HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 04-12 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
City of Brooklyn Center
April 12, 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 March 22, 1982
7. Final Plat - First Brookdale State Bank
8. Resolutions.
a. Receiving City Engineer's Report, Establishing Central Park Water Main
Improvement Project 1:982 -05 and Ordering Improvement and Preparation of
Plans and Specifications
-In conjunction with these proposed water main projects, staff will be
prepared,to discuss the "report on waterworks improvements" as prepared
by Black & Veatch, consulting engineers.
b. Receiving City Engineer's Report, Establishing K lawn Park Water Main
g Y g P g Y
Improvement Project 1982 -06 and Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed
Improvement Project 1982 -06 (on May 10, 1982)
c. Receiving City Engineer's Report, Establishing 51st Avenue Water Main
Improvement Project 1982 -07 and Providing for a Public Hearing
(on May 10, 1982)
d. Receiving City Engineer's Report, Establishing Earle Brown Drive Street
Light Improvement Project 1982 -08 and Providing for a Public Hearing on
Proposed Improvement Project (on May 10, <1982)
* e. Authorizing Execution of a Sound Level Meter Custody Agreement
-This agreement would continue the program of noise enforcement made
possible through the use of a sound meter provided by the League of
Minnesota Cities and Minnesota Department of Transportation..
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- April 12, 1982
* f. Authorizing'Execution of an Agreement Providing for Representation
in Joint Public Works Negotiations for a Contract Beginning January,
1983 with I.U.O.E., Local 49
-This resolution would authorize the City to participate in joint
public works negotiations as part of the Metropolitan Area Management
Association Bargaining Committee.
9. Planning Commission Items (8:00 p.m.)
a. Application No. 82015 submitted by Sears Roebuck & Co. for special use
permit approval to operate an amusement center in the Sears store at
1297'Brookdale. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
Application No. 82015 at its March 25, 1982 meeting.
10. Ordinances:
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding
Suntan Studios
-This ordinance amendment is proposed in conjunction with Planning
Commission Application No. 82013 which was approved at the March 22,
1982 City Council meeting. The ordinance amendment would add suntan
studios to the special use category in the zoning ordinance. The ordinance
is offered for a first reading this evening. , It is recommended a public
hearing on the ordinance be scheduled for 7 :30 p.m. on May 10, 1982.
11. Approval of Fire Relief Investment
-It is recommended a motion be made to approve the purchase of the following:
* a. $40,000 of Associates Corporation of North America Bonds with a yield
of 14�1% and matures February 1, 1990. The cost is $39, 013.60.
* b. $30,000 of Pacific Power & Light Bonds with a yield of 15 5/8% and
matures March 1, 1991. The cost is $31,050.
* c. $35,000 of Commonwealth Edison Bonds with a yield of 14% and matures
January 1, 1991. The cost is $34,650.
* d. $20,000 of GMAC Bonds with a yield of 11 5/8% and matures June 6, 1990.
The cost is $18,783.
12. Discussion Items:
a. Police Department Annual Report
b. County Commissioners' Decision on Radio Communication System
-Staff will be prepared to discuss this item at the meeting
13. Licenses
14._ Adjournment
. MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Tom Bublitz, Administrative Assistan / i
DATE: April 9, 1982
SUBJECT: April 12, 1982 City Council Meeting
The City Manager will not be in attendance at Monday night's Council Meeting.
Paul Holmlund or Brad Hoffman will be attending the meeting in Mr. Splinter's
absence. The City Manager notified the Mayor of his absence this past Thursday.
•
t
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
MARCH 22, 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 Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes. Also present were
City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance
Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Assistant City Engineer
Jim Grube, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistant Tom Bublitz.
Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Lhotka was out of town this evening and
Councilmember Theis was ill and that they were excused from the meeting this evening.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Pastor Cilke from the Brookdale Assembly of God Church.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had received a request to use the Open Forum session
from Mr. Lewis Bloom, 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard.- Mr. Bloom stated that he had been
in Brooklyn Center since January of this year, that he was formerly a police officer
in Bloomington, Indiana, served as Assistant City Attorney of Minneapolis for nine
years and was also previously employed with the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. He
stated that last Saturday he participated in a ride -a -long with the Brooklyn Center
Police Department and stated that he was extremely impressed with the Brooklyn Center
Police Department's professionalism and dedication. He stated that he rode with
Officers Dennis Flaherty, Steven McComb, and Andrew Moen. He explained he was very
impressed with the handling of a domestic by the officers, adding that they showed
real concern for the victim and took her to North Memorial Hospital and finally,
placed her in a shelter. He added that he was also impressed with the handling
of traffic offenses by the officers and noted that they were handled courteously
and efficiently.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired whether any of the Council members would request any items
be removed from the consent agenda. Councilmember Hawes requested item 8a be re-
moved from the consent agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 8, 1982
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of March 8, 1982 as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTIONS
3 -22 -82 -1-
- 1
t ,
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -45
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF MR. RICHARD HAGER
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, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution, was declared duly
passed and adopted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82004 SUBMITTED BY BROOKLYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
FOR PRELIMINARY R.L.S. APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LAND BOUNDED BY SPEC. 9 ON THE
NORTH, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY ON THE EAST, FREEWAY BOULEVARD ON THE SOUTH, AND
SHINGLE CREEK ON THE WEST
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 82004, 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. Tract .0 shall be legally encumbered to provide parking for development
on Tracts A and B, such encumbrance to be filed with the final plat at
the County prior to issuance of building permits for Spec. 10.
4. The performance guarantee submitted to ensure completion of site improve -
ments on Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1537 shall be retained until completion of
all parking lot improvements on the proposed Tract C are completed in
accordance with approved plans and ordinance requirements.
5. Approval of the plat constitutes a waiver of the normal ordinance require -
ments of frontage on a public street for Tracts B and C in light of the
cross access agreements governing all tracts within the Proposed R.L.S.
and Tract A of R.L.S. No. 1537.
6. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement
with the Engineering Department and shall provide as -built utility
information for City records prior to final plat approval.
7. A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amount to be
determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to final R.L.S.
approval to assure the following:
a), the regrading of the large amount of fill located on the proposed
Tracts C and D in accordance with the City Engineer's recommendation;
b) the construction of a flowage way from Shingle Creek Parkway to
Shingle Creek in a manner approved by the City Engineer; and
3 -22 -82 -2-
c) said improvements to be completed by October 1, 1982.
S. The applicant shall provide an easement for storm sewer purposes across -
Tracts A, B and D, the location of which shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
9. Building permits for Spec. 10 (approved under Planning Commission
Application No. 80016) will not be issued until this proposed R.L.S.
has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with the "
County.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0. 82009 SUBMITTED BY LOMBARD PROPERTIES A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF -SITE ACCESSORY PARKING ON PROPOSED TRACT C OF THE R.L.S.
IN APPLICATION NO. 82004 TO PROVIDE ORDINANCE REQUIRED PARKING FOR DEVELOPMENT ON
TRACTS A AND B OF THE SAME R.L.S.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 82009, subject to the following conditions:
1. Parking stalls to be constructed on Tract C of the R.L.S. proposed under
Application No. 82004 shall be legally encumbered to the sole use of
Tracts B and A in amounts sufficient to meet the parking requirements
of each, said legal encumbrances to be subject to review and approval
by the City Attorney.
2. The performance guarantee submitted to ensure completion of site improve-
ments on Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1537 (for Spec. 10 and the common parking
lot) shall be held until completion of parking lot improvements on the
proposed Tract C.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the following list of licenses:
BAKERY FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE
Good Earth Restaurant 5717 Xerxes Ave. N.
BULK VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Folz Vending Company 3401 Lawson Blvd.
Red Owl- Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
American Bakeries 4215 69th Ave. N.
Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor 5524 Brooklyn Blvd.
Frontier Fruit and Nut Co. Brookdale Center
• Rog & Jim's Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd.
Smoke Pit Restaurant 5001 Drew Ave. N.
Winchell's Donut House 16424 Valley View Ave.
' 3 -22 -82 -3
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Jaycee Women Earle Brown School
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Able Mechanical Services 6717 83rd P1.
Alaskan Air Conditioning 1200 Chestnut Ave.
Allied Metalcraft Co. 1750 Thomas Ave.
C.O. Carlson Air Conditioning 709 Bradford Ave N.
Consolidated Plumbing & Heating 1530 E. Cliff Rd.
Frank's Heating & Air Conditioning 3107 California St. N.E.
Golden Valley Heating & Air Cond. 5182 W. ,Broadway
Harris Mechanical Contracting 2300 Territorial Rd.
Hayes Contractors, Inc 1010 Currie Ave.
Horwitz Mechanical, Inc.. 1411 11th Ave. S.
Hutton & Towe, Inc. 217 VanBuren St,
Northland Mechanical Contractors 7150 Madison Ave W.
Owens Service Coprorations 930 E. 80th. St.
Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Ave. S.
Pump & Meter Service, Inc. 2711 E. Franklin Ave.'
Quality Refrigeration Inc. 110t W. 78 St.
G. Sedgwick Heating & Air Cond. 1001 Xenia Ave. S.
Standard Heating & Air.Cond. 410 W. Lake St.
Suburban Heating & Air Cond. 2050 Whitebear Ave'.
Superior Contractors, Inc. 6121 42nd Ave. N.
Thompson Air Conditioning 5115 Hanson Ct'.
Ray Welter Heating Company 4637 Chicago Ave. •
Yale, Inc. 3012 Clinton Ave. S.
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
Books Plus 5717 Xerxes 'Ave. , N.
Rog & Jim's Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd.
READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE
American Bakeries Co. 4215 69th 'Ave. N.
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Real Five Investments 6501 Brooklyn Blvd.
Donald Byram 3724 58th Ave. N.
Robert & Carol Schwebach 4500 65th Ave. N.
Renewal:
Marvin Garden Ltd. Marvin Garden Townhomes
Clarence H. Isaacson 6801 Aldrich Ave. N.
Gladys Trosen 7019 Dallas Rd.
Charles Barnes 5001 Ewing Ave. N.
Joon K. Kim 4811 Lakeview Ave. N.
•
3 -22 -82 -4-
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE (CONTINUED)
Reuben & Diane Ristrom, Jr. 6819, 21 Noble Ave. N.
Robert Berglund 6833, 35 Noble Ave. N.
H & Val J. Rothschild, Inc. 5400 - 5422 Ponds Dr.
H & Val J. Rothschild,_ Inc. 5426 - 5488 Ponds Dr.
Omega Management Company 4806 Twin Lake Ave.
Curtis Erickson 4809 -11 Twin Lake Ave.
Robert Harenza 2926 53rd Ave. N.
Lee Marwede 4700, 02 68th Ave. N.
Bernard M. McDonough 4701, 03 68th Ave. N.
Kathleen Griesser 1708 69th Ave. N.
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
Lawrence Sign Company 945 Pierce Butler Rt.,
Ncrdquist Sign Company, Inc. 312 W. Lake St.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
PR OF AWARD FROM MINNESOTA NATIONAL WATER SKI TEAM
Mr.' Hank Longo of the Minnesota National Water Ski Team presented Mayor Nyquist with
a plaque in appreciation of support for the Minnesota National Water Ski Team of
1981 by the City Council. Mayor Nyquist accepted the award and thanked Mr. Longo
for the plaque.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager•introduced a Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for
1982 -B (Projects 1982 -02 and 1982 -03 Xerxes Avenue /55th Avenue /56th Avenue Recon-
struction and Brookdale Center -55th Avenue Entrance Reconstruction). He recommended
that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, C.S. McCrossan, Inc. at a total cost
of $309,653.80.
Councilmember Hawes inquired if because of the great differences in the high and
low bids, could C.S. McCrossan have left anything out of their bid. The Director
of Public Works explained that he believes the bidder understood the project and
he believes the bid is complete. Councilmember Hawes then inquired whether there
would be any overruns or additional costs related to the project over and above
the bid price.. The Director of Public Works stated that in all projects, such as
this, material quantities are estimated and the City may have to pay the current
unit price for any material required over and above what was stated in the bid. He
added that sometimes during construction estimated quantities are exceeded.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -46
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1982 -02, BROOKDALE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -03, CONTRACT 1982 -8)
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
3 -22 -82 -5-
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following ,
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced Resolutions Authorizing the City Manager to Initiate
Negotiations for Purchase of Right -Of -Way Required to Develop 69th -70th Avenue
Connection in the Evergreen Park Area, Revising Municipal State Aid Streets System
Designations within the City of Brooklyn Center, and Requesting Hennepin County to
Proceed with a "Turnback Project" on 69th Avenue North between Brooklyn Boulevard
and Shingle Creek Parkway. He explained that all three of the resolutions are
related to the redesign of the 69th -70th Avenue access.
He explained that the City staff met with the neighborhood in the area affected
by the proposed roadway realignment and noted that approximately 150 'people from
the neighborhood attended the meeting. He summarized the concerns of the neigh -
borhood at the meeting, noting that the primary concern of the neighborhood was
whether the intersection with T.H. 252 should be a T intersection or whether it
should provide access to the neighborhood east of T.H. 252. He emphasized that
the Council's decision this evening need not concern itself with the roadway design,
but rather, the staff is asking tonight that the Council grant the authority to
begin negotiations for the purchase of right -of -way for the project. Additionally,
he pointed out, other concerns that were brought up at the meeting focused primarily
on the problems presented with traffic coming closer to Evergreen Park because of
the change in roadway design. The City Manager explained that the Council and the
neighborhood has viewed the entire presentation from the Engineering, Department and
in the interest of time this evening, he suggested a question and answer format as
opposed to a formal presentation.
Mayor Nyquist noted that he had received three letters from residents in the area
which would be affected by the 69th and 70th Avenue realignment. He asked that
the letters be entered into the official meeting record. The letters received were
from Mr. Marvin O. Stavig, 7211 Willow Lane, James R. Fischbach, 7216 Willow Lane
North, and Mr. Bruce Morrow, 7212 North Willow Lane.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone present in the audience who wished to
sneak on the topic of the 69th -70th Avenue 'roadway connection in the Evergreen Park
area. .,:Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Al Farmes, 7200 Willow Lane North, who stated
that he is speaking for himself, Mr. Fischbach, Mr. Foslien, Mr. Morrow, and others
in his neighborhood. He stated that he was concerned that the outlet for T.H. 252
should be constructed at 69th Avenue North, and not at 70th Avenue North,and stated
that he believes most people feel it should be located at 69th Avenue North. He
added that if it is located at 70th Avenue North,he believes it will draw more
traffic into the neighborhood east of T.H. 252,and that the neighborhood would
prefer that it be constructed at 69th Avenue North. The City, Manager explained
that the roadway access at T.H. 252 does not necessarily have to be constructed
at either location,and that T intersections could be constructed both at 69th and
70th Avenues North, thus preventing any thru- traffic into the neighborhood east
of T.H. 252.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Joe Roche, 816 69th Avenue North. Mr. Roche _stated
that he favors the 70th Avenue exit off of T.H. 252, and would like to see the
3 -22 -82 -6-
development of the 69th -70th Avenue connection in the Evergreen park area, noting
that he believes it will improve access to Evergreen Park, that it is a worthwhile
project, and that he supports it.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul Rosso, 7 Ortman Street. Mr. Rosso stated that
he believes the roadway under consideration is a road of convenience and that the
Council does not have the right to take property away from us. He stated that he
believes the traffic traveling downtown will travel down Dupont Avenue and that
Dupont will then need to be improved. He stated that he believes the road is not
feasible and that he believes MSA funds would be spread out over more routes and
roads because of the project. He stated that the road would reduce convenience
to downtown and that Dupont will be overloaded if the project is built. He inquired
what statute the City is proceeding on and wanted to know what fund the City was
using and whether or not it was the MSA fund. He stated that he believes this is
a misappropriation of funds. He stated that for two days he talked to engineers
in the State Highway Department and none of them said it was a good deal. He added
that the curves created by the project are dangerous and that he will seek an
indictment against the project.
The City Attorney replied that he would provide the statute to Mr. Rosso regarding
the authority of the County to turnback the roadway to the City.
At the request of a member of the audience, the Director of Public Works reviewed
the most recent traffic counts on 69th, 70th, and 73rd Avenues North. He reviewed
the counts on 69th Avenue North and explained that 3,350 vehicles per day were
counted west of T.H. 252 on 69th, 1,760 vehicles per day were counted on 73rd Avenue
North west of T.H. 252, and 703 vehicles per day were counted on 70th Avenue North
east of T.H. 252. He explained, in response to Mr. Rosso's comments, if the vehicle
traffic went down to Dupont Avenue to obtain access to T.H. 252,they would still
find themselves in the same configuration on Dupont as is proposed in the 69th -
70th project. He added that the configuration of the curves on Dupont in this
area was created by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Walt Wenholz, 501 69th Avenue North. Mr. Wenholz
stated that, essentially everyone is here tonight to attempt to influence the
project so that is would serve their own interest to the best extent and was here
to state he would like to have 69th Avenue North as a cul-de -sac in his neighbor-
hood to slow the traffic.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Melba Evanson who stated that 2 acres of her land
was taken for Evergreen Park when it was constructed and when 70th Avenue North
came in it meant assessments. She inquired how the City Manager plans to negotiate
for the purchase of the right -of -way required to develop the 69th -70th Avenue
connection when he has not talked to her or asked her if she wanted to sell her
property. Mayor Nyquist noted that the project was discussed by the Council last
fall, and that information about the project was published in the Brooklyn Center
Post. He added that the City Manager has not yet been authorized to negotiate for
any right -of -way acquisition. He added that the Council must take things in order
and that a plan must be adopted before any negotiations to acquire property begins.
He explained the process for right -of -way acquisition means that the owner of any
property is reasonably compensated for the acquisition of that property. Mrs.
Evanson continued to discuss the roadway project which was proposed and continued
discussing her reasons for opposing the project.
3 -22 -82 -7-
L
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Bruce Morrow, 7212 Willow Lane North, who stated that
he_was a former member of the Brooklyn Center Park & Recreation Commission,and 0
inquired whether there was any area in the project where the roadway went through
park property. The City Manager reviewed the project location and the location of
Evergreen Park. Mr. Morrow stated that he believes vehicle traffic in the park
area and school is not a good idea,and he also questioned why the curves would be
taken off the roadway on 69th Avenue North near Shingle Creek Parkway,and then put
curves on this part of 69th Avenue North. The City Manager explained that the
curves on 69th, near Shingle Creek, are not designed at MSA standards,and that
there is no- comparison between these curves and the ones proposed for the 69th-
70th Avenue connection.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Bob Lane, who stated that his mother owns a`home in
the area near the proposed roadway project,and that he would like to know whether
the park board would acquire the land in the area. The City Manager stated there
is no separate park board in the City. He reviewed the plan to move the City annex
to the tax forfeit property,and explained that it would be necessary to purchase
certain parcels of land in the area to develop the roadway connection.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Dave Evanson, 2208 73rd Avenue North, who inquired
when the roadway would be developed if the plan is adopted The City Manager stated
that the design work on the roadway would have to be completed and public hearings
would be required on the project. He stated that this procedure begins if the
Council approves the plan.
Mr. Paul Rosso inquired whether the City Engineer would consider this project
feasible. The Director of Public Works stated that he believes the project is
feasible. Mr. Rosso also asked if the Director of Public Works could comment on
the use of MSA funds on County State Aid Highway 130. The Director of Public Works
stated the County has indicated that there are no dollars available from the County
to upgrade 69th4 and that it is the intent of the County to'turnback the roadway to
the City. Regarding the expenditure of MSA funds, he pointed out that the funds
are given to the City to improve collector streets within the City,and that he
believes the project is an appropriate use of MSA funds.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Roger Scherer, the City's Metropolitan Council
representative. Mr. Scherer explained that MSA funds are allocated to the City
on a formula basis from gas taxes and that if the road is taken over by the City,
it becomes part of the needs of the MSA system. By spending MSA dollars on the
roadway, he pointed out, the City could have a roadway that is better than what
the County could provide. He explained that funding for roadway improvements is
all part of the same system with regard to the use of tax dollars, whether they
be federal, state or local tax dollars.
Councilmember Scott commented that everyone has to remember that each person looks
at the project according to their own interest,and that the Council has to consider
the needs of the entire City. She explained that a signalized intersection at
T.H. 252 is essential to preventing pedestrian and auto accidents in this 'area.
The City Manager 'stated that the staff will have to work with the Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation regarding the type of intersection that will be placed at
69th and 70th Avenues North, and when the discussions begin on the type of intersectioi:
another neighborhood meeting will be held in the area.
I �
3 -22 -82 -8-
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak on
the proposed roadway project. There being none, he inquired of Councilmembers
what their preferences for action on this matter would be.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -47
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:'
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS FOR PURCHASE OF
RIGHT -OF -WAY REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A 69TH -70TH AVENUE CONNECTION IN THE EVERGREEN
PARK AREA
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, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -48
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REVISING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS WITHIN
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
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, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -49
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO PROCEED WITH A "TURNBACK PROJECT"
ON 69TH AVENUE NORTH BETWEEN BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
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, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-50
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS FOR PURCHASE
OF RIGHT -OF -WAY REQUIRED TO ALLOW REALIGNMENT OF THE 69TH AVENUE , SHINGLE
CREEK PARKWAY INTERSECTION
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, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes'; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
•
3 -22 -82 -9-
REC
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:30 p.m, and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (CONTINUED)
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82010 SUBMITTED BY ROBERT L. JOHNSON FOR
P RELIMINARY PLAT APPR TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO LOTS THE LAND NOW CONTAINED
O N LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PICCADILLY POND ADDITION WEST OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND
NORTH OF SHINGLE CREEK
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82011 SUBMITTED BY RED LOBSTER FOR SITE AND
AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 248 SEAT RESTAURANT ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 7235 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
PLANNIN COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82012 SUBMITTED BY RED LOBSTER FOR SPECIAL
USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR ACCESSORY OFF -SITE PARKING ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF THE
PROPOSED RED LOBSTER ADDITION
The Director of Planning I preliminary plat submitt4 with
g Inspection reviewed the prel i ry p
Application No. 82010 and also reviewed the site and building g plan submitted with
1 Application No. 82011. He explained that the site is zoned C2 and that a restaurant
is a permitted use in that zone. He noted that the proposal is for a 248 seat
restaurant with 30 employees. He added that the landscaping plan is acceptable
and that it has been submitted with the site and building plan. He pointed out
that the main concern of the Planning Commission with regard to the application
was with the buffering and screening of the area between the Creek Villas Town-
houses and the restaurant site He stated that the City's engineering staff
reviewed the potential for light glare from the restaurant area into the Creek f
Villas development. He noted their review indicated a potential for light glare
into the Creek Villas Townhouses, and because of this an 8' opaque fence is re-
commended to be constructed between the restaurant site and the Creek Villas
Townhouses.
The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application No. 82010 at its March 11, 1982 meeting, subject to seven
conditions which he reviewed for Council members.
The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application No. 82011 at its March 11, 1982 meeting, subject to thirteen
conditions, which he reviewed for Council members.
The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application No. 82012, subject to two conditions, which he reviewed for
Council members. He requested that Condition No. 2 as recommended by the Planning
Commission be substituted with a condition specifying that an 8' opaque fence be
constructed between the parking lot of the Red Lobster Restaurant and the Creek
Villas Townhouse Development.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the :purpose of a.public hearing on Application
Nos. 82010 and 82012 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak
to the applicants. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Ed Eide, Executive Director of
C.E.A.P., who stated that he would like to speak in favor of the Red Lobster proposal
and that he believed the restaurant will be an asset to the area and C.E.A.P. looks
•
3 -22 -82 -10-
forward to it as an agency. Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else
present who wished to speak at the public hearing. There being none, 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 Nos. 82010 and 82012.
The City Attorney commented that one of the conditions of approval on Application
Nos. 82010 and 82011 requires that a restrictive covenant be provided. He requested
that the language in these conditions be amended to require that the restrictive
covenant must be enforceable by the City of Brooklyn Center.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 82010, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City.Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
3. Lot 2 shall be encumbered to the sole use of the Red Lobster Restaurant
on Lot 3, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition for parking purposes, such
encumbrance to be a perpetual covenant running with the land until
released by the City.
4. Final approval of the plat constitutes a waiver of the normal ordinance
requirement for frontage on a public street for Lot 2 of the proposed
Red Lobster Addition in light of existing cross access easements allowing
access to the private roadway in Lot 2 of the Piccadilly Pond Addition.
5. The applicant shall provide a restrictive covenant for each parcel in
the plat, to which the City shall be a party and which shall be enforceable
by the City. Said restrictive covenant shall provide that no structure
be constructed within 15 feet and no parking constructed within 10 feet
of the lot line abutting the "common drive" of Lot 2, Block 1, Piccadilly
Pond Addition.
6. The applicant shall provide a driveway access from the proposed Lot `1 to
the "common .drive" directly across from the Red Lobster driveway access..;.
established under Planning Commission Application No. 82011. Such access
shall be constructed in conjunction with the "common drive improvements
comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 82011.
7. The applicant shall provide a financial guarantee (in an amount to be
determined by the City Manager) to ensure the installation of a fire
hydrant along T.H. 152 on the proposed Lot 1, said financial guarantee
to be submitted prior to final plat approval.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
3 -22 -82 -11-
approve Application No. 82011, 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 berminq plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an
amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to
the issuance of _permits to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment
shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. 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. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas.
9. The kitchen equipment schedule and plumbing plans shall be subject to revie
and approval by the City Sanitarian prior to issuance of permits.
10. The parcel of land located in Brooklyn Park shall be legally encumbered to
the sole use of the restaurant for access off Brooklyn Boulevard and for
parking accessory to the restaurant, said encumbrance to be a permanent
covenant running with the land until released by the City of Brooklyn Center
and filed with the property at the County prior to issuance of building
permits. The document establishing this encumbrance shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Attorney.
11. Plan approval is contingent on approval of Application No. 82012 for off-
site accessary parking on Lot 2, Block 1 of proposed Red Lobster Addition,
said property to be legally encumbered to the sole use of the Red Lobster
Restaurant in the manner prescribed in Condition No. 10
12. The applicant shall provide a restrictive covenant, to which the City of
Brooklyn Center shall be a party, and which shall be enforceable by the
City. Said restrictive covenant shall provide that no structures will
be placed within 15 feet of the common drive nor will any parking be allowed
within 10 feet of the common drive.
13. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for 14 additional parking
spaces which shall be installed upon a determination by the City that
the parking installed according to the approved plan is inadequate.
3 -22 -82 -12
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Application No. 82012, subject to the following conditions:
1. The land contained in Lot 2, Block 1 of the Red Lobster Addition shall be
legally encumbered to the sole purpose of providing parking for the Red
Lobster Restaurant located on Lot 2, Block 1 of Piccadilly Pond Addition
prior to the issuance of building permits.
I 2. An 8 foot opaque fence shall be constructed along the south property line
of the Red Lobster site to provide screening to block out glare from
headlights which would otherwise enter the residential area south of the
proposed parking area.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82013 SUBMITTED BY KEITH BOYUM FOR A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A SUN TAN STUDIO IN THE BROOKDALE OFFICE TOWER AT 2810 COUNTY
ROAD 10
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed, for Council members, pages 9 through
10 of the March 11, 1982 Planning Commission minutes,and also the Planning Commission
information sheet prepared for Application No. 82013. He also reviewed the applicant's
request for a special use permit to conduct a sun tanning studio on the first floor
of the Brookdale Office Tower at 2810 County Road 10. He explained that after
discussion with the applicant and with other municipal zoning officials, it is the
staff's recommendation that sun tan studios be classified along with health spas,
recreation centers, etc. as a special use in the C2 zone which cannot abut R1,- R2,
or R3 property.
The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application No. 82013, subject to six conditions which he reviewed for
Council members. He added that if the Council were to approve the application this
evening they would essentially be making a finding that the sun tanning ,studio use
is similar to a health spa use with regard to the zoning ordinance. He also suggested
that Condition No. 6, as stipulated by the Planning Commission, should not be adopted
this evening but that the staff would come back to the Council with a housekeeping
ordinance amendment listing sun tan studios as a special use in the C2 zone.
Mayor Nyquist stated that he was under the impression that these types of sun tan
operations were banned by federal regulations. The Director of Planning & Inspection
stated that he believes the regulations refer to specific types of lights which are
not allowed, pointing out that some of the types of sun tanning lights have proved
to be harmful, although the lights proposed for use in Mr. Boyum's studio have not
been prohibited by any federal regulation.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 82013 and 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
3 -22 -82 -13-
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on Application No. 82013.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers'Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Application No. 82013, subject to the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the
facility and is nontransferable.
2. The special use permit is subject to all other codes, ordinances, and
regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. The operation is subject to review and approval of the City Sanitarian
prior to the issuance of the special use permit. Inspection of the
premises by the Sanitarian shall be conducted at least every three months
to assure that the operation is being conducted in a clean, healthy and
sanitary manner. The cost for such inspections shall be paid by the
operator.
4. The operation shall be subject to any future licensing provisions that
may be imposed by the State of Minnesota or the City of Brooklyn Center.
5. The Special Use Permit is issued for a sun tanning operation and the
offering of saunas, sauna bath, and massages as defined by City Ordinances
is expressly prohibited.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager introduced the next two resolutions on the agenda, a Resolution
Relating to Hennepin County Municipal Court Case Disposition Reporting Procedures
and a Resolution Relating to DWI Cases in the City of Brooklyn Center. He explained
that the resolution regarding the case dispositions in Hennepin County contains
staff recommendations to improve the case disposition reporting system in Hennepin
County. He noted that the resolution relating to DWI cases in the City reflects
the Council's request regarding the level of fines levied against drunk drivers in
Brooklyn Center.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -51
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT CASE DISPOSITION REPORTING
PROCEDURES
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, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
3 -22 -82 -14-
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
The City Attorney stated that the software system to improve case disposition
reporting in Hennepin County is available but as of this time the County has
not decided to extend the funds required to implement such a system. With regard
to the levying of fines against drunk drivers in Brooklyn Center, the City Attorney
pointed out that the average January fine was $200 and the average fine levied
in February was $315. He pointed out that the increase in the amount of fines
being charged reflects a change in the court policy with regard to fines, noting
that the average fine for 1981 was only $105. The City Manager stated that it
appears the level of fines is being increased by the County and pointed out that
the Council may wish to defer action on the resolution relating DWI cases in the
City of Brooklyn Center, since the system seems to be reacting positively without
a reminder from the City. There was a general consensus of Council members to
defer action on the resolution relating to DWI cases in the City of Brooklyn Center.
The City Manager explained that the next item on the agenda, a, Resolution Establishing
a Policy Relating to the City Prosecutor would set up a system to review the appoint-
ment and performance of the City Prosecutor.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -52
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A POLICY RELATING TO THE CITY PROSECUTOR
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, Celia Scott, and Bill Hawes; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
s
DISCUSSION ITEMS
t
HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY SURVEY
Administrative Assistant Bublitz pointed out that the Brooklyn Center Handicap
Accessibility Survey was prepared in response to Section 504 of the Vocational
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He reviewed the requirements of Section 504 and explained
that the City Council authorized the Human Rights Commission to implement the 504
program. He stated that the Handicap Accessibility Survey was prepared by the
National Handicap Housing Institute in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission
and City staff.
Administrative Assistant Bublitz stated that the consultant surveyed all City owned'
and leased buildings and facilities including City parks and polling sites in order
to determine there accessibilities by handicap individuals. He explained the
individual conducting the major portion of the survey was Julee Quarve Peterson,'
of the National Handicap Housing Institute. He pointed out that the survey assesses
all City owned and leased buildings and facilities and indicates specific recommendations
for modifications necessary to improve handicap accessibility for the facilities. He
pointed out that, as indicated in the Handicap Accessibility Survey, it is not
anticipated that all buildings and facilities will be brought immediately into
• compliance but rather the document will be used as a guideline as remodeling and
}
3 -22 -82 -15-
upgrading of the facilities is required,and will serve as a transition plan for
the upgrading and remodeling of City facilities with regard to handicap access.
P9 g g Y g P
He requested that the Council formally adopt the survey as part of the City's
504 Program.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
accept the Handicap Accessibility Survey as part of the City's 504 Program as
required by Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and Hawes. Voting against:- none.
The motion passed.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' DECISION ON RADIO COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
The City Manager pointed out that Councilmember Lhotka was present at the County
Board meetings when the radio communication system was discussed and that because
Councilmember Lhotka is absent this evening he would suggest placing this item on
_ the next Council agenda. He pointed out that Commissioner Derus voted against the
City's position with regard to the radio communication system in Hennepin County.
The Council accepted the City Manager's suggestion and Mayor Nyquist stated that
this item will again be placed on the next Council agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, and
Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Brooklyn Center City Council
adjourned at 9:49 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
3 -22 -82 -16-
TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
FROM Jim Grube, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: April 8, 1982 .
RE: Final Plat of 1st Brookdale State Bank. (Planning Commission
No. 79004)
Mr. William Pieper, on behalf of the First Brookdale State Bank,
has requested approval of the final plat located at T.H. 152
(Brooklyn Boulevard) and 59th Avenue North. City Council conditions
placed e
d on the plat are as follows:
_
1. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter
15 of the City Ordinances.
The applicant has met all requirements; therefore, it is recommend-
ed the City Council approve the final plat.
JNG: jn
mom
• NOIIICJGV S•ddl
•�+• � • w.rrsw+rw+.ww•rrr.r . r ..�.+r�...��.+r....�r.•.rar.... w+�r.Mr�ri•w�rrw+�w�rarwr ..1 � �fi�. Cl
0 S� •
�.
Z
Ld N oll 1(7(7�
�. ` k W
--- -r--- �S
cc
p t ,� 1 F�• .. 1.z 1
N ��• r 9 is
i
Z91 ON »+'�r.to.S N•• yrJNil ,' •••/Vp1,1dX•�X�•' ;,
yo TYa9 Nii4lN
= 0 AWs
�, ,rr+r+r .. r. s . r _I�i�X1� M�•• �11.N.ILi 7 Y • • �
0 1 4
s • +
i
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING
CENTRAL PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO.- 1982 -05,
AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City
Engineer regarding the feasibility of constructing water main in Central Park
between 63rd Avenue and Freeway Boulevard at an estimated cost of $150,950.00
and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best
_interests of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement:
NOW,; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that said improvement be established as Improvement
Project No. 1982 -05.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that the City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted the
City Engineer is designated as the engineer for said improvement, and he shall
prepare plans and specifications for Central Park Water Main Improvement
Project No. 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.
i
R
TABLE 6
�i1S ^ v:ilC 1 P-ND PROJECTED CUSTOMMRS, ITATM SALES
SUES REj. E
ME L'N LR EXISTIN ,TES
Water dater
_Fiscal Nu7mber of Sales Sales
Year Customers Volume Revenue
mg .
Historical
1975 6,,301 1,065 392,854
1976 6,433 1,481 514,140
1977 6,020 1,198 412,933
1978 6,178 1,127 424,289
1979 6,434 1,121 371,675 ACTUA
1980(a) 6,500 1 243 440,000 :507,431
Projected
14,81 6,500 1,130 400,000 463
1982 6,500 1,130 400,000
S
(a) Estimates
s;
28
a
r;
TABLE 7
HT sT0 TC.Pk AND PROJECTED
0
Sevv .ce Sale of
Fiscal Hookup T ater
Y. ea.r C.^ arzes ' eters Penalties Other Total
$ $
Historical
1975 32,281 13,062 1,153 9;903 56,339
19 19,734 7,304 1,838 4,38 33,262
1977 4,8 7,201 6,852 4,215 23,096
1978 31,353 (9,098) 2,310 4,325 28,890
,
1979 22,795 (5,404) 6,844 - 4,398 28,633 ACTUAL
1980(x) 20,000 (2 5,000 4,500 27,5OO 23
Projected
1981 16,000 (2,000) 5,000 4,500 23,500 28,110
1982 12,000 (2,000) 5,000 4,500 19,500
(a) Estimated
30
1
y
y
TABLE 8
hlS CRiCAL J% D PROdECTED
Oa GaL"'S i+.Y. : 1.. "11 `.�u.tG1.•CL Ef- , C•
Fiscal Source of Customer
Year Su 7 v Transc ission ?� : in strtaricn lccvc� ^tiny Total
$ $ S $ $
8istorical
1976 84,972 37,123 59,124 58,151 239,370
1977 :78,044 25,568 61,225 37,981 202,863
1378 78,283 24,398 67,737 38,664 209,082
1979 82,701 33,489 82,2 43,965 242,398 ACT UAL
1980(x) 91,000 36,800 90,500 48,400 266,700 298,827
Projected
1981 100,103 40,500 99,600 53,200 293,400 308
Ig82
11 1 1.00 44,600 169,600 58,500 322,500
(a) ti:"Mted
33 ..
TABLE 1 0
FLOW OF FU*,DS
U"MER E {I TINIG RA ES
Fiscal Year Ending December 31
1980 1961 1982
SsT
?7 ' TT ACTUAL 1980 ACTUAL, 19$1
Reve=; 4(p3 223
Sales to Customers 507,431 440,000 400,000 400,000
Service Fockup L� arges 20,000 c 16,000 12,000
Sale o` =Inter Meters 23,827 (2,000) (2,400) (2
Fe 5,000 m 5,000 5,000
Otter
4 4 500 4,500
Total Revenue 531, 258 467,500 0423,50 419,500
491,333
Operation and Maintenance Expense 298,827 266,700 293,40 322,800
30$ 602
Normal 'A=ual Cap:�,ta1'3kdditiors '25,000 25,000 25,000
"Net mi nze 207,431 175,800 1105,10 71,700
_ 157,7,31
Debt Service., aequiremdnts
Fr€�tcfn� cat ?evenue Bonds 35,000 40,000 40,000
Interest an Revenue Bonds 21,600 2.0, 200 1 8;700
Total. Debt Service Requirement 56,6 00 60,200 58,700
Annual Ne t Sala mce 119,200 . 44,900 13,000
DEBT SrRVIC C:' 7- ^' , 7"
Revenue Bond Debt
Service Requirements 60,200 60,200 59,000
Coverage F dvided 34S % 2922 1752 1222
Per Cent 1tevenue Increase
Necessary to Meet Coverage require -rents 4 .22'
39
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
i
^` BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
B TELEPHONE 561 -5440
E R
EMERGENCY -POLICE -FIRE
.,� . 561 -5720
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982-05
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 16 inch watermain
PROJECT LOCATION: Central Park from 63rd Avenue extended, northerly
to F.A.I. 94 across F.A.I. 94 from Central Park
to Freeway Boulevard
DISCUSSION: The construction of a 16 inch transmission water main
through Central Park and F.A.I. 94 from the - existing water main
at 63rd Avenue (exi:tended) to Freeway Boulevard is proposed in
accordance with recommendations contained in the 1980 Report
on Water Works improvements by Black and Veatch, Consulting
Engineers. This is the second segment of a recommended program`
of transmission. water main installation, providing for improved
capacity within the central portion of the City's water distri --
bution system, and an improved ability to effectively util -L
the 1.5 million gallon elevated storage tank in the Lion's Park
urea.
j SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: - Recent subsurface soil exploration indicates
soil conditions are suitable for placement of pipe within Central
Park and the Freeway Boulevard right of way.
During 1980, the City installed a "casing" pipe under F.A.I. 94
in conjunction with the freeway improvement projects (City Project
No. 1980 -24).
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Since construction of the transmission
water main _ "is necessary to improve systen capacity in the City,
its placement is within. publicly and
it Y owned land, all costs related
P
P
to the installation must be borne by the Public Utilities fund.
A summary of the estimated costs follows:
Construction Costs $119,800.00
Cont ngincies (15% of Construction Cost) 17,970.00
SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $137,
Engineering, Legal, Administration Cost 13,180.00
(11% of Construction Cost)
T6TAL ESTIMATED COST $150, 950.00
Vi f mozc "`
March 29, 1982 Engineer's Report
Page 2 Project 1982 -05
The ro osed improvement project, as described in this report,
P P P P 7 � Pa
is feasible under the conditions outlined and at the costs
estimated. It is recommended that this project be combined
into the same contract with other watermain 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
watermain location.
Respectf lly submitted,
Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works
Enclosure
SK; jn
OPEN PACE
W Ot
8
Q —
c
0 6
a
� +ti
4 66THAVE $.
7
F P. w
t;
CENTRAL
CITY - IIAL-
l
r
PARK 8 . o
• p R r
P f �
SummrT
8. S-
t
Qe-
e•
fl
°9t s• °•
C �
t
WATERMAIN IN CENTRAL PARK
PROJ .NO.1982-05
4
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoptions
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING
KYLAWN PARK WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -06,`
AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1982 -06
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City
Engineer regarding the feasibility of constructing water main in Kylawn Park
between the Twin Lake North Apartments and Kyle Avenue at an estimated cost
of $33,760.00: and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests
of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement.
j
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that said City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted
and said improvement be established as Improvement Project 1982 -06.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by
Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes.,
2. A public hearing on the proposed improvement shall be 'held
at the City Hall in the city on Monday, the 10th day of May,
1982, at 8:00 o'clock.P.M., and the Clerk shall publish
notice of the time and place of hearing by .two weeks'
publication in the official newspaper of the city. r
3. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement is as
follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Twin Lake North Addition
4. The
a 1
awn Water
ro osed improvement shall be designated s
r
P P KI'
P
i
Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -06.
h r
s
DATE MAYOR
ATTEST: gg
t
CLERK
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being aken thereon the
I
g
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution w passed d adopted.
solutia as declared duly d an
P P
Y P
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
54
BROOKLYN CENTER,: MINNESOT A 5 30
ROO BKLYN
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C E ER EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561.5720
ENGINE'ER'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
'"We Som&o"9 mom ,
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.
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works
y
Enclosure
A
SK; jn
r
AV t
/
•`p
�,��
�+
', f �� -� --�/`' -.�• to L N L- K "
co
Ci do ol
-v
ARBORETUM
Z `~�
7 \ LAKE ®U ( yp-
_ RVE LANE \ I �•- 7 ,
-0 y �'
A' J N A E N��
t
+
I _ -
`
�-- - _ .
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
BESOLUTION NO.
.: RESOLUTION RECEIVING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING
51ST AVENUE WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -07,
AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1982 -07
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City
Engineer regarding the feasibility of constructing water main in 51st Avenue
west of East Twin Lake Boulevard at an estimated cost of $36,140.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests
of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that said City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted
and said improvement be established as Improvement Project No. 1982 -07.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by
Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes.
2,. A public hearing on the proposed improvement shall be held
at the City Hall in the city on Monday, the 10th day of May,
1982, at 8 :00 o'clock P.M., and the Clerk shall publish
notice of the time and place of hearing by two weeks'
publication in the official newspaper of the city.
3. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement is as
follows:
All property benefitting from said improvement
located southerly of Upper Twin Lake, northerly
of the Soo Line Railroad, and westerly of East
Twin lake Boulevard (extended).
4. The proposed improvement shall be designated as 51st Avenue
Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07.
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
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
ENTER TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561-5720
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Water Main Improvement Project No. 1982 -07
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construction of 6 inch water main
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
and cleaning purposes only. Drinking water must be purchased from
commercial water supply dealers.
The petitioner has informed the staff that the parcel was origin-
ally served by a deep well until the water quality deteriorated to
the point where the present shallow well was necessitated According
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
"filter fabric" as an aid in trench stabilization. It is proposed
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.
Project 1982 -07 Engineer's Report
Page 2
Consideration has also been given to the possibility of developing
"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 procedure:
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-
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
against the petitioning party's property, and the Public Utilities
Fund would provide $33,930.00 toward the installation of the water
main.
i
i
Project 1982 -07 Engineer's Report
Page 3
i
The proposed improvement project, as described in this report, is
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.
:Re pect ully submitted,
S Knapp
Director of Public Works
Enclosure
1
SK: jn
j
°
• • A .4 '' '
LW
CRYSTAL
• ' , ♦ •
CA
� � �, ,:�s . a � � ►, ..,. � .� • OPEN. SF�
r o
Cb
• y • . �\
A � -
t. - 1�.� ,rte • O
1 l �
''- "N'*MBAAM�rmNU^' °'en..t :C; }.1 i r. i .!"" , .tl r . f.. ad. rw°- +ii,�F+,•i.i�a..e.�i��i.li�,v., :.i5r.w4'•.aeK.Y�
J
�.]
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
* RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECEIVING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING
EARLE'BROWN DRIVE STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1982 -08,
AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT 1982 -08
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City
Engineer regarding the feasibility of installing street lights along Earle
Brown Drive within the platted area known as the Brookdale Corporate Center
at an estimated cost of $4,510.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests
of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center Minnesota, that said City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted
and said improvement be established as Improvement Project 1982 -08.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota as follows
1. The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by
Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes.
2. A public hearing on the proposed improvbment shall be held at
the City Hall in the city on Monday, the 10th day of May, 1982,
at 8:00 o'clock P.M.,, and the Clerk shall publish notice of the
time and place of hearing by two weeks' publication in the
official newspaper of the city.
3. The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement is as
follows:
Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1380; 'Lot 1, Block 1,
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, and Outlot B of Brookdale Corporate
Center.
DATE MAYOR
ATTEST:;'
CLERK
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same;
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
. � R001A BROOKLYN CENTER. MINNESOTA 55430
1\ TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C E N r" ER EMERGENCY- POLICE - FIRE
681.5720
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 2.20.00
0% of Installation Cost)
TOTAL COST $4,510. -00
-?4c s6atce4ea Mau 64
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.
4 The resultant yearly principal payments, based upon the above
estimates, would vary from $128.12 to $837.61 for the various
commercial /industrial parcels.
t
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,
- j
Sy nape
Director of Public Works ?'
Enclosure
SK; j n
I
i
s
a
r
a. rtirs.-.. �a. �',. ti' xr4 .o.t�e4.r..h. w�fiiwvK.. 1r. �,,.-.. 1wWrr.. tl�v' v�tw��. rnNS..: 9irrs, w, 6++ s�.• wwn: rcrurr +r,sar,....wu::v,ew�.v++. rt �ar.wrxew lnwwv�.n.0 clrytiYn.. ew: �.«„ r.. r+w. ix eu. rw.. rnrwr .arr.- r^�+vi.,..rw.:.r.x`r. ri rsx.n4ry +-
u j
WS83W Jd
�lrl0W ° `
r o
co
co
cc V-
1�
�i 0 Cr
EC
m '\ ¢ C7
- - co Z
ui
Q 3 niao NM
w
lJJ ' W � +�
„ W as ui
4 1 W
J �
va
I
i
,� �/ k �• �,�- �".,. _... to `. ,�`
v � �i� / w -�x.�� 7i+_•�. .wir �.1�i�i �+liwwww i�+ytr..w•.�nr+. dIiWM.r . . • n !IR
ars.r.rr.. ow
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
! OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
MARCH 25, 1982
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order
by Chairman George Lucht at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
`Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson,
Mary Simmons, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present
were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant
City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shailcross.
Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioner Ainas had called pre-
viously to say that he would be unable to attend the evening's
meeting because of a business trip.
Chairman Lucht then presented Commissioner Simmons with a certificate
of appreciation from the Rotary Club.
ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE
The Secretary then- administered the oath of office to Commissioner
Versteeg to serve as a Planning Commission member in the place of
Richard Hager.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 11, 1982
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki
to approve the minutes of the March 11, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commis-
sioners Malecki, Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 82008 (Bergstrom Realty Company)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the
next item of business, a request to rezone a 7.5 acre tract of land
lying east of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center from C2 to R3.
The Secretary` reviewed the contents of the staff report (see
Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82008
attached) and reviewed a new conceptual plan for the townhouse
development.
Commissioner Manson arrived at 7:42 p.m.
Commissioner Simmons asked whether the neighbors to the east of
the site were satisfied with the new concept because of less density
along the east side of the development Commissioner Manson, who
had chaired the meeting of the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group, stated that the lower density helped, but that there is
still some concern as to the number of units within the entire
project. She also stated that there is concern that the project
be an owner - occupied development. Commissioner Simmons pointed
out that the City could not promise that the development would be
owner- occupied and suggested that perhaps the neighbors should work
out an agreement with the developer requiring that the project be
owner- occupied. The Secretary answered that the City could not
guarantee that the project would be owner - occupied, but stated that
3 -25 -82 -1-
action on the rezoning will depend on submittal of a plat creating
individual lots for the units proposed. He stated that it was up
to the neighbors to pursue an agreement with the developer on their
t
own. He also pointed out that the Association documents would
have to be submitted along with the plat and these would govern
use of the individual units. He pointed out that individual unit
owners could rent out their townhouses.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht then reopened the public hearing for Application
No. 82008 and recognized Mr. Dale Stelzer of 6837 Emerson Avenue-
North. Mr. Stelzer stated that filing of' the -plat should go a
long way toward making the development owner- occupied in nature.
{ He stated that he was still concerned about the number of units
in the project. He suggested that perhaps fewer units in the
overall development would allow each individual unit to sell
more quickly.
Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add.
Mr. James Merila, representing Bergstrom Realty, stated that he
felt the R3 zoning is better than either R1 or C2 zoning. He-
stated 'that the applicant concurs with the Northeast Neighborhood
Advisory Group recommendations. He added that financing is not
really available at this time for rental housing and, that there-
fore the owner has no intention of ursui a rental development., ..
n n
P g
Chairman Lucht asked whether the applicant had any objection to
waiving the time restriction on action on the rezoning. Mr. Meri.la
responded that the applicant has no objection and that a site plan .
and plat will be submitted for review by the Planning Commission
at its next meeting.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Lucht asked the Planning Commission if they had any further
comments at that time. Hearing none, he called for a motion to
direct staff to`prepare -a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
ACTION RECOMMENDING STAFF TO PREPARE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded Ey commissioner Malecki to
direct staff 1) to prepare an appropriate Comprehensive Plan Amend-
ment recommending mid- density residential development on the 7.5
acre tract of land east of Humboldt Square in the 1300 block of
69th Avenue North 2) to call a public hearing for review of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and 3). °to direct the applicant to
prepare a plat of the proposed townhouse development to be sub-
mitted at the April 15, 1982 Planning Commission meeting.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 82014 (McDonald's)
The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for •
site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct
and operate a drive --up facility at the McDonald's Restaurant at
5525 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of
3 -25 -82 -2
the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Application No. 82014 attached). Following presentation of the
staff report, the Secretary explained that staff have concerns
regarding the grade to the west of the building. He stated that
the grade is very steep and it is difficult for traffic to move
around the building while tilted at such an angle. He stated that
he would recommend tabling of the application so that staff could
work out an appropriate arrangement with the applicant.
Commissioner Simmons asked whether the parallel parking was needed
to meet parking requirements. The Secretary answered in the - af-
firmative, adding that there is one extra space on the site plan
Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether it would be useful to designate
parallel parking for employee parking only, thereby cutting down on
the rate of turnover in those stalls. The Secretary answered that
this was a possibility, but added that part of the problem is that
the area which would -be used for a driving lane is on a slope of
6 2/3%. The Secretary stated that there are a number of possible
solutions to the problem, including installation of a retaining
wall along the west side of the parking lot to reduce the grade
between the retaining wall and the building.
Commissioner Manson asked whether the island area and the order
station could be moved to the south side of the building, thereby
allowing for more parking and driving area west of the building.
The Secretary answered that moving the order station to the south
side of the building would reduce the stacking space for cars be-
tween the order window and the pickup station.
I,
There followed a brief discussion of the traffic flow on the site.
Chairman Lucht >called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Richard
Engstrom, representing McDonald's, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Engstrom pointed out that the area immediately to the west
of the building is roughly flat. The area to be used for a driving
lane past the order station is on a grade of approximately 6' 2/3%,
he stated. The worst area, he explained, is the area just to the
south of the west access to the site. Mr. Engstrom stated that
McDonald's wants one -way traffic around the building, and would go
along with a requirement that the south access be an exit -only
access. Commissioner Simmons stated that a driving lane would be
needed to allow cars to by -pass the drive -up window and that the
proposed driving lane could serve this function if the stalls on
the west side of the parking lot are designated for employee parking.
Mr. Engstrom stated that he preferred to allow, movement of cars on
the _lot so that the patrons could make use of stalls on the south
side of the property without leaving the parking lot. The Assistant
City Engineer stated that a 3% grade would be an-optimum grade for
the parking lot:. He pointed out, however, that the by -pass drive
lane is on a 10% grade and that this is too steep for cars to safely
travel around the building. Mr. Engstrom responded that the existing
grade is used now by cars parking along the west side of the parking
lot. The Secretary pointed out that that parking is 90 parking
and that this has a different effect than would the same angle used
for parallel parking and a by -pass drive lane. Mr. Engstrom asked
the Commission to take some action on the application and stated
that he would work with staff to find a solution to the problem
before the City Council meeting.- The Secretary accepted this sug-
gestion if the Assistant City Engineer and the Commission were
willing to take that approach.
3 -25 -82 -3-
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Luc t then opened the meeting for a public hearing and
asked whether anyone present wished to comment on the application.
Hearing no comments, he called for a; motion to close the public
hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki
to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Malecki stated that she did not understand why the
plans were not ready for approval. The Assistant City Engineer
explained that the staff had asked for updated grading plans for
the site the previous week and did not receive them until the day`
of the meeting He stated that certain questions still remain
with the plan that has been submitted, but that these can probably
be worked out before the City Council meeting.
In answer to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding delivery
trucks, Mr. Engstrom stated that deliveries are made at off-- peak
times - and -that no addition to the building would be made :except
to install the pickup station. Chairman Lucht asked the Assistant
City Engineer how he felt about leaving it up to the staff and the
applicant to work out a grading plan prior to the City Council
meeting. The Assistant City Engineer suggested that the plans be
brought back to the Planning Commission if agreement between the
staff and the applicant cannot be reached prior to the next City
Council meeting.
Commissioner Manson asked whether the existing grades could be
deemed inadequate if they were approved under a previous plan.
The Assistant City Engineer pointed out that 'the ' use of the space
is changing. He stated that the situation was less than `ideal
before and that the proposal aggravates that situation. He stated
that -a new arrangement would have to be worked out for the proposed
use. " Commissioner Simmons asked whether it made any difference to
the staff whether the application was tabled or not. The Secretary
and the Assistant City Engineer stated that they would try to work
out a solution before the City Council meeting.
Chairman Lucht then polled the Planning Commission as to its feelings
on the application. Commissioners Versteeg and Malecki and Chairman
Lucht felt the application should be tabled. Commissioners Sandstrom,
Simmons and Manson were willing to pass the application on to the
City Council subject to an agreement being worked out with staff on
the grading plan,
i
MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 82014 (McDonald's)
Motion by'Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to
table Application No. 82014 and direct staff and the applicant to
{
work out a solution regarding the grading plan.
r Mr. Engstrom stated that he would accept tabling of the application,
if that was the Commission's feelings on the matter.
Voting in favor of the motion: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki
Manson, Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none.
The motion passed.
-3 -25_82 -4
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:12 p.m. and resumed at 9:29 pm.
APPLICATION NO. 82015 ( "S "ears," Roebuck " and Company)
Following the recess, the Secretary introduced th next item of
business, a request for a special use permit to operate an amusement
center in the Sears store at 1297 Brookdale Shopping Center. He
reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission
Information Sheet for Application No. 82015 attached)
Commissioner Malecki noted that the letter submitted by the applicant
states that the room is to be watched over by the sales force in the
sporting goods department. She asked whether this would be acceptable
under the proposed ordinance regulating amusement devices, Section
23 -2115, Subsection A (8), which requires a full time adult attendant
-
upon the licensed premise during business hours. The Secretary y an
swered that the intent of the ordinance is to make an adult respon-
sible for the game area and that it was not his impression' that an
adult had to be physically within the game room at all times. Com-
missioner Simmons stated that during busy shopping times, sales
people will be occupied with serving customers and will not spend
the effort to oversee the game room. Chairman Lucht noted that
Sears has full time security people on the premises that can respond
to a call from a sales person. The Commission continued to discuss
the question of adult supervision of the game room.
Chairman Lucht called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Don Smith,
Industrial Service Manager and Security Manager at the Sears Store
in Brookdale, addressed the Commission. He stated that Sears has
6 security people and 22 sporting goods employees and that there
would be three employees in the sporting goods department at all
times. Chairman Lucht asked whether similar game rooms existed in
other Sears stores. Mr. Smith answered in the affirmative and
stated that Sears has no problems with game zooms at other stores.
Commissioner Simmons asked whether these other game rooms were super -
vised'by sales people. Mr. Smith answered that sales and security
people supervise the game rooms and that there is no full time
attendant present at the other game rooms.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and
asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application.
Hearing none, he called fora motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commis'si - oner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki
to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82015
(Sears, Roebuck and Com an )
Motion by Co= si.oner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to
recommend approval of Application No. 82015, 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 applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations, and any violation
thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3 -25 -82 -5
3. House rules governing conduct within the game
room shall be posted in a conspicuous location
and shall be rigorously enforced. A copy of
such rules shall be kept on file with the City.
4 Approval of the permit is subject to compliance
with future licensing regulations regarding
amusement devices.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Simmons,'Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Channel 29, Inc:
The Secretary t en introduced Mr. Ralph Bruins, President of the
Summit State Bank, to speak to the Commission regarding a "proposal
to use the horse barn and hippodrome on the historic Earle Brown
Farm for a TV station, Channel 29. Mr. Bruins stated that the
transmission and production studios for Channel 29, a local UHF
affiliate of a_ national syndicated religious broadcasting network,
would be located in the horse barn and hippodrome on the Earle
Brown Farm, subject to approval by the City. He stated that he
felt that this was .a good and appropriate use of the Farm buildings.
He noted that the TV station is a family- oriented station on a UHF
channel.
Commissioner Simmons asked what was meant by the term "family-
oriented ". Mr, Dan Kocher of Channel 29 explained to the Commission
that the new UHF station would air family and Christian TV programs.
He stated that there are guidelines as to the content of the pro-
grams. He noted, for instance, that Channel 29 would not air a
program like "Saturday Night Live ". He explained that there is a
minimum of Christian programming in the Twin Cities area.
Chairman Lucht; asked whether other syndicated programs would be
shown in addition to those locally produced. Mr. Kocher answered
in the affirmative. He explained that the station would go on the
air with 18 hours of programming and that two studios would be
located in the facility for production of programs to be sold to
other religious broadcasting stations in addition to being aired
locally.
There followed a lengthy discussion of the type of programming to
be offered on the 'new ' network. Mr. Kocher stated that there would
be approximately 60% religious' programming to 40% family programming
and explained that there would be some commercials, although the
broadcasting would also be supported by local donations to support
the production of local programs.
Commissioner Manson asked how much traffic would be generated by
the proposed use and whether any studio audience would be involved.
Mr. Kocher stated that there would be a studio audience for some
shows and explained that one of the studios would have 100 seats
Commissioner Malecki asked how many employees would be working at
the site. Mr. Kocher answered about 25.` Commissioner Simmons
asked whether the offices would be in the barn and studios in the
hippodrome. Mr. Kocher answered in the affirmative.
A .3- 25--82 -6-
The Secretary explained to the Conunission that the applicant wants.
to get direction from the Commission. He explained that the Zoning
ordinance does not list TV production studios as a permitted use in
the I -1 zone, but that it could be allowed if it is similar in
nature to other uses in the I -1 zone He also explained that the
Earle Brown Farm is classified as being in a historic district and
that the proposed,use should be evaluated from that prospective also.
He asked whether the Planning Commission had any objections to the
proposed use in the historical zone. Commissioners Sandstrom and
Versteeg stated that they had no objection and that the proposed use
is fine. Commissioner Simmons stated that the Commission should not
judge the broadcasting, but the use of land which, she felt, was
good. Commissioners Manson and Malecki agreed.
Chairman Lucht asked whether the R.L.S. for the Farm property had
been filed. The Secretary answered that the preliminary R.L.S.
has been approved, but has not been finaled_or filed at the County.
He stated that the filing process must be completed prior to the
issuance of any building permits. Mr. Bruins stated that the plat
is in process now and should be completed in time to issue building
permits for the project on schedule.
In response to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding parking,
the Secretary stated that the requirement is for one space for every
three seats for auditorium type use; one space for each 200 ft. of
office use; and 1 space for each 800 sq. ft. of warehouse or manu-
facturing use or one space for every two employees. He stated that
all these formulas would probably be involved in calculating a
parking demand for the site. Mr. Janis Blumentals, architect for
the project, stated that the parking requirements for the respective
uses in the complex added up to 63 stalls. He explained that this
was an increase of approximately 20 parking stalls over the last
plan submitted for the barn and hippodrome. Chairman Lucht stated
that he wanted to see adequate parking available on the site with
other additional land available for possible expansion.
b. Draft Ordinance on Amusement Devices,
The Secretary asked the Commission if i.t had questions regarding
the latest draft of the proposed ordinance. There followed a
lengthy discussion regarding Section 23 -2115, Subsection A (8)
regarding the full time requirement of an adult attendant at a
game room. Commissioner Malecki suggested that the wording be
changed so that full time adult supervision is required, but not
necessarily an attendant.: The Secretary also suggested removing
the requirement that the adult supervision be by a full time employee.
Mr. Robert Latz, an attorney representing a number of game vendors,
stated that the proposed ordinance presents some difficulties for
game vendors. He cited the confusion over the term "licensed
premises ". He also objected to the very significant responsibilities
placed on an operator of a game room, namely enforcement of the cur-
few ordinance. Mr. Latz also expressed concern that certain types
of establishments are required to obtain a special use permit, while
others are exempted. He stated that the difference between these
types of establishments should be more clearly explained in the
ordinance rather than arbitrarily separated. Mr. Latz also stated
that there is a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the
State law regarding gambling. He stated that the games being
marketed in Minnesota are clearly games of skill as opposed to
games of chance.
3 -25 -82 -7-
The Planning Assistant reminded the Planning Commission that the
function of its review was primarily to address land use concerns
and not to become bogged down in other aspects of the licensing
ordinance. He suggested that the Commission focus its attention
on land use concerns. The Secretary also explained that the
ordinance had been written to express the concern of the staff
and the Planning Commission over the location of the-- electronic
games in residential areas. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt
the Planning Commission had completed its job on the proposed
ordinance and that it should be recommended to the City Council
for further discussion of nonland; use matters.
The Secretary noted that he was willing to review the ordinance
further with the interested parties prior to the time it goes to
the City Council for consideration.
ACTION FORWARDING DRAFT ORDINANCE TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malec —
to forward to the City Council the third draft of the proposed
ordinance regulating amusement devices and specifically recommending
approval of Section 23 -2109 relating to the location of amusement
devices
Voting in favor. Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to
adjourn the meeting of the Planning commission. Voting in favor:
Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Simmons, Sandstrom
and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The
Planning Commission adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
Chairman
3- 25 -8'2 -8-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 82008
Applicant: Bergstrom Realty Company
Location: 1300 block of 69th Avenue North
Request: Rezoning
The applicant requests rezoning of a 7.5 acre tract of land lying east of the Humboldt
Square Shopping Center from C2 (Commerce) to R3 (Townhouse). The ,property in question
is bounded by 69th Avenue (R5 across the street) and the City Well House No. 6 on the
north, by single - family homes (Rl) on the east, by the Hi Crest Apartments (R5) on
the south and by the Humboldt Square Shopping Center (C2) on the west. This appli-
cation was reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was held on
February 11, 1982. The Commission continued the public hearing, tabled' consideration
of the matter and referred it to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review
and comment. (The Commission's attention is directed to the February 11, 1982 Plan -
ning Commission minutes on pages l through 5 and also, the Planning Commission Inform-
ation Sheet relating to that application for further information).
The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group met to further review and comment on the
matter at a meeting which was held on March 3, 1982. A copy of the minutes of that
meeting is attached for the Commission's review. The Neighborhood Advisory Group
recommended to the Planning Commission that the R3 zoning be given a favorable con -
sideration. This recommendation, however, is based upon the feeling that a conceptual
plan proposed by the applicant is an acceptable use of the property. Their recom-
mendation notes that a planned unit development should be approved as a platted de-
velopment with FHA and VA approval with the intent that the residences be sold to
their occupants that a platting plan be developed before approval (approval of the
rezoning); that the drainage for the neighborhood be provided for; and that a
performance bond or a letter of credit be posted to guarantee the execution and.com-
pletion of the development.
It seems that one of the main concerns of persons affected by this rezoning proposal
is to assure that the conceptual plan be accomplished The owner- occupied townhouse
development seems acceptable while other uses 'allowed in an R3 zoning district may
not be acceptable.
The Commission's attention is directed to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review
Guidelines (Section 35 -208, copy attached) which establishes the procedures for -
recommending and approving any rezoning action. It appears that a number of the
guidelines can be met by this proposal, however, the rezoning would still be considered
"spot zoning" if the City's Comprehensive Plan is not properly amended. Section 35 -202
Subdivision l a of he i
( ) t Zoning Ordinance outlines the procedure for amending the
9 P 9
Comprehensive Plan (copy attached). Both the existing and the proposed Comprehensive
Plans must be amended in order to accomplish the proposed rezoning. The existing
Plan recommends the designation of land at the southeast quadrant of 69th and
Humboldt Avenues as the location for a centrally located neighborhood shopping center
for the Northeast Neighborhood. In the proposed Comprehensive Plan, which has not yet
been officially adopted by the City Council but has been approved for adoption by
the Metropolitan Council, the Land Use Plan revisions map (Table 14 and Figure 15)
designates this area as a future single - family residential area The main reason
for such a designation was the preliminary action taken by the Planning Commission
and City Council in 1977 when Mr. Bergstrom then proposed to rezone the property from
C2 to Rl There is no dispute with the premise that there is no need to reserve
this land; as an area for a neighborhood shopping center. The Humboldt Square adequately
serves this purpose and there is enough vacant commercial land elsewhere in the
Northeast Neighborhood to serve future commercial development needs.
3 -25 -82 -1-
Application No. 82008 continued
The new Comprehensive Plan recommendation was directed primarily at eliminating the
need for continuing the C2 designation of this property. Because the 1977 'proposal
seemed to be reasonable, the Rl' designation was recommended. No major analysis,
such as cost factors relating to the high water table, were taken into account at
that time.
If the Planning Commission is inclined to look favorably upon the rezoning request,
they should direct the staff to prepare the necessary Comprehensive Plan amendments
and establish a- public hearing per Section 35 -202, Subdivision 1 (a) Also - i if the
Commission supports the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group recommendation to
assure, as much as possible, an owner- occupied townhouse development, the applicant
should be directed to prepare a preliminary plat of the property to be considered
concurrently with any rezoning As past of that preliminary plat, a drainage plan
that would address the drainage problems would also have to be submitted. The rezoning
of this property would not have to take effect until a final ,plat has been approved
and filed with the County. The applicant would have to concur with this action and
waive his right to appear before the City Council within 78 days of the date of
referral of this application to the Planning Commission without a Planning Commission
Application.
Notices of this evening's meeting have been sent to abutting property owners and the
public hearing has been continued from February 11, 1982.
It should be noted that a revised conceptual plan has also been submitted reducing
the number of units from 64 to 60. A copy of,that revised conceptual plan is
attached for the Commission's review.
3 -25 -2-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 82014
Applicant: McDonald's
Location: 5525 Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Site and Building Plan /Special Use Permit
The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to add
a drive -up order window and pick -up station to the McDonald's Restaurant at 5525
Xerxes Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by private
roadwayson the west and south, by Xerxes Avenue North on the east and by the Green
Mill Restaurant overflow lot on the north. McDonald's is classified as a convenience
food restaurant which is a special use in the C2 zone that cannot abut Rl, R2, or R3
zoned property at either a property line or a street line. The existing use satisfies
this requirement.
In the process of adding the drive -up window and pick -up station, the restaurant is
reducing its seating capacity from 108 to 100 seats. With 14 employees on the
maximum shift, the total parking requirement for the use is 57 stalls. The proposed
plan calls for 58 stalls. One access, onto the south private roadway at the south -
west corner of the site, will be closed allowing for four new parking spaces. However,
parking along the west side of the site will be changed from 900 to parallel parking,
resulting in a loss of 10 stalls. Overall, parking is reduced from 74 spaces to 58.
The proposed plan calls for landscape treatment in an island area surrounding the
menu board and speakers on the west side of the building. Plantings include Upright
Arborvitae, Pygmy Barberry, and Andorra Junipers in a rock mulch bed. Underground
irrigation is not required in this location. The existing landscape treatment in
the greenstrip abutting the private road on the south will be matched in the area of
the access closing.
• At the time of the writing of this information sheet we had not received a revised
grading plan for the area and a revised floor plan. There may be some concerns re-
garding grading along the west side of the site where the order station is to be
located because of the slope in this area.
We will be prepared to comment in more detail at Thursday's meeting.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Approval would be subject to at least the following conditions;
I. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be sub -
mitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of
approved site improvements.
4. 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.
3 -25 -82
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No 82015
Applicant: Sears, Roebuck and Company /Michael McNulty
Location: Brookdale
Request: Special.Use Permit
The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a game room in the
Sears Store at the Brookdale Shopping Center. Brookdale, of course, is zoned C2`
and amusement centers are special uses in the C2 Zoning District, which may not
abut Rl, R2, or R3 zoned property at a property line or a street line (abuttment
across a major highway has not been considered residential abuttment).
The applicant proposes to have 10 machines in a 15' x 27' room off the sporting
goods department on the main floor at Sears. A letter has been submitted (copy
attached) which outlines some basin rules and procedures affecting the game room.
The machines will be supplied by Servomation.
Staff can see no grounds for denying the special use permit. Any impacts from the
game room will almost certainly be contained within the Sears store.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices sent.
Approval is, therefore, recommended 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 applicable codes, ordinances, and
regulations, and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
3. House rules governing conduct within the gam room shall be posted
in a conspicuous location and shall be rigorously enforced. A
COPY of such rules shall be kept on file with the City.
4. Approval of the permit is subject to compliance with future
licensing regulations regarding amusement devices.
i
3 -25 -82
t
t
ffe
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoptions G
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A SOUND LEVEL METER
CUSTODY AGREEMENT
z
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has participated for one year in
the Minnesota Cities Motor Vehicle Noise Enforcement and Meter Loan Program .
which included a contract for a motor vehicle noise enforcement kit; and
i
WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities has invited the City of
Brooklyn Center to participate in the program for a second year; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Cities Motor Vehicle Noise Enforcement and
_Meter Loan Program will enable the Brooklyn Center Police, Department to continue
a program of motor vehicle noise level enforcement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
enter into a Sound Level Meter Custody Agreement with the League of Minnesota
Cities.'
Date Mayor
ATTESTS
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1
1982 SOUND LEVEL METER CUSTODY AGREEMENT
•
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the League of Minnesota
Cities and the City of Brooklyn Center , Minnesota, acting by
and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City."
1. The City agrees to assume custody of the equipment furnished by the
League of Minnesota Cities which is listed in Section 2 and to fulfill
the terms and conditions of such custody as are contained in Section 3
below. This agreement entered into April 12 19 ,
and shall extend through December 31, 1982.
2. Furnished Equipment:
a. 3M Model 3220 Sound Level Meter with Remote Microphone
Serial No.
b. 3M Model 3200 Calibrator, Serial No.
c. Dwyer Wind Meter.
d. 110v Adapter (3M Model 3214).
e. Cigarette Lighter Adapter (3M Model 3215).
• f. Windscreen. (3M Model 3211).
g. 10' Microphone Cable, (3M Model 3213).
h. Vehicle Window Mount for Microphone.
i. All of the above components, contained in a Platt CC59 -931,
locking, Carrying Case.
3 Terms and Conditions for Custody
a. - The City agrees to utilize and maintain the furnished equipment with
reasonable diligence. The City assumes responsibility for the care
and maintenance of the furnished equipment. The City agrees to
return the furnished equipment to the League of Minnesota Cities
at the end of the agreement period in the same condition as it was
furnished to the City, less normal wear and tear.
b. The League of Minnesota Cities, assumes no liability for the
application, accuracy, or reliability of the equipment.
C. The League of Minnesota Cities assumes no liability for the
consequences of the use of the equipment or of data acquired by the
City as a result of the utilization of the furnished equipment.
•
-2-
•
d. At the end of the contract period, the City will return the
equipment to the League of Minnesota Cities for inspection and
calibration.
e. The City will submit a report to the League of Minnesota Cities
on the status of the furnished equipment which will include at least
the following information:
1) Present custodian organization
2) Principal utilization purposes
3) Approximate number of days of utilization during the year
4) Copies of log sheets used by enforcement personnel
The report should be submitted by January 1 to:
League of Minnesota Cities
183 University Avenue East
St. Paul, MN 55101
ATTN: Mary Williams
•
FOR THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES FOR THE CITY OF Brooklyn Center
By:
Signature
Don Slater By:
Executive Director
Contact Person
•
t
Teague of mnnesota cities
March 30, 1982
Mr. Gerald Splinter
City Manager
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mr. Splinter:
The 1982 Minnesota Cities Motor Vehicle Noise Enforcement and Meter Loan
Program is gearing up for a second summer season. In April there will be an
opportunity for police office training and 'meter calibration. This year's
focus will be on increasing enforcement activities and using the new fine
schedule for M.S. 169.693 (Motor Vehicle Noise Limits).
An effective local noise enforcement program can recover its operating costs.
The meters will be provided free of charge again this summer. As last summer,
all fines collected will be kept by the local enforcement jurisdiction.
However, the grant policy of the meter loan program is subject to change next
year due to the proposed discontinuation of the federal noise program. I will
keep you advised of these changes as they occur. With the new fine schedule
these should remain economic programs to operate.
The City of Brooklyn Center entered into a custody agreement with the League
of Minnesota Cities from May 4, 1982 to December 31, 1981 for the following
equipment:
3M Model 3220 Sound Level Meter Serial #2450
3M Model 3200 Calibrator, Serial #2414
Dwyer Wind Meter
110v Adapter 3M Model 3214
Cigarette Lighter Adapter - 3M Model 3215'
Windscreen - 3M Model 3211
10' Microphone Cable - 3M Model 3213
Vehicle /Window Mount for Microphone
Platt,CC59 -931 Locking Carrying Case
The one year renewable grant for this equipment must be renegotiated and
the above equipment mast be returned for calibration. New Custody Agreements
trust be signed and returned for this year (see attached forms).
300 hanover building, 460 cedar street, saint pawl, minnesota 55101 06123 222 -2661
,. Page two
March 30, 1982
• in response to the Motor Vehicle Meter Survey conducted last fall, the League
of Minnesota Cities, the Pollution Control Agency and MNDOT are cooperating to
present the Motor vehicle Enforcement Refresher Course, Tuesday and Wednesday,
April 27-28 at the MNUOT "'Training Center, New Brighton, Minnesota, 8:30 a.m. -
4:30 p.m.
We are arranging to calibrate the 3M Meters during the training session
d' e training session
can
bring Tuesday, April 27.- Officers attending th r g g meters
and not incurs additional packing and shipping expenses.
This year's course will be offered again for continuing education credit hours'
by the Minnesota_ Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training. Please have
officers return the attached registration form as soon as possible.
Many cities have expressed an interest in joining the program. Should you
wish to discontinue your participation in the Minnesota Cities Motor Vehicle
Enforcement and Meter Loan Program, contact me immediately at (612) 222 -2861;
after May 1: League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Avenue East, St. Paul,
Minnesota 55101; (612) 227 -5600.
Sincerely,
r
{
Mary Wi iams
Noise Project Director
MW:rmm
cc: James Lindsa y, o Chief f Police
e
n
Attachments: Custody Agreement for 1982 _.
Motor Vehicle Enforcement Refresher }
Course Outline and Registration Form
EF
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
' RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR
REPRESENTATION IN: JOINT PUBLIC WORKS NEGOTIATIONS FOR A CONTRACT
BEGINNING JANUARY, 1983 WITH I.U.O.E., LOCAL 49
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center supports the Metropolitan Area
Management Association's joint negotiations of collective bargaining agree -
ments; and
WHEREAS,, the Metropolitan Area Management Association will be
negotiating a joint public works contract to begin in 1983 with I.U.O.E.,
Local 49; and
WHEREAS, authorization for representation in the joint public works
negotiations is required for the City to participate in the joint negotiations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that it hereby authorizes the committee, which has been established
by the Metropolitan Area Management Association, to serve as its representative
in public works negotiations with I.U.O.E., Local 49, for a contract beginning
January, 1983.
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.
C
s
i
i
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
• Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 10th day of May,
1982 at p.m. at the City 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
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 i
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- .
eluding abutment at a street line.
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.)'
February 15, 1982
City Council
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minn. 55430
Gentlemen'
A Special Board Meeting of the Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief
Association was held on January 11, 1982. The following recommendations
were made and - approved.
President Jim McClure and Treasurer Jay Hruska were reelected to two
year terms on a white ballot by the membership.
Treasurer Jay Hruska was authorized to purchase the following:
$40,000 of Associates Corporation of North America bonds with a
yield of 14 z % and matures February 1, 1990. The cost is $39,013.60.
j
$30,000 of Pacific Power and Light Bonds with a yield of 15 -5/8%
and matures March 1, 1991. The cost is $31,050.00.
$35,000 of Commonwealth Edison Bonds with a yield of 14% and matures
i January 1, 1991. The cost is $34,650.00.
$20,000 of GMAC Bonds with a yield of I1 -5/8% and matures June
6, 1990. The cost is $18,783.00.
We feel 'these are wise decisions and hope you will approve this action.
Respectfully Submitted,
Timoth R. "Martenson, Secretary
Brooklyn Center Fire Department
Relief Association E
t
e
f
F7=
OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ; �•,» ��
2308 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
HENNEPIN
LFU
( 612) 348 - 4466
March 17, 1982
Councilman Gene A Lhotka
6036 Lyndale Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Councilman_Lhotka
This is in response to you _ qu e stions regarding the emergency communications
and dispatch policy which was adopted on Tuesday by the Hennepin County Board.
Please accept my apologies for not responding to your inquiries prior to the
Board action. Upon returning to my office following Tuesday's meeting, I
found your original set of questions in my in- basket. Nevertheless, I
would like to address your questions and indicate how we will be proceeding
to implement the Board's adopted policy.
You listed the following specific questions: s
1. (Paragraph 2a) What specifically does your staff consider "Emergency
Dispatch Services ?n
2. (Paragraph 2b) What specifically does.your staff consider "Non- Emergency
Communications ?"
3. - (Paragraph 2b) What administrative communications does the County now.
provide and to whom?
4. What "Non- recurring 911 Central Equipment Costs" does the staff recommend
financing and at what locations? (Paragraph 3)
Regarding your first two questions, no specific definitions have yet been
developed. It is the purpose of the report to be prepared by the County
Administrator to define admini strative and emergency communications for
purposes of executing the Board's general policy.
In response to your third question, I would assume that the County now pro -
vides administrative communications, in varying degrees, for all municipalities
participating in the County's radio network. The Administrator's report will
identify the total cost of such services and a method of charging municipalities
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equol opportunity employe[ +
Councilman Gene A. lhotka
March 17, 1982 ••..
Rage Two
that are unable or unwilling to handle their own administrative communications
in the future. Our technical staff have estimated that administrative communica-
tions represent a minority of all communications handled by the Sheriff's-
radio network, probably in the range of 20 to 25 percent of the total.
In response to your last question regarding 911 installation costs, - we anticipate
incurring more than $700,000 in one -time costs for central equipment and system
implementation. I do not have a detailed itemization-of those costs but would
characterize them as non -PSAP 911 "system" costs. All of the equipment that
is required for 911 implementation to be funded by this County expenditure
will be located.on Bell Telephone's premises and will link the Bell systems
central exchanges to the 911 system.
In the weeks ahead County staff will be working with the County Administrator'
to prepare details of the policy implementation plan and reviewing it with
municipalities, meeting with representatives of the Sheriff's Department to
organize for the initiation of the advisory board and will be taking other
appropriate actions to ensure that municipalities are informed of their
opportunities and obligations pursuant to this policy.
Please call me if you have any additional questions or -if I can be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
Philip C. Eckhert
Director i
vi1 h
cc Commissioner John Derus
Dale Ackmann
i
Sheriff Omodt
v4erry. Splinter
_, x
CITY
OF 6341 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55434
TELEPHONE 561 5440
C ENT ER EMERGENCY - POLICE-f oRE
.. 561.5720
April 2, 1982
t
Mr_ John Derus, Commissioner
Hennepin County
2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
Dear John:
As you are aware, I was very disappointed in your vote and the Board's
decision to approve the Dispatch Resolution. Your 'staff's inability to
provide me with answers to a few questions concerning this resolution _.
prior to the Board voting was, not only unprofessional, but it could be
interpreted as politically convenient.
I received your staff's response to my questions on Friday, March 19, ,
Please note that I said response not answers. Because of their response
I would request answers from you on two questions:
I. How can you vote -for and the Board pass a resolution without '
the full knowledge of the economic impact of upgrading the
County system?
2. Can ou legally y g y pass a resolution and then at some later date
have your staff determine the meaning and intent?
}
You should also know there exists a number of knowledgeable people in the
communication field who believe that a totally centralized' county system will
not be as economical nor as effective as a multi - clustered system. The County
Board's action on this matter further hinders the ability of municipalities
to work effectively with County government Your indbnsistency on policy '
matters such as this is a disservice to the citizens of Hennepin County.
Sincerely,'
t=
Gene A. Lhotka
Councilman `
CITY or BROOKLYN CENTER
* "'' j _Sj*xetl+•i�ry 711 ote &its
CITY _
OF 6341 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
ROOKLYN
TELEPHONE 561 5444
C ENTE EMERGENCY POLICE -FiRE
561.5720
April 2, 1982
f
Mr. John Derus, Commissioner
Hennepin County
2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
A
Dear John:
As you are aware, I was very disappointed in your vote and the Board's
decision to approve the Dispatch Resolution. Your staff's inability to
provide me with answers to a few questions concerning this resolution
prior to the Board voting was, not only unprofessional but it could be
interpreted as politically convenient.
I received your staff's response to my questions on Friday, March 19.
Please note that I'said response not answers. Because of their response
I would request answers from you on two questions:
1. How can you vote for and the Board pass a resolution without
the full knowledge of the economic impact of upgrading the
County system?
2. Can you legally pass a resolution and then at some later date
have your staff determine the meaning and intent?
You :should also know there exists a_number of knowledgeable people in the
communication field who believe that a totally centralized county system will
not be as economical nor as effective as a multi - clustered system. The County
Board's action on this matter further hinders the ability of municipalities
to work effectively with County government. Your inconsistency on policy
matters such as this is a disservice to the citizens of Hennepin County.
Sincerely,
Gene A. Lhotka '
Councilman
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
"74e SumetluKy d ate 67itjr r�
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 5440
` EMERGENCY POLICE-
ENTER
5€i1.5723
April 2, 1982
Mr. John Derus Commissioner
Hennepin County
2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
Dear Sohn:
As you are aware, I was very disappointed in your vote and the Board's
decision to approve the Dispatch Resolution. Your staff's inability to
provide me with answers to a few questions concerning this resolution
prior to the Board voting was, not only unprofessional but it could be
interpreted as politically convenient.
I received your staff's response to my questions on Friday, March 19,
Please _note that I said response not answers. Because of their response
I would request answers from you on two questions:
i. How can you vote for and the Board pass a resolution without
the full knowledge of the economic impact of upgrading the
County system?
2. Can you legally pass a resolution and then at some later date
have your staff determine the meaning and intent?
You should also know there exists a number of knowledgeable people in the
communication field who believe that a totally centralized county system will
not be as economical nor as effective as a multi- clustered system. The County
Board's action on this matter further hinders the ability of municipalities
to work effectively with County government. Your inconsistency on policy
matters such as this is a disservice to the citizens of Hennepin county.
Sincerely,
it~
Gene A. Lhotka
Councilman
CITY OF BROOKLYN CE14TER
y
" i t Sawetic.rg
I '
� rt ill o u 1�7ittf
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
ROO BROOK LYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE: 561 5440
ENTER EMERGENCY - POLICE -FiPE
561 -5720
April 2, 1982
L
3
Mr. John Derus, Commissioner
r-
Hennepin County
2400 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
Dear John:
As you are aware, I was very disappointed in your vote and the Board's
decision to d F
Pprove the Dispatch Resolution. Your staff s inability to
provide me with answers to a few questions concerning this resolution
prior to the Board voting was, not only unprofessional but it could be
interpreted as politically convenient.
I received your staff's response to my questions on Friday, March 19.
Please note that I said response not answers. Because of their response
I would request answers from you on two questions:
1. How can you vote for and the Board pass - resolution without
the full knowledge of the economic impact of upgrading the
County system?
2. Can you legally pass a resolution and then at some later date
have your staff determine the meaning and intent?
You should also know there exists a number of knowledgeable people in the
communication field who believe that a totally centralized county system will
not be as economical nor as effective as a multi - clustered system_ The County
Board's action on this matter further hinders the ability of municipalities
to work effectively with County government. Your inconsistency on policy
matters such as this is a disservice to the citizens of Hennepin County.
y . S;..,
Sincerely,
c
F
Gene A. Lhotka `
Councilman
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
,r G' V alt' /2Cty n
lsit' .,hs�fiftltCitlf
OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT . •''~ o
2308 Government Center
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55487
HENNEPIN
L — u
(612) 348 -4466
March 17, 1982 d
Councilman Gene A. Lhotka :
6036 Lyndale Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 k .
Dear Councilman Lhotka
This is in response to your questions regarding the emergency communications
and dispatch policy which was adopted on Tuesday by the Hennepin County Board.
Please accept my apologies for not responding to your inquiries prior to the
Board action. Upon returning to my office following Tuesday's meeting, I
found your original set of questions in my in- basket. Nevertheless, I
would like to address your questions and indicate how we will be proceeding
to implement the Board's adopted policy.
You listed the following specific questions: s
1. (Paragraph 2a) What specifically does your staff consider "Emergency
Dispatch Services ?"
2. (Paragraph 2b) What specifically does your staff consider "Non- Emergency
Communications ?"
3. (Paragraph 2b) What administrative communications does the County now.
provide and to whom?
4. What "Non- recurring 911 Central Equipment Costs" does the staff recommend
financing and at what locations? (Paragraph 3 ) ;
Regarding your first two questions, no specific definitions have yet been
developed. It is the purpose of the report to be prepared by the County
Administrator to define administrative and emergency communications for
purposes of executing the Board's general policy.
In response to your third question, I would assume that the County. now pro -
vides administrative communications, in varying degrees, for all municipalities
participating in the County's radio network. The Administrator's report will
identify the total cost of such services and a method of charging, municipalities
HE COUNTY
onequol opportunity employer
Councilman Gene A Lhotka
March 1 7, 1982
Page Two
that are unable or unwilling to handle their own administrative communications
in the future. Our technical staff have estimated that administrative communica-
tions represent a minority of all communications handled by the Sheriff`s .
radio network, probably in the range of 20 to 25 percent of the total.
In response to your last question regarding 911 installation costs, we anticipate
incurring more than $700,000 in one -time costs for central equipment and system
implementation. I do not have a detailed itemization-of these costs but would
characterize them as non -PSAP 911 "system" costs. All of the equipment that
is required for 911 implementation to be funded by this County expenditure
will be located on Bell Telephone's premises and will link the Bell systems
central exchanges to the 911 system.
In the weeks 'ahead County staff will be working with the County Administrator
to prepare details of the policy implementation plan and reviewing it with
municipalities, meeting with representatives of the Sheriff's Department to
organize for the initiation of the advisory board and will betaking other
appropriate actions to ensure that municipalities are informed of their
opportunities and obligations pursuant to this policy.
Please call me if you have any additional questions or-if I can be of further
assistance. i
Sincerely,
Philip C. Eckhert
Director
vjl
cc Commissioner John Derus
Dale Ackmann
Sheriff Omodt
vderry Splinter
w
M
41W
OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
2308 Government Center
HENNEPIN
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
(6 1 2) 348-4466
March 17, 1982' t
Councilman Gene A. Lhotka
5036 Lyndale Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Councilman Lhotka:
This is in response to your questions regarding the emergency communications
and dispatch policy which was adopted on Tuesday by the Hennepin County Board.
Please accept my apologies for not responding to your inquiries prior to the
Board action. Upon returning to my office following Tuesday's meeting, I
found your original set of questions in my in- basket. Nevertheless, I
would like to address your questions and indicate how we will be proceeding
to implement the Board's adopted policy.
You listed the following specific questions: It
1. (Paragraph 2a) What specifically does your staff consider "Emergency
Dispatch Services ?"
2. (Paragraph 2b) What specifically does your staff consider "Non- Emergency
Communications ?"
3. (Paragraph 2b) What administrative communications does the County now
provide and to whom?
4. What "Non - recurring 911 Central Equipment Costs" does the staff recommend
financing and at what locations? (Paragraph 3)
Regarding your first two questions, no specific definitions have yet been
developed. It is the purpose of the report to be prepared by the County
Administrator to define administrative and emergency communications for
purposes of executing the Board's general policy.
In response to your third question, I would assume than the County now pro -
vides administrative communications, in varying degrees, for all municipalities
participating in the County's radio network. The Administrator's report will
identify the total cost of such services and a method of charging, municipalities
- 4
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on equal opportunity employer
r
Councilman Gene A. l.hotka
March 17, 1982
Page Two
that are unable or unwilling to handle their own administrative communications.
in the future. Our technical staff have estimated that administrative communica-
tions represent a minority of all communications handled by the Sheriff's
radio network, probably in the range of 20 to 25 percent of the total.
In response to your last question regarding 911 instai costs, we anticipate
incurring more than $ 700,000 in one -time costs for central equipment and system
implementation. I do not have a detailed itemization -of those costs but would
characterize them as non -PSAP 911 "system" costs. All of the equipment that
is required for 911 implementation to be funded by this County expenditure
will be located on Bell Telephone's premises and will link the Bell systems
central exchanges to the 911 system.
In the weeks ahead County staff will be working with the County Administrator
to prepare details of the policy implementation plan and reviewing it with
municipalities, meeting with representatives of the Sheriff's Department to
organize for the initiation of the advisory board and will be taking other
appropriate actions to ensure that municipalities are informed; of their
opportunities and obligations pursuant to this policy.
Please call me if you have any additional questions or- if'I can be of further
assistance. z
Sincerely,
Philip C. Eckhert
Director
vjl
cc Commissioner John Derus
Dale Ackmann
Sheriff Omodt
sderry Splinter t
W
a
.► o _4
FT OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
2308 Government Center
HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 I t , ya
LFU (612) 348 -4466
March 17, 1982
Councilman Gene A. Lhotka
6036 Lyndale Avenue North i
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 '
Dear Councilman Lhotka:
This is in response to your questions regarding the emergency communications
and dispatch policy which was adopted on Tuesday by the Hennepin County Board.
Please accept my apologies for not responding to your inquiries prior to the
Board action. Upon returning to my office following Tuesday's meeting, I
found your original set of questions in my in- basket. Nevertheless, I
would like to address your questions and indicate how we will be proceeding
to implement the Board's adopted policy.
You listed the following specific questions: z
1.. - (Paragraph 2a) What specifically does your staff consider "Emergency
Dispatch, Services?"
2. (Paragraph 2b) What specifically does your staff consider "Non- Emergency
Communications?" -
3. (Paragraph 2b) What administrative communications does the County now.
provide and to whom?
4. What "Non - recurring 911 Central Equipment Costs does the staff recommend
financing and at what locations? (Paragraph 3)
Regarding your first two questions, no specific definitions have yet been
developed. It is the purpose of the report to be prepared by the County
Administrator to define administrative and emergency communications for
'purposes of executing the Board's general policy.
In response to your third question, I would assume that the County now pro -
vides administrative communications, in varying degrees, for all municipalities
participating in the County's radio network. The Administrator's report will
- identify the total cost of such services and a method of chargingmunicipalities
4
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
5
rn Y
Councilman Gene A. Lhotka
March 17, 1982
Page Two
that are unable or unwilling to handle their own administrative communications
in the future. Our technical staff have estimated that administrative communica-
tions represent a minority of all communications handled by the Sheriff's
radio network, probably in the range of 20 to 25 percent of the total.
In response to your last question regarding 911 installation costs, we anticipate
incurring more than 5700,000 in one -time costs for central equipment and system
implementation. I do not have a detailed itemization-of those costs but would
n characterize them as non -PSAP 911 "system" costs. All of the equipment that
is required for 911 implementation to be funded by this County expenditure
will be located on Bell Telephone's premises and will link the Bell systems •
central exchanges to the 911 system.
In the weeks ahead County staff will be working with,the County Administrator
to prepare details of the policy implementation plan and reviewing it with
municipalities, meeting with representatives of the Sheriff's Department to
organize for the 'initiation of the advisory board and will be taking other
appropriate actions to ensure that municipalities are informed of their
opportunities and obligations pursuant to this policy.
Please call me if you have any additional questions or-if I can be of further
assistance. {;
Sincerely,
Philip C. Eckhert
Director
vj1 Q
cc Commissioner John Derus
Dale Ackmann
Sheriff Omodt ,
&4erry Splinter t
a
f
Licenses to be approved b the City Council on April 12, 1982.
PP Y Y
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Canteen Company 6300 Penn A. S.
FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd.
City Clerk
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Arthur Treacher "`s Fish & Chips 6100 Brooklyn Blvd.
Bernard Lynch 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooks Superette (Meat Counter) 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
Showbiz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr. .
Santarian
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Earle Brown PTA 5900 Humboldt Ave. N.
Knights of Columbus 7025 Halifax Ave. N.
Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Berghorst Plumbing & Heating 10732 Hanson Blvd.
Care Air Conditioning & Heating 1211 Old Highway 8
D & D Anderson Heating R. R. #4 Box 254
Gas SuPPly, `' 2238 Edgewood Ave S.
Gemmill Heating & Air Cond. 7044 167th Ave. N.E.
Midwestern Mechanical 9175 Davenport St.
Minnesota Gas Company 733 Marquette Ave.
Northeast Sheet Metal, Inc. 4347 Central Ave. N.E.
Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 K -Tel Dr.
SBS Mechanical, Inc. 7160 Madison Ave. W.
Sheridan Sheet Metal Co. 4116 Quebec Ave. N.
Buildi g fficial
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S.
FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd.
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
City Garage 6844 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Fisher Foods 6800 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte
State Farm Ins. 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Midwest Screw 3501 49th Ave. ,N.
Sanitarian
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S.
FMC 1800 Freeway Blvd.
Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte.
State Farm Ins. 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy
Sanitarian
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE
Weight Loss Med. Ctr. 6040 Earle Brown Dr.�_
Sanitarian
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
Suburban Lighting, Inc. 6077 Lake Elmo Ave.
Buildi g Official
SWIMMING POOL LICENSE ;
Indoor:
Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Earle Brown Farm Apts. 1701 - 07 69th Ave. N.
European Health Spa 2920 County Rd. 10
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Outdoors
Norman Chazin 5353 Wayzata Blvd-
Four Apts_�, 2836 Northway Dr.
Northbrook Apts. 1302 69th Ave. N.
North Lyn Apts. 6511 Humboldt Ave. N.
Garden City Court Apts. 3407 65th Ave. N.
Griffin Companies 8200 Humboldt S.
Columbus Village Apts. 507 70th Ave. N.
Moorwood Homeowners Assoc. 5809 Lake Curve Ln...
Bennie Rozman 400 Dakota Ave. S.
Brookdale Ten Apts. Hwy. 100 & 53rd Ave. �1ILd�.�tti�
Sanitarian