Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 08-09 CCP Regular Session 1 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PF CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 9, 1982 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum 0 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. Thera will 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 - July 26, 1982 7. Performance Bond Releases: *a. The Ponds - Plat VI *b. Harron Methodist Church r *8. Subdivision Bond Release - The Ponds - Plat I, Plat II, Plat III, Plat V, and Plat VI *9. Approval of Election Judges for Primary Election, September 14, 1982 10. Resolutions: a. Authorizing Submission of the City of Brooklyn Center Community Development Program to Hennepin County for Consideration as Part of the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Application, in Accord with the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as Amended -This resolution authorizes the City's application for Year 8. The application was approved by motion at the March 8, 1982 City Council meeting. Approval of the application by resolution is required by Hennepin County. *b. Accepting Work Performed under Contract 1981 -B (Shingle Creek Parkway Improvement Project No. 1981 -02, Freeway Boulevard Turnlane Construction Improvement Project No. 1981 -04) *c. Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Providing for Hearing on Proposed - Assessment for Earle Brown Street Light Improvement Project No. 1982 -08 d. Rejecting Bids and Authorizing Readvertisement for Bids for Contract 1982 -G for Water Tower Painting Improvement Project No. 1982 -15 (Painting of 1.5 Million Gallon Elevated Tank Adjacent to Brookdale Center; and Approving Agreement with Twin City Testing for Inspection Services) -It is recommended the City Council reject all bids due to irregularities found within the proposals of the two low bidders, and submittal of pro - posals from all other bidders that exceed the Engineer's estimate. i JUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 9, 1982 *e. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract for Park"Shelter Improvement Project No. 1982 -17 (Grandview, Northport, and Happy Hollow Parks) f. Regarding Contractor's Refusal to Execute Contract and Furnish Performance Bond for Contract 1982 -Fp Drinking Fountain Installation g. Establishing Lions Park West Trailway Improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) h. Establishing Central Park /Garden City Trailway Extension Improvement Project No. 1982 -19, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing kdvertisement -for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) i. Establishing Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) j. Establishing Civic Center Access Improvement Project No. 1982 -21, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) k. Establishing Civic Center Parking Lot Improvement Project No. 1982 -22, Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) 1. Transferring Funds from Council Contingency Account to Emergency Prepared- ness Account for Radio Activated Civil Defense Siren System -This item would provide for participation with Hennepin County in up- grading existing civil defense sirens to a radio activated system. *m. Proclaiming August 19, 1982 as Don Poss Day in Brooklyn Center *n. Proclaiming August 11, 1982 as Tim Laudner Day in Brooklyn Center 11. Planning Commission Items (8:00 p.m.) a. Planning Commission Application No. 82023 submitted by Bergstrom Realty Company for amended building plan approval for Phase I of the Hi Crest Square Estates in the 1300 block on the south side of 69th Avenue North. This application was approved by the Planning Commission at its July 15, 1982 meeting. Approval of this item was deferred at the July 26, 1982 City Council meeting until plans were signed by a registered architect. 12. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances -This ordinance amendment is being proposed in conjunction with amendments to Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding Animals. The 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. COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 9, 1982 b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances Regarding 'Animals j -This ordinance reflects a comprehensive amendment of Chapter 1 of the `( City Ordinances Regarding Animals. The 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. i C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Hours of Sale for Intoxicating Liquor -This ordinance amendment provides for the expansion of hours for Sunday sale of intoxicating liquors. The 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. 0 d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Property Description -This ordinance describes property rezoned in the Bergstrom Planning Commission Application and is offered for a first reading this evening. It is recommended a public hearing on the ordinance be scheduled_ - 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. 13. Discussion Items: a. Report on France and Highway 100 Study -The staff will be' prepared to report on this item at the meeting. b. Review of 1983 Budget Summary for Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission *14. Licenses 15. Adjournment � t MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 26, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:06.p.m. _R OLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman, and Tom Bublitz. Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Theis was out of town and was excused from this evening's meeting. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Bailey of the Brooklyn Center United Methodist Church. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Kirscht, 6325 Halifax Drive, who addressed the Council and stated that he had talked with Council - member Hawes prior to this evening's meeting regarding the play apparatus being installed in Marlin Park. He stated that he is not happy with the installation and there is no access to the park from Halifax Drive and that the play apparatus would be located in a corner of the park which is right behind his house. He added that the park is a small park and that it would be nice to have the park area remain open. Mrs. Kirscht added that generally, the neighborhood surrounding Marlin Park has few children and that most of the children in the neighborhood are grown. She stated that the play apparatus would interfere with the free play in the park and that it is unsightly in her opinion. She added that there is *play equipment close by in other_ parks and school yards. Councilmember Hawes stated that he had met with the Kirschts to discuss their concerns and noted that the play apparatus was allocated as part of the bond issue which was passed to provide improvements in neighborhood parks. He stated that surveys had been mailed out to solicit the neighborhoods attitudes concerning ; ul - le installation of play apparatus in Marlin Park, but that little response had been received by this mail survey. He added that the Park & Recreation Commission then conducted a door to door survey in the Marlin Park and Lakeside Park neighborhoods to determine neighborhood interest in having play apparatus installed in the parks. Councilmember Hawes commented that the results of the survey conducted by the Park & Recreation Commission showed that 18 families were in favor of the play apparatus being installed and 10 wanted Marlin Park left as it,?s. °He.added that five other persons indicated they would like other equipment in the park, such as volley ball courts. 7 -26 -82 -1- The City Manager commented -that the work accomplished to date in'Marlin Park has been the installation of a concrete curb within which the play apparatus would be . installed. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the Kirschts whether they were opposed to the apparatus or merely the location of the apparatus. Mrs. Kirscht replied that she does not think the apparatus is necessary for the park since there are no small children in the neighborhood. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired whether the play apparatus in other City parks was generally installed away from residential areas. The City Manager stated that this is the general rule but.that Marlin Park is a very small park. Councilmember Hawes stated that he discussed with the- Kirschts the option of planting trees as a screening device from the apparatus. Mrs. Kirscht expressed a concern that the area, if screened, would ,attract late night drinking parties. Mr. Kirscht again emphasized there is no access to Marlin Park from Halifax Drive, and that he cannot understand why the play apparatus is being proposed for Marlin Park. The City Manager replied that the Park & Recreation Commission generally divided up the neighborhood, and conducted a door to door survey which led to the favorable responses concerning the installation of the play apparatus. He added that the City can freeze the work presently in progress and give the City Council a chance to look at the area more closely. Councilmember Scott suggested placing the question of play apparatus for Marlin Park on the next Park & Recreation Commission agenda, and also suggested that notices be sent to residents in the area prior to the Park & Recreation Commission meeting. There was a general con- sensus among Councilmembers that the issue of the installation of the play apparatus in Marlin Park should be considered again at the August 17, 1982 Park & Recreation Commission meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Nyquist inquired if any of the Council members desired any items removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested that item 7d be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Lhotka requested that item 7f be removed from the Consent Agenda. APP OF MINUTES - JULY 12, 1982 There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 12, 1982 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -133 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL'AGREEMENT NUMBER 2 TO CONTRACT 1981 -E (SHINGLE CREEK TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -42, PARKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -14, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -16) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 -26 -82 -2- Ar + RESOLUTION NO. 82 -134 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1981 -E (SHINGLE CREEK TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT - PART I IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -42, SHINGLE CREEK TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT - PART II IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1980 -10, 69TH AVENUE NORTH PEDESTRIAN TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -12, PARKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -14, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981-16) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -135 Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -B (XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, 56TH AVENUE STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 1982 -02, AND BROOKDALE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -03) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same:' none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. LICENSES There was a motion by Council.member Hawes and seconded by Councilmember. Scott to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE LICENSE Uncle Bob's Quik Six 6600 Lyndale Ave. FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Uncle Bob's Quik Six 6600 Lyndale Ave. N. GA SOLINE SERVICE. STATION LICENSE Uncle Bob's Quik Six 6600 Lyndale Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Chapman Heating & Air Cond. 4017 Zane Ave. N. Conservenergy Systems, Inc. 6505 Taft St. Ideal Heating & Air Cond. 3116 Fremont Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Renewal: Darrell A. Farr Development Beach Apartments Lloyd J. Waldusky Georgetown Park Townhouses 7 -26 -82 -3- RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE (CONTINUED Lyn River Corporation Lyn River Apartments Charles Q. Hillstrom 6527 Drew Ave. N.._:_ , David Vosick 6731 Ewing Ave. N. Roland Scherber 7212 Newton Ave. N,.. Dave Bradley 6725 W. River Rd. Harshad ahatt 7206 -7212 W. River Rd. Irwin Ketroser 6525, 27, 29 Willow In. Roger & Marie-Krawiecki 5209 Xerxes Ave. N. y SIGNHANGER LICENSE Macey Sign Company 451 Wilson St. N.E. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting 7 against: none. The motion passed. ? RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened at 7:51 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82029 SUBMITTED BY NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO INSTALL AN 11' x 12' AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE IN THE PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF HIRSCHFIELD'S IN WESTBROOK MALL, 5717 XERXES AVENUE NORTH The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members - pages 1 and 2 of the July 15, 1982 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning _ Commission.information sheet prepared for Application No. 82029. He reviewed the location of the proposed project and also reviewed a- transparency of the parking lot plan for the application. .The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the automatic teller proposed in the application is a permitted use in the zone, and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82029 subject to five conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He stated the applicant is present at this evening's meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to k, approve Application No. 82029 subject to the following conditions: l 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. R 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. o 7 -26 -82 -4- 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all concrete islands. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82023 SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY FOR AMENDED SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE I OF THE HI CREST SQUARE ESTATES IN THE 1300 BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82026 SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 35 -410, SUBDIVISION 3 TO ALLOW A 3' WIDE BUFFER STRIP ADJACENT TO THE CITY'S PUMPHOUSE AT 1207 69TH AVENUE NORTH RATHER THAN THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED 15' The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that Application Nos. 82023 and 82026 had initially received a favorable recommendation by the Planning Commission at their June 17, 1932 meeting. He noted that these applications had been - scheduled for City Council approval on June 28, 1982, but were tabled by the City Council at the applicant's request prior to consideration. He explained that the applicant had ,submitted a revised set of building plans (Application No. 82023) which were to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 1, 1982, but the matter was tabled again at the request of the applicant. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that a further revised set of plans were submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1982, at which time the Commission recommended approval. The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded with a brief review of the minutes of those Commission meetings and noted that the applicant at this time is seeking site plan approval, including landscaping, grading, utilities, and a master layout for a 60 unit townhouse development, an d also building plan approval for two two -unit buildings in phase I of the project. He pointed out that the staff recommend that I- the City Council not consider at this time the building plan approval for two six - unit buildings in phase I, because the plans are not yet certified by a registered architect. He added that he has been assured that this will be accomplished and that in all likelihood the building plans for these units will be before the City Council in two weeks. The Director of Planning & Inspection next proceeded to review the location of the proposed project, presented a transparency of the site plan, and reviewed the layout of the parking stalls in the project. He noted that the parking plan meets the minimum parking requirements of the City's zoning ordinance. The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed the landscaping plans submitted with the site and building plan, and also reviewed the 35' buffer and setback area on the westerly portion of the site abutting the Humboldt Square- Shopping Center_ He pointed out that with reference to Application No. 82026, the applicant is requesting a variance from the buffer requirements where the applicant's property abuts the City's pump house at 1207 69th Avenue North. He stated the Planning Commission on June 17, 1982 recommended approval of the variance on three grounds, which he reviewed for Council members. 7 -26 -82 -5- The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the applicant has been present at all three Planning Commission meetings at which the application was considered. He explained that of the discussion at the Planning Commission meetings dealt with building design. He noted that the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the plans for two duplexes proposed in the project as well as site, grading, and landscaping for the entire project and that deferral of approval on the remainder of the units in the project is in order until the plan can be certified by a registered architect. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82023 subject to 12 conditions which he reviewed for Council. members. He pointed out that the 10th condition can be deleted and a condition should be added which would require that the applicant must finalize building plans for the six -unit buildings prior to consideration by the City Council. The City Manager pointed out that the plans for the two duplexes in the project do not re uirp certification by a registered architect. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the Planning Commission vote at the July 15, 1982 meeting was not unanimous due to the dispute regarding the plans for the project. He added that the vote was a five to two vote in favor of the application. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out the streets in the project are not public streets and the ability for the City to accept these streets in the future, as public is nonexistant since they do not meet City standards. Discussion ensued regarding the pond area in the project and the Director of Public Works reviewed the operation of the pond which would allow run -off to be held in the pond and gradually empty into the storm sewer system. Councilmember Lhotka requested to see the elevations for the project. The Director of Planning & Inspection presented the elevation drawings to the City Council for their review. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on application No. 82026. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 82026. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. The motion passed. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 82023 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; and specifically, should conform to the revisions and requirements set forth in the Assistant City Engineer's memo dated 6- 14 -82. 7 -7F -A7 _G_ - e 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 for the entire development. 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 parking and driving areas. 7. All areas regraded, but not developed dccording to plan shall be seeded to maintain adequate ground cover for dust control. 8. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed landscape treatment along the east side of the development as acceptable screening in lieu of the ordinance required 4' high opaque fence. 9. Building plan approval comprehends only two two -unit buildings in phase I indicated on the plans as Blocks 5 and 6. Building plan approval for two six -unit buildings in phase I is deferred until the plans have been certified by a registered architect. 10. The site plans shall be amended to incorporate a system to supplement natural ground water inflow into the proposed pond thus, maintaining a constant water level elevation of 840' (U.S.G.S. Datum).. 11. The final plat shall be amended to reflect the changes in the site and building plan submitted on July 12, 1982. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. John DeVries who stated that he would like to address the Council concerning the issues regarding the plans. Mayor Nyquist stated that the Council will not hear anything about private disputes. Mr. DeVries replied that he is not here to ask the Council to deny the application but he believed that if the Council approved the application without noting his objection to it, it would be unfair to the people currently living in the Earle Brown Farm Estates. Mayor Nyquist called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained from the vote. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No._ 82026 on the following grounds: 1. The institutional nature of the abutting R1 use. 2. There is considerable precendent for allowing a reduced buffer adjacent to institutional uses. 3. There would be no detrimental effect on other residential property in the area. 7 -26 -82 -7- Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed, Councilmember Lhotka abstained from-the vote. FINAL PLAT - HI CREST SQUARE ESTATES The Director of Public Works reviewed the final plat for Hi Crest Square Estates located south of 69th Avenue North and east of Emerson Avenue North. He noted that the five. conditions of approval for the preliminary plat have been met and that the staff finds the final plat in order. He added that the staff has also reviewed the subdivision agreement and the developer has accepted the terms of the subdivision agreement. He added that the staff is recommending approval of the final plat and subdivision agreement. `There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to , approve the final plat of Hi Crest Square Estates. Voti in favor: M Ny pp g Y Yq P q Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -136 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: r� RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR HI CREST SQUARE ESTATES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RECE The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:52 p.m. and reconvened at 9:06 p.m. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED) RESOLUTION NO. 82 -137 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 (XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, 56TH AVENUE STREET RECONSTRUCTION) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Lions Park West Trailway Improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Central Park /Garden City Trailway Extension Improvement Project No. 1982 - 19, Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982-20, Civic Access Improvement Project No. 1982 -21, Civic Center Parking Lot Improvement Project No. 1982 -22, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) 7 -26 -82 -8- In discussion of the resolution, Councilmember Hawes inquired whether there was an over -run on the project budget. The City Manager replied that there was a slight over -run from the original estimate, but he pointed out the full amount for the project was never appropriated. Councilmember Hawes stated he could not vote to approve some of the projects in the contract and indicated that too much money was being spent on some of the projects. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the projects contained in the resolution had been approved by the Council previously. The City Manager pointed out the Council voted to direct the City staff to prepare the plans and specifications for the projects contained in the resolution. There was a motion by Councilmember Scottoand seconded by Councilmember Hawes to separate the projects contained in the resolution and act on them individually. Voting yes. Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes: Voting no. Council- member Lhotka. The motion passed. 4 k Councilmember Hawes stated he approved of the idea of constructing a bridge it Lions Park to the western residential area, but that he can't support the construction of afoot path for $26,000. The Director of Public Works explained that one reason for the high cost of the project is the poor soil conditions in the area, and added that the trail would have to be built on a fabric. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the trail project received LAWCON funds. The City Manager explained that it was funded by a LAWCON grant with 90% of the cost paid by federal and state dollars and 10% locally funded. Councilmember Scott commented that she has a problem with the tennis court in Lions Park and noted that the Park & Recreation staff has indicated that existing courts are under - utilized. She stated that she is also concerned over the.cost of the construction of the tennis court. She added she is also concerned that the trail- Way in the western portion of Lions Park would not be utilized. The Director of Public Works stated that the pathway would be an access across Shingle Creek from the neighborhood west of Lions Park to allow people to access the north -south regional trail. He added that it would be possible to downgrade this trail from bituminous to a wood chip trail. Councilmember Hawes stated that he agrees with Councilmember Scott regarding the tennis court construction and al the woodchip trail. The Director of Public Works commented the staff could revise the project plans and return to the City Council.. The City Manager pointed out that the tennis court in Lions Park went through as a recommendation of the Park & Recreation Commission. The Director of Public Works suggested that a motion to amend the plans be adopted but that the plans-could. still be included in a package contract. Councilmember Lhotka suggested that the projects be presented at the next Council meeting and that they could reflect the amendments the Council'has made this evening. Councilmember Scott added that she does not object to the construction of a tennis court in Lions Park but only to the cost of the project. Mayor Nyquist suggested laying over consideration of the projects until the next Council meeting. 7 -26 -82 -9- There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to table the Resolution Establishing Lions Park West Trailway Improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Central Park /Garden City Trailway Extension Improvement Project No. 1982 -19, Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20, Civic Center Access Improvement Project No. 1982 -21, Civic Center Parking Lot Improvement Project No. 1982 -22, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) to the first Council meeting in August at which time the amended projects will be considered by the City Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Fuel Dispensing System Improvement Project No. 1982 -23, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -K). In response to an inquiry by Council- member Lhotka, the City Manager explained that the fuel dispensing system would be an electronic computerized system designed so that records can be kept without F Y g P hand recording. He pointed out that $14,000 is the total cost of the project including installation. The Director of Public Works noted that the system will also improve security with regard to fuel dispensing. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -138 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: i RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FUEL DISPENSING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -23, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (Contract 1982 -K) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott and Bill Hawes; and Yq , the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted i The City Manager introduced a Resolution Commending the Brooklyn Center Police Department. The City Manager pointed out that the recent homicide in Brooklyn Center was a very difficult case, and that it was handled extremely well and in a very organized professional manner by the Police Department. He added that the case was solved very quickly and that all members of the Police Department should be commended for their efforts. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he agrees with the City Manager and that he believes the Police Department did a tremendous job in this difficult situation. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -139 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, e 7 -26 -82 -10- DISCUSSION ITEMS ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING PRIVATE KENNEL LICENSES The City Manager explained that this item is related to the Open Forum request made by Mr. Jesse Sandoval, 5548 Logan Avenue North, at the June 28, 1982 City Council meeting concerning Section 1 -106 of the City Ordinances regarding limiting the number of dogs per household. He explained that the private kennel license has been used in neighboring communities but also pointed out that the use of the private kennel license opens up options along with problems. He added that the staff is proposing an ordinance amendment in conjunction with the private kennel license which would coordinate dog licenses with rabies vaccinations. He pointedout that the license would run concurrently with the length of the immunization for rabies. He added that the staff is not requesting a first reading this evening but that the ordinance is presented on the agenda for discussion purposes only. Councilmember Lhotka requested the staff to comment on the possibility of issuing a temporary private kennel license rather than one that goes on year after year. The City Manager stated that language could be developed by the staff which could provide for the issuance of a private kennel license for one year. Councilmember Scott stated that she is bothered by the definition of animal in the ordinance, especially concerning wild animals, and stated that she is concerned that people may be allowed to keep wild animals. The City Attorney pointed out that some cities have ordinances stating that wild animals are not permitted to be kept in the City or that animals not native to Minnesota are prohibited. He added that he thinks the staff could work out an ordinance to regulate the keeping of wild animals that are dangerous to human beings. The City Manager stated that the City Attorney and Administrative Assistant Bublitz could redraft the ordinance in a more comprehensive fashion and present it to the Council. Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the City Attorney whether the kennel license could be temporary so that it could be reviewed periodically by the City Council. The City Manager stated that the staff can prepare two alternatives for Council consid- eration regarding the issuance of kennel lic=ense. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF WENDELL R. ANDERSON AS A LOBBYIST FOR NORTH CROSSTOWN HIGHWAY (T.H. 610) The City Manager explained that several of the Northwest Suburban Communities have retained the services of Wendell R. Anderson to represent their interests in promoting and financing the construction of the proposed North Crosstown. He added that the City of Brooklyn Center has been invited to become a part of the joint powers agreement. Mayor Nyquist expressed a concern about the geography of the project and added that he has a problem with the way the costs are allocated since several of the communities will be closer to the Crosstown than Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Hawes added that he does not think the City would benefit enough from this project to justify the expenditure involved. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he believes the 610 Crosstown is a waste of dollars, and that Brooklyn Center would lose by having the project and that he would not vote for it. Councilmember. Scott stated that she agrees with Mayor Nyquist and indicated that she believes Brooklyn Center will not benefit that directly from the project to justify the cost of retaining a lobbyist. 7 -26 -82 -11- Mayor Nyquist recognized Lonnie McCauley, Executive Director of the Brooklyn Center Chamber of Commerce. Ms.-McCauley stated that the Chamber issued a resolution of support for the North Crosstown and that she believes Brooklyn Center will benefit from the project. She added that Highway 252 is phase 1 of the project and that the business community is supportive of the North Crosstown Project and Highway 252. Mayor Nyquist suggested that a resolution of support for the project could possibly be drafted and that the City could possibly give some funding to the project without becoming a party .to the joint powers agreement. The City Manager stated the staff would prepare additional information for Council consideration regarding the project. STAFF REPORT ON SUNDAY BRUNCH LAW The City Manager 'reviewed the decision of the Attorney General's office regarding the Attorney General's opinion on the implementationof the Sunday Bruch LaW, He stated that the Attorney General's-opinion states that the City can extend the hours for serving intoxicating liquors by ordinance without a referendum. Councilmember Lhotka indicated he would have no problem with the ordinance. The City Manager. stated he would refer the matter to the City Attorney and Administrative Assistant Bublitz to prepare ordinance language for a first reading at the next City Council meeting, ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Clerk Mayor e 7 -26 -82 y -12- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 9, 1982 CITY HALL ROUGH DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warr�:n, Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, Director of Parks & Recreatio Gene Hagel, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz. 7 INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Scott.' OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted he had received two requests for the Open Forum session this evening, one from Mr. Al Beisner, 7549 Mariner Pt,, Maple Grove, and Mr. Lou Howard, 2218 55th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center. Mr. Howard stated that he would wait with his comments until the resolution on Lions Park was discussed. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Al Beisner who stated heworks for Lombard Properties, located at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway -in Brooklyn Center, He stated his subject for discussion this - evening was the development .process and approval process in the City�and specifically with regard to the Hi Crest Square Estates Development. He stated that he believes the development process and the approval process was misused in this project. Mr. Beisner stated that the Hi Crest Estates plan was brought before the Commission on June 17, 1982 and that the site and building plan was approved at this meeting. He proceeded to review elevations of the Hi Crest Square Estates Project. He noted that Mr. John a Vries, developer of the Earle Brown Farm Estates townhouse )9evelopment, learned of the Hi Crest Square Estates plan at the June 17, 1982 Planning 8 -9 -82 -1- Commission meeting. On June 21, he pointed out that he reviewed the Hi Crest Square Estates plans. He stated that after his review of the plans he met with a City Official and an Elected Official and expressed his conce --`` g was running afoul n the r"'that something g approval process. He stated he contacted a representative of the Hi Crest Square Estates Project and the representative stated that the submission of the plans for I" Hi Crest Square Estates was a mistake and that he was not intending to use the plans for the project. He explained that a day or two before the Planning Commission meeting held in the first part of July)the applicant i0 e f.he Hi Crest Square Estates Project off the Planning Commission agenda. He explained that on July 15 of this year,the Planning Commission approved Phase I of the Hi Crest Square Estates Project on a five to two vote. *!X 4,N& He added that on July 26, 1982, the project came before the City Council. He aQat he tried to settle the problems with the Hi Crest Square Estates representative but that they could arrive at no solution. Mr. Beisner indicated;dft he thought there would be a public forum at the July 26, 1982 City Council meeting regarding the project but that he did not get a chance to speak. He stated that the process leaves something wanting.in the way s e& -*� Brooklyn Center, Mr. Beisner stated that the reason given for the use of the plan by the applicant was that a deadline had to be met for approval and the applicant did not intend to use the plan. He added the property for the project was rezoned and tit he was told this plan was used to show to the neighborhood groups during the discussions centering on rezoning. He added that,for the Earle Brown Farm Estates NownhouseNroject,we used the plans to show to the neighborhood and told the neighborhood residents that,the townhouses would be built according to the plan. Mr. Beisner proceed4o review the April 1982 grading plans for Hi Crest Square Estates and pointed out that they are very similar to those in the Earle Brown Farm Estates. He added the Earle Brown Farm Estates development has surveys with the same dimensions as-the Hi Crest Square Estates on the plat with regard to the width of-the units. Mr. Beisner stated -he believes there is an obligation between the City Council and-staff .and developer to do what is best for.the City'and that.-he did-not-think what -bappened with the-Hi XXf_X4M- Crest Square Estates application is a good development_ procedure 8 -9 -82 -2- He added that he does not believe the process is what the City wants or what anybody else wants to follow. He stated he thought the process was wrong and tried to let the system work itself out but it never got the proper hearing that it should have. He stated this is the most controversial and poorest example of how things are done in the City. He Diehl added bhak if the names were erased on the plans and•B&I e Gustafson's name was placed on the plans he believes they would not have received the same type of treatment. Mr. Beisner stated that in conclusion he believes he was treated unfairly and the process was iN _ a sham, Councilmember Lhotka commented that at the last City Council meeting the Council approved a portion of the plans and that this portion approved was not disputed. Mr. Beisner stated that Councilmember Lhotka was correct but to get as far as the process got,in his opinion, was not right. Councilmember Lhotka stated he could not recall,as long as he has been on the Council,that a developer brought in plans that - Ine did not /` develop himself. - The City Manager commented that the staff proceed according to the ordinance and then- the staff did not check the plans to see if they were a duplicate of another plan. Council member Lhotka inquired what procedures were taken once it was suspected that the plans were duplicates- The City Manager to = '* pointed out that if the plans are certified by an architect and meet the City ordinance requirements,the dispute over who owns the plans is solely between the developers. Council - member Lhotka inquired as to the Cityls responsibility and inquired whether or not the - City should stop the process until the dispute is resolved. The City Manager stated the City did not accept the plans except for the duplexes and also added that when ordinance requirments are met the City is obliged to accept the plans. He added MWt there are also -time periods -- stated in the ordinance that must be met with regard to action on the plans the City. He noted hive if the City stops the project improperly the City is #echnically responsible for the cost of -the delays. 'The Zirector of Planning & Inspection stated that after the June 17 Planning Commission-- meeting he became aware of the dispute over the glans. He pointed out t�l -I)e­fore the- plans went --to -- the City Council from the Planning CommissionCthe applicant 8 -9 -82 -3- PRIMP requested tabling the plans. He stated he believes the process was, working by the fact t the plans were resubmitted to the Planning Commission.. Mr. Beisner then inquired whether the plans were certified. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the plans were resubmitted for the July Planning Commission meeting, and% they were kdad��a) not signed�but„ that this is not uncommon. The City Attorney explained that the procedure set out in the ordinance were followed in this case i e discussed the matter at a staff meeting and advised the to sto r d the applicant is not sufficient p f '� dispute between developer an staff the is e b ee e p pP p the process. He pointed out the City Council cannot stop the process to allow an applicant and an adversary to sort out their differences.- He added � the City could have a law suit against the City if the project was halted without sufficient authority pointed out the process was carried on fox precisely according to the ordinance and the City Council cannot be involved in a speculative decision making process. Discussion continued between the City Attorney and Mr. Beisner regarding the development process and the site plan and zoning approvals for Hi Crest Square Estates The City Attorney pointed out the distinction between a zoning change and a site and building plan approval as regards the ordinance requirements. - Mr. Beisner stated N generally thought the City persuaded applicants to conform to a traditional development process and in this case the prowess was n -t followed. He pointed out that>for the Earle Brown Farm Estates TownhouGe a public hearing was held on the subdivision approval on June 22; 1981'gnd that the plat approval on Jun- 28 1982 also got a public hearing., He stated he does not. think a full disclosure was given, and emphasized fi#�iz� he is not trying to alienate anyone but he feels strongly about this matter and thinks the ordinance is vague on when a hearing is required. The Director of- Planning & Inspection pointed out that with a.site and building.plan:approval no public - hearing is required and the ordinance is specific -in this instance. - = --- Mr. Beisner stated traditionally he has had an opportunity to sit down and work out problems but #6t in this case he was not given the same opportunity. Councilmember fiictka inquired- whether Mr. Beisner contacted the City staff -with regard to this matter. but Mr. Beisner stated he did contact the staff dcUM -the application was back on the 8 -9 -82 -4- Planning Commission agenda. He stated the applicant felt no necessity to sit down and work out the problem and at that time the attorneys for the applicant and himself were involved. He stated he doesn't feel a full opportunity was accorded to sit down and work out the problem at the meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated 14A the Hi Crest Square Estates preliminary plat hearing was held by the Planning Commission and that traditionally the City Council has held a public hearing where the Planning Commission holds a public hearing, although, it is not required by ordinance. Councilmember Hawes commented that he understands Mr. Beisner's concern but t*Wt he believes the City has no concern and is an innocent bystander in this instance. Councilmember Lhotka stated he agreed with Councilmember Hawes but added that he believed if something was going on that was not correct he believes an attempt should be made to correct it. He added that he appreciates the ordinance requirements but he believes the City staff and the City Council have an obligation to try to work out the problem. CONSENT AGENDA -_ -_,Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Council members had any items they would request removed from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Theis requested that item 8 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Mayor Nyquist commented that the resolution declaring August 19 as Don Poss Day in Brooklyn Center is on the Consent Agenda,but ►he would like to note that in addition Mkt. h�SS to Don Poss Day,) is also receiving the good neighbor award from WCCO radio. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 26, 1982 _ There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve.the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 26, 1982 as submitted. Voting in favor:._ Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Votingg against: none. The-motion passed. Councilmember Theis abstained from the approval of-the minutes as he was not present at the July 26, 1982 meeting. PERFORMANCE. BOND RELEASES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve.the release-of the performance guarantee on-the Ponds Plat_VI, Ponds Drive and 8 -9 -82 -$- Unity Avenue North in the amount of $10,000. Una. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the release of the remaining performance guarantee on Harron United Methodist Church, 5452 Dupont Avenue North in the amount of $1,000. Una. APPROVAL OF ELECTION JUDGES FOR PRIMARY ELECTION SEPTEMBER 14, 1982 There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve the list of election judges submitted by the City Clerk for the September 14, 1982 primary election. Una. RESOLUTIONS - RESOLUTION NO. 82 -140 Moved by Scott, seconded by Hawes. Una. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -141 Moved by Scott, seconded by Hawes. Una. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -142 Moved by Scott, seconded by Hawes. Una. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -143 Moved by Scott, seconded by Hawes. Una, RESOLUTION NO. 82 -144 Moved by Scott, seconded by Hawes. Una. SUBDIVISION BOND RELEASE - THE PONDS PLAT I, II, III, V,AND V The Director of Public Works reviewed a memorandum regarding the performance bond release for the Ponds Plat I, II, III, V, and VI and recommended the release:of the remaining subdivision bonds for the Ponds and pointed out that theerformance; bond which is being retained by the Planning Department will be extended to cover the work remaining in the Ponds. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to release the remaining subdivision bonds for the Ponds P1at II, iII, ,'V,.and VI in the amount of $101,500. Una. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. 82 -14 Moved by Lhotka, seconded by Theis. Una. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Rejecting Bids and Authorizing Advertisement for New Bids for Water Tower Painting Project No. 1982 -15 (Contract 1982 -G). The Director of Public Works reviewed the bids for the water tower painting project and explained the low bidder did not submit a statement of qualifications as required in the specifications. He__- added_ that. there- _are irregularities in the _second-low bidders proposal form also. He pointed out representatives of the low bidder are present this evening. Mayor Nyquist recognized the attorney representing Allied Painting the low bidder on the project. The attorney for Allied Painting stated he is concerned about the staff comments from the City of St. Cloud and Robbinsdale regarding Allied Painting's work in their cities and stated that he believes they had an impact on the rejection of the bids. He stated he believes the dispute in the St. Cloud case was made in -good faith over a disagreement on the contract and that he believes the project in St. Cloud was done properly and he pointed out that payment was finally made. He added that he also represented Allied Painting in the Robbinsdale case and he also believes it was a good faith dispute over an interpretation 'of the contract. He added that the work done. by_ Allied-Painting in Robbinsdale was not and he expressed a concern over the letter from the Robbinsdale Public Works Director. He proceeded to review a list of successful_ projects by Allied Painting including the projects mentioned in the Director of Public Works memorandum. He suggested to the Council that the bidder is a reputable The Director of Public Works pointed out the specifications on the project requested the bidder to submit a statement of qualifications and that . a form was provided but that Allied Painting left the form blank. TZee - Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Ralph tee who stated he was the President of Allied Painting, stated the reason he did not submit a statement of qualification is that 7 4 1 a' �� it was so close to the bid opening - date that he= feel it was necessary and that he bias -never had a problem on this small a mistake before. Director of Public Works stated he did not believe that it is the City's bhiigation- to..go -after the contractor for information required in the bid. Councilmember 3Eotka inquired whether the bid opening was set for a specific time. The Director of 8 -9 -82 - -7- Public Works stated that the bid was set for a specific time and date. Councilmember. : .Lhotka inquired what would be the consequences allowing the bidder to bring in additional _information. The Alrney advised that it is very precarious situation if the bidder comes in with information after the bid opening deadline and that he recommended that the City not consider this information since it is part of the specifications. The attorney for Allied Painting stated that the contractor made a good faith bid and it was a low bid'and that all of the bids are now known for the project and it is up for grabs if the bids are resubmitted. He stated it is unfair to the contractor and that without giving the staff _a list of qualifications the staff has researched the qualifications of the contractor _and that he does not think the competitive bidding process would be served by rejecting the bids. >� RESOLUTION NO. 82146 Moved by Lhotka, seconded by Scott. Una. Vhe City Manager introduced a Resolution authorizing City Manager to Foreclose on _Sid Security of BauerZ Remer Excavating for Failure to Perform Under Provisions. of Contract 1982 -F and a Resolution Ordering Advertisement for Bids for Neighborhood Parks �Inprovement Project 1982 -13 (Drinking Fountain Installation- Contract 1982 -F). .The Director of Public Works explained the contractor refused to enter into a contract ,'With the City for the work and therefore the staff is submitting the foreclosure _resolution and the readvert.isement for bids resolution for the project. the City Attorney explained he talked to the attorney representing the contractor and Vas told that the contractor does not intend to enter into a contract with the City. He Mated he is recommending the bid bond be forfeited. He added that he is also recommending ,a change in the specifications regarding_liquidated'damages. The City Attorney pointed 4 -Put that the contractor's attorney claimed that the contractor has never worked in Hennepin County with water tables requiring dew watering. The Director of Public Works stated the .; taff discussed the de- watering requirement with the contractor and also pointed out that Shingle Creek is located only a few feet away_from the installation. 'RESOLUTION NO. 82 -147 Moved by Scott, seconded by Theis. Una. 8 -9 -82 -8- RESOLUTION NO. 82 -148 Moved by Hawes, seconded by Lhotka. Una. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Lions Park West Trailway Improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertis- ement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J). Councilmember Theis inquired what Alternate 3 would provide on the trail project. The Director of Public Works explained Alternate No. 3 would be a minimal wood chip trail would not be suitable for an improved trail to be built on it. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether LAWCON funds were designated for this project. The City Manager pointed out that the project was funded 90% by federal and state dollars and 10% local funding. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired where the dollars would go if they were not used.on this project. The City Manager explained that if the federal and state dollars were not used on trails in this project they would be returned to the state and federal government There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve the Resolution Establishing Lions Park West Trailway improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Approving Plans: and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) and to insert the cost of Alternate No. 1 as described in the August 6, 1982 memorandum '!WXtension of Iailway.6ystem through Lions Park West Improvement Project No. 1982 -18. Councilmember Hawes stated that he believes the high cost of this project_is one of the reasons why the federal and state governments are in as bad a shape as they are financially. Councilmember .Lhotka stated that he believes in theory that Councilmember Hawes is correct but if the City does.not use the funds the state and federal governments will allocate them to another project. _Mayor Nyquist called for a roll call vote on the motion on the , floor'. Councilmember Hawes voted no, Councilmember Scott o Councilmember Lhotka 'voted yes, Councilmember Theis voted yes, and Mayor Nyquist voted no. �hG - �Jm , ✓ �° d �o P ars ' ' RESOLUTION NO. 82 -149 8 -9 -82 -9- 70 _ - Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution Establishing Lions Park West Trailway Improvement Project No. 1982 -18, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1982 -J) and inserting the cost of Alternate No. 3 as proposed in the August 6, 1982 memo submitted by the Director of Publics wee xtension of Trailway System through Lions Park West Improvement Project No. 1982 -18. Mayor Nyquist called for a roll call vote on the. Motion, Councilmember RAwes voted yes, Councilmember Scott voted yes, Councilmember Lhotka voted no, Councilmember Theis voted yes, and Mayor Nyquist voted yes. The-motion passed. 45 41 , bst The City Manager introduced a Resolutiorl Central Park /Garden City Trailway Extension Improvement Project No. 1982 -19, Approving Plans and Specifications, and pirec.'ing" Advertisement for Bids (_Contract 1982 -J1 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -150 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution Establishing Central Park /Garden City Trailway Extension Improvement Project NO. 1982 -19, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (_Contract 1982 -Jj Discussion ensued among Council members regarding the merits of approving the Central.'Park /Garden City Trailway Extension Improvement Project as opposed to the Lions. Park West Trailway Improvement Project. Councilmember Scott commented that the Central Park /Garden City Trailway would serve a greater number of people than the Lions Park Trailway Project. - Councilmember Hawes commented he believes Central Park will have the opportunity to -be a first class park and he would support it. Discussion ensued . regarding the cost'of the trails in Central Park and Councilmember Lhotka commented that approving one trailway and rejecting the other does not seem to make sense to him.., Councilmember Hawes commented that the original project'budget for the'Central Park /Garden City Trailway was $47,234 and that if the $16,000 deleted from the previous project could be used for the other project,the $16,000 added to the $47,000 budgeted would nearly bring the funding up to the cost of the project. The City Manager explained that the City can only apply for a certain dollar amount from LAWCON each year and that is why the project 8 -9 -82 -10- had to be built over a number of years. He pointed out that Councilmember.Hawes is correct but there are other additional funds that can be used for the project. The Director of Public Works pointed out that the staff has obtained a budget amendment from the state and federal government fj4 based on the approval of the � � � ,� -- a✓o-F projects as originally proposed and that to use the $16,000 on another{ amendment would have to be made. /' Mayor Nyquist called for a vote on the motion on the floor. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Theis,and Hawes. Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed, The City Manager introduced a Resolution Lions Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1982 -20, Approving Plans and Specifications, and Directing Advertisement - (Contract 1982 -J),. The City Manager noted that the project would be for the base work only and would not include construction of the tennis court. The Director of Public Works reviewed the possible location of tennis courts and recommended a two stage process be conducted the first stage being the,soil correction work and the second being the actual court construction. Councilmember Scott expressed a concern over the potential for additional costs if the soil beneath the tennis court continued to sink after construction. The Director of Public Works stated that he believes adequate soil borings have been taken for the project. Discussion ensued regarding utilization of tennis courts within the City and the Director of Parks & Recreation commented that his department staff have noticed a decline in the number of persons registering for tennis lessons - and.,he believes tennis activity is, leveling off. The City Manager stated that as part of the bond issue the tennis court was brought up at neighborhood meetings during the bond issue discussions. The.court,,he pointed out, was requested by the residents in the neighborhood and that there are no tennis courts close by. He stated that the staff responded to the residents by stating that the matter of the courts in Lions Park would be reviewed as separate from the bond issue. Finally, he pointed out, the Park & Recreation Commission recommended the tennis courts be constructed at Lions Court predicated on a need for tennis courts in that area. Councilmember Scott 8 -9 -82 -11- stated that she believes there is a need but she is concerned with the cost of the courts. _Park & Recreation Commissioner Jackie Albright stated that the staff originally proposed single courts at Bellvue and Lions but that the double courts were recommended for Lions Park due to the potential for that Park becoming a larger recreational site. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Lou Howard, 2218 55th Avenue North, who stated that in the summer of 1980 neighborhood meetings were held and he was under the impression that a golf course was being considered in the area of Lions Park and that at the meetings the Lions Park neighborhood expressed an interest in tennis courts. He pointed out there are no adult facilities in Lions Park and that four to five persons in the neighborhood gathered a petition of names to request a tennis court in Lions Park and that the Park & Recreation Commission considered the construction of the tennis courts and he assumed that the-City Council would give consideration to this recommendation. He added that tennis has declined in the past few years but so have other things due to the economy. He exp lained that the southeast neighborhood is in a state of change asir that younger people ,are -moving into the neighborhood and that sometimes it is worth the money to appease and show the residents that there are requests are considered. Mr. Howard also pointed out that the Grandview courts are usually occupied. _The Director of Parks & Recreation stated that the City has not held tennis lessons at Grandview Park for two years but that it is used once a week by the tennis club. `Councilmember Lhotka stated he supports the project and that the people in the area want a tennis facility. He added that he believes this part of the City deserves the' -project,especially if the golf course is built in the future. ---..-.Mayor Nyquist recognized Jackie Albright, member of the Park & Recreation Commission, stated that the main purpose of the bond issue was to improve the parks. and that she was tired of seeing all the development go to Central Park. _.- Councilmember Scott inquired what the original budget was far the tennis court at 3.ions_Park. The City Manac_er explained that %25,000.was.budgeted and that the additional soil_work.required would come from_the 4&pitZproject nd. Councilmember Hawes asked mat-assurance can be given that the court won't sink further after the soil correction work is completed. The City Manager stated that it is a very costly item to accomplish the 8 -9 -82 -12- :soil correction work and that the staff would not want to re -do it extra precautions were taken in the soil borings to determine what work was required for this area. The Assistant City Engineer reviewed the depth of the soil borings taken in the area and discussion continued regarding the construction procedures for the court., 'Councilmember Theis stated that he would like to see the City accomplish what it originally set out to do with the tennis courts. 4 ESOLUTION NO. 82 -151 Moved by Lhotka seconded by Theis. Una. = RECESS - -- - - , The Brooklyn Center -City Council recessed at 9:25 p,m. and reconvened at 9:45 p.m. ESOLUTIONS (.CONTINUED) -7 7tESOLUTION NO. 82 -152 moved by Scott, seconded by Hawes. Una. 1 1MOLUTION NO. 82 -153 -- Moved -by Lhotka, seconded by Scott. Una, SOLUTION NO. 82 -154 - 23oved -by Hawes., seconded by Theis. Una. PLANNING COMMMISSION ITEMS - -__ ?LANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82023 SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY FOR `OWNDED BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR PHASE I OF THE HI CREST SQUARE ESTATES IN THE 1300 BLOCK - .ON THE -SOUTH SIDE OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH. = Director of Public Works pointed out that�this application was approved by the Planning = Commission at is -_July 15, 1982 meeting and that approval of the item was deferred zwt duly 26,-1982 City Council meeting until the plans were signed by a registered zazr. hitect. - He pointed out that at the July 26 City Council meeting,the. Council approved the znastzr�.site plan grading, and utility and landscape plan. He explained the total p ect -.was a- 60.unit townhouse project: He explained approval oit:wo six -unit buildings td the = projiect - was - deferred -on July 26 r 1982 until 'the plans could be . certified by a gistered. arcisitect. - He- to review the _elevations and exterior construction the prvjectt He -stated he believes -:the plans as -submitted .are _in order and that he 8 -9 -82 -13- recommends approval for the two six -unit buildings. He stated approval is recommended_ subject to the 12 conditions set by the Planning Commission at its July 15, 1982 meeting which he reviewed for Council members. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether the cerification on the plans submitted this evening is accurate since the certification states that the plans were prepared by or supervised PA l directly by the architect signing the plans. Mr..-AT'Pierce,who is the architect,whose name appears on the plans stated that he reviewed the plans but that he did not prepare them or supervise t$ste preparation. Mr. William Clelland, attorney for the applicant, stated that the past practice of the City was not to require certification until the building permits are issued. He stated that requiring approval at this time is a departure from past practices. - -The Director of Planning & Inspection commented that the plans have been submitted both ways in the past and that designers have submitted preliminary plans not signed by a rk! -1 S tZ pct architect and that later the final plans were certified by an architect. Mr. `S requested that the literal interpretation of the ordinance not be used in this case since the actual preparation of the plans will be done by Mr. Pierce, a registered architect. Mayor Nyquist noted that this is not what the certification on the plans epa"� states. Mr. � suggested that Mr. Pierce be allowed to review the plans and give assurances that he will be involved in the development of the final plans. - Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the time frame for approval. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the time period is �O days from the day it is referred from the Planning Commission'to the City Council,in this case, July 26, 1982. Council- member Lhotka then inquired whether the applicant could meet with the other party in the dispute. Mr. @e}an. stated it is a misconception that the two parties have not met - I and he pointed out that he has met with p'nq representatives of the applicant and pointed out that the applicant is not present this evening, Mr. James Merila r representing PP qu re resentin the a licant,re ested the City Council take action an the first-reading of the zoning ordinance amendment this evening but that he has nox objection to-tabling Application No. -82023 for two weeks. - There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka to -table consideration--of Planning 8 -9 -82 -14- Commission Application No. 82023 for two weeks. The motion died for lack of a second. 0oz( /) Mr. Merila commented that after discussion with legal he would request that C/- G Ila , -t Application No. 82023 be approved this evening. Mr. ril stated that he believes no purpose would be served to meet with Mr. DeVries and Mr. Beisner and that the plans the Council has before them this evening were drawn by a firm with no previous affiliation with theFEarle Brown Farm Estates '�xoject. Mr. Mark Hagerty, attorney for DeVries Builders, addressed the Council and stated that the only difference between the plans Mr. DeVries has seen and the ones before the Council this evening is that Mr. Pierce has signed them. Mr. Pierce stated that Mr. Hagerty was correct and that the plans were not changed. Councilmember Theis stated that the two parties appear to be at an „rand that he is disappointed in the applicants attorney's response to Councilmember Lhotka•s' request. He.stated that the integrity of people have been challenged in this situation and he hopes that the clouds over the issue will be cleared up. - The City Attorney stated that on site and building plan approvals the City Council does not have much discretion and that the ordinance is very specific. He added that the question is whether the City will be involved in a law suit by not taking action this evening on something they would take action on at the next Council meeting if the item were tabled. He added that the risk is that if the project fails between now and two weeks the City may be brought into a lawsuit for damages. The City Attorney ,stated bVId--he would advise,if there was no just reason to table the application,the City Council should act on the application this evening. He stated he believes.the controversary is totally unrelated to what the City Council has done or not done or what the staff has done or not. done. He stated that the dispute among the two parties belongs in a court room. Mr. Mark Hargerty, attorney for DeVries Builders, stated that,the City staff had assured kdrw and Mr. DeVries that a public hearing would'be held on the site and building plan application at the last Council meeting. The City Manager questioned Mr. Hagerty's assertion and stated he would take exception to that assertion. Mr. Hagerty stated that he was informed by an individual in the administrative offices that there would be a public hearing on the site and building plan application at the July 26 City Council meeting. 8 -9 -82 -15- The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that neither Mr. Hagerty nor Mr. Beisner have contacted him regarding this matter and that he would think that if someone were interested in the application process they would contact him considering his position with the City. Discussion continued briefly regarding the.application before the Council. Mayor Nyquist then inquired as to the Council's regarding Application No. 82023. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 82023 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 permitsi and specifically? should conform to the revisions and requirements set forth in the Assistant City Engineer's memo dated 6:14 -82. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee U in An amount to be determined by the CitrManager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of per- mits to assure completion of approved site improvements for the entire development. 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 Cit_, Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all Rarking and driving areas. 7. All areas regraded, but not developed according to plan shall be seeded.to main- tain adequate ground cover for dust control. 8. The Assistant City Engineer shall report.to the City Council on how the proposed -plan compares with other ponds on private developments in the City and on whether the proposed pond will fulfill its function as both a drainage control __- device and an aesthetic asset to the townhouse development, with an acceptable _-- risk. 9. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed landscape treatment along the east side 8 -9 -82 -16- of the development as acceptable a screening in lieu of the ordinance required 4' high opaque fence. 10. The building plans shall be certified by a registered Minnesota Architect prior to the issuance of building permits if so required by the State Building Codes Division. 11. The site plans shall be amended to incorporate a system to supplement natural ground water inflow into the proposed pond thus, maintaining a constant water level elevation of 840 feet (U.S.G.S. Datum). 12. If the site and building plan/ departs substantially from the plans submitted 0 with this application they shall be resubmitted to the City Council for approval. Voting in favor: Una. ORDINANCES The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances and An Ordinance Amending Chapter l of the City Ordinances. Regarding Animals. He explained the ordinance regarding public nuisances is being proposed in conjunction with amendments to Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances regarding animals and that the ordinance amending Chapter 1 reflects a comprehensive amendment of the Chapter of the City Ordinances regarding animals. He added that the ordinances are offered for a first reading this evening and it is recommended a.public hearing on the ordinances be scheduled for 8 :00 p.m. on September 13, 1982, The City Attorney explained the City's current nuisance ordinance is very brief and the ordinance amendment proposed would substantially expand the current ordinance. He proceeded to review the ordinance pointed out that Section of the proposed ordinance essentially adopts the state code and common law regarding public nuisances. 8 -9 -82 -17- He pointed out that Section 19 -103 outlines a list of common nuisances. He pointed out that paragraph 9 in Section 19 -103 re- adopts the existing ordinance language. The City Attorney pointed out that Section 19 -104 adds a section to the public nuisance ordinance regarding the limitation on keeping of animals and added that the City Council must decide on how they want to regulate cats,such as requiring rabies vaccination for cats. In review of the ordinance amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances regarding animals the City Attorney noted that the ordinance amendment is a comprehensive amendment of the existing ordinance. He reviewed several key points of the ordinance amendment including changing the current time for license renewal of dogs to run concurrently with_ the length of the effective rabies vaccination for the animal. With regard to the private kennel and commercial kennel licenses, he reviewed the licensing procedure and recommended that in conjunction with the commercial kennel requirements the ordinance amendment adopts the U by reference. He also reviewed the section of the ordinance dealing with prohibition against keeping live wild animals and wild animals native to Minnesota. With regard to the vaccination of cats for rabies,he pointed out, it is somewhat futile to require a vaccination without requiring licensing of the animal. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to suggest a change for the time period a private kennel license would be effective to limit the time period for a.specific timef such.as four to six months. In other words, he pointed out, the private.kennel license would be effective for a specific period, such as four to .six months and would expire after that period. Councilmember Theis stated that he likes the idea of limiting the private kennel license to a definite time period. Councilmember Lhotka added.that he would like to see the private kennel license nonrenewable and used only for emergency type purposes. Councilmember Scott questioned the policy.of limiting the time.period for the private kennel licenses. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Jesse Sandvol who stated that she has a definite attachment to her dogs and that it would be difficult to part with them and added that she 8 -9 -82. -18- agrees with Councilmember Scott regarding the time limit on the license. Councilmember Lhotka left the table 11:05 p.m. Councilmember Hawes pointed out that the Section 19 -104 of the ordinance refers to four or more cats and the ordinance amending Chapter 1 also refers to four or more cats with reference to the limiting of animals but that on page 11 of the ordinance amendment the language describes more than four cats. He noted there appears to be a discrepancy between the two statements. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19.of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances and An Ordinance Amending P Y Chapter 1 -of the City Ordinances REgarding- Animals. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka was not at the Council table for the vote. Councilmember Lhotka returned to the table at 11;07 p.m. The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Hours of Sale for Intoxicating Liquor and pointed out that this ordinance amendment provides for the expansion of hours for Sunday sale intoxicating liquors. He added the ordinance is offered for a first reading this evening and it is recommended a public hearing on the ordinance be scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances Regarding Hours of Sale for Intoxicating Liquor and to set the public hearing date on the ordinance for 8 :00 p.m. on September 13, 1982, The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Property Description and pointed out that the ordinance describes property rezoned in the Bergstrom Planning Commission Application and is offered for a first reading this evening. He noted it is recommended a public hearing on:the ordinance be scheduled for 8 :00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. . There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve.for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding 8 -9 -82 -19- Property Description and to set the public hearing on the ordinance for 8:00 p.m. on September 13, 1982. DISCUSSION ITEMS REPORT ON FRANCE AND HIGHWAY 100 STUDY The City Manager explained to Council members that a consultant doing a study on the France and Highway 100 area may offer planning recommendations to the City Council that may not be agreeable to the City Council. He added that there may be certain preconceived notions about the area that would create a conflict with the consultant's recommendation. He added that he does not recommend approaching the Joselyn Company if the study is to be accomplished,in that if this is done, the Company would have a right to direct the study and that this would tend to dew -value the - objectivity of the study. Councilmember Scott stated she would like to see an economic study of the area done , and would not like to see a study similar to that which was done in the area before. The City Manager stated he would return to the City Council with a specific proposal regarding a study for the France and Highway 100 area, The City Council continued to discuss the possibility of a study for the France and Highway area and Councilmember Theis inquired what specific areas a study would address. The City Manager explained that there would be a planning analysis study of the area, tAAr S e- m kY �'6 a traffic study, a study of the adjoining land uses, a study of the mnde*-I-e pollution in the area > and an economic market study, Discussion continued among Council members regarding the France and Highway 100 study. The City Manager stated the staff can return to the City- Council with more information input from the surrounding neighborhood and pointed out that the staff would also investigate the staging of any proposed project. REVIEW OF 1983 BUDGET SUMMARY FOR NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION The City Manager explained that the 1983 budget is a tentative document and 'is submitted to the City Council for review, He explained that any Council members wishing to comment on the document can relay their comments to either himself or Councilmember Scott. The City Manager brought up another item of business and explained to the Council that the application forms sent out to businesses with amusement devices include fees for 8 -9 -82 -20- "kiddie rides ". He stated that the staff is recommending that the Council consider a seperate fee for these types of rides, l—t-a the amusement deviceA which.they are currently under. He stated the staff will return to the City Council with an amendment. Councilmember Lhotka requested information on standards for carnival rides. The City Manager stated he believed the City of Shakopee has such an ordinance and that he would assemble this information. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the meeting. Una. The Brooklyn City Council adourned at 11:50 p.m. $=9 -82 =21- MEMORANDUM TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Performance Guarantees DATE: August 5, 1982 The following performance guarantees are recommended for release: 1. The Ponds, Plat Six Ponds Drive and Unity Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 78029 Amount of Guarantee - $10,000 Bond - Obligor - Meadow Corporation Original bond of $85,000 was reduced by City Council on November 19, 1979 to $15,000 and on August 24, 1981 to $10,000. All work has been completed except for the planting of 12 Willow trees at the southeast corner of the development which will be planted in conjunction with Plat 5. Recommend total release of bond for Plat 6 and continue to hold bond for Plat 5 until all work, including installation of Willows is complete. 2: Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 80028 Amount of Guarantee - $10,000 Letter of Credit Obligor - Harron United Methodist Church Original guarantee was authorized for reduction twice, to $4,000 on December 8, 1980 and to $1,000 on July 27, 1981. However, no change was made in the letter of credit. All work is complete. Recommend total release. Approve by , Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection • i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager _ FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant DATE: August 6, 1982 SUBJECT: Appointment of Election Judges As provided for in Chapter 204B of the Minnesota Election Laws election judges for precincts in a municipality must be appointed by the governing body of the municipality. It is recommended a motion be made by the City Council appointing the election judges listed on the following page for the September 14, 1982 primary election. i • b The following election judges are scheduled to work the primary election (September 14, 1982): PRECINCT 1 PRECINCT 6 D- Loretta Stewig D- Mary Martin R- Marian Smith R- Josephine Swart D- Ardyce Matson D- Beth Rygh R- Mildred Egnell R- Catherine Wetzel R- Marion Alford D Myrna Kragness PRECINCT 2 PRECINCT 7 R- Ethel Irving D- Mona Hintzman R- Adeline Lonn D- Carol Benkofske D- Cheryl Jacobson R- Susan Heisler D- Beverly Madden D*-Helen Julkowski R- Fran Cederberg R- Jerine Polack PRECINCT 3 PRECINCT 8 .e R- Evonne Chatelle D- .Ethel Pettman R- Lorene D- Anne Bergquist D- Jeannette Hildebrandt R- Irene Thompson D- Jean Schiebel R-. Jeanette Ulrich R- Kathy Dziedzic D- Eileen Hannen PRECINCT 4 PRECINCT 9 Alberta Ruf D- Alice Madir Marilyn Foss D- Tracy F. Tyler, Jr. R- Frank Donaldson R- Delila Newman R- Mary Meline R- Jean Sullivan D- Joan Hagemann D- Margaret Stellburg PRECINCT 5 STAND -BY- ELECTION JUDGES: D- Geraldine Dorphy D- Delores Seal D- Alice VanMeerten R- Dolores McGeorge R- Gladys Leerhoff 'D Esther Durland R- Jean Lindstrom R- Grace Freund R- Joan McGonigal Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1981 -B (SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -02 AND FREEWAY BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -04) WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1981 -B signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. of Osseo, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: Shingle Creek Parkway Improvement Project No. 1981 -02 (turn lane construction f?om C.S.A.H. 10 to I-94) Freeway Boulevard Improvement Project No. 1981 -04 (turn lane at T.H. 100) 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: SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 - 02 Previously Final Approved Amount Original Contract Amount $132,279.97 $132,815.72 Supplemental Agreement No. 1 5,271.20 5,271.20 TOTAL $137,551.17 $138,086.92 FREEWAY BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -04 Previously Final. Approved Amount Original Contract, Amount $ 9,683.00 $ 9,699.44 Supplemental.Agreement No. 1 1,006.92 1,006.92 TOTAL $ 10,689.92 $ 10,706.36 2. The total value of work performed, at a cost of $148,,793.,28, is greater than the sum of the original contract and supplemental agreement by $552.19 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 improvements under said contract shall be $148,793.28. RESOLUTION NO. e 4. Reimbursement of construction costs shall be in accordance with 4_ the following schedule: Improvement Project No. 1981 -02 Special Assessments $133,550.58 Direct Invoice to Others 4,536.34 TOTAL $138,086.92 Improvement Project No. 1981 -04 Municipal State Aid Fund (Fund Balance #2613) $10,706.36 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. TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 5, 1982 RE: Acceptance of Work Performed Under Contract 1981 -B Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. has completed the work comprehended under Contract 1981 -B; therefore, it is recommended the City Council accept the work in accordance with the provisions of the attached resolution. A brief summary of the project locations and descriptions. is provided to assist in the review of the resolution. o . Improvement Project No. 1981 -02 Description: Construction of right and left turn lanes along Shingle Creek Parkway from C.S.A.H. 10 to I- Q^ Final Cost: $138,086.92 Funding Source: Special Assessment $133,550.58 '(levied in 1981) Direct Invoice to Others 4,536.34 (paid in 1981) TOTAL $138,086.92 Improvement Project No. 1981 -04 Description: Construction of right turn lane.on eastbound Freeway Boulevard at T.H. 100 (_adjacent to the Holiday Inn) Final Cost: $10,706.36 Funding.Source: Municipal State Aid Funds $ 10,706.36 (State Aid Project) .. .,,'/) Sy Kna'p • v SK:jn i 4 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: j RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT t NO. 1982 -08 (STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION ON EARLE BROWN DRIVE) 'WHEREAS, Earle Brown Street Light Improvement Project No. 1982 -08 has been placed under contract and the estimated costs are: Installation Cost $4,290.00 Legal and Administrative Cost 220.00 (5% of Installation Cost) TOTAL $4,510.00 I and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has notified the City Council that a proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his office for public inspection. { NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of c Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 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 such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. f 2. The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. 3. The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner r of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following . voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager ' . FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 5, 1982 RE: Special Assessment for Earle Brown Street Light Improvement Project No. 1982 -08 The City has entered into a contract with Northern States Power Company for the installation of street lights along the Earle Brown Drive extension within Brookdale Corporate Center Addition to Brooklyn Center. Since the street light installation will benefit only those areas adjacent to the improvement, the City Council (via Resolution 82 -58) determined the assessment district to be comprised of only that property abutting the street. Based upon that action, the staff has developed a proposed assessment roll providing for a unit assessment rate of $320.31 per acre and assessment period of 2 years. The proposed yearly principal payments vary from $128.12 to $837.61 for the various commercial /industrial parcels assessed. The attached resolution establishes a September 13th public hearing on the proposed assessment roll. Sy Knapp SK: jn • a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PARK SHELTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -17 (CONTRACT 1982 -I) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 1982 -17, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer, on the 5th day of August, 1982. Said bids were as follows: Bidder Bid Amount Completion Date Superior 77, Inc $26,914.00 November 30, 1982 Don G. Morin & Company 27,443.00 October 31, 1982 o - Falls & Nyhusmoen Construction, Inc. 28,773.00 90 Days Kloster- Madsen, Inc. 28,890.00 October 15, 1982 Veit Construction, Inc. 29,998.00 September 30, 1982 David Volkmann Construction Company 30,285.00 November 15, 1982 G.G. Kranz and Sons, Inc. 30,700.00 October 1.5, 1982 ADB Construction Company, Inc. 32,475.00 October 30, 1982 C.O. Field Company 32,960.00 October 8, 1982 Michael Construction, Inc. 34,350.00 October 14, 1982 Nordling Construction Company 34,395.00 45 Days Henry 0. Mickelson Company 34,600.00 November 15, 1982 Gem Construction, Inc. 41,435.00 December 3, 1982 Y.R. Sharp, Inc. 45,721.00 December 31, 1982 WHEREAS, it appears that Superior 77, Inc. of Bloomington, 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.$26,914.00, with Superior 77,_ Inc..of Bloomington, Minnesota in the name of the City of Center, for Improvement Project No. 1982 -17 according to the plans and specifications therefor approved by the City Council and -on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to.return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except "that the deposit of the successful bidder and the-next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that: 1. The estimated total cost of Improvement Project No. 1982 -17 is hereby amended according to the following schedule: i RESOLUTION NO. As Ordered As Bid ` Contract $31,205.00 $26,914.00 Engineering 3,000.00 3,150.00 TOTAL $34,205.00 $30,064.00 2. The estimated costs to be financed from the General Fund Budget (Division 69) will be $30,064.00. 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND RECREATION 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telephone 561 -5448 - .woow.vw uwnn Mww. ww0 w.S wiw now MEMO TO : G. G. Splinter, City Manager FROM : Gene Hagel, Director, Parks $ Recreati DATE : August 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Park Shelter Remodeling Included with this agenda is a resolution and tabulation of bids received for park shelter remodeling and roofing. The work consists of accessibility modifications and replacing the deteriorated wood wall sections of the shelters at Grandview and Northport and replacing them with brick and masonry; and re- roofing the shelter at Happy Hollow. The low bid received is from Superior 77. This firm was also low bidder for the renovation of the Riverdale shelter and construction of the Northport picnic shelter. The firm has performed in a very satisfactory manner. Bob Pierce, Architect, and I recommend that eir bid be accepted. A breakdown of costs is as follows: Amount Budgeted $31,205 Low bid received $26,914 Architectural 3,150 Total Cost $30,064 1,141 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING AUGUST 19, 1982 AS DON POSE DAY IN B ROOK L YN CENTER WHEREAS, Donald G. Poss served as City Manager of the City of Brooklyn Center from December 12, 1966 through July 23, 1977, as Village Administrator from June 27, 1966 through December 12, 1966 and as Director of Public Works from November 15, 1960 through June 27, 1.966; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 1977 Don Poss accepted the position of Executive Director of the Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission; and WHEREAS, the successful design and construction of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome was accomplished under his leadership and direction; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his achievements, both in service to the of Brooklyn Center, and as Executive Director of the Metropolitan Sports Facility Commission should be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that August 19, 1982 is hereby proclaimed Don Poss Day in Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: .and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed.and adopted. /0N Member introduced the following resolution 4nd ` moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING AUGUST 11, 1982 AS TIM LAUDNER DAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Tim Laudner lived and grew up in Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, he has achieved a position of starting catcher with the Minnesota Twins Professional Baseball Team; and WHEREAS, he is Honorary Chairman of Brooklyn Center Family Night with the Twins; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his achievements as a professional athlete be recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that August 11, 1982 is hereby proclaimed as Tim Laudner Day in Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. TO: Gerald G'. Splinter, City Manager i FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 5, 1982 RE: Performance Bond Release The Ponds Plat I, Plat II, Plat III, Plat V and Plat VI Following is a summary of the status of subdivision bonds covering the entire Ponds development: Current Plat No. Original Bond Amou Balance Held I $ 13,500 $ .1 1 000 II 35,000 2,500 III 62,000 10,000 IV (combined with Plat III bondj 0 V 40,000 10,000 VI 78,000 78,000 TOTALS $228,500 $101,500 These bonds provided financial assuranc -e for the construction of bituminous streets, concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer; and for the installation of driveways, boulevard sod and landscaping and survey monuments. The developer, Mr. Duane Diedrich, has requested release of all subdivision bonds. Our review of this development indicates that all this work has been completed with the exception of the installation of driveways, sod and landscaping on the boulevards in Plat V. Mr. Diedrich has agreed that the $50,000 site performance bond which is being retained by the Planning Department (see separate memo from Ron Warren) will be extended to cover this remaining work. In addition, he has agreed to re- monument 30 key survey corners within the development, at a cost of $1,500.00, and that the remaining performance bonds will not be released until that work is done. Accordingly, I recommend that the City'Council release all of the remaining subdivision bonds for The Ponds. Respectfully submitted, $y Knapp / J SK:jn /oa Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION, IN ACCORD WITH THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has executed a Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County agreeing to participate in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and 4 WHEREAS, a three year Community Development Program and Housing Assistance Plan has been prepared consistent with the Comprehensive Urban Hennepin County Community Development strategy and the Community Development Program Regulations; and WHEREAS, the three year Community Development Program and Housing Assistance Plan has been subject to citizen review pursuant to the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center approved the proposed three year Community Development Program and Housing Assistance Plan and authorizes the appropriate execution of the application material and transmit it to Hennepin County for consideration as part of the Year VIII Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Application. i L 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. MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: August 6, 1982 SUBJECT: Community Development Resolution The resolution before the Council relating to Community Development Block Grant funds puts in resolution form an action taken at the March 8, 1982 - Council meeting. It simply authorizes the submittal of an application. The application was submitted consistent with the Council approved programs and as recommended by our citizen advisory group. The following is a breakdown of the application: a. Home rehab grants $232 b. Contingency 28,000 c. Administration 20,000 It is intended to amend this program after we receive the new regulations for the program.. At this point I have no idea when new regulations will be available to us. They were originally supposed to have been available October of 1981. i - s Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REJECTING BIDS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR NEW BIDS FOR WATER TOWER PAINTING PROJECT NO. 1982 -15 (CONTRACT 1982 -G) WHEREAS, bids for Water Tower Painting Project No. 1982 -15 were received by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, upon review of the bids submitted, it was determined that the apparent low bidder, Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc., failed to submit necessary information regarding qualifications and equipment available for use as specifically required by the provisiops of the bid documents; and WHEREAS, the second low bid, submitted by Ford Tank and Painting Company, contained errors in computation which cannot be resolved by mathematical correction without resorting to information not contained in the bid; and WHEREAS, all other bids exceeded the Engineer's estimate of cost for the work comprehended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. All bids received on July 29, 1982, for Water -Tower Painting Project No. 1982 -15 (Contract 1982 -G) are hereby rejected. 2. 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 new bids for Project 1982 -15. 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 2, 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.13, 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 (5)- percent of the amount of such bid. 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. TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 6, 1982 RE: Consideration of Bids - Contract 1982 -G Water Tower Painting Improvement Project No. 1982 -15 Painting of 1.5 Million Gallon.Elevated Tank Pursuant to City Council authorization, bids were received and opened on July 29, 1982 for painting the 1.5 million gallon elevated water tank which stands South of T.H. 100 opposite the Brookdale Shopping Center. A tabulation of the bids deceived is shown in the resolution attached hereto. It is apparent that the low bid was submitted by Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc. in the total amount of $41,600.00. The second low C in the total d Paintin bid was submitted b Ford Tank an i g -� � y amount of $42,280.00. Specifications Regarding Qualification of Bidders The following is an excerpt from the "Instruction To Bidders" section of the specifications which this office prepared for this project (it is a standard provision in all of our construction specifications): 9. QUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDERS "A. Bidders will be required to submit evidence that they have practical knowledge of the particular work bid upon and that they have the financial resources to complete the proposed work. Failure on the part of any. Bidder to carry out previous contracts satisfactorily, or his lack of experience or equip- ment necessary for the satisfactory and timely completion of this Project, may be deemed sufficient cause for disqualifi- cation of said Bidder." "B. Each Bidder shall submit on the furnished for that purpose the following information to the Owner for.consideration: 1. The address and description of the B'idder's place of business. 2. A list of the plant-and equipment owned by the Bidder to evaluate if the Bidder can complete the work properly and expeditiously. The list shall include rental rates P equipment per hour of e ui ment for the purposes of force'account work if required. 3. A financial statement of the Bidder showing that the Bidder has the financial resources to meet all obligations incidental to the work. 4. The Bidder's performance record.giving the description and location of similar projects constructed in a satis- factory manner by the Bidder. August 6, 1982 memo to G. Splinter Page 2 5. The technical experience of personnel guaranteed to be employed in responsible charge of the work, stating whether the personnel have or have not performed satisfactorily on other contracts of like nature and magnitude or com- parable difficulty at similar rate of progress. 6. Such additional information as will assist the Owner in determining whether the Bidder is adequately prepared to fulfill the Contract." "C. The object of the request for the qualifications of Bidders is not to dicourage bidding or to make it difficult for qualified Bidders to file bids. Neither is it intended to discourage beginning contractors. It is intended to make it possible for the Owner to have exact information in financial ability, equipment and experience in order to re- duce the hazards involved in awarding contracts to parties apparently not qualified to perform them and to select those contractors qualified to properly complete the work proposed." "D. The Owner reserves the right to reject any bid where an investigation of the available evidence or information does not satisfy the Owner that the Bidder is qualified to carry out properly the terms of the Contract. The Owner's decision as to qualifications of the Bidder shall be final." Evaluation of Low Bidder's Proposal Examination of the proposal submitted by the low bidder, Allied Painting and Renovation, Inc., shows that this bidder did not complete the "Bidder's Qualifications" questionaire provided within the specifications (see copy attached). Following is a summary of subsequent investigations by our department, and my own experience with this contractor (while I was employed by the City of St. Cloud): 1. A representative from the City•of Oak Park Heights reports accep- table performance on one project. 2. A representative of Bonestrono- Rosene- Anderlik and Associate, Inc., Consulting Engineers, report acceptable performance on several projects. 3. The Public Utilities Superintendent at Rochester reports that acceptable results were obtained on a 1982 project, but noted that the City provided an extra - ordinary level of inspection to assure that specifications were met. 4. The City of Robbinsdale had substantial problems.with this contractor. A copy of a letter sent to us by their Director of Public Works is attached. August 6, 1982 memo to G. Splinter Page 3 5.. The City of St. Cloud experienced serious problems under a contract with Allied in 1978. Undoubtedly, some of these problems resulted from a substantial increase in the scope of work under the contract (much additional welding and repair was required because of deterioration which had not been detected by a preliminary inspection). However, it was the St. Cloud City staff's opinion that a much larger part of the problem was related to the.contractor; i.e. a late starting date,.inadequate crews assigned to the project, inadequate supervision of subcontractors, conflict with other projects, argumentation regarding requirements of the specifications, an almost total lack of communication with City staff regarding work scheduling, etc. The project had an October 15 specified completion date, and an extended completion date of November 10, (to allow for the additional work). Painting was not completed until mid - December. Then, the contractor failed to provide adequate cleanup. in February, City forces finally finished cleaning up the tank and placed it in service. City staff recommended that liquidated damages totalling over $10,000 be charged. After a great deal of discussion, the City and the contractor finally negotiated a settlement providing for a $3,500 deduct. Ev aluation of Second Low Bidder's Proposal Examination of the proposal submitted by the second low bidder, and Tank Painting T Ford o a h g Com an P s that this bidder ' s proposal ro osal Y , shows contains an irregularity, i.e. the specifications require bidders to submit their bid prices in writing and in figures, and in case of conflicts, the former shall apply ". On Ford's proposal the bid prices were not given in writing. Rather, Ford repeated the bid prices -in figures, twice. However, he also included a "Unit Price" figure which, when applied to the estimated quantities for each item do not confirm those total bid prices; i.e. Extension Total Estimated Unit Price of Amount. Quantity As Shown Quantity As Shown Item as per On Ford's Times on Ford's No. Item Specifications Bid Unit Price Bid 1 Exterior Painting 7,200 $1.60/ $11,520 $33,280 Square Feet Square Foot 2 Interior Painting 20,800 $1.25/ $26 $ 9,000 Square Feet Square Foot TOTALS $37,520 $42,280 August 6, 1982 memo to G. Splinter Page 4 It appears that Ford may have intended to have the unit prices apply. This interpretation would make Ford the low bidder at $37,520. However, because of the confusion it would be impossible to substantiate this beyon d a reasonable doubt Recommendation To Reject All Bids Accordingly, I recommend that the City Council reject all bids and authorize readvertising for new bids to be opened on September 2, 1982 and considered by the City Council on September 13th. A resolution for this purpose is submitted for consideration by the City Council. o Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp SK: j n E s BIDDER'S QU%MFICATIONS 1. List of personnel available for this Project(s). 2. List of person (s) who will supervise the Work of this Project(s) and number of years of experience. 3. List of motorized equignent available for this Project(s). 4. List of other available t. �uiPn�n 5. List of similar type projects performed within last three (3) years (name of client, location, type of work). P -7 CITY OF ROBBINSDALE 4221 LAKE ROAD - ROBBINSDALE, MINNESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE: (612) 537 -4534 - r• August 3, 1982 Jim Grube City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Jim: Allied Painting and Renovating was awarded a contract for painting two of our water storage tanks in September of 1980. The project was not completed on time and much of the work was performed contrary to the City's and the paint manufacturer's specifications. The City ultimately worked our an agreement with Allied Painting which provided that Robbinsdale withhold a substantial portion of their payment for two years to cover any potential defects in their work. Let me know if you need further details. Sincerely, - Re Eckstrom Director of Public Works RE:je cc: Project File 80 -17 I . 3 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: f RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO FORECLOSE ON BID SECURITY OF BAUER- REAMER EXCAVATING FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM UNDER PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT 1982 -F WHEREAS, Bauer - Reamer Excavating of Hastings, Minnesota, submitted a proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for the installation of drinking fountains under Contract 1982 -F; and WHEREAS, Bauer - Reamer Excavating provided a cashier's check, in the amount of $780.00, as bid security to guarantee the execution of the contract documents and filing of necessary insurance certificates and performance bonds upon contract award by the Brooklyn Center City Council; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council did award Contract 1982 -F to Bauer - Reamer Excavating on July 12, 1982; and WHEREAS, Bauer - Reamer Excavating has refused to execute the contract documents and file the necessary insurance certificates and performance bonds, as required by the proposal documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Bauer - Reamer Excavating is found in default of contract for failure to execute the contract documents for Contract 1982 -F and provide necessary insurance certificates and performance bonds as required by the proposal documents. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to foreclose on the bid security provided by Bauer - Reamer Excavating as liquidated damages for its failure to act in accordance with the provisions of the proposal documents. 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 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO FORECLOSE ON BID SECURITY OF BAUER- REAMER EXCAVATING FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM UNDER PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT 1982 -F WHEREAS, Bauer - Reamer Excavating of Hastings, Minnesota, submitted a proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for the installation of drinking fountains under Contract 1982 -F; and WHEREAS, Bauer - Reamer Excavating provided a cashier's check, in the amount of $780.00, as bid security to guarantee the execution of the contract documents and filing of necessary insurance certificates and performance bonds upon contract award by the Brooklyn Center City Council; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council did award Contract 1982 -F to Bauer - Reamer Excavating on July 12, 1982; and WHEREAS, Bauer- Reamer Excavating has refused to execute the contract documents and file the necessary insurance certificates and performance bonds, as required by the proposal documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Bauer - Reamer Excavating is found in default of contract for failure to execute the contract documents for Contract 1982 -F and provide necessary insurance certificates and performance bonds as required by the proposal documents. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to foreclose on the bid security provided by Bauer - Reamer Excavating as liquidated damages for its failure to act in accordance with the provisions of the proposal documents. 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: A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS IMPROVEMENT PROTECT NO. 1982 -13 (DRINKING FOUNTAIN INSTALLATION - CONTRACT 198 -F) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that 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 for the installation of drinking fountains in various parks under Improvement Project No. 1982 -13 (Contract 1982 -G). 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 2, 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 13, 1982, in the Ccuncil 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. .. v 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 ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -13 (DRINKING FOUNTAIN INSTALLATION - CONTRACT 1982 -F) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that 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 for the installation of drinking fountains in various parks under Improvement Project No. 1982 -13 (Contract 1982 -G). The advertisement shall appear not less than seven (7) days prig. 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 2, 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 13, 1982, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be con:'dderred 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. 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. /oF TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 6, 1982 RE: Contractor's Refusal To Execute Contract and Furnish Performance Bond Contract 1982 -F Drinking Fountain Installation On July 12, 1982 the City Council awarded the contract for installtion of drinking fountains in neighborhood parks to the low bidder, Bauer - Reamer Excavating, in the amount of $15,971.25. Because all other bids received had been considerably higher (ranging from $25,726.50 to $51,310.00), Jim Grube had reviewed the work in detail with Bauer- Reamer between the date of the bid opening and the date of the contract award. The bidder assured Jim he had con- sidered all of the items noted and that he felt comfortable with his bid. On July 27th we held a preconstruction conference with Bauer- Reamer (this is standard practice on all our contracts) to review the project, construction procedures, etc. At that time he said he would deliver the executed contract and the required performance bond the next day. On July 30th, the contractor called to advise us he would not execute the contract nor provide the performance bond, and that he was refusing to proceed with the work. His explanation was that he now recognized the difficulty of dewater ing the excavations for installa- tion of the fountains in Central Park and in Garden City Park. The City is currently retaining a cashier's check submitted by Bauer- Reamer with the bid in the amount of 5% of the total bid (,$15,971.25 x .05 = $798.56). This check was furnished as bid security, according to our specifications, which provide the following: "BID SECURITY: A cash deposit or certified cyeck, cashier's check, or satisfactory bid bond payable to the City of Center in an amount of not less than five percent (5 %) of the total amount 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 contractor's bond, and .insurance certificate(s), as required by the Contract Documents within ten (10) calendar days after issuance of the Notice of Award of Contract by the City Brooklyn Center. Failure on the part of the Bidder to do so will result in forfeiture of the Bidder's cash deposit, certified check; cashier's check, or bid bond to the City of Brooklyn Center as liquidated damages. We have reviewed this matter with City Attorney Richard Schieffer, .who has made contact with the contractor's attorney: However, they have not resolved this matter at this time. Accordingly, an update and our recommendations for Council action will be presented to the City Council at the meeting on Monday, August 9th. Respectfully submitted, Sy Knapp i/ Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LIONS PARK WEST TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -18, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, to provide increased access to the regional pedestrian /bicycle trailway system for the neighborhood west of Lions Park at an estimated cost of 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 for said improvement: LIONS PARK WEST TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -18 2. The plans and specifications for Contract 1982 -J for said Improvement Project, prepared by the City Engineer, are hereby 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 be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on September 9, 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 13, 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 (5) percent of the amount of such bid. 4. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1982 -18 shall be done in the Capital Project Fund (Division 89). 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 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City.Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 6, 1982 RE: Extension of Trailway System Through Lions Park West Improvement Project No. 1982 -18 Pursuant to City Council directives, the staff has reviewed alternate construction procedures for the extension of the pedestrian /bicycle trailway along 53rd Avenue North (extended) between Lions Park and Upton Avenue. A brief description of the construction alternatives and esitmated costs is provided for your review and consideration. Alternate 1 Description: Construction of an 8 foot bituminous trailway to the estimated 10 year high water elevation (this elevation is 1 foot below the 100 year flood elevation). The work includes placement of an 8 foot x 70 foot bridge above the 100 year flood elevation, and use of filter fabric as an aid to subgrade stabilization Estimate of Cost: Bridge $20,660.00 Subgrade Preparation 15,050.00 (includes excavation, tree removal, fabric, fill) Bituminous Trail 4,130.00 (includes gravel base) SUBTOTAL $39,840.00 Contingencies (150) 5,980.00 Engineering & Administra- 4,580.00 tive Costs TOTAL $50,400.00 Alternate 2 Description: Construction of an 8 foot wide woodchip trailway to the same elevation as provided in Alternate 1, placement of an 8 foot x 70'foot bridge, and subgrade stabiliza- tion as described in Alternate 1. It is proposed that a bituminous trail be constructed between the bridge and existing trails to the east, a distance of 80 feet. August 6, 1982 memo to G. Splinter Page 2 Estimate of Cost: Bridge $20,660.00 Subgrade Preparation 15,050.00 (includes excavation, tree removal, fabric, fill) Wood Chip Trail 2,650.00 (no gravel base) Bituminous Trail 760.00 (connection between bridge and existing trails) SUBTOTAL $39,120.00 Contingencies (150) 5,870.00. Engineering & Administra- 4,500.00 tive Costs TOTAL $49,490.00 Alternate 3 Description: Construction of an 8 foot wide woodchip trailway along the existing ground line profile, providing minor subgrade stabilization. As in Alternates 1 and 2, the 8 foot x 70 foot bridge would be placed above the 100 year flood elevation and a bituminous connection between the existing trails and proposed bridge be provided (a distance of 80 feet) . Estimate of Cost: Bridge $20,660.00 Subgrade Preparation 2,860.00 tr ( ee removal, minor - f illing) Wood Chip Trail 2,650.00 Bituminous Trail 760.00 (connection between bridge and existing trails) SUBTOTAL $26,930.00 Contingencies (15 %) 4,040.00 Engineering & Administra 3,100.00 tive Costs TOTAL $34,070.00 August 6, 1982 memo to G. Splinter Page 3 As was explained to the City Council at the July 26, 1982, meeting, the staff has not considered relocation of the trailway system along the access drive to the water tower, utilizing the existing bridge since the path would encroach on the proposed golf course and soil conditions would be similar to those experienced along the proposed southerly route. The attached resolution, offered for City Council consideration and action does not cite estimated project costs at this time. The estimated cost, based upon the construction alternate considered most appropriate by the City Council, will be added at the direction of the Council. Respectfully submitted, - 4 L/ Sy Knapp SKajn Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CENTRAL PARK /GARDEN CITY TRAILWAY EXTENSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -19, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, to provide increased access to the regional . pedestrian/bicycle trailway system for the neighborhood west of Garden City Park at an estimated cost of $65,000.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: to The following project is hereby established in order to provide for said improvement: CENTRAL PARK/GARDEN CITY TRAILWAY EXTENSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -19 2. The plans and specifications for Contract 1982 -J for said Improvement Project, prepared by the City Engineer, are hereby 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 be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on September 9, 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 13, 1982, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of -such bid. 4. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1982 -19 shall be done in Capital Project Fund (Division 49). Date Mayor ATTEST: t Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. t t .. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) WHEREAS, a portion of the questions of the Special Referendum of May 6, 1980, resolved in the affirmative the proposed construction of tennis courts in Lions Park; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council on the feasibility of completing required subgrade correction for said tennis courts in 1982 at an estimated cost of $21,780.00 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 proviO - ., for said improvement: LIONS PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -20 2. The plans and specifications for Contract 1982 -J for said Improvement Project, prepared by the City Engineer, are hereby approved and ordered field with the City Clerk. d 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 9, 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 13, 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 cashier's check, bid bond, or certified.check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of such bid. 4< The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1982 -20 sha11_be done in the Capital Project-Fund (Division 88) . 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: wher eupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resglution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CIVIC CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -21, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council on the feasibility of constructing certain improvements to the northerly access drive to the Civic Center at an estimated cost of $65,170.00. 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 for said improvement. CIVIC CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -21 2. The plans and specifications for Contract 1982 -1 for said Improvement Project, prepared by the City Engineer, are hereby 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 be done, state that said bids will.be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on September 9, 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 13, 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 (5) percent of the amount of such bid. 4. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1982 -21 shall be done according to the following schedule:. Access Improvements.- Capital Project Fund (Division 57) Plaza Improvements - General Fund Budget (Division 19) 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. - j Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -22, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -J) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported to the City Council on the feasibility of constructing certain improvements to the parking lots of the Civic Center at an estimated cost of $43,500.00. 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 for said improvement: CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -22 2. The plans and specifications for Contract 1982 -J for said Improvement Project, prepared by the City Engineer, are hereby 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 be done, state that said bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on September 9, 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 13, 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 (5) percent of the amount of such bid... 4. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1982 -22 shall.be done in the General Fund Budget (Division 19). Date Mayor ATTEST: o Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was dtily 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: 0 t � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM COUNCIL CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT TO EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACCOUNT FOR RADIO ACTIVATED CIVIL DEFENSE SIREN SYST BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the Hennepin County Department of Emergency Preparedness providing for Brooklyn Center participation in implementing a radio activated civil defense siren system. 2. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to transfer the amount of $12,000 from the Council Contingency Account to the Emergency Preparedness Account to provide for Brooklyn Center participation with the Hennepin County Department of Emergency Preparedness for a radio activated civil defense siren system. 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. MEMORANDUM ° TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: June 29, 1982 SUBJECT: Civil Defense Warning System We have been notified by the Hennepin - County Division of Emergency Preparedness that as of January, 1983 the National Weather Service will no longer activate the Metro`siren.system for severe weather emergencies. It is the intent of the State to make it the respon- sibility of each individual county for the activation of the warning system within the Metro area. Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness has notified us that they intend to accept this - responsibility. They will be upgrading their equipment to where all-the sirens under their control will be radio activated. This leaves two courses open to the City of Brooklyn Center. One would be to remain with the landline system now in existence. With this system, effective January 1, 1983, the responsibility for activating the sirens would be with the State Highway Patrol in Eagan or with the Capital Security Office in St. Paul. The other option would be to join Hennepin County in their radio activated sirens. This system would save the cost of the monthly line charge to Northwestern Bell per siren. It would also provide the County with the possibility of activating individual sirens throughout the County or all sirens in any one County or all sirens simultaneously throughout-the County. This __o option has much greater. __. Y g Y P g flexibility than remaining with the landline option that would be activated Metro area wide regardless of where the severe weather may be. The estimated cost to the City of Brooklyn Center in option 2 would be somewhere in the area of $2,000 per siren. The City presently has six sirens in operation. We have been informed by Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness that matching funds will be available sometime in October. No action is required at this moment although a determination as to which option we chose will be required before the summer is out. MINUTES OF THE PROCEED?NGS OF THE PLa?�NNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1N THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ;0ND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JULY 15, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Coranission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:30 p.m. ROLL C ALL Chan man George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APP ROVA L OF MINU - July 1, 1982 Mnfi:ion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the July 1, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Manson, Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Lucht. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO 82029 (Nort National Bank) Fallowing the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to install an automatic teller machine in the parking lot in front • of Hirschfield's at Westbrook Mall at 5717 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission. Information Sheet for Application No. 82029 attached). The Secretary explained that the automatic teller machine would be installed on a temporary basis to test the markets in the Brooklyn Center area for a branch of the Northwestern National Bank. Chairman Lucht asked whether the applicant had anything to add to the staff presentation. Mr. Wally Klus of Northwestern National Bank, stated that he had nothing further to add to the Secretary's repor s -t s L. w ould be Commis,.�rorer Manson �...,.ed Mr why it �, Kl Y necessary to take the machine out, even if the market in the Brooklyn Center area is adequate to support a new branch facility. Mr. Klus answered that north g North-west Banco was com���ittin itself to this n for r �.ive ea.r., and th at after aftr tha_ time a decision y would be made as to whether: to keep the machine at its proposed location or to remove it. He stated that the technology of banking was changing so rapi.d?.y that he could not be sure what the bank will decide to do in five years. Commissioner .Manson stated that she had seen three cars stacking at a money machine in another location. Mr. Klus stated that he could not guarantee there would never be cars stacking behind the money machine, but added that he expected the peak times for the automatic teller machine to be when the surratindin.g stores are not busy. He stated that the bank would be most interested in rectifying any problem that might arise since troubles in providing service will have a negative impact on the bank's business. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern about vandalism and mechanical difficulties with the machine. Mr. Klus stated that he was not 7-15 --82 -1- aware of any mechanical problems with the machine. He stated that the bank is working to make the automatic teller machines as error - free as possible. He noted that the bank will be installing 3,500 automatic teller machines throughout 10 states and that it is im- portant the machines work properly. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 32029 (Northwestern National Bank) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Comralissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 32029, 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. Plan a roval is exclusive of all sicn�ry which is pp 1 .� subject to Chapter 3 t r 34 of the City Ordinances. i p y 5. B612 curb and, gutter shak.l be provided around all concrete islands. Voting in favor: Chairman Ltac.ht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, • Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The emotion passed. T, 2PPT.ICAT'ICN NO. 3 (Br,,rqstrom Realty CoPld any o) �hd S cr to y ixi c d ic, d cherext l t_eiq 'busi a request for amended site and building plan approval for Phase I of the Hi Crest Square Estates in the 1300 block can the south side of 69th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information for App-lication No. 32023 attached) . The Secretary stated that he wished to strike the last sentence of the second paragraph of the report in that he felt the newly submitted plans are substantially different .::rasa those submitted to the Planning Commission on June 17, 1982. The Secretary also reminded the Planning Commission of the m'erno prepared by the Assis tant City Engineer re- garding three ponds in Brooklyn Park tan: observations on the proposed pond at the Hi Crest Square Estates. He also noted that the Commis- sion had received the City Ordinance recrui.rerrient for fencing aroihnd swim. -ming pools. He askod the Pi_annirg C oii iprd ssion to come to a determination of whether: thy. proposed pond should be Considered a swimming pool and, therefore, fenced. The Secretary also briefly mentioned that screening of the project from the single family homes to the east had been pro by landscaping, which was accepted by the Planning Commission at its Jung 17, 1982 ineeti.ng. Fie added that 8' high opaque screening from Humboldt Square had become the burden of the R3 property as a result of rezoning the land from C2 to R3. The Secretary also mentioned the previous approval of the variance from the buffering requirement of the T?3 development from the City's 7 - 15 -82 -2- pump house property on 69th Avenue North. He stated that no action need be taken again on that application. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he anything to add. Mr. James Merila, representing Bergstrom Realty, stated that he felt everything had been covered. The Commission was then approached by Mr. John DeVries of DeVries Builders, who asked the Planning Commission to table the application for one meeting until he could resolve with Mr. Merila the dispute between them regarding the use of plans which had been prepared for the Earle Brown Farm Estates, a project, which he is building. s .Mr. DeVries stated that he felt the'Planning Commission had been asked to make a legal judgment regarding the status of the proposed plans by seeking site and building plan approval. Mr. DeVries stated that he did not feel the plans submitted at the June 17, 1982 Planning Commission meeting were "prototypes" as the staff report indicates. He stated that he could recall no mention of the word prototype �� in the Planning Commission minutes of that meeting. He stated that when these plans were not used in seeking City Council, approval, the entire planning process should have been restarted. Mr. DeVries stated that he had no idea that Mr. Merila was using any of the plans that had been prepared for the Earle Brown Farm Estates. He stated that he had not had time to review the new plans which were submitted on Tuesday of this wee k to the City. Mr. DeVr pointed out that he and Mr. Al Beisner wished to meet with the applicant, Mr. Bergstrom, along with Mr. Merila before the next Planning Commission meeting and discuss the proper s,d)mittal of plans. Finally, Mr. DeVries reiterated that he felt a legal question had to be answered between the parties before.the Planning .. Commission could act on the plans. The Se cretary tated that the staff have to assume that the plans Y submitted for site and building plan approval are legitimate. He stated that lie did not feel it was the planning Coammission's re s onsibil.it to settle the dispute between the parties. Regarding � P Y the request to table the matter, the Secretary stated that the s of the ap C f eelings Planning Commission sh ould consider the f g PP and whether the P lans as submitted are in order. The Secretary also pointed out that the Planning Commission does not have to act on the plans for another 30 days. The Planning Commission was then approached by Mr. Bill Clelland, Attorney for James Merila. Mr. Clelland stated that the request to table the application was improper. He stated that the dispute between Mr. Merila and Mr. DeVries boils down to whether Mr. DeVries has the exclusive rights to use the plans which were prepared for the Earle Brown Farm Estates. Mr. Clelland stated that such building plans are not owned by the builder who uses them and added that it is Mr. DeVries who wants the Planning Commission to settle a legal question which should be answered in court. Mr. Clelland pointed out there is obviously competition between developers of similar types of townhouse projects. He stated that tabling the matter would favor one developer over the other unjustly. Mr. Clelland added that the natter has been thoroughly discussed with Mr. DeVries' attorneys. Mr. Merila then approached the Planning Commission and explained at some length the background to the dispute which was being aired before 7 -15 -82 -3- the Planning Commission. Mr. Merila pointed out that when a con- ceptual site and building plan was brought to the Planning Commission during the hearings on the rezoning application, a speculative lay­ out was used because no builder had been lined up. He admitted that the building layout utilized the same footprint of the buildings developed on the Earle Brown Farm Estates. Ile stated tha✓the plan had always been referred to as a concept plan as opposed to a definite design. Mr. Merila. explained that the rezoning approval was based on a preliminary plat and grading and utility plans. Ile noted that there were no building plans because the builder had not been selected.at that time... He stated that after receiving approval of the preliminary plat and the grading and utility plans, the applicant, Mr—Bergstrom., wanted, to start grading the site in prepar- ation of.the development. However, Mr. Merila went on, staff required full site and building plans and final plat approval before issuing permits for grading and utilities. Mr.. Merila explained that at that point a builder still had not been selected. Mr. went on to explain that H. E. Homes looked at the plans prepared by Janis Blumentals for �chn DeVries. These plans were to be changed, he said. During the time immediately before the Planning Commission of June 17, 1982, Mr. Blumentals was out cf town and, therefore, the building plans for the Earle Brown Farm Estates were submitted with a new name stamped on the plans. Mr. Merila admitted that this was a mistake and stated that H.E. Homes has attempted to redesign- the building plans since that time. He explained that the plans submitted at the July 1, 1982 meeting were pulled from the agenda because H. E. Homes concerned that Mr. DeVries and Mr. Beisner had not been satisfied with the revisions. -Mr. Mez stated that the new plans sublTd.tted since that time are substantially different, utilizing as they do, a larger foundation plan and a different arrange- ment of rooms throughout the units. Mr. Merila apologized for the inconvenience that this private dispute had caused to the Planning Commission. Coimiissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Merila did not want the plans before the Commission to he tabled. She stated that Mr. Merila was saving money by having a nonarchitect make changes to plans which had been prepared previously by an architect, and then having them recertified by a structural engineer. She stated that if no one had been at the July 1, 1982 meeting to object to the plans submitted at that time, she suspected that Mr. Merila would have gone forward with those plans for approval rather than withdrawing them. Mr. Merila stated that he had asked the architect (Janis Blumentals) for permission to show the plans from the Earle Brown. Farm Estates to H. E. Homes. He stated that Mr. Blumentals gave that permission. Commissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Merila was working in the same capacity for Mr. Bergstrom as he had 1 DeVries earlier. Chairman Lucht stated that he failed to see the relevance of these questions to the Planning Cormission's functions. Commissioner Simmons stated that she was not satisfied with Mr. Yierila's explanation as to why the plans have been brought to the Planning Commission, and. revised twice. She stated that it seemed to be part of the Planning Commis.. sign's function to approve plans that are legitimate for application for building permits. The Secretary explained that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to make recommendatiohs to the City Council. He explained that 7-15-82 -4- the Planning Commission had 60 days before it must act on an appli cation. He stated that the Planning Commission must decide whether they are ready to recommend a set of plans based on whether those plans are in order. He recommended that the Planning Commission . not delve into who did what. Eiowever, he went on, if the Planning Commission is not ready to make a recommendation at this time, it can still table the application for up to 30 more days. If the Planning Commission is ready to act on the application, they can do so at this meeting, he stated. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the entire discussion had been impertinent. The Secretary explained briefly why the plans have been redesigned and stated that the Planning Commission should look at the plans irrespective of how or why they have been redesigned and should simply decide on whether they can be recommended to the City Council at this time. The Secretary explained that the applicant asked to resubmit the plans once the dispute arose following the June 17, 1982 meeting. At the July 1, 1982 meeting, the applicant asked to have the plans tabled again in order to do further redesigning. He concluded by 4 saying that the differences between private parties should be aired before a court and not settled by the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons regarding the requirement for the plans to be signed by a registered architect, Mr. Merila stated that the plans will be submitted by P.ydell Home Designers and Cordell Engineering, a structural engineering firm. Commissioner Simmons asked whether Cordell Engineering would be qualified to sign the plans as structural engineers. Mr. Merila responded in the affirmative. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance required that site and building plans be submitted by a registered Minnesota II I architect. He explained that the policy in the past has been that ' site plans may be submitted by either an architect or a registered engineer. He stated that before building permits have been issued, buildin g Plans must be signed by either a registered architect or structural engineer. He explained that the question of certification was discussed with people at the State Building Codes Division and � that townhouses in s of more than two units groups e ruled tk a p II I he hay g that they must be designed by a registered architect or structural engineer. Mr. DeVries stated that there was a confusion in the way the ordinance was written, that the ordinance does not mention structural engineers. The Secretary stated that the ordinance requires plans to be submitted by a registered architect and agreed that it does not mention structural: engineers. He stated that the policy in the past has been to accept- drawings which have been submitted by either an architect or a structural engineer in the case of building plans or a registered land surveyor or civil engineer in case of site plans. Mr. DeVries stated that he felt there are other questions besides whether the plans are qualified for approval which the Planning Com- mission must be aware of. He stated that he had contact with Mr. Bergstrom, who he assumes is still the developer fo'r the project. Mr. DeVries also stated that he did not think Janis Blumentals would say that he had given permission to use the Earle Brown Farm Estates plan. He stated that although the applicant has a concern regarding the time delay because of a tabling, there are, at the same time, savings to be gained from not having plans prepared by an architect. Mr. Clelland stated that his client asked for decision regarding the 7- =15 -82 -5- plans and added that Mr. DeVries could raise his issues in court. Con nissioner Ainzis stated that he conside-red the basic question to be whether the plans are in order regard1hess of who prepared what. Chairman Lucht asked for a clarification of Conditions No. 11 and 8 in the Information Sheet. The Secretary answered that the Assistant City Engineer has recommended irtaintainin(J the water level in the .holding pond at the Hi Crest Square Estates at 840 feet. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the i he had prepared looked at three ponds in Brooklyn Park. He stated that ponds with vertical drainage were not aesthetically pleasing. He recommended maintaining a minimum water level so that the pond does not become a maintenance problem. Commissioner Simmons noted that Condition No. 8 referred to "an acceptable safety risk." She asked whether it would be appropriate to do a larger study on ponds as part of this application or for it to be done independently of this application. The Secretary stated that the staff needed direction from the Planning Commission as to what it wanted in terms of inforInat4on in order to make a decision. He stated that it was up to the Coi to decide. He stated that he did not consider the prop pond to be a swimming pool and suggested that perhaps signs pc,5 "No ISA would 1')erhaps eliminat any need for fencing around the pond. He also stated that t he recommendation to keep the water le-vol high actually adds to the saZEety risk, but to not maintain the water leve would det.x:act froul I — the aesthetic appearance o , ' he pond. In answer 'to another quost-ion from Cormytissiol sil"')XILons, the Secretary recowmendod that the Planning Co-,mra. decide whether the - L proposed r,)cnd is acceptable 'or this particular developotent and study other ponds later. Coimmissioner Simmons pointed out th.,at Brooklyn Center is e perm ancing increased pressure on its drainage slystem and, that pond .4 L_ _I is heing used more and more to con'rol drai-ncaq - t - , er e s C e Datl- rjS Sj�, -t,;-�tej tj -a the need for aesthetic appeal and for economy and provIdling for drainage is always assuirtea ir, the Plann.Lng Conuid.ssion's deliberp. o n s but that safety seems to 1 le-ss of a co,:,ccrn, The Secretary aii5'Xed the Pla-toning Coxmiission - to decide, how thy-,,; wanted to deal with the question of.' ponds. The Assistant Cit,,- that in this pa.rticular case, the ground water level is 842 feet and t! on I - ke _p L outlet is 840 feet. He ccncluded, thcre-fore, that at most. ti the water level will he at 840 fcet, except in dry rperiods, During these times, he explalnad, the-re - r.,wlould to it need for addit -lon). water to be pumped into the p-ond to rmaint a Level of 840 f Mr. Me-rila stated that one c- the problefc he was trying to de-al with ,YS ainzige prob e - o t". in designiLng the drainage _ _" C:� dr, 2. q" f single--family homes to thic,_; eas He 1:11 t_atr�dl that ;--in open pond L', f unction 'on better and 45:(1uld *Ibe zitor o. ae,-ithet.i.c for 1 devciopi-iieat. He added . that the a has no problem. providing a water suppl,:ment to the pond. Chairman Lucht stated that t1aa- "No Swimming" signs could be used. Commissioner Sinmons stated that she felt such signs were inadeqtialt-e. Coilmlissioner Simmons again i that tl�(-.�re may be a need to address the general question of ponds in Brooklyn Center and wondered whether it was appropriate to study the question at this The Secretary answered that that could ailways be done In the f"u and that approval of the present application need not hinge- on such a study. -Com.niissioner 7-15-82 -6-. Simmons stated that the conclusion of a future study might have to be applied retroactively to the pond in question and this might be more difficult at that time. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the pond at the Hi Crest Square Estates would be unique because of the water table feeding into it. Conmissiorier Manson stated that she did not know of anything that would eliminate all risk in association with this pond. She stated that the parents must be left with some responsibility and recorounended that the plans be approved as is, without any barriers around the pond. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82023 (Bergstrom Reams Com-�i� Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissiorber Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 82023, 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; and specifically, should conform to the revisions and requirements set forth in the Assistant City Engineer's memo dated 6-14-82. 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 im- provements for the entire development. 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 parking and driving areas. 7. P-11 areas regraded, but not developed according to plan shall. be seeded to maintain adequate ground cover for dust control. 8. The Assistant City Engineer shall to the City Council on how the proposed plan compares with other ponds on private developments in the City and on whether the proposed pond will fulfill its function as both a drainage control device and an aesthetic asset to the townhouse developmenti with an acceptable safety risk. 9. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed landscape treatment along the east side of the development as acceptable screening in lieu of the ordinance required 4' high opaque fence. -7- 10. The building plans shall be certified by a registered Minnesota Architect prior to the issuance of building permits if so required by the State Building Codes Division. 11. The site plans shall be amended to incorporate a system to supplement natural ground water inflow into the proposed pond thus, maintaining a constant water level elevation of 840 feet (U.S.G.S. Datum). 12. The final plat shall be amended to reflect the changes in the site and building plan submitted on July 12, 1982. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: Commissioners Sinupons and Versteeg. The motion passed. Commissioners Versteeg and Simmons both expressed concern that the private dispute should be settled first before action is taken on the proposed plans. OTHER BUSINESS _y reviewed u pcoming business items and asked who would The Sacretar be unable to attend the July 29, 1932 Planning Co7nanission .r t , Chai_=,an Lucht and CoInITIlssioners S and Sandst-rom all said - that they would be out of town. The. Secretary stated that the meet -Li would, therefore, have to be cancc�� and that the next Planning CorLuaission meeting �aould be 0,-.1 August 12, 1982. ADJOUIRNNHENT ! _ 1 67t ' S_ 0M, ion TUII Manson seconded by C 01, issioner Sand trom The motion to adjourn the ir-Meeting of the Plazning CO passed =anixiousI.Y. The Planning adjourned at ;';:'7 P,,m. H 7-15-82 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82020 Applicant: Banco Properties Location: 5717 Xerxes. Avenue North (Westbrook Mall parking lot) Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to install an automatic teller machine in the Westbrook Mall east parking lot in front of Hirschfield's. at 5717 Xerxes Avenue North. The area in question is bounded by Dayton's Nome Store to the north, by the Westbrook Mall shopping center on the west, by Jerry Leonard's store for men on the south, and by Xerxes Avenue North oil the east. The property is zoned C2 and the p , ,noposed automatic teller machine (ATM) is a permitted use in that zoning district. j The proposed ATM will be located 50' west of the Xerxes Avenue North westerly right -of -way line ( minimum setback required from major thoroughfares. The ATM itself is about 11' x 12' and will be tilted at an angle so as to be con- gruent with the angle parking stalls in the parking lot. There is also an attached canopy which extends over the drive -up lane and which also extends y legally into the 50' setback area. Cars using the ATM will travel along the eastbound driving lane in front of Hirshfield's and angle into the ATM drive -up in the same fashion they would enter a parking space. Cars will then exit into the westbound driving land running toward Hirschfield's (see drawing attached). It is riot anticipated that vehicle stacking for the ATM will cause problems for cars parked in adjacent spaces since the main hours of use will be nonbusiness hours. It is also recognized that the existing uses in the shopping center are low traffic generators and it is, therefore, unlikely that spaces adjacent to the ATM will regularly be occupied. The applicant estimates, given the speed of transactions, that no more than one car would ever be waiting to use the machine. The proposed ATM drive -up will eliminate five (5) parking stalls from the West- brook Mall parking lot. A proof -of- parking plan submitted in support of Appli- cation No. 77016 shot % 574 parking spaces, a surplus of three (3) spaces for the entire shopping center. (Only 437 stalls have actually been put in with 137 deferred). Staff feel that it would be possible to glean two more stalls from this plan to make up for the five stalls lost to the ATM. Banco has indicated that the structure, in all likelihood, will be at this site for no more than 5 years. In general, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement: and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall.be sub- mitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. 8612 curb and gutte►° shall be provided around all concrete islands. 7 -15 -82 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82023 Applicant: Bergstrom Realty Company Location: 1300 block on south side of 69th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests amended approval of site and building plans for the first phase of the Hi Crest Square Estates townhouse development on the south side of the 1300 block of 69th Avenue North. This application received approval by the Planning Commission on June 17, 1982 and a revised building plan was tabled on July 1, 1982. The change involves a new building design for the six unit buildings and four unit buildings throughout the project. No other changes have been made to the site, landscaping or grading plans. The design submitted at the June 17, 1982 meeting was essentially a carbon copy of the design used in the Earle Brown Farm Estates developed by DeVries Builders and was intended as a prototype rather than a final design. Because of concerns raised by DeVries Builders and Dominion Development over the use of the plans, the applicant wishes to submit a new design for amended approval by the Planning Commission. The new design differs from the design previously submitted in certain respects. The foundations of the outer four units (two on each end) will be 20' x 32' with an enclosed foyer between the garage and the main living area. The previous design called for the outer two units to be 19' 6" x 30' with mechanical /laundry rooms between the garage and the main living area. The new interior units are 17' 6 x 32' as opposed to 16' x 30' as proposed earlier. The general arrangement of o r oms within the units is not different, though the dimensions vary slightly. The front exterior elevations are substantially changed from the design proposed at the June 17, 1982 meeting. Rather than the narrow lap board siding, the applicant proposes to use a stacato exterior with cedar batting boards in a vertical pattern. Face brick columns about 3' to 4' high accent the garages. Rear and side elevations do have horizontal lap board siding. The new plans have been designed by Dennis Rydell who is not a registered architect. However, the applicant has agreed to have the plans certified by a registered structural engineer prior to the issuance of permits, as required by City Ordinance. Altogether, the plans appear to be acceptable and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval.by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits; and specifically, should conform to the revisions and requirements set forth in the Assistant City Engineer's memo dated 6- 14 -82. 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 for the entire development. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 7 -15 -82 -1- Application No. 82023 continued 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. All areas regraded, but not developed according to plan shall be seeded to maintain adequate ground cover for dust control. 8. The Assistant City Engineer shall report to the City Council on how the proposed plan compares with other ponds on private developments in the City-and on whether the proposed pond will fulfill its function as both a drainage control device and an aesthetic asset to the townhouse development, with an acceptable safety risk. 9. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed landscape treatment along the east side of the development as acceptable screening in lieu of the ordinance required 4' a high opaque . fenc 9 pq e 10. The building plans shall be certified by a registered Minnesota Architect prior to the issuance of building permits if so required by the State Building Codes Division. 11. The site plans shall be amended to incorporate a system to sup - plement natural ground water inflow into the proposed pond thus, maintaining a constant water level elevation; of 840'(U.S.G.S. Datum). 7 -15 -82 -2- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REG PUBLIC NUISANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances is hereby amended by deleting the provisions in brackets and adding the provisions which are underlined: Section 19 -101. [NUSIANCE *UNLAWFUL. It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to keep or maintain any nuisance, or source of filth, or cause of sickness, or cause of any foul odor, or any offensive matter within the City of Brooklyn Center. J Section 19.101. PUBLIC NUISANCE DEFINED. Whoever, by act or failure to perform a legal duty, intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, and is punishable as set forth herein: (1) maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any number of members of the public, or (2) Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, public streets, highway or right -of -way, or waters used by the public; or (3) Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by statutory law, the common law, or this ordinance to be a public nuisance, whether or not any sentence is specifically provided therefor; or (4) Permits real property under his or her control to be used to maintain a public nuisance or rents the same, knowing it will be so used. Section 19.102. DEFINITIONS. The following words,. when used in this Ordinance, shall have the -meanings ascribed to them: (1) Garbage includes all putrescible animal; vegetable or other matter that attends the preparation, consumption, display, dealing in or storage of meat, fish, fowl, birds, fruit, or vegetables, including the, cans, containers or wrappers wasted along with such materials. (2) Rubbish is non- putrescible solid wastes such as ' wood, leaves, trimmings from shrubs, dead trees or branches thereof, shavings, sawdust, excelsior, wooden waste, printed matter, paper, paper board, paste board, grass, rags, straw, boots, shoes, hats and all other com- bustibles not included under the term garbage. Section 19 -103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FURTHER DEFINED. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, main- tain, or harbor any of the following: (1) Diseased animals, fish or fowl, wild or domestic, whether confined or running at large. (2) . Carcasses - of animals, fish or fowl, wild or domestic, not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death. (3) Garbage not stored in rodent free and fly -tight containers, or; garbage stored so as to emit foul and dis- agreeable odors, or; garbage stored so as to constitute a hazard to public health. (4) Accumulations of rubbish as defined herein. (5) The dumping of any effluent, garbage, rubbish, waste - water, or other noxious substance upon public or private property. P P perty. (6) Any open well, pit, excavation, structure, barrier or other obstruction which endangers public health, safety or welfare. (7) The pollution of any public or private well or cistern, any public stream, lake, canal, or body of water by effluent, garbage, rubbish or other noxious substance. (8) Any noxious weeds, or any other vegetation which endangers public health, safety or welfare, or which is contraband within the meaning of state or federal laws. (9) The emitting or production of dense smoke, foul odor, noise, noxious fumes, gases, soot, cinders or sparks in quantities which unreasonably annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any number of members of the public. (10) The public exposure of persons having a con -. tagious disease or condition which endangers public health, safety or welfare. (11) Accumulation of disused furniture, appliances, machinery, automobiles and parts thereof or any matter which may become a harborage for eats, snakes or vermin, 2 or which may be conducive to fire, or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety or welfare of the public. Section 19 -104. LIMITATION ON KEEPING OF ANIMALS. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain or harbor any of the following: (1) Three or more dogs, six months old or older, unless a kennel license is obtained. (2) Four or more cats six months old or older, unless a kennel license is obtained. (3) Chickens and other domestic fowl. (4) Live wild animals not native to Minnesota, except household pets confined to a cage within a dwelling. (5) Live wild animals native to Minnesota which in their wild state pose a threat to humans or domestic animals, including but not limited to wolves, bear, cougar, lynx and bobcat. (6) Any combination of animals and /or fowl of any age kept in such numbers or under conditions which unreason- ably annoy, injure, or endanger the health, safety, com- fort, repose or welfare of the public or of said animals or fowl. Section 19 -105. ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND ASSESS- h MENT OF COST. When any nuisance is found to exist, the Health Officer of the City shall order the owner or occupant thereof to remove the same, at the expense of the. owner or occupant, within a period not to exceed 10 days, the exact time to be specified in the notice. Upon failure of the owner or occupant to abate the nuisance, the Director of Planning and Inspection shall cause said nuisance to be abated, shall certify the cost thereof to the City Clerk, and the City Clerk shall certify aid y costs to the County Auditor to be extended on the tax roll of the County against the real estate from which the nuisance has been abated, all in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 145.22, 145.23, and 412.221. Section 19 -106. PENALTY. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine of not more than $500.00 and by imprisonment for a period of not exceeding 90 days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Each day that violation exists shall consitute a separate offense. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its . legal publication. 3 Adopted this day of 19$2. , Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication a Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter. e 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ANIMALS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances is amended by deleting the following provisions enclosed in brackets and adding the following provisions which are underlined: CHAPTER 1 - ANIMALS - Section 1 -101. DEFINITIONS. The following terms, when used in this ordinance, have the meanings ascribed to them: (1) Animal means dogs and cats. (2) Animal Control Officer means that person or agency designated by the City Manager to control the keeping of animals within the City of Brooklyn Center. (3) At Large means an animal that is off the property of its owner and not under restraint. " (4) Commercial Kennel means any place limited to C2, 11, and 12 zoning districts where the business of keeping, raising, selling, boarding, breeding, showing, treating, or grooming of animals is conducted, including pet shops, animal hospitals and other similar establishments. (5) Family - Any of the following definitions shall apply: 1. A person or persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, together with any domestic servants or gratuitous guests, maintaining a common house - hold in a dwelling unit; 2. Group or foster care of not more than six (6) wards or clients by an authorized person or persons, related by blood, marriage, or adoption, together with any domestic servants or gratuitous guests, all maintaining a common houshold in a dwelling unit approved and certified by the appropriate public agency; 3. A group of not more than five (5) persons not related by blood, marriage, or adoption main- taining a common household in a dwelling unit. (6) Owner means any person or the parent or guardian of a person under 18 years of age who owns, keeps, or has cus- tody of an animal in the City of Brooklyn Center. (7) Person means any person, firm, corporation, part -. nership, joint venture or association. - (8) Private Kennel means any premises zoned or used for R -1 or R -2 purposes, as defined in the Brooklyn Center City Ordinances, on which three or more dogs or four or more cats six months old or older, are kept or harbored as pets and not for selling, boarding, showing, treating, grooming or other commercial purposes. 7 (9) Under Restraint means an animal that is controlled by a leash or at heel beside a competent person having custody of - it and obedient to that person's commands, or within a vechicle being driven or parked on a public street, or if it is within the property limits of its owner's premises. Section 1 -102 LICENSES REQUIRED. (1) Dog Licenses No person shall own, harbor, keep or have custody of a dog over six months of age within the City of �p Brooklyn Center unless a current license for such dog has been obtained as provided in this ordinance. Each license shall be valid for the duration of the effective period of the dog's rabies vaccine as stated in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Vaccines published by the Conference of State Public Health Veterinarians and the Center For Disease Control of the Department of Health and Human Services. Dogs kept in a commercial kennel need not r / be individually licensed. (2) Commercial Kennel License Every P erson operating a commercial kennel shall annually obtain from the City Clerk, r" upon authorization by the City Council, a commercial kennel license. Commercial kennel licenses shall be posted in a con- spicuous place within the licensed premises. >' (3) Private Kennel License Every person operating or maintaining a private kennel shall annually obtain from the City Clerk, upon authorization by the City Council, a private kennel . license. Section 1 -103. LICENSE FEES. The license fee for each dog license, each commercial kennel license, each private kennel license, each duplicate license, each renewal license, each impounding penalty, and the late penalty described herein shall be as set forth in C hapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances. (1) Late Penalty If any license required hereunder is obtained while the dog is impounded by the City, or after the required licensing period has commenced, there shall be added to the regular license fee, a late license penalty as provided in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances, provided, however, that any- person who acquires a dog after the start of a license year, or any person who owns, keeps, harbors, or has custody of a dog at the time of becoming a 'resident of the City, shall be allowed 30 days to secure a license, without incurring any late license penalty. (2) Refunds, Prorating, and Transfers No, dog license fee, commercial kennel license fee, or .private kennel license fee shall be refunded or prorated, the provisions of Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances notwithstanding. - No license required hereunder shall be transferrable. 8 Section 1 -104. APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND ISSUANCE OF LICENSES. Applications for all licenses required by this ordinance shall be made to the City Clerk. (1) Dog License The application for a dog license shall include the name and address of the owner of the dog and such other information as the City Clerk shall require. All applicants shall be of legal age. Applicants -shall provide a certificate issued by a doctor of veterinary medicine showing that the dog has been vaccinated against rabies, the type of vaccine used, and the length of time the vaccination is effective. (2) Issuance of Dog License Upon receipt of the applica- tion, the license fee and proof of a rabies vaccination, the City Clerk shall issue a metallic license tag bearing the license num- ber, the name of the City and the year and month when the license period ends. The dog shall continuously wear a collar or harness to which the license tag is firmly affixed. It shall be unlawful for any person to make or use a counterfeit tag. (3) Replacement of Lost Dog License If any dog license tag is lost or stolen, the applicant may obtain a new tag by surrendering the license payment receipt and by paying the charge for a duplicate license as provided in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances. (4) Application for Private Kennel License or Commercial Kennel License Initial application for a private kennel license or a commercial kennel license shall be made to the City Clerk. The application shall state the name and address of the appli- cant, the property address or legal description of the proposed kennel location, a sketch or drawing of the proposed kennel describing construction, operation, and the approximate number of animals to be confined therein, together with the applicable license fee. (5) Hearing Required A commercial kennel license appli- cation shall be referred to the Public Health Sanitarian who shall review the kennel design and operation and make a recommen- dation to the City Council on the adequacy thereof. Applications for private kennel license and commercial kennel license shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council for a public hearing at the regular City Council meeting next following 14 days after the application is received. Not less than seven (7) days before the date of the public hearing, the City Clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the applicant and to the owners of property within 150 feet of the proposed kennel location. The failure any owner to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. (6) Council Approval The City Council may approve the private kennel license or commercial kennel license and may attach to such approval any conditions necessary to insure compliance with this ordinance, with Chapter 19 of City 9 i; Y: F Ordinances, and any other condition necessary to protect the health, safety, welfare and property values in the immediate area. The City Council may deny a private kennel license or a commercial kennel license upon finding that the establishment of the kennel would constitute a public nuisance, or would adver- sely affect the health, safety, welfare or property values of the persons residing, Living or owning property within the immediate area. The form of approval for a license shall be the resolution of approval, a certified copy of which shall be forwarded to the r applicant. I (7) Renewal of License A .copy of the private kennel license or commercial kennel license shall be forwarded to the Director of Planning and Inspection who shall maintain a register' of kennel licenses. The license shall be valid for a period of one year and until October 1st of the then current calendar year and shall be renewable on October 1st of each year there- I after by the City Clerk upon payment of a renewal license fee set forth in Chapter 23 of Brooklyn Center Ordinances, only in the event no complaint regarding the kennel's operation has been received during the license year. In the event that no revo- j cation of the license is made or contemplated by the City Council, the license shall be renewable as set forth in this subdivision. (8) License Revocation In the event a complaint has been received by City officials, a report thereof shall be made to the City Council by the Director of Planning and Inspection and the City Council may direct the applicant to appear to show cause why the license should not be revoked. A license may be revoked for violation of this ordinance, Chapter 19 of the Brooklyn Center Ordinances, or any condition imposed at the time of issuance. Section 1 -105. STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE KENNELS. A private kennel shall consist of an enclosed space in which all animals are confined when not under restraint and constructed so as to prevent the animals from running at large. Provision must be made to pro- vide shelter during inclement weather. Every private kennel shall be kept in good repair and shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. It shall be unlawful to maintain a private kennel in a way which constitutes a violation of this Ordinance, a nuisance under Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances, or in violation of any condition ` imposed by the City Council at the time the license is granted. Section 1.106. STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL KENNELS. All commercial kennels shall be designed, operated erated and maintained accord- 9 P ing to the following standards: (1) Commercial kennel floors and walls shall be constructed of impervious materials and all structures, areas, and appur- tenances shall be designed to facilitate thorough and' convenient cleaning. Commercial kennels shall be adequately ventilated and all doors, windows, and other openings to the outside shall be 10 f - screened, May through October._ The commercial kennels shall' be provided with adequate and potable water supplies and shall be equipped with sewer facilities. Plans for all new commercial kennels and repairs or alterations to existing commercial kennels must be filed with and approved by the City's Public Health Sanitarian as a condition of the license. (2) Operating Standards The licensee, its agents and employees shall operate and maintain the kennel in accordance with standards set out in Title 9, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 3, Section 3.100 through 3.106 of the United States Depart - ment of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a copy of which is adopted by reference. Section 1.107. KEEPING OF DOGS IS LIMITED. No family shall keep, harbor or have custody of more than two dogs exceeding six mil dwelling unit or on the family months of age in the fa Y premises g Y g without obtaining a private kennel license. Section 1.108. KEEPING OF CATS IS LIMITED. No family shall keep, harbor or have custody of more than four cats exceeding six months of age in the family dwelling unit or on the family premises without obtaining a private kennel license. Section 1.109. NUISANCE PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep animals in an unsanitary condition or in any way which constitutes a nuisance under Chapter 19 of City Ordinances. Section 1.110. RUNNING AT LARGE PROHIBITED. It shall be unlawful for any owner to allow its dog to run at large. Section 1.111. ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER. The City Council may provide for a City Animal Pound, either within or outside the corporate limits and may provide for an Animal Control Officer to enforce this ordinance. Section 1.112. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. The Animal Control Officer may capture and impound any _dog running at. large, and any unlicensed doge Section 1.113. QUARANTINE. Any animal, including wild animals that have bitten a ,person shall immediately be impounded for at least 10 days and kept apart from other animals, under the super- vision of a veterinarian, until it is determined whether. such . animal had or has a disease which might have been transmitted by such bite. Such impounding may be done by the, owner, and need not be at the pound designated by the City, but . if it is not at, the designated pound, the owner shall notify the police department immediately and shall furnish proof in writing that such animal is being so impounded. Upon the expiration of 10 days, if it is determined that the animal does not have a disease which might have been transmitted by such bite, it may be released, and the police department shall be notified immediately prior to such release by the owner of the animal. If the 11 animal is impounded at the designated pound, it may be reclaimedas hereinafter provided. Any animal which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall be killed or impounded and kept in the same manner for a period of six months; provided that if the animal which has been bitten by a rabid animal has been vaccinated at least three weeks before such bite and within. one year of such bite and if it is again immediately vaccinated, then such animal shall be confined or impounded for a period of 40 days before it is released. The owner of an animal which has been bitten by a rabid animal shall notify the police department immediately prior to the release of any such animal. Section 1.114. DANGEROUS ANIMALS. If an animal is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid or exposed to rabies and such animal cannot be impounded after a reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without serious risk to any person or persons, or if the animal has made more than one attack on a person or persons, such animal may be immediately killed by or under the direction of a police officer. Section 1.115. TREATMENTS DURING IMPOUNDING. Any animal which is impounded in the designated pound shall be kept in accordance with Section 1.106 of this Ordinance. If the animal is not known or suspected of being diseased and has not bitten a person or been bitten by a rabid animal, it shall be kept in the pound for at least five days, unless it is sooner reclaimed by its owner. If such animal is known to be or is suspected of being diseased with a disease which might be transmitted to persons, it shall be kept in the pound for at least 10 days. Section 1.116. REDEMPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS. Any animal may be redeemed, from the pound by the owner upon payment of the following: (1) The license fee for the animal, -if the license has not previously been obtained. (2) The late - license penalty, where a license has not been previously obtained. (3) The amount of the boarding fee which the City is required to pay the pound keeper. (4) An impounding penalty as provided in Chapter 23 of City ordinance. Section 1.117 DISPOSAL OF UNREDEEMED ANIMALS. The City's designated pound keeper shall make an effort to .contact the owner of any animal which has been impounded and which, has identification on it. If at the end of th "e, impounding period the animal is not reclaimed by the owner, such animal shall be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disposed of or sold to any person following the procedures contained in Minnesota Statutes 514.93 relating to the sale of unclaimed animals by veterinarians. If the animal is to be kept in this city, a license shall be obtained by such person before possession of the animal is given to the purchaser. 12 s 4 Section 1.118. ABANDONMENT. It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon any animal, including wild animals in Brooklyn Center. Section 1.119. PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of this Ordinance, or any conditions of a license, shall upon con - viction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500.00 or to imprisonment for a period not to exceed 90 days, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Each day that a violation exists shall constitute a separate offense. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after the adop- tion and upon thirty (30) days following 'its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 1982. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter. ) 13 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of September, 1982 at 8:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing an expansion of the hours of sale for intoxicating liquor. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING SU NDAY SALES OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS Section 1. Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby mended in t e y he following manner. Section 11 -550 SUNDAY SALES AUTHORIZED. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11 -512 of the City Ordinances, establishments to which "on sale liquor" licenses have been issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors may, upon obtai• n:g— a special license, serve intoxicating liquors between the hours of [12:00 noon] 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on Sundays in conjunction with the serving of food. Wine may be sold without a special license under the authority of an "on sale wine license between the hours of [12:00 noon] 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight in conjunction with the serving of food. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this F day of ] 9 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) RECEIVED JUL t 0 1982 jTE F n'NED STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL - WARREN SPANNAUS ° ST. PAUL 55155 ° TELEPHONE 4TTORNEY GENERAL July 231 1982 (612) 296 -6196 Richard J. Schieffer, Esq - Brooklyn Center City Attorney 'y. -2000 First Bank Place West 14inneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Schieffer: In your letter to Attorney General Warren Spannaus you note -that all municipalities have been authorized to issue special licenses to certain hotels, restaurants or clubs, permitting the male of intoxicating liquors between the hours of 12:00 noon and 12:00 midnight on Sundays in conjunction with the serving of food. Minn. Stat. 5 340.14, subd. 5(a) (1980). Application of that subdivision to any municipality requires voter approval at a special .or general election. Minn. Stat. 5 340.14, subd. 5(c) (1980). At a special election held contemporaneously with the statewide primary election on September -12, 1972, the voters of the City of Brooklyn Center approved application of Minn. Stat. S 340.14, subd. 5, to their municipality. The question presented to the - voters was phfased, "shall special licenses be §ranted for the sale ADf intoxicating liquor between the hours of 12:00 noon and midnight on Sundays at hotels, restaurants and clubs in the City of Brooklyn Center ?" Minn. Yaws 1981, ch. 368, S 1 (codified as an amendment to -Minn. Stat. S 340.14, subd. 5(a) (1980)), provides: The governing body of any municipality within the seven county metropolitan area, as defined in section . 473.121, subdivision 2, may ad6pt an ordinance that allows the licensees to serve intoxicating liquors between the hours of 10'o'clock a.m. and 12 o'clock midnight on Sundays in conjunction with the serving of food, provided that the licensee establishment is in, conformance with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air "Act. The City of Brooklyn Center lies wholly within the seven county metropolitan area as defined by Minn. Stat. S 473.121, subd. 2 (1980). AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • i Mr. Richard J. Schieffer -2- July 23. 1982 4 You ask whether the City of Brooklyn Center is required by statute to submit the question of application of the 1 amendment of Minn. Stat. 5 340.14, subd. 5(a), for voter approval? We answer your question in the negative. It is the eennera rul that regulation of hours and days of sale for intoxicating liquor, within direct limits imposed by the legislature, is wholly within the authority of the local licensing authority. See Op. Atty. Gen. 2188 -19, January 9, 19810 In 1967, the legislature provided authority for municipalities to permit Sunday liquor sales in certain circumstances. In so doing, the legislature expressly required that a condition precedent to the exercise of such power is approval of the voters. That condition is stated as follows: (c) This subdjvision shall not apply to any municipality until authorized by the voters of the ` voting on the question at a special election called for such purpose or at the general - -election in the municipality, the election to be conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the.Minnesota election law. Thus, the question required to be put to the voters in accordance with the above - quoted provision is whether the Subdivision dealing with Sunday liquor sale shall apply within the community. While the quoted language of the question on the ballot accurately describes the parameters of Minn. Stat. 5 340.14, subd. 5, at the time of the election, the statutory effect of the affirmative vote on that issue, in our view, was to accept application of section 340.14, subd. 5, within the city of Brooklyn Park.rather than to impose limits.thereon not required by Absent some indication of legislative intent to the contrary, we are aware of no authority which compels the determination that the subdivision does not continue to apply even though it may later be modified by legislative amendment. See e.g. Minn. Stat. $ 645.31. An analogous situation was presented in Op. Atty. Gen. ' 785e -1, September 25, 1961, wherein we determined that once a village had adopted the provisions of Minn. Stat. ch. 419 dealing with police civil service commissions, subsequent amendments to that chapter applied within the village without the necessity of further action by the village. _ In contrast to Minn. Laws 1967 ch. 691 which originally provided for Sunday sales, Minn. Laws 1981 ch. 368 contains no indication that any further refer4`66um is to be required on the separate question of the 1981 amendment in cities where subdivision 5 is otherwise in force: While subdivision 5(c) is reprinted together with the .remainder of subdivision 5, such Mr. Richard J. Schieffer —3— d July 23, 1982 reprinting is simply the vehicle of inserting the amendment and not a contemporaneous enactment of a new referendum requirement. See 2.9., In re Town of White Bear 268 Minn. 383, 129 N.W.2d 560 (1964). Thus it is our view that Minn. Laws 1981 ch. 368 permits a municipality within the metropolitan area, which has previously approved the application of Minn. Stat. § 340.14, subd. 5, by referendum to expand the hours of Sunday sale without the necessity of further referendum. Very ruly yours, K ENNETH E.� RA HKE, Assistant Attorney General KER:dml c � !� C] 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 Zoning Ordinance regarding rezoning of certain land. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 RELATIVE TO REZONING CERTAIN LA14D FROM C2 TO R3 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35 -1190 is hereby amended by the deletion of the following: Section 35 -1190. COMMERCE DISTRICT (C2). Lot[s] 1 [and 21, Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition. Section 2. Section 35 -1120 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Section 35 -11 20. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R3). Hi Crest Square Estates Addition Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1982. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new-matter). NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 7325 58th Avenue North, Room 114 Crystal, Minnesota 55428 (612) 536 -8355 July 28, 1982 Mr. Gerald Splinter, City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Gerry: At its meeting of July 19, 1982, the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission adopted a proposed budget for the 1983 fiscal year. A copy of the budget is included for review by the Brooklyn Center City Council Pursuant to Article X, Section 4 of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, Council action approving the budget is not necessary; ( "The budget shall be deemed approved by a member unless it withdraws from the Commission before October 15 of the year preceding the effective date of the proposed budget"). Although the budget does not specify an amount for support of community access, it is anticipated that the Northwest Suburbs Community Access Corporation will prepare and submit a budget and request for funds to the Commission for its review. Should you or members of the City Council have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your assistance. Yours truly, Kenneth R. Johnson, Executive Director KRJ:djg Enclosure T BUDGET SUMMARY: 1983 L REVENUES Net Anticipated Revenues Available $252,561 a II. EXPENDITURES A. Commission $86,197 1. Personnel: $49 (salaries, fringe benefits, trans - portation be travel) 2. Commission Training 4 9 3. Office Supplies, Equipment & Spacer 8,870 .4. Contractual Services: 16,627 (insurances, legal, engineering) 5e Contingency 7 7 500 Bo Community Access Corporation It is anticipated that funds will be made available to the Northwest Suburbs Community Access Corporation for pro- ' motion and implementation of public access, upon receipt and approval by the Commission of, a proposed budget and application for funds from the corporation. i BUDGET DETAIL: 1983 , ANTICIPATED REVENUES 1983 Anticipated revenues will be derived from the franchise fee payable by Northern Cablevision Northwest, Incorporated (5% of gross revenues). Payments are payable to the Commission not more than -30 days following the end of each calendar quarter, and are each calculated ted on the basis of the receeding calendar quarter. Pour franchise .fee payments will therefore be payable during 1983, as follows: AMOUNT PAYMENT DUE - DATE PAYMENT PERIOD ANTICIPATED January 31 Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 1982 $ 25 April .30, 1983 Jan. l - March 31, 1983 $104,187 ** July 31, 1983 April 1 - June 30, 1983 $104,187 ** October 31, 1983 July I - Sept-30, 1983 $104 ** TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUES $337,561 BALANCE ANTICIPATED AS OF ,JANUARY 1 1983 _15 352,561 LESS REIMBURSEMENT OF ADVANCE PAYMENTS _100 000 MADE BY NORTHERN CABLEVISION NET 1983 ANTICIPATED REVENUES AVAILABLE $252,561.1- Advance payment; (assumes Northern's gross revenues for preceding quarter will" not exceed $500,000) ** Averaged amount, based on estimated Northern, gross revenue of $6,251,250 for 30 y 1983. January September eriod Jan P y. o w BUDGET DETAIL: 1983 COMMISSION EXPENDITURES PERSONNEL $40,611 Salaries: Executive Director $32,000 Secretary (24 hrs. per week, $6.90 per hour) 8,611 Fringe Benefits: $6,349 PERA and Social Security (11.7 %) 4,839 Health Insurance ($103 per month) 1,236 Worker's Compensation ($32,000 at 79t per $100; 274 $8,700 at 23t per $100) Automobile & Travel Expense: $2,240 Automobile - 5,000 miles, 19t per m_ ile $1,140 Travel 1,000 Commission Training 4 $4,000 OFFICE SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT & SPACE $8,870 I mplies (postage, stationery, reproduction, etc.) $27500 Office Equipment 600 Equipment Lease & Maintenance 2,000 Telephone 19300 Space Rental 2 470 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $16,627 Insurances: Fidelity Bond $315 Public Officials' Liability 382 Comp. General Liability 130 L egal Services $10,800 I ` T$900 per month) Consultin En gineer 5,000 echnicial - 60 hrs. at $40 per hour - $2,400) (Engineer - 30 hrs. at $65 per hour - $1,950) (Automobile and equipment $650) CON'T'INGE $72500 AL $86 1 5 97 EXPENDTTUR.ES: Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 9, 1982 CIGARETTE LICENSE heisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. S. T- Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. City Clerk{� FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE T- Wrights 5800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Q Sanitarian GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION LICENSE Mengelkoch Company 119 N.E. 14th St. Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE A �3 B. C. Jaycee Women Evergreen Park Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Sunburst Heating & Air Conditioning 1556 Oakways Buildi g Official #� NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Life (Full service vending) 4603 Folwell Dr. Sanitarian GENERAL APPROVAL: i C er , i t I C a t V a c c i na t io n for dogs to be vaccinated, cat vac - ��C��d cinations were also important. A Prog rams relatively rabies free situation in cats G.L. Parham, DVM, of the Division cannot be maintained without an effec- of Viral Diseases at the U.S. Public tive and ongoing vaccination program y Health Service Centers for Disease which includes both dogs and cats. The Control, in Atlanta, Georgia says relatively young age of the average < k animal rabies cases have doubled in household pet and the large turnover in = number over the past three years. pets (which keeps the age low) points to _ r Almost all of the increase has been in this need. Dr. Parham notes that the :} ' wild animals, particularly in skunks, dog program is working. To gain the which went from around 1,500 cases to same degree of success for cats needs — over 4,400. the same continued attention to be paid In domestic animals he noted that to cat.vaccination programs. Ridglan Animal Care Systems has perfected the 20 - 25 years ago the nation had 5 - 10 run panel used to cover entire runs. Run panels times as many dog rabies cases as cat are economical, durable, and above all, reduce cases. While the number of cat cases VET'S CHALLENGE . , the burden and labor y to cl ean care. The and ve ry p lastic coated surface is eas were never over a few hundred dog (continued from page 25) fortable for all animals to walk and sleep on. cases were in the thousands. Since then, The S.P.C.A. provided the court Run panels are built strong enough for person - effective vaccination programs have with a proposed arrangement to lease els ar walk on and retrieve animals. urge al e a y brought dog case numbers down, their clinic to their former veterinarian liftingforclean ng u derneath n al RACS can In 1978 there were fewer than 100 under a standard landlord- tenant sign and fabricate run panels for use with p ri- .cases of cat rabies and just over 100 dog agreement. On review the court dis- mates, swine, sheep, calves, or the canine. cases. In 1981 that number was 285 for missed the charges brought by the Write or call 608- 437 -8033 for a 1982 product cats and 216 for dogs. Except for 1981, Veterinary Medical Association and catalog. dog cases have always exceeded cat declared the proposed lease in con- cases. Dr. Parham places no particular formance with the court's directive. significance on the cat overage for that The president of the S.P.C.A., Stuart year, but attributes it to a series of Gordon, stated that they were very RIDGLAN �UAI�l natural events, for example, the usual pleased with the verdict. A N outbreak of dog rabies along the A separate action brought by the Bo I 6 AM Hor S W sconsin 53572 Mexican border did not occur. What is South Hampton Roads V.M.A. before of significance, he finds, is that the cat the State Veterinary Examining Board rabies cases have tripled in number and to revoke the veterinarian's license was Noth has the dog cases have only doubled. unsuccessful and the charges were While he does not feel there is any dismissed. caught great cause for alarm at this time, he The reaction of the V.M.A. ° president, )(��'e an does say animal control people, Dr. James G. Koller was that unless veterinarians and public health per- there is a change of attitude within the ®e u�•� .sonnel should be continually aware of organization the matter has been more safely the risk associated with unvaccinated decided. He did note that the V.M.A. pet animals. And, that the triple increase had successfully proved that a non- more effectively, in cat cases points out, that they definitely profit animal welfare agency can not should be included in any vaccination legally operate a full- service animal (program. Cats, he said, are just as health care clinic (in Virginia). r .susceptible to rabies as any other Estimated court costs by both " animal. organizations were $39,000, with He noted CDC has for years espoused about $24,000 for the VMA and some that, while it was by far more important $15,000 costs to the S.P.C.A. A PSST -- A JAS !/E TIM and AVOID INJURY. That's wh rt) live McNicoll animal Cage Traps are the QUICK RELEASE LEASH Move dogs most widely used in all anywhere quickly America. Write for a free cat- and easily without col- alog that gives you valuable lars or other leads. On and off in seconds without getting tips on selecting and setting close. Dozens of control units Havahart traps. Woodstream. already use them. Dept. CT, Lititz, PA 17543 For FREE details and testimonials, write: < .�.�_.,�..,.,.,. A. W. MCNICOLL, DVM, Dept. CAM, 4 - Vwo0dSt, e P 611 Elida Road, Lima, OH 45807 CORPORATION JMMUNITY ANIMAL CON T ?oL t July /August, 1982 29 1