Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 02-08 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER February 8, 1982 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Rolf Call 3. Invocation 4. Open Forum ` 5. Request by representatives of Summit State Bank to appear before the City Council to discuss authorization to use Summit Bank as a depository of City Funds. 6. 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. *7. Approval of Minutes - January 25, 1982 8. Final Plat Approval *a. Ga.r.celon Second Addition (56th Avenue North, between I -94 and Camden Avenue) 9. Resolutions: *a. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Rich Theis *b;• Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Bill Hawes *c. Establishing Diseased. Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04, Approving Specifications for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04 and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract No. 1982 -C) 10. Public Hearings (7:30 p.m.) - Consideration of Proposed Improvement Project No. 1982 -02 (Reconstruction of Xerxes Avenue North between T.H. 100 and County State Aid Highway 10, 55th Avenue North between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, and 56th Avenue North between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard) a. Resolution Ordering Improvement Project No. 1982 -02 b. Resolution Establishing Brookdale Access Improvement Project No. 1982 -03, Accepting Engineer's Report and Ordering Improvement r CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 8, 1982 c. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Directing Advertisement for Bids for Street Improvement Project 1982 -02 and Brookdale Access Improvement Project 1982 -03 (Contract 1982 -B) 11. Planning Commission Items (7:45 p.m.) a. Application No. 82001 submitted by William Dale for preliminary plat approval to re- subdivide the land at 4815 France Avenue North and the vacant parcel to the west by shifting the common property line east- ward to the Dale Tile parking lot. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application 82001 at its January 14, 1982 meeting. This - Planning Commission application was tabled at the January 25, 1982 City Council meeting because a representative of the applicant was-hot present at the meeting. 12. Ordinances a. An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding Provisions for Home Occupations -This ordinance was first read at the January 11, 1982 meeting, published on January 21, 1982 and is recommended for a second reading this evening. A public hearing on this ordinance has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m. 1. Amendment to Planning Commission Application No. 81034 sub - mitted.by LaVonne Malikowski for a home occupation special use permit to teach ceramic classes in the basement of the residence at 5909 Logan Avenue North. The City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 81034 at its June 22, 1981 meeting. The proposed amendment would allow ten students in the ceramics class and would not allow any on- street parking. b. An Ordinance Vacating the Alley in Block 1, NE Perkins Addition, (between Dupont Avenue North and Emerson Avenue North, from 54th to 55th Avenue North) -A petition has been filed requesting this vacation. This ordinance was - first read on January 11, 1982, published on January 21, 1982, and is.._. recommended for a second reading this evening. Notices of this second reading and public hearing have been sent to all abutting property owners. A public hearing on this ordinance has been scheduled for 8:15 p.m. 13. Liquor Licenses *a. Lynbrook Bowl *b. Yen Ching, located in the Brookdale Square Shopping Center 14. Discussion Items: a. Update on Pending IRB Projects b. 1982 Proposed Budget Adjustments C. Request for Attorney General's Opinion on Requirement that the Prosecutor's Presence is Required at Arraignments *15. Licenses 16. Adjournment Summit State ink of Richfield ,. Brooklyn Center Office February 5, 1982 Paul Holmlund, Treasurer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55430 Dear Mr. Holmlund:- The Summit State Bank of Richfield, Brooklyn Center Office, has operated in Brooklyn Center since 1978. During that time, we have served the City of Brooklyn Center by providing investment vehicles for short term excess funds through the issuance of certificates of deposit. We, of course, wish to continue acting as a depository Xor City funds, and therefore request that we be reinstated as a City depository. We were granted a charter to provide banking services in this area. We have adequately performed this function and will continue to do so. Part of this function is to establish a meaningful banking relationship with the City on a continuing basis. Some reference was made at a recent Council meeting that the bank may have problems because our President is under indictment. Let me assure you the bank does not have problems. Our bank did not, nor ever has, incurred any loss because of the alledged violations concerning our President which were claimed to have taken place in 1978. We are subject to routine examinations by various banking regulatory agencies which continue to indicate a sound and stable financial condition. A copy of our most recent statement of condition is enclosed for your review. Existing City funds n o deposit g y p t with our bank are partially insured by an agency of the Federal Government and additionally collaterialized by United States Government Bonds, which insure that no risk of loss is possible. Therefore, we pray that you reinstate Summit State Bank of Richfield— Brooklyn Center-Office as a: depository for City funds. Sincerely, Gary Wollan, Chairman of the Board Chief Executive Officer ._,. GW : j w 6100 SUMMIT DRIVE NORTH • BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 • (612) 560 -6810 December 31, 1981' SU14MIT STATE BANK Richfield, MN ( ;� ;S.... S LIABILITIES Cash 5705, R04•.96 Individual Dem. - Dep. $6, 043,0$3.45 :ash Items 564.00 Commercial Dem. Dep. - $7,433, 247.Pl Debit Rejects $23,941,01 Public Demand $709,764-60 Clearings Account $.no Treas. Tax & Loan Acct, $37,605.00 Due Other Banks S2,747.40 TOTAL CASH & CASH ITEMS •;'729, °n9.97 Official Checks S436,597.30 Series E Bonds S737.50 14arq. Nat'l Sank Mpls $331, 348.72 Credit Rejects S13,518.26 N.W. Nat'l Mpls $23,267.012 Summit So. St. Paul $5,772.06 TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $14,68R,312-4? 1 Nat'l City N.Y.- S12,041.37 American Nat'l St. Paul $3 Savings IPC S5, 286, 145.76 National City Bank $14,487.54 Public Savings - .$442,240.11 Summit State - Bloomington $5,000.00 Chri Club $314.00 st Nat'l Bank Mpls S8,265.72- Cert. of Deposits $11, 683, 242.01 Continental Nat'l Bank 5164,944.06 Public Time Deposits $2,180,000.00 TOTAL DUE FROM BANKS S 3 , 57 0 , 58 0.9 0 • TOTAL TIME DEPOSITS S1 Sot as i _ R� U.S. Gov't Securities $1,728,345.5 States & Pol . Subdi v. -Sec. $ 4 , 237, 021 .4 TOTAL DEPOSITS S 2 0.7 R a Other Securities $1,478,797.95 Fey' -ral Funds Sold S.00 Interest Income $ .00 S� k in Fed. Reserve S.00 TOTAL INVESTMENTS S7, Q44 , 1ti5. 34 Other Income $.00 Summit Reserve $268, 8 °9.72 Installment Loans $5,077,754.16 Interest Expense $.00 General Loans $15, 476, 509.21 Real Estate Loans $4,313,116.71 Other Expense $.00 Overdrafts $88,365.57 NET OPERATING INCOME SUB TOTAL LOANS & DISC. S25,224,635. • Common Stock $358,500-00 Unearned Discount $64,631.70- Surplus $1,191, 500 -00 NET LOANS S25,160,0U3.67 Undivided Profit $999,793.19 Res. Loss on Loans $251,600 Lease Assets $541,681.98 Debentures $500,000. Leasehold Impro. $278,661.56 _ Debenture Retirement 5125,000.0E Furniture & Fixtures $153,163.36 B.C.LSHLO &STORK IN PROGRESS $153 ,028.97 TOTAL CAPITAL ACCOUNTS $3,426,393.23 TOTAL PROPERTY ACCOUNTS $1,131,535.87 TT &L Note Acct. S168, 607.5} Other Assets $176,004.11 Int.Exp, Acct. Not Paid 5424,856.57 Int. Earned not Coll. $638.348.86 Other Exp. Acct, Not Paid $.QC 'Prepaid $72,851.69 Fed. Funds Purchased $800 C­�h Short $.00 Cash Over $. Bonds Redeemed $4,S19.37 Res , for Taxes $.001 rti.-,c. Proof $10, 176.42 Other Liabilities $65, 684.5 Deferred Taxes 522&, 000.00 TOTAL OTHER ASSETS S1, 130, 200.45 TOTAL OTHER LIABILITIES cI q 5 •1,,R_ . TOTAL ASSETS TOTAL LIABILITIES S3a.1F6 29r_< 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 JANUARY 25, 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 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Parks & Recreation Gene Hagel, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Purchasing Coordinator Brad Hoffman and Deputy City Clerk Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Councilmember Theis. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session this evening. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council, there being none, he proceeded with the regular agenda items. The City Manager stated that approval of the December 7, 1981 Council minutes should be removed from the consent agenda since Councilmember Theis and Hawes were not voting at the December 7th meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR SESSION, DECEMBER 7, 1981 AND JANUARY 11, 1982 The City*Manager pointed out that there was a correction on page two of the January 11, 1982 minutes, noting that one paragraph had been repeated twice and that the Council had received the corrected version of the minutes this evening. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of December 7, 1981 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Councilmembers Theis and Hawes abstained from the vote as the meeting was held in 1981. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 11, 1982 with the correction noted by the City Manager. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION NO. 82 -25 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • 1 -25 -82 -1- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (WELL NO. 6 RECONDITIONING PROJECT 1982- 01)(CONTRACT 1982 -A) 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, Bill Hawes, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04, Approving Specifications For Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04, And Directing Advertisement For Bids (Contract No. 1981 -C). The City Manager noted that the State of Minnesota has dropped the mandate for diseased elm removal and has reduced the funding significantly for the program. He explained the potential funding problem for Council members and noted that this resolution could be modified at a later date by the Council. Councilmember Scott inquired what the total cost of the elm removal program was in 1981. The Director of Public Works stated that the contract removal costs for elms was $34,000 but added that this did not include the cost of reforestation. Council - member Scott then inquired if there was any deadline required for approval of this resolution. The City Manager stated that it is best to get the tree contracts bid early but it is not at a critical point at this evening's meeting. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table consideration of the Resolution Establishing Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04, Approving Specifications For Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04, And Directing Advertisement For Bids (.Contract No. '1981 -C) to the first meeting in February. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 82 -26 Member Rich Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CLASSIFICATION LIST OF NONCONSERVATION LAND IN HENNEPIN COUNTY 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, Bill Hawes, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION 'ITEMS 1982 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR BROOKLYN CENTER The City Manager reviewed a staff memorandum which outlined several legislative proposals for 1982. He added that in addition to the proposals outlined in the memo, the League of Minnesota Cities is also seeking support for Senate File No. 198, an amendment to the Data Practices Act which will hopefully make this cumbersome data privacy law more workable for local governments. • 1 -25 -82 -2- Councilmember Lhotka inquired about the status of the 1981 bill to partially reimburse the City for construction of the traffic signals at 73rd and West River Road. The City Manager explained that Brooklyn Center's local representatives did • not introduce the bill since they felt it did not have any chance of passage. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he would like to see the bill introduced at this session explaining that he believes the cost to the City was_quite significant. The City Manager reviewed the current drunk driving laws pointing out that judges have been declining to assess fines with regard to these types of violations. The City Attorney pointed out that there are not many cases where persons plead guilty to a DWI charge and no fine is paid, but rather the judge may stay a portion of the fine noting that a $500 fine may be reduced to $300. He stated that attorneys try to negotiate reductions in the charge and sentencing. He stated that judge's claim this cannot be negotiated but the courts are attempting to keep cases from coming to trial because of the great number of cases. Because of this, he pointed out, there is pressure to negotiate sentences. He added that some judges are reluctant to assess fines feeling that it is enough to get the individual into some type of treatment program. He explained that the key to the problem in his opinion is the attitude of the judges and jurors when a person is found guilty of a DWI charge. He stated that changes in the fines and jail sentences may help but the attitude of judges and juries are the key. Mayor Nyquist asked about the status of the bill to lower the speed limit on local streets to 25mph. The City Manager noted that this bill does not appear to have much chance since MNDOT opposed to any changes in current speed limits. The City Manager stated the staff is recommending that the Council authorize the legislative program proposed by the staff noting that authorization does not necessarily mean implementation. There was a general consensus among Council members to endorse the hegislative proposals submitted by staff which included a 25mph speed limit law, energy legislation, partial reimbursement for the traffic lights installed at West River Road and 73rd Avenue, amendments to the Data Practices Act, amendments to the DWI Laws, and the loan program related to the senior housing program. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES INSTITUTING FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS The City Manager explained that this ordinance was first read at the January 11, 1982 meeting, published on January 14, 1982, and is recommended for a second reading this evening. He explained a public hearing on this ordinance has been scheduled for 7:30 p.m. this evening. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what the impact of the ordinance would be on residential development. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that expansion of homes into the flood fringe or floodway would come under certain building restrictions noting that the height of the first floor of the building would have to be constructed 1' above the 100 year flood level. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he has a concern that the flood plain zoning would establish a boundary and it could dictate what activities could be undertaken in the critical area as designated by the comprehensive • plan. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the critical area refers primarily to regulating the slope of the river and he does not believe the flood plain regulations would have an impact on this. 1-25 --82 -3- Councilmember Hawes noted an error in panel four of the flood plain map noting that the Avenue indicated as 52nd Avenue should be 53rd. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he has a concern that there may be a conflict between the flood plain regulations and the critical area boundaries. Councilmember Lhotka also inquired why the properties west of I -94 are included in the critical area. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the final regulations regarding the critical area designation are not yet adopted and he.stated that he believes the designation of the critical area would have a minimal impact on existing development along the river. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that he would investigate this matter further and report back to the Council regarding his findings on the critical area designation with regard to the flood plain zoning. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Of The City Ordinances Instituting Flood Plain Management Regulations. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 Of The City Ordinances Instituting Flood Plain Management Regulations. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 82 -1 Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES INSTITUTING FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Bill Hawes, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A UNIFORM FIRE CODE PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS GOVERNING CONDITIONS CREATING A HAZARD FROM FIFE OR EXPLOSION, AND ESTABLISHING A BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION AND PROVIDING OFFICERS THEREFOR AND DEFINING THEIR PO WERS AND DUTIES The City Manager stated that this ordinance has been under review for some time by his office, the Fire Department, and the City Attorney's office. The City Attorney pointed out that there are portions of the ordinance which are yet to be completed by the Council pointing out that the code controls location and storage of flamable liquids and the Fire Chief is recommending that this regulation be uniformly enforced throughout the City. The City Attorney pointed out that he has added as a feature to the code the option for the City to collect fees with relation to special facilities within the City. He also stated that he has added the option to allow the City to recover the cost of prosecution for 'violations of the or Finally, he pointed out, the Fire Department is_ recommending that the National Fire Protection Association standards should be added to the code. L 1 -25 -82 -4- Ile pointed out an example of the Uniform Fire Code noting that.it prohibits candlelight services in churches. He requested the representative of the Fire Department to clarify the Fire Department's policy on candlelight services. Mr. Jerry Pedlar, Fire Marshall for the City pointed out that churches have, in the past, used candles in their services without enclosures. He noted that the Fire Department is recommending glass enclosures around all candles used in candlelight services and that the churches have been following this recommendation quite well. The City Attorney stated that the first reading of the ordinance could be declared this evening and the recommended changes in the ordinance could be made without returning again to the Council for another first reading. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve for first reading An Ordinance Adopting A Uniform Fire Code, Prescribing Regulations Governing Conditions Creating A Hazard From Fire Or Explosion, And Establishing A Bureau Of Fire Prevention And Providing Officers Therefor And Defining Their Powers And Duties. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS APPLICATION NO. 8 SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM DALE FOR PR PLAT APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LAND AT 4815 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH AND THE VACANT PARCEL TO T WEST BY SHIFTING THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE EASTWARD TO THE D TILE PARKING LOT The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that 'there is no one present at this evening's meeting to represent the applicant in this application. Mayor Nyquist inquired of the Director of Planning & Inspection whether the application should be laid over until later in the meeting, should a representative of the applicant arrive. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that this would be the proper procedure. APPLICATION NO. 8200 SUBMITTED BY DONALD STARK FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVI A 100' BY 200' VACATE R1 LOT SOUTH OF 56TH AVENUE NORTH, ON THE EAST SIDE OF CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH AND APPLICATION NO. 82003 FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, SECTION 15 -106: G.2 (DD) TO ALLOW TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH A DEPTH LESS THAN 110' The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 3 through 5 of the January 1.4, 1982 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Application Nos. 82002 and 82003. The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel and pointed out that Mr. Sta'rk's parcel is short 10' on the depth of the lot but does exceed the width and area requirements as per the City ordinance. He also reviewed past precedents for variances with regard to lot depth. He explained that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application on January 14, 1982 and that a representative of the applicant is present this evening. He then stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82002 at its January 14,.1982 meeting subject to four conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He added that conditions three and four have been met by the applicant and need not be considered by the City Council this evening. He stated that the Planning Commission also recommended approval of Application No. 82003 subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He pointed out that a public hearing is required, that the applicant is present this evening 1 -25 -82 -5- and that the proper notices regarding the public hearing had been sent. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application Nos. 82002 and 82003 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. No one appeared to speak and Mayor 1yquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Application Nos. 82002 and 82003. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: II none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 82002, 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, with the exception of the lot depth requirement. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 82003 on the grounds that the standards for subdivision ordinance variances are met based on the following: 1. The two lots meet the requirement for width and area and make appropriate use of land served by two access points. 2. The size of the existing parcel was determined by taking of land for public right -of -way. 3. The variance will not cause a detriment to surrounding properties. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 82005 SUBMITTED BY JAMES MADDEN /EARLE BROWN BOWL FOR A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO EXPAND THE BAR AND LOUNGE AT THE EARLE BROW -NJ BOWL AT 6440 JAMES CIRCLE The Director of Planning &`Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 5 through 6 of the January 14, 1982 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 82005. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the applicant proposes expansion of the liquor lounge through interior remodeling to gain additional area which would allow for an increased seating capacity. He pointed out the proposal also comprehends the elimination of the existing entrance in the construction of two new entrances on the west side of the building. He added that, included in the requests is the upgrading of an existing - entrance on the north side of the building. He proceeded to review the site and building plan submitted by the applicant and also a transparency 1 -25 -82 -6- i showing the existing configuration of the interior of the Earle Brown Bowl. The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the applicant has indicated his intent to create a supper club environment and provide 150 restaurant seats. He also reviewed the proposed building plans submitted by the applicant which showed an expansion which would add 36 seats to the liquor lounge. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82005 subject to seven conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He noted that condition no. 7 has been met by the - applicant and need not be considered by the Council this evening. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether the Council could add a condition regarding the food and liquor sales split of the applicant as per the City ordinance requirements. The City Attorney stated that the special use permit must meet all applicable City codes and regulations noting that the food /liquor split is suggested in the City. Manager's recommendation to postpone the matter for 60 to 90 days.or until such time as the Earle Brown Bowl has shown a pattern of meeting the ordinance requirements. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Jim Madden representing the Earle Brown Bowl. Mr. Madden stated that his food sales have increased somewhat in the past month noting that the food sales in December totaled 46% and in January they totaled 420. He reviewed his efforts at promoting the supper_ club environment for the Earle Brown Bowl stating that he had placed ads, promotions, radio spots and that a TV spot is planned to promote the supper club concept for the Earle Brown Bowl. Councilmember Lhotka stated that he is concerned about the expansion of the lounge area as requested by the applicant and supports the staff recommendation to wait until we see what transpires with regard to the supper club concept. Councilmember Hawes stated that he agrees with Councilmember Lhotka and that perhaps the situation could be reviewed again in 30 days. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether the Council could require as a condition of approval, the authority to allow the City Manager to approve the application when the food /liquor split of the Earle Brown Bowl is in compliance with the City ordinance. The City Attorney stated he does not think this would be workable since the business may reach a 50/50 split on a given day but that this does not necessarily mean a solid pattern of food sales over liquor sales has been established. Councilmember Theis stated that perhaps when the food /liquor split is met for one or two months then the Council could approve the application.. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table consideration of Application No. 82005 submitted by James Madden /Earle Brown Bowl for a site and building plan and special use permit approval to expand the bar and lounge at the Earle Brown Bowl at 6440 James Circle to the February 22, 1982 Council meeting and at that time to reexamine the food /liquor sales split of the Earle Brown Bowl. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) 1 -25 -82 -7- APPLICATION NO. 82006 StMMITTED BY FARR ELL'S FOR SP ECIA L USE PERMIT APPR TO CONVERT A 17' x 28' DINING ROOM INTO A GAME ROOM FO USE BY RESTAURANT PA TRONS AT 5524 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members page 7 of the January 14, 1982 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 82006. He stated that the applicant has indicated the game room would be for the enjoyment of restaurant patrons and that no food or drink would be allowed in the game room. He added that the applicant has stated that the game room will be supervised. The Director of Planning & Inspection also pointed out that the game room is accessory to the restaurant facility. He noted that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Application No. 82006 and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to four conditions which he reviewed for Council members. Mayor Nyquist inquired of the applicant how the games would be restricted to restaurant patrons. 'Mr. Tom Schlueter, Manager of Farrell's Restaurant stated that he is not sure at this point but that some thought has been given to tokens which would be tied into menu items. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the property is zoned C2:and game rooms (amusement centers) are permitted in the C2 zone by special use permit, provided they do not abut Rl, R2 or R3 property either at a property line or street line. He r ointed out that in the past, abutment with residential property across p P a state highway, such as Highway 100 has not been considered true residential abut- ment but that in this case there is also a frontage road which lies between the restaurant and the residential areas and that this frontage road would eliminate any abutment to Rl, R2 or R3 properties. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application s No. 82006 and inquired.. if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the P ublic hearing. No one appeared to speak and Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Application No. 82006. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka Scott, Hawe an s. d Theis. Voti against: none. The motion g g passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve Application No. 82006, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is-nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all codes, ordinances and regulations, and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. House rules shall be posted and strictly enforced and a copy of said runes shall be kept on file with the City. 4. Should the game - room be reconverted to a dining area at some time in the future, the seating capacity of the restaurant shall be subject to the 1 -25 -82 -8- parking requirements in effect at such time and no claim to the seating capacity existing prior to the operation of the game room shall be valid. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 82007 SUBMITTED BY UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN FIVE ELECTRONIC GAMES IN THE LOBBY OF THE UNITED ARTISTS THEATRE AT 5810 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members page 8 of the January 14, 1982 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for the application. He reviewed the location of the subject parcel and a letter submitted by the applicant which explained some of the details of the game area. He noted the applicant is proposing that the games will be located in a 7' by 13' strip in the lobby and that the games will operate during normal theatre hours, approximately 12 noon to 11:30 p.m. and that only theatre patrons, who must purchase a ticket to enter the theatre, will be allowed to use the games. He stated that the are ames secondary to the primary use of the theatre and g Y the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application subject to three conditions which he reviewed for Council members. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 82007 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to - close the public hearing on Application No. 82007. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 82007, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to United Artists 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 shall be posted in the vicinity of the games and strictly enforced and a copy of said rules shall be kept on file with the City. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND PROPOSAL - RYAN CONSTRUCTION Administrative Assistant Hoffman explained that Council approval of the Industrial Development Revenue Bond proposal from Ryan Construction this evening would be for preliminary approval of the project. He pointed out that the project represents phase 2 of the project which contemplates the development of a 116,000 sq. foot 1 -25 -82 -9 office building. He added that the project meets the criteria and intent of the City's guidelines for the issuance of IR bonds. He stated the staff recommends` • that the IRB request be approved. Councilmember Scott inquired of the applicant how much of the existing building has been leased to date. Jim Ryan, representing the applicant stated that 6% of the existing building had been leased at this point. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the project would continue without an industrial revenue bond. Mr. Ryan replied that the project would not be feasible without an IRB pointing out that conventional mortgages are not feasible in today's economy. He added that s even difficult to proceed with t I, t i i p h he project even with the IR bond Councilmember Lhotka stated that he was concerned about the ability, of the City to obtain needed dollars when so many IRB's are currently on the market. He requested the Director of Finance to comment on this situation. The Director of Finance stated that the City's bonded indebtedness is $6,000,000• and that the City has approved $54,000,000 in industrial revenue bonds at this point. He stated that the tax exempt market is taken up with IR bonds pointing out that the City's name is on the bonds even though the City is told that it has no liability wit7s regard to IR bonds. Len Champer of Juran & Moody stated that the Northwesters National Life Insurance Company is in a joint venture with Ryan Construction Company on this project and that the bonds are issued with the AA rating of Northwestern National Life Insurance Company. Councilmember Lhotka stated that his concern was with the marketability of City bonds if and when they are needed. Mr. Champer stated that it is the experience of his company that there is a different customer who buys ZRB's than one who buys municipal bonds. Mayor Nyquist stated that he believes the problem, if it is a problem, is one that is best solved at the federal level pointing out that many other municipalities are issuing IR bonds and that the City might as well build its tax base also. The City Manager commented that he and the Director of Finance are on record as opposing IR bonds and he suggested that if the Council wants to change the policy they should do it on new projects, as opposed to changing the policy of projects that are already underway. He recommended that the Council approve the projects which are currently planned and'are requesting IR bonds. Councilmember Theis inquired how many projects are currently in the planning process or underway. Administrative Assistant Hoffman stated that there were three projects currently being planned, those being Byerly's, phase 3 of Brooklyn Crossing and Shingle Creek Development. Councilmember Theis then requested the staff to prepare a report for the next Council meeting which would review the IR projects either planned or currently underway. 'Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of 'a public hearing on an industrial development revenue bond proposal from Ryan Construction. He inquired if there was - anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing- Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Len Champer of Juran & Moody who stated that he would hope that the Council` would view this ro -ct a e s the P 7 second of three bases to complete t p p he .total project. Mayor Nyquist then inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak; and he entertained a motion to close the i public hearing. g 1 -25 -82 -10- There a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to close the public hearing on an industrial development revenue bond proposal from Ryan Construction. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 27 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVEI:OPMENT ACT.AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SAID PROJECT TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WI`T'H SAID PROJE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Bill Hawes, Celia Scott.' and Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said reso lution was _ duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) UPDATE ON CABLE TELEVISION The City Manager reviewed a memorandum from Administrative Assistant Bublitz regarding the status of the cable television franchise in Brooklyn Center. He noted that the construction schedule for the cable system in the nine City area provides that within 22 months from the commencement of construction the system will be completed in all nine cities. He added that Northern Cablevision has divided the City into an east and west sector using Shinqle Creek Parkway as the approximate dividing line. He explained it is proposed that the west portion of the City will receive service during the first 12 months of construction and that part of the City lying east of Shingle Creek Parkway is proposed for completion in the last 10 months of construction. UPDATE ON 19 STATE AIDS REDUCTION The City Manager reviewed a memorandum from the Director of Finance regarding the projected 1982 state aids reduction. He explained that department heads have done an excellent job with regard to potential budget cuts in their respective departments. He explained that with regard to local government aids the total state reduction is $30,000,000 which is 11.03% less than the originally announced amount. He noted that the total 1982 state aids reduction, which would include local government aids and the homestead credit:, would total over $195,000 for Brooklyn Center. CON OF SPEC LICENSES - TOWN TAXI, INCORPORATED There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the renewal of the taxi cab license for Town Taxi, Incorporated for the year 1982. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed uanaimously. MOTION TO TABLE PLANNING COMMISSION AP NO. 82001 The Director of Planning & Inspection informed the Council that a representative of • the applicant for Application No. 82001 was not present at this evening's meeting 1 -25 -82 -11- I and he recommended a motion to table consideration of the application until the next Council meeting since a representative of the applicant was not present. There was a motion by Councilmember.Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to table consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 82001 until the February 8, 1982 City Council meeting because a representative of the applicant was not present at this evening's meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyguist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the following list of licenses: CIGARETTE LICENSE Duke's Standard Service 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. GA RBAGE AND REFUSE HAULER'S LICENSE Crosstown Sanitation Box 12; 'Excelsior , GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Brooklyn Service Center 6901 Brooklyn Blvd. Dukes Standard Service 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. KENNEL LICENSE Northbrook Animal Hospital 413 66th Ave. N. Snyder Brothers Brookdale Shopping Ctr. LODGING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brookdale Motel 6500 Lyndale Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Acme Sheet Metal Co. 2315 Hampden Ave. Hovde Plumbing & Heating 2222 Edgewood Ave. S. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICEN Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Michael C. Sundby 6501 Brooklyn Drive Clinton A. Sawinski 5918 Dupont Ave. N. Mike Thompson 5449 Emerson Ave. N. Jim Preissner it of to of Jerry Johnson It It • Patricia Zawislak 5543 Judy Lane Bonnie Maloney RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE (CONTINUED) • Roger N. Eye 5332 Morgan Ave. N. Dick Whinnery 6733 Perry Ave. N. Dale Whinnery Charles W. Fykson 904 53rd Ave. N. Dennis & Charlene Dahler 2401 -2403 54th Ave. N. Renewal: George A. Lucht 5105 Brooklyn Blvd. John S. Tschohl 5345 Colfax Ave. N. John S. Tschohl 5352 Emerson Ave. N. Richard Arntson 4220 Lakeside Ave. N. David W. Zemke 6813 Noble Ave. N. Harold & Howard Swanson 7240 W. River Road William Kirby 5006 Zenith Ave. N. f TAXICAB LICENSE Town Taxi Corporation 7440 Oxford St. Voting in favor; Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Votinq against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mavor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against; none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Clerk Mayor r 1 -25 -82 -13- A TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works el • FRCM: Jim Grube, Assistant City Engineer 9 - A- DATE: February 4, 1982 RE: Final Plat of Garcelon 2nd Addition (Planning Commission Application 82002) Mr. Donald Stark has petitioned the Engineering Department to final the referenced plat. The City Council approved the preliminary plat at its January 25, 1982 meeting 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, with the exception of the lot depth requirement. The final plat appears to be in order, meeting the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The owner has not, however, submitted an abstract of title or registered property report to the City Attorney for his review and approval. In addition, it is recommended the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the developer to insure proper installation of private service extensions to the proposed lot 2 and installation of survey monuments as required by Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. In summary, it is recommended the final plat be approved °by the City Council subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner shall submit an abstract of title or registered property report to the City Attorney for review and approval prior to filing at the County. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to enter into a Subdivision Agreanent with the owner to provide for installation of private service extensions to lot 2 and installation of survey monuments as required by Chapter 15 of the City Ordinance. Said agreement shall be executed prior to filing of the plat with the County. JG; jn � •� � � � J "() - [] Aj n - rIJ 4i /Cq rl 1£ Q n n V 0 It /Me a," ' ;e '�lor/h 50 e'el t. i..Of J9 �C)1 CP�C>n `. i ?llddlfron to J r: ^r'cnnn/rs. L4� r _ . i — 230.05 — 30.01 x00.02 _ »� 100 02 QC i R O o L Ck L! ` 30:01 f0o.02 t 100.0*2 ' o^. 230.05 --- ^ 3 •o e ,Vorilt r�ai,o 39, Gorcelon'sQ c cam`, � ,_�-�rtion i0 ,, "✓llnnea�olls� - .c o 30 30 (+ � BeLyr Shown. ore ossumed Dciioles Iran M01)(ir» f J ANUARY) 1982 i ,I ;c.11L! IN '�i' A Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. RICHARD THEIS WHEREAS, Richard Theis served as a member of the Planning Commission from April, 1978 through December, 1981; and WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of the Commission contributed substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service and achievements for the public good should be permanently recognized and expressed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Richard Theis is hereby awarded this resolution, in recognition of his public service and achievements, as a visible and lastinq expression of gratitude for all of the service he has rendered and the benefits -- he has secured to the residents of Brooklyn Center through his service. 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. �b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. WILLIAM HAWES WHEREAS, William Hawes served as a member of the Planning Commission from January, 1978 through December, 1981, and served as the Commission's Chairman from January, 1980 through December, 1981; . and r WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities associated with the Commission contributed'substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that his service and achievements for the public ood should be permanently recognized and expressed. g P Y g NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that William Hawes is hereby awarded this resolution, in recognition,of his public service and achievements, as a visible and lasting expression of gratitude for all of the service he has rendered and the benefits he has secured to the residents of Brooklyn Center through his service. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was _duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member, introduced the following reso- lution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHIlW_, DESEASED SHADE TREE REMWAL PROJECT NO. 1982 -04, APPRCVING SPEICIFICATIONS FOR DISEASED SHADE 'TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1982 -04 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 -C) WEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to initiate Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04. a BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Diseased Shade Tree Removal is hereby established as Project No. 1982 -04. 2. The specifications for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1982 -04 are hereby approved and ordered filed with the Clerk. 3. The Clerk shall advertise fqr bids for such improvement by publication at least once in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin, the date of first publication not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of receipt of bids. Said notice shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed and acccmpanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, cashier's check, or certified check payable to the City Clerk in the amount of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). 4. Bid date is set for Thursday, March 4, 1982, at 11:00 a.m., standard time. 5. The City Manager and the Director of Parks and Recreation shall be authorized to open and tabulate the bids. f f t k E Date Mayor _ a ATTEST: Clerk r The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by menber , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: ` whereupon said resolution was declardd duly passed and adopted. Liquor License Investigation of Yen China Restaurant; Incorporated Case #82 -00770 Page 2 • INDEX Section I CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND HISTORY Section II FINANCIAL BACKGROUND Section III INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND OF OFFICERS AND.SHAREHOLDERS A. Mr. Ralph KUO B. Mrs. Ralph KUO, maiden name °Pei Chen YUNG C Jade Yuan CHANG Section IV INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND OF MANAGER Section V INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND OF Jade Yuan CHANG's SPOUSE Section VI CORRESPONDENCE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Iiquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 3 Section I CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND HISTORY The applicant is the Yen Ching Restaurant, Incorporated. The Yen Ching Restaurant, Incorporated is a Minnesota Corporation organized on November 24, 1981. The registered office address is 1701 Brookdale Square, 5900 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. The officers and shareholders are as follows: 1. Ralph C. KUO, President, 25 shares 2. Jade Yuan CHANG, Vice- President, 950 shares 3. Pei Chen Yung, Treasurer, 25 shares The attorney listed for the company is Richard - H. FUDALI, his office is located at 500 Brookdale Towers, 2810 County Road 10, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, 55430, phone number 561 -1888. Attached to this section are articles of incorporation of Yen Ching Restaurant, Incorporated; bylaws-of the Yen Ching Restaurant, Inc.; applications for intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license, which includes application for Sunday intoxicating liquor license of Yen Chin Restaurant Inc. er. Additionally Ching nc. to the City of Brooklyn Cen Y Y Y included are Form II, general information form for the application of Yen Ching Restaurant, Inc. to the City of Brooklyn Center for the intoxicating or nonintoxicating liquor or wine license; memorandum from Mr. Richard J. SCHIEFFER to Chief LINDSAY; employment of manager agreement; and lease for property. The Yen Ching Restaurant, Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation started when Mr. Ralph C. KUO applied to the City of Brooklyn Center for a license-,to sell liquor in a proposed restaurant which he planned to open. Due to the fact that Mr. KUO is not a naturalized citizen, he was advised that a license could not be issued to him subsequent to Section 11 -106, subdivision 4. At that time he retained Mr. Richard FUDALI to advise him in legal matters. Mr. FUDALI inquired into the possibility of setting up a Minnesota corporation of which Mr. Ralph C. KUO would be a member and putting the license in the'name of the principal shareholder, who would be Jade Yuan CHANG. At that point Chief LINDSAY requested an opinion from Richard SCHIEFFER considering "whether a person who has a financial interest in the fixture or furniture of a liquor store as defined in Section 11 -504, subdivision ll.must add that interest to the same person's interest or control in the stock of the corporate licensee, described in Section 11 -504, subdivision b, subdivision d; for'the. purposes of determining whether or not such person has ownership or control in excess of 5% of the corporation." Liquor_' Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82- 00770 Page 4 Mr. SCHIEFFER responded, "It is my opinion that an interest in fixtures and furniture need not be aggregated with stock ownership. A person with ownership or control in excess of 50 of the corporate licensee, both legally and in fact, is in a position to influence the operation of a licensed premises. A leasor of fixtures or furniture has no legal right to influence the corporate licensee even though such a person could, in fact, apply pressure through a lease agreement. That kind of pressure and possible influence by the leasor of the furniture and fixtures should be prevented by Section 11 -509, subdivision 8, phrase 2, which provides that the City Council can deny a license of a person who is not 'the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business'. For example, if a person and spouse own 4% of a corporation which is the corporate licensee, but own and lease fixtures to the licensee, hold the mortgage on the building, and exert overwhelming financial control on the corporate licensee, the City Council might find that the corporate licensee is not "real party in interest or benficial owner of the business" and deny a license. The reference at the end of Section 11 -504, sub 11 referring to a 5% interest in the business, can only refer to a 5% interest in the business which might hold a lease on the fixtures, a mortgage on the property, a lien on the property, or other interests identified in subdivision 11 -504, sub 11. See attached copy of memorandum from R. J. SCHIEFFER, City Attorney, to Jim LINDSAY, Chief of Police, Brooklyn Center Police Department dated 11- 20 -81. At that point with the assistance of Mr. Richard FUDALI, Ralph KUO organized the Yen Ching Restaurant, Inc. under Minnesota state corporate law and received a certificate of incorporation dated November 24, 1981. The principal stockholder of the corporation is Jade Yuan CHANG, who controls 950 shares of stock. Mr. KUO and his wife each owning 25 shares or 50 of the stock issued. Jade is a naturalized citizen of the United States and her certificate of naturalization was personally viewed by this investigator. A copy of the certificate of incorporation, articles of incorporation, etc. are attached along with a copy of the stock issued At that point the corporation proceeded to hire Mr. Michael Alan PEKAREK, D.O.B. 02- 14 -62, to be the on -site manager of the proposed restaurant. See enclosed copy of employment of manager agreement. A retail store lease has been entered into between partners Brookdale and Yen Ching Restaurant. Inc. and was signed by Ralph C. KUO and Katy KUO, his wife, who is also known as Pei Chen YUNG. See the attached copy of the lease. Investigator SOLLARS did subsequently contact Mr. Allen W. GUSTAFSON of Partners Brookdale and interviewed him concerning the lease. He indicated that his company did an extensive background on Ralph KUO and Jade Yuan CHANG and found them to be highly qualified people. He found them to be considered very honest by business associates and well respected by the financial community with whom they have dealt. Restaurants they have been involved with have been well -run and have been known as "very clean well-:run operations within their community. 3 Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 5' Section II FINANCIAL BACKGROUND The applicant, Yen Ching Restaurant, Inc.,.is intending to own and operate a Yen Ching Restaurant to be located at 1701 Brookdale Square, 5900 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. Proposed investment by Yen Ching Restaurnt, Inc. exclusive of the value of the premises leased from Partners Brookdale will be approximately $141,000.00. Investment will be basically as follows: •w Capital Improvements $ 90,000.00 Architect 1,400.00 Miscellaneous 5,000.00 License 10,000.00 Inventory 25,000.00 Signage 3,500.00 Carpeting 4,500.00 Drapes 2,000.00 TOTAL $141,000.00 The funding for the proposed restaurant will be provided for in the following manner. Stock subscription $_ 1,000.00 Loan to the corporation from Ralph KUO on 10 -15 -81 10,000.00 To be loaned to the corporation by Ralph KUO at a later date 105,000.00 To be loaned by the Summit National Bank Corporation at a later date 25,000.00. The corporation will subsequently enter into a lease with Ralph KUO secured by the equipment on the premises. The total cost of that equipment is approximately $73,000.00. Accordingly when the restaurant opens its doors the financial picture should look generally as follows: 1. It shall be party to the lease agreement (a copy of which you have) wherein the commercial partners Brookdale, a Minnesota General 'partnership, shall be the landlord. The financial obligation is set forth in paragraph B of the lease and is $4,584.19 a month plus adjustments as set forth in the lease. 2. The corporation shall be indebted to the Summit Bank in the sum of $25,000.00. Monthly payments on that loan will be approximately $1,200.00 per month and the interest rate on that loan will most probably be in the area of 5% over federal reserve discount. 3. The corporation will be indebted to Ralph KUO on two notes. One in the sum of $10,000.00, dated 11- 15 -81; and one in the sum of $105,000.00 which will be dated probably about 3 -1 -82. Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 6 4. The corporation will be the leasee and Ralph KUO will be the leasor in connection with certain equipment. Monthly payments on that equipment will be approximately $1,200.00 per month. The monthly payments on the two corporate loans from Ralph KUO will be approximately $1,200.00 per month. The equipment to be leased from Ralph KUO will be purchased from Botton and Hay Restaurant Equipment Company of Des Moines, Iowa. The following is a breakdown of probable contractors to do remodeling: The General Contractor should be John'BROLSMA Constructibn Company, 506 Mission Road, Bloomington, MN 55420. As noted above, the capital improvement will be approximately $90,000.00. BROLSMA will be supplying structural steel, and the steel doors and frames. Dale Tile will be the contractor will respect to the ceiling tile and floor tile and mosaic. Bratland and Peterson will be doing the sheet rock work, Piper Plumbing will be doing the plumbing.and gas fitting and sewerage. Cedar Valley plumbing and heating will be doing the heating work, Moffers Glass will be doing the glass and glazing, Becker Painting will be doing the painting and decorating. Thompson Electric will be doing the electrical work. At this time the plumbing work in connection with the sprinkling has not been determined. (See attached .correspondence from Richard FUDALI dated 1- 13 -82.) Investigator SOLLARS did contact Carol A. JOHNSON of Summit National Bank regarding the financing of the corporation on 1- 14 -82. It was learned that on 1 -13 -82 Ralph KUO did have a balance of $116,190.81 with the Summit National Bank. It was also learned that arrangements have been made by Ralph KUO to borrow from summit National Bank up to $25,000_00 on behalf on the Yen Ching Restaurant, Inc (See the attached copy of authorization to release financial information.) On 1 -15 -82 Investigator SOLLARS did have a conversation with Mr. Robert FALK of the Protectors Insurance Agency as well as Mr. FUDALI. Mr. FALK indicated he will be preparing a liability insurance policy, designed to comply with the standards required under Section 11 -515. The probable insurance company will be C. N. A. Insurance Company. A certificate of insurance will be presented to the City Clerk prior to 1- 21 -82. Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 7 Section III INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND OF OFFICERS AND SHAREHOLDERS A. Ralph KUO was born October 10, 1944 in Nanking, China. Ralph came to this country in 1973. Ralph married Pei Chen YUNG in Des Moines, Iowa in 1978 and they have one son, Calvin, age '3 Ralph's mother and father presently reside in Houston, Texas and have resided there since 1979. Ralph's brother Ling also has been residing in Houston, Texas since 1979. From 1973 to 1978; Ralph resided in Houston, Texas where he was a college student for one year and worked in a restaurant for approximately five years. When Ralph entered the United States he made application through immigration to become a permanent resident. Ralph owned and operated'a restaurant in Alvin, Texas for approximately two years, sold the restaurant in 1980. Ralph received his permanent residency on April 25, 1980 from the St. Paul office of the U. S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. His registration number is 36929236. At this time Ralph is not a citizen of the United States. Ralph indicated in his form 3 application that he lived in 3201 Sage Road, Houston, Texas from approximately 1974 to 1977. He lived at 2505 Hyland in Alvin, Texas from 1977 to 1980. He moved from there to Gate 10, West 53rd Road, Apt. #6, Davenport, Iowa in 1980,Awhere he lived until he moved to Brooklyn Center. At this time Ralph is not employed. Ralph KUO did submit a personal financial statement for Mr. and Mrs. Ralph KUO dated November 30, 1981 and that was compiled by Betty MESSERLI, VIERLING & Company, Certified Public Accountants. That statement of personal financial position will be attached to this section. Investigator SOLLARS sent police record inquiry forms for Ralph n KUO to the Houston Police Department, to the Alvin, Texas Police Department and to the Davenport, Iowa Police Department and received the response from those departments; all of which indicated that there was no criminal record on file for Ralph C. KUO. Criminal record checks were run under the name Ralph Cheng KUO which indicated no criminal record. This included the State Of Minnesota or NCIC and also included are the individual record checks sent to the Police Departments of his former residences. There is no record of a drivers license for Ralph Cheng KUO in the State of Minnesota. The appropriate records will be attached to this section. B. Mrs. Ralph KUO (Maiden Name Pei Chen YUNG), 5800 Logan Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Pei Chen YUNG is the wife of Ralph C. KUO and goes by the name of Pei Chen YUNG or Mrs. Ralph KUO. Pei Chen YUNG was born in Phu San, Korea on September 19, 1946. Pei's mother and father liveoin Des Moines, Iowa and have resided there since 1977. She has four brothers who also reside in Des Moines. She has one older brother who is a U. S. citizen, his name is Jim Pei. Pei will be taking her examination Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 8 for citizenship in February 1982. Pei lived at 3201 Sage Road, Houston, Texas from 1974 to 1977, at 2508 Highland in Alvin, Texas from 1977 to 198.0 and at 810 West 53rd Road, Apt. #6, Davenport, Iowa from 1980 to 1981 and moved to- Brooklyn Center in 1981. Records checks were run on Pei by sending records requests to the Houston, Texas Police Department; the Alvin, Texas Police 3 Department; and the Davenport, Iowa Police Department. In all cases the response indicated that she had no criminal record. Pei was not required to make out a Form 3 because she was.-originally not involved in the application of the license; however, when she did become involved, because of fact that record checks had already been run on her based on the fact that she was the wife of Ralph Ching KUO. She was not requested to make a form 3. C. Jade Yuan CHANG, 1714 Flatiron Street, -Iowa City, Iowa. Jade Yuan CHANG currently lives at that address with her husband Keh Jen CHANG. Investigator SOLLARS did personally witness the certificate of naturalization for Jade CHANG which indicated - that the petition number was 3973 and the alien registration number was A20843297. The description listed was Jade Yuk_ CHANG, D.O.B. 06- 10 -53, female, complexion medium, eyes brown, hair black, height 5' 7 ", weight 120, nationality China.- The court was the southern district of Iowa in Davenport, and the date of naturalization was July 20, 1981. It was signed James R. ROSENBA Diane L DUNCAN , UM, clerk of U. S. District Court, b D n Y deputy clerk. Jade's name was changed at the time of naturalization by a decree of court from Yuk Yuan LUI as part of the naturalization. Because of the fact that Jade lives in Iowa, she did not have any personal references in the State of Minnesota other than n Vincent S. DAHLE, who is an attorney and resides at 2498 17th Street N.W., Minneapolis, phone number 636- 7964. Investigator SOLLARS did contact Mr. DAHLE who indicated that he did not really know Jade well enough to give a personal character reference for her. It was necessary therefore to get personal character references from residents of the State of Iowa. The first one is Penny GIMBEL of the towncrest branch of the First National Bank at 1117 Williams in Iowa City, Iowa. Home address of 154 Hawkeye Court in Iowa-City, Iowa. Investigator SOLLARS contacted Penny GIMBEL by telephone and talked to her concerning her knowledge of Jade. She indicated that has known Jade as a personal friend and also in a business relationship for 4)proximately two years. She indicated that she has found her to be completely trustworthy, dependable and very honest. She further indicated that o reason why Jade would to t t he u see n s could s y have any problems with a liquor license issued to her. According to Penny GIMBEL, there is nothing that she knows of about Jade which would indicate that she has every had any problems with alcohol whatsoever. - I� Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 9 The next one is Ling DAVIS. She indicated that she has known Jade since 1975. Her address is 4610 Tama Street, Apt. #l, in Marion, Iowa 52302. Her business address is 3211 Arma Drive in Marion. She indicated that she is a close friend of Jade and has worked with her since approximately 1975. She said that she has never found Jade to have any problems with alcohol and indicated that she was a trustworthy, dependable and very honest person. She indicated that there was no reason that she knew why a liquor license should not be issued to Jade CHANG. The third one is Linda CRIM of Greenwood and Crim, which is an accounting firm located at 1705 First Avenue in Iowa City, Iowa. Linda CRIM indicated that she has known Jade for approximately two years and said that Jade is a good businesswoman and that she is very trustworthy, dependable and honest. She further indicated that she knows of no reason why Jade should not be issued a liquor license. She indicated.that she knows of no instance in which Jade has had any problems with alcohol. The application for Jade indicated that she had formerly resided in New York, New York from 1975 to 1976. She lived in St. Louis, Missouri at 1326 Ferntral from 1976 to 1977°. She lived in Colorado Springs, Colorado from 1977 to 1979 and her current address is in Iowa City, Iowa. Criminal history was run through NCIC and she was clear and has no record of a Minnesota drivers license. Letters were sent to the police departments in New York, New York; St. Louis, Missouri; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and Iowa City, Iowa. All of whom, with the exception of New York, responded that they had no record of her arrest. New York City, New York responded that the information could not be released and there is an attached copy of the letter. In addition, Investigator SOLLARS requested- ancyreceived a copy of the federal &state income tax returns for Jade Yuan CHANG for the year 1980 and this is attached to this section. Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82- :00770 Page 10 Section IV INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND OF MANAGER Michael Alan PEKAREK, Route #2, St. Cloud, Minnesota. Mr. PEKAREK is currently living at that address. Mr. PEKAREK formerly lived at 1129 35th Avenue North in St. Cloud from August of 1968 to September of 1977. He lived at Route #2, St. Cloud from December 1977 through August of 1980 and lived at 913 East Lincoln Avenue, Fergus Falls, Minnesota from August 1980 to December 1980; returning to Route #2, St. Cloud in December 1980 to present Mr. PEKAREK was employed by Franklin Manufacturing, 701 North 33rd Avenue, St. Cloud, Minnesota by the Eye Craft Optical and Industrial Park, St. Cloud, Minnesota; Country Kitchen, Interstate 94 in _Fergus Falls, Minnesota; Bridgeman's Ice Cream at 3350 West Division Street, St. Cloud, Minnesota and Puringer's Distributing Rice Minnesota; all of which were part -time work while he was going to school. Personal references check for Mr. PEKAREK were Linda QUIMBLY of 3710 Croft N.E. in St. Anthony, phone number 788 -8881, who is known Mr. PEKAREK most of his life. She indicated that Mr. PEKAREK's family owns a cabin in northern Minnesota which is a next -door neighbor to the QUIMBLY family. She indicated that she knows no reason why Mr. PEKAREK would'have any problems in the handling or distribution of alcoholic beverages or the management of an establishment which sells alcoholic beverages and further stated that she knows him to be honest and a very ambitious young man. She knows of no reason why he should no be allowed to work in such a place in a position of responsibility. In addition, Mr. Wilbur QUIMBLY, who is the husband of Linda QUIMBLY was contacted and he works for Berger Storage in St. Anthony Village at 3017 Croft N.E., phone number 788 -8881. In his response was essentially the same. In addition, Denise PETARAK of 1415 75th Avenue N.E. was contacted and she indicated that she is an aunt to Michael PEKAREK by marriage. She said that she has known hire to be an industrious very honest young man who has had no problems that she knows of and she indicated that she knows of no problems that he would have in the dispensing or the sale of alcoholic beverages. She further indicated that she felt that he would have no problems with the management of an establish- ment that had alcoholic beverages for sale. Police record inquiries were sent to the Fergus Falls Police Department , and also to St. Cloud Police Department and a response was received from the St. Cloud Police Department indicating that he had no police record. No response was received from the Fergus Falls Police Depart- ment. A NCIC criminal history check was run and he was cleared with NCIC. He has a valid Minnesota drivers license with three violations; the only one of which involving alcohol was an open bottle on 10- 27 -80. Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 Page 11 • Section V INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUND OF JADE YUAN CHANG's SPOUSE Mr. Keh Jen CHANG of 1714 Flatiron Street, Iowa City, Iowa. Mr. CHANG currently resides at that address with his wife Jade Yuan CHANG. His former addresses are New York, New York from 1973 to 1977 and at 8600 Del Mar in St. Louis, Missouri from 1977 to 1979. He currently resides at the 1714 Flatiron address. Police record inquiries were made with the New York, New York Police Department; the St. Louis, Missouri Police Department; and the Iowa City, Iowa Police Department. St. Louis, Missouri and Iowa City, Iowa responded with no arrest record for Mr. CHANG. however New York, New York refused to give the information. and a letter of explanation is attached. Criminal history was run and there was no hit through NCIC and he has no Minnesota drivers license nor Iowa drivers license listed. The records checks are attached. m Liquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 12 Section VI CORRESPONDENCE AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS This consists of the building plans, with seating arrangements, and other.miscellaneous correspondence that have transpired between Mr. KUO or his attorney and this officer. The attached blueprints showing the seating arrangements indicates that there would be seating for 184 people in three separate dining rooms. The following information should be attached to Section VI. There is no documentation at this time, however a Mr. Jim- BREHL, who is an attorney located at 3500 West 80th Street, 55435 in Minneapolis, phone ' number 835 -9550, who represents Partners Brookdale, the owners of the building did contact Investigator SOLLARS. He indicated that the name of the party applying for the lease which was Yen Ching Restaurants, an Iowa Corporation, which had created a problem had been an error on the part of his secretary. This is the name that did appear on the lease and in fact it should have been Yen Ching Restaurant, a Minnesota Corporation. Mr. BREHL indicated that he would be sending a letter to the City making a notation that this was an error and in fact was being corrected by rewriting the lease at which time a copy of the lease would be sent with the updated or the correct name on the lease. On 01 -18 -82 at approximately 1500 hours, Investigator SOLLARS did receive a call from Mr. Mike REBAU of the U. S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. I.nvestigator SOLLARS had • previously contacted Mr. REBAU and requested that an immigration check be done on Ralph Ching KUO and also on Pei Chen YUNG. He indicated that they did have two files on Mr. Ching KUO and that Ralph is not a legal name. The first record that they have on him is file number A36929236, which is a visa file and is located in Houston, Texas. He further indicated that a second file A20692703, did grant permanent residence to Mr. KUO on 04- 25 -80. Mr. REBAU indicated that he learned from Houston that there was a rather large file on Mr. KUO and that he felt that there may be some problems in the file, however he did not know what they might be nor had he ever seen the file. He further indicated that Pei Chen YUNG had a file with the Department of Immigration in Atlanta, Georgia and that number is A35960146 and he indicated that her true name is Chen Yung PEI and that they have no indication that her name was changed when she married Mr. KUO.. It should be noted at this time that this investigation has been difficult because of the various names used by the people involved in this corporation. Based on the information received from the Department of Immigration, Investigator SOLLARS did request that immigration have the file sent from Houston to.Minneapolis and told Mr. REBAU that a disclosure statement would be obtained from Mr. KUO and also from Chen Yung PEI to allow us to look into the immigration file to see if in fact there were any problems in the file that might affect the issuance of this liquor license. This information was then given to Chief LINDSAY, • who suggested after Investigator SOLLARS' recommendation that the application be held up long enough for this investigator to check that file with immigration. Llquor License Investigation of Yen Ching Case #82 -00770 Page 13" At that time Investigator SOLLARS contacted Mr. Richard FUDALI, who is • the attorney for Mr. KUO and advised him what had taken place. Mr. FUDALI then apparently contacted Mr. KUO who called Investigator SOLLARS and indicated that the reason for the file was that he had applied for permanent residency in 1976 and upon being refused they had tried to deport. Investigator SOLLARS told Mr. KUO that he did not disbelieve him but that it would be necessary that we did look at the file and therefore the investigation would be delayed long enough to do so, which would be a period of approximately one to two weeks. Mr. KUO at that time indicated that he was not actually the one applying for the license and requested that this Investigator again consult with Chief LINDSAY concerning the matter. Investigator SOLLARS agreed to do this. At that time Investigator SOLLARS received a call from Richard SCHIEFFER the City Attorney and in the course of the conversation, told him what had transpired in regards to the immigration record and he indicated that it would in the best interest of the City for the license to be held up until after we did have an opportunity to examine the immigration file. At that time Investigator SOLLARS did contact Mr. Ralph.KUO and told him that it was our decision to delay the presenting of the license . to the Council until after we have had an opportunity to examine the immigration file. At that time Mr. KUO advised Investigator SOLLARS that he had contacted his partner, Jade CHANG, in Iowa and she had indicated that they no longer want to continue with the application for the license because . of the time involved. Approximately one hour later Mr. KUO again called and indicated that they had changed their minds and wished to continue with the license and will wait until the investigation is completed. There will be a follow -up to the report later. The following is a supplement to the resume on Case #82- 00770. As indicated in the - resume, Investigator SOLLARS had contacted Mr. Mike RIEBAU of the United States Department of Justice, Department of Naturalization Service. Mr. RIEBAU was contacted in regards to the immigration files of Ching KUO, also known as Ralph Ching KUO and Chen Yung PEI also known as Pei Chen YUNG with the intention of checking their immigration files. Mr. RIEBAU was contacted by Investigator SOLLARS on Friday, the 29th of January. Mr. RIEBAU informed Investigator SOLLARS that he had checked the files of both parties and found nothing negative in either file which would interfere with our investigation. Investigator SOLLARS was advised that Mr. RIEBAU felt` - that there would be no need to personally go through the file because the problems that Ralph Ching KUO had had were essentially those that had been explained by Mr. KUO to Investigator SOLLARS. Apparently Mr. KUO had originally applied for permanent residency in the United States at which time he had been refused. At that time the normal procedure is to order him to leave the country which immigration did; however Mr. KUO appealed that decision. During` the time of appeal, Mr. KUO was found to be working in violation of the immigration laws which further interfered with the proceedings. Mr. KUO finally left the country and applied for permanent residency and was accepted into the United States from Taiwan at which time he married Chen Yung PEI. It would therefore follow that Mr. KUO had done nothing illegal and was not involved in any kind of a situation that would interfere . with him being involved in the operation of a liquor establishment in the City of Brooklyn Center. • t CITY ' OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY •• BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 t CEN EMERGENCY- POLICE-FIRE 561-5720 December 30, 1981 E2ZINEER' S REPORT PROJECT 1982 --02 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Street Reconstruction, including roadway and curb and cutter reconstruction PROJECT LOCATION: Xerxes Avenue North from T.H. 100 to C.S.A.H. 10; and 55th and 56th Avenues North from T.H. 152 to Xerxes Avenue North DISCUSSION: In accordance with Resolution Nb. 78 -292, "Resolution Approving Five Year Municipal State Aid Capital Improvements Program," the City Council initiated Street Improvement Project Nb. 1981 -03; the reconstruction of Xerxes Avenue North and 55th and 56th Avenues North adjacent to Brook Centar. Improvement hearings were held by the City Council on March 9 and March 23, 1981. At these hearings, representatives of affected businesses testified that the tenporary street closure during 1981 would severely affect retail sales at a time when the firms were already experiencing a negative impact from the I -94 con - struction. In consideration of the business representatives' reciuests, the City Council terminated the 1981 proceedings, but provided, for reconsideration of the proposed project in 1982. 'Ihe deferred project, more specifically described in the followincr paragrap ' has an estimated cost that is 9.5% greater than the estimated 1981 construction cost. s Design Co nsiderations As noted in the City En ineex's report port of_ February 9, 1931, the existing roadway structures of Xerxes, 55th, and 56th Avenues North have shown signs of premature deterioration for a number of years. Factors contributing to the early dec?rada- tion of the pavement, which was placed in 1961, include: (1) weather conditions; (2) severe destructive axle loadings as a result of extensive roadway use by buses and tractor semitrailer trucks; (3) heavy winter use of salt -sand mixtures on the roadway surface; (4) possible use of inadequate asphalt cement or aagregate in the roadway construction; and (5) improper construction techniques used in SUbgrade preparation. Early deterioration of the concrete curb and gutter is attributed to several factors including: (1) overworking the joints d over - finishing the entire surface; (2) possible use of improper concrete mixture with inadequate air entrainment; and (3) heavy use of salt. Various construction options have been considered and evaluated including: (Option 1) -use of a bituminous overlay over the existing pavement and patch- t� ing of existinct curb and gutter where settlement or degradation has occurred; u�� Cf.�KGKIf //G 4�LC �L� ii December 30, 1981 Engineer's Report Project 1982 -02 Page l (Option 2) - 'removal of approximately half the bituminous pavement cross section by a method known as cold milling or scarification and patching of existing curb and gutter where settlement or degradation has occurred; and (Option 3) - complete removal of the existing structures, including curb and _ gutter, and replacement with new curb and gutter and a nine -ton bit=inous pavanent. Field testing and subsequent consultation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN /DDT) resulted in the determination that Option No. 1 may produce an acceptable roadway for a period of two or three years at which time the same conditions would again be experienced. option No. -2 may pro - but again, duce an acceptable roadway for 5 to 10 years, g , the same conditions a roadway structure aim bee experienced. opt-ion No. 3 should produce Y could again xp Op P e sealcoatin yea with rout ine f providing a service life of twee g capable o s.n ry P� P g twenty Y of the street. This service life should be extendable to thirty years with application of o� or tv� ove at the pr op e r time. the 1 e PP Y Pr Pe Also, because no feasible method is available to repair this existing curb and gutter, and because it would be reach more expensive to replace the curb and gutter separately after a few more years, it is our opinion that both the curb and gutter and the pavement structures should be replaced at the same tine. Accordingly, while Options 1 and 2 initially appear to have substantial cost advantages, Option 3 is recommended as the most cost- effective alternative. Option 3 also has the advantage of providing a one -shot solution, i.e., traffic on these roadways should not have to be disturbed by construction again for more than twenty years. The proposed design specifications will make allowance for the use of recycled bituminous material as an alternate to virgin materials. Such use of recycled bituminous material has been recognized as being cost effective by MN/bOT and has been used by the cities of St. Louis Park, Roseville, and Maplewood (among others). The final product is equal in all respects to a roadway using all vir- gin materials. Also included in the project cost is the installation of a street light at the 56th Avenue- Xerxes Avenue intersection and the elimination of overhead wiring to the street light at the 55th Avenue - Xerxes Avenue intersection. Funding Considera Funding is available from two funding sources, i.e. Municipal State Aid Street funds and Special Assessments levied against benefited properties. Established City policy provides that special assessrents equaling the `total cost of the project be levied for street improvement projects within commercial or industrial areas. However, for this project, staff again recommends that . the City Council consider reduction of assessable project costs by an amount corresponding to pavement structure service life not realized. Because these 20 -year old roadways should have provided approximately 30 years of service, a 33% reduction in total assessable project costs is recommended. Accordingly, this report is based on the assuMtion that 67% of the total costs will be levied as special assessments while 33% of the total costs will be paid by the City's Municipal State Aid Street fund. December 30, 1981 Engineer's Report Project 1982 -02 Page j Special assessments may be levied by various methods including the "area method" or the "front foot" method. Staff again recommends the use of the area method of assessment with provisions for establisYment of twn "zones of benefit" as proposed in 1981. However, it is recommended that the Brookdale Office Building be included in the assessment district since 1981 construction provided access to Xerxes and 56th Avenues via the westbrook Mall and the "common drive ". In Providing for zones of benefit, unit assessments may be prorated in accordance with each individual parcel's proximity to the improvement. A breakdown of such unit assessments is provided in the project summary. It was noted that, during the 1981 proceedings, no objections were made to this proposed method of distribut- ing the special assessment portion of project costs. Summary A summary of the estimated costs and assessments are as follows: Construction Cost $322,260.00 Contingencies (@ 5% of Construction Cost) 16 110.00 Utility onnections y (Street Lights) 1,500.00 Subtotal, Construction Cost $339,870.00 Engineering Costs (@ 9% of Construction cost) 30,590.00 Administrative Cost (@ 1% of Construction Cost) 3 Legal Cost (@ of Construction Cost) 3,400.00 Interest (@ 12% /year for 6 months) 20,390.00 D'I'AL PROJBCT COST $397,650.00 Estimated City Cost (@ 33% of Construction Cost) $132,550.00 Estimated Assessable Cost (@ 67% of Construction Cost) $265,100.00 Proposed Unit Assessments: Zone A = $4,230.77 /acre Zone B = $1,830.80 /acre 'Ihe attached information includes: Project Location and Assessment District Map and a Proposed Assessment Schedule. It is my opinion that the proposed project is feasible on the basis of the condi- tions and considerations outlined above. Respectfully Submitted, 1 SS Director of Public works /City Engineer cb Attachments r PHUVU' 1\ .7J C55 1M:I - Ir 0to1 "1i =VVLC FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 (XERXES, 55TH, 56TH AVENUES), ZONE A Z0: TE A* _ 7,0NE B ZONE B* . 70TAL 1 .0PrRTY OCCUPIED 13Y AREA (AC) AS3F..SE!AnIT AREA (AC) ASSESOMFl"T ASSFSSAR4T Mare s Big Boy '1.01 $ 4,273.08 0.05 $ 91.54 $ 4 Firestone 1.07 4,526.92 -- -- 4 Red awl- Country Store 2.60 11,000.00 1.30 2,380.04 13,380.04 Green Mill �staurant 1.08 4,569.23 --- -- 4,569.23 Happy Dragon -- -- 0.61 1,116.79 1,116 Farrell's --- - 0.98 1,794.19 1,794.19 Kentucky Fried Chicken -- -- 0.42 768.94 768.94 Brookdale Car Wash 0.83 3,511.54 --- - 3,511.54 O mmn Drive ** 0.92 3,892.31 -- 3,892.31 Goodyear 1.06 4,484.62 --- 4,484.62 Audio King 0.51 2,157.69 -- - 2,157.69 Cc mon Drive ** 0.16 676:92 -- -- 676.92 'McDonald's 1'.00 4,230.77 --- -- 4,230.77 Green Mill Parking 0.32 1,353.85 -- -- 1 dwest Federal 0.92 3,892.31 -- -- 3,892.31 ='first Brookdale Banc 1.98 8,376.92 0.06 109 .85 8,486.77 Poppin Fresh 0.97 4,103.85 -- -- 4,103.85 Dayton's Hcme Stare 1.95 8,250.00 1.21 2,215.27 10,465.27 Ubsthrook Mall 2.03 8,588.46 8.03 14,701.33 23,289.79 Big Bi 0.83 3,511.54 3,511.54 " 'Sears 3.75 15,865.37 12.74 23,324.39 39,189.76 Donaldson's 2.70 ' 11,423.08 9.30 17,026.45 28,449.53 Brookdale Mall 5.64 23,861.54 31,62 57,889.93 81,751.47 JC Penney - 1.88 3,441.91 3,441.91 JC Penney Auto Center -- 0.37 677.40 677.40 Dayton's 2.87 5 254.4 0 5,254.40 Brookdale Office Building -- -- 0.96 1,757.5 1,757.57 TOTALS 31.33A $132,550.00 72.40A $132,550.00 $265,100.00 Estin City Share 132,550-00 Estimated Total Project Cost $397,650.00 3 .77 Acrc "in lane B =$1,830.80/Acre n - 4 2 0 rates:. in ?r� � A / ?nit Assessmuit $ . ses dent to be divided among adjacent properties according to percentage interest in cwn whip. t ! L.___,1 __ 1 t_ _ ' + , W h0 t w "pRtNWAY t3RfVf «. , �\—j - E 1 \ Z O ROA } * +d tt 3f ! \ z O E B \J -" —Z 0 N E A \F i !r IN y�. it';RTHPOt�T SC H 00 L `a� LIONS /r V , WATER TOWER PARK ill \ A i., I o PROJECT LOCATION + T _ l A N D ASS E S S M E N T D I S T R I C T S FOR IMP.pROJ. 7482-02 R.L.S. NO. 1235 fp,ytC" couNTr ROao a i Yles droo tAo 1 ti0 1151 Mall C• � R. L.S.�,� NO. 1151 _ A T r.A&I r eye', ���� IAl st I. Green J `' � \ " F ``� .• �Pp f" t -" c s Mill �" ,`��a�t�`� �Ohr Lu t� r N a �� t t s•' 3 er N :.p /a art `�"\�S O • Ohy• -' dz �. A \\ �o G • \s t t •::: l 8q $ fit 0 • c � t� i s • r_ /_f e l i Al V _' V• �, TRACT , H Lo N t- if vi 1!� • It ltd _Z i t 1 � e , a � `• � t, for n 7 A r% �' '• , y, r ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, 56TH AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION Informational Meeting with Businesses - January 6, 1982 City Engineer's Report to City Council - January 11, 1982 Public Hearing on Improvement - February 8, 1982 Contract Award - March 8, 1982 Preconstruction Conference - Week of March 22, 1982 Project Start - up - Week of April 12, 1982 First Phase Completion A - Includes reconstruction of 4 Xerxes Avenue from T.H. 100 ``.;t` to 56th Avenue; 55th Avenue �.� from "ccnmn drive" to Xerxes Avenue; Brookdale Center ac- cess at 55th Avenue May 15, 1982 Second Phase Completion � - includes reconstruction of 55th Avenue from T.H. 152 to "common �i drive" ' - May 26, 1982 Third Phase Completion - Includes reconstruction of Xerxes Avenue from 56th Avenue to C.S.A.H. 10; 56th Avenue from "ccumon drive" to Xerxes Avenue and T.H. 152 to Bank access - June 11, 1982 Fourth Phase Completion - Includes reconstruction of 56th Avenue from "ccmr,on drive" to Bank access - June 23, 1982 Final Clean -up - June 30, 1982 ATTENDANCE LIST IWORMATIONAL MEETI93 ON 55TH, 56TH, & XERXES AVEUE S'ff= EVIPROVEIMM Brookdale Center Cam unity Roan January 6,1982 2:00 P.M. NAME I THOrE NO RFPRFSFNTT�U Gary Dawley 375 -5275 Dayton Elan Stare Roger Campeau 375 -5351 Dayton Hare Store Fred Estes 536 -8148 Estes Hallmark Bruce Thorud 561 -7500 Donaldson's James P. Kulkay 561 -7500 Donaldson's Jean Joing 566 -3010 Wicks N Sticks Frank Ketcbmark 561 -2530 First Brookdale Bank Stephen Graham 561 -1123 Brookdale Car Wash Bruce McKevver 932 -2484 Red Owl Stores Keith Rostral 375 -5303 Dayton's Main Store Herb Morgenthaler 375 -5301 Dayton's Main Store Gene Siefkien 566 -2100 JC Penney Margo Swanson 566 -2400 Casual Corner Henry Slater 561 -5700 Goodman Is Don McCourrachie 561 -6540 Woolworth's C. S. Kromer Assoc. 561 -6540 Woolworth's Pete Johnson 330 -4688 Poppi.n Fresh Pies Gerald Splinter 561 -5440 City of Brooklyn Cente-r Jane Hetzel Levy 370 -6890 C. Mngr.- Brookdale Tim Bezdek 561 -5440 City of Brooklyn Center. Jim Grube 561 -5440 City of Brooklyn Cente Sy Knapp 561 -5440 City of Brooklyn Cente{. Warren Beck 925 -4321 Westbrook Mall Larry Koechel 925 -4321 Westbrook Mall Lonni McCauley 566 -8650 Brooklyn Center Cham- ber of Comnerce MINUTES OF INFORMATIONAL MEETIIZ R133ARDIlW. PROPOSED STREET IMPRCVEMENT PROJECT 198 2 -0 2 XE PXES AVENUE NORTH (BE'ISVMi T.H. 100 AND CO. RD. 10 ) 55TH AND 56TH AVENUES NORTH (BE`IL�?EEN T.H. 152 AND XERXES AVENUE POR'I31) ® Location: Carmunity Room, Brookdale Shopping Center Date: January 6, 1982 Time: 2:00 P.M. 1. Ionnie McCauley opened the meeting with a welcome to all. She stated that the meeting was arranged to provide an opportunity to review the proposed Xerxes Avenue Project. Lanni introduced Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Abrks,,City of Brooklyn Center. 2. Sy Knapp introduced the city employees present -and reported as follows: Review of Project History - Proposed early in 1981 because original construction done in 1961 had begun to deteriorate prematurely - After preliminary investigation, City Council chose to establish a project for total reconstruction of street rather than the less permanent options of over- laying or cold milling - Input from merchants and property owners at a similar informational meeting (February 24, 1981) and the Public Hearing, March 9, 1981, indicated objections on the following grounds: _ 1) Adverse impact of I- 94/694 construction on business would be ccopounded by further construction. 2) Project as scheduled would interfere with major sales periods in summer. Work should be done as early in the year as possible. City Council formally terminated project for 1981, but directed staff to pre- pare to do construction in 1982 Status of I- 94/694 Construction - Work on east /west portion is essentially corplete. All interchanges are con- structed, and traffic is flowing well along final paths except for one bridge . fran westbound 694 to southbound T.H. 100. Recommendation - Proceed with street reconstruction in early 1982 Minimal maintenance has been done to the existing street anticipating that this project would be undertaken. 3. Sy called on Jim Grube, Assistant City Engineer, to speak on: Project Design - No major change is proposed in grade, width, or traffic flow from existing street. - Present configuration is carrying 10,750 vehicles per day. Construction should proceed rapidly to provide minimal interference with this volume of traffic. - No major underground utility work is required - only minor adjustments. There is no interference, therefore, with rapid completion. Pavement structure will be increased. This will better accanodate heavy bus and truck traffic. - Contractor will have the option to recycle bituminous material. - Curb and gutter will be replaced entirely; - Existing sidewalk along Xerxes will be continued from 55th to the Red Owl Store. Project Schedule - Four phases Begin: Week of April 12, 1982 Completed: By June 30, 1982 This schedule has been discussed with several contractors and appears to be feasible. _ F Minutes of Xerxes Informational Meeting January 6, 1982 Page 2 4. Sy Knapp made the following observation: - Brookdale entrance "at 55th Avenue - at the request of Brookdale Center property owners, this will be reconstructed simultaneously with the Xerxes Avenue reconstruction the cost for this will be accounted separately under the city contract and will be paid for entirely by Brookdale Center Stores. and continued the meeting by reviewing: Costs and Assessments - Current estimated total project cost = $397,650.00 City proposes to pay 1/3 of total cost because the existing road failed to ful- fill 1/3 of its expected service life. - The other 2/3 of the cost will be split evenly and assessed against property within two zones of benefit - Zone A = properties directly abutting 55th Avenue, 56th Avenue, or Xerxes Avenue to a depth of 250 feet Zone B = property within area to be assessed but outside 250 foot depth or not directly abutting these streets (These zones were displayed on a transparency) Cost is to be split thus: City $132,550.00 Zone A - ($ 230.77 per 132 4 r acre over 31.33 acres) $ Zone B — $132,550.00 ($1,830.80 per acre over 72.40 acres) - Assessment will be spread over ten year period with interest charged at about 12% per annum. Outlook for Construction - all strikes in construction industry occurred in 1981 and have been settled - there should be no problem accomplishing project during 1982, short of war or an act of God 5. The meeting was opened for discussion. 1) What is being done to remedy.the faults of earlier construction? Ans. The proposed reconstruction will correct the faults and the City is offering to pay a share based on the recognition of the earlier deficiency. Had the road fulfilled its expected lifetime of 30 years, the entire cost would be assessed to property owners. 2) Is the base adequate, that is, will this new construction do the job? Ans. We have had the soil tested by expert consultants and their analysis indicates that under existing or moderately increased traffic loads, the pro- posed pavement design should adequately bear the traffic. 3) Could this job be bid on by the contractor who did the work in 1961? Ans. We have little control over the public bidding process. Any low bid by a responsible contractor must be honored. Responsible is determined by recent work record. - Mr. Splinter, City Manager, added that the record is not really clear as to who or what was responsible for the weakness of earlier construction. Two dif- ferent contractors worked on these streets and.faulty material or adverse weather may have had a role in the problem. Minutes Xerxes Informational Meeting January: 1982 Page 3 4) Are four lanes sufficient for carr ying in the traffic? Ans. We think so. Although some studies have projected a doubling of traffic in this area in the future, we believe that development is basically completed. If traffic were to increase by as much as 500, the proposed eon- figuration could accomodate it. 5) Will resodding /restoration be included in the contract? Ans. Yes. 6) then would the project be assessed? Ans. Under the proposed schedule, the assessment would be levied in September, 1982, with the first payment to be made with taxes in 1983. As stated before, the assessment would be payable in ten installments and the interest rate is expected to be 12 %. -?) What about the alternative methods of construction such as use of "Petro -Mat" or cold milling? Ans. These methods were evaluated and rejected. In view of the situation on Xerxes, these limited methods simply would not do the job. 8) If incentive payments were made part of the contract, what time could be saved and at what cost? Ans. In discussion, contractors have agreed that the proposed schedule is a realistic one. The completion date might be moved up about two weeks with a ` 10% incentive - -in this case, $38,000. ° The legality of the City offering an incentive has been questioned, but would be in order if the property owners agree to pay 1000 of the incentive. It should be pointed out that neither incentives nor penalties provide an iron- clad guarantee of acccmplishing the project on schedule. One advantage of an incentive clause is that it draws more favorable consideration of the project frcgm larger contractors who have the capability to meet such a schedule with bigger equipment and greater manpower. 9) Has inclement weather been allowed for in the proposed schedule? Ans. Yes, a normal number of rain days have been included. Extraordinarily bad weather could cause additional delay in construction. 10) Would it be possible to set an earlier completion date rather than use an incentive clause? Ans. No, if the canpletion date is set too early, we Could not receive reason- ably low bids. It is better to use an incentive to achieve early construction than to interfere with the bidding based on reasonable expectations. 11) Catmient: Moving the completion date ahead two weeks in June doesn't help that much- Response: The Chamber of Commerce had mentioned a "Grand Reopening" promotion to be held in early June. Lonnie McCauley: That promotion has been scheduled later; we're not taking any chances. 12) I%Jon't this project shift extra traffic onto the common drive area between 55th and 56th Avenues, adversely affecting the condition of -the drive? Ans. The status of this roadway as common property is that it is owned by the surrounding businesses. Although some inf ormal agreement appears to be in - _ 9 Minutes of Xerxes Informational Meeting January 6, 1982 Page 4. owners regarding the maintenance of this operation among these property eg ing o era o P g drive, the City has not seen any written agreement assigning responsibility or providing for protection of the common interest. The flow of traffic around and into the Brookdale Center and peripheral businesses during each phase of construction had been analyzed and was k briefly reviewed at this point. There would be only a slight increase i in traffic on the common drive and this would be principally traffic to a and from those abutting businesses. One potential problem would be traffic approaching Brookdale from the south on Brooklyn Boulevard during phase I of construction. Signs and barriers would be provided to direct this flow Avenue entrance along Br the 56th Boulevard rather than through to � the common drive. In all, no big increase in traffic and no adverse impact is foreseen. 13) During phase III of construction, won't the only access to the bank and PoPPin Fresh be through this common drive? Ans. No. It will be possible to enter around the Westbrook Mall from Oa. Rd. 10. This cammon drive area will not be a designated detour. 14) Is there any faster construction alternative? Ans. The only way to accomplish the construction any quicker would be to entirely. shut dawn the r oads y . support 15 Tommie inquired if there was any consensus among those present in . of the incentive concept. There was no indication of support. Final CcMents Sy - There is a period of one month remaining during which adjustments could be made to the schedule. Once material has been sent out to contractors for bidding, no further changes can be made. We will be available after this meeting if any question remains. Jerry - The Public Hearing to be held on February 8, 1982, is also an important time to express your opinion regarding this project. Additional formal notice of this meeting will be sent to each property owner. ii i V Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: .. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERIM EAPROVEMFNT PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 (STREET RECONSTRUCTION OF XERXES AVENUE FROM T.H. 100 TO COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 10, 55th AVENUE NORTH FROM XERXES AVENUE TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, AND 56th AVENUE NORTH FROM XERXES AVENUE TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, Resolution No. 82 -21 adopted the 11th day of January 1982, fixed a date for a Council hearing on the proposed improvement of portions of Xerxes Avenue, 55th Avenue, and 56th Avenue; and WHEREAS, ten days' published notice of the hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 8th day of February, 1982, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: r 1. The following improvement as proposed in Council Resolution No. 82 -21 adopted the 11th day of 1982 is hereby ordered constructed: Improvement Project No. 1982 -02 - Street reconstruction of: Xerxes Avenue from T.H. 100 to County State Aid Highway 10 55th Avenue North from Xerxes Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard 56th Avenue North from Xerxes Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard 2. The estimated cost of the project is $397,650.00. 3. The estimated cost will be financed by: Special Assessments $265,100.00 MSA Fund (Fund Balance 2613) 132, 550.00 TOTAL $397,650.00 Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOIDTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by maTber , 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 I t i } - F F CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY 4 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 BRUvAL-1 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 f EMERGENCY-POLICE-FIRE 561.5720 ETUDIM' S REPORT • PROJEOT 1982 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Access Reconstruction to Brookdale Center, including bitixninous paving and curb and gutter PROJECT LOCATION: Intersection of Xerxes and 55th Avenues North DISCUSSION: Representatives of the Brookdale Center have requested the staff assist in the design and construction phases of the modification of the 55th Avenue North access to Brookdale Center. As outlined in the proposed acrree ment, the City shall prepare plans, specifications, and proposals, receive bids and award and administer a construction contract in conjunction with the Xerxes 55th an 56th Avenues t Iorth reconstruction project. a eein � d P J B1' �' g to participate in such an agreement, both parties (th City and Brookdale Center) realize maximum coordination, economy, and efficiency between the two projects. All costs related to the improvement (i.e. construction, engineering, legal, etc.) shall be paid by the Brookdale Center. Project Scope The proposed improvement of the 55th Avenue access contEmplates relocation of channelization structures (i.e. median, islands, etc.) to provide for more efficient use of the facility. Existing channelization directs in- coming vehicles southerly along the Sears Automotive Store to the southerly side of the complex. The proposed reconstruction will allow in- coming motorists to proceed in either a northerly or southerly direction. Minor storm sewer { adjustments are required as a result of the entrance modification. A. summary of the estimated costs to be borne by Brookdale Center is as follows: Construction Cost $25,810.00 Engineering Cost (@ 9- of Construction Cost) 2,320.00 Administrative Cost (@ 1% of Construction Cost) 260.00 Legal Cost (@ 1% of Construction Cost) 260.00 Capitalized Interest (@ 12% per year for 6 months) 1,550.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $30,200.00 " '74 1, c Sawe, (r"g V ate Orel Engineer's Report Project 1982 -03 Page 2 • It is my opinion that the project is feasible on the basis of the conditions and considerations outlined above. I therefore recom -rend that the project be initiated, that this report be accepted, that plans and specifications be approved and that the City Clerk be directed to advertise for bids on this improvement in conjuction with the Xerxes Avenue project (resolution attached for this purpose). A draft agreement has been prepared and presented to Brookdale representatives. - p esentatives. The have verbally agreed to the agreement but Y Y g , it is currently being reviewed by their legal counsel. This agreement will be submitted to the City Council for approval and execution prior to the time of contract award. Respectfully Submitted, Sy KAapp Director of Public T\brks /City Engineer - SK, ° J ro b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: v.., RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISTiIM BROOEDALE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -03, ACCEPTING CITY EWGINEER'S REPORT, AND ORDERIM IMPROVE14ENT PROJDCT NO. 1982 -03 WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received a petition requesting the City provide for the reconstruction of the 55th Avenue access to Brookdale Center in conjunction with the Xerxes Avenue reconstruction; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City Engineer regarding the feasibility of said access reconstruction at an estimated cost of $30,200.00; and WEMEAS, the City Council deems it in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to complete said improvement in conjunction with the Xerxes Avenue reconstruction: NCW, Tf BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. Said improvement be established as Improvement Project No. 1982 -03. 2. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is designated as the engineer for said improvement. 3. Said improvement is hereby ordered to be constructed as proposed. 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to prepare an agreement with the owner(s) of Brockdale Center, provid- ing for full reimbursement to the City of all costs associated with this rovement and to summit said a th agreement to e �P , City Council for consideration and approval. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member ing voted in favor thereof and upon vote being taken thereon, the follow F and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MaTber introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. x RESOLUTION APPRWINS PL7\NS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND _ DIRBCTIM ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR STREET E14PPOVEME17T PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 (XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, AND 56TH AVENUE STREET RECONSTRUCTION) ANDBROOFDALE ACCESS IMPROV`EI`= PROJECT NO. 1982 -03 (CONTRACT 1982 -B) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The plan s and specifications for Contract 1982 -B for the following improvements prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk: Street Improvement Project No. 1982 -02 Brookdale Access Improvement Project No. 1982 -03 2. The City Clerk shall advertise for bids for such improvements by publications at least twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin, the date of second publication not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids. Said notice shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk in the amount of not less than five per cent (5%) of the bid. 3. Bid date is set for March 4, 1982, at 11:00 o'clock, a.m., t local time. F 4. The City Manager and City Engineer are hereby authorized to open and tabulate the bids. 1 1 tt y L Date Mayor I ATTEST: Clerk %he motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by menber and n vote being ken n upo g to thereon, th e following voted in favor thereof: i and the following voted against the same: i whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION . JANUARY 28, 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, Lowell Ainas and Carl Sandstrom. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 14, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the January 14, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Simmons, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Hager arrived at 7:36 p.m. NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS Following the Chairman's explanation, Chairman Lucht explained that each Commissioner would be assigned to a neighborhood advisory group to serve as the Planning Commission's liaison. He asked who lived in each neighborhood. The Secretary answered that one Commissioner lives in each of the six neighborhoods in the City. Chairman Lucht made the following assignments: Northwest Lowell Ainas Northeast Nancy Manson Southwest Carl Sandstrom Southeast Mary Simmons West Central Molly Malecki Central Richard Hager The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission members should contact the people in their advisory groups to see if they are still interested in serving. He explained that the advisory groups review rezoning requests and noted that a rezoning application would be on the next Planning Commission meeting. He went on to explain that the Planning Commission member attends the advisory group meeting and offers input and information on whatever application is being considered. He commented that the procedure of the various advisory is different from one group to another ranging from fairly groups g P g g Y formal to very informal. Commissioner Simmons added that affected owners attend theneighborhood tin rou mee s to co mment property g g P on rezoning proposals. The Secretary agreed and noted that other interested ersons may attend such meetings as well. He stated P Y g that the meetings are public and open to all who wish to attend. He stated that the meetings are usually held in a public place such as a school within the neighborhood. 1 -28 -82 -1- DISCUSSION ITEM D raft Ord inance regulatin Amusement Centers a nd Devices The Secretary next introduced a draft ordinance regulating amusement centers and amusement devices. He stated that the staff was not expecting a formal action by the Commission on the draft ordinance at this evening's meeting, since more input was needed from the • Chief of Police and City Manager's office. The Secretary also stated that he was not yet satisfied with the ordinance as written. He stated that it was his belief that the special use permit_pro- cedure for regulating game operations was not adequate and that a licensing ordinance would be a more effective vehicle.for controlling the use of games and the establishment of game rooms. He stated that one of the reasons for restricting game rooms is the problems that the City has experienced at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center, where at least two game operations in the past have resulted in considerable police problems. The Secretary noted that the proposed would be included in Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances which deals with licensing. He briefly reviewed the first page of the draft ordinance, pointing out that the ordinance would license individual machines, game room operators, and firms or individuals which lease games to - commercial establishments. He then reviewed the definition for an amusement center which would consist of the operation of six or more mechanical amusement devices on premises that are wholly en- closed and do not abut any residential district. He stated that he was not satisfied with this draft definition and that he and the Planning Assistant had considered the idea of allowing games in establishments which abut residential property, so long as the games are clearly an accessory aspect of the operation and cannot be used independently of consuming of some other good or service. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the language used in the definition for an amusement center would actually allow establish' ments with games to abut residential property. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that he would recommend striking out the portion of the definition relating to _residential abuttment. Commissioner Hager stated that he had just _come from a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in New Hope which has a large game room. He asked the Secretary how such an establishment would be classified under the draft ordinance. The Secretary responded that the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant was essentially the same as the ShowBiz Pizza restaurant and would be considered an amusement center under the draft ordinance. He distinguished between a ShowBiz Pizza type establishment and the recently completed Pontillo's restaurant which has a small game room, clearly accessory to the primary oper- ation of serving food. Commissioner Simmons asked whether an amusement center would be defined on the basis of the significance of the game use relative to the total operation of a given establishment. The Secretary agreed with that general concept and stated that setting a limit on the number of games would partially guage that level of signifi- cance. He added, however, that even one or two games in certain locations could become a problem and he-recommended that certain establishments be off Limits to games in those locations abutting residential property. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the ordinance required a certain 1 -2 8 -82 -2- amount of space per game to account for waiting room and playing room.- The Secretary answered that staff have considered limits on the number of games in a particular location, but have also looked at who the games will serve and whether those people are a separate clientele or whether they are customers of the establishment which ides some good or service. other • prov g { There followed a discussion regarding floor space, number of games, and behavior of clientele in game room establishments. Commissioner Manson stated that she would prefer to rule out amusement devices in neighborhood convenience stores. The Secretary answered that the draft ordinance would do that through its restriction on resi- dential abuttment. He pointed out, however, that restaurants such as the Chuckwa g on Taco Towne and the Pizza Feat would not be allowed to have a single game if the abuttment restriction were applied to restaurants. Commissioner Hager suggested placing a limit on the effects of an amusement center, rather than restricting the location. He stated that some pieces of Federal Law are geared to an "effects test ". He suggested, for instance, that a certain number of police calls would result in revocation of an amusement center license. .The Secretary answered that the "effects test" was basically used in the,case of Snacks and Nick Nacks at the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He stated that the use was allowed on the assumption that it was a legitimate business, but that numerous police calls showed the operation to be a nuisance. He explained the proprietor closed the operation before his special use permit was actually revoked. The Secretary suggested again that certain locations are simply not good for a game operation and that they should be excluded under r the licensing of the City Ordinance. and zoning Y • g g P Chairman Lucht pointed out that the Legion Club abuts residential property across a street and that it has games in the establishment. The Planning Assistant stated that the revised language for a definition of an amusement center would allow a certain number of games in establishments where games would be used only by customers who are there primarily to consume something else, (such as food in a restaurant). There followed a discussion of the K -Mart at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard as a. location for mechanical amusement devices. Commis- sioner Malecki stated that the previous Shoppers City operation had a number of games in the establishment and that the games drew kids who caused problems for other customers. The Planning Assistant stated that the management of the existing K -Mart operation has asked whether they can install games in the new K -Mart store. He stated that the position of staff has been that even a single game' within the K -Mart store would be considered an amusement center and, therefore, prohibited because of the store's abuttment with R1 property. There was a brief discussion of the Snacks and Nick Nacks operation and how it contributed to the rationale that game rooms should not be allowed adjacent to residential areas. The Planning Assistant • pointed out that the draft ordinance also addresses the question of controlling establishments that are permitted. He cited two instances where the ordinance would prohibit the operation of a game or an amusement center from being a public nuisance. 1 -28 -82 -3- The Secretary stated that the draft ordinance would restrict the location of amusement centers and games generally to the C2 zone, e not abutting residential property. He stated that the ordinance makes the assumption that certain locations will result in problems. Commissioner Sandstrom expressed the feeling that a game room should be controlled if it is a problem. He stated that it seemed to him • that the ordinance assumes places will be a problem if they have games. He stated that he did not necessarily agree with these assumptions. Commissioner Simmons stated that if an establishment x caters to adults, games will not likely be a problem. However, if the games are used primarily by young kids, there probably will be problems. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the need for standards of supervision because young kids will travel the extra distance to a game room surrounded by commercial property, if necessary, and the same behavior will go on there. K There was a discussion regarding the restriction that games be B allowed in places where customers are primarily consuming something besides the use of games. The Planning Assistant explained that it was not intended that an operation, such as 7 Eleven be granted a license for one or two machines on the.condition that the kids that use the machines must purchase something like a coke or a candy bar in the store. Rather, he said, it should be obvious that an establishment like 7 Eleven should not be granted a license for an 3 amusement device at all because people could make use of the games without purchasing any other good or service, as is the case in a restaurant. Commissioners Sandstrom and Hager both argued that if an establish ment is managed well, there seems to be no justification for re- stricting the location of electronic games. Chairman Lucht again • related the experience of Snacks and Nick Nacks in Humboldt Square and pointed to the problems with that operation as an indication that certain locations are simply not proper for games. The Secre- tary added that the K -Mart on 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, if built today, could not have a gas station or an auto center under the City's Zoning Ordinance requirements, whereas the K -Mart on John Martin Drive and Earle Brown Drive could have both. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance reflects the fact that certain uses, including game rooms, simply should not be located next to resi - dential property, Commissioner Simmons threw out the idea of requiring that a certain percent of the revenue in a game room be from non -game sources. She suggested that, if games are so lucrative, proprietors might put up with too much anti - social behavior in order to keep bringing in money. Commissioner Lucht stated that such a test would rule out establishments like Piccadilly Circus, which are exclusively devoted to games. Commissioner Malecki' reminded the Commission of its function and stated that a purpose of the ordinance was to try to keep problems from happening. She stated that she felt that electronic games are appropriate in places where people have to wait before they consume some other product or service. She stated that amusement centers should not abut residential property and that she did not • want to see games located in neighborhood convenience stores. She rejected the idea of simply trying to control kids behavior and recommended that the ordinance place restriction on where machines can be located. Chairman Lucht expressed his agreement with e 1 -28 -82 -4- " Commissioner Malecki. Commissioner Ainas suggested that perhaps a minimum distance should be required from a public school. The Secretary stated that Farrell's and Brookdale are fairly close to Northport Elementary School, although separated by a major road. Commissioner Simmons suggested that perhaps the ordinance should list specific uses where games would be prohibited and other places where only a certain number of games can be allowed. Following further discussion of this idea, the Secretary suggested that the ordinance would, in effect, set up three categories: amusement centers, certain places where a few machines would be allowed, and other uses which would be excluded from having any machines, if not listed under the first two categories. Chairman Lucht stated that he considered the number of 15 machines as too high a limit before an establishment can be considered an amusement center. He suggested that the number be lowered to at least 10. The Commission briefly reviewed various aspects of the ordinance and suggested a few technical amendments. Commissioner Malecki asked if the term "public nuisance" should be defined as a certain number of police calls within a given period of time. The Secre- tary answered that Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances defines various types of nuisances. There was a brief discussion of the gambling provisions of the draft ordinance. Commissioner Hager asked re- garding fees. The Secretary stated that most license fees are listed in Section 23-010 of the City Ordinances. He stated that he did not know what the fee for an amusement device would be, that such a decision is ultimately up to the City Council. He suggested that the fees should cover the expense of processing the license and policing and controlling the use in question. The Secretary stated that the application for a license would be made to the City Manager or his designated representative, rather than to the Chief of Police as contained in the draft ordinance. He stated that this was a standard procedure in the Council /Manager form of government. Commissioner Ainas stated that the ordinance should prohibit kids under 16 years of age from attending game rooms during school hours. The Secretary answered that the ordi- 24 nance would require operators to enforce the City's. curfew ordinance* which covers that concern. Mr. Bud Sorenson of the City's Park and Recreation Commission asked the Commission some questions. He first asked what the Commission was trying to accomplish. The Chairman answered that the Commission wished to put the subject of games and game rooms under a license procedure which is more streamlined that the procedure for a zoning approval, which requires public hearings and a considerable amount of time. Mr. Sorenson asked what problems the Commission was trying to address. The Secretary answered that previous game rooms adjacent to residential property have involved drugs, vandalism, fencing of stolen goods and annoyance to surrounding businesses and residences. Mr. Sorenson stated that there were already ordinances dealing with drugs, vandalism, etc. He asked why more ordinances were needed to deal with problems that are already dealt with by other ordinances. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the Planning Commission en- forces and rules on the Zoning Ordinance which deals with the loca- tion of various uses on land within the City. He stated that the concern of the Commission at this meeting had been to try to define s 1 -28 -82 -5- amusement centers, which have created certain at certain locations; and the Commission soughtrtolregulatehtheast location of amusement centers to the benefit of the public as part of their function in regulating land uses in general. The Secretary pointed to the example of saunas and massage parlors, which are permitted in the C2 Zoning District, but only if the establishment does not abut any residential property. He stated that such uses in other cities have a track record that associates them with prostitution and that, while not all massage parlors are centers for prostitution, they are regulated strictly because of the bad experience in other locations. He stated that this was an extreme example, but that it showed the general idea of restricting the location of certain uses. Mr. Sorenson stated that he felt the issue was an enforcement problem and pointed to the example of the parking problem at the Twin Lake Beach. He stated that the City had preferred in that case not to try to enforce parking regulations, but rather to essentially elim- inate the possibility for problems by almost prohibiting parking at the beach altogether. He stated that he considered this a poor, approach. He also stated that in the case of games, the problem is the congregation of young kids, but that the solution would cer- tainly not be to do away with kids. Commissioner Simmons stated that the problem was not so much that kids congregate, but the activity that they engage in when they are at amusement centers. She stated that experience had informed the Planning Commission that problems will result at amusement centers if they are located in certain areas. The Secretary took note of certain arguments that had been made on behalf of businessmen to make money. He stated that"the ability to make a dollar is not the only criteria on which to regulate land uses. He stated that the City must con- sider what locations are acceptable for certain uses and which locations are unacceptable. He stated that he did not mean to knock convenience food stores per se, but pointed out that they are located in areas which can create problems for a residential neighborhood, if they have games available. Chairman Lucht com- mented that it was fine for a businessman to make a dollar, but not if it costs the City $5.00 in the process. Mr. Sorenson challenged the Commission to establish what the City's cost would be. Following further brief discussion of the draft ordinance, the Secre- tary stated that he would gather additional input from staff members and bring back a revised draft at the next Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT Moti3n.by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:53 p.m. C airman 1 -28 -82 -6- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of February, 1982 at 8 :00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Home Occupations. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 34 AND 35 REGARDING THE PROVISIONS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER - DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following provisions of Section 34 -110 and Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances are hereby repealed. Home Occupation - [Any gainful occupation or profession, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the,residential use of the premises, provided, such activity does not produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration Perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not involve the use of accessory structures; and further provided that said activity does not involve any of the following: repair, service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; over- the - counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises; or the employment of persons on the premises, other than those customarily residing on the premises. Examples include: dressmaking.: secretarial services; professional offices; answering service; individual music or art instruction; individual hobby craft; child day care (defined as the care of not more than five (5) nonresident children and provided the facility and operation are properly licensed by the County, and provided a record of said license is on file with the City); and the like.] Home Occupation, Special - [Any gainful occupation or profession, approved by special use permission, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling or involving not more than one accessory use permitted by Section -35 -310 or Section 35 -311, and which involves any of the following: stock -in -trade incidental to the performance of the service; repair, service, or manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home, the employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises; the teaching of more than one (1) but not more than four (4) nonresident students at l any given time; or the need for not more than two (2) parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the persons residing on the premises.; and provided the activity: is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, including the dwelling, and permitted accessory buildings or installations thereon; does not produce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not consist of over- the - counter sales of merchandise produced off the premises. Examples include: barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studio, group lessons, saw sharpening, motor- driven appliance and small engine repair, and the like.] y E f Section 2. Section 34 -110 and Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances are amended by the addition of the following: Home Occupation - Subject to the further limitations of Section 35 -405 of -the Zoning Ordinance, a Home Occupation is any gainful occupation or profession, carried on within a Dwelling Unit, by a family member residing within. a Dwelling " Unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit and the Lot upon which it is constructed, including, withou limitation, dressmaking, secretarial services, professional offices, answering services, individual music or art instruction, individual hobby crafts, and day care and similar activities. Horne Occupation, Special - Subject to the further limitations of Section 35 -406 hereof, and subject to approval by the City Council, a special home occupation is any gainful occupation or profession carried on within a Dwelling Unit or any permitted accessory buildings or installations on a Lot, by a family member residing within the Dwelling Unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit, the accessory structures, and the Lot upon which it is constructed, including, without limitation, barber and beauty.services, shoe repair, photography studios, group lessons, saw sharpening, "motor driven appliances and small engine repair, and similar activities. Section 3. Chapter 35 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance, is amended by.the addition of the following: Section 35 -405. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS: 1. No home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor i or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the Lot; 2. No home occupation shall involve the use of any accessory- structures or installations; 3. No home occupation shall involve the use of equipment other than that customarily found in a residential Dwelling Unit; 4. No home occupation shall involve the retail sale of merchandise produced off the Lot; 5. No home occupation shall involve the employment on the Lot of A persons who are not members of the family residing on the Lot; 6. No home occupation providing day care shall serve more than ten (10) children who are not members of the family occupying the Dwelling Unit; and such day care home occupation shall be licensed by Hennepin County and a copy of the said license shall be kept on file with the City Clerk; 7. No home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the Lot containing the home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto; r t k k B. No automobile parking related to the hom occupation shall be permitted on the street. Section 35 -406. ADDITONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS: ( 1. All special home occupations shall require approval of a special use permit'pursuant to Section 35 -220 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance; 2. No special home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation f must be a permitted use under Section 35 -310 and Sec 35 7 311 f of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 3. A special home occupation may use equipment not cus tomarily found in a residential Dwelling Unit; 4. No special home occupation shall employ, at any one time, more € than one person who is not a member of the family occupying the Dwelling Unit; g 5. No special home occupation may include the teaching of more than ten (10) students at one time who are not members of the family occupying the Dwelling Unit; 6. No special home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the E.�)ecial home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 7. No automobile parking related to the special home occupation shall be permitted, on the street provided, however, that upon a finding that the Special home occupation is not feasible without on street parking, the City Council may authorize parking on the street based upon a consideration of Section 35-220.2 and of the following: (a) The amount of the applicant's street frontage. (b) The rights of adjacent residents to park on the str eet. (c) Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. 8. No special home occupation shall produce light, glare, n oise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the Lot; 9. No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise produced off the Lot. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1982. - Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication. Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) i • i PLANNING COM IT The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 81034 submitted by LaVonne Malikowski for a home occupation special use permit to teach ceramic classes in the basement of the residence at 5509 Logan Avenue North. Iie added the Planning Ccmmission recommended approval of-Application No. 81034 -at f'a June 11' 1981 meeting. The' Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members pages 1 through 4 of the June 11, 1981 Planning Commission minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81034. He explained Mrs. Malikowski has been conducting her home occupation for a number of years, but it had not come to the attention of the City until the spring of 1981 due to complaints on parking in the area. He added that the home occupation has involved between 19 and 20 students. The Director of Planning & Inspection explained the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81034 with the condition that Mrs. Malikowski limit her students to 4 nonresident students.at one time. He reviewed for Council members the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission for Application No. 81034 Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 81034 and inquired if there was anyone present.who wished to speak either against or for the application. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mrs. Schrader, 5508 Logan Avenue North. Mrs. Schrader stated she lived across the street from the applicant's residence and was concerned that traffic accidents might occur because the cars in the double driveway of 5509 Logan Avenue North may block the view of cars driving on Logan and cause an accident when cars are backing out of the driveway onto Logan Avenue. She added that she is also concerned that products were being sold on the premises that are not made in conjunction with the ceramic classes. The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that under the City Ordinance persons are allowed to sell products made on the premises in their homes. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant LaVonne Malikowski who stated that'to her knowledge only 8 to 10 people over the years have brought pots to be fired . in her kiln that were not part of her classes. She stated that she would not want to limit her classes to only 4 students and would like to continue with between 7 to 10 students, since she does not like to get involved with day time classes. Councilmember Fignar inquired how Mrs. Malikowski'would plan to handle the parking for her students. Mrs. Malikowski explained her students would still park on her property but she would limit her students to her most con - sistent students. She added that the Council should not have any concerns that her home or neighborhood is being affected by the classes since she makes sure to clean up after her classes and even after her husband. Councilmember Kuefler inquired of the staff whether Mrs. Malikowski's request to increase the number of students from that which was recommended by the Planning Commission should be addressed by an ordinance change. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the key to home occupations is that the business is secondary to the residential nature of the property. He added 19 to 20 students would appear to be too large to qualify under this stipulation of the home occupation regulation. He stated this would be an appropriate item for the Planning Commission to consider. 6 -22 -81 -4- Councilmember Lhotka inquired of the applicant what the length of her classes were. Mrs. Malikowski replied that her heaviest: Period for classes lasts approximately 10 weeks out of the year cone;istinq of one class of students from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m, She added that she would not require the 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 P.M. hours as recommended by the Planning Commission but would only require the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for her classes. Councilmember Fignar stated he sees certain merit for shorter hours and more students for the classes. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would be interested.in learning what effect a large number of students would have on other home occupations in the City. Right now, he explained, he is comfortable with the 4 students as recommended by the Planning Commission. 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 Fignar to close the public hearing on Application No. 81034. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting of ng against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Application No. 81034. While the motion was on the floor, there was a discussion regarding the hours of operation with the applicant. Councilmember Lhotka amended his motion by revising the hours of operation to 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and Councilmember Kuefler as seconder to the motion accepted the amendment. Application No. 81034 was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. 'The permit is subject to all codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. No more than 4 students shall attend anyone class in accordance with Section 35 -900 of the zoning ordinance. 4. All parking will be off- street on space provided by the applicant to.the maximum extent feasible. T 5. The hours of operation shall.be 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 6. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Building Official prior to the issuance of the special use permit. Voting n favor: Mayor 9 y Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 81037 submitted by Duane W. Enninga for a variance from Section. 35 -530 to allow the construction of a new dwelling on a lot with an "alley s to i g y i use remaining on the rear of the - 6 lot during onstruction. The address ss is 5435 ers F.m on Avenue North. The City Manager stated the .Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81037 at its June 11, 1981 meeting. k 6 -22 -81 -5- CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROU �T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 1 i TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 561 -5720 ' TO: Property Owners abutting the alley between Dupont and Rnerson Avenues North between 54th and 55th Avenues North Dear Property Owner: Fhclosed herewith is a "Notice of Public Hearing" regarding the proposed vacation of the alley between Dupont and Bnerson Avenues North between 54th and 55th Avenues North. - ' The hearing, scheduled for 8:15 PM., February 8, 1982, provides you an opportunity to respond to the proposed ortinance as petitioned by twelve of the nineteen affected owners. If the ordinance is adopted, the land itself will revert to the property owners abutting the alley when the ordinance takes effect. It will be distributed equally,, in accordance with current property lines, such that each side of the alley will re- ceive one-half or seven feet of the fourteen foot alley right-of-way. At the time the property reverts to private ownership, it becomes the property owner's responsi- bility to maintain said land. Zhe proposed ordinance provides for retainage of a utility easement over the easterly half (seven feet) of the alley right -of --way. No structures may be constructed within the easement. Should you have any questions in regard to the proposed action, please feel free to contact me at 561 - 5440. Alternately, you may wish to address the City (buncil on the matter when it is taken up at the February 8 meeting. Yours very truly, SY APP Director of Public Rxks cb Dncl. "'Tfie V o te ery ,. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of February, 1982 at 8:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek* Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating An Alley Lying Between Dupont and Emerson Avenues Y North Between 54th and 55th.Avenues North. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALLEY LYING BETWEEN DUPONT AND EMERSON AVENUES NORTH BETWEEN 54TH AND 55TH AVENUES NORTH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The alley bounded by the north right of way line of 54th Avenue North; the south right of way line of 55th Avenue Nort and th west line of Lots 1 through 15 and the east line of Lots 16 through 30, Block 1, N & E Perkins addition, is hereby vacated as a public alley. Section 2: The City excepts from vacation of the aforementioned alley, and reserves to itself and its assigns, an easement for public utilities and drain- age purposes on, over, and under the easterly seven (7) feet of the above described Eroperty. Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective - after adoption and thirty . ,(30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of . 1982. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk r Published in the Official Newspaper Effective Date \\ Sheet_ 1 of j 2'sheets ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PETITION CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Date: September 11,1981 TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER We, the undersigned, owners of not less than in frontage of real property abutting on the following named alley, hereby petition Q1XXC� }I�:CmYrkly';lY'�(, <i ;i?ytd:�kfiXi tf�XMi{ttEcftiX(B that such alley be vacated and the property revert to abutting landowners. The estimated cost is believed to be within the following: Additional Estimated Assessment Range Right -of -way Estimated Assessment Range per Frbnt Foot Width . _ ___ per Assessable Foot of Driveway Width 14' DOES NOT APPLY DOES NOT APPLY VACATED The alley petitioned to be is: located within Block 1, N. 5 E. Perkins Addition, running from 54th Avenu N. to 55th Avenue N. and situated between Emerson Avenue. N. and Dupont Avenue N. NAME ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1. G 2. l 3. M� mw - 4. 5.���c,� - c�'.CJ_ j't �'�ot���✓�1.Z�ca�.ifyl 7. 8 . 10. fl 540 l Q 7�u ea , 12. Sy f,5 kn rnT N O 13. 14. `{ Z ' 15. 18. r yx - EIVED ..T ` i IvN �rlm67w �. ' Z itl AUUU� � IF 1 5SZ01 �a, � (2 8 4D) _ 4 (2 30) (� 940)� AA , ' . Dr '4 oi0) i (2925) *• x(5750) eJ,y7 rGt // T ,f / ._ 'Z ..irk l �7a�) n � S3) ? ..flrGC• 15 1n /4 ✓C7i'� `� � y 3700 6 "' S � (.34) 2 ��1,a� /pin {cGc!i ' ( 74 5) 56th AV E. N0. d Wz d 4 5200 (t7ta) (2740) a� 1555 s 7 - x. 55 (1750) _ IZ 5 z nssi 5557 w- z 1 (4ozG)a : (7070) 2 1 C � 4 / /�= /�d1 o6 , ;. .5 i Ito it 2 . - �q ?210 (3603 to 3 �� Taro r' o► dgC'r7 2305 ,/R _'ze � 9 �Jr�rJ (2700) j 1 y ^ 8 V 9 lio 4 i ° (2600) 1 3 �7 J Z3r$ 4» v i 4Li ° (3000) tv (2080) / r�/�/�"/y - 77 I 30� jr - 3t ' r; + (4 nl L , xSfP�C,- TF» 5 " ue W -1 v --T 5 oiw �B6j00) 3 3 & Q 4 29 ? 4 2 7 ' ` & - '' 522 B ti {8650 8550) (52 50) ° 3 LL- 301 3 a7 id 4 x BSGO) ( 5340) (S4 ) CO � KD7c? 2 ti a. :ta5 26 5 x , - J(851 (5360) 6 25 - 6 ei -za 24 8200) (93 50) ) (4 7 7 9GSi tlft - ASS) - ` 3�a' ( N i (5370) k3400 e } ' 4960) 1 ze 8 23 8 \ + q{� 4 { e 9 a 9 >{ 'G 22 - -- V (83oo) I C825o) (5380) oczc (— - 3 26 -_ to 21 to - -lo N\ �(ar2z) (3la0) (ssao> (ssso) (492a) 12 J9 � 12 � 19 _ .2 <� � 8 1z4) (5470 ) S 46o) 5. � - _ , 3 l z4 301.1 1 v, #._. ,13 t 13 '� `,G1800oJ (8050) (66/01 562 I ,) t� > ('48f5) u 14 - �Fra ) (' l-,e 16 3 3 � z l5 & _ (70601 810S62o) Q ` (48 AVE. NO• : ioo (4s'5) (56m i;5ac s. W •�z - t 3 o `l �,Crotol e 6 ti - Z (b l-+a) �' & 2 3 0 4 29 0 2 a (7025) ( or, z e - -- 2 � - �28 a 3 ( 55) (4770) tb e 7 W t 13 Z 27 ts� W -9 5 0) �) (S75o) 7s9aaJ (4720) r Q . 5 W 26 U) 6 -_ (6800) (685 I (6aoo) (596 0) (4660 5 <s ? _ e N w r {r�r ($ ( } 8 (670 0) r, i6 750) (6050) 5955) 30 6 - - -- 4 22 9 22 ` -9 x500) (6600) ti (6llO) (el7o) (4625) isva 2i 10 21 - - 10 . a (6!247 6157) a (46x5). 3 co Il � i 12 - -'" -- 4 2 -- -- IB (646 630 3 6250) c ��,. �g� (� 13 o �+ 1t F - 13 3Q3 w, i o (b ti 14 ISId 14 (6470 a.im 1 ,15 4 ;o ?. .16 B g, � 3,`3 �o Z li : L L �a � Atit� r :3, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of February, 1982 at 8:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Vacating'An Alley Lying Between Dupont and Emerson Avenues North Between 54th and 55th Avenues North. ORDINANCE N0. AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALLEY LYING BETWEEN DUPONT AND EMERSON AVENUES NORTH BETWEEN 54TH AND 55TH AVENUES NORTH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The alley bounded by north right of way line of 54th Avenue North; the south right of way line of 55th Avenue North; and the west line of Lots 1 through 15 and the east line of Lots 16 through 30, Block 1, N & E Perkins addition, is hereby vacated as a public alley. t Section 2: The City excepts from vacation of the aforementioned alley, and reserves to itself and its assigns, an easement for public utilities and drain- age purposes on, over, and under the easterly seven (7) feet of the above described property. Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1982. k t Mayor m s ATTEST: Clerk Published in the Official Newspaper ( Effective Date MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Donald Spehn, Investigator Brooklyn Center Police Department DATE: February 2, 1982 s SUBJECT: Liquor License Application of Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. Attached please find complete investigation reports concerning an on -sale intoxicating liquor license application for Lynbrook Bowl, Inc, This investigator could find nothing detrimental to the corporation or its officers, and therefore would recommend issuance of the license. This investigator has briefly interviewed Steven and Ronald Nelson; however before the license is formally issued, will again interview them and advise them of the state and local laws pertaining to liquor sales. - • - f Liquor License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated • Case #82 -00771 INDEX Section I CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND HISTORY Section II FINANCIAL BACKGROUND Section III INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUNDS OF OFFICERS AND CHARACTER REFERENCES Section IV SUMMARY 1 i { a { _ t d } Liquor License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 2 Section I CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND HISTORY Applicant: Lynbrook Bowl, Incorporated Lynbrook Bowl Inc. is a Minnesota corporation organized January 7, 1957. The business address is 6357 North Lilac Drive, Brooklyn Center, MN. The officers and shareholders are as follows: 1. Marvin Henry NELSON 104 Dorado Court Plant City, Florida 500 owner 2. Steven John NELSON 550 127th Lane Coon Rapids, Minnesota President /Secretary 50% owner 3. Ronald Paul NELSON 11950 Xeon Street Coon Rapids, Minnesota Vice- President No shares " 4. Betty Lee NELSON 104 Dorado Court Plant City, Florida Treasurer No shares The Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated was established as a corporation on January 7, 1957. The shareholders and officers of the corporation at that time were Marvin Henry NELSON, Alexander SOUTHERLAND, and Raymond BENSON. The corporation was established to operate a bowling alley at 6357 North Lilac Drive. The building was leased from Richard HIPP. Shortly after forming this corporation, Raymond BENSON resigned as a member and officer of the corporation but g P was retained as an attorney for the corporation. The corporation continued on with NELSON and SOUTHERLAND as officers of the corporation until 1962. In 1962 Marvin Henry NELSON bought out Alexander SOUTHERLAND and became sole owner of the Lynbrook Bowl Corporation. Mr. NELSON' continued to operate the bowling establishment; however did experience some financial difficulties during this time and in 1966, Mr. NELSON sought financial help from one Amos HEILECHER. Mr. HEILECHER was a local businessman. HEILECHER then bought the property from Mr. HIPP in 1967 and leased the same property to NELSON with an option to buy at a later date. Liquor License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 3 In 1970, Marvin NELSON took his son Steven NELSON into the employ of the establishment and Steven NELSON started work as a proprietor of the bowling establishment and general manager. In June 1972, Marvin NELSON purchased the property from HEILECHER and became sole owner of the business and the property. In 1973, Marvin NELSON invested $1,300.00 in personal funds, 250 shares of Bunker Hills Corporation, doing business as the Seasons Restaurant, and was elected Vice- President and General Manager of the Seasons Restaurant. In this capacity he managed the restaurant and lounge which was located at the Bunker Hills Country Club in Coon Rapids. Mr. Marvin NELSON held a liquor license.for that establishment in his name. He later sold his shares in this restaurant in 1978 for $75,000.00. He also resigned his position of General Manager at that time. In 1976, Marvin NELSON, Steven NELSON, James LOKEN and Rodger FINKE formed a corporation called Blainebrook, Incorporated and leased property consisting of a bowling alley, lounge and restaurant in Blaine, Minnesota from one Robert L. HALL of 1955 English Road in Maplewood. The corporation signed a 20 year lease agreement with option to buy between the sixth and seventh year of the agreement. Marvin NELSON and Steven NELSON each personally invested $35,000.00 in-this establishment and also borrowed $40,000.00 from the Shelard National Bank i Th s $ ' , OOO.00 has since been paid off. The NELSONS at the present time continue to operate the Blainebrook Bowl and a liquor license is held in the name of Steven NELSON. In June of 1978, Steven NELSON purchased 500 of Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated from his father Marvin NELSON and became operating manager of both the Lynbrook and Blainebrook establishments. At - o that time Mr. Marvin NELSON retained 500 ownership but retired from active participation in managing the establishments. Also at that time the NELSONS planned expansion of the Lynbrook facility to one of similar nature to the Blainebrook facility. They applied for a liquor license at that time based on these expansion plans. In November of 1978 Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated purchased land owned by A. J. SPANJERS located adjacent to the Lynbrook Bowl for $310,000.00. The purpose was to gain additional space for the planned expansion of the Lynbrook Bowl. On January 15, 1979, Marvin and Betty NELSON purchased approximately six acres of land surrounding the Lynbrook Bowl from the I -94 and 694 Investment Corporation f r is wa bought on a o 33 000.00. This s 0 $ contract for deed. The I -94 and 694 Investment Corporation was purchasing the land on a contract for deed from one Russell GILBERTSON. This land was also known as the Mendenhall Outlots. Liquor - License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 4 After applying for the liquor license and proceeding with the plans • for expansion of the Lynbrook Bowl facility, it was found that the construction costs for the planned expansion far exceeded the original estimates and the NELSONS found financing difficult to secure at that time. They then dropped the expansion plans and withdrew the liquor license application. In May of 1981 the Lynbrook Bowl Corporation sold the former A. J. SPANJERS property to one Deane SCHWALENBERG, an interior decorating firm, for $470,357.00.on a contract for deed. At this time, Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated is again proceeding with the expansion plans of the Lynbrook Bowl including the restaurant and lounge. The corporation has applied for an on -sale intoxicating liquor license. This restaurant and lounge is to seat a total of approximately 237 persons, of which 152 seats are in the restaurant area. The facility will employ approximately 90 persons, full_ and part -time. Also attached to this section are the corporate papers, etc. of the Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated. Liquor License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 5 Section II FINANCIAL BACKGROUND The financing for the expansion of the Lynbrook Bowl is as follows: The loan was secured from the 1st Bank of Northtown in the amount of $895,000.00. $295,000.00 of this loan was used to pay off the 1st Brookdale State Bank which held existing loans or mortgages on the Lynbrook Bowl property. The remaining $600,000.00 is to be -used for the construction and remodeling of the Lynbrook site. The loan from the 1st Bank of Northtown is amortized over a 20 year period with a 4 year balloon. It also has a floating interest rate with prime The information concerning this loan has been verified with the lst Northtown Bank, specifically one Jan HOFFER. It was ascertained that at the present time the loan is condered an interim construction loan, and that it will likely be extended in the near future until construc- tion is completed. It will then go to a term loan. Jan HOFFER indicated that the Lynbrook Bowl is currently paying interest only on the interim construction loan. When the loan becomes a term loan, the payments will be approximately $12,860.00 per month. The loan was secured by using the existing building, the land and the bowling equipment as well as personal guarantees from Marvin and Steven NELSON and Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated as collateral. The land used as collateral does not include the approximately six acres known as the Mendenhall Outlots, which were purchased in 1979 from I -94 and 694 Investment Corporation. In addition, Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated is intending on leasing the equipment for the restaurant and lounge from the IFG Leasing Corpor- ation for $154,000.00 which-is payable over a 5 year period. In addition, Lynbrook Bowl Incorporated borrowed $50,000.00 from the 1st Brookdale Bank in March of 1981 for remodeling of the bowling alley. This loan is paid in quarterly installments of $4,000.00 with • due date of 1984. Payments are up -to -date on this loan. This was • personal loan, guaranteed by Steve and Marvin NELSON. Also attached to this section are copies insurance information concerning the property, personal liability and liquor liability coverage. Liquor License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 6 Section III INDIVIDUAL BACKGROUNDS OF OFFICERS AND CHARACTER REFERENCES Background information: 1 Marvin Henry NELSON 104 Dorado Court Plant City, Florida D.O.B. 03 -17 -20 Mr. NELSON is a United States Citizen; he is married and his wife's ` name is Betty Lee NELSON of the same address. Mr. NELSON is a 50% owner of the Lynbrook Bowl Corporation. Mr. NELSON was one of the founders of the Lynbrook Bowl Corporation. He is a former resident of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota; where he resided at 1131 Brookdale Drive from 1959 through 1978. In-_1978 through he resided in Lake Ozark, Missouri and from 1980 to the present time in Plant City, Florida. Mr. NELSON's business experience over the past several years has been with the Lynbrook Bowl, the Blainebrook Bowl and the Seasons Restaurant. Mr. NELSON is a former Mayor of the City of Brooklyn Center and also a former member of the Board of Directors of the lst Brookdale State-Bank. Mr. NELSON has no criminal record with the State of Minnesota, NCIC or FBI. 2. Steven John NELSON 550 127th. Lane Coon Rapids, Minnesota U.O.B. 01 -01 -45 Mr. Steven NELSON is married and a United States Citizen. His wife's name is Suzanne Patricia NELSON. Her maiden name was McCAFFREY, and she was raised in the Brooklyn Center area. Mr. Steven NELSON is President and Secretary of the Lynbrook Bowl Corporation and a 50% owner. He is the son of Marvin Henry NELSON. Mr. Steven NELSON has lived at the Coon Rapids address since 1977 and previous to that lived at 6504 116 Avenue North in Champlin from 1971 through 1977. Mr. Steven NELSON has been involved in the operation of the Lynbrook Bowl and the Blainebrook bowl for a period of several years. Previous to that, Mr. Steven NELSON worked for Thunder- . bird Aviation as a flight instructor and previous to that for Sizer Airways of Rochester, Minnesota as a commercial pilot. Mr. Steven NELSON has no record with the STate of .Minnesota, NCIC or FBI. Liquor Investigation of-Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 7 3. Ronald Paul NELSON 11950 Xeon Street Coon Rapids, Minnesota D. -O.B. 04 -13 -60 Ronald NELSON is the Vice- President of the Lynbrook Bowl Corporation and he has no shares in the corporation." He is the son of Marvin Henry NELSON and brother of Steven John NELSON. Ronald NELSON will be the on -site manager of the Lynbrook Bowl. Mr. Ronald NELSON is a United - States citizen. He is single and has resided at the Xeon Street address since June of 1980.. Previous to that he lived at 401 106th Avenue N.W. in Coon Rapids-from 1978 through 1980. Previous to that he lived with his parents at 1131 Brookdale Drive North in Brooklyn Park. Mr. Ronald NELSON has been employed by his father and brother in the bowling establishments for approximately 6 years. The only - other previous employment was part -time as a security guard for Pinkerton's while he attended school. Mr'., Ronald NELSON had no record with the State of Minnesota, NCIC or the FBI. 4. Betty Lee NELSON 104 Dorado Court Plant City, FLorida D.O.B. 02 -15 -24 Mrs. NELSON is a United States citizen, she is married to Marvin Henry NELSON and is the mother of Steven John NELSON and Ronald Paul NELSON. She is the treasurer of the Lynbrook Bowl Corporation; however has no shares in the corporation. Mrs. NELSON's previous addresses are the same as those of Marvin Henry NELSON and her previous work experience for the Y ast several ears is also the P same; that being involved with the Lynbrook, Blainebrook and the Seasons n Restaurant. a t. Mrs. NELSON has no criminal record with the State of Minnesota, NCIC or the FBI. Character References The following character references were contacted: 1. Mr. Robert HALL 12066 Central Avenue N.E. Mr. HALL is the owner of the building in which the Blainebrook Bowl is located and also owner of the Maplewood Bowl. Mr. HALL { indicated that he is a good friend of Steven NELSON and has known Steven and his father, Marvin, for over-30 years. 0 R .Liquor Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 8 Mr. HALL indicates that the NELSONS run very good establishments a and know the liquor and food business. He states that he has never known of any problems with any of the NELSONS and indicated that he has all good things to say about them. He states they are very high quality caliber men and are very good businessmen. Mr. HALL indicates that the payments made to him from the NELSONS are always right on time and that they have never missed nor been behind on any of the payments. 2. Mr. Pete GILBERT 1202 Jackson Street Mr. GILBERT is a former Mayor and Councilman of Maplewood, Minnesota and the NELSONS are currently leasing the Blainebrook operation from him. Mr. GILBERT describes the NELSONS as very open, honest and aboveboard people. They are very reliable. They are always ahead of time on their payments to him. He indicates that the NELSONS run a very clean operation. In his opinion it's the best he's ever seen. He, too, indicated that the NELSONS know their way around the restaurant and liquor business and that he would be very surprised if there were any problems regarding the operation of these establishments. 3. Mr. Hank KETCHMARK lst.Brookdale State Bank Mr.'KETCHMARK indicates that he has known the NELSONS L NS for quite a few years and that Marvin NELSON was a member of the Board of Directors of the Brooklyn Center Bank until last year. Mr. KETCHMARK indicated that in his opinion, Marvin and Steven NELSON were very astute businessmen and that they have had several loans with the Brooklyn Center State Bank over a period of time and that the payments were always made on time. He indicated that Steven NELSON is a very sharp individual and very sharp with a pencil. Mr. KETCHMARK indicated the only outstanding loan at the time was a $50,000.00 Personal loan to Marvin and Steven NELSON which was made in March of "1981 and that is paid -up -to -date. f Mr. KETCHMARK further indicated that Mr. Marvin NELSON has a sizable personal account at the bank at this time. Mr. KETCHMARK went on to relate that he also is familiar with Ronald NELSON; however he stated that he did not known him as well as Ronald F is quite young. However, his impression was that Ron was not quite as sharp as Steve. He indicated further that his son went x to Bemiji State College for approximately a year at which time Ronald NELSON was also a student there and to his knowledge Ronald NELSON has never had any problems. He also indicated that he knew that Ronald had been working for his dad in the bowling establish- ment.since he has been old enough to work. Liquor License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82 -00771 Page 9 He further related that he knew that the Blainebrook was a going establishment and that he would consider that the Lynbrook would be no exception. This Investigator tried to contact neighbors of Steven NELSON, however was unsuccessful as none of the neighbors appeared to be home or would respond to the door. This Investigator did view reports of Investigator BELLM who had conducted the previous application for liquor license which was earlier withdrawn and ascertained from those reports that BELLM had conducted investigation by contacting neighbors, et cetera of the NELSONS when they lived in Brooklyn-Park at that time. Police reports indicated that the NELSONS at that time had been married since 1941 and have four children. BELI24 indicated that he had spoken to Reverend Wendell ANKENY, Pastor of the Riverview Methodist Church in Brooklyn Park; and who indicated that Marvin NELSON was a financial advisor for the church and was involved in the choir and numerous other church activities. Reverend ANKENY indicated that NELSON's character is beyond reproach and he knew of no problems involving the NELSONS. BELLM also spoke to Dallas LAWRENCE, retired Board Director of the Brooklyn Center State Bank, who also spoke highly of the NELSON family. He indicated that they had been friends for over 30 years. A William HORTON, a neighbor of the NELSONS at that time, stated that NELSON and his family had been great neighbors and had been very generous to both HORTON and his wife. He indicated that he had known the NELSONS for better than 20 years. Investigator BELLM also spoke with Chief HOGIE of the Blaine Police Department, who at that time indicated that they were extremely pleased with the operation of the Blainebrook Bowl. The Chief indicated that they had had no problems and no violations concerning the liquor laws of the state or the city. Also attached to this section are the criminal record checks and the personal information forms. Liquor License Investigation of Lynbrook Bowl Case #82- 00771 Page 10 Section IV SUMMARY The investigation has determined that the Lynbrook-Bowl Incorporated is a family run corporation and that all interests and management rights are retained by the family, specifically Marvin NELSON, Betty NELSON, Steven and Ronald NELSON. The establishment has applied for an on -sale liquor license and is in the process of expanding the existing building to include a restaurant and lounge. According to the corporation their intent is to cater to family entertainment by providing bowling, food and beverages. The corporation has been exceedingly cooperative with this investigator and has accepted suggestions concerning seating in the restaurant area, et cetera, and has also indicated that they feel they will have no problem over a s beverage maintaining SOo split in food versu a sales. g Mr. Steven NELSON submitted figures for a total food and liquor sales at the Blainebrook Bowl and indicates that although the City of Blaine has no such restrictions, the food is still running. over 50 %. He indicates further that at the Blainebrook, the establishment has a dance room which the Lynbrook will not have; but which at the Blaine- brook Bowl, no food is served, just liquor. This room seats 420 people. The dining room at Blainebrook seats 1 °60 people and serves both food and '.quor. They also have a parlor saloon in which basket food and liquor is served. The figures for the past two years indicate that the food sales have totaled 51 and 53 %. The investigation has also ascertained that none of the applicants have any criminal history and that all seem to be of high moral character and are well thought of by business associates. There might also be noted that the Lynbrook Bowl has held a nonintoxicating liquor license for a number of years. The investigation has revealed nothing detrimental to the corporation or the applicants and in fact, it would appear that they are highly regarded and that the businesses which they have been involved in are considered assets to their respective communities. The Investigator can find no reason why the Lynbrook Bowl should not be considered for an on -sale intoxicating liquor license. I 113 b MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM :, James Lindsay, Chief of Police). DATE: February 2, 1982 SUBJECT: Liquor License for Yen Ching Restaurant Attached please find a copy of the resume prepared by Investigator Donald Sollars regarding his liquor license investigation of the Yen Ching Restaurant. I have personally met with the owner and the manager of this establishment and informed them of all State and local laws and ordinances pertaining to establishments that sell liquor. Based on this information, I recommend that the liquor license for Yen Ching Restaurant be granted. MEMORANDUM TO:' Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: February 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Pending Industrial Revenue Bonds The City Council has requested an updating on all Industrial Revenue Bond application /projects still pending. At present there are four (4) projects in different stages of the application process. First, last year Byerly's sought approval of a $10,000,000 Industrial Revenue Bond project. On January of last year, the Council gave preliminary approval to that project. While our guidelines indicate that an applicant has a 12 month period to place the bonds following preliminary approval, it has been requested by the applicant that they �)e granted a time extension. It would be the staffs strong recommendation that such a request be granted. A formal request will be submitted to the Council at the February 22, 1982 Council meeting at which time this project will be discussed in greater detail. The second development is that of the Shingle Creek Development Company. On November 23, 1981, the Council gave preliminary approval to a $2,172,150 Industrial Revenue Bond application. The project contemplated the development of an office /warehouse in the industrial park area. This application should be back to the Council for final approval in the relatively near future. The third project is the second phase of Brookdale Office development which was given preliminary approval at the January 25, 1982 meeting in the amount of $8,970,000. It can be anticipated that they would be back for final approval within the next few months. It is also anticipated that they will seek one (1) additional Industrial Revenue Bond for the third and final phase of that office complex project. I would anticipate that the request for the third phase of this development would be in the amount of about $10,000,000. I would also anticipate that they would be requesting a public offering of these bonds as they have with the first phase. It should be noted that the bond offering does f meet the criteria established by the Council for public offerings. It is the staff recommendation that these projects be grandfathered under the current Industrial Revenue Bond guidelines. Any Industrial Revenue Bond applicaions apart from those listed in this memorandum should be considered under any new guidelines should the Council elect to change them. To the extent that the current guidelines give the Council a great deal of latitude in the selection and approval of projects, they have served well. However, it is the staff recommendation that the guidelines be amended to eliminate commercial retail projects except in designated redevelopment areas • and then only as the applicant's project is consistent with the City's Compre- hensive Plan. From a staff perspective, redevelopment areas would include the entire length of Brooklyn Boulevard, the area of France and Highway 100, and the Earle Brown Farm (area designated for historical preservation). We would recommend that Industrial Revenue Bonds be used as a development tool on the part of the City to meet the goals and objectives as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In essence, we are recommending that the future use of Industrial Revenue Bonds be limited to industrial /office development projects only. Any exceptions to that policy would have to be in a designated redevelop- ment area. We will be prepared to discuss these recommendations in greater detail Monday evening. "i 'r a , f k I s « M & C No. 82 -3 February 5, 1982 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject Proposed 1982`BUDGET Revisions To "the Honorable Mayor and City Council: The State of Minnesota has informed us that certain revenues, which were committed -to the City of Brooklyn,Genter at the time of `the preparation of our 1982 Budget, will be reduced. These State Aid reductions are as follows: Local Government Aids $179,467 Homestead Credits 15,892 Shade Tree Grant 25,000 $220,359 The three aid categories above are the major aid reductions. There will probably be other aids affected, but their total impact on the Budget should not be too significant. we should also be aware that further cutting may well be necessary if State revenue projections fall short of current estimates. The $220,359 short- fall in State monies to Brooklyn Centet represents a 3.90% reduction in revenue to finance the operating portion of our 1982 Budget. You should also understand we are into our second month of the 1982 Budget and most proposed cuts will not take effect until March 1, 1982 unless otherwise indicated. The,City staff has reviewed each operating budget very carefully -over the last month 'or so. After reviewing the department recommendations I recommend the follow- ing adjustments to the Adopted 1982 Budget for - Brooklyn Center, which will balance the 1982 Budget in light of the loss of an estimated $220,359 in State 'Aids. Attached is a table indicating the Proposed 1982 Budget adjustments. The following is a brief description department by department of budget adjustments. City Manager's Office ($7,386) The 1982 appropriation is reduced by $7,386 by cutting the administrative intern position $5,386 and temporary salaries by $2,000. Revenue to the General Fund is increased by $9,109 to 'account for staff time expended on the Community Develop- ment Fund programs. Finance Department ($7,543) Revenue to the General Fund is increased by $7,543 to recognize additional staff, hours spent on the Liquor Store accounting and Community Development Fund programs. Independent Audit ($1,000) " By using "in- house" staff to prepare initial work papers we believe we can reduce audit costs by $1,000. Legal Counsel ($3,000) By 'carefully controlling staff use of the City Attorney's time we believe "we can reduce our costs. in this area by $3,000. M 4 c No. 82 -3 -2- February 5, 1982 love- rnment Buildings ($11,000) We propose to. replace a full -time custodian with a part- time - custodian with a net savings of $11,000. Detached Worker ($12,833 ) ' We propose to drop this program as of February, 1, 1982 "`resulting in a savings of $12,833. w.. Police Department ($43,065) We propose not to fill two vacant positions in the .police department, one code enforcement officer and one police officer amounting to a: reduction in appropria- tions of $43,065. The police officer position has been vacant since early East fall and the code enforcement officer position has been vacant since the spring` of 1981. Various methods of cutting costs in this department, whose budget is approximately 90% plus personnel costs, have been proposed and reviewed by my office. One alternative-included a substantial overhaul of the administrative- supervisory structure of the department. This alternative will be considered further if revenue shortfalls become -more severe or if the loss of -these -two positions substantially affect the department's ability to deliver services. Our current experience indicates the loss of these positions will'not degrade the department's priority service'levels spbstantially. Fire Department ($3,920) In this department fire prevention materials were reduced, ($2,420) and the instructor fees for CPR classes were eliminated ($1,500) for a total reduction of $3.920. Planning and Inspections ($2,000) The printing costs for the final addition of the Comprehensive Plan were eliminated ($2, 000) We may be able to finance this printing on a reduced basis from the printing'account in the Unallocated Expense budget by cutting back other printing costs. Animal Control ($500) There will be a_ reduction in patrol hours saving us $500 in 1982. Engineering Department ($10,700) Here we propose a reduction in overtime hours ($2, 000), in temporary summer labor ($6,000), professional services ($2,000) and in operating supplies and books and pamphlets ($700). Street Maintenance ($24,200) A reduction in our seal coating program from seal coating residential streets every eight years rather than every seven years will save us in temporary salaries ($3,200) and materials ($16,000). In addition, we have cut back equipment rental by $5,000. M & C -No. 82-3 -3- February 5, 1982 Vehicle Maintenance ($10,000)` It appears we can cut $10,000 in motor vehicle fuel costs as•appears that the price of gas will be suable through 1982. Street Lighting ($750) We propose to freeze the installation of new streetlights in 1982, thus saving $750. Park and Recreation ($48,885) .we propose the phasing out of support of the City Band and the Harmonettes in September of 1982 ($1,635) Reduction of part -time salaries in the adult program ($500); Elimination of the youth activity centers ($500). In the children's prog -ram area we propose the elimination of the City's support of the 'Children's Chorus ($1,400); substantial reduction of the'summer playground and puppet program ($11,650). This leaves the department $3,000 to develop a summer program which would have to be self- sustaining on a fee basis. The department proposes to cut seven (7) skating rinks operated on weekends starting in the fall of 1982. The Community Center will be reducing part -time personnel hours saving$3,550. In the park maintenance area we propose to cut weed spraying and fertilizing $11,200; Athletic supplies $3,000; Utilities $3,950; and an $8,000 cut-in overtime. This would mean no weekend' maintenance in the parks for skating rinks, etc. We are leaving $1,500 in this account for emergency situations which may, occur after hours. We propose to eliminate the shade tree reforestation program ($10,000). However, we propose to continue the removal program. Unallocated General Expense ($14,468) lh,this Budget I am recommending a $1,000 reduction in the travel and schools account along with other reductions totalling $14,468. The proposed adjustment indicated above is dictated by the loss of State Aid and will, without question, reduce service from levels currently provided by Brooklyn Center. Looking across all the services and programs operated by the City the effect of the service and program reductions is not severe. However, certain ;., programs in the Recreation area and the Detached - `Worker have been either severely reduced or eliminated_ Further cuts, adjustments and reorganization may well be required as federal, state and local sources of revenue constrict, All local units of government, municipal, county and schools, are being affected forcing ,their elected decision makers to reduce the level and scope of the services they 'provide. It will require choosing not between "worthy" and " unworthy" programs, but between at times equally "worthy and effective programs. A ubmitted, nter 0 ager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED 1982.BUJRggT ADJUSTMENTS State. Aid. 'Reductions Local. Government Aids $179,46;7 Homestead Credit 15,892 Shade Tree Grant 25,000 $220,359* *This' - figure is 3.90 %i of o ur 1982 operating budget. Budget Reductions or Increase Revenue Expenditure Cut 1982 3.90% of or Operating Appropriation Operating Budget Revenue Increase City Council $46,160 $1,'824 $ -0- Charter Commission 1,500 59 -0- City Manager's Office 211,282 8,240 1 Elections 19,335 754 -0- Assessing 132,165 5,155 -0= Finance Department 133,394 5,204 7,543 Independent Audit 19,000 741 1,000 Legal Counsel 66,265 2,584 3,000 Government Buildings 264,231 10,305 11,000 Detached Worker 15,400 60.1 12,,833 Police 1,407,664 54,899, 43,065 Fire Department 98,828 3,854 3,920 Planning and Inspection 163,921 6,393 2,000 Emergency Preparedness 22,329 871 -0- Animal Control 12,000 468 5,00 Engineering 297,280 11,594 10,700 Street Maintenance 546,044 21,296 24,200 Vehicle Maintenance - 336,677 13,130 10,000 Traffic Signals 34,500 1,346 -0- Street Lighting 110,080 4,293 750 Wedd Control 1,500 59 -0- Health_ Regulation 25,000 975 -0- Park & Recreation Adm. 183,202 7,145 -0- Adult 'Recreation 101;525 3,959 2,135 Teen Recreation 6,360 248 500 Children Recreation 48,660 1,898 13,050 General Recreation 60,255 2,350 3,500 Commun Center 301 -130 1 1,744 3,550 Park Maintenance 438,506 17,102 36,150 Unallocated Expense 398,399 15,538 14,468 Reimbursed Costs: -not reduceable Finance Salaries paid by Utility and Liquor 53,214 2,075 -�0- Fire Pension cost reim- bursed by State 79,188 3,088 -0 Emergency Preparedness Matching Funds 14,530 567 $5,650,124 $220,359 $220,,359 Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 8,'1982 BULK VENDING MACHINE LICENSE K -Mart Corporation 3600 63rd Ave. N. Theisen Vending 3804.Nicollet Ave. Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian F 1V CIGARETTE LICENSE ABI Vending 1250 Angelo Dr. Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle Betty Varcoe 974 Rice St. Holiday Inn. Gift Shop 1501 Freeway Blvd.. City Clerk FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Blvd. Baskin Robbins - 31 Flavors Brookdale Ctr. Berean Evangelical Free Church 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. Bridgeman Creameries Brookdale Ctr. Bridgeman Creameries 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. . Brook Park Baptist 4801 63rd Ave N. Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd. B.C. Babe Ruth (Evergreen Park) 7112 Bryant Ave. N.. B.C.- Babe Ruth (Grandview Park) 1600 59th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Baptist - Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Qountry Boy 4401 69th Ave. N. Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Evangical Free Church 6830 Quail Ave. N. Brooklyn Center National Little League 2006 Brookview Drive Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. Community Emergency Assistance Program 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. Cross of Glory Church 5940 Ewing Ave. N. Dayton's Brookdale Ctr. Donaldson's Brookdale Ctr. Duke's Properties 6501 Humboldt Ave. N. Duoos Brothers American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Fanny Farmer Candy Shop Brookdale Ctr. .Fisher Food Products 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Garden City School - 3501 65th Ave. N. Green Mill 5540 Brooklyn Blvd. Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Rd. 10 Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. N. Hickory Farms Brookdale Ctr. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Jerry's Brookdale Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Maid of Scandinavia Co. Westbrook Mall Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave. N. • µ FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSES Cont. Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. Num -Num Foods, Inc. 3517 Hennepin Ave Brookdale Snack Bar Brookdale Ctr. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. J.C. Penney, Co. Inc. Brookdale Ctr. Perkins Cake & Steak 5915 John Martin Dr. Peking Place 5704 Morgan Ave. N. Plitt Brookdale Theater 2501 County Rd. 10 Pontillo's Pizza 5937 Summit Ave. N. St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. 7- Eleven 1500 .69th Ave. N. SuperAmerica Service Stations 6545 W. River Rd. ` SuperAmerica Service Stations 1901 57th Ave. N. United Artist Movies 5810 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. F. W. Woolworth, Inc. Brookdale Ctr. Sanitarian ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE n Community Emergency Assistance Program 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. Sanitarian MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Green Mechanical, Inc. 8811 E. Research Ctr. Buildi g Official P NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE A & J Enterprises 2367 University Ave Bob Ryan Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. 's Howard Baurmeister 5809 Boon Ave. N. r Pizza Feat 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. Bill's Vending Service 7317 W. Broadway- Brooklyn Center Skelly 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Cepter-Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. N. Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. N. Hennepin County Library 6125 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. MTC 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. N.W. Bell 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Gass Screw Company 4748 France Ave. N. Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N. D. L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N. Lowell's Auto 6211 Brooklyn Blvd. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle First Brookdale Bank 5620 Brooklyn Blvd. K -Mart Corporation 3600 63rd Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Malmborg's Inc. 5120 N. Lilac Dr. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. . N.S.P. 4501 68th ,Ave. N. NSI /Griswold Co. 8300 19th Ave. N. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Morgan Ave. N. Plitt Brookdale Theater 2501 County Rd. 10 NONPERI s , E, LICENSE cont. Precis,. 3415 48th Ave N. Ralph's Sgiftir 6601 Lyndale Ave. N. Super 6545 W. River Rd. Theisen. 3804 Nicollet Ave. Thrift- 6445 James Circle Bill W 2000 57th Ave. N. Viking T 5200 W. 74th St. LaBel.le-1k 5925 Earle Brown Dr. Woods i&-. _,. 2500 Nathan Lane BrooklywINMy M&M 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. _ A — Sanitarian ON- SALT: M UL Z:CBNSE Lynbro rc< 6357 N. Lilac Dr. ` Yen CW ". 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. _ City Clerkp I� ON-SATZ SMEMECATMWG, R LICENSE Lynbrook W 6357 N. Lilac Dr. Yen Chi 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy• City Clerk PERIS _ "„. SE A & J 2367 University Ave. N. Bob - 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. Ault ' 1600 H. Freeway Blvd. Canteen 6300 Penn Ave. S. He " 6125 ° Shingle Creek Pkwy. Item 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.+,t.. 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy. N.W. BOX 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Earle 6440 James Circle Maranat c,, Ekp . .Wme 5401 69th Ave. N. NSI /Gr" 8300 10th Ave. N. . Broo 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. ' Northwest 1600 67th Ave. N. Plitt Bradimmar 2501 County Rd. 10 Viking y z*._._img :., 5200 W. 74th St. LaBelles 5925 Earle Brown Dr. \ Q ;1j�L1. Sanitarian READILY PqSNMNM VEBOMM. LICENSE Ted Bur " p. 5919 June Ave. N. Fisher P 106 6th Ave. N. , tixi[t Sanitarian SIGN HANCMMI Creative :' 7027 Newton Ave. S. Buildi Official SPECK EM LICENSE Brookl]?m Sdft4or S 1 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooki3w,- ` Stamm-AZ 6250 Brooklyn Blvd. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE cont. Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #3 Northbrook Shopping Ctr. Fun Services, Inc. 3701 50th Ave. N. Ideal Drug Store 6900 Humboldt Ave. N. Sanitarian Pf . mom r 6 GENERAL APPROVAL: erald G p inter NO J MEMORANDUM TO:' Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: February 5, 1982 SUBJECT: Pending Industrial Revenue Bonds The City Council has requested an updating on all Industrial Revenue Bond application /projects still pending. At present there are four (4) projects in different stages of the application process. First, last year Byerly's sought approval of a $10,000,000 Industrial Revenue Bond project. On January of last year, the Council gave preliminary approval to that project. While our guidelines indicate that an applicant has a 12 month period to place the bonds following preliminary approval, it has been requested by the applicant that they 79e granted a time extension. It would be the staffs strong recommendation that such a request be granted. A formal request will be submitted to the Council at the February 22, 1982 Council meeting at which time this project will be discussed in greater detail. The second development is that of the Shingle Creek Development Company. On November 23, 1981, the Council gave preliminary approval to a $2,172,150 . Industrial Revenue Bond application. The project contemplated the development of an office /warehouse in the industrial park area. This application should be back to the Council for final approval in the relatively near future. The third project is the second phase of Brookdale Office development which was given preliminary approval at the January 25, 1982 meeting in the amount of $8,970,000. It can be anticipated that they would be back for final approval within the next few months. It is also anticipated that they will seek one (1) additional Industrial Revenue Bond for the third and final phase of that office complex project. I would anticipate that the request for the third phase of this development would be in the amount of about $10,000,000. I would also anticipate that they would be requesting a public offering of these bonds as they have with the first phase. It should be noted that the bond offering does meet the criteria established by the Council for public offerings. It is the staff recommendation that these projects be grandfathered under the current Industrial Revenue Bond guidelines. Any Industrial Revenue Bond applicaions apart from those listed in this memorandum should be considered under any new guidelines should the Council elect to change them. To the extent that the current guidelines give the Council a great deal of latitude in the selection and approval of projects, they have served well. However, it is the staff recommendation that the guidelines be amended to 1 eliminate commercial retail projects except in designated redevelopment areas and then only as the applicant's project is consistent with the City's Compre- hensive Plan. From a staff perspective, redevelopment areas would include the entire length of Brooklyn Boulevard, the area of France and Highway 100, and a the Earle Brown Farm (area designated for historical preservation). We would recommend that Industrial Revenue Bonds be used as a development tool on the part of the City to meet the goals and objectives as forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In essence, we are recommending that the future use of Industrial Revenue Bonds be limited to industrial /office development projects only. Any exceptions to that policy would have to be in a designated redevelop- ment ,area. We will be prepared to discuss these recommendations in greater detail Monday evening. a