HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 05-10 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
MAY 10, 1982
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by one motion. , There will be no separate
discussion of these items unless a 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 - April 26, 1982
-
7. Appointment to Park and Recreation Commission
8. Resolutions:
*a. Accepting Work Completed under Kylawn Park Shelter Roofing Project
S`•� No. 1981 -27 and Northport Park Shelter Roofing Project No. 1981 -28
�.` (Contract 1981 -N)
I f 7 b. Approving Supplemental Agreement No. l to Freeway Boulevard Street
W. Improvement Project 1981 -18 (Contract 1981 -H)
_11 c. Relating to a One Million Dollar Commercial Development Revenue Not
(Shingle Creek Development Company Project); Authorizing the Issuance
T4 . S thereof Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474
GL�No -This resolution would grant final approval to an industrial development
revenue bond proposal from Shingle Creek Development Company. The
project comprehends construction of a 78,500 square foot office /ware
house building at the intersection of Freeway Boulevard and Xerxes
Avenue North. Consideration of this resolution was tabled at the
April 26, 1982 City Council meeting.
�v
Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Services
L'T -This resolution comprehends - landscape, architectural, and engineering
services for Palmer Lake Park.
81 e. Closing Project Costs, Authorized Improvements, and Related Reserve Accounts
-# , - , S k -This resolution would close the books of accounts for various improvement
projects authorized by the City Council.
f. Amending City of Brooklyn Center's Community Development Project Application
for Years V and VI of the Hennepin Urban County
s" L This resolution would authorise the retaining of a consultant for the 50th
and France Avenue project. Funding for the consultant would be obtained
4,.'RT M
from Community Development Funds.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 10, 1982
*g4" � Declaring June 4 through June 13 as Early Bird Days in Brooklyn Center
1 7( *h. accepting Gift
-Cub Scout Pack 632, Dens 3, 4, and 5 have donated five Colorado blue
spruce for planting in Evergreen Park.
P roclaiming May 9 through May 15 as Nursing Home Week in Brooklyn Center
*9. Declaration of Surplus Property
-It is recommended a motion be made by the City Council declaring certain
property of the City as surplus. The items will be sold at public auction
or advertised sale.
10. Ordinances:
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Suntan
�1 Studios
-This ordinance was first read at the April 12, 1982 City Council meeting,
published on April 22, 1982, and is recommended for a second reading
�! evening. A public hearing has been scheduled for the ordinance amendment
at 7:30 p.m.
11. Public Hearings (8:00 p.m.)
Consideration of Proposed Improvement Projects:
Project 1982 -06 - Kylawn Park Water Main Improvement
Project 1982 -07 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement
Project 1982 -08 - Earle Brown Drive Street Light Improvement
93 �: a.� Resolution Ordering Kylawn Park Water Main Improvement Project 1982 -06
� Resolution Ordering 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project 1982 -07
c. Resolution Ordering Earle Brown Drive Street Light Improvement Project 1982 - 08
a�� fif• My
s d. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Ordering Advertisement for
Bids, Central Park Water Main Improvement Project 1982 -05, Kylawn Park Water
Main Improvement Project 1982 -06, 51st Avenue Water Main Improvement Project
` ��� 1982 -07 •
e. Resolution Authorizing the Finance Director to Issue Master Notes for Various
Special Assessment Projects, Allowing for Transfer of Funds from the Invest-
00, ment Trust Fund to the Special Assessment Fund.
t
12. Planning Commission Items (8 :30 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 82017 submitted by Robert Adelmann for
a variance from the sign ordinance to allow for a 46' high, 204 square foot
freestanding sign in place.of the currently :at ordinance maximum of
24' in height and 90 square feet at 6501 Humboldt Avenue.North. The Planning
Commission recommended denial of Application'No. 82017 at its April -15, 1982
meeting. Consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 82017 was
tabled, at the applicant's request, at the April 26, 1982 City Council meeting.
9
r
s,
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA —3— May 10, 1982
13. Discussion Items:
a. Update on Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council`
14. Gambling Licenses:
a. Gambling License Application for St. Alphonsus Catholic Church Fun Fair
Application for a Class B Gambling License (requires a majority vote of
the City Council to pass)
Waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond (requires a unanimous vote of the
City Council to pass)
b. Gambling License Application for Knights of Columbus Council 6772
Application for a Class B Gambling License (requires a majority vote of
the City Council to pass)
- Waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond (requires a unanimous vote of the
City Council to pass)
*15. Licenses
16. Adjournment -
I
f
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
APRIL 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 :05 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
Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, and
Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Tom Bublitz.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Councilmember Celia Scott.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyqui.st noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum
session this evening. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who
wished to address the Council. There being none, he proceeded with the regular
agenda items.
CONSEN AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any of the Council members desired any items removed from
the consent agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested that items 7, 10c, and 10f be
removed from the consent agenda. The City Manager noted that item 11 Declaration
g Y 9
of Surplus Property, should also be deleted from the agenda. He explained that
there are still items to be added to the surplus property list and that re recommended`
the item be deferred to the next Council meeting.
APPROVAL OF M INUTES - APRIL 12, 1982
An error was noted on page 5 of the April 12, 1982 minutes. Page 5 of the minutes
shows Councilmember Hawes named twice on the vote on Resolution No. 82 -57. Council -.
member Hawes should be shown as voting no on the resolution, and Councilmember Lhotka
should be shown as voting yes on Resolution No. 82 -57.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of April 12, 1982 as corrected.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
SUBDIVISION BOND RELEASE
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the release of the subdivision deposit for Clinch Valley Addition (69th
Avenue and T.H. 252), in the amount of $1,500. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
4 -26 -82 -1-
APPOINTMENT TO COMMUNITY ACCESS CORPORATION
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
appoint Dr. Duane Orn, as Brooklyn Center's representative, to the Community Access
corporation of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -59
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RECEIVING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT ESTABLISHING 69TH AVENUE- 70TH
AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -09, SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1982 -10, WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -11 AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NOS. 1982 -09, 1982 -10, AND 1982 -11
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka., Celia Scott,Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -60
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 1/4 TON PICKUP TRUCK
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, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
FINAL PLAT - RED LOBSTER ADDITION
The Assistant City Engineer reviewed a transparency of the final plat submitted for
the Red Lobster Addition (Planning Commission Application No. 82010), and noted
that the cross access agreements, allowing access to the private roadway in Lot
2 of the Piccadilly Pond Addition, have been negotiated with C.E,A.P.
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve the final plat of the Red Lobster Addition (Planning Commission
Application No. 82010), subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit the required restrictive covenants listed
under items 3, 5, 10, and 12 of the preliminary plat to the City
staff for approval.
2. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee under item 7 of the
preliminary plat approval, and the driveway access as comprehended under
item 6 in the preliminary plat approval.
3. All conditions must be met prior to release of the plat for filing at the
County.
i
4 -26 -82 -2-
n
R ESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -61
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PETITION THE COMMISSIONER OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF ADVANCE ENCUMBRANCE OF MUNICIPAL STATE
AID STREET CONSTRUCTION FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes,__
and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon
said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -62
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER-CONTRACT 1980 -N (SHINGLE CREEK
TRAILWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -42, CIVIC CENTER ACCESS IMPROVEMENT
NO. 1980 -04, PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NOS. 1980-09, 1980-22 AND 1980 -23)
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, Bill Hawes,
and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon
said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
In discussion of the next agenda item, A Resolution Accepting Work Performed Under
Engineering Services Agreement with Merila & Associates, Inc. on Contract 1980 -N,
the Director of Public Works reviewed his memorandum submitted to the City Manager
regarding final payment for Engineering Services Agreement with Merila & Associates,
Inca on Contract 1980 -N. He noted that the original estimate for the project was
$21,200 and that the total amount for the completed services w as $42,625.97. The
Director of Public Works explained that the contractor's delays on the project
resulted in a substantial part of the cost increases, but that the contractor's
bid was $50,000 lower than the next lowest bid primarily because the contractor
was able to work the project in the manner he did, in conjunction with the-I-94
project, for which he was also the contractor. The Director of Public Works noted
that it must be recognized that the additional engineering costs are small compared
to the contract cost savings which the City benefited from.
Councilmember Theis inquired whether this type of problem could be prevented in
future drafting of specifications. The Director of Public Works indicated that
Mr. Merila suggested a working day deadline be specified in future contracts rather
than a specific date. For example, he noted that 150 days could be specified for
a particular contract rather than a specific completion date. He added that there
are merits and problems to both procedures.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -63
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
4 -26 -82 -3-
i
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -64
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTY AS SURPLUS, AUTHORIZING ITS
RECONVEYANCE TO THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, AND APPROVING ITS CLASSIFICATION AS
NONCONSERVATION LAND
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
In discussion of the next agenda item, A Resolution Granting Final Approval to
an Industrial Development Revenue Bond Proposal from Shingle Creek Development
Company, the City Manager explained that, as the staff reviewed the plans for
the project, there was a problem noted with the flood plain regulations. He added
that the problem was discovered between the time the project was granted preliminary
approval and the proposed final approval this evening. The Director of Planning &
Inspection noted that the problems, with regard to flood plain regulations, occur
in the arkin lot elevations and are related to the required elevation of the la
P g q
parking lot above Shingle Creek. Because of these questions, the Director of
Planning & Inspection recommended that the resolution be tabled for two weeks
until the problems can be resolved. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted"
that Mr. Al Beisner, a representative of the applicant, is present this evening
and requested that he comment on the tabling action. Mr. Beisner indicated that
he would not have a problem with the tabling of the resolution for two weeks.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
table the Resolution Relating to -a One Million Dollar Commercial Development Revenue
Note (Shingle Creek Development Company Project); Authorizing The Issuance Thereof
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to the next City Council meeting on
May 10, 1982. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes,
and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously,. The motion was
adopted with the concurrence of the applicant.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -65
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING VOTING PRECINCTS FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4 -26 -82 -4-
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -66
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR FINE AGGREGATE FOR SEAL COAT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -67
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR PLANT -MIXED BITUMINOUS MIXTURES
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, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -6$
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR BITUMINOUS MATERIALS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
i
member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
In discussion of the next agenda item, A Resolution Amending the 1982 General Fund
Budget, the City Manager stated that the staff is proposing to replace manpower
with data processing equipment and thereby reduce operating costs for the City.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired how long the City was planning to experiment with
this procedure. The City Manager replied that, by September of this year, the
staff should know whether or not the replacement of personnel with data processing
equipment in the Assessing Department will be successful. He noted that this will
be determined prior to approval of the 1983 Budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -69
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1982 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
4 -26 -82 -5-
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -70
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its.adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF TRANSFER OF FUNDS AGREEMENT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
In review of the next agenda item, A Resolution Acknowledging Gift, the City Manager
noted that Silas and Edith Peller, 6900 Willow Lane North in Brooklyn Center, gave
$200 to the City in appreciation for the efforts of the City's Fire Department in
responding to a fire at their house last September.
Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to add his thanks to the Fire Department
and that the note from Mr_ & Mrs. Peller was very nice to hear. He added that the
Fire Department should be commended and he also thanked the Pellers' for taking
the time to express their thanks.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -71
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GIFT
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 0
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich -
Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager introduced an Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances
Regulating and Licensing Amusement Devices and an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of
the City Ordinances Regarding Amusement Centers. He noted that these ordinance
amendments were developed out of experiences with game centers in Brooklyn Center,
such as the ones which were located in Humboldt Square Shopping Center.
The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that these ordinance amendments
are designed to provide regulation and control over the location and use of amusement
devices, so that their use does not become a public nuisance and have an adverse
effect on surrounding property. He added that problems relating to these games
have been experienced in a number of places, but particularly, in two specific
instances a Square t the Humboldt S Shopping Center. In both situations, he pointed
PP
out, the City Council was considering revocation of the special use permits of the
establishments for failure to comply with the provisions of the permit, and that
in both instances both operations were abandoned in prior to such revocation. He
explained that the City staff has been advised by the City Attorney that a system
of licensing amusement devices, and their operation is a more reasonable method
of control rather than the use of special use permits solely.
-6-
4 -26 -82
The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the proposed ordinance
amendments, including the recommended fees in conjunction with vendors, operators
• and an investigative fee. He also reviewed a survey of the fees charged for
amusement devices by other cities in the metropolitan area.
Councilmember Hawes commented that in a recent newspaper article it was noted that
the revenue from these types of machines can be quite high. He also stated that he
does not think the $75 per machine fee is too high. Councilmember Hawes then
inquired whether the investigative fee, proposed in conjunction with the ordinance
amendment, is a one time payment. The Director of Planning & Inspection replied that
the investigative fee would be primarily used to do background investigations of
owners. He noted that the owners change from time.to time and that additional
investigative fees may be necessary as the operations are turned over.
Mayor Nyquist noted that, in light of the Planning Commission items scheduled for
8:00 p.m., he would request that further discussion of the ordinance amendments
be deferred until later in the meeting.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82017 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT ADELMANN FOR A VARIANCE
FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A 46' HIGH, 204'SQ. FT. FREE STANDING SIGN
IN PLACE OF THE SIGN CURRENTLY AT ORDINANCE MAXIMUM OF 24' IN HEIGHT AND 90 SQ. FT.
AT 6501 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH.
Mayor Nyquist noted that the applicant has requested that consideration of his
application'be laid over until the next Council meeting.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
table for two weeks, at the applicant's request, Planning Commission Application
No. 82017. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes,
and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82008 SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY TO REZONE
FROM C2 TO R3 LAND WITHIN THE 1300 BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 69TH AVENUE
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82016 SUBMITTED BY KEN BERGSTROM FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE LAND IN THE 1300 BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 69TH INTO
28 TOWNHOUSE LOTS, ONE COMMON AREA, AND 6 OUTLOTS
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed for Council members the location of
the subject parcel, and noted that the application was first considered by the
Planning Commission at its February 12, 1982 meeting. He explained that the application
was tabled on the 12th and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, and
on March 12, 1982 the application received favorable action from the advisory group.
He noted that the Neighborhood Advisory Group recommended replatting and owner occupied
townhouses. He noted that there were certain conflicts existing with the application`
in regard to the comprehensive plan, and that rezoning, plus an amendment to the
comprehensive plan and is required for the application.
The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission, at its
4 -26 -82 -7-
April 15, 1982 meeting, adopted A Resolution Amending' Council Resolution No. 66 -295
Co
m
nsive Plan) relative to commercial zoned land in southeast quadrant of
(comprehensive the Disposition
ion
p
69th and Humboldt Avenue North, and also A Resolution Regarding
of Application No. 82008 Submitted by Bergstrom Realty Company.
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 1 through 3 of the April 15, 1982 Planning Commission minutes, and also the
Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Applications 82008 and 82016.
He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82016,
subject to five conditions which he reviewed for Council members.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 82008 and Application No. 82016. He inquired if there was anyone present who
wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained
a motion to close the public,hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to ,
82008
close the public hearing on Application No. and Application No. 82016, Voting
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -72
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 66 -295, (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE
TO COMMERCIAL ZONED LAND IN SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF 69TH AND HUMBOLDT AVENUES NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -73
Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 82008 SUBMITTED BY
BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 82016, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2, The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
3. Homeowner's association documents shall be subject to review and approval
by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval.
•
4 -26 -82 ,.8-
4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
5. The plat must be given final approval by the City Council and filed at
the County prior to the issuance of building permits.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82014 SUBMITTED BY MCDONALD'S FOR SITE AND
BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN ORDER STATION, DRIVE -UP LANE AND WINDOW
AT THE MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AT 5525 XERXES AVENUE NORTH.
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed for Council members the location of
the subject parcel, and he also reviewed a transparency showing the layout of the
order station and pick -up window.
r
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 3 through 4 of the April 15, 1982 Planning Commission minutes, and also the
Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 82014. He
Y explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application,'
t subject to five conditions which he reviewed for Council members.
In discussion of the application Councilmember Hawes suggested that, perhaps on
the south edge of the parking lot at McDonald's, the parking could be changed to
angle parking, so that customers would be inclined to stay in that area and not
exit at the wrong location. He explained that if the parking is maintained at 90
degrees people could more easily back out and possibly exit at the west entrance.
The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the entrance off Xerxes would be
an entrance and exit, and that a "do not enter" sign will be placed at the west
t. He explained that angle end of the parking to parking would make this configuration p g P
more difficult.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve Application No. 82014, 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. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
5. The Special Use Permit is issued to McDonald's and is subject to all codes,
ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
6. The one -way by -pass lane west of the drive -up Zane shall be signed as such
4 -26 -82 -9-
at both its entrance and exit points. Parallel parking stalls shall be
signed for employee parking.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82018 SUBMITTED BY BLUMENTALS ARCHITECTURE,
SUMMIT MORTGAGE COMPANY FOR SITE AND BU ILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO REMODEL THE BARN
AND HIPPODROME ON THE;EARLE BROWN FARM FOR USE AS A TV STUDIO.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82021 SUBMITTED BY SUMMIT MORTGAGE COMPANY FOR
ALLOW TWO RECEPTION
-
A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 35-400 OF TH E ZONING ORDINANCE TO A
ANTENNAE TO BE PLACED ED WITHIN THE
FRONT SETBACK AT 6129 EARLE BROWN DRIVE.
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed a transparency of the subject parcel
and noted that the land is zoned I -1, and is also designated as a historic preservation
area on action of the City Council. He noted that the applicant is proposing the
Channel 29 studio and transmitting studios in the converted barn and hippodrome.
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 6 through 10 of the April 15, 1982 Planning Commission minutes, and also the
Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 82018 and 82021.
He explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No.
82018, subject to ten conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He stated
that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82021, subject
to four conditions which he reviewed for Council members.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 82021. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public
hearing. . No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on Application No. 82021. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
In discussion of Application No. 82021, Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the City
and
Attorney whether there would be any problem with granting the variance in regard
to setting a precedent in this situation. The City Attorney stated that
he does
dent since the roperty
will met a precedent P
not believe the granting of the variance wil P
g g
is already zoned in a unique fashion. He pointed out that the granting of the
variance may be different if the area was in a residential neighborhood.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve Application No. 82018, 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.
4 -26 -82 -10-
3. A site performance and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to
be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance
• of permints to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system
to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring
device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped
areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34
of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving
areas, including the area of shared access with the building to the north
(current Summit Bank).
9. The preliminary R.L.S. approved under Application No. 81035 shall receive
final approval by the City Council and be filed with the County prior to
the issuance of building permits for the conversion of the barn and hippodrome.
10. Improvements to the Summit Bank property approved under Application No.
78002, but deferred until plans were accepted for the barn and hippodrome
shall be completed prior to October 1, 1982 in conjunction with the
improvements required by approval of this application.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Application No. 82021 on the following grounds:
1. The circumstances surrounding the application are unique, involving an
existing historic structure which cannot readily be moved without damage
to its structural and historical integrity.
2. Failure to grant the variance would cause either an undue hardship for
the applicant or (by placing the receiving dishes in the mall area) would
seriously disturb the character of the historic district established under
Application No. 81041.
3. The circumstances affecting the application were not created by the applicant,
but arise because of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which were
adopted after the farm buildings were erected.
4. Proposed placement of the receiving dishes minimizes the variance and the
impact on surrounding development.
4 -26 -82 -11
e
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82019 SUBMITTED BY MARTIN DRINKWINE FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT TO CONDUCT A TIDY CAR OPERATION IN THE GARAGE OF THE RESIDENCE AT 5632
JAMES AVENUE NORTH.
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 10 through 12 of the April 15, 1982 Planning Commission minutes, and also
the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 82019. He
pointed out that after holding a public hearing, at its April 15 1982 meeting,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82019, subject to
seven conditions which he reviewed for Council members.
Councilmember Hawes inquired whether the operation proposed in the application was
conducted inside or outside. The Director of Planning & Inspection commented that
the work is conducted both inside and outside. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what
types of products are used in the Tidy Car operation. The applicant, Mr. Martin
Drinkwine, replied that the chemicals used in the Tidy Car operation are designed
by Tidy Car out of Canada. He noted that they include resins and silicones to
produce a sealant on the car. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired whether there
were any strong odors or dust related to the operation. The applicant replied that
there were no strong odors but that there was some dust from the car when the car
was buffed. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired whether the chemicals used in the
operation were flamable. The applicant replied that he did not know whether the
chemicals were flamable. Councilmember Lhotka stated that if the chemicals were
flamable he would recommend that they be properly stored. The applicant replied
that all the chemicals used in the operation are stored under lock and key, and
because of the heat from the sun the process is done entirely within the garage
except the washing of cars. Councilmember Theis inquired whether the applicant
would oppose any stipulation added to the conditions of approval which would require
the work be done inside the garage. The applicant stated that he would not have any
problem with this except for the washing of the cars. Councilmember Theis stated
that he would recommend adding to the conditions of approval that the application
of the chemicals to the car shall be done only inside the garage.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 82019. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one appeared to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist did note
that the Council had received a letter from Mrs. Walter Tuttle, 5627 James Avenue
North, in opposition to the application.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
close the public hearing on Application No. 82019. Voting in favor:` Mayor Nyquist,-
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by 'Councilmember Theis to
approve Application No. 82019, subject to the following conditions
1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and
is nontransferable.
4 -26 -82 -12-
2. The permit is subject to all codes, ordinances and regulations and any
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. Service shall be on an appointment only basis between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. However, the
special use permit authorizes work on not more than 10 cars per month.
4. All parking shall be off - street on improved space provided by the applicant.
5. Service to automobiles or other power vehicles is limited to washing and
application of the Tidy Car sealant; other repairs are expressly prohibited.
6. The permit is subject to completion of any work required by the Building
Official.
7. Noise, odor, and vibration shall not be perceptible beyond the premises to
the degree that a nuisance is created.
8. Application of the Tidy Car sealant or any other chemicals or materials,
shall be performed only inside the garage of the residence at 5632 James
Avenue North.
9. All combustible chemicals and materials used in the application process
shall be appropriately stored as approved by the Fire Chief.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Noting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCES (CONTINUED)
In discussion of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances Regulating
and Licensing Amusement Devices, Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Norman Pink, representing
the Association of Amusement Operators of Minnesota. Mr. Pink stated that he supports
the ordinance and noted that it is, in his opinion, a very fine ordinance. However,
- he stated that he would like to recommend some minor changes to the ordinance amendment.
He pointed out that in Section 23 -2103, paragraph 7 states that a copy of the lease
agreement is required. He pointed out that lease agreements may contain certain
confidential information that would become public record if it were provided to the
City and would be made available to the competition. He suggested that this require-
ment be deleted from the ordinance and substituted with language that would require
a "short form" lease agreement. He also noted that information which he has obtained
indicates that the fee of $75 proposed for each machine is more than twice the average
fee in the metro area. He explained that the metro area average, according to his
information, is $34.90. He added that he obtained this information from the City
of West St. Paul. Mr. Pink also stated that he believes the investigative fee of
$100 should not be necessary in light of the vendors fee of $150.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Tom Schlueter, operator of Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor.
Mr. Schlueter stated that he believed the $75 per machine is too high and that some
machines do well and others do not, emphasizing that only certain machines are used
all the time and that others are "filler pieces ". He stated that he believes the
$75 fee proposed in the ordinance is high for the number of inspections required.
4- 26 -82' -13-
Councilmember Lhotka stated that, in light of the suggestions with regard to the
amendment concerning the lease agreements, and the fact that the City 'Attorney has
to obtain the information from the Vendors Association attorney, perhaps the
consideration of the ordinance should be tabled until the next .Council meeting.
The City Attorney stated that the proposed change is a very minor one, and that
if the language change is received from the Vendors Association attorney the ordinance
amendment could be offered as a first reading this evening.
The Director of Planning & Inspection commented that the inspection fee is not the
only cost related to the licensing of the machines. He stated that the reviewing
of applications and the normal processing of the license applications is also a
cost. He also noted that machines tend to turnover quite often during the course
of the year and that this fee would account for that turnover. Councilmember Hawes
commented that he does not think the $75 per machine fee is out of line.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve for first reading An.Ordinance Amending Chapter ,23 of the City Ordinances
Regulating and Licensing Amusement Devices with the stipulation that Section 23- 2103,
paragraph 7, be amended to change the requirements for the ._ submission of lease
information as per the recommendation of the representative of Association of
Amusement Operators of Minnesota. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
Regarding Amusement Centers. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Attorney left the table at 10:05 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
VOLUNTEERISM IN BROOKLYN CENTER
The City Manager introduced the first discussion item and noted that several documents
had been forwarded to City Council members, from Mayor Nyquist, regarding citizen
volunteerism. Mayor Nyquist commented that the City Council's role in the past has
been one to encourage and recognize volunteers in service to the City. He inquired
of the Council whether there were any comments or suggestions regarding the promotion
or recognition of volunteerism in the City. The City Manager commented that it may
be useful to survey other cities in the area with regard to how they encourage, make
use of, and recognize citizen volunteers.
Discussion continued among Council members regarding volunteerism and Mayor Nyquist
concluded the discussion by not that any thoughts or suggestions the Council may
have with regard to volunteerism in the City should be forwarded to the City Manager.
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSES - ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE FOR
SHOWBIZ PIZZA RESTAURANT, 5939 JOHN MARTIN DRIVE
The City Manager stated that the staff is recommending conditional approval of the
liquor license which, if approved this evening, would become effective Tuesday,
April 27, 1982 with the condition that the staff make a final report to the Council
upon a mutual resolution of the matter or by August 1, 1982, whichever comes first.
4 -26 -82 -14-
Councilmember•Lhotka commented that there appear to be more and more items approved
conditionally and that he has a concern with this. He stated that he does not like -
conditional approval of items, especially on liquor licenses and particularly since
this situation was due to the applicant's own negligence. The City Manager stated
that, essentially the license is satisfactory but that the selection of a manager
has been the problem. He added that sometimes communications break down in an
organization opening a new business. Councilmember Lhotka agreed that communications
sometime break down, but if the City staff called the applicant several times and
notified them, which they had done, he believes that the license should have been
taken care of. The City Manager stated that it seems that the City is getting a -
number of these types of problems where we did not in the past. He added that perhaps
the City staff could implement a system to make the procedure more workable and
apparent to applicants.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
table consideration of the on -sale nonintoxicating liquor license for ShowBiz Pizza
Restaurant, 5939 John Martin Drive, until the matter of the selection of a satisfactory
manager is resolved and to deny conditional approval of the liquor license application.
Voting in favor: Councilmembers Lhotka, and Hawes. Voting against: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Scott, and Theis. The motion failed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
conditionally approve the on -sale nonintoxicating liquor license at ShowBiz Pizza
Restaurant, 5939 John Martin Drive, effective Tuesday, April 27, 1982 and for the
staff to make a final report to the Council regarding the background investigation
of the manager for the restaurant when completed or by August 1, 1982, whichever
occurs first. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Theis, and
1iawes. Voting against:' Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed.
, ,AMBLING LICENSES - NORTHPORT PTA APPLICATION CLASS A GAMBLING LICENSE
there was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve a Class A gambling license for the Northport PTA. — Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was -a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
< waive the $10,000 fidelity bond for the Northport PTA gambling license. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott, and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve the following list of licenses:
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Blvd.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Atkins Mechanical, Inc. 6550 W. River Rd.
Axel Newman Heating & Plumbing 1608 Como Ave. W.
Cronstrom's Heating & Air Cond. 4410 .Excelsior Blvd.
Dependable Heating & Air Cond. 2615 Coon Rapids Blvd.
LSV Metals, Inc. 6800 Shingle Cr. -Pkwy.
Rainbow Mechanical 7241 County Rd. 116
4 -26 -82 -15-
MOTORE VEHICLE DEALERSHIP LICENSE
Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brookdale Pontiac o 6801 Brooklyn Blvd.
Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd.
North Star Dodge 6740 Brooklyn Blvd.
Bob Ryan Oldsmobile 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Evergreen Park Elementary 7020 Dupont Ave. N.
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Bob Dale 6612 Dupont Ave. N.
Duane R. Lussier 6927 Dupont Ave N.
Paul Wilson & Brian Anderson 5100 Drew Ave. N.
Larry Karkela 5455 Emerson Ave. N.
Michael R. Eberle 4207 Lakeside -Ave. #226
Jeff & Patti Stewart 5547 Lyndale Ave. N.
Sherry A. Ronallo 819 -821 55th Ave. N.
J. J. Barnett 2910 -22 68th Lane
Renewal:
Bennie Rozman Brookdale Ten Apartments k=
Jerry Hall 3815 Oak "'Street
Robert W. Johnson 6800 Toledo Ave. N.
Gerald R. Broman 3601 47th Ave. N. •
Kenneth E. Patterson 3616 50th Ave. N.
Kenneth Ready Jr. 1019 73rd Ave. N.
SIGN HANGERS LICENSE
LeRoy Signs, Inc. 6325 Welcome Ave. N.
Midway Sign Company 444 N. Prior Ave.
SWIMMING POOL LICENSE
Indoors
Beach Apartments 4201 Lakeside Ave. N.
Chippewa Park Apartments 6507 Camden Ave. N.
Twin Lake North Apartments 4536 58th Ave. N.
Outdoor:
Beach Apartments 4201 Lakeside Ave. N.
Hi Crest Apartments 1300 67th Ave. N.
Evergreen Park Apartments 7200 Camden Ave N.
Lyn River Apartments 201 65th Ave. N.
Riverwood Townhomes 6605 Camden Dr..
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
4 -26 -82 -16-
r
The City Attorney returned to the table at 10:32 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember- Lhotka to ;
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott,
Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The
Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:32 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
4 -26 -82 -17
AFT-LUCAUM
3R APPQINTLIENT T TH _R2QQ Y �LM iL-S, c, i r
Nari* AJ e r s f Age
Address lv 1r �°� Y Telephone ✓ `37 s' •
Occupation e . _ _ Years . l i ved. 1 n Brooklyn Center
I am interested in. serving on the; Park & Recreation Commission
Park Service Area Committee
Either
I" have read Council Resolution 73 -25, which defines the purpose, authority and
responsibility or the Brooklyn Park and R ecreat ion,C om mi ss io n and the
Park Service Area Cori imittees. Yes 9 No Comments
I understand the importance of regular Commission /Corrinittee- meeting attendance and
par•ticipation,•and feel I have the time available to be an active participant.
Yes No Comments H w y
Additional comments on my interest, experience, background, ideas, etc.
l JIAJI, .
0 VIVA
. i +' C Da
Submit to: Mayor Dean Nyquist
City of Brooklyn Center
6 301 Sningle Creek Park
Brooklyn Center, Mk 55430
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1981 -N
AND ESTABLISHING FINAL PROJECT COSTS FOR KYLAWN PARK
SHELTER ROOFING PROJECT NO. 1981 -27 AND NORTHPORT PARK
SHELTER ROOFING PROJECT NO 1981 -28
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1981 -N signed with the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Don G. Morin and Company, of Golden
Valley, Minnesota has satisfactorily completed the following improvements
in accordance with said contract:
Kylawn Park Shelter Roofing Project No. 1981 -27
Northport Park Shelter Roofing Project No. 1981 -28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract is accepted and
approved according to the following schedule:
KYLAWN PARK SHELTER ROOFING PROJECT NO, 1981 -27
Original Award $10,000.00
Ch Order No 1 122.00
Change g
TOTAL $10,122.00
NORTHPORT PARK SHELTER ROOFING PROJECT NO 1981 -28
Original Award $7,986.04
2. The value of the work performed is equal to the sum of the
original Contract and Change Order No. 1.
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 contract
shall be $18,108.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken 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 PERTAINING TO SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1
FOR FREEWAY BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -18,
l i CONTRACT 1981 -H
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined that, due to unforeseen
circumstances, certain modifications must be made to the contract to
facilitate the completion of the improvement project, said modifications
being as follows-
1. Remove and replace settled storm sewer in the vicinity of
Station 8 +50.
2. Remove settled curb and gutter between Stations 7 +75 and
8 +75 and replace with a bituminous rolled edge curb.
3. Remove settled concrete sidewalk between Stations 7 +75 and k
8 +75 and replace with bituminous sidewalk.
4. Remove settled bituminous pavement and gravel base, place f
select granular borrow, 6 inches of gravel base and 2 inches
of Minnesota Department of Transportation Specification
2341 wear coarse within settlement area between Stations
7 +75 and 9 +00 and 3� inches of MN /DOT Specification 2341
Lo wear coarse over 4 inches of gravel base within driveways.
WHEREAS, the Contractor, Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc.
has agreed to complete the work noted above at a lump sum cost of $14,000.00;
a
and ;
WHEREAS, the Contractor has completed previous corrective measures
within the settlement area between Stations 7 +75 and 8 +75 at a cost of
$3,159.20.
NOW, THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Brooklyn that the above modifications to Improvement'
y n Center Minnesota,
Project No. 1981 -18 are approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that:
1. There is appropriated the sum of $17,159.20.from the Municipal
State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2600 for the payment of
additional contract costs.
2. There, is hereby appropriated -*an, additional $2,511_.45 from
the Municipal State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2600 for
the payment of additional subsurface soil exploration and
fi testing.costs. -
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.
f
t
t
f
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 7, 1982
RE: Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Freeway Boulevard Improvement
Contract 1981 -H
Attached herewith is a copy of Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to
Contract 1981 -H for the improvement of Freeway Boulevard between
Xerxes Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. The work comprehended
under the agreement provides for correction of the settled storm
sewer system, street, and sidewalk along Freeway Boulevard in the
vicinity of the Earle Brown Farm Townhouses.
Based upon investigations and reports received from a soils testing
firm, the settlement has occurred as a result of consolidation of
a hidden layer of swamp deposits, and the fill rmaterial placed by
the contractor. The hidden swamp deposits were not detected during
o t'
the initial subsurface soil testing program because borings were
not taken within the confines of the isolated deposit. Within
this vicinity, soil borings were taken approximately 70 feet apart,
as measured along the street centerline, to a depth of 5 to 6 feet
below the observed peat layer, into granular materials. The hidden
swamp deposit was confined to an area approximately 50 feet in length,
as measured along the centerline, and was wholly within the area
between the two adjacent borings.
As construction proceeded, the contractor excavated all the known
peat deposits under the supervision of our construction inspector.
Within the area now in question, the contractor, following normal
construction practice, used a dragline to bale out the peat to the
point where granular material started showing up in the bucket.
Since this happened at the same 8 to 9 foot depth of peat indicated
"fit" seemed to
.
b the adjacent two soil borings, everything se m
y 7 g Y
Unknown to anyone at the time was the presence of a "false bottom"
of granular material approximately 2 to 4 feet deep which separated
the excavated peat and the underlying swamp. Upon completion of
the backfilling process and placement of the first lift of bituminous
pavement, it was observed that the storm sewer system and curb .and
gutter had undergone substantial settlement. Because if first -
appeared that the problem was caused by improper construction
procedures, "corrective" measures totaling $3,159.20 were ordered
and accomplished. Only then did it become apparent that more serious
problems were involved. Because this occured in early. November,
it was necessary to issue a "stop work order on the project, to
allow time for investigation and resolution of the problem.
Additional subsurface soil testing within the distressed area re-
sulted in the. discovery of the previously undetected swamp deposit
underlying the false bottom. It has now been established that the
underlying swamp varies in thickness between 1 foot and 8 feet, and
that if allowed to consolidate, additional settlement between 6
inches and.12 inches may result.
E
5/7/82 memo to G.G. Splinter
Page 2
Obviously, the most positive solution would be to totally remove
and replace all of the unstable materials in this area, thereby
providing a permanent solution. However, because this would require
excavation to a depth of approximately 24 feet, and the water
table is at about the 10 foot level, the estimated cost of this
,alternate is $60,000 to $70,000. It is my opinion that this is
not a prudent solution.
Other alternative considered included:
(1) placement of a 9 to 10 foot surcharge over the unstable
area, to speed up the consolidation process. It is esti-
mated this would still take 3 to 6 months, and this is
not regarded as a feasible solution. 3
(2) intrusion of chemicals into the unstable soils so as to
"grout them, thereby stopping settlement. This method
is considered very unreliable and costly.
a
Recommendation
Accordingly, our recommendation comprehends current repair of the
unstable area so as to provide a useable roadway, with the know-
ledge that additional settlement will occur over the next 2 to 4
ears.
V Y ,
The proposed Supplemental Agreement No. l comprehends the required
storm sewer adjustments, installation of temporary bituminous side -
walk and rolled bituminous curb, and pavement repairs, at a cost t
of $14,000.00. The proposed resolution attached also provides for
payment to the contractor for the $3,159.20 of work previously
accomplished.
's
After consolidation is complete (in 2 to 4 years) additional expend-
itures of $5,000 to $15,000 may be required to bring the settled
area back to grade, to adjust any storm sewer settlement which
may occur, and to reinstall permanent concrete curb, gutter and 3
sidewalk.
S
Funding For Increased Work
Because it originally appeared that this would be a "clean" project
in which costs were fully predictable, and because we wished to
consolidate this project with other projects accomplished in the
North Industrial Park Assessment District, assessments have already
been levied on the basis of original contract costs.
s
5/7/82 memo to G.G. Splinter
Page 3
It would, of course, be possible to amend that assessment roll
by new proceedings so as to allow the City to levy assessments for
the increased costs. However, it is my opinion that it would be
very difficult to prove benefits to all properties within this
assessment district. In addition, such amended proceedings might
result in appeals of the original assessment as well as the sup-
plemental assessments.
Accordingly, I recommend instead that the additional construction
and engineering charges be paid by the City - from its Municipal
State Aid Street Fund, Account No. 2600. This is comprehended
with the attached resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Sy aPP
F'syt'.g7 2t 74(5 -76)
TL OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Supp. to Contract No. 1981 -
No. 1
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT Sheet I of _1
1r kA9'A0C9 C 1 ty Project NO State Project No.
*)mas & Sons Construction, Inc 1981 -18 N/A
as Location
419 3rd St. S. E., Osseo Freeway Boulevard
T4a contract is amended as follows:
=� The Contractor shall correct storm sewer, curb and gutter, paving, and
tSZ sidewalk settlement conditions between Stations 7 +75 and 8 +75 by completing
B the work described below:
Q4 1. Remove and replace settled sewer in the vicinity of Station
8 +50
_Ao 2. Remove settled curb and gutter between Stations 7 +75 and 8 +75
a and replace with a bituminous rolled edge curb.
°0 3. Remove settled concrete sidewalk between Stations 7 +75 and 8 +75
a and replace with bituminous sidewalk.
4. Remove settled bituminous pavement and gravel base, place
aw- select granular borrow, 6 inches of gravel base and 2 inches
6Y C1 M
of MN /DOT Specification 2341 wear coarse within. settlement
-v area between Stations 7 +75 and 9 +00 and 3 inches of MN,/DOT
X 0.5 Specification 2341 wear coarse within driveways over 4 inches
b
of gravel base.
ov
4
eqr The Contractor shall complete the work at a lump sum cost of $14,000.00
based upon the estimate of costs provided.
0.
� p p
<� a
Pro.No. Account I.D. Organization F.V. Requisition No. Vendor Number Type Terms Source S.Act.. Task S. Task
Cost, Job or Client Code Amount Suffix Object
SEND
TYPE OF TRANSAMON a Entered by .
A40 A41 ate um et
F ❑ a Emend by
A44 A4S A46 Date Number
APPROVED: Original Contract
Commissioner of Administration Dated 19
$9 Approved by Project Engineer or Architect
Dated !9
r , Accepted by Contractor
Approved as to form mid execution Dated — 19
D District Director
Dated 1
M-m tan Attorn Ge neral Approved by Agency Wa
t• - STATIC ALI Dl TOIt, Man ort gnat) 2 C'ON 1'RAC" OR (Pink) 3 AGL• NC'Y (Goldenrod)
EST114ATE OF QUANTITIES
FOR
ROADWAY CORRECTIVE MEASURES
NEGOTIATED ESTIMATED
ITE24 ANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Remove B618C & G 95 L.F. $ 3.00 $ 285.00
Remove Concrete Sidewalk 50 S.Y. 3.00 150.00
Remove Bituminous Paving 600 S.Y. 3.50 2,100.00
Remove and Salvage 18" R.C.P. 36 L.F. . 25.00 900.00
Install Salvaged 18" R.C.P. 36 L.F. 20.00 720.00
Remove and Salvage 15" R.C.P. 40 L.F. 25.00 1,000.00
Remove and Salvage 15" Apron 1 each 50.00 50.00
Furnish & Install 15" C.M.P. 40 L.F. 24.00 960.00
Furnish & Install 15" C.M.P. with
trash guard 1 each 250.00 250.00
Remove and Salvage 12" R.C.P. 24 L.F. 25.00 600.00
Install Salvaged 12 R.C.P. 24 L.F. 20.00 480.00
Remove & Replace M.H. 1 each 900.00 900.00
Class 5 Aggregate (6 ") 200 Tons 5:20 1,040.00 r-
2341 Bituminous Surface 96 Tons 24.45 2,347.20
(2" in street; 3 3 i in Driveway)
2" Bituminous Walk 450 S.F. 1.00 450.00
Sod 115 S.Y. 1.60 184.00
Seed 0.05 Acre 3,200.00 160.00
Mobilization Lump Sum 900.00 900.00
Signing Lump Sum 200.00 200.00
Select Granular Borrow 150 C.Y. 1.95 292.50
ESTIMATED SUBTOTAL $13,968.70
AGREED UPON LUMP SUM COST $140000.00
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A $1,000,000
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE NOTE
(SHINGLE CREEK PLAZA II PROJECT);
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER
474
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as follows:
Section 1 Definitions
1.01. In this Resolution the following terms,
when used with initial capital letters, have the following
respective meanings unless the context hereof or use
herein clearly requires otherwise:
Act the Minnesota Municipal Industrial
Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as
amended;
Assignment the Assignment of Rents and Leases,
to be given by the Partnership in favor of the Lender;
Building the one story office /warehouse
building containing approximately 78,800 square feet,
including the Fixtures, to be constructed on the Land
by the Partnership;
City the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
its successors and assigns;
Construction Loan Agreement: the Construction
Loan Agreement to be executed by the City, the
Partnership and Lender;
' Financing Statement the uniform Commercial Code
Financing Statement to be executed by the City with
respect to the Pledge Agreement;
Fixtures those items defined as such in Section
1 -1 of the Mortgage;
Guarantors Waycrosse, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, Richardson Properties, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, and Panis, Inc., a Minnesota corporation;
Guaranty the Guaranty to be given by the
Guarantors and accepted by the Lender;
Holder the registered owner of the Note;
Land the real estate described in Exhibit A to
the Mortgage;
Lender the First National Bank of Minneapolis,
in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a national banking
association, its successors and assigns;
Loan Agreement the Loan Agreement to be
executed by the City and the Partnership;
Mortgage the Combination Mortgage and Security
Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement to be given
by the Partnership in favor of the Lender;
Note the $1,000,000 Commercial Development
Revenue Note (Shingle Creek Plaza II Pro to be
g }
7
issued by the City pursuant to this Resolution;
Partnership Shingle Creek Plaza II, a Minnesota
general partnership, its successors and assigns;
Pledge Agreement the Pledge Agreement to be
executed by the City and the Lender;
Project the Land, the Building and the Fixtures
..as they may at any time exist;
Project Costs those costs defined as such in
Section 1.01 of the Loan Agreement;
Resolution this resolution of the City, adopted
May 10 1982 __ in -
y , authorizg the issuance of the Bonds
and the 'Note.
Section 2. Findings It is hereby found and
declared that:
(a) the real property and improvements described
in the Loan Agreement and the Mortgage constitute a
Project authorized by the Act;
-2-
(b) the purpose of the Project is, and the
effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare
by the attraction, encouragement and development of
economically sound industry and commerce so as to
prevent the emergence of or to rehabilitate, so far as
possible, blighted and marginal Lands and areas of
chronic unemployment; the retention of industry to use
the available resources of the community in order to
retain the benefit of its existing investment in
educational and public service facilities; halting the
movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age
to other areas and thus preserving the economic and
human resources needed as a base for providing
governmental services and facilities;
(c) the Project has been approved by the
Commissioner of Energy, Planning and Development of
the State of Minnesota as tending to further the '
purposes and policies of the Act;
(d) the financing of the Project, the issuance
and sale of the Note the execution and delivery of the
Loan Agreement, the Financing Statement, the
Construction Loan Agreement and the Pledge Agreement
and the performance of all covenants and agreements of
the City contained in the Loan Agreement and the
Pledge Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement and
of all other acts and things required under the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to
make the Note, the Loan Agreement, the Financing
Statement, the Construction Loan Agreement and the
Pledge Agreement valid and binding obligations of the
City enforceable in accordance with their terms, are
authorized by the Act;
(e) it is desirable that the Commercial
Development Revenue Note in the amount of up to
$1,000,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set
forth herein, and that the City assign its interest in
the Loan Agreement and grant a security for the
payment of the principal of, interest on and premium,
if any, on the Note;
(f) the proceeds of the Note are to be used to
provide temporary financing for a portion of the
Project Costs and it is anticipated that at or before
the maturity of the Note the Partnership will arrange
for permanent financing pf the Project which may take
the form of obligations issued under the Act;
-3-
(g) the loan payments contained in the Loan
Agreement are fixed, and required to be revised from
time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and
revenue sufficient to provide for prompt payment of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the
Note issued under this Resolution when due, and the
Loan Agreement also provides that the Partnership is
required to pay all expenses of the operation and
maintenance of the Project including, but without
limitation, adequate insurance thereon and all taxes
and special assessments levied upon or with respect to
the Project payble during the term of the Loan
Agreement; and
(h) under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 474.10, and as to be provided in the Note, the
Note is not to be payable from nor charged upon any
funds of the City other than the revenue under the
Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof; the
City is not subject to any liability thereon; no
Holder of the Note shall ever have the right to compel
any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay
the Note or the interest or premium or late charges,
if any, thereon, nor enforce payment thereof against
any property of the City except the revenue under the
Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof and the
Project should the City ever acquire title to it; the
Note issued hereunder shall recite that the Note,
including interest and premium, if any, thereon, is
payable solely from the revenue under the Loan
Agreement pledged to the payment thereof; and the Note
shall not constitute a debt of the City within the
meaning of any constitutional, charter or statutory
limitation; provided, however, that nothing contained
in this paragraph (h) shall impair the rights of the
Holder or Holders of the Note to enforce covenants
made for the security thereof as provided in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 474.11.
Section 3. Authorization, Sale and Approvals
3.01. Authority The City is authorized by the
Act to issue revenue bonds, and loan the proceeds thereof
to business enterprises to finance the acquisition and
construction of "projects" as defined in the Act, and to
make all contracts, execute all instruments and do all
things necessary or convenient in the exercise of such
authority,
-4-
3.02. Preliminary City Ap roval The Council
gave preliminary approval to the sale of its revenue bonds
pursuant to the Act and the loan of the proceeds to the
Partnership for the acquisition and improvement of the
Project suitable for use as an office /warehouse building
and authorized the preparation of such documents as may be
appropriate to the Project by the following actions:
(a) October 19, 1981, adoption of Resolution
No. 81 -208, calling a public hearing on the Project;
(b) November 5, 1981, publication in the
Brooklyn Center Post the official newspaper of the
City, of the Notice of Public Hearing;
(c) November 5, 1981, publication in The
Minneapolis Star and in the Minneapolis Tribune
newpapers of general circulation throughout the City,
of the Notice of Public Hearing;
(d) November 23, 1981, public hearing held at
the City Hall; and
(e) November 23, 1981, adoption of Resolution
No. 81 -242, giving preliminary approval to the Project.
3.03. Authorization of Note; Sale of Note The
City hereby authorizes the issuance of the Note in the
principal amount of $1,000,000 and determines to issue the
Note in the form and upon the terms set forth in this
Resolution. The Note.is hereby sold to the Lender at the
prices and upon the terms set forth in this Resolution and
in the Construction Loan Agreement. It is acknowledged by
the City that the proceeds of the Note are to be used to
provide temporary financing for a portion of the Project
Costs and that at or before the maturity of the Note the
Partnership intends to arrange for permanent financing
which may or may not take the form of obligations issued
under the Act.
3.04. Approval of Documents Pursuant to the
above, there have been prepared and presented to this
Council copies of the following documents, all of which
are now, or shall be, placed on file in the office of the
City Clerk:
(a) the Loan Agreement;
(b) the Assignment (not to be executed by
City);
-5-
(c) the Pledge Agreement;
(d) the Mortgage (not to be executed by
City);
(e) the Guaranty (not to be executed by
City);
(f) the Construction Loan Agreement; and
(g) the Financing Statement.
The forms of the documents listed in (a) through (g) above
are approved, with such variations, insertions and
additions as are deemed appropriate by the parties and
approved by the City Attorney and City Manager.
Section 4. Execution of Documents Upon the
completion of the Loan Agreement, the Construction Loan
Agreement, the Financing Statement and the Pledge
Agreement, approved in Section 3.03 hereof, and execution
of the Loan Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement and
Pledge Agreement by the Partnership and the Lender, as the
case may be, the Mayor and the City Manager shall execute
the same on behalf of the City and shall execute the Note
in substantially the form as the Form of Note set forth
following Section 5.01 hereof on behalf of the City, and
shall execute such other certifications, documents or
instruments as bond counsel or counsel for the Lender
shall require, subject to the approval of the City
Attorney, and all certifications, recitals and
representations therein shall constitute the certificates,
recitals and representations of the City. Execution of
any instrument or document by one or more appropriate
officers of the City shall constitute and be deemed the
conclusive evidence of the approval and authorization by
the City and the Council of the instrument or document so
executed. In the absence or disability of the Mayor, any
of the documents authorized by this resolution to be
executed, shall be executed by the acting Mayor, and in
the absence of the City Manager by such officer of the
City who,.in the opinion of the City Attorney, may execute
such documents.
Section 5. The Note
5.01. Form and Authorized Amount The Note
shall be issued substantially in the form hereinafter set
forth, with such appropriate variations, omissions and
insertions as are permitted or required by this
-6
Resolution, and in accordance with the further provisions
of this Section, in the total principal amount of up to
$1,000,000.
-7- -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Commercial Development Revenue Note
(Shingle Creek Plaza II Project)
R-1 $1,000,000
The City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a
municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (the
"City "), for value received, hereby promises to pay to the
order of FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS, or assigns
(the "Holder "), at its principal office in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, or at such other place as the Holder may
designate in writing, from the source and in the manner,
and with interest thereon as hereinafter provided, the
principal sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000), or so
much thereof as has been advanced from time to time
pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement described
below, on May 1, 1985, and to pay interest on the unpaid
principal amount, from the date hereof until this Note is
fully paid, at a rate per annum equal to 93% of the one
month certificate of deposit rate, as reported under the
heading "Money Rates in the Midwest Edition of the Wall
Street Journal published on the first business day ouch
month (or if not so published, as released from time to
time by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System [presently Federal Reserve Statistical Release,
Form H.15 (519)], entitled "Selected interest Rates ") for
such first business day (the "Tax Exempt Rate ") or at such
higher rate or lower rate as hereinafter provided, in any
coin or currency which at the time or times of payment is
legal tender for the payment of public or private debts in
the United States of America, in accordance with the terms
hereinafter set forth. The Tax Exempt Rate shall never be
less than 2% per annum or exceed 30% per annum. The
initial Tax Exempt Rate applicable hereto is
percent ( %) per annum. The Tax Exempt Rate will be
adjusted weekly, if necessary, effective as of the date.of
such release of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System specified above.
Interest on this Note shall accrue from and after
the date of each and every advance hereunder so made by
the Holder and shall be payable on the first day of the
month next succeeding the date of which the first advance
is made and on the first day of each and every month
-8-
thereafter, with a final payment of accrued interest to be
made on May 1, 1985. The principal of and interest on
this Note is payable in lawful money of the United States
of America.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that
the interest on this Note becomes subject to federal
income taxation pursuant to a Determination of Taxability
as defined in the Loan Agreement of even date herewith
(the "Loan Agreement ") between the City and Shingle Creek
Plaza II, a Minnesota general partnership (the
"Partnership "), the interest rate on this Note shall be
,immediately adjusted, from the Date of Taxability as
defined in the Loan Agreement, to a rate per annum which
is equal to one and one -half percent in excess of the rate_
of interest publicly announced by First National Bank of
Minneapolis, a national banking association (the
"Lender "), as its prime rate (which rate shall change on
the day of the effective date of any change in such rate),
(the "Taxable Rate"); provided that the Taxable Rate shall
never be less than 3% per annum or exceed 39% per annum.
Each monthly installment thereafter payable shall be
accordingly adjusted. In addition the City shall pay to
the Holder of this Note and to any prior Holder the
aggregate difference between (A) the amounts actually paid
between the Date of Taxability and the date of such
payment and (B) the amounts that would have been paid to
the Holder and any prior Holder during such period at such
increased interest rate.
In the event the City shall fail to make when due
any interest payments or principal and interest payments
required under this Note, the interest payment or
principal and interest payment so in default shall
continue as an obligation of the City until the interest
payment or principal and interest payment in default shall
have been fully paid, and, to the extent permitted by law,
the City agrees to pay interest thereon at the rate of
interest per annum borne on this Note.
The principal of this Note may be prepaid either
in whole or in part, on any date upon payment of a price
equal to'the principal being so prepaid plus accrued
interest to the date of prepayment.
This Note constitutes an issue in the total
authorized face amount of $1,000,000. This Note is issued'
by the City pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the "Act ") for the
purpose of providing funds for a Project, as defined in
-9-
Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.02, Subdivision la,
consisting of certain real estate and improvements
thereon, and paying necessary expenses incidental thereto,
such funds to be loaned by the City to the Partnership
pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the City on May 10,
1982 (the "Resolution "), the Construction Loan Agreement
and the Loan Agreement, thereby assisting activities in
the public interest and for the public welfare of the
City. This Note is secured by a Pledge Agreement, of even
date herewith (the "Pledge Agreement "), between the City
and the Lender, a Mortgage and Security Agreement, of even
date herewith (the "Mortgage "), given by the Partnership
in favor of the Lender, an Assignment of Rents and Leases,
of even date herewith (the "Assignment "), given by the
Partnership in favor of the Lender and a Guaranty, of even
date herewith (the "Guaranty ") given by Waycrosse, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, Richardson Properties, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, and Panis, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, in favor of the Lender.
As provided in the Resolution, the City will
cause to be kept at the office of the City Clerk a Note
Register g in .which, subject to such reasonable regulations
as it may prescribe, the City shall provide for the
registration or transfer of ownership of this Note. This
Note is transferable upon the books of the City at the
office of the City Clerk, by the Holder hereof in person
or by its attorney duly authorized in writing, upon
surrender hereof together with written g a w ten instrument of
transfer satisfactory to the City Clerk, duly executed by
the Holder or its duly authorized attorney. Upon such
transfer the City Clerk will note the date of registration
and the name and address of the new Holder upon the books
of the City and in the registration blank appearing
below. Alternatively, the City will at the request of the
Holder issue new notes in an aggregate principal amount
equal to the unpaid principal balance of this Note, and of
like tenor except as to number, principal amount and the
amount of the monthly installments payable thereunder, and
registered in the name of the registered Holder or such
transferee as may be designated by the Holder. The City
may deem and treat the person in whose name this Note is
last registered upon the books of the City with such
registration noted on the Note as the absolute owner
hereof, whether or not overdue, for the purpose of
receiving payment of or on account of the principal
balance or interest and for all other purposes, and all
such payments so made to the Holder or upon its order
shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the
liability upon this Note to the extent of the sum or sums
-10-
so paid, and the City shall not be affected by any notice
to the contrary.
All of the agreements, conditions, covenants,
provisions and stipulations contained in the Resolution,
the Loan Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement, the
Mortgage, the Assignment, the Guaranty and the Pledge
Agreement are hereby made a part of this Note to the same
extent and with the same force and effect as if they were
fully set forth herein. If the City should fail to make
any monthly installment of interest or principal and
interest when due, which failure shall continue for ten
(10) days, or if an event of default occurs under the Loan
Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement, the Guaranty,
the Mortgage or the Assignment, then the Holder may at its
right and option, by written notice to the City and the
Partnership, declare immediately due and payable the
principal balance of this Note and interest accrued
thereon to the date of declaration of such default,
together with any attorney's fees incurred by the Holder
in collecting or enforcing payment of interest or
principal of this Note, without notice to or consent of
any party.
This Note shall not be payable from nor charged
upon any funds of the City other than the revenue under
the Loan Agreement pledged-to the payment thereof, nor
shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. No
Holder of this Note shall ever have the right to compel
any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay this
Note or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment
thereof against any property of the City except revenue
under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof,
other than to the extent payable out of any proceeds
received from the sale or other disposition of the
property subject to the Mortgage and Assignment should the
City ever acquire title to it. This Note shall not
constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or
equitable, upon any property of the City, except the
revenue under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment
thereof and the property subject to the Mortgage and
Assignment should the City ever acquire title to it. This
Note, including interest thereon, is payable solely from
the revenue under the Loan Agreement pledged to the
payment thereon, other than to the extent payable out of
the revenue bonds to be issued by the City pursuant to the
Act and out of any proceeds received under the Guaranty or
out of any proceeds received from the sale or other
disposition of the property subject to the Mortgage and
Assignment. This Note shall not constitute a debt of the
-11-
City within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory
or charter limitation. However, nothing contained in this
paragraph shall impair the rights of the Holder of this
Note to enforce covenants made for the security thereof as
provided under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 474.11,
The Holder shall not be deemed, by any act of
omission or commission, to have waived any of its rights
or remedies hereunder unless such waiver is in writing and
signed by the Holder and then only to the extent
specifically set forth in the writing. A waiver with
reference to one event shall not be construed as
continuing or as a bar to or waiver of any right or remedy
as to a subsequent event.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all
conditions, acts and things required to exist, happen, and "
be performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Note
do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular
and due form as required by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Note
to be duly executed by its duly authorized officers and
its corporate seal affixed all as of the day of
1982.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER,
MINNESOTA
By
Mayor
And
City Manager
(SEAL)
-12-
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the unpaid principal balance of
this Note and the interest accruing thereon is registered
on the books of the City in the name of the registered
holder last noted below.
Date of Name and Address of Signature of
Registration Registered Holder City Clerk
First National Bank
of Minneapolis
120 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55480
I I
-13-
I�
5.02. Note Terms The Note shall be designated
the Commercial Development Revenue Note (Shingle Creek
Plaza II Project), and shall:
(a) be dated as of the date of delivery thereof
to the Lender.
(b) be in the total principal amount of
$1,000,000 or such lesser amount as may from time to
time be advanced under the Loan Agreement and the
Construction Loan Agreement.
(c) mature on May 1, 1985 and bear interest on
the unpaid principal balance advanced from time to
time from date of issue until paid or discharged as
herein provided payable on the first day of the month
next succeeding the date of which the first advance is
made under the Note and on the first day of each and
every month thereafter, with a final payment of
accrued interest to be made on May 1, 1985, at a rate
per annum equal to 93% of the one month certificate of
deposit rate, as reported under the heading "Money
Rates" in the Midwest Edition of the Wall Street
Journal published on the first business day of each
month (or if not so published, as released from time
to time by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System [presently Federal Reserve Statistical
Release, Form H.15 (519)], entitled "Selected Interest
Rates ") for such first business day (the "Tax Exempt
Rate ") or at such higher rate as herein, provided that
the Tax Exempt Rate shall never be less than 2% per
annum or exceed 30% per annum, and provided further
that upon its initial issuance until the first
business day after the fourth day of the following
month the rate of interest on the Note shall be equal
to the one month certificate of deposit rate as
reported under the heading "Money Rates" in the
Midwest Edition of the Wall Street Journal published
on the date of issuance of the Note (or if not so
published, as most recently released by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System [presently
Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Form H.15 (519)],
entitled "Selected Interest Rates ") as of such
business day. Notwithstanding any in this Resolution
to the contrary in the event the interest on the Note
becomes subject to federal income taxation pursuant to
a "Determination of Taxability" as defined in the Loan
Agreement, the interest rate on the Note shall be
immediately adjusted to a rate per annum which is
equal to one and one -half percent in excess of the
-14-
rate of interest publicly announced by First National
Bank of Minneapolis, a national banking association
(the "Lender "), as its prime rate (which rate shall
change on the day of the effective date of any change
in such rate), provided, that such increased rate
shall never be less than 3% per annum or exceed 39%
per annum, from the Date of Taxability, as defined in
the Loan Agreement, all as provided in the form of the
Note contained in Section 5.01 hereof. The rate of
interest borne on the Note prior to a Determination of
Taxability will be adjusted weekly, if necessary, on
the applicable day as of the date of such release by
the Board of Govenors of the Federal Reserve System
referred to herein.
(d) be subject to redemption and prepayment in
whole or in part on any date upon payment of a price
equal to the
q principal being so prepaid plus accrued
interest to the date of prepayment.
5.03 Execution The Note shall be executed on
behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the
City Manager, and shall be sealed with its corporate
seal. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on
the Note shall cease to be such officer before the
delivery thereof, such signature shall nevertheless be
valid and sufficient for all purposes.
5.04. Mutilated, Lost and Destroyed Note In
case the Note shall become mutilated or be destroyed or
lost, the City upon compliance by the Holder with any
applicable provision of law shall cause to be executed and
delivered a new Note of like outstanding principal amount
and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon
cancellation of the mutilated Note, or in lieu of and in
substitution for such Note destroyed or lost, upon the
Holder's paying the reasonable expenses and charges of the
City in connection therewith, and in case the Note is
destroyed or lost, its filing with the City evidence
satisfactory to it and compliance with any applicable
provisions of law.
5.05. Registration of Transfer The City will
cause to be kept at the office of the City Clerk a Note
Register in which, subject to such reasonable regulations
as it may prescribe, the City shall provide for the
registration or transfer of ownership of the Note. The
Note shall be transferable upon the books of the City by
the Holder thereof in person or by its attorney duly
authorized in writing, upon surrender of the Note together
-15-
with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the
City Clerk, duly executed by the Holder or its duly
authorized attorney. Upon such transfer the City Clerk
shall note the date of registration and the name and
address of the new Holder on the books of the City and in
the registration blank appearing on the Note.
Alternatively, the City shall, at the request and expense
of the Holder, issue new notes, in aggregate outstanding
principal amount equal to that of the Note surrendered,
and of like tenor except as to number, principal amount
and the amount of the monthly installments payable
thereunder, and registered in the name of the Holder or
such transferee as may be designated by the Holder. The
City may deem and treat the person in whose name each Note
is last registered upon the books of the City with such
registration noted on the Note as the absolute owner
thereof, whether or not overdue, for the purpose of
receiving payment of or on account of the principal
balance, prepayment price or interest and for all other
purposes, and all such payments so made to the Holder or
upon its order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and
discharge the liability upon this Note to the extent of
the sum or sums so paid, and the City shall not be
affected by any notice to the contrary.
5.06. Delivery and Use of Proceeds Prior to
delivery of the Nate, the documents referred to below
shall be completed and executed in form and substance as
approved by the City Attorney. The City shall execute and
deliver to the Lender the Note in the total principal
amount of up to $1,000,000, together with the following:
(a) a duly certified copy of this Resolution;
(b) original, executed counterparts of the Loan
Agreement, Construction Loan Agreement, Financing
Statement and the Pledge Agreement; and
(c) such closing certificates, opinions and
related documents as are required by bond counsel.
Upon delivery of the Note and the above items to
the Lender, the Lender shall, on behalf of the City,
disburse to the Partnership the proceeds of the Note in
reimbursement of Project Costs pursuant to the provisions
of the Loan Agreement and the Construction Loan Agreement,
and the proceeds so disbursed shall be deemed to have been
disbursed for the be of the City. The Lender and the
Partnership shall provide the City with a full accounting
of all funds disbursed for Project Costs.
-16-
Section 6. Limitations of the City's
obligations Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Note, the Loan Agreement, the Construction Loan Agreement,
the Pledge Agreement, or any other documents referred to
in Section 3.04 hereof, the Note shall not be payable from
nor charged upon any funds of the City other than the
revenue under the Loan Agreement pledged to the payment
thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability
thereon. No Holder or Holders of the Note shall ever have
the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of
the City to pay the Note or the interest or any premium or
late charges thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof
against any property of the City, other than the property
subject to the Mortgage and Assignment should the City
ever acquire title to it. The Note shall not constitute a-
charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any
property of the City, other than the property subject to
the Mortgage and Assignment should the City ever acquire
title to it. The Note, including interest and premium, if
any, thereon, is payable solely from the revenue under the
Loan Agreement pledged to the payment thereof, except to
the extent payable out of the proceeds received under the
Guaranty or out of any proceeds received from the sale or
other disposition of the property subject to the Mortgage
and Assignment. The Note shall not constitute a debt of
the City within the meaning of any constitutional, charter
or statutory limitation. However, nothing contained in
this Section 6 shall impair the rights of the Holder or
Holders of the Note to enforce covenants made for the
security thereof as provided under the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.11.
Section '7. Registration and Certification of
Proceedings
7.01 Registration The City Clerk is hereby
authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this
resolution with the Director of Property Taxation of
Hennepin County, together with such other information as
he shall require, and to obtain from the Director of
Property Taxation a certificate that the Note has been
entered in his bond register as required by law.
7.02. Certification of Proceedings The
officers of the City and the Director of Property Taxation
of Hennepin County are directed to prepare and furnish to
the Lender, and to the attorneys rendering an opinion as
to the legality of the issuance of the Note, certified
copies of all proceedings and records of the City, and
such other affidavits, certificates and information as may
-17-
be required to show the facts relating to the legality of
the Note as the same appears from the books and records
under their custody and control or as otherwise known to
them, and all such certified copies, certificates and
affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be
deemed representatives of the City as to the facts stated
therein.
Adopted: , 1982.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
-18-
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,
-19
t
Ed
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center that
the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an
agreement with Brauer and Associates, Inc., to provide landscape, architectural,
and engineering services required to complete contract documents, bidding, and
construction observation for site development of park facilities within the
southern portion of Palmer Lake Park in accordance with the contract proposal
for professional services.
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
a
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
PARKS AND RECREATION
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Telephone 561 -5448
woo +arw cunw
MEMO
TO G.G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM Gene Hagel, Director of Parks $ Recreatio
i
DATE May 5, 1982
SUBJECT: Palmer Lake Nature Area
Included on the City Council agenda for May 10, 1982, is a
resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with Brauer
and Associates for landscape, architectural, and engineering services
for the proposed Palmer Lake Nature Area.
I have received verbal commitment of approval of our grant application
for the Palmer Lake project. Formal approval will be received on or
about May 15.
The grant application had been forwarded for possible LAWCON'
(Federal) funding which has been approved.
Initial funding was to be 50% State and 50% Local money. With the
approval of Federal funding the breakdown is 30% LAWCON, 35% State,
and 35% local. The City's share is funded from Park Bond proceeds.
f
December 14, 1981
x
City of Brooklyn Center
Parks and Recreation Department
City Hall
_6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: Contract Proposal for Professional Services
Palmer Lake Park
Gentlemen:
This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee sche-
dule and other elements which, if approved, constitutes an
agreement between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, herein referred to as the OWNER, and ---
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC., herein referred to as the
CONSULTANT.
p
The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide landscape
architectural and engineering services required to complete
contract documents, bidding and construction observation for
site development of park facilities within the southern por-
tion of Palmer Lake Park, hereinafter referred to as the
PROJECT.
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES Basic Services
1. Design development and cost analysis of all elements
of the PROJECT including:
i
ROADS AND PARKING LOT x
*Storm sewer
*Concrete curbing
*Gravel base
*Asphalt surface
STRUCTURES
*Observation points t
*Bridges
*Fencing
*Be.nches
*Signing
MISCELLANEOUS
*Wood chip paths y
*Seed and sodding +
*Landscape - planting-
7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660
City of Brooklyn Center -2- December 14, 1981
2. Meeting(s) with OWNER to review design development details
prior to starting final construction documents and
specifications.
3. Construction Drawings and Specifications for development
work and required details complete and ready for bidders
for all elements outlined in A -1, above.
4 Furnish the OWNER with one check 'set of contract drawings
and specifications for review and feedback to the CON -
SULTANT prior to advertisement for bid.
5. CONSULTANT will comply with all current LCMR, rules and
regulations regarding this PROJECT.
6 Bidding Procedures which include preparation of adver-
tisements for bids, issuance of drawings and specifica-
tions to bidders, clarification of questions by addenda
during the bidding period, direction of bidders con-
ference, analysis of bids received, recommendations for
contract award and assistance in preparation of contract
documents for each contract awarded.
7. Construction Observation: Periodic communication with the
Contractor and OWNER and visits to the site on the average
of one per week during construction to interpret design
intent of the plans and specifications; set up payment
schedule; approve shop drawings; make general progress
reports; process change orders; and approve field changes.
B. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion of
professional services described above as follows
1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in
Paragraphs A -1 through A -5, above, a Lump Sum Fee which
includes all expenses of FIFTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
SIXTY THREE DOLLARS ($15,463.00).
2. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in
Paragraph A -6, above, a lump sum fee of ONE THOUSAND THREE
HUNDRED TWENTY -FIVE DOLLARS ($1,325.00).
3. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in
Paragraph A -7, above, a fee to. be determined on the basis
of the following hourly rates, plus expenses, to an esti-
mated maximum of FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWO DOLLARS
($5,302400). The maximum fee will be budgeted coincide
with the contractor's anticipated PROJECT.completion date.
Senior Professionals $60.00 per hour
Professionals $20.00'- 52.00 per hour
Senior Technicians- $30.00 per hour
Technicians $13.00 - 26.00 per hour
City of Brooklyn Center -3 December 14, 1981
C.. PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT
1. Statements will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly
basis, with a breakdown of time and expenses for services
performed, or work completed, through the 25th of the pre -
vious month.
2. Payments on account of CONSULTANT'S services are due and
payable within thirty days of receipt of CONSULTANT'S
statement of services rendered.
D. --OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY
.The OWNER shall make available or allow access to all exist-
ing data related to the work and all other data or information
which may develop that could possibly have a bearing on the
decisions or recommendations made under this Agreement. The
OWNER shall specifically provide where available:
1. Base mapping including an accurate boundary representation
with utilities, easements, etc.
2. Identification of any site restrictions.
3. Soil borings and surveys integral to PROJECT requirements,
utilities and other data which describes the general
nature and conditions of the site.
4. Topographic mapping of all areas to be studied including'
adjacent areas. The OWNER will field confirm all topo-
graphic mapping prior to start -up of Design Development.
5. OWNER to provide standard 'City specifications that the
OWNER may require as a part of the Contract Documents.
6. Printing of all plans and specifications required by the
PROJECT.
1. Additional data or information which will have a bearing
on the planning or design conclusions and recommendations
of the CONSULTANT.
8. One designated individual with whom the CONSULTANT can
- meet, receive instructions and deliver information and
coordinate all planning activities.
E. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
1. The Term of the Agreement shall be concurrent with the
work authorized.
City of Brooklyn Center -4- December 14, 1981
2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at any
time by written notice, and shall be effective upon
payment in full for all services performed to the date of
receipt of such notice.
3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its part-
ners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the
other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, suc-
cessors, assigns and legal representatives of such other
party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement.
4. Neither the OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet
or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
F. NONDISCRIMINATION
The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, physical condition or age. The
CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that appli-
cants are employed and that employees are treated during
employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall
include but not be limited to the following: Employment,
upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising,
layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compen-
sation and selection for training including apprenticeship.
G. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE
1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly
fees, design calculations and research notes in legible
' form and will be made, available to the OWNER, if re-
quested.
2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him from
claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for
damages because of bodily injury including death to his
employees and the public, and from claims for property da-
mage.
3. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and maintain
statutory copyright in all books, published or
unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical
character, and other works related to this PROJECT in
which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full
rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in
whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. One copy of
each drawinq shall be provided in reproducible form for
use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain
the property of the CONSULTANT.
f
City of Brooklyn Center -5- December 14, 1981
f
N. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW g
1. This agreement represents the entire and integrated
agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and super-
sedes all prior negotiations, representations, or
agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the
PROJECT. This agreement may be amended only by written
instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT.
4
2. Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be
governed by the law of the principal place of business
of the CONSULTANT. -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and exe-
cuted this Agreement,
This day of 1982.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota In presence of:
Mayor
City Manager
BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC. In presence of:
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
T
Pa dl S' M.L.A.
_President
vw
r
t
f
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
s �
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CLOSING PROJECT COSTS, AUTHORIZED IMPROVEMENTS, AND
RELATED RESERVE ACCOUNTS
WHEREAS, construction is completed, costs tabulated, the related
assessments have been levied, and the financing completed for certain improve-
ment projects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been given a final cost summary for
these projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, that the Finance Director is directed to close the books of
accounts for the following improvement projects: 1978 -06, 1978 -38, 1978 -39,
1978 -44, 1978 -45A, 1978 -45B, 1978 -46, 1979 -02, 1979 -05, 1979 -06 1979 -09,
1979 -10, 1980 -03, 1980 -07, 1980 -14, 1980 -15, 1980 -24,
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 follwoing voted against the same:. r
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
{
i
.PROJECT NO. 1978 -06
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
#1,M: ` ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
,DATE March 15, 1982
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
OR T I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -156
adopted on August 10 19 81
Construction Costs $ 640,068.12 _ s
Engineering Costs $ 57.606.13
Administrative and Legal Costs $ 12,$01.36
Capitalized Interest $ 106,571.34
Other Costs $ n -00 A`
Total Project Costs = $ 817,046.95
Notes:
" PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this projects
; Special Assessments $ 571,932.87 (1)
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2)
• M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ (458,465.28 cr) (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 624_546.43 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 79,032.93 - (5)
$ 0.00 (6)
Other
Total Revenues $ 817,046.95
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. 8184 adopted on September 14 198
(2) Explanation:
(3) Explanation: Credit Account 2611 for receipt of excess
finances
(4) Explanation: Amount reported to MN /DOT under_ "Report of St ate
Aid Contract" _
(5) See "Report.of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
' attached.
(6) Explanation:
BY: nt
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT ,PROJECT NO. 1978 -38
FRQM,; ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
'RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE ATD PROJECT
.ART I. Following is a summary'of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -142
adopted•on July 27 19 81 TOTAL B.C. PORTION
Construction Costs $ .403,426.73 $ 191,749.76
Engineering Costs $ 49-,236.04 24,618.02
Administrative and Legal Costs $ 8,068.5.3 3,835.00
Capitalized Interest $ 45,721.70 21,731.64
Other Costs $ 0.00 264,518.58*
Total Project Costs = $ 506,453.00 506,453.00
Notes * Other costs attributable to the City of Minneapoli's
including contract and engineering costs (eligible for re
imbursement) and other overhead costs not eligible for
reimbursement.
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $
22, 951.15 (1)
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 30,164.99 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue .Proceeds)
0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 215,521.08 (5)`
Other $ 237,815.78 (6)
Total Revenues $ 506 -, 453.00
(l) Assessment roll Levy No. 8148 adopted on A ugust 24, `1981
(2) Explanation:
(3) Explanation:' Account expenditure required to finance
nori- M.S.A. eligible costs
(4) Explanation:
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid.Division /MNDOT
attached.
(6) Explanation: "Other Costs" paid by the City of Minneapolis
v
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
SART I. Following is a summary of final project costs as - approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81- 142_x,
adopted 'on July 27 9 8•
TOTAL B.C.-PORTION
Construction Costs $ 172,482.02 $ 112,945.68
Engineering Costs $ 26,037.66 13,018.83
Administrative and Legal -Costs '$ 3,449.64 2,258.91
Capitalized Interest $ 19,547.96 12,800.51
Other Costs $ 0. 0 0 80,493.35*
Total Project Costs $ 221,517.28 $ 221,517.28
Notes * Other costs attributable to the City of Minneapolis
including contract and engineering costs (eligibl for
bursement) and other overhead costs not eligible for reimbursement
m
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
.Special Assessments: $
19, 925.92 W'.
M.S.A. Account _260Q;`(Expendable) $
0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 8,534.55 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $
_ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 120,501.64 (5)
Other $ 72,555.17 (6)
Total Revenues $ 221,517.28.
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. 8148 , adopted on August 24, 1981
(2) Explanation:
(3) Explanation: Expenditure required to compensate for revenue
source shortfall.
(4) Explanation: .
(5)`' See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached.
(6) Explanation: "Other Costs" paid the City of Minneapoli
BY :
._
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
'RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
ARAR I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -181 ,
adopted September 14 19 TOTAL B.C. PORTION
Construction Costs $ .68,486.26 $ - 10,888.68 * *'
Engineering Costs $ 6,163.76 0.00
Administrative Costs $ 684.86 0.00
Capitalized Interest $ 0.00 0.00
Other Costs $ 0.00 64,446.20*
Total Project Costs $ 75,334.88 $ 75,334.88
Notes ....
Other costs attributable to the City Minneapolis
** Brooklyn Center Construction Cost of $11,346 was
reduced by $457.94 as credit for Mpls. >,payment of all over-
head costs.
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $ 0.00 (1)
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $
0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ (2,900.62cr1 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $
0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 11,681.99 (5)
Other $ 66,553.51 (6)
Total Revenues $ 75,334.88
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. , adopted on
(2) Explanation:
(3) Explanation: Credit Account 2611 for excess finances rece
(4) Explanation:
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid - Division /MNDOT
attached.
(6);: Explanation:
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT rnvvc
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
IWT I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -156 ,
adopted on August 10 19
Construction Costs $ 512,291.40
Engineering Costs Costs $ 46,106.23
Administrative and Legal -Costs $ 10,245.82
Capitalized Interest $ 90,982.95
Other Costs $ 0.00
Total Project Costs $ 659,626.40
i
Notes
0
PART II. Following is :a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $ 461,738.48 W'.
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2),
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ (354,167.33 cr) (3)
..� �
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 127, ( 4
)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 424,157.09 (5)
Other $ 0 (6)
Total Revenues $ 659,626.40
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. 8184 , adopted on September 14, 798.1
(2) Explanation;
(3) Explanation: Credit Account 2611 for excess finances recei
(4) Explanation: Amount reported to MN /DOT under "Report of St ate
Aid Contract"
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached.
(5)(9) Explanation: added to 1979 =05. See cost summary
for 1979 -05 for balance of M.S.A. funds available.`
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
'RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
4VRT I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -15.6 ,
adopted on August 10 19
Construction Costs $ 406,473.22
Engineering Costs $ 36,582.59
Administrative and Legal.Costs $ 8,129.46
Capitalized Interest $ 44,190.00
Other Costs $ x.00*
Total Project Costs $ 500,037.27
Votes * Resolution established cost at $5,003.0 based upon
estimate. Actual cost was $4,662.00.
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
.Special Assessments $
319,232.71 (1)
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ (232,676.57cr) �3}
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved` Projects) "$ 413,481.13 (5)
Other $._ 0.00 (6)
Total Revenues $ 500,037.27
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. 8184 ` adopted` on September 14, 1981
(2) Explanation;
(3) Explanation: Credit Account 2611 for excess finances recei
(4) Explanation:
(5 } See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid- Divisio
attached. '
(6) Explanation:
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 19 82
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
4
T I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -181 ,
adopted on September 4 19 81 TOTAL B.C. PORTION
Construction Costs $ 119,955.44 $ 59,977.72
Engineering Costs $ 10,795.99 $ 5,397.99
Administrative Costs $ 1,199.55 $ 599.78
-Capitalized Interest $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Other Costs $ 0.00 $ 65,975.49*
Total Project Costs _ $ 131,950.98 $ 131,950.98
Notes *Other costs attributable to the City of Mi nneapolis
including contract and engi nP ri ng (aGt G /Pl i rr i h� c' ' f ^'" reim
bursement) and other overhear no-,i - c not Ai i ai hl , - ^r -r-eimburse-
ment.
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2)
M.''S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 7,210.02 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 61,750.48 (5)
Other $ 62,990.48 (6)
Total Revenues $ 131,950.98
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. adopted on
(2) Explanation:
(3) Explanation: A ccount expenditure required to finance
non - M.S.A. eligible storm sewer costs.
(4) Explanation.
(S) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached.
y (6) Explanation: "Other Costs" paid by the City of Minneapoli
}
BY:
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT Yxu�rc:t rw -- -
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE A7D PROJECT
&ART I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -158 ,
adopted �on August 10 19 81
Construction Costs $ 131,906.00
Engineering Costs $ 11,871.54
Administrative and Legal.Costs $ 2,638.12
Capitalized Interest $ 21,230.27
Other Costs $ 0.00
Total Project Costs $ 167,645.93
Notes
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $ 117,352.15 (1)
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ (24,053.19,cr)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds S 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) _$ 68,043.06 (5)
Other $ 6,303.91 (6)
Total Revenues $ 1 67, 645.93
(1) ; Assessment roll Levy No. 8185 , adopted on September 14, 198 _
(2) . Explanation:
(3) Explanation: _Credit Account 2611 for excess finances recei
(5)R40 Explanation: 1979 -05 added to 1978 -45A. See cost summary
for 1978 -45A for balance of M.S.A. funds available
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached.
(6)'' Explanation: from Capital Improvement Fund for work-at
City shop
r
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT ,PROJECT r10. -
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
SORT I Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No.
adopted on 19
Construction Costs $ 71,346.84`
Engineering Costs $ 6,417 62
Administrative and Legal Costs- $ 1,
Capitalized Interest $ 11,`015.13
Other Costs $ 0.00 _
Total Project Costs _ $ 9 0,165.73
Notes: Project open awaiting final MN/DOT-invoice- r-it v - has
been invoiced by MN /DOT for $71,306.84 for con struction
and $2,579.65 for Engineerinq.Services,
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $ 63,116.01. (1)'
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 �(2)
. M.S.A. Account 26 11 (Restricted Reserve) $ (40,2 cr) (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 67,331.15 (5)
Other $ 0 .0 0 (6)
Total Revenues $ 90,165.73
8184 September 14, 1981`
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. 8374 , adopted on .December 21, 198
(2) Explanation:
(3) Explanation: Credit Account for excess finances received
(4) Explanation:
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached. r
(6) Explanation:
by: X12 t_;_
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15-198
'RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
ART I. Following is a summary of final project costs as aLproved.by
City Council Resolution No. . r
adopted on June 8 19 81
Construction Costs $ 11,382.20
Engineering Costs $ 1,024.40
r
Administrative Costs $ 113.82
Capitalized Interest $ 0.00
0.00
-Other Costs $ _
Total Project Costs = $ 12,5 20.42
Notes
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $ 0..00 (1).
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 7,- 136.32 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 0.00 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 0.00 (5)
Other $ 5,384.10 (6)
Total 'Revenues $ 12,520642
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. adopted on
(2) Explanation: Account expenditure required to finance
trailway construction costs not reimbursed by County
(3) Explanation::
R ' ( 4) Explanation:
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Divsion/MNDOT
attached.
(6) Explanation: Cost invoiced to Fennepin County
BY:
TO :. FINANCE DEPARTMENT ;PROJECT r10. 1979-10
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 19 82
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE A ?D ; PROJECT
*ART I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -119 ,
adoptedion June 8 19 81
Construction Costs $ 82,541.00
Engineering Costs $ 9,335.72
Administrative Costs $ 825.41
Capitalized Interest $ 0.00
r
Other Costs $ O.AO
Total Project Costs $ 92,702.13
Notes Resolution did not establish overhead costs. Usual
percentages taken. -
PART Ii. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
'Special Assessments $ 0.00 (1).
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 1,582.60 _(3?
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 69,763.18 (5)
Other $ 21,356.35 (6)
1
Total Revenues $ 92.702.13 _
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. adopted on
(2) Explanation:
(3) Explanation Expenditure required to compensate for.'revenu
source shortfall.
(4) Explanation:
t (5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached. $69,763.18 received under 10.9 - 108 -03
(6) Explanation: . 1 $21,356 . '35 received from;-MN/DOT under aareg
6"-i46 (Invoice '3830)
BY: �nvt .c.-
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT ;PROJECT r10.
FROK: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE Marsh 15, 1982
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
ART I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 80 -270 ,
adopted November 17 19 80
1,435.41 *)_ 26,129.86
Construction Costs $ 24,694.45 )
Engineering_ Costs $ 2,351.69
Administrative Costa - S 261.30
Capitalized Interest $ 0.00
Other Costs $ 0.00 _
Total Project Costs = $ 28,742.85
Notes Resolution established construction cost only. Overhead
costs set at usual percentage.
* Acton Construction Co. for 1) Increase in the width
bituminous paving North boundary of liabrary site
2) 6 wide sidewalk requested by City at library site
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $ 0.00 E1)'
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 28,742.85 (
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 0.00 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 0.00 (5)
Other $
0.00 (6)
Total Revenues $ 28.742.85
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. , adopted on
(2) Explanation: _NoRes'nlution provided' for appropriation
(3) Explanation:
(4) Explanation:
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid,Divis'ion /MND.OT
attached. .
(6) Explanation:
TO: FINANC:t: ur.r1A1 111L1v1
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
.RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
ART I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -223_`
adopted on November 23 19
Construction Costs $ 59,455.81
Engineering Costs $ 10,016.73 '
Administrative Costs $ 594.56
Capitalized Interest $ 0.00
Other Costs $ 650.36
Total Project Costs $ 70,717.46
Notes Resolution did not provide -for overhead costs, but
they are included here. $650.36 charge for lawn
sprinkler repair. -- -- —
PART II. Following is a- summary of funding sources for this project:
' (1) •
Special Assessments $ 0.00_
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ '0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 4,609.02 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 6 6,108.44, (5)
Other $ 0.00 (6) -
Total Revenues $ 70,717.46
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. , adopted on
(2) Explanations
(3) Explanation:
(4) Explanation
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached.
(6) Explanation:
BY:
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT ;Yttvv� rrv FROM : ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE arc 15, 19 2
RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
0
f final p roject costs as approved by
ART I. Following is a summary P J •
City Council Resolution No. 0 - 22D ,
adopted on November 17 19 g0 __
Construction Costs $ 3,640.55
Engineering Costs $ 327.65
Administrative Costs $ 36.40
Capitalized Interest $ 0.00
Other Costs $ 0.00 -
Total Project Costs = $ 4,004.60
Notes Resolution did not provide overhead costs; usual perce ntages
were used.
PART II-Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
`Special Assessments $ 040 (l)'
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 4,004.60 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 0.00 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. 'Account 2613 (State Approved °Projects) $ 0.00 (5)
Other $ .0.00 (6)
Total Revenues $ 4,004.60
Al) Assessment roll 'Levy No. adopted on
(2) Explanation: Resolution 80 -121 established financing in
the account
(3) Explanation:
(4 ) Explanation: -
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate" to State Aid Division /MNDOT
attached. .
(6) Explanation: ,
BY:
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,DATE March 15, 1982
+ RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
*ART I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 80 -270 ,
adopted on November 17 19 �$Tl —:
Construction Costs $ - 7,628.10
Engineering Costs $ 686.53
Administrative Costs $ 76.28
Capitalized Interest $ 0.00 •
Other Costs $ 0.00 r
Total Project Costs $ 8,390.91
Notes Resolution did not provide overhead costs;
usual percentages were used
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project
Special Assessments $ 0. (l)'
M.S.A. Account 2600 (Expendable) $ 8,190.91 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ 0.00 (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 0.00 (5)
Other $ 200.8.0 (6)
Total Revenues $ 8,390.9
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. , adopted on
(2) Explanation: Resolution 80-122 established financing in
the account.
(3) Explanation:
(4) Explanation:
(5) See "Report of Final Estimate to State Aid Division /MNDOT'
attached.
(6) Explanation: Amount paid by Labelle's under Brooklyn-Center
Invoice #3591
TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FROM: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,.DATE March 15, 198
`RE: FINAL PROJECT COST SUMMARY FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT
AWT I. Following is a summary of final project costs as approved by
City Council Resolution No. 81 -2 ,
adopted on November 23 81
Construction Costs $ .199,450.75 '
Engineering Costs $ 17;950.57
Administrative and Legal-Costs $ 3,989.02
Capitalized Interest $ 12,914.44
Other Costs $
1,443.20
Total Project Costs $ 235,747.98
Notes
PART II. Following is a summary of funding sources for this project:
Special Assessments $ - 210,471.36 (1) _
M.S.A. Account 2609 (Expendable) $ 0.00 (2)
M.S.A. Account 2611 (Restricted Reserve) $ (26,390.07 cr) (3)
M.S.A. Account 2612 (Bond Issue Proceeds) $ 0.00 (4)
M.S.A. Account 2613 (State Approved Projects) $ 50,223.49 (5)
Other $ 1,443.20 (6)
Total Revenues $ 235,747.98
(1) Assessment roll Levy No. 8375 , adopted on Deca�ber 21, 1981
(2) Explanation: Resolution No. 81 -266 deleted $23,833.42 fin Assessment
Levy, but provided for future levy of the amount.
(3) Explanation: Credit Account 2611 for excess finances
(4) Explanation:
(5), See "Report of Final Estimate to State Aid Division /MNDOT _
attached.
(6) Explanation: Direct payment by developer under Brooklyrr
Center invoice
BY : =Y�2
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant
DATE: May 6, 1982
SUBJECT: Joslyn Pole Yard Study
The resolution before the City Council approving the use of $35,000 in
Community Development Block Grant funds authorizes an extensive land use
and market analysis of the Joslyn Pole Yard and surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed study will give special emphasis to the problems associated
with the development of that site and the creosote problem that affects
it's development. The study will also include a market analysis of the
site as well as an analysis of traffic flow patterns in that neighborhood.
Other problems to be addressed in the plan include the beach and the boat
access within the neighborhood. It is proposed that the consultant selected
would hold neighborhood meetings to receive resident perspective of the
problems in the area.
Brooklyn Center's Citizen's Advisory Group for Community Development held
a public hearing on May 5th. The meeting was attended by approximately
• 30 -40 residents of the Twin Lake neighborhood. A number of concerns were
raised by the group that included traffic impacts on the neighborhood, the
intensity of development on the pole yard site, and problems associated
with the boat access and the beach. Concern was also expressed with the
creosote problem and potential health hazards associated with the pole
yard site. Sentiment was also expressed that a study similar to this was
performed in 1972 and that the proposed study would be redundant. I would
note that the 1972 study referred to was a previous comprehensive plan and
was quite general in nature. The study being proposed is quite specific
and meant to address the problems as.they exist now.
Following the 'public hearing, I perceived that there is significant support
for the study in the neighborhood. While no outright opposition to the
.study was expressed, several residents voiced their support for the study.
Concern expressed included the cost and the redundancy of the project.
The Citizen's Advisory Group voted unanimously to appropriate the monies
for this project from Community Development funds as noted in the resolu-
tion. They also requested that the sentiment of the neighborhood group
be expressed to the Council along with the resolution. I will be avail-
able Monday to discuss this agenda item in greater detail.
•
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
Y
RESOLUTION. NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT APPLICATION FOR YEARS, V, AND VI OF THE HENNEPIN URBAN COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has completed
approved projects for Years, V, and VI of the Urban County; and
WHEREAS, such projects were completed under budget; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center needs to develop specific planning
and land use options in the area of the Joslyn pole yard in Brooklyn Center; and
G�
WHEREAS, such planning studies are ligible Community Development
Block Grant activity; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by Brooklyn Center's Community
Development Block Grant Citizens Advisory Committee on May 5th.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brooklyn Center to approve
a planning, land use, and market analysis of Twin Lake neighborhood and specifically
the Joslyn pole yard site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $35,000 in community development monies be
appropriated for this project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the projects in Year V Administration (Project
No. 003) in the amount of $7,618, and Project Architectural Barriers (Project No.
061) in the Year V in the amount of $10,000, and the Contingency Fund (Project No.
751) from Year VI in the amount of $17,382 be appropriated for this activity.
Date Mayor
ATTESTS
Clerk
. I
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.
(
g
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
. RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DECLARING JUNE 4 THROUGH 13 AS BROOKLYN CENTER
EARLY BIRD DAYS
WHEREAS, the purpose of the City of Brooklyn Center Early Bird
Days is to promote the City of Brooklyn Center, its people and amenities; and
WHEREAS,. the Brooklyn Center Park and Recreation Department, the
Chamber of Commerce and other community groups participate in the annual
civic celebration to demonstrate the vitality of the City of Brooklyn Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to declare June 4 through June 13, 1982 as the dates for
Brooklyn Center Early Bird Days. k
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.
9
f
I
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GIFT
WHEREAS, Cub Scout Pack 632, Dens 3, 4, and 5 have presented the City
with a gift of five Colorado Blue Spruce trees which have been planted in Evergreen
Park: and
WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of the gift and commends Cub
Scout Pack 632, Dens 3, 4, and 5 for their civic efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to acknowledge the gift with gratitude.
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.
f
y
f'
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
F r RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND PROCLAIMING NURSING HOME WEEK IN BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, May 9 through 15 has been designated as Nursing Home Week; and
WHEREAS, the theme for Nursing Home Week of the Minnesota Association
of Homes for the Aging's not- for - profit homes is "People Make A Home "; and
WHEREAS, the City, of Brooklyn Center recognizes its nursing home
residents and appreciates their generous contributions to our community; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center especially commends the many
dedicated people who provide skilled and compassionate care for our elderly
citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Bro' okZpn
Center that May 9 through 15 be proclaimed as Nursing Home Week in Brooklyn Center
and that all citizens of the City are urged to honor and celebrate this special event.
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
e following voted in favor thereof
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
AUCTION
1 Burroughs Series 400 Utility Billing Machine
1 Thermo -Fax Copying Machine
I Addox 2000 Adding Machine (055)
1 National CR 3000 Series Booking Machine
1 Wright Line Card File
i
1 Odhner Adding Machine
1 Addo -X Calculator 0$6
1 Savin Copier
t
1 Rotary File Cabinet {
2 Hale Fire Pumps
1 Chain Saw (Mac .15)
5 2 Channel Radios
2 4 Channel Radios
5 Chairs
1 Oak Swivel Desk Chair
Miscellaneous Electronic Parts
1 �
w
BICYCLES FOR AUCTION
No. Description Case No.
070 2 wheels and seat 80- 07139
071 Yellow Suzuki mini bike J81 -01713
072 glue girls bicycle 81 -02046
073 Blue boys bicycle -:81 - 03341
074 Pink All Pro girls bicycle >; 81 -03345
075 Yellow Murray 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -03462
076 White Huffy boys bicycle 81' -04210
077 Yellow and brown Huffy 10 speed boys bicycle ;'-81 -04683
078 Gold and black 10 speed boys bicycle _J81 -05207
079 Primer red 10 speed boys bicycle frame 81- 05310
080 Black Hedstrom - boys bicycle 81 -05532
081 Blue Murray girls, bicycle 81 -01214
082 Green'10 speed boys bicycle 81- 07617
083 Blue Searsgirls bicycle 81 -08140
084 Brown Holiday Huffy 3 speed boys bicycle 81- 08735
085 Red boys dirt bike 81 -08757
086 Silver Huffy 3 speed boys bicycle -81 -09040
087 Silver AMF 3 speed girls bicycle 81 -09388
088 Red Holiday 10 speed boys bicycle 81 - 09507
089 Black 3 speed boys bicycle 81 -09522
090 Green and white Savoy boys bicycle 81 -11007
091 Red mini bike frame 81 11421
092 Blue 10 speed boys bicycle 81 - 11515
093 Tan and brown Huffy 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -11642
094 Green Sears 10 speed boys bicycle 81. 12199
095 Green Motobecane 10 speed boys bicycle 81- 1220
096 Black Holiday Huffy boys bicycle 81 -12807
097 Blue Sears boys bicycle 81,- 13579
t-
098 Yellow J.C.Penney 3 speed girls bicycle 81 - 13904
099 Green Schwinn 10 speed boys bicycle .81 1`3975
100 Blue Schwinn 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -14081
101 Blue Robin Hood 3 speed girls bicycle x 81 -14110
102 Purple Sears Free Spirit 3 speed girls bicycle f81 -14161
103) lied Sc:hiainn 10 speed boys bicycle �J81 -1429S Y
l04 Glue Huffy 10 speed boys bicyc 1c J81 -14298
105 Blue Holiday: 10 speed girls bicycle 81 -14557
106 Black AMF boys bicycle 81 -14737
107 White Western Flyer 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -15002
108 Black and yellow J.C.Penney boys bicycle 81 -15104
109 Blue Fuji 10 speed boys bicycle _81 -15197
110 Brown Huffy 10 speed boys bicycle 81-15251
111 Blue All Pro 10 speed boys bicycle - 81 -16270
112 Black boys bicycle 81 -16542
113 Red Wards 10 speed girls bicycle 81 -16552
114 Red boys bicycle -,81 -16838
115 Green and yellow Schwinn 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -17214
116 Brown Schwinn 5'speed boys bicycle 81- -17309
117 Brown J.C.Penney 5 speed girls bicycle 81 -17312
118 Blue Mikado 10- -speed boys bicycle 81- 17319
119 Blue 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -17558
120 Brown and white Huffy boys bicycle 81- 17627.
121 Blue Race, Inc. boys bicycle J81 -17734
122 Yellow Coast to Coast 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -17924
123 Blue All Pro 10 speed boys bicycle 81 -19114
t 124 Yellow Huffy boys bicycle 81- 19444
125 Blue boys bicycle 81 -19444
.126 Red Mongoose boys bicycle 81 -19444
127 Yellow and Black Huffy boys frame 81 -19444
128 Assorted bicycle parts 81 -19444
129 Blue Rollfast boys bicycle 81- 19581
130 Black Huffy boys bicycle 81- 20086.
131 White. Schwinn 10 speed boys bicycle Unknown
y
PR01 Folt AUCTION
No. Description Case No.
132 Speaker J77- 12181
133 8 track tape
79 -00574
134 Brown tape case with tapes J79 -03446
135 Black tape case with tapes 979- 03446
136. Craig 8 track tape player _
.979 -03446
137 Digital Clock 79 -06275
138 2 Security locks 79 -06275
139 Baseball Bat .J79 -06581
140 Car stereo and parts 79 -10228
141 Shotgun with case 79 -14671
142 Pioneer car stereo 79- 15620
143 Lionel Wabash Cannonball train � 80- 0D.3.II_0-
144 Travelin' Time auto digital clock 80 -00300
145 Travelin' Time auto digital clock 80 -00300
146 Bicycle seat 80 -02736
147 Bicycle seat 80- 02736
148 Challenger 23 channel CB with mike 80 -04495
149 Coleman Cooler 80- 06753
150 Motorcycle frame 80 -07131
151 Garden Fork 80 -07144
152 Small brown tape case with tapes 80 -08966
153 Motorola CB with mike 80-08966
154 Gemtronics.23 Channel CB 80 -08966
155 2 Realistic CB Transceivers
80 -09917
156 Midland 23 channel CB with mike 80- 09917
157 Warmann mans watch �80 -10390
158 Red fire extinguisher 80 -10599
1S9 Brown tape ' case with tapes 80- 10815'
-160 Red fire extinguisher. t 80- 13232
161 Car stereo- .J8O -16260
162 Pathcom CB radio J80 -16260
163 Amplifier
q ` J80 -16260
164 8 track plover !J80 -16260
165 Speakers 'J80 -16260
166 ttiollensak -3 \1 Tape recorder 80 -16829
167 Speaker J80- 16840
•
M
168` Wrist watch 80 -17791
169 Wrist watch 80 -17791
170 Red fire extinguisher 80 -18992
171 Panasonic AM /FM radio
81 -01091
172 Pre Cor AbS /FM clock radio 81. -01091
173 RCA television 81- 01091 -
-174 Yellow Mat
175 Baby car seat 81 -03240
176 Fishing rod 81- 03240
177 Reel 81 -03240
178 Tackle box with tackle 81 -03240
179 Playmate Cooler 81 -09844
180 Black Vinyl chair 81 -17362
181 Zenith stereo console 81 -17
182 Thermos cooler Unknown
183 Shovel y Unknown
184 1975 Ford stationwagon, VIN 5P76S180242 81- 17764
185 Doro transcriber, serial no. 16285
f
JI. ♦ �. .
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
�. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 10th day of May,
1982 at 7 :3 0 p .m. at the Ci Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing suntan studios as a special use in the
C2 Zoning District.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING SUNTAN STUDIOS i
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances. of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35- 322.3. Special Uses
(d) Eating establishments offering live entertainment; recreation
and amusement places such as motion pictures and legitimate
theaters; sports arenas; bowling alleys, skating rinks; recreation
centers; gymnasiums and athletic clubs; suntan studio and health
spas, all provided they do not abut an Rl, R2 or R3 district, in-
cluding abutment at a street line.
i
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and
upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
,t
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption
f TM
t RESOLUTION NO.
- RESOLUTION ORDERING KYLAWN PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1982 -06
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 82 -56 adopted by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 12, 1982 fixed a date for a
public hearing on the proposed Kylawn Park Water Main Improvement Project
No. 1982 -06; and
WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two
weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was
held thereon on May 10, 1982, at which time all persons desiring to be
heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is
necessary and in the best interests of the City and the owners specially
benefited thereby, that:
1. Kylawn Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -06, as proposed
in Council Resolution No. 82 -56, shall be constructed.
2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for said
improvement.
3. The estimated cost, as outlined below, will be financed by
the levy of Special Assessments.
Contract $27,900.00
Engineering $ 2,510.00
Administrative and Legal $ 560.00
Capitalized Interest $ 2,790.00
TOTAL $33,760.00
4. he Finance finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to
appropriate $1,200.00 from the Special Assessment Fund for subsurface soil
eicploration and testing purposes.
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:
I ((
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
L BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
RO
C E T E R TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561-5720
}
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 - 06
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 8 inch water main
PROJECT LOCATION: Kylawn Park from Twin Lake North Apartment
complex to Kyle Avenue
DISCUSSION: It is proposed to complete the looping of the water
main system in the vicinity of the Twin Lake North Apartment
complex by construction of an 8 inch water main through Kylawn
Park. Installation of such water main will provide increased
water circulation and improve fire protection within the complex
of 276 units within Brooklyn Center, plus 66 condominium units
in Crystal, by eliminating existing dead end conditions. Previous
water main breaks within the complex' system have resulted in
loss of water supply for periods of up to two days
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Existing soil conditions make it economically
infeasible to place the water main along the park's perimeter.
Therefore, it is proposed to install the system within the park's
field area. The proposed routing has been reviewed with, and
approved by Gene Hagel, Director of Parks and Recreation.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Construction of this water main will
provide benefit to the Twin Lake North Apartment complex. There -.
fore, it is recommended the City Council levy assessments against
the complex for all work benefiting the property. A summary.of
the estimated costs is listed below.
Construction Cost $24,260.00
Contingencies (15% of 3,640.00
Construction Cost)
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $27,900.00
Engineering Cost (9% of 2,510.00
Construction Cost)
Legal and Administrative Cost 560.00
(2% of Construction Cost)
Capitalized Interest 2,790.00
(10% of Construction. Cost)
TOTAL PROJECT COST $33,760.00
«,�lse ` So.xetluKg �l one L'� „
E
Project 1982 -06 Engineer's Report
Page 2'
Based upon the estimated cost as listed above, the Twin Lake North
Apartment complex would be assessed $33,760.00. Payments would +
be made on an annual basis over the 20 year levy period. I
The proposed improvement project, as described in this report,
is feasible under the conditions outlined and at the costs esti-
mated. It is recommended the project be combined into the same
contract with other water main projects to be installed this
year in order to provide the cost reductions resulting. from
"quantity purchasing
Attached herewith is a project location map depicting the proposed
water main locations.
i
Respectfully submitted,
Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works I
Enclosure I
SK; jn
{
I
.,"e•V.yy,rr•,r,•A•rl••.Mq•,. fw.»,•.,,lYPf lla .._wntM • ••. x
„ .. R Mme` • � r
AVE
Al
10 4 , r • V
® 01 , / L /
3a t 1
' � ...� •. •ter Z r � / • � / � / � �
m l
�p F { —� O 1 � ., l AR80RETUM 1p
0
C.
0
x LAKE CURVE LANE
fj
►�
co r
> P N ORE DRIVE
m
:0 1 i J N A Ely i a
NJ
-
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. r
RESOLUTION ORDERING 51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1982 -07
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 82 -57 adopted by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, on April 12, 1982, fixed a date for a
public hearing on the proposed 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement
Project No. 1982 -07; and
WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two
weekly publications of, the required notice was given, and the hearing was held
thereon on the 10th day of May, 1982, at which time all persons desiring to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necess _
and in the best interests of the City and the owners of property specially
benefited thereby, that:
1. 51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07,
as proposed in Council Resolution No. 82 -57 shall be constructed.
2. The City Engineer is designated as the engineer for said
,.., improvement.
3. The estimated costs of the project are as follows:
Contract $32,560.00
Engineering 2,930.00
Administration and Legal 650.00
Capitalized Interest 0.00
TOTAL $36,140.00
4. The Public Utilities Fund shall finance the estimated cost of
said improvement.
..5. It is further intended that said City Council shall reserve its
'.. authority to levy special assessments against property benefited
- by said improvement in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429 Sections 429.051 and /or 429.061, and ap-
placable City Ordinances.
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.
A
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1982 -07 IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, WHICH
IMPROVEMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, MONDAY, MAY 10, 1982.
NOTICE OF PROTEST
The Tri -State Land Company, as its protest to the above
improvement in the City of Brooklyn-Center, Minnesota, alleges a s fo llows:
I.
That it is a ro ert owner in the City of Brooklyn Center,
P P Y Y Y
Minnesota and its property is presently listed in the tax roll under
Pin #10-108721-23-0002 and #10- 118 -21 -24 -0001.
II.
That a portion of its property is located adjacent to the proposed
improvement and will presumably be subject to assessment therefore.
III.
That the proposed water main improvement will not benefit the
Tri -State Land Company's property.
IV.
That the Tri -State Land Company's property is presently served
with an eight (8) inch water main for which the Tri -State Land Company
granted a fifteen (15) foot wide easement on August 14, 1973 to the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota so the City could extend the watermain
from 51st Avenue North and East Twin Lake Boulevard 667.3 feet southerly
to the northerly line of the Soo Line Railroad Company's right of way
property. The proposed additional water main would add no value to the
Tri -State Land Company's property for its highest and best use.
V .
That construction costs at the present time are at extremely high
levels -, making the cost of the proposed water main project exorbitant and
far in excess of benefits to be received by the property owner and public
from said project.
1
- - J
VI.
That any assessment against .the Tri- -State Land Company la property
would result in depriving the Protestant of said property without due process
of law in violation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and in violation of.the Constitution of,the State of
Minnesota.
VTI:.
That any proposed benefit method for spreading costs of such
construction to be assessed against Protestant's property within the
City would produce assessments which would be arbitrary, capricious, unjust,
discriminatory, and inequitable.
VIII.
That the Tri -State Land Company respectfully requests that the
City Council exclude its property from any benefits of above improvements.
Dated this 10th day of May, 1982.
Respectfully submitted,
TRI -STATE LAND COMPANY
804 Soo Line Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
f
By
R. D. Swanell, Tax Agent
2
- � CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
N
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
CE NTER
561.5720
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Water Main Improvement Project Pao. 1982 -07
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C onstruction water' main
ons ion of 6 inch
truct
PROJECT LOCATION: Along 51st Avenue North Extension West of East
Twin Lake Boulevard
DISCUSSION: It is proposed to install a 6 inch water main to provide
water service to 4100 51st Avenue North in response to a petition
submitted by the property owner. Presently, the owner receives
non- potable water from a shallow well, using the water for bathing
s only.
Drinking water must be purchased . from
and cleaning ur ose g P
g P P Y
commercial water supply dealers.
The petitioner has informed the staff that the parcel was origin-
Y Y P
all served b a deep well until the water quality deteriorated
to
According
c
h point where he resent shallow well was necessitated. g
t e t ere t
P P
to the petitioner, well drillers and plumbers alike feel future
well drilling will not provide a potable water source. Accordingly,
the City has been approached with the request for water main exten
sion to serve the parcel.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Soil borings taken within the project site
confirm that poor soil conditions will be encountered as the water
main is constructed. The poor soil conditions exist to such depth
that soil correction is economically infeasible. Accordingly, it
is proposed to "float" the water main on the peat, utilizing
" stabilization. It is prop osed
ilter fabric as an aid in trench P P
to place the water main within an easement adjacent to the gravel
access (referred to as 51st Avenue), thereby minimizing the effect
of subgrade excavation on the road.
Also proposed is the relocation of water service extensions to
_ 4000 and 4020 51st Avenue. Presently, both parcels share a single
1 inch service on a dead end main. Connection to the water main
will promote better water quality resulting from periodic main
flushing and will eliminate maintenance and administrative problems
related to shared service use.
• 'In addition, the water main extension will provide a means to extend
water service to the residence on the peninsula between Upper and
Middle Twin Lakes in the event its well fails
" �l : So�c etlu.�cg ?1l aye .,
Project 1982 -07 Engineer's Report
Page 2
Consideration has also been given to the Aossibilit of devel
i g y p g
"51st Avenue" as a public; roadway, installing sanitary sewer, storm
sewer and roadway improvements. Initial contacts with property
owners indicated their interest in a "complete package ". However,,
because of current market conditions they do not appear ready to
proceed with subdivision development. Accordingly, we recommend
that the City consider only the water main installation at this
time. Other improvements will be feasible only when voluntary
development of the area occurs.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Existing soil conditions make it economically
infeasible to develop the commercial /industrial property south`
of the the gravel access; therefore, it is recommended that no
special assessments be levied against the undeveloped property
until development occurs and the City receives application to con-
nect to the water system.
The City Council may defer the water assessments to the undeveloped
commercial /industrial and residential properties under the provisions
of Minnesota Statute 429.05 using the following procedures
Upon project completion and determination of all project
costs, the City Council provides assessment hearings sub -
sequent to Chapter 429 of the Statutes; levying an assess-
ment against the benefited property owned by the petition- r
ing party (4100 51st Avenue) and taking action to defer
the assessment levy against the undeveloped property
until such time as it receives an application to connect
to the system, or 30 years, whichever comes first.
` Based upon the above recommendation, the Public Utilities Fund would
bear the majority of the project costs. A summary of the estimated
costs is as follows:
Construction Cost $28,310.00
Contingencies (15% of Construction 4,250,00
Cost)
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $32,560.00
Engineering Cost (9% of Construction 2,930.00
Cost)
Legal and Administrative Cost 650.00
(2% of Construction Cost)
TOTAL PROJECT COST .$.36,140.00.
In accordance with this proposal, $2,210.00 would be assessed g
against the petitioning party's property, and the Public Utilities
Fund would provide $33,930.00 toward the installation of the water
�� main.
Project 1982 -07 Engineer's Report
Page 3
• The 7
ro osed improvement project, as described in this report, is
p p P P
feasible under the conditions outlined and at the costs estimated.
It is recommended the project be combined into the same contract
with other water main projects to be installed this year in order
to provide cost reductions resulting from "quantity purchasing ".
Attached herewith is a project location map depicting the proposed
water main location.
Respect ully submitted,
S Knapp
f Public Works
or o ubl c k
Direct r s
Enclosure
SK: jn
I ,5" a. w�:rw.ri••aNw.a, •• v�^` isn' vlo7wihrui� 'ssMd4+�..ta�'ar�t�r..w. -: �,..
�r
,1
H NIL
Mo, o, 0
a o, .�
_
- - w
1 • in Z
LIJ
co
' • • . •. ' O
cr
CL • .. ., / !�
r � �,,� ..._�n.w. ` � � • ` •�
•
j
f
llc-
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
® RESOLUTION NO.
t_ RESOLUTION ORDERING EARLE BROWN-DRIVE STREET LIGHT
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -08
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 82 -58 adopted by the City Council of
the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota on April 12, 1982 fixed a date for
a public hearing on the proposed improvement of Earle Brown Drive by
installation of street lights; and
WHEREAS, ten days' published notice on the hearing through two
weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was
held thereon on May 10, 1982, at which time all persons desiring to be
heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that it is hereby determined that it is
necessary and in the best interests of the City and the owners specially
benefited thereby, that Earle Brown Drive Street Light Improvement Project
No. 1982 -08 be constructed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that the estimated cost, as outlined below, will be financed
by the levy of Special Assessments.
Contract $4,290.00
Administration 220.00
TOTAL $4,510.00
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. ..
j
i
s
CITY G
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
ROOK
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
ENT 561 -5720
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Earle Brown Drive Street Light Improvement Project No. 1982 - 08
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of Street Lights
PROJECT LOCATION: Along Earle Brown Drive within the Brookdale
Corporate Center Addition to Brooklyn Center
DISCUSSION: It is proposed to extend the street light system along
the Earle Brown Drive extension from the previously existing cul
de -sac to the westerly intersection of Earle Brown Drive and
Summit Drive. Current Northern States Power Company (N.S.P.)
policy provides for installation of street lights and the first
100 feet of associated cable at no cost to the customer. _Excess
cable installation required to provide electrical service is
charged to the customer. In this case, the street light project
includes installation of six lights and 1, 955 feet of underground
cable, therefore the City will be charged for 1, 355 feet of cable
installation.
Also, because of their recent experience with severe cable damage
by rodents within the Industrial Park area, N.S.P. requires the
cable be placed in conduit to eliminate cable destruction by
rodents. All costs related to conduit placement are considered,
chargeable costs; therefore, the City must pay for the entire
1,955 feet placed.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Installation of the street light system
will benefit only those areas adjacent to the improvement. Therefore,
it is recommended the City Council levy assessments against the
benefited properties A summary of the estimated costs is as
follows:
Installation Cost $4,290.00
Legal and Administrative Cost 2.2.0.00
(5% of Installation Cost)
TOTAL COST $4,510.00
"'lie $a�cetluK �ja'te � •
Project 1982 -08 Engineer's Report
Page 2
The estimated unit assessment, based upon a benifited area of
14.08 acres, is $320.31 per acre. It is recommended the City
Council establish a 2 year assessment period for this project.
The resultant yearly principal payments, based upon the above
estimates, would vary from $128.12 to $837.61 for the various
commercial /industrial parcels.
The improvement project, as described in this report, is feasible
under the conditions outlined and at the cost estimated. Attached
herewith is a project location map depicting the proposed street
light improvement project.
Respectfully submitted,
'0 �
Sy nape .,
Director of Public Works
Enclosure
SK; j n
1
}
. �f' fs:.•_• aa^.: rY` �+.' a.. eda• 1..... n.. �s.. Y. �w. rn....; vvn' fsr�" tiYR" tie�wW.. r.. iu. 9VW•. t7�• w1Y�PY` �Yrr�lni:. iw�✓l �i. Ylwl.•_ ut. ri• �VRWhyrni •lrr.�.sa7'ckufi.�s..IS.7t IJrmrMYr'IN�W Mw.Nwi i' k` 1�1" IMr' I4Y% �Y:+» d. rMWlvww. rfAV ^MM�•¢•.aw'W"`.wavMS- .w..r3Cr artltvaa r1wt11uY ••-'
NVC31 %A
LJ
too, �
lrlov 3a-4 w o
L-L-LI
cD j w Co (n
ir) s' -
---- O
w 1 CO
i O
cc
'
Cc
m " 'Z - - - -- m z
UJ
3 A I a 0 NNE 0 -J M
w + Q
w
(c W
LL.
W
W G \ W
/Y
\�
1 W
. z
uj
�. ' °� . .►`,. ' Sr'"` t•. W.. S;. f ...•- �..r.w,�.......�' a....�..w.� �. �Yr.. .. .. .;.. .......w,.�+f�P, '� i
f 1��
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND
ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR CENTRAL PARK
WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.'1982 -05, KYLAWN
PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -06,
51ST AVENUE NORTH WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1982 -07 (CONTRACT 1982 -D)
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications
for Water Main Improvement Projects Nos. 1982 -05, 1982 -06, and 1982 -07 and
has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. The plans and specifications for the following improvements
as prepared by the City Engineer are approved and ordered
filed with the City Clerk: ;
Central Park Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -05 ;
i
Kylawn Park Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -06
51st Avenue North Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07
2. The City Clerk shall prepare, and cause to be inserted at least s
twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction i
- Bulletin, an advertisement for bids upon the making of such
improvements under such approved plans and specifications.
The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) 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
i Clerk until 1Z :00 A.M. local time on June 10, 1982, x
C ity e
Y t
the will be publicly at which time y p Y in the Council P
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. local time on June 14, 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 5 percent (5%) of the amount of such
bid.
3. The accounting for the projects will be done in the various
funds as outlined below:
Improvement Project No. 1982 -05 - - Public Utilities Fund
Improvement Project No. 1982 -06 - - Special Assessment Fund
Improvement Project No. 1982 -07,- - - Public Utilities Fund
4. The Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to
appropriate $1,100.00 from the Public Utilities Fund for
subsurface soil exploration and testing purposes in conjunction
with Improvement Project No. 1982 -05.
RESOLUTION NO.
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.
Y
f
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE
MASTER NOTES FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT
TRUST FUND TO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,
has received reports from the City Engineer regarding the feasibility of proposed
construction within said City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has established various improvement projects
to further investigate the potential benefit of said proposed construction to
the affected areas and the City as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by establishing the various improvement
projects, has authorized the expenditure of finances from the Special Assessment
Fund to continue said investigations and /or construction:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Finance Director is hereby authorized to
provide the required financing of the various projects by transfer of.funds
from the Investment Trust Fund to the Special Assessment Fund by issuance of
Master Notes according to,the following schedule:
Master Note
Project Number
Xerxes, 55th, 56th Street Improvement Project 1982 -02 1982 -01
Brookdale Access Improvement Project 1982 -03 1982 -02
Kylawn Water Main Improvement Project 1982 -06 1982 -03
Earle Brown Drive Street Lighting Improvement
Project 1982 -08 1982 -04
69th - 70th Street Improvement Project 1982 - -09 1982 -05
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.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION''",
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
i AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
APRIL 29, 1982
CITY HALL X
CALL TO ORDER
The P annzng Commission met in study session and was called to order
,by Chairman George Lucht at 7:40 p.m.
s
ROLL CALL #
G aTi irman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas
and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and
Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube,
and Planning Assistant Gary 5hallcross. Chairman Lucht explained
that Commissioners Sandstrom and Simmons had called earlier to
say they would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and were,
therefore, excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 15, 1982
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to '-
approve the minutes of the April 15, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht,- Commis-
sioners Malecki, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: -none. The
motion passed.
LYNBROOK BOWL LANDSCAPE PLAN
The Secretary noted that the applicant for the Hussman Investment
rezoning (Application No. 82020) was not present and recommended
taking up review of the Lynbrook Bowl landscape plan. He explained
that Mr. Steve Nelson, owner of'Lynbrook Bowl, wished to delete '
trees in the parking lot islands from the approved landscape plan.
Instead, he would concrete over those islands. The Secretary stated
that the extent of this revision in the landscape plan required
review by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Manson arrived at 7 :43 p.m.
Chairman Lucht called on Mr. Nelson to explain his proposed revisions.
Mr. Nelson explained that irrigation had been planned in the perimeter,.
but not in the parking lot islands nor on the east and north sides
of the building. He recommended removing the trees from the parking
lot islands, since they would not be regularly watered. Commissioner
Manson expressed concern -over the sea of blacktop that would remain b
without any parking lot landscaping. Mr. Nelson stated that the r
large blacktop area would be visible only.from within the lot, not
from outside. He. stated that the'City's concern should.be the outer
perimeter of the property and not the inner lot. He also explained s
that he would be upgrading the landscaping on the east side of the
building. a `
r
The Secretary explained that underground irrigation is required in
all landscaped areas and that Mr. Nelson's assumption that the east
an north sides of the building could be exempted from irrigation g
was erroneous. The Secretary noted, however, that Mr. Nelson was
not required to irrigate the islands. There followed a discussion
of the underground irrigation requirement. Mr. Nelson stated that
4--29 -82 -1-
he mainly wanted to eliminate landscaping from the parking lot !
islands. He stated that the islands will not be watered regularly
and any trees planted on those islands will very possibly die out.
He also stated that snowplowing would create problems for the
islands. by dumping salt and debris on the trees. He stated that
there would be eleven to twelve trees removed. The Secretary
stated that it was up to the Planning Commission to recommend a
course of action for the staff to follow up on.
Commissioner Ainas stated that ash trees would have trouble sur-
viving without regular maintenance, but that smaller trees probably
could survive. Commissioner Versteeg stated that it would be useless
to plant trees that would not be maintained and, therefore, not
survive. Commissioner Manson stated that she liked to see the
trees, but that they must be viable She stated that she was not
opposed to a change in the landscape plan. Commissioner Versteeg
asked what size the trees would be and whether they would be a
traffic hazard. The Secretary stated that 2h" to 3" diameter shade
trees were proposed in the original plan for the parking lot islands.
Commissioner Malecki asked whether the perimeter landscaping would
block out the parking lot from passing motorists. The Secretary
answered that there would be berms in addition to the landscaping.
The Assistant City Engineer explained that the berms would have to
be 4 feet in height or more to block out the parking lot from the
view of passing motorists. Chairman Lucht.suggested Russian olives
in the parking lot islands for best survival. He stated that the
trees would be protected by the islands from the snowplows. Mr.
Nelson stated that his primary concern was the salt from the parking
lot being thrown up on the trees. Chairman Lucht stated that Russian
Olives are a very hardy tree which survive in a number of difficult
locations, including parking lots. Commissioner Malecki stated that
she liked to see trees in large parking lots. Commissioner Ainas
agreed that Russian Olives would be a good choice
Commissioner Versteeg,asked whether it had been the practice of the
City to require landscaping in parking lot islands. Chairman Lucht
stated that the City dial prefer to see landscaped islands in large
parking lots. Chairman Lucht stated that it seemed to be the con-
sensus of the Planning Commission that Russian Olives could be sub-
stituted for Summit Ash in the parking lot islands and that Mr. Nelson
stated that he would use Russian Olive trees if they were not more
expensive.
MOTION CONCERNING LYNBROOK BOWL LANDSCAPE PLAN
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded y Commissioner Manson to
approve use of either Russian Olives or Summit Ash in the parking
lot islands at the Lynbrook Bowl in fulfillment of the landscape
plan approved under Application No. 81032. Voting in favor: Chair-
man Lucht, Commissioners Malecki,- Manson, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting
.against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO'. 82020 - (Russman Investment Cop )
The Secretary introduced the next item of business,.a request to
rezone from Rl to R3 the vacant lots at 811 and 821 -73rd Avenue
North, and a small parcel to remain after realignment of 69th Avenue',
North to connect with 70th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the •
contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application No. 82020 attached). The Secretary then
reviewed with the Planning Commission a petition opposing the
4- 29--82 -2-
rezoning submitted by abutting landowners and a submittal arguing
f against the rezoning from Mrs. Melba Evanson (attached).
Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. ,Mr. James
Merila, representing Hussman Investment Company, commended the
thorough job done by Mrs. Evanson in stating her objections to the
rezoning. He shored the Planning Commission a colored rendering
of a proposed townhouse development: Concept A which calls for
four two -unit townhouse buildings and Concept B which calls for
two four -unit townhouse buildings. He also showed building eleva-
tions for the perspective townhouse structures. Chairman Lucht
asked whether the two- unit townhouses would be similar to those 4
on Logan and 58th. Mr. Merila answered that they would be similar
but that they would be dressed up more on the exterior. Mr. Merila
stated that the R3 zoning is contained in the proposed Comprehensive
Plan which was approved by the Metropolitan Council on December 17,
1981. He showed a potential future project with twelve additional
townhouses on the land to the 'south. Mr. Merila argued that the
rezoning would allow for more single- family attached homes in the
community and would contribute considerably to the tax base. Re-
garding traffic impact, Mr. Merila stated that having five more
residential units than would be ailowed.by R1 zoning would not
affect the traffic along 70th noticeably since the 'traffic count-..,,..
for that roadway is projected to exceed 3,500 cars per day. He
asked for favorable action °'on the rezoning and stated that he felt
there was merit in the request.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing.
Madeleine Roche of 816 -69th Avenue North reminded the Commission
of the Comprehensive Plan which was in effect when the current
residents in the area bought their homes. 5he.asked whether those
residents have a voice in the land use of that area. She
stated that she did not feel additional tax base was a relevant
issue, but rather the impact of a proposed development on surround-
ing land uses. She stated that R3.development would contribute to
the "cement city" that perval.s in so much.-of the northeast neigh-
borhood.(the�concentration of high intensity land uses with parking
lots). She stated that there was a limited amount of single- family
development between the apartments end the City Maintenance Annex
``and that this should be bolstered rather than threatened by more
high intensity hand use.. As for the contention that the area is
troubled by high water level., she stated•.that the residents that
live in the area have no mater problems in their basements and that
the ro ert should b
p p y e suitable for single-family dwellings. She
stated that the land in question has been bought and sold in the
past with the R1 zoning and the current owner'has' merely
speculated that'he can appreciate the value of his property by
C rezoning it to R3.
Mr. Paul Rosso of 7 Ortman street, Minneapolis (brother of
Mrs. Melba Evanson of 800 -69th Avenue'Nort) stated that a
petition of 100% of the homeowners adjacent to the proposed
project had been submitted objecting to the rezoning. He stated
that no traffic signals are planned for the 70th Avenue North
intersection with Highway 252 and that the proposed Comprehensive
• Plan nowhere recommends rezoning of the.land -in question to R3.
Mr. Joseph Roche. of 816 -69th Avenue North stated that the neighbors
4 -29 -82 -3-
in the area want to retain the Rl zoning. He stated that a
businessman who owns the land wants to change the zoning to the
detriment of the neighborhood. He stated it was simply a case of
an owner speculating for his own gain and that there is no justi-
fication in lannin principles-for the rezoning.
P g P
Mrs. Melba Evanson of 800 -69th Avenue North stated that she agreed
with all the other opponents to the rezoning. She stated that she
felt Mr. Merila was going beyond his duties in seeking the rezoning.
She stated that the property owners in the area never asked for re-
zoning of their land She stated the road alignment has not been
approved and should not be assumed in evaluating the best use of
the land. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the interest
of the property owners.
Mr. Bob Lane, son of Mrs. H. W. Lane of 824 -69th Avenue North,
stated that his mother prefers the Rl zoning and asked the Commis -
sion to deny the rezoning request.
Chairman Lucht explained to those present that it was the policy of
the Planning Commission to refer rezoning applications to the
appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. He
stated that the Planning Commission did not wish to rebut the state-
ments made by those who opposed the rezoning, but simply to gather
input at this point in the process. Mr. Joseph Roche asked whether
the property owners would be notified of the Neighborhood Advisory
Group meeting. Chairman Lucht responded in the affirmative and
added that the neighbors would be notified of subsequent review of
the application at the Planning Commission and City Council levels.
Mr. Bob Lane asked whether the development concepts have been reviewed
for ordinance compliance. The Secretary answered that they have not,
that the proposed layouts are only concepts. He explained that site
and building plans must come before the Planning Commission and City
Council to review compliance with City ordinances prior to the issu-
ance of any building permits.
Mr. Paul Rosso stated that the Secretary was proceeding as though
the 'road realignment had already been approved. He stated that it
was not approved and that it would not be approved. He stated that
he had talked with engineers at the Golden Valley office of the
t Minnesota Department of Transportation and they do not think that
the proposed connection is a good one. He also stated that it was
inconsistent for the City to do away with curves at Palmer Lake and
to install more curves adjacent to West River Road. He that
the road realignment would not come about and that the whole re-
zoning request was based on speculation and fraud,
The Secretary informed the Planning Commission that the City Council
has, in fact, approved the link between 69th and 70th- Avenues North.
He acknowledged that there was no road yet . built, but that the- con-
cept has `been 'app[roved and that City Engineer has been directed
to prepare plans for the project. The Assistant City Engineer stated
that the project had been approved under Resolution No. 82 -47, which
was passed by the City Council on March 22, 1982, copies of which are
available at the City offices during normal business hours. Mr. Rosso
stated that the City Council had been misinformed. And Mrs. Evanson
I�
asked the Planning Commission who they were going to believe.
4� -29 -82 -4-
Chairman Lucht explained to those present that the applicant has
the right to pursue the rezoning of his property regardless of
whether neighboring properties were opposed or not.
MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 82020 (Hussman: Investment •Con �an )
Motion y� Co=ssioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to
table Application No. 82020, to continue the public hearing for the
application, and to refer the rezoning request to Northeast
Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor.
g rY F g
Chairman Lucht Commissioners Malecki,.Manson, Ainas.and Versteeg.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
RECESS
T` a PTannin Commission recessed at -9:17 .m, and resumed at 9 :37 .m.
g P
P
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Windmills
T e Secretary briefly introduced the first discussion.topic on the
evening's agenda following the recess. The Secretary stated that
staff presently requires a building permit to be taken before erecting
a radio tower and would follow the same policy regarding windmills.
He explained that persons who wish to erect a wind generator must
obtain approval from NSP first and buy a meter that runs backwards
as electricity is fed into the power system. He stated that wind
generators are fairly expensive and that they are not presently an
issue in the community. He explained that the topic had been brought
to the Commission for discussion to explore whether there is a need
for regulation t rected. He added
o e ion and control if more windmills are e
g
h the re-
that at resent there is no height restriction other than e
P g
striction on accessory structures of 15 feet which has not been
applied to radio towers or wind generators. He stated that the
matter has been regulated under the building code and not the zoning
code at this P oint,
Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the
matter. Mr. Jay Jacobson, a member of the Conservation Commission,
explained that he had prepared the sample ordinance submitted to
the Planning Commission. He explained that he worked for Enertech,
a firm which builds windmills among other energy- saving devices.
Mr.-Jacobson stated that restricting the height of the wind generator
restricts the amount.of electricity which can be obtained. He recom
mended that no height restriction be imposed. Mr. Jacobson explained
that NSP has to buy electricity from anyone who erects a wind generator
provided a special meter is purchased to record the electricity gener-
ated,by the windmill. The Secretary added that NSP approves only
certain windmills.
Mr. Jacobson explained that a small windmill will cost $12,000.00
and that as windmills get taller their cost increases rapidly. He
stated that Edina does not want towers to fall into a neighbor's
,yard and that, therefore, towers are limited to half the width of
a residential lot. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission
may also have a concern regarding protection of others. He stated
that, the right of people to generate electricity from the wind was
limited by rights that other people possess. Mr. Jacobson stated >
that only one privately built windmill has fallen down, but that
six government built windmills have fallen down.
I
The `Secretary asked Mr. .Jacobson whether he recommended a height
4 -29 -82 -5-
limitation. Mr. Jacobson stated that economics would limit the
height of windmills, since they become increasingly expensive as
they get higher. He stated that liability insurance should take care
of the potential for property damage to others or personal injury.
The Secretary explained that 110' is roughly the height of the
Shingle Creek Towers Apartments to the south of City Hall. He stated
there may be concern regarding aesthetics if everyone had a windmill
of such a height or even if a number of people had them. He stated
that windmills on farms pose no liability problems, but that, in a
dense residential area, certain restrictions may be necessary. He
suggested that perhaps neighborhoods should pool resources and buy -
one large windmill to feed into the power system as opposed to every -
one having their own. He stated that the staff has considered en-
couraging commercial and industrial uses to have windmills, but to
discourage them in single- family neighborhoods
Mr. Jacobson explained that wind power is most efficient at a height
above any surrounding obstruction, since the winds will blow more
constantly where no other objects interfere. He explained the effect
of "wind shadows" which are caused by objects within 300 yards of
the windmill site. He stated that although windmills are very -ex
pensive, he expected electricity prices to rise from the current
three to four cents per kilowatt -hour to twenty -five to thirty cents
per kilowatt -hour in ten years. He explained that if windmills
cannot reach an efficient height in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Center
may become a non- competitive place to live in because the cost of
electricity will be so high. The Secretary stated that such an
effect is a result of a number of City regulations. He explained
that while regulations must not be overly excessive, they must still
protect the interest of the community. He stated that zoning must
balance the benefits from new investment with the impacts on the
value of existing property investments. He again explained that
accessory structures are limited to 15 ft. in height, but that radio
and Tv reception towers and antennae have been exempted from this
limitation'.
The Planning Assistant asked Mr. Jacobson whether he expected the
City to adopt regulations regarding wind shadows to keep unscrupulous
windmill salesmen from placing windmills in locations where they will
be ineffective. Mr. Jacobson stated that he did not think such
regulations would be necessary, that the industry would basically
regulate itself. He stated that while the technology does not
presently exist, it may be that in the future someone will invent
a windmill that can work in spite of the turbulence created by y
wind shadows
In response to a question from Commissioner Manson, Mr. Jacobson
described various types of windmills being used today. In general,-
he explained, too much prop area can increase the danger that a
windmill will be blown down. The Secretary asked what would be the
typical height of a windmill sold in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Jacobson
• stated that he would not personally sell a . windmill that was less
than 80 ft. high in Brooklyn Center. He explained-that-this was
because of the number of trees and other obstructions in the city,.
that in other communities in flatter, less developed` areas, shorter
windmills would probably work. The Secretary commented that certain
height restrictions exist around the Crystal Airport because of
the F.A.A. regulations.
Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the windmills would be free-
4-29-82 -6-
standing or whether they would require guywires for support. Mr.
Jacobson stated that in most cases there would be no place to put
guywires. Commissioner Versteeg related the windmills to the TV
towers in Los Angeles that are so dense they are ugly. The Secre-
tary asked for comments from the Planning Commission regarding
what should happen if windmills become popular. Commissioner
Anas suggested that perhaps there should be a minimum separation
requirement between windmills. Mr. Jacobson stated that wind
rights would not have to function like solar rights. He stated
that placing a windmill close to another one would not likely
affect the performance of another windmill. Therefore, he con
cluded, aesthetics would be the only basis for a separation re-
quirement. He stated that he did not agree with such a rational
for limiting windmills.
Commissioner Versteeg asked whether tall windmills could create
interference with TV and radio reception. Mr. Jacobson answered
that windmills with metal blades can sometimes cause problems.
The Secretary asked whether windmills could cause a noise problem.
Mr. Jacobson stated that most units cannot be heard from the ground.
Chairman Lucht stated that he did not feel many windmills would be
built. Mr. Jacobson agreed that at present windmills are'not - cost
effective and may not be for some years. Chairman Lucht questioned,..
whether an ordinance was really necessary to deal with something that
was not yet a problem. The Secretary stated that there was need to
settle on a position to take with people wanting to 'erect towers
over 15 ft. He explained that if the 15 ft. limit should be en-
forced, then variances should be required to build anything taller.
He also stated that radio towers would have to be _treated the same
as windmills. He stated that structures such as radio towers have
not been regulated as to height in the past. Chairman Lucht stated
that he had no problem with the current policy and he did not want
to address a problem that didn't really exist.
The Planning Assistant asked whether a windmill could be built by
a private resident in a commercial area and have the electricity
run to a commercial building and then bill the commercial user for
the energy savings. Mr. Jacobson stated that there are ways to
arrange for this. He stated that in ten to fifteen years, photo-
voltaics will be t - energy
h best over-producers a renewable e t ov producers among th renewabl
resources.
A discussion ensued regarding the regulatory approach to windmills.
Chairman Lucht argued that the problem does not yet require.an
ordinance; that an ordinance could become obsolete by the time
windmills became popular; and that the present policy is adequate
for the current situation. Commissioner Versteeg asked who is
responsible if a tower falls onto a neighboring property and a
..personal injury occurs. The Secretary answered that the contra
would be primarily responsible He added, however, that the City
would very possibly be drawn into a lawsuit, whatever the form of ,.
the City's regulations. Mr. Jacobson added that contractors'-have
to have a considerable amount of insurance to sell-wind energy
conversion systems.
b. Setback Deduction
The Secretary then introduced the second discussion item for the
evening's meeting, the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to deduct
4 -29 -82 �-7-
from the land area used to calculate multiple residential density,
the land within setback areas abutting public right -of -way. The
Planning Assistant briefly reviewed practical and theoretical
problems raised by the ordinance. He showed the Planning Commission
on a City map some of the lots that are most affected by the set -
back deduction, particularly corner lots on major thoroughfares
which have a large proportion of their land area deducted before
density can be calculated. He stated that the reason for adopting
the ordinance approximately eight years ago was probably to slow
down or halt apartment development in the city. He stated that -a
more equitable approach, given this policy objective, would have
been to rezone the parcels of land to some other use. He added
that the ordinance affects different parcels of land differently,
that corner lots are especially hard hit, but narrow deep lots are
less affected. He noted that the overall reduction in buildable
land area was between 20% and 30 %, and on some parcels probably
much higher. He pointed out that almost all existing apartment
development in the city was built under the original density formulas .
prior to the imposition of the setback deduction. Therefore, he
concluded, existing multi- family complexes are nonconforming as to
density and would only return to conforming status with no additional
land left for new construction. He recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council an ordinance change striking
the setback deduction from the Zoning ordinance because of its
adverse and inequitable impact on existing multi- family zoned
property. He pointed out that occasionally land which is zoned R5
can support more R3 type units than R4 type units because the R3
zoning classification does not require the setback deduction.
Commissioner Ainas stated that he favored striking the ordinance.
Chairman Lucht stated that he was unaware of the setback deduction
because there had been so few multi- family projects brought to the
City during his time on the Planning Commission. He also stated
that he saw no reason for keeping the setback deduction in the ordi-
nance. By consensus it was agreed that the staff should prepare more
quantitative information regarding the impact of the setback deduction
on existing multi- family zoned parcels and a' proposed ordinance amend-
ment to delete the setback deduction from the Zoning Ordinance before
the next Planning Commission meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner Malecki, the Secretary
briefly informed the Planning Commission that he had distributed a
two -part article regarding conflict of interest for the Planning
Commission's review. He stated that Planning Commissioners should
be aware of instances in which their participation in a zoning de-
cision could give the appearance of a conflict of interest. He stated
that he had no instances in mind, but that the Planning Commission
members should be aware of potential conflicts and should know when
to abstain from a vote or discussion of a matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion bF Commissioner Versteeg seconded by Commissioner Manson to
adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed
unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:23 p.m.
Chairman
4 -29 -82 -8-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 82020
Applicant: Hussman Investment Company
Location: 811 and 821 - 70th Avenue North
• Request: Rezoning
The applicant requests rezoning from RI to R3 of three lots on the south side of
70th Avenue North in the 800 block, and a third parcel to be a remnant from the re-
alignment of 69th Avenue North (see plan attached). The land in question is .91
acres in area and is bounded by single - family zoned land to the east and south, and
by the realigned 69th /70th Avenue North on the west and north. This property and
land to the east was the subject of Application No. 81019 which was withdrawn
because of opposition by surrounding property owners and by Melba Evanson, a portion
of whose property was proposed for rezoning at that time. Only land which is con-
trolled by Hussman, Investment Company is involved in this rezoning proposal.
The applicant has submitted a brief letter (copy attached) regarding the _rezoning
request. Mr. Fierst states that the rezoning is justified on three grounds:
- the proposed land use is consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
the R3 use will create a good buffer with the new alignment of 69th
Avenue North.
the lots resulting from the street realignment will be odd-shaped an
R3 development will make better use of the land.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan does recommend an R3 use for the land south of 70th
Avenue North, west of the Columbus Village Apartments, which _ contains the land in
• question. The proposed use is not so much a buffer as a use which is compatible
with the variety of surrounding land uses: single - family to the south, apartments
to the east (beyond the vacant Evanson property) park to the north, and City
Maintenance Annex to the west.
A letter has also been submitted by Mr. James Merila (attached) which responds to each
of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings (see Section 35 -208 attached). In addition
to the arguments made by Mr. Fierst, the Merila letter states the project provides
additional single- family housing and adds to the tax base
The realignment of 69th Avenue North will connect 70th Avenue North to 69th in the
same.fashion that 66th becomes 65th Avenue North, west of Bryant Avenue North. When
Highway 252 is widened to the west of its current alignment, there will likely be _
signals at 73rd, 70th and 66th Avenues North. The realignment allows the traffic
which presently takes 69th to the west to turn off at 70th Avenue North. Placing;
the signal at 70th Avenue North rather than 69th serves the neighborhood east of
Highway 252 very well and allows for a slightly smoother traffic flow along Highway
252 and better pedestrian access from the neighborhood east of 252 to the school,
park, etc. There will be no access onto 252 from 69th, which will be cul- de- saced.
Because of the realignment of 69th /70th, the property in question will experience
more traffic than otherwise. -A higher density land use may, therefore, be justified.
As stated earlier, Application No. 81019 was opposed by other persons whose property
would have been rezoned. (Melba Evanson, Joseph Roche). Although their properties
are not included in the proposed rezoning, there will, no'doubt, be objections that
• the proposal constitutes "spot zoning" and is, therefore, contrary to the City's
stated policy against "spot zoning" (see Section 35 -208 attached).
4-29. -82
" Application No. 82020 continued
Staff feel that this objection, while understandably is not valid. While the
proposed zoning district is quite small, it is only part of larger area designated
in the proposed Comprehensive Plan for mid - density residential (R3) development. So
long as the proposed zoning district can accommodate a viable townhouse development
and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the rezoning application need not be
seen as "spot zoning ", but as a step in the eventual effectuation of the Comprehensive
Plana
The applicant has stated a desire to develop the property for owner - occupied townhouses
and is in the process of developing conceptual development plans for an eight unit
townhouse project. The structures will either be two four unit townhouses or four
two unit townhouses. In addition to the small size of the parcel one difficulty in
developing a site plan is the uncertain prospect of additional land to the east and
south being someday rezoned R3 and joined to the project. Staff recommend that the
project have no more than two accesses onto 69th /70th.
As with all rezoning requests, it is recommended that the Planning Commission table
the application following the public hearing and refer it to the Northeast Neighbor-
hood Advisory Group for review and comment. The previous application ,(No. 81019)
was referred to the neighborhood group, but was withdrawn before the meeting
took place.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Al
i
i
.. ..�.
4 -29 -82 -2
April 26, 1982
�- Honorable Ronald A. Warren, Secretary
Brooklyn Center Planning Commission
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center Minnesota 55430
Res CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING HUSSMAN PROPERTY
FROM R1 TO R3.
Dear Sirs
The Brooklyn Center Planning Secretary should review
the City's Comprehensive Plan that was submitted to the ad-
jacent Cities for review at least six (6) months PRIOR to
submitting them to the Metro Council for review and appro-
val. The Metro Council on December 17, 1981 approved the
City's Comprehensive Plan as submitted.
- The City's document, "The Comprehensive Plan, " -was
prepared in accordance to Statute 473.851 473.872.
Section 473.859, Subd. 1 . "The Comprehensive Plan shall
contain objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND USE, development, 'redevelopment and
preservation for all lands and waters WITHIN THE JURISDIC-
10N OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT through 1990.
Subd. 2. A land use plan shall designate the existing
and proposed location, intensity and extent of use of land
and water for agriculture, residential, commercial, indust-
rial'and other public and private purposes, or any combina-
tion of such purposes.
t
The City's Comprehensive Plan at Page 90.1. r
Policy Plan by Neighborhood.
Brooklyn Center has been divided into six (6) clearly
definable neighborhoods.
Northeast Neighborhood, PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS.
1. Makesingle family detached housing the predominant
- character of the Northeast'Neighborhood.
t
Hon. R. A. Warren, Secretary -.2 - April 26,1982 '
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm.
s
The City's Planning Commission has scheduled a Hearing
on April 29th to SPOT -ZONE the Hussman Property from R1 to
R3, even though the City's Zoning Ordinance PROHIBITS "spot
zoning" and the City's Comprehensive Plan on Page 90.1
states, 11 1. Make single family detached housing the pre -
dominant character of the Northeast Neighborhood."
The Petitioner, Hussman Investment Company's applica-
tion for "rezoning" contains a SUBSTANTIAL DEPARTURE from
the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive
Plan that the Metro Council approved on December 17., 1981,
because the application for rezoning:
1..IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH PROPER PLANNING AND LAND USE,
2. IS NOT REQUIRED as a PUBLIC NEED for it, or a corn-
pelling REASON for it,
3. DOES NOT SHOW substantial material facts in support
that no reasonable use can be made of the Property
in a R1 Zoning Classification as a SINGLE FAMILY
{
DETACHED HOUSING SITE.
The City's Comprehensive Plan at Page 77
Policies and plans contained within this document '
represent an extension and continuation of those r
set forth in the 1966 Brooklyn Center Citv C ompre-
hensive Plan Unless this document contains a direct
contradition to the policies or plans of the 1956
Plan those policies and plans remain in effect.
• o health safety, and
'on The provision f ,
Exp lanation: Y
P P �
welfare are three legitimate objectives of municipal
Wh i le _
governme i
L ... �Ih_le working �o further these,
individual oronerty rights and freedom of decision
must be respected
At page 79. Measures.
Measures should be taken to protect and-..main-
tain each neighborhood's identity. Encroachments
-up viable residential areas _by inc ompatible land
uses should be discouraged
The City of Brooklyn Center can work to pre-
serve and enhance the investment of the individual
in his /her land and buildings by insuring comUatible
land use relationshius and preventing encroachments f
which create neoative or blighting intluences
Hon. R. A. Warren, Secretary - 3 April 26,1982
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm.
• II. COURT RULINGS
Placa v. Lehr, 538 NW2d 919 (1976 No.)
Implicit in this whole concept of comprehensive zoning
Is the principle that one seeking a change or a rezoning for
the use of land must bear the burden of presenting competent
and sdbstantial evidence of a public as well as a private need
therefore, general welfare considerations cannot be disregarded.
Sun Oil Co. v. New Hope (1974) 220 N.W.2d 256
3rd Mason's Dunnell Digest. Mid Corp. 4525.
Mere physical proximity between existing and proposed land
uses does not of itself merit a rezoning of the subject property.
Even though there may be a significant change in the character
of the neighborhood of the subject property, such change in
itself does not compel a rezoning absent probative evidence
that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current
zoning classification.
Burns v. Des Peres, 534 P.2d 103 (CA 8 1976 No.) Cert.
den., 97 S. Ct. 164
Landowners have an interest in perpetuation of existing
zoning schemes. Accordingly, protests by landowners about a
zoning change request may be properly considered in denying
the request.
Disco v. Bd. of Selectmen, 347 A.2d 451 (1974 NH).
The filing of a protest petition is timely if it is.done
prior to the vote on the protested amendment. A content of
property within the appropriate distance of a proposed zone
change is qualified to sign a protest petition.
Hon. R. A. Warren, Secretary - 4 - April 26, 1982
Brooklyn Center Planning Comm.
-Where a ZONING ORDINANCE ASNTJMENT is in ACCORD with
PROPER PLANNING AND LAND USE, the contention that the ZON-
ING ORDINANCE constitutes "SPOT - ZONING WILL BE REJECTED
Morningside v. Board, 292 A2d.393 (Conn., 1977) ""°
The mere fact that an area is small and is ZONED at
the request of a single owner and is of greater benefit to
him than to,.others DOES NOT MAKE OUT A CASE OF SPOT - ZONING,
if there is a PUBLIC NEED for it, or a- Gompelling reason
for it. Shadlick v. Concord, 234 A2d 523 (N.H., 1967)
The present zoning of RI has a SUBSTANTIAL RELATION-
SHIP to the PUBLIC WELFARE due to potential traffic prob-
le m across the street in the Ever -
and n d hazards to children chi dre
green Park, AND, should be retained.
Respectfully Submitted For
Constitutional Government,.
Me P. Evanson
800 -69 Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
CITY OF_BROOYLYN CENTER
Hind Energy Conversion System(WECS) - Any device which converts
wind energy to another form of usable energy such as best or
electricity.
Permit Required - No WECS or support tower of any kind shall be
erected within the city without first making an application and
obtaining apermit from the city therefore.
Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant shall provide to the
`city documentation from the manufacturer that the WECS has been
adequately tested and is.warranted against system failure under
Sarmal operating conditions.
Construction Requirements • All WECSerected within the city shall
comply with the following requirements:
- A., All applicable provisions of the uniform building
code adopted shall be complied with in addition to
these requirements set out in this ordinance*
So ' itl&S towers shall have a professional sn iaeer' s
Certification..
C. No WECS tower shall exceed a height of 110 feet,
seasured from the..base of the tower to the highest
point.
D. All.WECS shall beequipped with on automatic overspeed
-awntrol device as part of their design.
E. Slade arcs created by the WECS shall be a- minimuat
of 30 feet above ground level.
!., W= and towers shall be adequately grounded for
protection against direct lightning strikes. {
6. All power lines leading to and from the WECS shall
be buried or at least eight feet above the ground f
:.at all points.
R.. All WECS shall comply with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency'a noise pollution control section
*.amended.
U All WECS shall comply with all applicable Federal
- "Aviation Administration regulations as amended.
Abandoned Towers; Removal Any wind system and tower which is not
used for the twelve successive month; commencing after their effec
'five date of this ordinance, shall be deemed abandoned and shall
removed as abandoned property. `
1 K R' S x^ , - A r r. T" 'f,''E r 7 .. � n , � +t 1 T' ` S. A
' � 1 ' 'T r �.�...a =.. w, -?s: ,, �: }s.. n �`�3.r.. �.�C,x.� '( � y �i F `�. r`s� � �a COU C� ' I N / �:;� � 7{�
t S.1.. —Ai 1a. `` a.i. �!» T-.i. s.%'k�l a . ^ �{...aw.3"f r 3ER .Liy T irO'�..f 1, TY 1�1.� 1 PI
%1bt LS �A 1. i:a ul ` .�l,.ta..` ` 1J. k1 ;1t� t�TA
GULI'�Fa SESSION
A.PRIL 15, 1982
CITY HALL
CA.3' L TO C?RMR
The P _a ning Commission net in regular session and was `called to
order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:33 p.m,
POLL CALL
Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson,
Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg.
Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald
Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, and Planning Assistant
cross.
Gary Shallv
Chairman Lucht then presented Commissioner Ainas with a certi ficate
of appreciation from the Rotary Club, Commissioner Ainas received
it gratef ully,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 25, 1982
Motion b� Commissioner Sandstrom seconded b Commissioner Manson
t
y Y
to approve: the ra nutes of the March 25, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commis-
sicners Malecki, Manson, Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg., Voting
against none. Not voting Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed:.
I.
P:PPLICATTON NOS. 82008 and 82016 (Bergstrom .Realty)
Following :He Chairman s explanation, the Secretary introduced the
first two ite ms _ of business a ,re request for rezoning of the land
� q g
within the 1300 block on the south side of 69th Avenue North froze
C2 to R3, and a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide
the la d in question into 28 townhouse lots, and one common area
and 6 outlots. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see
Planning Commission Information Sheets f.or,Appl:icati.on'Nos. 82008
and 82016). He also reviewed a draft resolution recommending
amendment of the existing and proposed Comprehensive Plans and a
resolution recommending approval of Application No. 82608. The
f h
Assistant City E ngineer briefly reviewed drain aspects o th
Y _ g Y g' p
proposed, plat and grading plan (see points 5, ,6, 7 and 10 of memo
from 0ames Grube attached). Finally, the secretary reviewed the
conditions pertaining. to the plat.
PUBLIC HEAR
1
Gha�.rzna:.n Lucht then opened the meeting for a public, hearing on the
proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He asked if anyone present
wished to comment on the proposed amendment. Mr. > James< Merila of
Merila and Associates, representing Bergstrom Realty, stated that
the staff review of the application had been thorough and he added
that the applicant ii- ou.l.d appreciate a favorable action on the
rezoning.
CL OSE PUB F:F .RING
9eazring E-5-,R-Fier corm gents regarding t`ze Comprehensive Plan Amend-
men.t, Chairman Luc-ht called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Motlon by CcaT=i sioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom
4-15 -82 -1-
to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously,
1
RESOLUTIONS _
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -1
member Nancy Manson introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoptions
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 66- -295,
(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO COMMERCIAL ZONED LAND IN SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF 69TH AND HUMBOLDT AVENUES NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member Lowell Ainas, and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: George Lucht, Molly Malecki,
Nancy Manson, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom,and Donald
Versteeg; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon
said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -2
Member Molly Mai-93 introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO 8200
SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly g
seconded by member Carl Sandstrom, and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: George Lucht, Molly Malecki,
Nancy Manson, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald
Verstee g and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon
said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on
Application No. 82016, the preliminary plat. He asked if anyone
present wished to comment on the application. Hearing none, he
called for a motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commrss1oner Ainas seconded by Commissioner 'Malecki to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman
Lucht the n asked whether there was y
an further discussion of the
proposed plat. There being none, he ,called for a motion regarding
Application No. 82016.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82016
(Bergstrom Realty)
Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Coirimissioner Sandstrom to
recommend approval of Application No. 82016, subject to the follow-
.
ing conditions:
1. The final P lat is subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of
Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.
3 Homeowner's association documents shall be subject
to review and approval by the iity Attorney prior
4- -15 -82 -2--
to final plat approval.
4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are
subject to reviEf-w and approval by the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of permits,
5. The plat must be given final approval by the City
Council and filed at the County prior to the
issuance of building permits.
'doting in favor; Chairrcan Lucht, Commissioners Malecki >., Manson,
Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 82014 (McDonald's)
T'he Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for
site a:ad building plan and special use permit approval to construct
a drive -up order station and pickup window at the McDonald's at
5525 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of
the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for
`Application No. 82014 attached).
Commissioner Malecki asked, whether all three accesses to the site
allowed for two -way traffic. The Secretary responded in the affirm-
ative. In answer to <a question regarding parking, the Secretary
explained to Commissioner Malecki. that the applicant will reduce
the number of seats in the restaurant in order to meet: the parking
requirements. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern regarding
people entering the drive -up lane from both the east and west
accesses. The Secretary acknowledged that this could became a
problem, but stated that once the construction` work on Xerxes Avenue
North is completed, the private road to the west of McDonald's will
not carry a substantial amount of traffic.
Commissioner Versteeg asked how high the median would be from the
pavement. The Secretary answered that it would be curb height, or
six inches._ Commissioner Versteeg asked about the route taken by
delivery trucks. The, Secretary stated that those trucks usually
enter from the west access. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the
corner for the bypass lane outside of the drive- up'lane would be
squared off. The Secretary stated that the squared off median would
discourage traffic from going northbound on the bypass lane and to
llow for i
a i ne Assistant City
ors r denoting one-way traffic. The s
g Y g Y Y
Engineer stated that the corner could be rounded off somewhat, but
that there should be enough room on the island to place an appropriate
sig ;r and to make patrons visually aware of the one -way bypass lane.
Chairman Lucht called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Richard Engstrom,
representing McDonald's, stated that he wanted the median to have a
5 radius to allow for easier maintenance. He said that perfectly
square corners tend to get broken off. He also explained that de-
livery trucks arrive at 4 :00 a.m. and should cause' very little dis-
ruption at the restaurant.
ACTION RECOMIN NDINC APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82014 (McDonald's)
Mot o :Yy Comr..ss over Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg
to recorT.iend' approval of Application No. 82014, subject to the
i
following conditions:
f 4 -15 -82 -3-
1. Building plan; are subj to � AaiF� ,� and c >;> �3 L 1 by the
B u ilding' Official with respect to ;.$pplical)lcx col" ac. prior a
to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are suhjeet
to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the
issuance ol'' 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 cony
pletion of approved site improvements.
4. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking
and driving areas.
5. The 'Special Permit is issued to McDonald's and is subject
to all codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation
thereof'shall be grounds: for revocation.
6. The one -gray by -pass 'lane west of the drive -up lane shall be
signed as such at both its entrance and exit points. Parallel
parking stalls shall be signed for employee parking.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht`Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Simmons,
` Ainas Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
APPLICATION N4. 82017 (Robert Adelmann)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request : : ,for , a, -
variance from the sign ordinance to erect a 46' high, 20 sq. ft., free-
standing sign at the Standard Oil Gas Station at 6501 Humboldt Avenue
North. The `Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see
Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82017 (at
°
.torched). The Secretary showed adrawng dep icting the existing and
proposed signs: relation to each other and also described the moth
fications to the freeway that have taken place since 1980.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Luc t, after asking the Planning Commission if-it had any
questions for the Secretary, opened a public hearing. Mr. Robert
Adelmann, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Adelmann stated
that people who used to exit the freeway at Humboldt Avenue North, ,no
longer can see his gas station when they e xit at Shinctle Creek = .Parkway.
Ke stated that he wishes to have the same visibility from the exit at
:Shingle Creek Parkway as he use io have at the exit at Humboldt. He
stated that he -had contracted LeRoy Signs to calculate the height and
:size of sign that would be needed to regain this visibility. He ex-
plained to the Commission'that he has,rising expenses and cannot -meet
those.expenses with declining gasoline sales. He pointed: out that
Standard Oil, ass a company, has lost 5.4 in volume in the Twin Cities
area over the year 1981, but that his station dropped in tir�lu by
over 19'% and is still dropping.
Commissioner Simmons stated that Mr. Adel rent's contention that he
had "visibility" applied only to those vehi cles W=hich were going
p ast his station anyway, since those people e exitir at h
who were going south, rather than north, vould have paid no attention
to the sign. Yx. Adelmtann explained that a lot of traffic that gets
off at Shingle Creek Parkway now takes Shingle Creek Parkway north
4 -15 -82 �-4-
Planning Commission Inforvetion Sheet
Application No. 32014 _
Applicant: McDonald's
Location: 5525 Xerxes Ave. North
Request Site and Building Plan, Special Use Permit
This application for site and building plan and special use permit approved to add a
drive -up window at McDonald's was reviewed and tabled by the Planning Commission at
its March 25, 1982 meeting. The natter was tabled to give staff and the applicant
opportunity to rework the plans for.the area immediately wrest of the building with
respect to grade and traffic flow,
.Staff and the applicant have agreed on a new layoutwhich establishes a maximum grade
of 3% (rather than the 6% to 10% now in place) and also calls for a concrete
delineator to separate the - drive -up traffic from other traffic in the lot. Immedi-
ately west of the drive -up lane will be a 12' wide one -way, by -pass; lane with parallel
parking stalls at the west edge of the lot. We feel that this is a workable arrange -
ment if the one -way lane is properly signed as such.
Approval is, therefore, recommended subject to at least the following conditions:
1 Building puns 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. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
5. The Special Use Permit is issued to McDonald's and is subject to
all codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof
shall be grounds for revocation.
6;.. The one -way by -pass lane west of the drive -up lane shall be signed
as such at both its entrance and exit points. Parallel parking
stalls shai,l be signed for employee parking.
4- 15-82
to 6 th iAverue and then comes back to Newton to go to Brooklyn
.Park, whereas be -fore they exited at HumAboldt and went north past
his station before going-into Brooklyn Park. The Planning Assistant
asked the applicant why a sign would make any difference to people
who have changed their traffic patterns and probably already know
that his station _exists at the corner of 65th and Humboldt. Mr.
Adelmann responded that the sign appeals to night traffic primarily.
He stated that he wished to get new customers coming off the freeway.
He admitted that he was not sure that a sign would necessarily in-
crease his business, but he felt that he had to try something to
get his volume back up to what it wag Commissioner Simmons stated
that people would take the routes that they wanted to take and would
pay little attention to stations that are visible from locations
not on the routes that they intend to go.
Mr. Adelmann again stated that he has experienced a great loss in
volume of gasoline sold and that the sales are still dropping. He
,stated that he did not feel it would be a nuisance to allow the
sign, nor that other variances would be justified because he was
granted a variance. Chairman Lucht stated that granting a variance
to Mr. Adelmann would set a significant precedent. He cited the
example of the Vickers Gasoline Station north of the ,freeway on
Brooklyn. Boulevard, which could also claim a need for freeway
visibility if its business was dropping off.: He asked whether the
Holiday Inn had lost business as a result of the freeway construction.
Mr. Adelmann admitted that the 'Holiday Inn had lost business' during
the freeway construction, but now that the bridge is open, business
is coming back. Mr. Adelmann insisted that his station had been
visible from the Humboldt Avenue exit before the Holiday Inn had
expanded. The Secretary disagreed with this contention and stated
that the Standard Oil Station at 65th and Humboldt had very _little,
if any, visibility from the freeway.
Mr. Bred Harris, Territory Manager for Standard Oil, explained that
Mr. Adelmann is not requesting visibility from the freeway itself,
but from the Shingle Creek Parkway exit. He explained that credit
card information shows 46W of Mr. Adelmann's business comes from
non -Local customers. He reiterated that the business at the station
has dropped 20% over the last year and that the change in traffic
patterns has been a significant factor. Chairman Lucht pointed out
from information provided that'Mr. Adelmann's entire business is
not down 19.6 %, but only 12 %, suggesting that other aspects of the
service station are improving, while gas sales are declining.,
Commissioner Manson asked whether price competition might have
something to do with declining sales at the - Standard Oil Station.
She noted the 7 Eleven Store and Q Petroleum Station further north
on Humboldt that have opened within the past two years offer gasoline
at .lower prices than Standard. Mr. Fred Harris stated that there
are other things factored into the price of gas, such as maintaining
a:repair garage and service vehicles which 7 Eleven and Q Petroleum
do not have to keep up. Commissioner Simmons stated that people are
not that loyal when it comes to buying gas. She-stated that they
will go wherever the price is best and that if Standard Oil's price
is not competitive, it can expect to lose sales. Mr. Adelmann
stated that when his station at 66th and Lyndale was closed, he
expected to pick up about 20% of the business that used to frequent
that station. He stated that with the roadway work that has been.
done on Humboldt Avenue, he has experienced no net increase in,
4_15 -82 -5-
sales. The closing of the FIumboldt Avenue bridge during 1981
reduced his sales significantly and these sales are still`dropp.ng,
he said. The Planning Assistant asked what the effect of Q Petroleum
could have been over the past year, since most of the traffic that
goes by the Standard Station also goes past Q Petroleum. Mr.
Adelmann stated that Q has probably had some impact on his business.
Chairman Lucht then asked whether anyone else wished to comment on
the application. No one spoke.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commisss.ener Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Simmons stated that she could sympathize with the
difficulty brought on by changing conditions, but felt that addi-
tional signery over and above that allowed by the ordinance would
not rectify the situation. Mr. Adelmann stated that no other
business could claim the kind of hardship that he could from the
highway changes and that,` therefore, no other variances would' have
to be granted. He also stated that he did not feel the larger and
higher sign would create a nuisance for anyone. Commissioner
Versteeg asked how many cars per day would have to see the new
sign to recoup the loss of business. Mr. Adelmann said that he
was not sure, but stated that the sign was something he felt he had
to do to try to get his business back.
Commissioner Ainas noted that the Budgetel and Thrifty Scot Motels"
opened up during the freeway construction. He asked whether there
was any gain in business when those two motels opened. Mr. Adelmann
stated that all his information shows that the volume of his business
has dropped. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt price was
probably a large factor in the doss of business to lower priced
gasoline stations. Mr. Adelmann again stated that other factors
enter into the price he charges for gasoline.
ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82017
(Robert Adelmann)
Motion by Commissioner Manson second y Commissioner Simmons to
recommend denial of Application No. 82017 on the grounds that the
Sign Ordinance Standards for Variance are not met in that the
situation is not unique and that to grant the variance would set
a bad precedent which would undermine the Sign Ordinance. Voting
in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners haalecki, Manson, Simmons,
Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against none. The motion
passed unanimously.
RECESS
T e P anning Commission recessed at 9:17 p.m. and resumed at 9 :44 p.m.
APPLICATION NOS. 82018 and 82021 (Summit Mortgage Corporation)
Following the recess, the Secretar introuucec the neat two items
of business: a request for site and building plan approval to re-
model the barn and hippodrome on the Earle Brawn Farm for use as
a TV station, and a' request for a variance. from Section 35-400 of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow two receiving dishes to be located
within the 50' front setback area off Earle Brown Drive. The
Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff ,reports concerning
She
the applications (see Planning Cor�r.i.ssion lnf Information Sh�.ets for
Se cretar y Application Nos. 82018 and 82021 a the �.ecretar� s ta c..E'd
4 -15 -82 6-
tha l 'the Plcux ring Coniili.s^ic n ht°:t.d found the proposed use to be
accepta"Ole in the I -1 zone and f historic preservation of the
buildings. fie stated that he slid not anticipate the mall area
being used for parking in the future, even though a proof-of-
parking was shown in that area'. Fie stated that additional parking,
if needed, could be obtained off --site He also pointed out that
curb a�.dagutter should be continued along the southerly access
drive to the hippodrome and link up with curb and gutter surrounding
the Suzmit Bank Building. The Secretary also pointed out that the
Holiday Inn has a receiving dish which meets the setback. The
Secretary showed an elevation of the Earle Brown Office Tower and
illus- trated the height of the dishes if placed on top of the Office
Tower.
Commissioner Simmons asked how high the dishes would be. The
Secretary answered that they would be approximately 32' if tipped
up. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there would not be greater
impact visually by putting the dishes on top of the building. He .
also noted that the winds would blow more strongly at the elevation
of the top of the office building and that this could present a
danger of the dishes being blown off the top of the building and
onto the parking lot below. Commissioner Simmons stated that she
was concerned that the dishes would be so huge that they dwarf
the barn and hippodrome.
Mr. Janis Blumentalsi the architect for the project, showed site
layouts, floor plans and building elevations in colored renderings
to th Planning Commission. He stated that the receiving dishes
would not overwhelm the farm buildings. Regarding the option of
putting the dishes on the building, Mr. Blumentals stated that
there would be structural difficulties supporting the dishes and
that in order to test whether they could actually work on the roof,
they would have to be taken up to the top and actually mounted, a
very difficult and expensive procedure only for a test. He also
expressed concern about the wind placing stress on the anchoring of
the dishes to the roof. He also stated that the dishes have to be
a certain distance apart and that this might not be feasible on top
of the office building. Finally, he questioned the aesthetics of
putting the dishes on top of the Office Tower. -
Commissioner Simmons stated that if the dishes were placed on top
of the office building, they would not be very visible from the
ground. Mr. Blumentals countered that it would be quite visible
from the 'freeway, since the Earle Brown Office Tower is visible for
some distance in either directions.
The Planning Assistant asked whether the northerly of the two dishes
could be placed north of the barn so as to leave the barn and hippo-
drome within the parenthesis of the two dishes Mr. Blumentals
stated that the two 25' diameter dishes would not overpower a 400'
long building, that the building would still be visible, for the
mostpart, from Earle Brown Drive. The Planning Assistant pointed
out that it was somewhat a matter of perspective, that the closer
the dishes are to the road the more of the building they will block
out. Mr. Blumentals stated that, aside from any financial con
siderations, he would recommend that the dishes be left on the
ground as a preferable design to placing.them on the building.
Mr. Kocher of the TNTFBT Television Station stated that the dishes
would actually work better on the ground than on top of the office
4 - 15 -82 -7-
building because of microwave disturbance, which is more intense
at the elevation of the office building.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing re-
garding the variance application (Application No. 82021). No one
present commented on the application. However, the Planning Com-
mission took up the matter of the site plan during the public
hearing.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82018
(Blumentals Architecture /Summit Mortgage Corporation)`
Motion by Commissioner Versteeg seconded by Commissioner Malecki to
recommend approval of Application No. 82018, subject to the follow-
ing 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 and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by`'the City Manager)
shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits g -
to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened
from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic
fire extinguishing system to meet "NFPA Standards
and shall be connected to a central monitoring
device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City
Ordinances.
6 An underground irrigation system shall be installed
in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is
subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all
parking and driving areas including the area of
shared access with the building to the south
(current Summit Bank).
9. The preliminary R.L.S.` approved under Application
No. 81035 shall receive final approval by the
City Council and be filed with the County prior
to the issuance of building per its for the con-
version of the barn and hippodrome.
10.' Improvements to the Summit Bank property approved
under Application No. 78002, but deferred until
plans were accepted for the barn and hippodrome
shall be corrtpleted prior to October 1:, 1.982 in
4 -15 -82 -8-
L
ccn unc;tior: vf h {.he rcquired by
approval of thJ s appL c ,ticn.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Cofin;issioners Nalecki, Manson,
Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrcmm and Versteeg. Voting against: none.
the motion passed unanimously.
The Chairman asked whether anyone present wished to comment further
can the variance application. Hearing none, he called for a motion
to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
M tzon by Ccrrmx ssioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson
to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Lucht then polled the Planning Commission as to its
feelings on the variance application. Commissioner Malecki stated
that she felt the situation is entirely unique, involving as it
does, the City's only historic district. She stated that she
-would prefer a less visible location, but would vote for the
variance in light of the limited options.' Commissioner Sandstrom
stated that he felt the problem of putting the dishes on the roof
is greater than the problem of leaving the dishes on the ground,
both from anaesthetic and an engineering standpoint. Commissioner
Simmons stated that the Commission has only verbal assurances that
the dishes could not feasibly be put on top of the office building.
Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the applicants have looked
into all the possibilities. Mr. Kocher answered that an engineering
firm had been hired to find the best location for the receiving
- antennae and that the proposed location is where they work best.
Commissioner Ainas stated-that he felt the Planning Commission
should relieve the applicant of the task of looking at the roof
'location as a viable possibility for the receiving dishes. He
stated that from his professional judgment, he did not think the
dishes could work well on top of the building. Commissioner Manson
stated that she felt the proposed location is the best location for
the dishes on the property in question. Chairman Lucht stated that
he felt the greenstrip along Earle Brown Drive really represented
the back of the historical site as opposed to the front, which he
*` � considered to be the mall area. He concurred that the proposed
location for the dishes was the best location on the site in question.
Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the north end of the barn could
be considered a feasible location. Chairman Lucht stated that that
location has been considered aesthetically and operationally difficult.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 820
(Summit Mortgage Corpor
Motion by Commissioner San strum seconded Ey Commissioner Ainas to
recommend approval of Application No. 82021 on the following grounds:
1. The circumstances surrounding the application
are unique, involving an existing historic structure
which cannot readily be moved without damage to
structural and historical integrity.
2. Failure to grant the variance would cause either
an undue hardship for the applicant or (by placing
the receiving dishes in the mall area) would
seriously disturb the character of historic
district` established under Application No. 81041.
4 -15 -82 -9-
3. The circumstances affecting the application were
not created by the applicant, but arise because
of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
which were adopted after the farm buildings
were erected.
4. Proposed placement of the receiving dishes
minimizes the variance and the impact on
surrounding development.
Voting in favor Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 82019 (Martin Drinkwine)
The Secretary introduced the last item of business, a request for
a special home occupation to conduct a Tidy Car business at 5632
James Avenue North._ The Secretary reviewed the contents of the
staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Appli
cation No. 82019 attached) The Secretary also referred to a memo
from the Building Official recommending installation of a 5 lb.
chemical fire extinguisher in the garage. He also referred the
Commission to a letter from Mrs. Reva Tuttle of 5627 James Avenue` s�
North objecting the proposed home occupation. He noted that the
staff have received information that the odors complained of by
Mrs. Tuttle apparently came from another location.
Commissioner Sandstrom noted the limit placed on the home occupation
to 10 cars serviced per month. He asked whether it would make any
difference if the limit were set at 12 cars. The Secretary answered
that the limit of 10 cars was based on the applicant's letter,
which stated he would seek a commercial location if his business
reached the point of 8 to 10 cars per month.
Chairman Lucht called on the applicant to speak. Regarding the
limit of 10 cars, Mr. Marty Drinkwine stated he could go to 15 cars,
per month before requiring a full -time operation in a commercial
location. He stated that he projected only 8 to 10 cars in the
hope of not being required to obtain a special use permit. Chairman
Lucht stated that the limit of 10 cars per month may seem somewhat
arbitrary, but that some limit must be set. He explained that if
anyone were to monitor the activity and find that over 10 cars per
month were being serviced the special use permit could be considered
for revocation. Mr. Drinkwine asked what the consequences would be
if he happened to service 12 cars in a given month. He stated that
he did not want to turn away business, but did not want to jeopardize
his special use permit. The Secretary stated that it was basically
a question of determining at w hat point the home occupation is no
longer secondary and incidental. He noted that servicing more cars
than authorized by the permit could lead to revocation or the
applicant would have to seek an amendment to his Special Use Permit.
Commissioner Versteeg asked Mr. Drinkwine whether he planned on
having any employees. Mr. Drinkwine answered that he did not plan
on having any employees at the present time, but that if business
were good enough . he might hire a part -tire person to help. He
added that by the time he would seek part -time help he would
probably be in a position to look for a commercial location. In
response to a question from Corrunissioner, Simi -ions, the Secretary
explained having an employee is one of the factors requiring a
4 - -82 _10-
special use permit. He stated that Mr. Drinkwine had not requested
approval of an er ployee in his letter to the staff. He added
that `Mr. Erinkwine would have to seek an amendment _to, his permit
if he decides in the future: to have an employee. Mr. Drinkwine
stated that he simply did not think of hiring one.
PUBLI HEARING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and
asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application.
Mr. John Amundson of 5643 James Avenue North stated that since
Mr. Drinkwine had lived at his current residence, he has not
noticed any noise or :odors in connection with the business. He
stated that, in fact, he was unaware that he was conducting the
business until he received an advertisement. Mr. Amundson stated
that he saw no problem with what Mr. Drinkwine was `doing and
pointed out that the garage door is usually closed and people
cannot hear the drill.
Mrs. Julia Dussault of 56.42 James Avenue North stated that she
has never heard any noise emanating from Mr. Drinkwine`s garage
and that she lives immediately next door and added that she did
not object to the home occupation.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Luca aske whether anyone else wished to speak on the
application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the
public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Com-
missioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed
unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82019
(Martin Drinkwine)
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to
recommend approval of Application No. 82019, subject to the follow -
ing conditions;
1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator
of the facility and is nontransferable
2. The permit is subject to all nodes, ordinances
and regulations and any violation thereof shall
be grounds for revocation.
3.. Service shall be on an appointment only basis
between 4:00 p.m and 9:00 p.m. weekdays and
9:40 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
However, the special use permit authorizes work
on not more than 10 cars per month.
4. All parking shall be off- street on improved
space provided by the applicant
5. Service to ,automobiles or other power vehicles
is limited to washing and application of the
Tidy Car sealant; other repairs are expressly
prohibited.
6. The permit is subject to completion of any
work required by the Building Official.
' 4- 15--82 -11-
T. Noise, odor, and vibration shall not be
perceptible beyond the premises to the
degree that a nuisance is created.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki`, Manson,
Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none.`
The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Following a brief review of upcoming business items and a progress
report on the licensing ordinance dealing with amusement devices,
there was a motion by_Commissioner Sandstrom_ seconded by Commissioner
Malecki to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:11 p.m.
Chairman
•
4 ' - 15 -82 , -12-
Planning Comriission Information Sheet
Application No. 82016
• Applicant: Ken Bergstrom
Location: 1300 block on south side of 69th Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant seeks preliminary plat approval to subdivide the land in the 1300 block
on the south side of 69th Avenue North into 11 blocks and 6 outlots. The purpose of
the plat is to set up individual, lots for location of townhouses. The property is
the subject of Application No. 82008 to rezone the property from C2 to R3.
The plat creates 'a single large common area, to be described as Lot 1, Block 1,
Hi Crest Square Estates. Blocks 2 through 11 contain 28 townhouse lots mostly along
the east side of the development. 0utlots A through F are more on the west side of
the complex and will be replatted into 32 additional- townhouse lots when construction
is ready to begin on those units.
Submitted along with the preliminary plat are grading and utility plans for the
proposed development. The Planning Commission is referred to a memo from Jim Grube
on these aspects. Briefly, the grading plan calls for a large pond on the west side
of the development to receive the majority of the drainage from the site. There
will also be pockets along the east and south sides of the site which will collect
drainage to be conveyed by storm sewer ultimately in the City storm sewer in 67th`
Avenue North. Water and sanitary sewer will be brought in from 69th Avenue North.
The applicant also proposes to loop the water system to a private water line serving
the Humboldt Square Shopping Center.
• The proposed plat provides for 5' of additional right -of- way dedication along 69th
Avenue North in line with the County's policy to bring the width of 69th Avenue
North to 80'. No Homeowner's association documents have been submitted as yet.
These must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to final ,plat approval.
Altogether, the plat seems to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at
least the following conditions:
1) The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2) The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances.
3) Homeowner's association documents shall be subject to review and
approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval.
4) Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits
I
- 4 -15 -82
TO: Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections
. FROM: James Grube, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: April 9, 1982
RE: Preliminary Plat /Development Plan Review of Hi Crest Square
Estates (Planning Commission Application No. 82016)
The referenced preliminary plat /development plan was reviewed by the
Engineering Department staff and the following comments are submitted
for your review and consideration.
1. The development abuts C.S.A.H. 130 (69th Avenue North) therefore,
Hennepin County approval is required for platting, street access,
and utility installations.
2. The preliminary plat provides for dedication of an additional
5 feet of street width along C.S.A.H. 130 thereby meeting estab-
lished County policy of requiring a 40 foot centerline-to- right-
of -way line width along C.S.A.H. 130 (present width is 35 feet).
3. All interior streets will remain private roadways under this
proposal.
4. The applicant proposes to connect the watermain to ,a private system
at Humboldt Square and to the municipal system in C.S.A.H. 130.
Utility agreements must be executed by the Humboldt Square "Partner-
ship and the applicant to provide such connection and insure
continued water supply.
5. The proposed drainage plan does (with minor modification) provide
for area drainage away from the homes along Emerson Avenue North.
6. The applicant proposes to construct a pond for purposes of lowering
the water table and providing for temporary holding of storm water
runoff. Soil borings indicate the water table elevation is
842 -843. By placement of the outlet control structure at 840, the
applicant anticipates lowering the water table 2 to 3 feet in the
immediate vicinity. If heavy clay soil is present in the devel-
opment, the pond's effect on the water table may become ' less pro-
nounced as the distance from the pond increases.
7. Slopes along the pond are 5:1, allowing for ease of maintenance
and accessibility. The applicant proposes to continue the 5:1
slope below the waterline (at elevation 840) to a depth of 5 feet
(at elevation 835).
8. The 'storm sewer system ties into an existing_ 27 inch storm sewer
in 67th Avenue. The 67th Avenue system was not sized to accept
storm water runoff from the development; however, it provides the
only logical outlet for the runoff. The staff must work with the
applicant in designing an adequate system that will not exceed the
capacity of the existing system.
9. The City must enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the applicant
to provide assurances that all aspects of the proposed development
meet the requirements of City Ordinances.
10. This comment has been general in nature and the Planning Commission
• and applicant are reminded that a thorough examination of all
aspects of the proposal will be made the staff.
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 82017
Applicant: Robert L. Rdelmann
Location: 6501 Humboldt Avenue North
Request: Sign Ordinance Variance
The applicant is seeking a variance from THE TABLE OF PERMITTED FREESTANDING SIGN
AREAS AND HEIGHTS contained in the Sign Ordinance to erect a sign at Duke's Standard
that exceeds the allowable area in height for freestanding signs. The sign would
be located at the southeast corner of the service station property in the same
location as the current freestanding sign. The lot in question is zoned C2 and is
bounded by Humboldt Avenue on the east; Freeway Boulevard on the south; and R5 zoned
land on the north and west sides of the property.
The proposed variance would allow the applicant to raise his current freestanding
identification sign 22 feet from the permitted 24 feet in height to 46 feet in height.
In addition, he proposes to mount a new 12' x 17' (204 sq. ft.) torch and oval at
the top of the pole and leave the existing price sign /reader board in its present
location. The maximum area
building less
ermined for freestanding signs for u
P 9 g g
than 2200'sq. ft. in area is 90 sq. ft. The Sign Ordinance formula for calculating
sign area would require the calculation of the 12' x 17 torch and oval, the price
sign and the area between the signs. The gross area of the proposed sign would be
well beyond the 90 sq ft. allowed for even the 204 sq. ft. indicated for the new
sign.
The applicant has submitted a letter with his variance request (copy attached)
indicating his reasons for 'needing the variance and outlining how he feels his
proposal meets the Sign Ordinance Standards for Variances. He claims that the
f � variance i n that a about solely o this var a ce w conditions s t came granting h 11 correct co t o y due to the
recent construction of I -694 and that these conditions ha an adverse effect on
phis business and are unique to his business because it is the only business of any
type to be so effected. He also states that he is.only requesting that the City
allow his business the same level of visibility that he had prior to the recon-
struction of I -694. Mr. Adelmann: goes on to indicate how he feels his business has
been adversely affected experiencing a 19.6% decrease in gasoline sales in 1981
which has required him to eliminate two jobs at the service station with a possi
" bili eliminating two more positions if the trend continues.
Under the Sign Ordinance, the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council
may grant variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where
their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique
and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration- The provisions
of this ordinance, considered i,n conjunction with the unique and distinctive circum-
stances related to the ro ert or uses must be the proximate cause of the hardship;
P P Y P
circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in
title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance
may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the
following qualifications are met:
1 A particular' hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter
of the regulations were carried out.
2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are
unique to the parcel of land or the use.thereof for which the variance
1 is sought an are not common, generally,to other property or uses
within the same zoning classification;
4 -15 -82 _l_
Application No. 82017 continu?d
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood.
Mr. Adelmann, in his letter, attributes his decline in gasoline sales solely to the
recent construction on I -694 and the Humboldt Avenue bridge. The T.H. 100 /Humboldt
Avenue bridge was closed in November, 1950 and was reopened in November, 1981. Con -
struction on the freeway is still underway, but modifications have taken place. For
instance, there is no longer a full interchange at the freeway and T. H. 100 /Humboldt
Avenue area. The main interchange with the freeway has shifted to Shingle Creek
Parkway. Also, the limited on /off access at Xerxes and the freeway has been elimi-
nated. In terms of visibility, the gasoline station is much more visible now from
the T. H. 100 /Humboldt Avenue overpass than it was with the old interchange /overpass.
The northbound bridge from T. H. 100 to Humboldt is at a much higher elevation than
the former bridge and the station can be readily seen from that bridge. The south -
bound bridge from Humboldt to T. H. 100 is about at the same level as the old
overpass. ,
As indicated, T. H. i00 /Humboldt is no longer a main interchange with the freeway.`
The fact that the old interchange was in such close proximity to the T. H. 252/
Freeway Interchange dictated the shift of the Interchange to Shingle Creek Parkway.°
Many of the same movements can still be made at T. H. 100 /Humboldt -and the freeway
through channelization of the roadways. However, the shift of the Interchange to
Shingle Creek Parkway does not seem to have changed significantly the volume of
traffic going by or through the Freeway Boulevard /Humboldt Avenue intersection (the
intersection at which the Standard Station is located). Traffic wishing to get from
the freeway to the north and northeast sections of Brooklyn Center still pass by
and through the Freeway Boulevard /Humboldt intersection. The old T. H. 100 /Humboldt
Interchange never drew great amounts of traffic off of the freeway to go north other
than local traffic. This same local traffic still is required to go by or through
the Freeway Boulevard /Humboldt Avenue intersection,
Another fact that lends credence to the idea that traffic volumes at the Freeway
Boulevard /Humboldt intersection are the same and 'will continue to be the same or
greater is the installation of permanent traffic signals at that location. Warrants
have been met and will continue to be met thus, dictating the permanent nature of
location. It should also be
the traffic signals in this oc pointed out that the p
9
Standard Station in question never had freeway visibility even before freeway con -
struction was understaken. This was pointed out in a November 29, 1978 letter to
the Standard Oil Territory Manager when a similar request for a higher, larger sign
for this station was requested in 1978. (copy of letter attached)
If Mr. Adel mann is indeed only requesting the' %ame level of visibility" he had prior
to freeway construction, no further visibility to the freeway would be required..
His visibility has not been impaired at all nor does he have less visibility than
he ever had.
The applicant's claim that his gasoline sales are declining no doubt is a true
statement and it is regrettable that he is faced with layoffs. However, gasoline
sales statewide, according to the Minnesota Service Station Association, have been
declining steadily between 1978 and 1981 (over 14r'). The economic picture in the
Twin Cities areas for most retailers is also one of declining sales and layoffs.
Therefore, the staff do not feel that this service station's problem is one that is
only a visibility problem that a higher and larger sign will correct. Furthermore,
the City is not in a position to guarantee freeway visibility to gas stations or any
other business that feels a need to be seen from the freeway. Only businesses that
are located directly along a freeway or highway can reasonably expect such visibility.
4 -15 -82 -2- _
p.
Application Pao. 82017 continued
It is, therefore, felt that the situation described by the applicant is certainly not a
- unique situation nor is the problem a hardship related directly to the Sign Ordinance.
The problem is more akin to other circumstances which the Sign Ordinance has no
ability to correct.
The Planning Commission's attention is also directed to .Planning Commission Appli-
cation No. 81072 which was a similar variance request submitted by Russell Viska to
have a higher and larger sign for the Smoke Pit Restaurant so that it would be
visible from T. H. 100. Many of the arguments presented on behalf of that applicant
are the same as presented here. To allow a sign of the size and type requested would
lead to similar requests from other service station operators and other businesses
r to raise signery so they too can be visible from the freeway. This would be contrary
to the Sign Ordinance statement of purpose which indicates the intent of the ordinance
to provide necessary visual communication. A rash of granted variances could be con -
sidered to have a detrimental effect on the public welfare or be injurious to other
property or improvements in the area.
In conclusion, it is not felt that the applicant has met the Standards for Variance
contained in the Sign Ordinance and, therefore, the application should be.denied.
The applicant's basic argument is that he wants a higher and larger sign (the same as
Mr. Viska's arguement) and to accept this as a reason for granting a variance would
establish an unwarranted precedent for variances which could not be ignored if
similar requests were made.
I
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
i
4 -15 -82 -3-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No 82013
Applicant: Blumentals Architecture on behalf of Summit Mortgage Corporation
Location: 6159 Earle Brown Drive
Request: Site and Building Plan
The applicant requests site and building plan approval to remodel and refurbish the
horsebarn and hippodrome on the Earle Brown Farm for use as a television studio and
transmitting facility. The property in question is zoned 1 -1 and is also designated
a historic preservation area by approval of Application No. 81041. It is bounded
.on the east by Earle Brown Drive, on the south by the former Summit Bank building,
and on the west and north by the other Earle Brown Farm buildings (the main residence
and other accessory buildings and barns). The studio and transmitting facilities
are considered, per Planning Commission review at its March 25, 1982 meeting, a
permitted use similar in nature to other uses expressly permitted in the I -1 district.
The site plan calls for 64, parking spaces. The applicant comprehends 25 stalls for
5.091 sq. ft. of office space in the barn (at 1 space per 200 sq ". ft) 33 spaces
for a 100 seat studio (at l space per 3 seats and 5 spaces for 10 additional staff
people, at l space per 2 employees), for a total parking requirement of 63 stalls,
one less than provided on the plan. Staff do not accept the parking requirements
as suggested by the applicant. The parking formula for industrial or warehouse
space is one space /800 sq. ft. or one space per two employees, whichever is greater.
The floor space in the hippodrome, excluding Studio A (which has a 100 seat capacity)
is roughly 8,900 sq. ft Only 4,300 sq. ft. of this space, should be treated under
the industrial formula (5 spaces). The other 4,600 sq. ft. are more properly
considered office /service use. This would add 23 parking spaces to the 63 already
comprehended by the applicant. Finally, the cook shed will be used for storage
and represents l stall. The applicant has agreed to provide a proof -of- parking
plan showing that the additional stalls can be placed in the mall area between the
main house and the barn and hippodrome.
Landscaping proposed for the site is very similar to the landscape plan approved
under Application No. 81051, except that five Radiant Crabs: are indicated in the
greenstrip along Earle Brown Drive rather than five Marshall Seedless Ash. Ash
,,.trees are proposed along the central drive in the mall area west of the barn and
hippodrome`. Underground irrigation is-noted in all landscaped areas. The
northerly entrance to the site from Earle Brown Drive would be closed off by a
wood gate during non- business hours. A wood fence would extend along the east
property line and along the north side of the south entrance to the property.
The main parking lot to the east of the hippodrome will - drain - to a catch basin 55'
<due east of the southeast corner of the horsebarn, in the northwest corner of the
main parking lot. The catch basin will be connected by a 12 "private storm sewer
line to City storm sewer in Earle Brown Drive. The smaller parking area opposite
the barn must drain to the north (see memo from Jim Grube) The parking lot is
bounded by, B612 curb and gutter. The southerly drive, as it passes the hippodrome
to the bank, will not be - curbed
The building elevations will be changed only by replacing existing lattice windows
with fixed single pane window frames. The building is to be equipped with an
automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA.Standards and will also be retro-
fitted to meet state energy codes. Two 9 meter diameter receiving antennas
will be placed within the front setback area, but outside the greenstrip. (See
Application No 82021
4 -15 -82 -1_
Application No. 82018 continued
Altogether, the plan appears to be in order, with the exception of certain drainage
revisions, 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 and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount
to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the
issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip-
ment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central
monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 1
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped
areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter
34 of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving
areas.
9. The preliminary R.L.S. approved under Application No. 81035 shall
receive final approval by the City Council and be filed with the
County prior to the issuance of building permits for the conversion
of the barn and hippodrome.
10. Improvements to the Summit Bank property approved under Application
No. 78002, but deferred until plans were accepted for the barn and
hippodrome shall be completed prior to October 1, 1982 in conjunction
with the improvements required by approval of this application.
4 -15 -82 -2-
Planning Comirnission Information Sheet
Appl ication No. 62021
Applicant: Summit Mortgage Company
Location: 6129 Earle Brown Drive
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35 -.400 of the Zoning Ordinance which
requires principal and accessory structures in the I -1 Zoning District to be set
back 50 feet from public right -of -way. The applicant wishes to place within the
front yard setback area, two 9 meter diameter receiving antennae for the 'Channel 29
VHF -TV Station proposed for the horsebarn and hippodrome. The "dishes" (antennae)
would be set back a: miminum of 15' from Earle Brown Drive to allow for at least
the customary greenstrip separation.
The applicant has submitted a letter to address the standards for a variance
(attached) The Zoning Ordinance at Section 35-240 :2 states that a variance from
the literal provisions of the ordinance may be granted in cases where th strict
enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique - d
n distinctive to the individual property in question, and after demon -
stration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met:
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topo-
graphical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved,
a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished
f rom a mere inconvenience, if the stri letter of the regulations
were to be carried out.
b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based
are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought,
and are not common, generally, to other property within the same
zoning classification.
c) The alleged hardship is related to the requi rements of this
ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or
formerly having an interest in the parcel of land.
�r d) The granti of the vari ance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighbor-
hood in which the parcel of land is located.
The applicant contends in his letter that the variance is justified because:
1) The buildings exist in their present location and it is undesirable
to place the receiving dishes in the mall area 'west of the building
for aesthetic reasons.
` 2) The dishes, must be at least 70 feet from any building. Since the
hippodrome is 120' from Earle Brown Drive, the dishes cannot fit
between the building and the right -of -way and still allow for the
required 50' setback.
3) The dishes have been kept away from the property line by a maximum
feasible distance of 15' in one case, 20 in another. The variance
is thereby minimized.
4 -15 -82 -1-
Application No. 82021 continued
4) The variance is technical in nature since the antenna is not a
building such as a garage. •
Staff would agree with most points made by the applicant. However, we would stress
that any structure, whether or not it is a "building" as such, must meet setback
requirements, unless specifically exempted by the ordinance.
We have also discussed with the applicant the possibility of placing the
receiving dishes on the top of the `Earle Brown Office Tower along -`with a smaller
8" diameter transmitting dish. We have been assured that this option will be looked
at. If feasible, the Planning 6mmission should recommend as to which location has
the most acceptable aesthetic impact.
If placement of the receiving dishes on the office building is unfeasible or not
preferable to the Planning Commission, staff would recommend the variance be granted
on the following grounds:
1) The circumstances surrounding the application are unique, involving
an an existing historic structure which cannot readily be moved
without damage to its structural and historical integrity.
2) Failure'to' grant the variance would cause either an undue hardship
for the applicant or (by placing the receiving dishes in the mall
area) would seriously disturb the character of historic district
established under Application No. 81041
3) The circumstances affecting the application were not created by
the applicant, but arise because of the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, -which were adopted after the farm buildings were erected
4) Proposed placement of the receiving dishes minimizes the variance
and the impact on surrounding development.
4 -15 -82 -2-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application Rio. 82019
Applicant: ilartin Drinkwine
Location 5632 James Ave. N.
Request: Home Occupation /Special Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a Tidy Car business
on a part -time basis in the garage of his home at 5632 James Avenue North. Tidy
Car is a treatment to a car's paint surface that seal's the finish and protects it
from deteriorating elements. The property is zoned Rl and is surrounded by other
single- family homes. Because the home occupation involves the use of an; accessory
structure, it falls into the category of home occupations requiring a special use
permit
The applicant has submitted a letter explaining the nature of the home occupation_.
The process involves washing the car, deoxidizing the paint with a rubbing compound,
applying a sealant,.and buffing the sealant in to bring out a shine The entire
_process takes 4 to 6 hours. The process involves the use of a power tool in all
phases which is about as loud as a 3/8" drill. At present, Mr. Drinkwine averages
approximately 2 cars per month and hopes to bring his volume up to 8 to 10 cars per
month before looking for a commercial location. The garage is a 2;Z car garage,
insulated and sheetrocked in the walls and ceiling and heated with a 60,000 B.T.U.
cheater to allow for winter work. It is not expected that cars will be parked on
the street since only 1 or at most, 2, would be on the premises at one time. There
is a two -car driveway. Finally, Mr. Drinkwine intends to engage in the home occup-
ation during evenings and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
`Staff became aware of the home occupation as a result of a complaint regarding
"toxic odors" from another resident in the neighborhood who felt the odors resulted
from the Tidy Car business. The Building Official investigated this complaint and
was unable to substantiate any -fink between the home occupation and the odors.
Staff's primary concerns relate to: 1) keeping parking off - street and 2) limiting
any noise impact on surrounding properties by limiting the hours of operation.
The Building Official has been unable, as of yet, to make an inspection of the
"~ premises. We recommend as usual that any special use permit be subject to com-
pletion of any work required by the Building Official. Since the garage is already
sheetrocked, it is likely that only a fire extinguisher need be installed.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Based on the foregoing, staff, recommend that the application be approved, subject
to at least the following conditions:
1. The permit is issued ` to the applicant as operator of the facility
and is nontransferable,
2. The permit is subject to all codes, oridnances and regulations
and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. Service shall be on an appointment only basis between 4 :00 p.m.
and 9 :00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday and
Saturday. However, the special use permit authorizes work on
not more than 10 cars per month.
4 -15 -82 -1-
Application No. 82019 continued
4. All parking shall be off- street on improved space provided by the
applicant:
5. 'Service to automobiles or other power vehicles is limited to
washing and application of the Tidy Car sealant, other repairs
are expressly prohibited.
6. The permit is subject.to completion of any work required by the
Building Official
7. Noise, odor, and vibration shall not be perceptible beyond the
premises to the degree that a nuisance is created.
_
4 -15 -82 -2-
Member Nancy Manson introduced following resolution and moved its
adoption:
PLAN14ING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -1
RESOLUTION RECOM1 AMENDMENT OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 66 -295
(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) RELATIVE TO COMMERCIAL ZONED LAND IN SOUTHEAST
QUADRANT OF 69TH AND HUMBOLDT AVENUES NORTH
WHEREAS, the Council on November 7, 1966 ,adopted Resolution No. 66 -295,
establishing the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, A Guide for Community
Development; and
WHEREAS, the Plan (at page 31) recommends, as a Goal for Commercial
Development; that there be provided a centrally located neighborhood shopping
center in each of the six residential neighborhoods, unless the residents are
adequately served by community or regional shopping centers located nearby; and
WHEREAS, the Plan (at pages 47 and 49) refers to and recommends the
designation of land in the southeast quadrant _of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North
as the location of such a shopping center for the Northeast Neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 1980, which was
given preliminary approval by the City Council on July 21 1980 and was accepted
by the Metropolitan Council on December 17, 1981, at page 98 and on Figure 15
( "Land Use Plan Revisions ") recommends that the property immediately east of
Humboldt Square Shoppi.ng Center be developed with single - family detached housing;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission has considered the above Plan recommendations
on February 11, 1982, March 25, 1982, and April 15, 1982, in conjunction with
Application No. 82008, submitted by the owner of the remaining vacant land at the
above location, requesting rezoning from C2 (General Commerce) to R3 (Townhouse);
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 35 -202 of the City Ordinances the Commission
held a duly called public hearing on April 15, 1982 to consider the amendment of the
"Plan:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory
Commission to recommend to the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 35 -202 of the
City Ordinances, that Council Resolution No. 66 -295 (Comprehensive Plan) and the
proposed Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, 1980 be amended to provide for the
development of mid - density single- family attached housing (preferably owner - occupied)
on the remaining developable land in the southeast quadrant of 69th and Humboldt
Avenues North, based upon the following findings:
I. The Northeast Neighborhood is adequately served by shopping
facilities both within and near the neighborhood.
2. The Comprehensive Plan designation of this area for future
development as a neighborhood shopping center has been
satisfied with the existing retail center.
RESOLUTION IIO. 82 -1
3. There is substantial vacant commercial land elsewhere in the
Northeast Neighborhood.
4. The owner has initiated a rezoning, from C2 (General Commerce,)
to R3 (Townhouse), of the approximate 7.5 acre parcel described
as that part of Lot 2, Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition lying
east of R.L.S. No. 1312.
5. The proposed use represents a reasonable use of the land and
is consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Plan develop -
ment goals for the Northeast Neighborhood
6. The subject property is unsuited for single- family detached
housing, as recommended in the proposed Comprehensive Plan,
because of high water table, drainage difficulties and the
intensity of most surrounding land uses,
7. The proposed R3 zoning is consistent and compatible wi
surrounding land use classificat' n
D Chairman
AT
T
Secretary
® The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member Lowell Ainas - and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof;; George Lucht, Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Mary Simmons, Lowell
Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg; and the following voted against the same:
none, whereupon said .resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
l
Member Molly Malecki introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO 82 -2
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION
NO. 82008 SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY
WHEREAS, Application No. 82008 submitted by Bergstrom Realty Company
proposes rezoning from C2 (General Commerce) to R3 (Townhouse) of property in the
1300 block on the south side of 69th Avenue North described as that part of Lot 2,
Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition lying east of Registered Land Survey No. 1312;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 11
1982 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and
WHEREAS, the item was referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group which, in minutes of a meeting on March 3, 1982 recommended the rezoning,
subject to submittal of a plat to subdivide the property for owner- occupied
townhouses; and
WHEREAS, the Commission further considered the matter on March 25, 1982
and on April 15, 1982 when a public hearing was held to consider appropriate amend -
ments of the Comprehensive Plan (both current and proposed) goals for this area;
and
WHEREAS, an appropriate preliminary plat to subdivide the property for
owner - occupied townhouses has been submitted and has been accepted by the Commission:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory
Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 82008 submitted by
Bergstrom Realty Company be approved in consideration of the following:
1. The R3 zoning classification is the most appropriate land use
classification for the location in question in that it is con-
sistent and compatible with all surrounding land uses.
2. Development of the property for townhouses is in the interest
of the City, the Brooklyn Center School District, and the
surrounding land uses, as well as the property owner, by adding
60 dwelling units to the northeast neighborhood.
3. Development of the property in question will ameliorate drainage
difficulties both on the site and for the single - family homes
to the east.
4. The proposed townhouse use of the land is not considered to be
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan goal that the Northeast
Neighborhood be predominantly single - family detached residential
in character.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -2
E b The property in question will bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for the proposed zoning district, whereas the Rl zoning
classification presented development problems which woul ave lead
to an inefficient use of land.
e Chairman
ATT
Secretary
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member Carl Sandstrom and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof; George Lucht, Molly Malecki Nancy Manson, Mary Simmons, Lowell
A nas, Carl Sandstrom.and Donald Versteeg; and the following voted against the same:
none, whereupon said ,resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
j
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistant
1t
DATE: May 7, 1982
SUBJECT: 'Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council
Recent budget cutbacks at both the Federal and State levels have greatly affected
human service programs. Minnesota and Hennepin County are no exception. Cutbacks
in funding to Hennepin County from State and Federal sources appear to be a fact
of life for the forseeable future. These cuts directly affect the Northwest
Hennepin County suburban area since human service programs in the northwest area
receive major funding from Hennepin County. One of the agencies receiving funds
from Hennepin County is the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council. The
Council is the organization responsible for coordinating the provision of human
services in the northwest suburbs. - Members include, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn
Park, Champlin., Crystal, Golden Valley, Maple Grove,,Ne w Hope, Robbinsdale ,
Osseo, and Hasson. Attached to this memorandum is a list of the roles and,
tasks of the Council as prepared by the Northwest Hennepin Human Services
Council staff.
Currently the staff of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is comprised
of three full -time staff, one executive director, one planner and an administrative
assistant (clerical support). Hennepin County's contribution to the Council in
1981 was $51,147. In 1982 Hennepin County budgeted $30 833 for the Council, but
an anticipated cut of $17,977 is scheduled for July o 1982 The Northwest
- Council - also receive ,50 form Hennepin County un er a separate allocation
related to the Community Social Service Act (CSSA). The Community Social Service
Act was passed by the state legislature in 1979 and makes the County Board the
responsible agent for ensuring that the necessary social services are provided,
and for distributing State funds to the social service programs. As required
by the statute the County must prepare a CSSA plan. .Simply put, the CSSA plan
I
divides the money that is allocated to Hennepin County for social services among
the various services. As part of the process of writing the plan, the County
must have citizen involvement in the planning process. Hennepin County has
contracted with the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council to provide the
citizen involvement into this process for the northwest area and the $7,500
from Hennepin County is provided to assist with that process.
a The operating budget of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is over
$70,000 for 1982. This provides for three full -time staff people and the
necessary office space and supplies for the operation. The member cities in
the northwest area have contributed $8,343 to the Council in 1982. Brooklyn
Center's contribution is $1,327.75.
Needless to say with the Federal, State and County cutbacks, _including the
anticipated cutback on July 1 of this year, the Council will likely be faced }
with cutbacks in its staff. Current y, draising efforts are being pursued
from foundations in the area, but even if they are obtained these are typically
one time only funding and cannot be relied on for continued support.
In 1983 the funding picture may even be worse. The $7,500 from the CSSA may
be the only Hennepin County funding the Northwest Council can count on for
1983. In response to the budget problems a Long Range Planning Committee was
formed from the Executive Board of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council.
The Long Range Planning Committee operated under several assumptions; they are
as follows:
1. The Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council should exist in
1982 and beyond.
2. The size and scope of the organization will be reduced as
county funding is reduced.
3.. Private fundraising is feasible, but about 50% of the budget
should be secure.
4. At least one staff member is necessary.
5. We can only safely predict $7,500 of county dollars in 1983.
*: The estimated funds required for one staff person range from
$27,900 to $36,400, including fringe benefits. The one staff
person retained would be the Executive Director.
If Federal, State and County funding cutbacks continue, some , at
this point appear to be increased fundraising efforts and increased support
from member municipalities. In light of the current trend of Federal, State
and County cutbacks the required increased support from member municipalities
to retain a staff person for the Council could be as high as 5 to 6 times the
• present contributions. This memorandum is not intended as a final statement
on funding. The dollar amounts are based on projections derived from current
trends in funding cutbacks and other estimates such as projected fundraising
revenues from private sources such as foundations. Since so much of the funding
picture for 1983 is not yet known it is not possible, at this point, to be
specific with regard to anticipated revenues. The Long Range Planning Committee
of the Northwest Human Services has requested input from the City Councils of
the member cities regarding whether or not the various cities support the
continuation of the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, and if so,
what minimum requirements should be met with regard to retaining professional`
staff. I would recommend that this, item be placed on the upcoming council
agenda as a discussion item for the Council's review and discussion.
hz
2D- a rL
- F&u�
I t
f
BENEFITS.TO MUNICIPALITIES
The Council provides:
away for citizens, providers and municipal representatives to be
involved in Hennepin County human services decision- making
- a source of information about human service needs and programs
- leadership in community for the effective mobilization of com-
munity resources to meet human service needs
- staffing assistance to the muncipalities in areas of their involve-
ment i in human services, as "they may request it
- a place to refer citizens with needs and /or problems relating to
human services (i.e. elderly, ill chemically de endent ouch etc.)
Y, Y Y P ,Y
- staffing assistance to community groups who want to organize a planning F
effort to meet specific needs or problems
the capability to do research on human service issues and needs
planning staff to participate in regional and county planning activities,
in behalf of the mun icipalities
- a way to bring county - services and programs into our local com-
munities so that citizens can have better access to them
- assurance that efforts are being made to coordinate the planning of
human services and to deter the unnecessary duplication of services
the abil to make presentations on and provide information about needs i
and services in the area
- the means to develop Leadership and interest on the part of citizens
to be involved in human services
- a way to communicate the concerns of the muncipaliti regarding . human
service issues to the providers and involved citizens of the area, and
visa -versa
in general, to be available as auxiliary planning staff to the munici-
palities, in areas where human services expertise is required
C�
t
r
PREPARED THE NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL STAFF.
i
.16
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 10, 1982
CIGARETTE LICENSE _
• Yen Ching Restaurant 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Cit y Clerk
'
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Central Heating & Air Conditioning 1971 Seneca Rd.
Commercial Air Conditioning 2200 Niagara Lane
LeVahn Brothers Plumbing 3200 Penn Ave. N.
Maple Grove Heating & Air Conditioning 11440 Lakeland Dr.
Northwest Service Station Equipment 2520 Nicollet Ave.
Buildi g fficial
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
Chippewa Park Apts. 6507 Camden Ave. N.
Sanitarian
SIGN HANGER LICENSE
Scenic Sign Coporation P.O. Box 881
Thomas`.Sign Company Clearwater, MN %
Buildin fficial
I
GENERAL APPROVAL:
I City C k
I
i