfully submitted, Paul W. Hol - ml uhd Director of Finance CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Approved i � o ra d' � ,Spl 1 nter City Manacher f CITY 0 ✓BROOKLYN CENTER . . WH: ph 0 : Bublitz Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE HONORABLE RUDY BOSCHWITZ AND THE HONORABLE DAVID DURENBURGER TO OPPOSE ENACTMENT BY THE UNITED STATES SENATE OF SENATE BILL S.2172, THE CABLE TELE- COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1982 a WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center and eight other Minnesota cities are members of the Northwest Cable Communications Commission, which body has awarded and is administering a comprehensive franchise on behalf of all citizens of said cities; and WHEREAS, cable television is a uniquely local communications medium, and a cable communications system is a local facility using municipal streets, rights -of -way and public utility easements; and WHEREAS, S.2172 would preempt local control of this valuable community resource by the federal government, and would remove local accountability and responsibility in matters germane to the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby memorialize the Honorable Rudy Boschwitz and the Honorable David Durenburger to oppose enactment of 5.2172 in whole or in part. .. 1 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk • Y The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i r Member introduced the following resolution and F moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -E (CENTRAL PARK ATHLETIC FIELD FENCING IMPROVEMENT) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1982 -E signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Crown of Minnesota, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: CENTRAL PARK ATHLETIC FIELD FENCING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The work completed under said contract, and supplemental agreement is accepted and approved according to the following schedule: Previously Final Approved Amount Original Contract Amount $12,273.20 $12,635.31 Supplemental Agreement No. 1 437.00 437.00 TOTAL $12,710.20 $13,072.31 -_ 2. The value of work performed is more than the sum of the original contract and supplemental agreement amount by $362.11 due to a general underestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $13,072.31. 4. Reimbursement of construction costs shall be from the Capital Projects Fund (Division 56) . Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONTRACT 1982 -H (69TH - 70TH STREET, SANITARY SEWER, AND WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF EVERGREEN SOCCER FIELD, AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BETWEEN DUPONT AND EMERSON AVENUES FROM 53RD AVENUE TO 54TH AVENUE) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -09, 1982 -10, 1982 -11, 1982 -14, and 1982 -16, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 12th day of August, 1982. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Veit & Company, Inc. $118,391.06 Widmer Brothers, Inc. $120,278.80 Shafer Contracting Company, Inc. $121,359.60 Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. $139,684.70 WHEREAS, the low bidder, Veit & Company, Inc. failed to submit a bid security with the proposal, in accordance with the provisions of the proposal documents; and WHEREAS, failure to provide said bid security with the proposal is consid- ered to be grounds for bid rejection in accordance with the provisions of said proposal documents; and WHEREAS, it appears that Widmer Brothers, Inc, of Spring Park, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The proposal submitted by Veit & Company, Inc, is hereby rejected due to the failure of the bidder to submit a bid security with the, proposal as required by the proposal documents. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $120,278.80, with Widmer Brothers, Inc. of Spring Park, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project Nos. 1982 -09, 1982 -10, 1982 -11, 1982 -14, and 1982 -16 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the, office of the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to.return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Projects 1982 -09, 1982 -10, 1982 -11, 1982 -14, and 1982 -16 is amended according to the following schedule: 69th - 70th STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -09 As Ordered As Amended 0 Contract $ 86,489.00 $ 57,232.50 Land Acquisition 22,701.00 22.,701.00 Electrical Utility Relocation 3,450.00 0.00 Engineering 10,140.00 7,194.02 Legal and Administrative 2,250.00 1,598.67 Capitalized Interest 11,260.00 7,993.35 TOTAL, $136,290.00 $ 96,719.54 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -10 As Ordered As Amended Contract $11,210.00 $ 8,998.80 Engineering 1,010.00 809.89 ` Legal and Administration 220.00 179.98 Capitalized Interest 1,120.00 899.88 TOTAL $13,560.00 $10,888.55 WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -11 As Ordered As Amended Contract $ 4,930.00 $ 8,672.50 Engineering 440.00 780.53 Legal and Administrative 100.00 173.45 Capitalized Interest 500.00 867.25 TOTAL $ 5,970.00 $10,493.73 ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -14 As Ordered As Amended Contract $16,730.00 $20,290.00 Engineering 1,510.00 1,826.10 Legal and Administrative 330.00 405.80 Capitalized Interest 1,670.00 2,029.00 TOTAL $20,240.00 $24,550.90 RESOLUTION NO. PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -16 (SOCCER FIELD) As Ordered As Amended Contract $ 38,500.00 $ 25,085.00 Engineering 3,465.00 2,257.65 Administration 385.00 250.85 TOTAL $ 42,350.00 $ 27,593.50 2. The estimated costs to be financed will be appropriated from the various funds as listed below: 69TH - 70TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -09 As Ordered As Amended Special Assessments Private Property $ 5,650.00 $ 4,61- ' - .00 — City Property 8,340.00 7,304.00 M.S.A. Fund Account No. 2611 (Restricted Reserve) 122,300.00 84,801.54 TOTAL $136,290.00 $ 96,719.54 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -10 - As Ordered As Amended Special Assessments Private Property $ 7,710.00 $ 7,710.00 City Property 0.00 0.00 Public Utilities Fund 5,850.00 3,178.55 TOTAL $ 13,560.00 $ 10,888.5.5 WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -11 As Ordered As Amended Special Assessments Private Property $ 14,280.00 $ 14,280.00 City Property 0.00 0.00 Public Utilities Fund (System Credit) (8,310.00 (3,786.27 TOTAL $ 5,970.00 $ 10,493.73 RESOLUTION NO. ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -14 As Ordered As Amended Special Assessments $ 20, 240.00 $ 24,550.00 PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -16 As Ordered As Amended Capital Projects Fund (Division 88) $ 42,350.00 $ 27,593.50 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • 4 • i • f � 1 TO: Gerald G Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public works DATE: August 20, 1982 RE: Evaluation of Bids Received for Contract 1982 -H Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids were received and opened on August12, 1982, for street, sanitary sewer, and water main improve- ments along the 69th - 70th street connection, alley paving between Emerson and Dupont Avenues for 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue, and soccer field construction at the Evergreen School /Park complex. The apparent low bidder, Veit & Company, Inc. failed to submit a bid security with the proposal, as required by the proposal documents. Veit & Company, Inc. did, however, submit a bid bond on August 13, 1982, along with a letter requesting the City Council waive the irregularity, thus awarding the contract to them (see attached). Specifications Regarding Bid Security and Right to Accept or Reject' BID AND CONTRACT SECURITY A. A certified check or satisfactory Bid Bond payable to the Owner in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the bid shall accompany each bid as a guarantee, that if the bid is accepted the Bidder will execute and file the Contract, Performance Bond, Public Contractors Bond, and Insurance Certificate(s), as required by the�Contract Documents, within ten (10) days after receipt of the Notice of Award of Contract by Owner. RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT BIDS A. The Owner reserves the unqualified right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to reject all bids or any bid, or to waive any irreg- ularities in any bid, or to accept any bid which will best serve the interests of the Owner. In accordance with the provisions of the excerpts, failure to provide a bid securtiy is an irregularity for which bid rejection is authorized. In like manner, the City Council may waive such irregularities if, as noted above, action is considered to be in the best interests of the City. In this case, the staff does not consider waiver of - the irregularity to be ,in the best interests of the City. Therefore, it is recommended the City Council reject the bid of Veit & Company, Inc. and accept the bid of Widmer Brothers, Inc. Summary of Second Low Bidder's Refer Based upon the above recommendation, the staff has interviewed three references regarding past performance. A brief summary of the inter- views follows: August 20, 1982 memo to G.G. Splinter Page 2 1.. City of Minnetonka (Don Asmus, Director of Public Works) The City has contracted numerous utility and street projects with Widmer Brothers, Inc. The Contractor has served as both subcon- tractor and prime contractor and has done acceptable work in each role Recommendation - accept bid of Brothers, Inc. 2. City of Excelsior (James Placienik of McCombs- Knutson) The Contractor has completed numerous utility and street improve- ments contracts with few minor problems which could be expected of any contractor. Recommendation - accept bid of Widmer Brothers, Inc. 3. City of Shorewood (James Norton of Orr- Schelen- Mayeron) The Contractor has completed numerous improvement contracts all without any problems of quality of work. Recommendation - accept bid of Widmer Brothers, Inc. Evaluation of Second Low Bidder's Proposal Included in the resolution accepting the bid of Widmer Brothers, Inc. is the estimated resultant project costs based upon the bid prices. The following comments address the various projects and the perceived effect the bid prices will have on total costs. STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -09 Estimated Contract Cost $86,489.00 Contract Cost as Bid 57,232.50 $29,256.50 DISCUSSION: The $29,256.50 difference in estimated costs and bid prices is a result of reduction of project scope from a previously proposed street improvement project extending to the Colfax - 70th Avenue intersection to a point 200 feet west of the intersection ($9,000.00 reduction), plus an overestimation of bid prices (approximate $20,250.00 savings). The receipt of lower bid prices may not result in reduced assessment rates, since the staff has recommended (and calculated) assessment rates based upon existing M.S.A. rates (of $5.18 and $10.40 per assess able foot). A reduction of project scope may result in a'reduction of the assessment district, and the accompanying resolution comprehends the reduction (such action does'not preclude further consideration of including the omitted area on the final assessment role). August 20, 1982 memo to G.G. Splinter Page 3 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -10 Estimated Contract Cost $11,210.00 Contract Cost as Bid 8,998.80 $ 2,211.20 DISCUSSION: The $2,200.20 savings is a result of over estimation of bid prices. The result of lower bid prices may not result in reduced assessment rates, since the staff has recommended (and calculated) assessment rates based upon a flat rate per assessable foot for all such developments in the City. WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -11 Estimated Contract Cost $ 4,930.00 Contract Cost as Bid 8,672.50 ($ 3,742.50) DISCUSSION: The $3,742.50 increase over the estimated contract cost is a result of increase in project scope ($1,780.00) and an under- estimation of bid prices (approximately $6,900.00). Again, as in Project 1982 -10, no change in assessment rate is recommended since water assessment rates are based upon flat rates per assessable foot for all such devlopments in the City. ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -14 Estimated Contract Cost $16,730.00 Contract Cost as Bid 20,290.00 ($ 3,560.00) DISCUSSION: The increase over the estimated contract cost is a result of increase in project scope (increased storm sewer cost $1,540.00) and an underestimation of bid prices (approximately $2,020.00). As a result of the increased project costs, it is estimated the assessment rate may increase from $17.00 per foot (as estimated) to $20.34 per foot, resulting in an estimated increase in.assessment�df approximately $135.00 per typical 40 foot lot (to be spread over 10 years). Based upon the consideration that the adjacent property owners will not receive reduced prices if the project proposal is rejected and rebid,_ it is the staff's recommendation that the proposal be accepted. PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -16 (SOCCER FIELD) Estimated Contract Cost $38,500.00 Contract Cost as Bid 25,085.00 $13,415.00 DISCUSSION: The $13,415.00 reduction in cost is the result of over- estimation of bid prices. ; &CO. INC.14000 VEIT PLACE ROGERS, MN 55374/ (612) 428 -2242 e August 12, 1982 City Engineer 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Project - Contract 1982 —H Dear Sir, We inadvertently failed to include` our bid bond with our proposal at today's bid letting. I realize the specifications say that failure to include your bid bond with the bid proposal can be cause for rejection; however, the city ;council also reserves the �ght to waive any,irregularit in the bidding procedure. BY ;w r ing this contract to our firm, the "taxpayers of your cit n realize a savings of about $2,000.00. Enclosed is our -`` Si r 1 Vaug Veit ident i cc: City Council COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL EXCAVATION • ROAD BUILDING • DEMOLITION h Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR CONTRACT 1982 -K (FUEL DISPENSING CONTROL SYSTEM) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -23, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 12th day of August, 1982. Said bids were as follows: Base Bid Extended Bidder Amount Service Contract Northwest Service Station Equipment Co. $12,698.00 $3,000.00 Pump and Meter Service, Inc. 13,259.00 5,288.00 Zahl Equipment Company 14,378.00 125.00/ month for 1st year 15% increase for years 2, 3,' & 4 Rusco Electronic Systems 19,002.00 1,233.00 for year 1 2% over C.P.I. for years 2, 3, & 4 Honeywell Protection Services Division 37,478.00 17,989.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Northwest Service Station Equipment Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the attached contract, in the amount of $15,698.00, with Northwest Service Station Equipment Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 1982 -23 according to the specifications therefor approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2-. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. e Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk • RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by P g 9 member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1. j si • t • 1 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public :corks DATE: August 20, 1982 RE: Fuel Dispensing Control System Improvement Project No. 1982 -23 The City took bids on the furnishing and installation of a Fuel Dispensing Control System on August 19, 1982. The apparent low bid was submitted by Northwest Service Station Equipment Company, the company currently servicing our fuel dispensing operation.. The major features of the system offered by Northwest include: - 24 hour unattended accessibility security system activated by personal and vehicle "key cards" - r batter operated memo system for times of electrical and Y Y Y P power failure - capability to monitor simultaneous pumping operations The staff considers the services perviously offered by Northwest to be acceptable, and we are in the process os interviewing various private and governmental organizations who currently use the control system offered. Additional information -will be provided at the City Council meeting of August 23rd. SK:jn J 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CENTRAL PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -24, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -L) WHEREAS, a portion of the questions of the Special Referendum of May 6, 1980, resolved in the affirmative the proposed improvement of Central Park by providing for landscape plantings and comfort stations; and WHEREAS, it has been reported to the City Council that said improvements may be provided at an estimated cost of $101,780.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The following project is hereby established in order to provide- said improvements: CENTRAL PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -24 2. The plans and specifications for Contract 1982 -L for said Improvement Project as prepared by Brauer & Associates, Ltd. are approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than seven (7) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on September 14, 1982, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on September 20, 1982, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five percent (5%) of the amount of such bid. 4. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1982 -24 shall be done in the Capital Projects Fund (Division 47). c Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. r Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PALMER LAKE BASIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -25, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -M) WHEREAS, a portion of the questions of the Special Referendum of May 6, 1980, resolved in the affirmative the proposed improvement of the Palmer Lake Basin by providing for construction of parking facilities, trails, observation areas and various additional landscape improvements; and WHEREAS, it has been reported to the City Council that said improvements may be provided at a construction cost of $220,000.00. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn i Center, Minnesota, that: i 1. The following project is hereby established in order to provide for said improvements: PALMER LAKE BASIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -25 2. The plans and specifications for Contract 1982 -M for said Improvement are approved and Ltd t i Project as prepared by Brauer & Associates, . I I' '. ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than seven (7) days prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on September 14, 1982, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on September 20,1982, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five percent (5 %) of the amount of such bid... 4. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1982 -25 shall be done in the Capital Projects Fund (Division 53). Date Mayor, ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 (XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, 56TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION) WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the City Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed Special Assessment Levy No. 8496 and has not deemed it just to amend such proposed assessment for the following improvement: XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, 56TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the spe assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such improvement shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first of the install - ments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1983, and shall bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12 %) per annum from September 1, 1982. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from September 1, 1982, until December 31, 1983. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he may, at any time thereafter, pay to the City Treasurer the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the P year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15, or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. 4. The.City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes., Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following; voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 'TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Worksf_ DATE: July 21, 1982 RE: Xerxes Avenue, 55th Avenue, 56th Avenue Street Reconstruction Project No. 1982 -02 Project Costs /Special Assessments The following information is submitted to assist in the review of assessment costs to be considered for the referenced street recon- struction project: STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 As Assessed/ As Ordered Financed Contract Cost $353,240.00 $261,415.90 Utility Connection 1,500.00 2,218.00 (Street Lights) Loop Detector Installation 0.00 1,860.00 Subtotal Construction Cost $354,740.00 $265,493.90 Engineering 31,930.00 23,894.45 Legal and Bonding 3,550.00 1,808.79 Administration 3,550.00 2,654.94 Interest 21,280.00 4,319.44 TOTAL $415,050.00 $298,171.52 In accordance with the proceedings of the improvement hearing of February 8, 1982, and an agreement between the City and Westbrook Mall providing for construction of a turn lane into the mall, the project costs, based on actual construction costs, were dispersed as follows: City Cost $132,550.00 $ 93,076.47 Westbrook Mall Cost 17,400.00 13,208.57 Special Assessments 265,100.00 191,886.48 Total $415,050.00 $298,171.52 July 21, 1982 Page 2 As a result of the dispersements proposed, the assessment rates were affected as follows: As Assessed/ As Ordered Financed Zone A Assessment Rate Per Acre $ 4,230.77 $ 3,062.34 Zone B Assessment Rate Per Acre 1,830.80 1,325.18 Westbrook Mall (for turn lane 17,400.00 13,208.57 only) SUMMARY As shown above, the reduction in the proposed assessment rate aE :. compared to the estimated amounts provided at the improvement hearing results in a significant saving by owners of the benefited property. SK: j n 9 _�_- U LI-J L-J P j Z � y .r ' � - 0,9 � - a s 0 R ? "WAY GRtVr ZONE B p 1c. L s �T�+ t �� ;. All t A � Z O \ E s �. o V . -�-� —Z O N E A ORTHPOE3't. / SC H06C- A. �,� {� / /. PARK':' `{ !\�` ` /'' WATER TO WER PROJECT LOC ATION / ANC ASSESSMENT OISTRICTS / t9g2 FOR IMP.PROJ. - r. CITY F 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY OGAM BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430. iN TELEPHONE 561 5440 C h ' EMERGENCY- P OLICE-FIRE 56 August 4, 1982 t Dear Owner: The enclosed official notice is intended to advise you of a special assessment hearing which will be conducted by the City Council at the time and place indicated. The notice relates to an - improvement project, previously authorized by the City Council, which has beery: completed.. State statutes provide that such a hearing be held prior to certify— ing the improvement costs to Hennepin County for collection with- property taxes over succeeding years. The purpose of the hearing is generally to advise the affected property owners of the final improvement costs. We have included below, information from the assessment roll stating the proposed assessment(s) to your property_ The assessments will be payable in equal annual principal install— ments, together with interest on the unpaid balance, for a period years. The first annual installment will include sixteen months interest. The rate of interest to be charged is determined by Cit • Council when 't levies Y Y i i s the assessment, but it is expected to be 12.0 %a Any assessment, adopted on August 23rd after the public hearing, may be prepaid at the City Hall from August 24, 1982, to September 22, 1982, without interest cost. If prepayment is made after September 22, 1982, but before November 15, 1982, it must include. interest charged on the full assessment for the period beginning September 1, 1982, and ending on the date of payment. The correct amount to pay on any specific date should be obtained from the City before submitting payment. No further notice will be sent. On November 16, 1982, the first installment will be placed on the roll of property taxes payable in 1983 by the Hennepin County Director of Finance. During each year thereafter,.prior to November 15th, the principal balance for all succeeding years remaining on the levy may be prepaid at the City Hall without additional interest. , 4#74e .So,K &luw mdu CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center -, inesota, will meet at the City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway on Monday,` ,August 23, 1982, at 8:00 P.M., Central Daylight Time, to hear and pass upon all objections, if any, to the proposed assessments for the following improve-. atent Street Improvement Project No, 1982 -02 -Description: Street Reconstruction, including roadway and curb and gutter reconstruction .,.Location: Xerxes Avenue North from T.H. 100 to County Road No. 10 55th Avenue North from T.H. 152 to Xerxes Avenue North 56th Avenue North from T.H. 152 to Xerxes Avenue North `7he benefited area proposed to be assessed for Improvement Project No. 1982 -02 is as follows . - ALL lTAACTS AND PARCELS WITHIN AN AREA BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY BOUNTY ROAD 10, ON THE EAST BY SHINGLE CREEK (COUNTY DITCH N0. 13), SON THE SOUTH BY T.H. 100, AND ON THE WEST BY T.H. 152 (BROOKLYN -33OULEVARD) . the total cost of this improvement is $298,171.52. -These assessments are now on file in the office of the City Clerk and open 4--o public inspection. Written or oral objections to the proposed assessments 11 be considered at this meeting. iAn owner may appeal an assessment to district court pursuant to Minnesota - n e Ma or o appeal upon th y b serving notice of pp P Section 429.081 g statutes Y Clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after service r =izpon. the Mayor or= -Clerk. No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment -- as to a specific parcel of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection to that assessment with the City Clerk prior -to the hearing or has presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing. SENIOR- CITIZEN HARDSHIP TAX DEFERRAL: Under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 435.193 to 435.195, the City Council may defer the payment.of this special assessment for any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of'age or -older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments. The City Council has established an annual household income of $7,500.00, or less, as a • +criterion to qualify for this deferral. Any assessed property owner meeting - -these requirements may apply to the City Clerk for a deferral prior to October 1, 1982. When deferment of the special assessment has been granted.• and is terminated for any reason provided in that 1 w, all amounts accumu- laced plus applicable interest become due. e ald G. Sp inter City C1 By order of the City Council Published in the Brooklyn Center Post on August 5, 1982. CIT" C t T { •k E.2 { ` / E- -! T E t a �......' +.'..+'vr 1'i F�)6 �NtE OWNER ` V� ' { P! 1 0 }.; l7TY N 7 --1 . 416NG AfJNESS II q ... ;Ma4ns A'. ^!. ". .•�i N! 14 CSRO, Inc. 89742 h1- 118 -21 -41 -0001 E 6,14:;9, c/o First Brookdale State Rank ( Fir t Rrrunlal :Mato P-ink 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1029 . 15 Pillsbury Realty Holding Company 89749 03- 118 -21 -41 -0002 2,970.47 608 - 2nd Avenue South Poppin' Fresh Restaurant Minneapolis, MN 55402 5601 Xerxes Avenue North o Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1162 16 Dayton Hudson Corporation 89746 03- 118 -21 -14 -0019 7,575.04 c/o DHC Property Tax Department Dayton's 11omP Store 777 Nicollet Mall 5701 Xerxes Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tracts F and G, R.L.S. No. 1142 17 Gabbert & Gabbert Company 89757 03- 118 -21 -14 -0022 30,066.35 c /o Gabbert & Beck. Westbrook Mall ATTN: Mr. Warren Beck 5605 - 5717 Xerxes Avenue North " 3510 West 70th Street Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1235 Edina, MN 55435 18 Mobil Oil Corporation 89747 03- 118 -21 -14 -0021 2,541.75 Box 290 Big Bi Dallas, TX 75221 5710 Xerxes Avenue North Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1151 !# 19 Sears, Roebuck & Company 89733 03- 118 -21 -44 -0026 28,366.62 Department 568 MW Sears, Roebuck & Company 7447 Skokie Boulevard 1297 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Skokie, IL 60077 Tract A, R.L.S. No. 936 20 Alstores Realty Corporation 89752 02- 118 -21 -32 -0004 20,592.53 ALLIED Central Stores Inc. Donaldson's Department Store c/o Donaldson's 1200 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. ' ATTN: R.E. Ahart Tract A, R.L.S. No. 119,1 601 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55402 . 21 Equitable Life Assurance Society 00204 02- 118 -21 -32 -0008 59,173.89 of America Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Mall c/o The Center Companies 330 - 2nd Avenue South, Suite 850 Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1469 M inneapolis, MN 55401 NOTICE ALSO TO: Jane Hetzel, Manager Brookdale Shopping Center Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 22 Equitable Life Assurance Society 00204 02- 118 -21 -32 -0009 2,491.34 of America J.C. Penney's Department Store c/o J.C. Penney Company, Inc. 1265 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. ATTN: R. Jantz, Tax Manager Tract C, R.L.S. No. 146 650 Woodfield Plaza 2 Schaumburg, IL 60195 23' Equitable Life Assurance Society 00204 02- 118 -21 -32 =0010 490.32 of America J.C. Penney's Auto Center c/o J.C. Penney Company, Inc. 1265 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. ATTN: R. Jantz, Tax Manager Tract D, R.L.S. No. 1469 650 Woodfield Plaza 2 Schaumburg, . IL 60195 • 24 Dayton Hudson Corporation 00204 02-118-21-32-0011 3 803.27 , c/o DHC Property Tax Department' Dayton's Department Store 777 Nicollet Mall 1100 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. - - Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tract E, R.L.S. N0.1469 25 MAK Management,, Inc. 89102 03 118 - 21 - 14 - 0001 1,272.18 5740 Brooklyn Boulevard, Suite 205 Brookdale Ten Office Building Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 5740 Brooklyn Boulevard Part of Lots 45 & 46, Auditor's OTICE ALSO TO: Subdivision No. 216 Brookdale Ten Inc. 00 So. County Rd. 18 #520 inneapolis, MN 55426 • First yo, bear. 16 months intrrest. .CITY C:= ASSESS OLL f .9496 ;F IMPRt'Vi..M tt::a ( j Q'N!'LR ` f i F f'� v V N41d1 E V T lv' r FN t 101,%r No:. N..;. M`�V. �i 1., V V'•, JM ••'s•, nR t .., ry ITf Y� M411' , I 1 LL •al t .1'. HIPT {tN 1 R s G Realty, inc. 39 0 3-1 3,159..23 C/o Mare's Big Boy Brookdale Marc's Big Boy Rc:ztaurant 1064 North 63rd Street 5440 Brooklyn Rouicvard Milwaukee, WI 53213 Tract N, R.L.S. No. 1209 2' 'Firestone Tire s Rubber Company 89754 03- 118 -21 -44 -0030 3,276.71 1200 Firestone Parkway Firestone Store Akron, OH 44301 5445 Xerxes Avenue North Tract 0, R.L.S. No. 1209 ' 3 Northwestern Nat'l. Life Ins. Corp 03- 118- 21 -44- 0031 9,684.83 c/o Red'Owl Stores, Inc. Red owl Country Store ATTN: Bruce McKeever 5425 Xerxes Avenue North Construction Supt. Tract R, R.L.S. No. 1209 P.O. Box 329 Minneapolis, MN 55440 4 Green Mill Inn, Inc. 00205 03- 118 -21 -41 -0013 3,770.36 c/o Brian D. Bangs Green Mill.Restaurant 1342 Grand Avenue' 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55105 Tract A and 0.1400 of Tracts F..6 I, R.L.S. No. 1419 5 Mr. . Mrs. Wesley H. Yee 00205 03- 118 -21 -41 -0014 1,065.67 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard Happy Dragon Restaurant 'Brookl n Center MN 55429 5532 Brooklyn Boulevard Y Y Tract B and 0.0778 of Tracts F S I, R.L.S. No. 1419 6 TKR Assoc. C/o Dolan H. Toth 00205 03- 118 -21 -41 -0015 10717.06 74 East Golden Lake Road Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor Circle Pines, MN 55014 5524 Brooklyn Boulevard Tract C and 0.1265 of Tracts F 61 I, R.L.S. No. 1419 T Commercial Investment Company 00205 03- 118 -21 -41 -0016 " 737.16 c/o K£C Nat'l. 'Co. Y067005 Kentucky Fried Chicken Restauran P.O. Box 35910 5512 Brooklyn Boulevard Louisville, KY 40232 Tract D and 0.0546 of Tracts F.i I, R.L.S. No. 1419 8 Dayton Development Company 00205 03- 118 -21 -44 -0032 2.89729 c/o Brookdale Car Wash, Inc. Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard , 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Tract E and 0.1075 of Tracts P & I, R.L.S. No. 1419 9 Warner Holding Company 00205 03- 118 -21 -44 -0033 3,700.51 6701 Penn Avenue South Goodyear Tire Store - - -- Richfield, MN 55423, 5501 Xerxes Avenue North Tract G and 0.1374 of Tracts F#II; R.L.S. No. 1419 10 Angie K. Zavoral, et al 00205 03- 118 -21 -41 -0018 1,782.07 c/o Dr. James H. Zavoral Audio King Store 323 West Elmwood Place 5515 Xerxes Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55419 Tract H and 0.0666 of Tracts F 6 I, R.L.S. No. 1419 - 118 -21 -41 -0020 11 Franchise Realty Interstate 00205 03 3,500.23 MCDONALD'S (058 -22) McDonald's Restaurant P.O—Box 66207 AMF O'Hare 5525 Xerxes Avenue North Chicago, IL 50666 Tract J and 0.1324 of Tracts F s I, R.L.S. No. 1419 12 Green Mill -Inn, Inc. 00205 03- 118 -21 -41 -0021 1,124.15 c /o. Brian D. Bangs Green Mill Restaurant Parking 1342 Grand Avenue 5540 Brooklyn Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55105 Tract K and 0.0436 of Tracts F i I, R.L.S. No. 1419 13 Green Tree Corporation 00205 03- 118 -21 -41 -0022 3,193.07 James Gardner, Controller Midwest Federal 801 Nicollet Mall 5545 Xerxes Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tract L and 0.1136 of Tracts F s I, R.L.S. 60. 1419 First year bears 16 months interest • 4 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 12, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL ° Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Carl Sandstrom, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary stated that Commissioners Malecki and Ainas called to say that they would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and asked to be excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 15, 1982 Motion by Commiss oni er Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to approve the minutes of the July 15, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82030 (Marie Reyes) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a two car garage to be set back 25' 6" from the front property line at 5700 Camden Avenue North, rather than the normally required 35 The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82030 attached). He added that he felt Application No. 78064 regarding a carport erected within the front setback, superseded the previous case in 1968 which allowed a garage to be built closer than 35' from the property line. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the proposed recreation room in the space currently part of the existing garage was too close to the north side property line to meet ordinance standards. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He explained that living space must normally be set back 10', or 5' if there are no windows or doors along the wall or in the space that it encroaches into the normal 10' setback area. He explained that the existing garage is 3' 3" and therefore, living space would be brought closer than the minimum of 5' from the north side property line. He added that garages are allowed to be 3' from the side property line. In response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding the grade behind the existing garage, the Secretary observed that there was some dropoff, but that the existing garage could be expanded both toward Camden Avenue North and to the rear toward the back yard. He explained that such an attached garage would require a foundation anyway and that,-therefore, a footing would have to go down into the ground beneath the existing grade. He also stated that tandem garages have been built in the City. He stated that staff had considered the option of building a detached 8 -12 -82 -1- garage behind the house, but admitted that because of the dropoff in the back yard and the existence of some trees, it would be difficult to build a detached garage in the back yard. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether houses and garages are set w back 35' on Camden Avenue North. Commissioner Simmons answered that she believed they are set back the normal 35' on this block. AD The Secretary stated that the existence of.other houses on the block less than 35' from the front property line would be a poor reason for granting a variance, in his opinion. He explained that the City Council formally used an average formula to grant setback variances in the front yard. He stated that this practice eroded the ordinance and was abandoned many years ago. h PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Harvey Stenquist, an architect representing the applicant, explained to the Planning Commission that the existing garage is only 11' wide on the outside dimensions and that a 40' long garage of this width would be extremely difficult to work with. He added that there were apple trees in the back yard which would make it a hardship for the owner to put a detached garage in back. He stated that he considered the situation unique because there are very few homes in the City which have access taken away from them on two sides. Mr. Stenquist showed the Planning Commissioners pictures of the elevat- ions of the house and stated that the applicant will make the siding on the house uniform rather than the patchwork construction that exists now. He stated that the narrowness of the existing garage would make a tandem garage difficult to work with. He pointed out that a long circuitous drive around the back of the house to get out of the back of a tandem garage would probably be necessary. Otherwise, the residents would always have to be jockeying their cars to get in and out. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not feel that was a unique situation. She added that there are other garages that are in the same situation and that granting a variance in this case would have implications for those cases as well. Mr. Stenquist stated that the existing garage could be used for storage space and could even be part of the new garage. He stated that the possibility of converting the space to a rec room had been raised by staff and was, therefore, added as a possibility on the plans, but that it did not have to be converted to a rec room. Commissioner Simmons asked which street the house fronted on. The Secretary stated that the .front of the lot was considered to be Camden and that a 35' setback was required from the street. He added.that because the parcel was a lot of record prior to 1957, the owner was entitled to a 15' side corner setback on the south side of the house. CommAssioner Simmons pointed out that most people only have one street access, not two or three. She stated she did not see that losing a couple of accesses was a particular hardship or made the property unique. She pointed out that the proposal would allow for two cars in the garage and two additional cars to be parked in the proposed turn - around area. She added that she had seen trucks parked at that location before. Mr. Stenquist- observed that the applicant does have a business and occasionally parks commercial vehicles on his property. The Secretary pointed out that the applicant has been tagged for too many commercial vehicles on residential property in the past. $- 12� -8'2 -2- Mr. Robert Brantner, of 5712 Camden Avenue North, next addressed the Commission. He stated that he was all for the proposal and that other neighbors on the street are in favor of it as well. He stated that the house looks tacky in its present configuration, that the house had been there when he was a young man himself many years ago and that it should, therefore, be grandfathered and allowed to'be approved. The Chairman and the Secretary both responded that the property could be upgraded within setback restrictions. Commissioner Simmons stated that she agreed with the staff position and felt that jockeying of cars is an inconvenience only, that other people must put up with this if they have only one car driveways. Mr. Reyes addressed the Commission and stated that he had trouble with his existing garage. He stated that it is only used for storage and it would not help him get his cars off his driveway. Following further brief discussions, Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else present wished to apeak to the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom, seconded by Commissioner Malecki, to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there was any other violation besides allowing a closer setback. The Secretary answered that there was no other violation if the existing garage were not con- verted to living space and the turn - around area allowed for at least a 15' greenstrip in front. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that garages are needed in Minnesota weather and he stated that a tandem garage presents particular difficulties. Chairman Lucht stated that he considered the tandem garage to be an inconvenience, but not a hardship as far as the ordinance is concerned. Commis- sioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the situation was peculiar with the access changed from West River Road to Camden and that the im- provements ought'to be allowed to improve the aesthetics of the dwelling and improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Simmons stated that she agreed with the idea of improving the aesthetics and con - ceded that the plan was rather an ambitious one. She added, however, that the existing garage could be expanded to the south and the kitchen to the west to allow for a wider garage and still allow expansion of the kitchen. Commissioner Manson stated that she was not in favor of the variance: She understood the parking problems, she said, but felt that there are alternatives in designing an expansion of the garage that should. be pursued before a variance is granted. Commissioner Versteeg stated that_he. favored keeping the alignment uniform along Camden Avenue and, therefore, the variance should be denied'. Chairman Lucht stated his understanding was that the 1978 variance case gave a clear policy signal from the City Council regarding the importance of the front setback. He stated that it may be incon- venient to look at the alternatives, but he felt that the setback was more important than apple trees or other inconveniences. Mr. Stenquist pointed out that the kitchen floor is 48" above the garage floor and that 48" of concrete foundation would have to be removed in order to expand the garage southward. This, he said, was more than a slight inconvenience. 8 -12 -82 -3- ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82030 (Marie Reyes) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded y Commissioner Manson to recommend denial of Application No. 82030 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons and Versteeg. Voting against: Com- missioner Sandstrom. The motion passed.. APPL NO 82033 (Advance Carter C ompany) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to expand the existing recreation center at 1280 Brookdale Shopping Center, The Piccadilly Circus. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Plann- ing Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82033 attached). In reviewing the conditions of approval the Secretary explained that Section 23 -2115 applies to the operation of amusement centers. Commissioner Simmons noted that one of the doors leading out of the new tenant space would lead directly to the outside. The Secretary explained that the door was an exit -only door and would not be used for access to the recreation center. Commissioner Simmons asked how late the recreation center would be open. The Secretary re- sponded that it would be the same as - the general Brookdale Mall hours, that the only establishment within Brockdale that is open after hours, to his knowledge, is the Pocky Rococo's Restaurant. Mr. Dan Heilicher, representing Advance Carter, stated that the door to the outside is an emergency exit which was requested by the Fire Department. He reiterated that the hours of the recreation center would be the same as those for ' the mall. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether there would ke employees on the premises after hours. Mr. Heilicher answered that employees would be on the premises occasionally during evenings and weekends, after hours or before hours. He added that food and drink would be prohibited in the recreation center. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0 $2033 (Advance Carter Com., any-) Mgtlon by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to recommend approval of Application No. 82033, subject to the following conditions: 0 1. The special use permit shall be issued to the applicant as operator.of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The special use is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, including Section 23 -2115 and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8- -12 -82 -4- 3. House rules and hours of local curfew regulations shall be clearly posted in the establishment and rigorously enforced. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 82020, 82031 and 82032 (Hussman Investment Company)_ The Secretary then introduced the next three items of business con- . currently, a request to rezone from R1 to R3 two parcels of land on the south side in the 800 block of 70th Avenue North, and a request for site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for an 8 unit townhouse project on the same property. The Secretary reviewed the staff report beginning with the information sheet for Appli- cation No. 82020 (attached). The Secretary also reviewed the reasons for rezoning contained in the draft resolution (also attached). The Secretary also reviewed the information sheet regarding the site plan and plat (Application Nos. 82031 and 82032, attached). The Secretary stated that he recommended fencing along the whole east property line and in the portion of the south property line not yet screened in the landscape plan. He added that such screening cannot come wi''iin_ 10' of public right -of -way. During his review of the recommended conditions of approval, the Secretary explained that the landscape plans have been certified by Mr. Jim Merila, a registered engineer. He stated that landsca e laps u nder rovi the strict sions of the P P , P Zoning Ordinance, must be prepared by a registered architect, not an engineer. He added, however, that landscape plans have been submitted by engineers in the past. He stated that the Planning Commission should decide whether it is appropriate to accept the plans as presently certified. In response to questions from Commissioner Simmons regarding visitor parking, the Secretary explained that two stalls have been moved to serve the northerly five units of the project and in order to save three larger cottonwood trees. Regarding the certification of plans, the Secretary stated that the ordinance requires site and building plans, including landscape P prepared Y a plans to be re ared b registered architect. However, he went g on, the City has accepted plans in the past from engineers. He added that the City has also accepted plans which were not certified on the condition that they be certified prior to the issuance of building permits. He explained that the requirement for architectural certification was intended to save the City the expense of hiring an architect to review lans. Commissioner Manson asked whether land- P . scape architects have submitted landscape plans in the past. The Secretary responded .in the affirmative: Commissioner Manson asked if other plans have been accepted from.other design professionals before. The Secretary again responded in the affirmative. Commis sioner Sandstrom asked what the City prefers. The Secretary,answered that he preferred certification by a registered professional. Chair - man Lucht stated that he felt it was simpler to require certification by an architect in accordance with the letter of the ordinance. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the City's experience and that of local businesses with landscape architects has been satisfactory. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. In answer to a question from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary explained that drawings 8 -12 -82 -5- for two family dwellings do not need to be certified either under the City Ordinance or State Building Code. He stated that the Building Official can still require certification if he has questions about the design. Mr. Jim Merila then addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Regarding the screening plan, he asked that the Commis- sion accept both fencing and vegetation rather than strictly fencing along the east.and south property lines of the project. Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Merila why the applicant wished to use vegetation as well as fencing. Mr. Merila answered that he preferred the aesthetic advantages of the landscape treatment. Chairman Lucht asked what materials the applicant would use in providing vegetative screening along the east property line. Mr. Merila responded that they would use the same materials shown in the landscaping along the south property line, namely Russian Olives, Sumac-and Spruce. Commissioner Simmons suggested that both fencing and landscaping could be installed along the east property line and that the land- scaping would soften the appearance of the stockade fence. Mr. Merila acknowledged that this could be done, but requested that the applicant be allowed to alternate the fence and the shrubs to provide screening along the east and south property lines. Chairman Lucht stated that such a proposal was acceptable to him in that landscaping has been allowed in the past and he added that he did not care for stockade fence. During further discussion on the screening issue, the Planning Assistant asked what plantings would be used to provide screening so that the Planning Commission could make a judgment that the proposed treatment is acceptable. Mr. Merila stated that the same nodules that were indicated along the south property line would be installed along the east property line as well. Chairman Lucht asked that the landscape plan be revised prior to consideration by the City Council. 'There was also a brief discussion regarding the certification of the lans registered architect. Merila b a re i tere ct Mr. e P Y g stated that he would accept the condition listed in the information sheet. Mr. Russell Fierst then briefly addressed the Commission regarding the building plans and floor layout for the proposed townhouses. Mr. Fierst explained that the bearing walls would all be on the out s side walls of the units and that interior floor. plane could be built to suit any prospective buyer. Regarding the landscape plan, Mr. Fierst stated that a Mr. Van Gable had designed the land- scape plan and that, although Mr. Van Gable was not a registered architect himself, there would be no problem having plans certified. Asked about the second deck shown on the plans and about the price range for the units, Mr. Fierst stated that the deck off the bedroom is an optional feature and the price range of the units would probably be in the high $50,000's to mid $60,000's, depending on construction costs and landscaping costs. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the public hearing for the plat, Appli- cation No. 82032. No one present spoke on the application. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 8 -12 -82 -6- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82031 (Hussman Investment Company) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissi Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 82031, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around.all common parking and driving areas. 7. The landscape plans shall be certified by a registered architect prior to Council consideration. 8. Plan approval acknowledges some vegetative screening along with opaque fencing along the southerly and easterly boundary of the site. The plans shall be modified to reflect this mix of screening prior to consideration by the City Council. 9. Building permits for the project will not be issued until the plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with the County. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none., The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION.NO. 82032 (Hussman Investment Company) _ Motion by Commis Is oner Versteeg seconded by Commi Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 82032, 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. Homeowners Association documents shall be subject to 8 -12 -82 -7- review and approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -3 F suggestion that any reference to the school district be stricken from.Point No. 2 supporting the rezoning, member Simmons introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 82020 SUBMITTED BY HUSSMAN INVESTMENT COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Sandstrom, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Lucht,'Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10:01 p.m. and resumed at 10:32 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM (Ci Maintenance Garage) Followin g thr recess, the Secretary introduced a discussion of the possibility of having outside storage at the City Maintenance Garage at 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary explained that the City Maintenance Garage is located in the I -1 Zoning District which does not permit outside storage. He explained that outside storage is allowed in the I -1 and C2 Zoning Districts. He suggested that possibly an ordinance amendment to allow outside storage under certain conditions in the I -1 zone should be drafted. The Secretary referred to the large outside storage yard which Northern States Power Company has between 68th Avenue North and the freeway and also referred to the above - ground fuel tanks that are allowed in the I -1 District provided they are screened from public view and approved b the City ouncil. c vi a r Y P PP Y The Secretary explained that the City wants to move its "bone yard" to the City Garage in order to get it out of the residential neigh - s borhood where it is presently located at Dupont and 69th Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the City acquired some R4 property be- tween West River Road and Camden Avenue North through tax forfeiture and has tentative plans to use that site for a water treatment plant. He stated that the outside storage could be pursued at the R4 property between West River Road and Camden or at the City Maint- enance Garage. He stated that there was a need for outside-storage in the I -1 zone. The question, he pointed out, was how to treat such storage under the ordinance. He mentioned that the salt storage building at the City Garage had been approved since 1978. The Secretary stated that he favored taking - the storage of gravel, sand and other materials out of the Rl zone. He stated that the storage could be transferred to the R4 property, the City Garage, or an I -2 zone site if the City acquired such property. The Assistant City Engineer then reviewed with the Planning Commis- sion in more detail the specific construction proposed. He stated 8 -12 -82 -8- that the intent of the move was to put the street and public utilities crews in one place. He stated that the materials would be placed in a cold storage area within an expanded salt storage building and behind a masonry wall which would extend 8' above the 5' high berm along the greenstrip north of 69th Avenue North. Within the storage area would be wood plank walls 4' to 6' in height. He explained that there would be a protective shield around the walls extending up to 4' to prevent gouging and damaging the main wall with loading equipment. The Assistant City Engineer showed the Planning Commission some pictures and slides of similar types of storage bays in other cities. Commissioner Simmons stated that the primary goal was not to have visible outside storage. The Secretary reviewed.some instances of outside loading docks which have been oriented away from public right -of -way so as to minimize their visibility. He asked the Planning Commission whether they were opposed to allowing storage in the I -1 zone or whether they felt it could be allowed under certain conditions. Commissioner Manson stated that there had been some concern over outside storage with the Classic Electric Car application in 1981. She stated that it would have been diffi cult to deny Classic Car the right to store cars and other materials outside if the City had approved outside storage at the City Garage prior to that application. The Secretary acknowledged that this was a possibility, but went on to suggest that perhaps public uses could be distinguished from other uses in determining what kinds of activity can be permitted in the I -1 Zoning District. Commissioner Simmons d'n allowing outside su ested that an - or �. ance all o i gg y g storage narrow down the type of storage so as to minimize the possibility of other businesses devoting much space to outside storage. The Secretary stated that by being the first to conduct outside storage in the I -1 Zoning District, the City could set the standard for required screening. The Secretary stated that any outside storage should be totally screened from public view and should constitute a use on the site accessory to a principal use housed within a building. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it is generally acknowledged that cities, representing the general public, have certain rights that other uses are not entitled to. Commissioner Simmons expressed some concern with any noise that might be associated with outside storage such as from the machinery used to deliver and pick up materials stored outside. It was the consensus of the Commission that outside storage in certain limited situations might be acceptable in the I -1 Zoning District and directed the staff to prepare draft ordinance language for their review. ADJOURNMENT Following further brief discussion of the matter, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:33 p.m. Chairman 8 -12 -82 -9- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82030 Applicant: Marie Reyes Location: 5700 Camden Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a two -car garage to be located 25' 6" from the front property line, instead of the 35' required. The applicant also proposes to convert an existing single -car garage to possible living space set back only 3' 3" from the north side interior property line. The setback deficiencies would result from the addition of a two -car attached garage to the west side of the existing structure, while converting the existing single -car garage on the north side of the house to either a storage or recreation room. (A recreation room is considered dwelling space which must normally be set back 10' from side interior property lines, or 5' on one side of the house if there are no doors or windows). The lot in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by I -94 on the east, by 57th Avenue North on the south, by Camden Avenue North on the west, and by a single- family residence on the north. There exists, along the south side of the property adjacent to 57th Avenue North, a -Pf highway easement preventing access to the property from 57th Avenue North. The o,re, 9 Y P 9 p P Y access must be gamed off Camden Avenue North. A garage could perhaps be added on the south side of the house, but would require a substantial variance from the side - corner setback requirement and would very probably encroach into the highway easement. Relative to the proposed garage location, staff do not recommend this alternative. Another option is to expand the existing single -car garage by extending it eastward to the front setback line and westward to the area behind the house, resulting in a "tandem" garage. This appears to staff to be a feasible alternative. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she argues that: -The orientation of the access has changed from old U. S. 169 to Camden Avenue North. - The house was placed on the site long ago, probably prior to adoption of a Zoning Ordinance. -The new garage would help re- orient the house to Camden Avenue North and would constitute an aesthetic improvement to the property and to the neighborhood. Locating the garage elsewhere would involve long, circuitous drives. and removal of trees. -The circumstances are unique, involving an older site which has changed in orientation over the years. Mrs. Reyes also points out that neighboring property owners do not object to the . requested variance. In reviewing applications for variance from the literal provisions of "the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall, according to Section 35 -240, determine whether the following standards are met: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. 8 -12 -82 -1- Application No. 82030 continued (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (c) The ,alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in. the neigh- borh.00d in which the parcel of land is located. Staff do not feel that the standards for a variance are necessarily met in this case. The option of building a tandem two -car garage within setback limitation is feasible and constitutes no more than an inconvenience in fulfilling the applicant's desires for more garage space. The applicant's situation is not unique, moreover. There are numerous homes within Brooklyn Center which have single car garages set back 5' or less from the side lot line and 35' to 40' from the front lot line. If all these are entitled to a similar variance, the front yard setback requirement would become almost meaningless. There have been two previous Planning Commission Applications (No. 68053, approved; 78064; denied) which posed questions quite similar to those raised by this appli- cation. The first (68053) pertained to the property at 5831 June Avenue North involving an attached garage to be set 30' from the front property line, with the house set back 35'. In this case, the variance was granted because other garages along the same block were also set back less than 35'. There was also a steep grade behind the proposed garage location. In the present case, there is a slight downward grade change behind the existing house, but it is staff's judgment that the steepness of the grade is not such as to create a hardship if the applicant were limited to building a tandem garage. Application No. 78064 was a request to allow a carport, erected without a permit, to continue in the front and setback etback area. The applicant contended it would be impossible to construct ct a detached ara e elsewhere on the premises because f g g h p s e use o the placement of existing trees. The variance was denied on the 9 rounds that it did not li,eet the Standards for a Variance with respect to hardship and uniqueness. In the present case, the option of a detached garage behind the house was considered by staff, but can probably be rejected on the grounds that there is a substantial drop-off in the rear yard. p Y There is also the question whether a variance m ust be granted to allow construction of a garage, or for a two -car garage as opposed to a one- -car garage. Garages are not required under City ordinances. Application No. 68053 involved a property with no garage and with circumstances that would have made meeting the setback require- ment difficult, though not impossible. Since there is presently a garage on the property in question, it cannot be the case that meeting the setback will eliminate the possibility of having a garage. In brief, staff feel that the Standards for a Variance are not met on the following grounds: (a) The circumstances (a one car garage set back 3' from the north side lot line) are not unique at all. Many, many homes have similar circumstances. 842 -82 -2- Application No. 82030 continued (b) Meeting the setback by building a tandem garage, as opposed to a standard side -by -side two -car garage, does not constitute a hardship, but merely an inconvenience. (c) Although the property has been affected 9 P p Y by changes to the right - of -way on the south and east, these changes were not caused by the ordinance; nor do they prohibit compliance with the ordinance. (d) The proposed variance probably would not be detrimental to sur- rounding property, except in its eroding effect on general set- back standards. It should also be noted that the proposed layout submitted shows a rather large blacktop turnaround area in the front yard, which would allow less than the normal 15' greenstrip required for parking areas. It should be made clear that any action on the variance request does not constitute acceptance of this proposed turnaround. We have not addressed in this report the separate question of whether dwelling space should be allowed less than 5' from the side o e inter r ro ert line. We do not p P Y recommend such a variance. In fact, the likelihood that such a further variance would become effective if the proposed plan were accepted is another reason for denial of the application. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. I 8 -12 -82 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82033 Applicant: Advance - Carter Company Location: 1280 Brookdale Center Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests amended special use permit approval for an expanded recreation center at Brookdale. The existing recreation center, Piccadilly Circus, was approved under Application No. 76012. Brookdale Shopping Center is zoned C2 and recreation centers are special uses within that zoning district provided they do not abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property at a property line or a street line. Further, mechanical amusement devices may not be located in commercial establishments within 150' of any residentially zoned property. There are-no residential abutment problems with this application. The expansion of the Piccadilly Circus will be into the tenant space formerly occupied by the Hennepin County Service Center which has been moved to its new location at the library at 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway. The existing space at Brookdale has approxi- mately 31 machines in a 1,300 sq. ft. area. The expansion will add 18 machines with the 1,430 sq. ft. area, along with a larger storage and repair room. A tentative layout sketch is attached for the Commission's review. The original special use permit for Piccadilly Circus was granted in 1976 subject to certain conditions including the following: "3. House rules and hours of local curfew regulations shall be clearly posted in the establishment and rigorously enforced. t 4. The special use permit shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission one year from the date of issuance. 5. Provision shall be made for bicycle parking racks located in a manner approved by the Department of Planning and Inspection." A review of the special use was made in 1977 and a memo from the then Director of Planning and Inspection is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. As will be noted, the additional bicycle racks were considered unnecessary at that time. { The Chief of Police has recently informed us that, based on the record of the past six years, he has no objection � to the expansion of the operation. Based on the foregoing, we see no difficulty in extending the special use permit for Piccadilly Circus and approval is, therefore, recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit shall be issued to the applicant as operator of the facility t and i s nontransferable. Y 2. The special use is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, including Section 23 -2115 and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. House rules and hours of local curfew regulations shall be clearly posted in the establishment and rigorously enforced. 8 -12 -82 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82020 Applicant: Hussman Investment Company 0 Location: 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North . Request: Rezoning This application was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 29, 1982 and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The, neighborhood group met on June 3rd without a quorum and again on June 16th and made a favorable recommendation of the rezoning to R3. The application was then returned to the Planning Commission on July 1, 1982, at which time the Commission gave the applicant a favorable indication regarding the rezoning and asked that a site plan f and plat be prepared and submitted prior to taking action on the rezoning. Those applications have now been submitted and are recommended for approval along with the rezoning. The Planning Commission is also advised that another letter from Mr. Paul Dan Rosso (representing Melba Evanson of 800 - 69th Avenue North) has been submitted to the Commission and is attached for your review. The letter basically discusses the role of the Comprehensive Plan in deciding land use changes. As was indicated in the staff report of July 1, 1982, staff ; feel the rezoning need not be construed as spot zoning and can be justified within the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -209 of the Zoning Ordinance: A draft resolution approving the rezoning is attached for the Planning Commission's consideration. The public hearing for this application was closed at the July 1, 1982 meeting. Nevertheless, an informational notice has been sent to all owners of property within 350 feet of the land in question. 8 -12 -82 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 82 -3 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 82020 SUBMITTED BY HUSSMAN INVESTMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, Application No. 82020 submitted by Hussman Investment Company proposes rezoning from Rl (Single- family Residential) to R3 (Townhouse) of property in the 800 block on the south side of 70th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Commission held a duly called public hearing on April 29, 1982 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the item was referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group which, in minutes of a meeting on June 16, 1982 recommended the rezoning, subject to submittal of a plat to subdivide the property for owner- occupied townhouses and of a site and building plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission further considered the matter on July 1, 1982 and on August 12, 1982; and WHEREAS, an appropriate preliminary plat to subdivide the property for owner- occupied townhouses and site and building plan have been accepted by the Commission: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 82020 submitted by Hussman Investment Company be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The R3 zoning classification is an appropriate land use classification for the location in question in that it is consistent and compatible with all surrounding land uses. 2. Development of the property for townhouses is in the interest of the City, and the 'surrounding land uses, as well as the property owner,, by adding 8 dwelling units'.to the Northeast Neighborhood. 3: Development of the property for townhouses is more con - sistent with a traffic level of up to 7,000 cars per day anticipated on 69th /70th Avenues North than single - family residences in that internal driveways allow for .better visibility for residents to enter the public street.' 4. The proposed townhouse use of the land is not considered to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal that the Northeast Neighborhood be predominantly single - family detached residential in character. 5. The proposed townhouse use is consistent with the recom- mendations of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically with the Land Use Revisions Map which calls for mid- density residential development south of 70th Avenue North, east of the City Maintenance Annex and west of the Columbus Village Apartments. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -3 6. The property in question will bear fully the ordinance develop- ment restrictions for the proposed zoning district, whereas the R1 zoning classification presented development problems which would have lead to a less efficient use of land. August 12, 1982 Date Chairman (,f,V, ATTE T Secretary 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 whereupon said resolution was s m declared duly passed and adopted. a Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos. 82031, 82032 Applicant: Hussman Investment Company Location: 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan, Preliminary Plat The applicant requests site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for an eight (8) unit townhouse project on the .91 acre parcel of land presently addressed 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North. The propperty in question has been the subject of a rezoning request (Application No. 82020)which has received tentative, though not final approval by the Planning Commission at its July 1, 1982 meeting. The site plan calls for three L- shaped doubles and one double with entries at either end (see copy of plan attached). Access to the site is from two points along the east side of 69/70th Avenues North. A total of 36 parking stalls are provided, including four guest parking stalls. This far exceeds the 16 spaces required by ordinance. The site plan assumes partial use of a tuck -under garage credit of 500 sq. ft. per tuck -under garage stall. Since the site is less than an acre, the normal density would allow only 7 units. However, utilizing an optional credit for tuck -under garage stalls, the site could accommodate up to 9 units. The eight (8) units proposed falls within that limit. The landscape plan calls for four (4) Summit Ash (2" - 22" dia.) and one Sugar Maple within the boulevard area. In addition, the plan calls for three (3) Red Maples, one (1) Sugar Maple, one (1) Silver Maple, and three (3) Shademaster Locusts within the property. Also, two large existing trees and several smaller Elms are eto9 remain on the site. Finally, the plan calls for smaller trees and shrubs and foundation tion plantings around the units. City ordinance requires at least two 6" diameter trees for a project of this size. In the past, Elm trees have not been credited toward this requirement. Since one of the larger existing trees have not been identified as to specie, we cannot determine that it is not an Elm and, therefore, the landscape plan cannot be considered complete. Also, the landscape plan has not been certified by a registered architect as required by ordinance. The plan calls for minimum 15' buffer strips along the southerly and easterly boundaries of the project, in accord - ance with ordinance requirements. The plan utilizes existing vegetation and, in the gaps,a 6' high stockade type fence to meet the screening requirement. No fencing is provided, however, along the north 90' of the east property line. It is recom- mended that fencing be added to the plan in this area prior to Council consideration The drainage and grading plan provides B612 curb and gutter around all common parking and driving areas. A catch basin is proposed at the north end of the guest parking. area serving the northerly five townhouse units. A depressed curb will be installed at the southern tip of the guest parking serving the southerly three units. The drainage from the southerly portion of the site will drain out of this depressed curb into a drainage swayle running along the south property line to the storm drainage system in 69th /70th Avenue North. Plans for 69th /70th are tentatively for a 32' wide roadway which may be expanded later. No concrete driveway aprons will be installed until a final roadway width is established. The building plans submitted are for one and two - bedroom units with about 1,000 sq. ft. of dwelling space and two -car garages. The exteriors are treated with horizontal lap board siding. Each has an.outside stairway leading up to a split- entry. Each unit also has a deck off the living room. The proposed plat has eight (8) townhouse lots on four 4 ( ) ( ) blocks and one common area. No easements are indicated. The - proposed legal description will be the "Evergreen Estates." 8 -12 -82 -1- Application Nos. 82031, 82032 Altogether, the plans and the plat appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to the following conditions: Application No. 82031 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities'and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all common parking and driving areas. 7. The landscape plans shall be certified by a registered architect prior to Council consideration. 8. The landscape plan shall be modified to indicate 6' high opaque fencing along the north 90° of the east property line in accord - ance with City ordinance requirements. 9. Plan approval acknowledges vegetative screening along the southerly and easterly boundaries of the site in lieu of an opaque fence or wall. 10. Building permits for the project will not be issued until the plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with the County.. A pplication No. 82032 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. Homeowners Association documents shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 8 -12 -82 -2- 1 �t Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 13, 1982 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 13th day of September, 1982, in the City Hall at 8:00 P.M. to pass upon the proposed assessments for the following charges: Public Utility Hookups and Diseased Shade Tree Removal Costs and Delinquent Public Utility Accounts at such time and place all persons owning property to be assessed for such charges will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessments. 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall forthwith prepare assessment rolls for the above charges, and �. -- shall keep them on file and open to inspection by any interested persons. 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessments to be published once in -the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. 4. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in such assessment rolls not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST DENTAL INSURANCE PLAN BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the Adoption Agreement with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust adopting the dental insurance plan offered by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. 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 Noted in favor thereof: z and the following voted against the same; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM T0: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant rl DATE: August 20, 1982 SUBJECT: Dental Insurance Program The 1981 -82 Labor Agreement with the Law Enforcement Labor Services Local #82 provides that in 1982 Police Officers may vote to use $10 of the $105 per month per employee of health and life insurance for dental insurance. Brooklyn Center Police Officers (Local #82) have elected to use the $10 of the $105 for a dental insurance program. The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has made available to members of insurance the League of Cities a dental plan. The dental insurance plan is p g offered by the League. of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust in cooperation with Prudential Insurance Company and like LMCIT's other insurance programs for Cities it is intended as a means by which Cities can reduce their cost by cooperatively purchasing the coverage they need. The program offered in conjunction with Prudential was established several months ago.by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The LMCIT, in conjunction with the Metropolitan Area Manage- ment Association (MAMA), conducted an extensive bidding process and accepted proposals from several insurance carriers and HMO's. The Prudential program was finally selected as the one offered by the LMCIT and was generally thought to be the best program for the cost. Brooklyn Center Police Officers have voted as a group to elect the Prudential plan offered through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. A summary of the plan and LMCIT Trust Agreement is attached to this memorandum and includes the monthly premimum costs. In order for the plan.to be offered the City Council must authorize participation in the plan by resolution. t ADOPTION AGREEMENT RECITALS 0 A. By Agreement and Declaration of Trust dated September 21, 1979, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust was established. B. The undersigned employer as defined in the Trust Agreement on behalf of its Employees as defined in the Trust Agreement desires to make available the Trust Plans checked below and hereby adopts the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Declaration of Trust establishing the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, Now, therefor, the undersigned agrees that effective as of the day of , 19 , it adopts the dental insurance plan and hereby agrees to be bound by all the terms, provisions, conditions, and limitations of said Trust Agreement, and all lawful amendments hereto, Dated: 19 Name of City: B , Mayor (Signature) City Clerk (:Signature) J ill 111 0 league f minnesota cities 9 SUMMARY OF LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST AGREEMENT (This summary is not the agreement. Only the trust agreement is intended to give rise to any legal rights or responsibilities.) A trust is a legal entity which has the power to accept and spend funds, enter contracts, etc., but which is required at all times to act in the interest of and for the benefit of another party. In this case, the League of Minne�- Cities (LMC) has created the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for the purpose of providing various forms of risk management and insurance pro - tection to member cities. Articles I - III. These articles establish the name and purpose of the trust, and define several terms used in the trust document. Article IV. LMCIT is empowered to purchase insurance, engage in loss control, investigate, defend, and pay claims, and engage in similar activities. Areas of coverage may include property, liability, workers compensation, and. "health benefits. While directing the trustees to engage in these activities, the trust agreement does not specify the precise form (purchase of insurance, self- insurance, etc.) the arrangements are to take, leaving this to the discre- tion of the trustees, Article V. This article establishes the procedure by which cities may participate in the insurance programs established by the trust. The trustees are empowered to specify requirements for participation including payment of a fee. The trustees are given no discretion to reject any city which meets the established requirements, and must state the reason if any applicant is rejected.. The trust document calls for LMCIT to issue to participating members a policy, certificate, or other document stating the terms of the coverage pro - vided. (The actual form of the document issued may vary, depending on the type of risk management program the trustees have established - self - insurance, group purchase, etc.) Also, again depending on the type of program established, the city may be required to make premium or equivalent payments to LMCIT, to a specified insurance company or agent, or to the city's own insurance agent. To the extent permitted by law or policy, members may require a contribution from their employees toward the cost of employee benefit coverages. Members may withdraw at any time, and will be liable only for payments which have accrued up to that time. All coverage ceases at the time of with- drawal, except for claims which have accrued prior to withdrawal. (OVER) 300 hanover building, 460 cedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 C61 21 222 -2661 The mere fact of membership n th1CIT' does not give the member city or any other person any claim on the trust's assets. Member cities and other persons are entitled only to the benefits establ� shed i-n the policy or other document used under any of LKIT risk protection programs. All members are required to ass "gn to LMCIT any insurance dividends received. (The dividends will be distrbuted to members as provided in Article VI.) Article VI. This article establishes a fund into which all of the trust's income is to be deposited. The fund is used to pay the expenses of operating LMCIT's risk protection programs, including administrative, legal, and other expenses. The fund may also be used to pay claims directly if any risk protection program established by the trust calls for direct payment by the trust. Finally, any excess in the fund is returned to the individual members. Each member's refund will be determined on the basis of two factors: 1) the total amount paid by the member to the trust; and 2) to the extent that the trustees decide it is advisable, the member's individual loss experience. Article VII. LMCIT is managed by a five - member Board of Trustees, con- sisting of the Executive Director of LMC, one member of the LMC Board of Directors, two persons who are mayors or council members of cities which are members of the trust, and one other persona The trustees are appointed by the LMC Board of Directors. Except for the LMC Executive Director, all trustees serve three -year terms, with no more than two of the terms expiring in any one year. (The initial trustees will be appointed for a temporary, six -month term. Permanent trustees will then be appointed. For the first permanent term only, two trustees will be appointed for two -year terms, so as to "stagger" the expiration dates.) Trustees may resin or may be removed y g y e oved by the LMC Board of Directors for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Vacancies are filled by the LMC Board of Directors for the remainder of the unexpired term. . Trustees receive no compensation, but are reimbursed for expenses. The trustees must meet at least once per year; additional meetings may be called by the chairman or by any two trustees. Any action may be taken by majority vote at a meeting or by unanimous agreement in writing without a meeting. The trustees are given full authority and responsibility for adminis- tration of the trust and fund in accordance with the trust document. They are not required to be bonded; nor are they personally liable for any errors in judgment made in exercising their discretion in good faith in hiring employees, entering contracts, making investments, etc, Article VIII. This article provides that persons who are dealing with LMCIT are not required to investigate whether the trustees' actions are in accordance with the trust document, but may take at face value any contract or agreement signed by the trustees. Article IX. The LMC Board of Directors is given the power to amend or to terminate the trust. If LMCIT is terminated, the trustees may transfer the trust's programs and assets to any other organization controlled by cities extablished for the same purpose. Article X. LMCIT is created in Minnesota and is to be construed and administered in accordance with Minnesota law. -2- i� GROUP DENTAL EX INSUR ANCE . e Plan II Here's how the plan works. A PARTIAL PREVENTIVE SERVICES_ BASIC SERVICES MAJOR SERVICES LISTING OF Routine Examination Other X -rays Inlays SERVICES -Prophylaxis Extractions Crowns ELIGIBLE Flouride Fillings Bridges o Bitewing and Oral Surgery Full and Partial Full mouth General Anesthetics Dentures X-rays £ndod O n tics Root Canal Therapy Space Maintainers •A Denture Repairs ANNUAL DEDUCTIBLE An annual deductible, if included, is the first $ S of eligible Major dental charges that must be satisfied only once by, each participant each calendar year. ae .. LIFETIME DEDUCTIBLE A lifetime deductible, if included, is the first $ 50 of eligible Basic dental charges the participant incurs while insured. RENSFITS After the satisfaction of the required deductibles, if applicable, the plan will pay the following benefit percentages of the eligible expenses incurred ` by the participant Eligible Expenses Benefit Percentage Preventive.Services 100 A Basic Services 80 x , Major $ervices 50 % ANNUAL MAXIMUM During any calendar year, A participant may receive benefit payments up to a maximum of $ 750 . This maximum applies to combined benefits on account of Preventive, Basic and Major Services. , Employee $ 7.27 Dependent 16.0$ Ortho 2 .61 Total Total $25.96 GO-2 CM. 0 6447 7 7J a 6-80 0iM_Sd"W0 ) Annual Trustee Fee is $5.00 ' 1 - Member o introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 82020 SUBMITTED BY HUSSMAN INVESTMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, Application No. 82020 submitted by Hussman Investment Company proposes rezoning from R1 (Single- family Residential) to R3 (Townhouse) of property in the 800 block on the south side of 70th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on April 29, 1982 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the item was referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group which, in minutes of a meeting on June 16, 1982 recommended the rezoning, subject to submittal of a plat to subdivide the property for owner- occupied townhouses and of a site and building plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission further considered the matter on July 1, 1982 and on August 12, 1982 and have recommended the rezoning through Planning Commission Resolution No. 82 -3; and WHEREAS, an appropriate preliminary plat to subdivide the property for owner- occupied townhouses and site and building plan have been accepted by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered rezoning Application No. 82020 and the companion application for preliminary plat approval No.82032 at its August 23, 1982 meeting: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 82020 submitted by Hussman Investment Company be approved in consideration of the following: 1. The R3 zoning classification is an appropriate land use classification for the location in question in that it is consistent and compatible with all surrounding land uses. 2. Development of the property for townhouses is in the interest of the City, and the surrounding land uses, as well as the property owner, by adding 8 dwelling units to the Northeast Neighborhood. 3. Development of the property for townhouses is more con- sistent with a traffic level of up to 7,000 cars per day anticipated on 69th /70th Avenues North than single- family residences in that internal driveways allow for better visibilit y for residents to enter the public street. 4. The proposed townhouse use of the land is not considered to' be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal that the Northeast "Neighborhood be predominantly single - family detached residential in character. ` 5. The ro osed townhouse use is consistent with the recom- P P mendations of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically with the Land Use Revisions Map which calls for mid- density residential development south of 70th Avenue North, east of the City Maintenance Annex and west of the Columbus Village Apartments. RESOLUTION NO. 6. The property in question will bear fully the ordinance develop - ment restrictions for the proposed zoning district, whereas the R1 zoning classification presented development problems which would have lead to a less efficient use of land. Date Mayor ATTEST Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof; and the following voted against the same; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. r s 1 i i1A CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1982 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the City Ordinances regulating and licensing amusement devices. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 REGARDING LICENSE FEES FOR KIDDIE RIDES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 23 -010. LICENSE FEES. The fees for the various licenses shall be as hereinafter stated, notwithstanding other ordinance provisions regarding the specific fee. Fee, (annual un- less otherwise Type of License Required by Section License Expires stated) Amusement Device 23 -2101 June 30 Operator $50 per machine Kiddie Ride $10 per ride Vendor $150 Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted). MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant SUBJECT": Performance Agreement DATE: August 19, 1 , 982 The following performance guarantee is recommended for release: 1. Burger Brothers Sporting Goods 5927 John Martin Drive Planning Commission Application No. 79035 Amount of Guarantee - $40,000.00 Bond Obligor - Burger Brothers Original bond was authorized for reduction to $5,000 on September 14, 1981. owever, no new bond or rider was received. Seven 7) Japanese , Barberry � P .missing P at time of 1981 inspection have been installed and two (2) Skyline Locusts in west parking lot island which were dead this summer have been replaced. Manholes and gate valves which were previously buried by front greenstrip berm have been uncovered by modifying berm. All other improve- ments have been installed. Recommend total release. Approved ey rA Rona d A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection Jc a TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 19, 1982 RE: Development Plan For Municipal Service Garage Site At your request we have reviewed the,City's needs for development of the Municipal Service Garage site. Considerations included in this review included the following objectives: 1. to eliminate the need for the old City Maintenance Annex building at 69th Avenue and Dupont - thereby allowing for removal of this building; and to eliminate the use of the adjacent grounds as a storage yard - thereby allowing redevelopment of this area as part of the Evergreen School and Park complex, It is noted that about half of the storage yard area is currently being "lost" by development of the soccer field. 2. 'to minimize, or eliminate, the need for development of additional storage area(s) at other locations 3. to allow relocation of the Public Utilities Division crew head- quarters (from their present location in Wellhouse No. 6 at 69th Avenue and Fremont) to the Municipal Service Garage The purpose for this move is to provide better opportunities for coordination of the personnel and equipment of the Street and Park divisions with the Public Utilities Division. 4. to provide additional storage space for the Citv's voting machines, allowing re -use of valuable space now being used for this purpose in the lower level at City Hall, at the Fire stations, and at other locations 5. to provide adequate area and facilities for storage of the City's equipment and materials in compliance with the City's zoning ordinance requirements; and 6. to implement those portions of the 1980 Energy Conservation Study which apply to this facility; and to take such additional steps as are feasible to reduce energy consumption. Review of Previous Plans At the time the present garage was built, the original plans had called for extension.of the building 64 feet westerly -from the current end of the vehicle storage area of the building. The original building plans also called for a westerly extension of the shop /office portion of the building to provide work and office space for the Public Utilities Division. These portions were not included in the 1970 construction project in order to keep the project within budget limitations. Also, because of budget limitations, this building was constructed without - insulation on the walls or ceiling. The 1980 Energy Audit indicates a 10 year payback period for installation of this insulation. August 19, 1982.memo to G.G. Splinter Page 2 In 1978, a site lan was developed (copy attached) for construction . P p of a salt storage building (which was constructed in 1979 -80) and for construction of future open storage bins for material storage. In 1981, our analysis of the needs for storage of vehicles and materials concluded that more inside storage would be needed than would be pro - vided by construction of the originally proposed additions. Accordingly, our 1982 budget request proposed construction of a mezzanine for materials storage, along the north side of the present vehicle storage area. A current cost evaluation of the composite plan as described above shows the following costs estimate (assuming 1983.construction and including architectural fees, etc.) 1. Construction of 64 foot extension (4,800 square feet) to vehicle storage area building construction = $253,000 driveway relocation = $ 12,000 $265,000 2. Construction of 64 foot extension (2,432 square feet) to shop /off ice portion of building = $175,000 3. Construction of mezzanine $ 35,000 4. Installation of storage yard paving and construction of bins, fencing, etc. _ $130,000 TOTAL = $605,000 Further evaluation of this composite plan indicated that: 1. installation of a mezzanine within the existing building, while acceptable, provided new problems and would be far from ideal. 2, the inside storage available would still be minimal 3. while providing room for the Public Utilities Division in the shop /office addition, the two divisions would still be separated '(Street and Park at the east end,.Public Utility at the west end) with separate offices, separate work areas, separate lockers and washrooms, etc. 4. the proposed extension to the vehicle storage portion of the building and shop /office addition would have to be heated resulting in additional heating costs. 5. the plan for utilization of the storage yard indicated excessive setbacks, thereby reducing the useable area of the site; and 6. the development of open storage bins is not allowed within I -1 zones under the current Zoning Ordinance. August 19, 1982 memo to G.G. Splinter Page 3 Revised Site Plan Developed In an attempt to improve the functional aspects of this facility, a revised site plan has been developed (copy attached). Essential features of the revised plan include: 1. construction of a separate "cold storage" (i.e. unheated) building (8,060 square feet) adjacent to the salt storage building, in lieu of the extension of the present vehicle storage area. Installation of a mezzanine along one side of this building would provide an additional 2,640 square feet of space and would not cause the same restrictions that a mezzanine would create in the main building. This building would provide very adequate space for all vehicles and materials which require inside storage, but which do not require heated storage (see attached listings of equipment and materials which we propose to store in this building, or on the mezzanine and in open storage bins). In addition, this plan provides a very convenient area for Police Department storage of stolen merchandise to replace the very- difficult-to-use storage area on the second floor of the shop/ office area in the present building. 2. Remodeling of the existing shop /office area of the existing building to put all offices and shop areas on the first floor and move the locker rooms and lunch rooms to the second floor. This scheme brings all employees into the same shop /office area. While still providing a separate shop and office for the Utility Division, it consolidates the use of the locker room and lunch room thereby increasing the efficiency in the use of plumbing, lunchroom facilities, etc. 3. A revised plan for outside storage. Note: Neither plan provides for storage of voting machines within the Municipal Service Garage. However, with implementation of either plan; the shop and garage areas of Wellhouse No. 6 could be made available for this use when the Public Utility Division crew moves to their new headquarters. A cost evaluation of this revised plan shows the following cost estimate (assuming 1983 construction and including architectural fees, etc.). 1. Unheated storage building including mezzanine $288,000 2. Remodel shop /office and locker room /lunchroom = $103,000 S 3. Precast concrete fencing along Shingle Creek Parkway = $ 33,000 4. Installation of storage yard paving and construction of bins, other fencing, etc. _ $120,000 TOTAL - $544,000 August 19, 1982 memo to G.G. Splinter Page 4 Accordingly, while the total cost estimate is 10% lower than the cost for the previous plans, it is also our opinion that this revised plan is more functional and will save energy costs in the future. To complete the cost analysis for all recommended improvements, we also recommend inclusion of the following costs (regardless of which plan is used). Again, these costs assume 1983 construction, and include architectural fees, etc.: Insulation of exterior walls - $ 58,000 (Note: It is recommended that insulation of the ceiling not be done at this time. Rather, this should be done when the roof needs replacement because of normal aging i.e. - in 5 to 10 years.) Replacement of single -pane windows with insulating glass = $ 3,000 Installation of an equipment wash rack in the existing vehicle storage garage area = $ 13,000 SUBTOTAL - for improvements to existing = $ 74,000 building Plus - costs for revised plan (from above) _ $544,000 TOTAL COSTS FOR ALL PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS = $618,000 Because a major share of the costs involved in this project are incur - red for the purpose of housing the Public Utilities Division, and since the Public Utilities Division will be utilizing a sizeable share of the existing facilities (which was built without the use of Public Utility funds), it is recommended that at least half of the costs of current improvements be charged to the Public Utilities Fund, and that the balance be programmed within the Capital Projects Fund. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Required Because the present zoning ordinance does not allow any outside storage of materials, neither plan can be implemented under current regulations. However, it should be noted that the revised plan substantially reduces the amount of outside storage and provides screening by use of a decorative precast concrete fence matching the ,texture of the existing buildings. On August 12th, Ron Warren reviewed the revised site plan with the Planning Commission and reports that their initial reaction to the plan was favorable and that they indicated a willingness to consider a Zoning Ordinance amendment which would allow implementation of the revised plan. August 19, 1982 memo to G.G. Splinter Page 5 Recommendation It is recommended that this report be discussed with the City Council at their August 23, 1982 meeting. If the Council's reaction is favor- able, staff will then develop a zoning ordinance amendment for formal consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council and develop a detailed financing plan and a recommended timetable for construction. Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp Attachments SK:jn 4 New Cold Storage Building 1. Ground Floor Storage 8060 Sq. Ft. 2. Subtract Center Drive -1920 Sq. Ft. 3. Subtract Police Storage - 400 Sq. Ft. 4. Net Storage Area 5740 Sq. Ft. Some of the supplies and equipment that would be stored in the New Building. Winter Summer Street Sweeper's (2) 680 Sq. Ft. X Small -Steel Roller (2) 354 Sq. Ft. X X Chip Spreader 72 Sq. Ft. X X Sander 64 Sq. Ft. X Sidewalk Plows (2) 120 Sq. Ft. X Large Snowblower 140 Sq. Ft. X Sewer Bucketing Mach. (2) 200 Sq. Ft. X X Brush Chipper . Ft. X X 100 S PP q . Ft. X X 130 S Dozer q Rubber Tired Roller 140 Sq. Ft. X X Ten Ton Roller Steel 75 Sq. Ft. X X Tailgate Paver 80 Sq, Ft. X X Cement Mixers 72 Sq. Ft. X X Oil Distributor 192 Sq. Ft. X X Paint Striper 100 Sq. Ft. X X Fertilizer Spreader 54 Sq. Ft. X X Litter Picker 84 Sq. Ft. X X Grass Seeder. 20 Sq. Ft. X X Sod Cutter 10 Sq. Ft. X X Roto Tiller 10 Sq. Ft. X X Weed Sprayer., 40 Sq. Ft. X X Concession Trailer 192 Sq. Ft. X X 5 Mowers 180 Sq. Ft. X Large Mowers 140 Sq. Ft. X Sign Trailers (2) 64 Sq. Ft. X X Western Snow Blower 32 Sq. Ft. X X Puppet Trailer 160 Sq. Ft. X X Misc. Trailers X (8) 896 Sq. Ft. X X Band Trailer 250 Sq. Ft. X X Tar Kettle 50 Sq. Ft. X X Old Pull Type Grader 70 Sq. Ft. X X Approx. Total Sq. Ft. Area needed year around for equipment storage 4447 Sq. Ft. 3771 Sq ft. Materials to be Stored in Cold Storage Building Winter Summer Fertilizer (Approx. 20 Tons) 400 Sq. Ft. X Field Marking Lime 160 Sq. Ft. X Sand Bags 25 Sq. Ft. X X Lawn Seed 50 Sq. Ft.- X X Sacrete 40 Sq. Ft. X Approx. Total Sq. Zt. Area Needed year around for material storage. 75 Sq. Ft. 675 Sq.Ft.1 Total ground floor storage area needed. 4522 *Sq.Ft. 4446 *Sq.Ft. *Note: The above listing covers only equipment and materials currently owned by the City and assigned to Street and Park Divisions. The remaining area would be available for storage of equipment and materials assigned to the Public Utility Division, with a small amount of space available for future needs. i MEZZANINE Some of the supplies and equipment that could be stored on a mezzanine. Rota ry Brooms Small Mowers Jari Mowers Fire Hose Small Electric Gen. Sod Cutter Roto Tiller Airless Paint Sprayer Cement Saw Infrared Heater Vibra Tamper Post Hole Auger Back Blade Dozer Blades Snowplow Blades Miscellaneous Items Pipe, Storage racks, Disc, Drags, Small Snow Blowers, Tool Storage Racks, Brooms for tractors, etc. 1 Outside Storage in Bins. � t7q ✓t1 1. Storm & Sanj Sewer Casings 2. Snow plows & wings 3. Picnic tables & benches 4. Propane gas tanks 5. Storm sewer pipe, rings & manholes 6. Parking lot posts 7. Crushed lime rock 8. Age lime 9. Clay 10. hockey boards & wooden walks 11. Buckshot - Trap Rock 12. Class 5 gravel 13. Cement sand - rock 14. Scrap iron pile f 1 + + • I Og g• • i GA A G E vtE ..•�'. P4 R • pO �P 1 EN o► 1..� Pot tUR /, s «�~••�� t f �KPNA 0 E4A APEA w05 SAL' • ` t .� ® Sro "Aa f �' E , • '� J pI.0 "OS"o ' o ( U,, ,,, J,tEN so / ` fr N rJJ 14� • r,: • � �Ptt tf St i YY. M(i( f AMR M° . 197 ?LAS e , K1CipA 0 a. 0 0 10 VE�1=CLE S10PAGE • APEA 1 1 � " or AE D AV w+V EN i651O p �' `w•w'wer q u 1N•. of <Vr' pA•Khi6 `� ' f ✓ � i t p opopolt .+"' r���i ` ►\ it N � t� IIL 4T.t 1 1 .....•"�� <0� tt 1 ~~s l � •�. � 1 1 0 ° ututtl t ��M�11 � G eese � � ► � �� - --{• j ^ j �` .... —r"�' a t 1� , ti(�V 61 y G) /1 A ( N 1 �� ww•r 1 + l s 1 �e ( . _ / ���rwrLr.+rrrri.!w.rw u � •srrrrl�.�Irrr.trr�Irr�►•rr.. r .►r w� � �r.r ..r ��... •Y�.r;� •,• . ,..w... -, �.8 - w• -� •yr - • - -. • .. -. .,-•. y ,. " ---•w � ^ ,yam M «w+sw.Y w•+ .. .r -•• .- - it � � -. .. •, -. .. .,. -' :- .- .r...r. .��.�... _... .•!• . oc arooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce 5930 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD • SUITE 200A • BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429.612!566 -8650 URGENT! NORTH CROSSTOWN BRIDGE PROJECT Congress will vote on funding for the North Crosstown Bridge in mid - September, 1982. If approved, this bridge would allow traffic to cross the Mississippi River at about 95th street from Brooklyn Park to Coon Rapids. Funds originally at the discretion of the Metropolitan Council (which has named the crosstown project No. 1) have been pulled back into Washington where there is extensive competition between the states. The communities of Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids and Blaine and the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce have agreed that a lobbying effort is necessary to encourage funding of this project. A lobbyist there- fore, has been retained and we must now generate the money require to cover his cost The Brooklyn Center City Council and your Chamber have gone on record supporting this bridge and highway project because of benefits to our community which include: - reduction of the traffic congestion on the Hy. 694 bridge enhancement of the retail market in Brooklyn Center improvement of employee access to jobs in Brooklyn Center - local service truck accessibility to northern communities YOUR CON I U TR B TION 0 0 T THIS PROJECT WILL BE BENEFICIAL T YOU AND WLLL BE APPRECIATED BY THE ENTIRE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - NORTH CROSSTOWN BRIDGE PROJECT Send to: Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce 3300 County Road 10, BC 55429 NAME BUSINESS PHONE Please indicate the level of contribution you wish to make and return this to the Chamber along with your check made out to: North Cross town Bridge Project $25 $35 $50 $75 $100 ( other) $ Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce 5930 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD - SUITE 200A - BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55429.612/566 -8650 URGENT! NORTH CROSSTOWN BRIDGE PROJECT Congress will vote on funding for the North Crosstown Bridge in mid - September, 1982. If approved, this bridge would allow traffic to cross the Mississippi River at about 95th street from Brooklyn Park to Coon Rapids. Funds originally at the discretion of the Metropolitan Council (which has named the crosstown project No. 1) have been pulled back into` Washington where there is extensive competition between the states. The communities of Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids and Blaine and the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce have agreed that a lobbying effort is necessary to encourage funding of this project. A lobbyist, there- fore, has been retained and we must now generate the money required to cover his cost The Brooklyn Center City Council and your Chamber have gone on record supporting this bridge and highway project because of benefits to our community which include: reduction of the traffic congestion on the Hy. 694 bridge - enhancement of the retail market in Brooklyn Center - improvement of employee access to jobs in Brooklyn Center - local service truck accessibility to northern communities YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THIS PROJECT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO YOU AND WILL - BE APPRECIATED BY THE ENTIRE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, NORTH CROSSTOWN BRIDGE PROJECT. Send to: - Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce 3300 County Road 10, BC 55429 NAME BUSINESS PHONE Please indicate the level of contribution you wish to�make and return this to the Chamber along with your check made out to: North Cross town Bridge Project $25 $35 $50 $75 $100 ( - other) $ Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 23, 1982 P/ CIGARETTE LICENSE Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. 0 Meriwethers 2101 Freeway Blvd. Ci y Clerk {� FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE ,y { Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. `{` Sanitarian 1' GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION LICENSE Art Willman & Son 62 26th Ave. N. _\ �� JN�tN --\ Sanitarian T' NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Miernik Vending 7258 Commerce Circle Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle Sanitarian P PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Miernik Vending 7258 Commerce Circle Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle �L5c�L�_nn Sanitarian 'N RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Bruce L. Johnson, Wayne A. Johnson, Robert Simone 5200 Howe Lane Renewal: Gale W. Pierce 5960 Brooklyn Blvd. Bertil G. Johnson 6107 Brooklyn Blvd. Welcome Community Home, Inc. 6451 Brooklyn Blvd. Roland Scherber 5243 Ewing Ave. N. Howard Breuninger 5401 Fremont Ave. N. Raymond & Anne Fritzke 5452 Fremont Ave. N. Elkhorn Partners 5612 Irving Ave. N. Alfred L Hassler 5519, 23 Lyndale Ave. N. Deloris D. Hoy 5821 Lyndale Ave. N. Raymond & Grace Harr 6406 Scott Ave. N. Bernard & Margaret Gilvin 3901 61st Ave. ' N. Director of Planning and Inspection GENERAL APPROVAL: G rald G. S inter, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: August 23, 1982 SUBJECT: Status Report on Elderly Housing Project The Board of Commissioners of the HRA are being asked to make a determination that there exists a need for low and moderate housing affordable to the elderly in Brooklyn Center. In order to make that determination, the Board has had in the past evidence supporting that finding. The HRA commissioned a market analysis of a proposed elderly housing project. The survey not only indicated a viable market for such housing exists, but also the population desiring such housing is growing. The need for elderly housing in Brooklyn Center has also been identified by the Metropolitan Council. The need for elderly housing is also stressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is one of the objectives of the Plan to provide low and moderate cost housing for seniors and handicapped. At the present time, the HRA is actively negotiating a contract for your approval with the Brutger Comaany to build between 100 and 120 elderly units on the site proposed for condemnation. At this time, the Brutger Company has submitted preliminary plans of the project for purposes of discussion and negotiations. The negotiations are being carried out with the intent of both parties to start construction this spring. The proposed development has been the subject of several public meetings. It is also an active project of the Chamber of Commerce, CEAP and our Housing Commission. A group consisting of represenyatives of each of these groups meets regularly to review and comment on the project. The Board should be aware it is the intent to make the proposed project available and affordable to low and moderate income individuals as defined by Section 167(x) (3)(B) (HUD Section 8) income limits. Section 8 income limits are currently established at 1 person at $5,250 and 2 persons at $17,400. I will be present at the meeting to discuss these items in greater detail. 4 A D D E N D U M Parcel 1: That part of Lot 8, Lauderdale Haven's Outlots to Minneapolis, according to the recorde�p at thereof which lies withinLi distance of 75 Peet. Southeasterly anct 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: From a point on the West line of Section 1, Township 118, North Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 49,9 feet South.of the Northwest corner of said Section 1, Township 118, Range 21; thence run. Southwesterly at an angle of 41 22' with said West section line (as _ measured from South to West) for 145.7 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run Northeasterly on the last described course for 8W feet and there terminati n - Parcel 2: That part of Lot 9, Guilfo3j Outlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies withirEa distance of 75 feet Southeasterly and 150 feet Northwesterly of the ollowing described line., to wit: r From a point on the West line of Section I, Township 118 Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 49.9 feet South of the Northwest corner of said weticn 1, Township 118 North, Range 21 West; thence run Southwesterly at an angle of 41° 22 with said West section line (as measured from South to Mst) for 145.7 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run Northeasterly on the last described course for 800 feet and there terminating. Parcel 3: That part of Lot 10, Guilford Outlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies southeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a paint on the West line of Section 1, Township 118 North, Range 21, West • of the 5th Principal Meridian; thence Northeasterly'at an angle of 41 22' with said best section line des measured from North to East) 1000 feet; q and them terminating, together with that portion of Fit Avenue North. + to be vacated accruing o said Lot 10. ing - 1 Parcel 4: That rt of Lot 13 Guilford i recorded plat p , lford Outlets, according to the p thereof, which lies Southeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 150 feet Northwesterly of the follcding described line, to wit: Beginning at a point cn the South line of Section 36, Township 119 north, flange 21, West of the 5th Principal Ptridian distant 44.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northwesterly at an angle of 47 48' with said South line for 989.3 feet and there terminating, together with that part , of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part. of Lot 11. i 'Parcel 5: That part of Lot 12, Guilford Cutlots, corrding to order h on th file end of record in the office of Y for Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Southerly and Southeasterly of line 1 described below: Line It From a point on Line 2 described below, distant 487.9 feet Northerly of its point of beginning, run Easterly at right angles to said Line 2 for 130 feet to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence run northeasterly parallel with said Line 2 to an intersection with a line run pa rsl101 with and distant . 110 feet hu h said Line Line for described feet and below; therethence Easterly parallel with terminating. Line 2: From a point on the Nest line of Section 36, Township 119 North 1155 .84 feet No rth ho f the Southwest corner Range 21 west, distant minutes 37 f 12 degrees 22 thereof, run Southerly at an angle o Sre seconds from said West section line r e d l. f rom Soo to frost) the point of be ginni ng feet to po 9 I . for 690.79 I I, described; thence run Northerly on the last described course for curve 100 feet; thence deYlec 47�eet e 8nd a right c�lta angle having a radius of 881. 4 egress 05 minutes 12 seconds for 1139.79 feet and there terminating; Line 3: From a point on the West line of said Section 26, distant 110.10 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof, run Easterly at an angle of 86 degrees 02 minutes 15 seconds from said West section line (measured frcm North to East) for 785.86 feet to the point -- _ of beginning of Line 3 to be described; thence run Westerly on the last described course for 231.18 feet; thence deflect to the right on a tangential curve having a radius of 2864.79 feet and a delta angle of 29 degrees 37 minutes 47 seconds for 1481.49 feet and there terminating, together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 12. - Parcel 6 ' That part of Lot 5, Guilford Cutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies within a distance of 75 teat Southeasterly and 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21, west of,the 5th Principal N4eridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the Southwest comer thereof; thence northeasterly at an angle of 47 48' with said South e rig t on a ten chord deflect to th gh Section line for 989.3 feet th ence spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 3 W) for 200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 3 00' circular curve (delta angle 44 17 for 6G0 feet and there terminating;. and lying Southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 110 feet Southerly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the west line of Section ;36, Tovnship 119, Range 21 West, distant 1100.10 feet.North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Easterly at an angle of 86 02' 15" ?rosy said West Section line (measured from North to East) for 1100 teat and there terminating; and lying West of a line parallel with and 100 feet West of the centerline of Dupont Avenue North. Pa ce 7 That part of Lot 5, Guilford Outlots ,according to the recorded an 150 l thereof, which lies Northwesterly o p Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a Range 21, West on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47 48' with said South Section line for 989.3 feet; thence deflect to the right on a ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius 3((sppi)�al ang 30 COO') (folta© feet; thence deflect to the right o a angle 44 17 for 600 feet and there terminating; and lying Southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 110 feet Southerly of the t line following described line, to wits Beginning at Township a on t North of of Section 36, P 119 , Ran distant West, h ng Q 21 st � o flee the Southwest corner thereof; thence Easterly at an angle of 86 02 , 15 from said west Section line (measured from North to East) for 1100 feet and there terminating; together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 5. Parcel 8: _ That part of Lot 6, Guilford 0utlots, according to the recorded a -- thereof, which lies within a distance of 75 feet So uthe a sterly feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to Witt: Range Beginn at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township Jig West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the . Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47 48' righ with said South Section line for 989.3 On a to 5p feet; thence on 3oe0©'t n chord s piral curve of decreasing radius (Sp e 0 circular CUTY for 200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 3 0 G � (delta angle 44 17 for 300 feet and there terminating; together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 6. Parcel 9: That part of Lot 6,.Guilford Outlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a line parallel with and 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21, West Of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47 48' with said South Section line for 989.3 feet; thence deflect to the right on a ten chord spiral curve of radius (spiral angle 3a GO') for 200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 3 00' circular curve (delta angle 44 17 for. 300 feet and there terminating; together with that part bf Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 6. p Pa ---gel 10: Tt?t part of Lot 7, Guilford 0utlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lied Northwesterly of a line parallel -with and distant 75 feet Southeasterly o- the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36 Township 119 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Primipal Aicr+.C,an, distant 44.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof'; thence t� rtheasterly at an angle of 47 48 With said South Section line for 989.3 feet and there terminating, together with' that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 7. Parcel 11 _ That part of Lot 9, Guilford 0utlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a line lying parallel with and 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: From a point on the west line of Section 1, Township 118 North, Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 49.9 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section I Township 118 North, Range 21 West; thence Southwesterly at an angle of 41 22' with said West Sqction line for 145.7 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be "described; thence Northeasterly on - -the last described course for 8W feet and there terminating; together . with that part of vacated Humboldt Avenue North accruing thereto. a o f A D D E N D U M Parcel 1s That part of Lot 8, Lauderdale & Haven's Outlots to Minneapolis, according to the recorded p at thereof which lies withinLa distance of 75 feet Southeasterly and 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: From a point on the West line of Section 1, Township 118, North Flange 21, Test of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 49.9 feet South.of the Northwest corner of said Section 1, Township 118, Range 21; thence run. Southwesterly at an angle of 41 22' with said West section line tae measured from South to test) for 145.7 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run Northeasterly on the last described course for 800 feet and there terminatinx Parcel 2: That part-of Lot 9, Guilfor Qutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies withi a dstat$ of 75 feet Southeasterly secs 150 feet Northwesterly of the allowing described line, to wit: From a point on the West line of Section 1, Township 118, North Range 21 Test of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 49.9 feet South of the Northwest corner of said -- 1, Township 118 North, Range 21 West; ` thence run Southwesterly at an angle of 4 -1 22' with said West section_ _ J line (as measurer! from South to list) for 145.7 fat to the point of � beginning of the line to be described; thence run Northeasterly an- -the last described course for SW feet and there terminating. Parcel 3: ° That part of Lot 10, Guilford Dutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Southeasterly of a line parallel.with and distant 150 t feet Northwesterly of the following described - line, to wits Beginning at 8 point on the nest line of Section 1, Township 118 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal 'Meridian; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 41 22' with said best section line (as measured from North to East) 1000 feet � and there terminating, together with that portion of Fregtont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said Lot 10. Parcel 4s - That part of Lot ll, Milford Cutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Southeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Kerldian distarwt 44.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47 48' with said South line for 989.3 feet and there terminating, together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 11. `Parcel 5: That part of Lot 12, Milford Outlots, according to the plat thereof on file end of record in the office of theCuthty Resod Southeasterly of line Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Y an 1 described below: Line It From a point on Line 2 described below, distant 487.9 feet Northerly of its point of beginning, run Easterly at right angles to said Line.2 for 130 feet to the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence run Northeasterly parallel with said Line 2 to an intersection with a line run parallel with and distant 110 feet Southerly of Line- 3 r 400 feet end there termina:tinfl d esc r ibed parallel with said Line 3 fo Line 2: From a point on the West line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21 West, distant 1155.84 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof, run Southerly at an angle of 12 degrees 22 minutes 37 seconds from said West section line (measured from South to West) for 690.79 feet to the point of beginning of Line 2 to be described; thence run Northerly on the last described course for 100 feet; thence deflect to the right on a tangential curve having a radius of 881.47 feet and a delta angle of 74 degrees 05 minutes 12 seconds for 1139.79 feet and there terminating; Line 3: From a point on the West line of said Section 26, distant 11M.10 feet North of tt•,e Southwest corner thereof run Easterly at an angle of 86 degrees 02 minutes 15 seconds from said West section line (measured from North to East) for 786.86 feet „to the point _.of beginning of Line 3 to be describe-o; thence run Westerly on - the last described course for 2c31.18 feet; thence deflect to the : right on a tangential curve having a radius of 2864.79 feet and a delta angle of 29 degrees 37 minutes 47 seconds for 1481.49 feet and there terminating, together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 12._ - -Parcel 6: Th4t,part of Lot .5, Guilford Cutlots, wording to the recorded plat L thgreof, which lies within a distance of feet Southeasterly and 150` (feet-,Northwester of the fo116Wing` described line: Beginning at a.point ` � the - South lin hip 1i9_North, Rang e of- .Section_36,_Townse 21, west :.of the Y 3th Principal t xidiana distant the Southwest corner thhereof - thence Northeasterly at'an angle - of . 47 0 A8' with said South - Section line for 989.3 feet, thence deflect to the right on a ten chord spiral.curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 3° 00') for 200 feet; 'thence deflect to the right on a 3 00' circular curve (delta angle °AAa 17 for 6GO feet and there terminating; and lying Southerly of a ; line run parallel with and distant 110 feet Southerly of the following Oescribed line, to wit: Beginning at a point cn the west line Section 36,- Township 119, Range 21 test, distant 1100.10 feet.North of the f Southwest corner thereof; thence Easterly at an angle of 86 02' =from said we t Section line (ineIISUred North to East) for 1100 feet=-° n ano there , terminating; and.lying lest of _a line parallel with and 100 feet est of the centeine o,f fluR9pt_ p_yQnu W N 4 e i Parcel 7: That part of Lot 5, Guilford Outlots, accorrdingt he recorded d la thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a line p a11e to wit: Beginning feet s t Northwesterly of the following L'escribed line, . 8t a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North. Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an of 470 48' with sa id South Section line for 989.3 feet; thence deflect to the right on a ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 3o C09 for 200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 3 00' circular curve (delta angle 44 17 for 600 feet and there terminating; and lying Southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 110 feet Southerly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the West line of Section 36, Township 119 Range 21 West, distant 1100.10 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Easterly at an angle of 86 02' 15" from said West section line (measured from North to East) for 1100 feet and there terminating, together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 5 r Parcel 8: That part of Lot 6, Guilford outlots, according'to the recorded plat. p$ � : :and 150 Southeasterly _ w,. thereof, which lies within a distance of 7 5 feet.. snu _ feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 Forth, Range 21 West of the 5th Princip Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East o f the . an of 47p 48' i at an f thence Northeaste 9 Southwest corner thereof • with said south Section line for 989.3 feet, thence t deflect o the right on a ten chorti_sp spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 3 00') for 200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 30 00` Circular curve ; ; together with (delta angle 44 17 for 300 feet and there terminating that part of Fremont Avenue birth to be vacated -- accruing to said part of Lot 6. Parcel 9: That part of Lot 6, Guilford 0utlots, according to the recorded.plat thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a line parallel with and 150 feet Northwesterly of the following oescribed line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the Southw°st corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47 48' with said South Section line for 989.3 feet; - thence deflect to the right on a ten chord spiral curve of radius (spiral angle P OQ') for 200 . _feet; thence deflect to the right on a 30 00v circular curve (delta. angle 44 17 for 300 feet and there terminating; together with that part bf Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 6. Parcel 10: Tt� part of Lot 7, Guilford Outlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies !northwesterly of a line parallel with and distant 75 feet Southeasterly of the following described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 north, Range 21, West of.the 5th Principal ticritian, - distant 44 .5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof.; thence Northeasterly -at.an .angle of 47 48 with said South Section line for 989.3 feet and there terminating, together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 7. Parcel 11 _ That part of Lot 9, Guilford Outlots, according to the recoraed plat thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a line lying parallel with and 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: From a point on the West line of Section 1, Township 118 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 49.9 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section l Township 118 North, Range. 21 West; thence southwesterly at an angle of 41 22' with said West Section line for 145.7 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be "described; thence Northeasterly on the last described course for = feet and there terminating; together with that part of vacated Humboldt Avenue North accruing thereto. y A D D E N D U M Parcel 1: ?het part of Lot 8, Lauderdale do Haven's Jutlots to Minneapolis, according to the recorder p at thereof which lies withinhi distance of 75 feet. Southeasterly and.15.0 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to grit: From a point on the west line of Section 1, Township 118, North Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant Q9.9 feet South.,of the Northwest corner of said Section 1, Township 118, Range 21; thence run Southwesterly at an angle of 41 22' with said West section line (as measured frc.^a South to hiest) for 145.7 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run Northeasterly on the last described course for 800 Peet and there terminating Parcel 2 _ That part-of Lot 9, Guilfor Qutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies withi a distanc$ of 75 feet Southeasterly and 150 feet Northwesterly of the ollcwing described line., grit: From a point on the West line of Section I Township 118 . Abrth RuVe 24 West of the 5th Principal meridian, distant 49.9 feet South of the f Northwest corner of said S°cticn 1, Township 118 North, - Range 21 West; thence run Southwesterly at an angle of 41 22' with said west section line (as eeasured from South to Mst) for 145,7 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence run Northeasterly 'on the Last described course for 8th feet and there terminating. Parcel 3: M That part of Lot 10, Guilford Qutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Southeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: - Ecginning at 8 point on the Kest line of Section 1, Township 118 North, Range 21, blest of the 5th Principal Meridian; thence Northeasterly'st an angle of 41 22' with said test section line (es measured from North to East) 1000 feet and there terminating, together with that portion of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said Lot 10. Parcel 4 That part of Lot 11, Guilford tutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Southeasterly of a line parallel with and distant 150 feet Northwesterly of the follvving described line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Geridian distant 44.5 feet East of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an, angle of 47 48 with said :South line for 989.3 feet and there terminating, together with that part •t:f Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 11. `Parcel 5: That part of Lot 12, Guilford Outlots, according to the plat thereof on file end of record in the office of the County f�ecorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, w hich lies Southerly and Southeasterly of line 1 described below: 9 feet Line 1: From a paint on Line 2 described Belo », distant 487. Northerly of its point of beginning, run Easterly at right angles to said Line 2 for 130 feet to the point of beginning of Line l to be described; thence run t4ortheasterly parallel with said Line 2 to an intersection with a lie below; thence run Easterly 1101 feet Southerly of Line 3 described __ parallel with said Line 3 for 400 feet and there terminating. - Line Z: From a point on the Hest _line of Section 36 Township '119 North; Range 21 west, distant 1155.84 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof, run Southerly at an angle of 12 degrees 22 minutes 37 seconds from said West section line (measured from South to West for 693.79 feet to the point of beginning of Woe 2 to be described; thence rLn Northerly on the last describers cour se for 1DQ feet; thence deflect to the right on a tangential curve having a radius of 881.47 feet and a delta angle of 74 degr 05 0 minutes 12 seconds for 1139.79 feet and there terminating; Line 3: From a point on-the Vest line of said Section 25, distant 1100.10 feet North of the 5out� west corner thereof, run Easterly at an angle of 86 degrees 02 minutes 15 seconds from said West section -_. line (measured from North to East) for 786.85 feet to the paint _ of beginning of Li 3 to be de th ence ruse Westerly can e_ the last described cocsse for 231.18 feet; thence deflect to the right on a tangential curve hav", a r adius of 2864.79 feet and a delta angle of 29 degrees 37 minutes 47 ,seconds for 1:81.49 feet and there terminating, together with that part of Fremont Avenue tbrth to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 12. - Par cel 6: That part of Lot 5 Guilford Cutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies within a distaMe of 75 feet Southeasterly and 350 feet Northwesterly of the following described lire: Beginning at a point - c)n tha South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet Ea of the southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47 48 with said South section line for 569.3 feet; thence reflect to the right on a ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral sngle 3p 00 for 200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 3 00' circular curve (delta angle 44 17 for 500 feet and there terminating; and lying Southerly of a line run parallel with and distant 110 feet Southerly of the following described Wine, to wit: Beginning at a point cn the West line of Section J6, Township 119, Range 21 'nest, distant 11M.10 feet North of th - southwest eoyner thereof; thence Easterly at an jangle of 86 02' 15 'from said West Section line (measured from North to East) for 1100 feet . -anti there terminating; and lying Best of a line parallel with and 1:30 feet ,lest of the centerline of Dupont avenue North. Parcel 7. That part of Lot 5, Guilford Cutlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a line parallel with and 15o feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21 Hest of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 479 48' with said South Section line for 589.3 feet; thence deflect to the right on a ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral 3 curve for 2200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 3 (delta angle 44 17 for CCO feet and there terminating; and lying SoutherlY of a line run parallel with and distant 110 feet Southerly of tha following described line, to wit: Eeginning at a point on the Writ line of Section 35, Township 119, Range 21 west, distant 1100.10 feet 021 1 of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Easterly at an angle of 85 02' 15" from said west Section line (masured from North to East) for 1100 feet and there terminating; together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to F. be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 5. Parcel 8: - That part of Lot 6, Guilford 0utlots, according'to the recorded plat and 150 thereof, which lies within a distanc of 75 feet Sout,easterly feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: Eeginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, flange 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the . Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47 48' with said South Section line far 989.3 feet; thence deflect to the right act a ten chord spiral curve of decreasing radius (spiral angle 3 00 for 200 feet; thence deflect to the right on a 3 GO' circular curve (t-lta angle 44 17 for 300 feet and there terminating; together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 6. Parcel 9: That part of Lot 6 Guilford Dutlots, accordi i the recorded P lat fast thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a paralle Northareesterly of the following oescribed line, to wit: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 36, Township 119 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 44.5 feet East of the outhw corner thereof; thence ,rtheasterly at an angle of A with said South Suction line for 989.3 feet; thence deflect to the right on a t8n chord spiral curve of radius (spiral angle 3 0Q9 for 200 feet; thence Deflect to the right on a 3 CO' circular curve (delta angle 44 17 1 ) for 3CO feet and there terminating; together with that i to said part of Lot 6. accruing Pa Avenue 1�it3rth to be vacated cr ng . . part of Fremont - - _ . _ Parcel 10: Th9t pcxi of Lot 7 Guilford C3utlots, according to the recorded plat thereof, which lied ",trthwesterly of a line parallel with and distant 75 feet Southeasterly of the following destri.ber! line, to Tait: Beginning at a point on the South line of Section 30, township 119 North, flange al, West of the 5th Pri ncipal tierjcian, distant 44.5 feet East of the - Southwest corner thereof; thence Northeasterly at an angle of 47°`48 with said South Section line for 989.3 feet and there terminating, together with that part of Fremont Avenue North to be vacated accruing to said part of Lot 7. _ Parcel That part of Lot 9, Guilford Outlots, according to the recoraed plat thereof, which lies Northwesterly of a line lying parallel with and 150 feet Northwesterly of the following described line, to wit: From a point on the West line of Section 1, Township 118 North, Range 21, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, distant 49.9 feet South of the t4rthwest corner of said Section 1 Township 118 North, Range 21 test; thence Southwesterly at. an angle of 41 22' with said west Section line for 145.7 feet to the point of teginning of the line to be'described; thence Northeasterly on the last described course for 800 feet and there terminating; together with that part of vacated Nunboldt Avenue North accruing thereto. ' MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: August 23, 1982 SUBJECT: Status Report on Elderly Housing Project The Board of Commissioners of the HRA are being asked to make a determination that there exists a need for low and moderate housing affordable to the elderly in Brooklyn Center. In order to make that determination, the Board has had in the past evidence supporting that finding. The HRA commissioned a market analysis of a proposed elderly housing projec ' The survey not only indicated a viable market for such housing exists, but also the population desiring such housing is growing. The need for elderly housing in Brooklyn Center has also been identified by the Metropolitan Council. The need for elderly housing is also stressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it is one of the objectives of the Plan to provide low and moderate cost housing for seniors and handicapped. At the present time, the HRA is actively negotiating a. contract for yo -ur approval with the Brutger Comapny to build between 100 and 120 elderly units on the site proposed for condemnation. At this time, the Brutger Company has submitted preliminary plans of the project for purposes of discussion and negotiations. The negotiations are being carried out with the intent of both parties to start construction this spring. The proposed development has been the subject of several public meetings. It is also an active project of the Chamber of Commerce, CEAP and our Housing Commission. A group consisting of represenyatives of each of these groups meets regularly to review and comment on the project. The Board should be aware it is the intent to make the proposed project available and affordable to low and moderate income individuals as defined by Section 167(x) (3)(B) (HUD Section 8) income limits. Section 8 income limits are currently established at 1 person at $5,250 and 2 persons at $17,400. I will be present at the meeting to discuss these items in greater detail. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLU'T'ION AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO UTILIZE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PEAL PROPERTY FOR THE USE AS A HOUSING DEVELOP - MENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Housing and Redeveloy PM ent Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (the "Authority ") has determined that it is necessary to acquire the following legally described property see attached addendum in order to establish a housing development project, as the same is defined and described in Minnesota Statutes Section 462.421, Subdivision 25 and Section 462.466, respectively; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that such housing development project will alleviate certain shortages in housing facilities for persons of low or moderate income which this Council has previously found to exist within the City of Brooklyn Center. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1.' Pursuant to Mi nnesota Statutes Section 462.466 the Authority is hereby authorized to exercise the power c of eminent domain in the acquisition of the above described .seal property together with such appurte- nances as are defined in Minnesota Statute Section 462.421, Subdivision 18. 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 adopted. w MEMORANDUM, TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: August 19, 1982 SUBJECT: Nonintoxicating Liquor License Application for the Pizza Factory in the Name of Paul and Elizabeth Aish Attached please find the completed background investigation conducted by Investigator Monteen. The report is quite lengthy and covers several serious matters involving Paul Aish. You will note that he has been arrested on several occasions involving violations in several states. A number of these arrests have ended either in a hung jury or a dismissal of the charges. I have reviewed this file and after due consideration, it is my recommendation that a nonintoxicating liquor license not be issued to Elizabeth and Paul Aish. r The following is a resume of the investigation of Elizabeth Ann AISH, doing business as the Pizza Factory, in application for a nonintoxi eating liquor license as issued by the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, - Minnesota. This investigation has been conducted by A. Paul MONTEEN and this resume dictated on 08 -16 -82 at 1000 hours. This resume has been transcribed and typewritten by Barbara PIETRZAK, clerk - typist for the Brooklyn Center Police Department. This resume is in regards to Case #82- 11996. APPLICANT: Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Telephone: 566 -4455 Elizabeth Ann AISH 548 196th Drive Elk River, MN 55330 Telephone: 441 -7856 Paul Thomas AISH 548 196th Drive Elk River, MN 55330 Telephone: 441 -7856 INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS FILE: A Part I, General Information, in support of an application for a nonintoxicating liquor license Application Part II, Personal Information, in the name of Elizabeth Ann AISH Application Part II, Personal Information, in the name of Paul Thomas AISH Investigator MONTEEN has researched the background of Elizabeth and Paul AISH in application for a nonintoxicating liquor license by contacting local police and sheriff's agencies in the areas of former residences; as well as contacting the computer file systems for the National Crime Information Center and the State of Minnesota. More- over, MONTEEN has confirmed the employment records of the most recent employers and has been in contact with the mortgager and financer of this applicant. Furthermore, MONTEEN contacted the neighbors of the applicant for a brief interview. The previous owners of the Pizza Factory, Mr. and Mrs. Bradley ROTHNEM, are selling the Pizza Factory, fixtures, equipment, and supplies and products on hand to Elizabeth Ann and Paul Thomas AISH under a contract for deed for the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). Resume of Investigator MONTEEN Case #82 -11996 Page 2 Mr. and Mrs. ROTHNEM have agreed to work with the AISHES for a week or two in the transition period of the sale in order to assist them with the operation of the Pizza Factory. The location, 6816 Humboldt Avenue North, within the Humboldt Square Shopping Center, is being leased from the Coldwell Banker Real Estate Firm at 6600 France Avenue South in Edina, Minnesota. The terms of the lease call for $1,000 per month in rental payments. Elizabeth Ann AISH, D.O.B. 06- 03 -44, is to be the owner and operator of the Pizza Factory and is the applicant for this license. Eliza- beth Ann AISH currently resides at 548 196th Drive in Elk River, Minnesota and has lived there since August of 1981. Prior to that time, Elizabeth AISH has resided in Crystal, Minnesota; Carroll, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Butte, Montana; Polson, Montana; and Robbinsdale, Minnesota accounting for the previous ten years. In checking with local police departments in Elk River and Sherburne County; as well as Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Center and Crystal in Hennepin County; the City of Carroll, Iowa and the Carroll County Sheriff's Office; the City of Sioux Falls, South Dakota and the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office; the Silver Bow County Sheriff's Office and Butte, Montana Law Enforcement Center and the Lake County Sheriff's Office and Pols Montana ontana Police Department MONTEEN has found no criminal record in the name of Elizabeth Ann AISH. Elizabeth AISH holds a valid Iowa driver's license and is in the process of making application for taking tests and obtaining a Minnesota driver's license. Investigator MONTEEN spoke to a John ENDERSON with the District Office of Minnesota School District 728 in Elk River, Minnesota and Mr. ENDERSON informed MONTEEN that according to the Director of Elementary Education, Mrs. AISH had done quite a bit of substitute teaching for them in the elementary schools. According to ENDERSON, she had a very satisfactory work record. Investigator MONTEEN also checked the files of the National Crime Information Center and MINCIS computer files.and found nothing in the name of Elizabeth Ann AISH. Investigator MONTEEN drove to Elk River and located the residence at 548 196th Drive in Elk River, and there spoke to the residents on either side of the AISH home. The first party that MONTEEN spoke to was one Vernet BURGOYNE, who lives to the east of the AISH residence. BURGOYNE stated that he and Paul AISH know one another only on a neighborly basis; however BURGOYNE was aware of the AISHES' interest in purchasing a restaurant in Brooklyn Center and apparently had discussed this with Mr. AISH. BURGOYNE furthermore.stated that AISH took care of his property and did not have any loud parties or disturbances other than the fact that'he occasionally rode his motorcycle late in the evening and did have a barking dog which AISH and BURGOYNE had discussed. Resume of Investigator MONTEEN Case #82- 11996 Page 3 MONTEEN then spoke with Wanda RESEMIUS, who lives to the west of the AISH residence. Mrs. RESEMIUS indicated that she did not know the AISH family very well but as neighbors they got along fine and could think of no reason that she could criticize them as far as their relationship in the neighborhood. Outside of that, she had nothing to do with the AISH family. Paul Thomas AISH is named in this application as the manager of the Pizza Factory. MONTEEN contacted Paul AISH at the Pizza Factory and spoke to him concerning the position of manager and Mr. AISH indicated that although his wife listed him as the manager, it was his intention to continue as an insurance agent and salesman and only assist her in the operation of the Pizza Factory and he would not be the on- premises manager on a full -time basis. Because AISH is listed as the manager of the premises, Investigator MONTEEN did research the background of Paul Thomas AISH as is the normal procedure for the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Investigator MONTEEN first checked with the NCIC and MINCIS computer files and these files indicated that AISH had been arrested on January 6, 1972 in Hennepin County on a warrant for theft over $100. According to the disposition of the case in the computer, the case was dismissed. Investigator MONTEEN called the Hennepin County Sheriff's Records Division and found that, in fact, AISH had been arrested on October 9, 1969 for simple assault and again on January 6, 1972 for theft over $100. There was no agency indicator on the assault, nor was there a disposition of the case. MONTEEN then . found that on January 6, 1972, Paul Thomas AISH had been brought into custody on probable cause arrest by the Brooklyn Park Police Department and had been charged while in custody. Investigator MONTEEN called the Hennepin County District and Municipal Court and found that there was no record currently in the computer in the name of Paul Thomas AISH, however the computer records may not be complete in cases that are more than ten years old. Investigator MONTEEN contacted the Brooklyn Park Police Department and was advised that all records from 1972 had been destroyed. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, Warrant Division, holds no outstanding warrants in the name of Paul Thomas AISH. In checking with the Elk River Police Department and Sherburne County Sheriff's Department, Records Division, the Sheriff's Office indicated that on June 14, 1982 a summons and complaint had been filed and served on Paul Thomas AISH by the Law Firm of HOUK and. RAIA and Associates of St. Paul. Investigator MONTEEN spoke'.to a Larry HOUK and was advised that this had been an unpaid legal'fee concerning the transfer of property and that the summons and complaint had been filed and that prior to this incident going'to court, an agreement had been made between the law firm and AISH to accept installments to satisfy this judgment. Resume of Investigator MONTEEN Case #82 -11996 Page 4 In checking the records of the City of Carroll, Iowa Police Depart- ment, MONTEEN found that on July 4, 1979 Paul Thomas AISH had received a citation for allowing an unauthorized person to operate • motor vehicle. This citation had been satisfied when AISH paid • ten dollar ($10.00) fine. MONTEEN checked with the Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Minnehaha County law enforcement agencies. According to the records of the Sioux Falls Police Department, a Thomas AISH with the same date of birth was arrested for three speeding violations on May 3, 1977; June 20, 1977 and September 13, 1977. Also on October 2, 1978, AISH was arrested for the removal of mortgage property, a case which was subsequently dismissed by the court. According to the records of the Sioux Falls Police Department, the removal of mortgage property case was handled by a deputy of the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office and identified as Sergeant SCHMIDT. Investigator MONTEEN contacted Sergeant SCHMIDT of the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office, who stated that he did not recall the case directly but would forward a copy of the case file to the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Investigator MONTEEN contacted the finance department of Minnehaha County and spoke to a clerk there concerning the license of one Dean O's Steak House which was located on Highway 12 in Minnehaha County. This clerk advised MONTEEN that the license had been withdrawn on December 3, 1975 after a fire at Dean O's Steak House. This clerk stated that she did not have any of the particular details herself, however the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office had investigated the circumstances of the fire. Investigator MONTEEN received a telephone call from Detective Greg MacNAMIRA of the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office, who advised MONTEEN that Dean O's Steak House on Highway 12 had burned to the ground on October 24, 1975. MacNAMIRA stated that the suspicious circumstances surrounding the fire had caused an extensive investigation into the fire, specifically a sheriff's deputy checked the building at 4:00 a.m. just prior to the fire and found the doors to be closed, the windows locked and nothing of a suspicious nature inside the building. It should be noted that the Sheriff's Office had been advised of the possibility of arson at Dean O's Steak House during the investigation of a burglary two weeks prior to the fire. On the morning of October 24, 1975, the deputy had driven a mile or so down Highway 12 when he observed flames reflected against the sky, returned to Dean O's Steak House and found it to be totally engulfed in flames leading him to believe that a propellant had been used to set off the fire. Moreover, during the course of the investigation, a signed sworn deposition was taken from one of the employees of Dean O's Steak House in which he alledges that Paul AISH offered him nine thousand dollars ($9,000.00) in six monthly installments of fifteen, hundred dollars ($1,500.00) each to turn on the deep Resume of Investigator MONTEEN Case #82- 11996 Page 5 fat fryers at Dean O's Steak House to high, turn off the ventilation fans and lock the doors and leave Dean O's in hopes that the fat fryers would set off the fire. According to MacNAMIRA, Paul AISH was heavily involved in gambling in the Sioux Falls area and ran with Frank ISLAND, and Gary and James CHRISTENSON, known crime figures in Sioux Falls and the Minnehaha County area as well as known to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension of the State of Minnesota. MacNAMIRA also read from the reports of the investi- gation that State Fire Marshal Gary YOUNKER of Helena, Montana and Sergeant Pat BURNS of the Butte, Montana Police Department had advised the Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office that the Highway Tavern, six miles west of Butte, Montana had burned to the ground and that suspicious circumstances were involved while Paul AISH was the owner and operator of the Highway Tavern. Moreover, Mr. AISH was running the Oasis Bar in Butte, Montana at the time and the owner of the building which housed the Oasis Bar, Mr. John OIZANTI, became aware of information indicating Paul AISH's intention to torch the Oasis Bar at which time OIZANTI had AISH evicted because he was also behind in the rent. Furthermore, there is an investigation report contained within the file that AISH and an unidentified medical doctor had been involved in a partnership which they heavily insured a building and destroyed it by arson. Detective MacNAMIRA is forwarding copies of the reports and information which will substantiate the information given to MONTEEN via the telephone to the Brooklyn Center Police Department On August 17, 1982 Investigator MONTEEN spoke to Mike CASPER, City Auditor for the City of Brekenridge, Minnesota. CASPER indicated that Paul Thomas AISH had applied for and received a .32 beer license in the name of the Idle Hour Bar in Brekenridge. In about April of 1975, according to CASPER, there was some controversy over the license and the council was hesitant to issue the license because of problems with financial transactions between AISH and the seller, Mr. Al WAYWERS. Apparently the money and financial backing which AISH promised was the main factor in the council's hesitation to issue the license. In fact the license had been issued and was in operation for approximately one year. The bar then went out of business, the building was condemned and has been subsequently torn down. Listed in the application is also the indication that Paul Thomas AISH owned two taverns in Butte, Montana; one the Oasis Bar and the other the Highway Tavern. Investigator MONTEEN contacted the finance office of the City of Butte, Montana and was told they had no records on these two taverns; however the lady who was in charge of liquor licenses at the finance office recalled that these two taverns did exist in the mid 1970's and she could not recall any problems with either one of them. Resume of Investigator MONTEEN Case #82- 11996 Page 6 MONTEEN did check with the Silver Bow County and City of Butte Police Department records in the Silver Bow Law Enforcement Center and found that AISH had been cited for failure to pay wages in 1974, however this complaint had been dismissed by the complainant, presumably AISH paid the complainant the wages and settled with the complainant. Also listed in the application is the indication that AISH owned the Salish House in Polson, Montana. Investigator MONTEEN contacted the Sheriff of Lake County in Polson, Montana and spoke to Sheriff FRANE, who had been with the Lake County Sheriff's Office since 1969. Sheriff FRANE indicated that he recalled four instances where AISH had been arrested in Lake County. The first occurring in the fall of 1973 during which time sports pools were illegal in the State of Montana and AISH regularly operated pools on the football games at the bar of the Salish House. AISH had been __ — warned to cease these pools and finally in the fall of 1973 AISH was arrested for operating two football pools in his bar. On February 20, 1974 AISH was found guilty on these two counts and fined one hundred dollars ($100.00). Sheriff FRANE also stated that shortly after the Salish House was taken over by Paul AISH, it was a regularly known fact that after hours drinking went on at the Salish House and that the back door of the Salish House was always open prior to the noon legal liquor sales time on Sundays in Montana. On one Sunday morning the Sheriff's office raided the bar and found the bar to be open and a female bartender selling liquor. According to the complaint against Paul AISH, he had induced the female bartender to state that the opening of the bar was her idea and indicate that Paul AISH knew nothing of the operation. This incident was heard before a jury on February 15, 1974 and the case dismissed when the jury could not reach a verdict. Sheriff FRANE also recalled that AISH had reported a large burglary to his residence and that later some of the property which had been reported stolen turned up to be in AISH's possession. This was brought to the attention of the Sheriff's Office when AISH borrowed some money from an employee, who had received a large inheritance and AISH had the loan with guns which he had reported stolen in the burglary. When the loan was not paid to the employee on time a complaint was brought against AISH and AISH was found not guilty by a trial court in Montana on June 24, 1974. The Sheriff also indicated that AISH had been arrested on two counts of fish and game violations which Sheriff FRANE indicated he believed to be for shooting a deer and an elk without a license. Sheriff FRANE was not involved in the case as this was a fish and game service arrest, however he was aware that a three hundred Resume of Investigator MONTEEN Case #82 -11996 Page 7' dollar ($300.00) fine had been imposed and upon payment of the fine a ninety (90) day jail sentence had been suspended. As well, Paul AISH lost his hunting and fishing privileges in the State of Montana for a period of sixteen (16) months. Investigator MONTEEN did confirm the employment of Paul Thomas AISH with the Union Casualty Life Insurance Company of Omaha, Nebraska and they indicated that he was currently employed and had been actively selling insurance for them since 1975. The Lincoln Benefit Insurance Company of Lincoln, Nebraska also indicated that Paul AISH was an employee of their company, having represented them since June of 1981 and that he was responsible to General Agent Ken MacINTOSH. Investigator MONTEEN, in interviewing Paul Thomas AISH, inquired about the fact that he still holds a valid driver's license in the State of Iowa and had not obtained a Minnesota driver's license. AISH indicated that he still has interests in the State of Iowa and that he is looking at some farm land in the State of Iowa and for this reason had maintained Iowa identification.