Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 02-23 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNC:II, AGENDA CITY OF' BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 23, 1981 . 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Approval of Minutes - February 9, 1981 5. Open Forum _ 6. Appointments to Conservation Commission a. Fred Albright, Chairman b. Jay Jacobson, Commissioner 7. Appointment to Planning Commission -It is recommended the appointment of Lowell Ainas to the Planning Commission, be confirmed by the City Council. Mr. Ainas is replacing Dan Erickson who resigned from the Commission. 8. Performance Bond Release: a. The Ponds, Plat 6 • 9. Resolutions: a. Calling for a Public Hearing on a Request for an Industrial Development Revenue Bond for M & M Construction b. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract Form for Contract 1981 -A (Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project 1981 -01) C. Establishing Freeway Boulevard Street Improvement Project 1981 -04, Accepting City Engineer's Report, and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications -This item comprehends the right turn lane near the Holiday inn from east on Freeway Boulevard to south 100. d. Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Services With Brauer & Associates, Inc. for Design of Palmer Lake Park Improvements -This resolution comprehends the development of a master plan for park facilities within the southern portion of Palmer Lake Park. e. Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Services With Brauer & Associates, Inc. for Design of Central Park Improvements - -This resolution comprehends the Plaza Area of Central Park. f.. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Mr. Henry Dorf.f CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 23, 1981 g. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Ms. Mary Ellen Vetter 10. Public Hearings on Industrial Development Revenue Bond Proposals (8:00 p.m.): a. Federal Lumber b. Brookdale Corporate Center /Ryan Construction 11. Planning Commission Items (8:15 p.m.): a. Application No. 81012 submitted by Ryan Construction Company for site and building plan approval to construct two 116,640 square foot apart- ment buildings on the property at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81012 at its February 12, 1981 meeting. b. Application No. 81013 submitted by Ryan Construction Company for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the land between Shingle Creek Parkway and Earle Brown Drive, north of Summit Drive and south of I -94. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81013 at its February 12, 1981 meeting. c. Application No. 81014 submitted by Glover and Associates for approval of an amended site and building plan for the property at 4315 70th Avenue North for occupancy by Sun Maintenance Company. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81014 at its February 12, 1981 meeting. d. Application No. 81015 submitted by Brookdale Pontiac for site and building plan and special use permit approval to replace existing used car sales office with a 3,100 square foot Honda car sales office at 6801 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81015 at its February 12, 1981 meeting. 12. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Revising the Description of Property Within the R -3, C -1, and C -2 Zoning Districts -This ordinance is recommended for a first reading. b. An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of North Lilac Drive -This ordinance was first read on January 26, 1981 and was published on February 5, 1981. Because Federal Lumber has not yet submitted their final plat, it is recommended that the Council continue the second reading of this ordinance to the next meeting at which time the final plat should be submitted. 13. Discussion Items: a. Request by Creek Villas Association for sealcoating the streets in the Creek Villas development. The staff will be prepared to discuss this request at the meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- February 23, 1981 b. Westbrook Mall area merchants request for City participation in access improvement study. C. Review of City's pay plan. -The staff has been meeting with various consultants regarding an analysis and audit of the City's pay plan. The staff will be prepared to report on this item at the meeting. d. Outlook for State Aid to Municipalities over the next two years. e. Industrial Development Revenue Bond Policy discussion. -This item is included as a continuation of the IDR bond discussion held at the last meeting. f. Update on review of dispatching services. 14. Licenses 15. Adjournment • 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 26, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspections Ron warren, Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Tom Bublitz. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Pastor Ringhiser of the Brooklyn Center Church of the Nazarene. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 12, 1981 There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 12, 1981 as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session at this evening's meeting. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who wished to use the Open Forum session, there being none, he proceeded with the regular agenda items. APPOINTMENT OF CONSERVATION COMMISSION CHAIRMAN Councilmember Scott reported that she had no recommendations regarding the Chair of the Conservation Commission noting that she had been in discussion with Commissioner Jensen and Commissioner Albright regarding the Chair of the Commission. She added, there are two openings on the Conservation Commission and that she presently has no applications but that if anyone is interested, they should direct their inquiries to either herself or Brad Hoffman. Mayor Nyquist reported that at 2:00 p.m. on January 27, the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce will be holding a conference concerning metropolitan transit and that any interested Council members can attend this meeting. He also noted that he had received a copy of an ordinance recently prepared by the City of Minneapolis regarding gold and silver buyers and was presenting it to the Council for their information. The City Manager explained, the Police Department staff is currently examining alternatives regarding the regulation of gold and silver buyers in the area. He noted, the state legislature may be addressing the problem this session which would provide regulation on a state wide basis. 1 -26 -81 -1- RESOLUTIONS Councilmember Kuefler noted the presence of Madeleine Roche at this evening's meeting and requested that the resolution recognizing her public service be moved up on the agenda. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -21 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MADELEINE ROCHE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilmember Kuefler stated that he believed CEAP would not have prospered as much without the leadership of Madeleine Roche and that over the years CEAP and Madeleine have brought a great benefit to the City and its residents. Mayor Nyquist stated he would like to add the Council's personal thanks to Madeleine Roche for her leadership in the LEAP organization. The City Manager introduced the first two resolutions on the agenda, one calling for a public hearing on an industrial development revenue bond proposal from Federal Lumber and the other calling for a public hearing on an industrial development revenue bond proposal from Ryan Construction. He pointed out, the proposal from Ryan Construction comprehends an office complex along Shingle Creek Parkway directly across from the Civic Center and that the Federal Lumber proposal involves the redevelopment of the Federal Lumber and President Homes site. He added, the Federal Lumber proposal is accompanied by a site and building plan which will be discussed later in the evening as a Planning Commission item. He pointed out, Ryan Construction will have the site and building plans prepared at the time of their public hearing. Administrative, Assistant Hoffman noted the public hearings would be set at the February 23, 1981 City Council meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -22 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 474.01, SUBDIVISION 7b 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RE NO. 81 -23 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 1 -26 -81 -2- RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF SAID HEARING 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; 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. 1981 -01, approving specifications for Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. 1981 -01, and directing advertisement for bids for Contract No. 1981 -A. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -24 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -01, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -01 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1981 -A) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution accepting change order no. 1 to Contract 1980 -F (traffic signal installation at Humboldt Avenue North and Freeway Boulevard). He explained, this change order will accommodate a future right turn lane for eastbound Freeway Boulevard traffic onto southbound Highway 100. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -25 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO CONTRACT 1980 -F (TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH AND FREEWAY BOULEVARD) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution approving supplemental agreements nos. 3 and 5 to Contract 1980 -G (Shingle Creek Parkway and Humboldt Avenue improvements). Councilmember Scott inquired why the changes were necessary in the project. The Director of Public Works noted, in agreement no. 3, changes in the paving on Humboldt Avenue and 65th are covered so that proper drainage can be achieved. He explained, after the work in the field was 1 -26 -81 -3- started, it was discovered that the drainage as stated in the plans would not be workable and would have to be changed. He explained, in agreement no. 5, due to inadequate information from old plans, the necessary changes were made in the field. Councilmember Lhotka inquired where the costs would be charged. The Director of Public Works explained that the costs were City costs and that they were chargeable to state aid. Councilmember Fignar inquired how the grade changes came to be required. The Director of Public Works explained the plans were not properly drawn and that this became apparent in the field. He added, the cost increase because of the errors in the plans were only 1/3 of the added costs, the remainder being due to inadequate information on drainage in the area. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -26 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS NOS. 3 AND 5 TO CONTRACT 1980 -G (SHINGLE CRREK PARKWAY AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution approving contract for professional services for orthophoto mapping and stated it is recommended the City complete this second step of the aerial mapping program. He explained, this step produces pictures on an accurate 1" equals 100' scale with a quality which can be used to show existing conditions on many engineering plans. He noted, these pictures also provide valuable information for use by the City Planning Department and by the City Assessor. The Director of Public Works explained, the horizontal distances on these pictures can be measured accurately and they are very useful for engineering and planning purposes. Councilmember Lhotka inquired what the cost was for mapping last year. The Director of Public Works stated the entire City was flown last year, plus the City had contour maps done for the northeast quadrant of the City. He explained, no additional photos will be taken this year and that the pictures taken .last year will be enlarged to an accurate scale, noting the cost for the mapping last year, including the flying, was $10,000. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -27 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ORTHOPHOTO MAPPING The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, 'whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 -26 -81 -4- The City Manager introduced a resolution approving subdivision agreements with Dominion Development Corporation regarding replat of Tract B of RLS 1405. He referred Council members to division 5 of the subdivision agreement on pages 4 and 5 and pointed out this section was proposed by the developer. He pointed out, division 5 provides that if 50% or more of the interest in a tract of land is sold to persons other than the original owners or partners, then advance payment of all special assessments on the tract shall be made upon the sale. The Council discussed the general provisions of division 5 of the subdivision agreement. The City Attorney explained that in the past, the City did not require that special assessments be paid at the time of a land sale. He noted, a few months ago the Council approved a policy requiring assessments to be paid when the property is sold. He explained, this sub- division agreement before the Council tonight proposes that advance payment of assessments be made only if 50% of the ownership goes from the original owners. The City Manager explained, this policy is a tool or choice to be made by the City Council and it is a question of whether the City wants to finance future owners of property in Brooklyn Center. If not, he pointed out, then the City would require the assessments be paid at the first sale of the property. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -28 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS WITH DOMINION DEVELOPMENT CORPOR- ATION REGARDING REPLAT OF TRACT B OF RLS 1405 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DISCUSSION ITEMS REVISION OF FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION BYLAWS The City Manager noted that the discussion item regarding the Fire Relief Association bylaws was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. and that representatives from the Fire Relief Association, Jim McClure and Jay Hruska, were present at this evening's meeting. The City Manager explained that he and the Director of Finance had been meeting with the Fire Relief Association for the past six months regarding the changes in the Fire Relief Association bylaws. He referred Council members to the memorandum from the Director of Finance regarding the amendments to the Fire Relief Association bylaws. The Director of Finance proceeded to review the recommended changes in the Fire Relief Association bylaws for Council members and pointed out that, in 1967, a special bill was passed for the Fire Relief Association in Brooklyn Center to run the pension through the City. He explained the legislature requires the Council to approve the bylaw changes when they include changes in pension benefits. He added, in 1979, the state no longer set the maximum limit on pension benefits for retired firefighters. The Director of Finance • reviewed the recommended amendments, including an increase in the basic monthly service pension at age 50 after 20 years service from $150 to $250 for firefighters active after December 31, 1980 and an increase in the basic monthly service pension at age 50 after 20 years service by 33 -1/3% from $150 to $200 for firefighters inactive prior to January 1, 1981. 1 -26 -81 -5- Councilmember Lhotka inquired when the last increase for pension benefits was granted. The Director of Finance explained the last increase in the base pension benefit was made in 1978 and increased the benefit from $125 to $150. The Director of Finance also reviewed other minor changes in the bylaws • unrelated to pension benefits. He noted, the state law requires the Mayor to be the ex- officio member of the Fire Relief Association along with the City Clerk, pointing out that this is a change in the law from when the Director of Finance was eligible to be an ex- officio member. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -29 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Jim McClure representing the Fire,Relief Association thanked the Council for their consideration of these amendments to the bylaws and also thanked the Director of Finance and the City Manager for their assistance over the past several months in preparing the amendments. RESOLUTIONS (CONTINUED): The City Manager introduced a resolution awarding insurance contracts and pointed out that as late as four years ago the insurance market began to experience a lack of competition. He added, in 1977, the League of Minnesota Cities, at the urging of local government, created the League of :Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The LMCIT, he noted, is a joint powers organization governed by a board of city officials representing participating cities. He explained, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust provided competition in the insurance market and the staff believes this led to the lowering of the City's insurance premiums. He explained, the LMCIT seemed to have an effect on the insurance market but it does need support and the staff is recommending the City award the insurance contract to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust in order to maintain the needed competition and to provide the best coverage for the least amount of dollars. Councilmember Lhotka stated, the Council has shown an interest in this concept in the past and that he agrees with the Director of Finance and the City Manager in their recommendations and would like to see the Council participate in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. In the long run, he pointed out, it will hopefully save money for Brooklyn Center residents. The Director of Finance pointed out that Councilmember Lhotka worked with our state representatives to assure that the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust had a chance to start. He also noted, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust does not have liquor liability coverage and that the City will have to seek this coverage with the Home Insurance Company through the Fred James Agency. • 1 -26 -81 -6- RESOLUTION NO. 81 -30 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING INSURANCE CONTRACTS 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The Director of Finance stated he would also request the Council to authorize him to add an endorsement onto the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust proposal for public officials liability. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to authorize the Director of Finance to add an endorsement on the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust proposal for P ublic officials liability. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. 14 PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED RE- ASSESSMENT OF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1978 -17 (WATER - MAIN - BROOKDALE ESTATES) The City Manger explained, the public hearing on the proposed re- assessment constitutes the final action required to approve the negotiated settlement with the owners of the Brookdale Towers Apartments and a resolution granting formal Council approval for this re-assessment is provided for consideration by the Council. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing on the re- assessment - proposed of Im Improvement Project 1978 17 and inquired if there P J q was n a yone present in the audience who wished to speak at the public hearing either for or against the proposed re- assessment. The City Attorney discussed and reviewed the history of the project with Council members and noted he had talked to Mr. Ryan, the attorney for Brookdale Towers, and that the proposed re- assessment was agreeable to him and his clients. He noted the project involves a watermain which was installed in 1978. 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 Kuefler to close the public hearing on the proposed re- assessment of Improvement Project 1978 -17. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -31 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RE- ASSESSING WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT NO. 1978 -17 ON LOT 3, BLOCK 1, HORBAL ADDITION 1 -26 -81 -7- i The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND PROPOSAL FROM BYERLY'S FOODS Mayor Nyquist noted it was the appointed time on the agenda for the public hearing on the industrial development revenue bond proposal from Byerly's Foods. The City Manager noted that the Planning Commission items at this evening's meeting included the site and building plan review for Byerly's Foods. He referred Council members to Administrative Assistant Hoffman's memorandum regarding the staff review of Byerly's IDR. Councilmember Kuefler noted that, in the site and building plan submitted, there was the potential of between 72,000 and 90,000 square feet for the store. He inquired what would be cut from the store if it were built to the 72,000 square foot specifications as opposed to the 90,000. Mr. Jim Ryan, representing Ryan Construction, the contractor for Byerly's noted that Byerly's Edina store is 65,000 square feet while the St. Louis Park store is significantly larger since it has many specialty shops in addition to the grocery store and the restaurant. He explained, a final decision on the Brooklyn Center store re- garding the specialty shops has riot been made yet and this is why the option is left open to go to the 90,000 square feet. Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the $10 million represents the total cost of the project. Mr. Ryan explained it was and that an inflation factor is included in this $10 million and that it is an outside figure which includes the specialty shops option. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of public hearing on the industrial development revenue bond proposal from Byerly's Foods. He inquired whether there was anyone present who wished to speak either against or for the application. No one appeared to speak. Councilmember Kuefler inquired of the staff whether the previous IDR proposals have included the land costs in the total cost of the project. Administrative Assistant Hoffman stated that all included the land cost in the cost of the project except Cass Screw and Dale Tile. Except for Medtronic, he pointed out, all applicants have asked for 100% financing but generally they must accept less than 100% when they seek 100% financing from lenders. Councilmember Fignar stated, it is apparent that the applicants of the IDR's in Brooklyn Center will have equity in their projects when they are proposed. The City Manager stated that this would generally be true but it depends on how they arrange the financing with the mortgagor. Mr. Leonard Champer, representing Juran & Moody, Inc., and Byerly's Foods, stated that the the amount of financing is a function of credit. As an example, he pointed out, a company like 3M can obtain 100% financing whereas a smaller developer can usually get between 80 to 850. He explained, larger corporations are usually able to obtain 1000 financing. At the City Manager's suggestion, the Council concurred to defer action on the Byerly's Foods IDR until after the Planning Commission item is presented. 1 -26 -81 -8- PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Applications Nos. 81001 and 81002 submitted by Federal Lumber. He pointed out, Application No. 81001 has been submitted for site and building plan approval to construct a 49,056 gross square foot office, warehouse and three accessory open storage sheds at 4810 North Lilac Drive. Application No. 81002, he stated, was for preliminary plat approval to combine into one parcel all of the land occupied by the Federal Lumber operation. He pointed out, redefinition of North Lilac Drive right-of- way is involved and that the Planning Commission recommended approval of both applications at its January 15, 1981 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for Council members pages 2 through 6 of the minutes of the January 15, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheets pre - pared for Applications 81001 and 81002. The Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the location of the site and the site and building plan submitted by the applicant. He also reviewed for Council members the proposal to vacate a portion of North Lilac Drive and pointed out the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81001 subject to 14 conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He pointed out, condtions 10 -a and 10 -b can be eliminated from the Council's consideration. The Director of Planning and Inspections pointed out, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81002 subject to 5 conditions which he reviewed for Council members. The Director of Public Works reviewed for Council members the proposal to vacate the portion of North Lilac Drive and stated the procedure would be to vacate a portion of the roadway, grant a quit claim deed to the applicant, and dedicate the necessary part of the right -of -way for a cul -de -sac. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 81002. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the application. No one appeared and Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing on Application No. 81002. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 81002. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Application No. 81001, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 41,056 square foot office warehouse building and three accessory open storage sheds at 4810 North Lilac Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 1 -26 -81 -9- 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved • site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechnical equip- I ment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. All new buildings over 2,000 square feet shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Smoke detectors shall be installed in all accessory structures per the direction of the Fire Chief. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land- scaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 14 of the City Ordinances. 9. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas used by the general public. 10. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agree- ment with the City. 11. Plan approval acknowledges the enlargement of the green strip adjacent to Highway 100 right -of -way to the ordinance required 15' rather than the 5' which presently serves as boulevard for Lilac Drive. The rolled bituminous curb shall be replaced with B612 curb and gutter at the new location. 12. The final plat shall be approved by the City Council and be filed with the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. The plan approval acknowledges a "proof of parking" that meets the ordinance requirements. If it is determined that the installed parking proves inadequate, the City may require the installation of any or all of the deferred parking indicated on the site plan. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve - Application No. 81002, a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into one parcel all of the land occupied by Federal Lumber and comprehending a redefinition of the North Lilac Drive right -of -way, sub- ject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to-approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 1 -26 -81 -10- i 3. Prior to consideration by the City Council, the final plat shall be modified to indicate a 90' diameter cul -de -sac at the southwest corner of the site per City Engineer recommendations and the vacation of the existing North Lilac Drive right -of -way. 4. The applicant shall grant the City a utility easement over the existing North Lilac Drive and shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement with the City. 5. The applicant shall rant the City an access easement over the middle AA g Y driveway leading to the parking area on the Highway 100 right -of -way to allow City maintenance vehicles to turn around in said area. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to offer for first reading an ordinance vacating a portion of North Lilac Drive. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Applications ITos. 81003 and 81004 submitted by Meriwether Restaurants, Inc. He explained, Application No. 81003 is for.site and building plan approval to construct a 238 seat restaurant on the parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard and Application No. 81004 is for preliminary RLS approval establishing new boundaries for the parcel of land at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway at Freeway Boulevard after the highway taking. He added, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Applications Nos. 81003 and 81004 at its January 15, 1981 meeting. g The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for Council members pages 6 through 9 of the Planning Commission minutes of the January 15, 1981 meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Applications 81003 and 81004. He proceeded to review the location of the subject parcel and reviewed a transparency of the site plan. He pointed out, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81003 subject to 13 conditions which he reviewed for Council members. There was a general discussion among Council members of the application and a presentation of the building plans was made by Mr. Nelson, representing the applicant. Mr. Nelson explained the anticipated opening date for the restaurant is September 1, 1981. He explained, this will be the first Meriwether Restau- rant in the metro area and noted there is now one restaurant in Detroit and one in Chicago under construction. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the special use permit request on Application No. 81003. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the application. No one appeared and Mayor Nyquist entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar_ and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application No. 81003. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. 1 -26 -81 -11- There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Application No. 81003, a request for site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 238 seat restaurant on the parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard and offering live entertainment, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 5. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, regula- tions and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 6. The special use permit acknowledges light live entertainment such as a piano player, guitarist, or roving minstrels for background music, but does not comprehend bands, dancing, etc. which will require an additional special use permit. 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip - ment shall be appropriately screened from view. 8. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 9. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 10. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 11. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 12. The plans shall be modified to indicate a fire hydrant at the easterly entrance on Freeway Boulevard. 13. The plans shall comprehend a sidewalk to provide pedestrian access to this site from adjacent sidewalks. The staff is directed to prepare a report and recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the City's sidewalk network should be expanded to include sidewalk along the southerly Freeway Boulevard right -of -way. 1 -26 -81 -12- Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 81004. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the application. No one appeared to speak and Mayor Nyquist enter- tained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 81004. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to recommend approval of Application No. 81004, a request for preliminary RLS approval establishing new boundaries for the parcel of land at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard following highway taking, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final RLS is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. The final Rls is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Building permits will not be issued until the RLS is finaled and filed with. the County. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 81005 submitted by Lisa Rogers Carter for a special use permit to conduct a home occupation in the basement of the residence at 5308 Humboldt Avenue North. He noted, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81005 at its January 15, 1981 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for Council members pages 9 through 10 of the Planning Commission minutes of the January 15, 1981 meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81005. He reviewed the special use permit application and the location of the subject parcel for Council members. He noted the Building Official inspected the premises and noted that some electrical work had been done without a building permit and that the work did not meet code. He stated the staff is recommending that this be corrected before the application is approved. He indicated proper notices had been sent regarding the public hearing on the special use permit and that the applicant was present at this evening's meeting. He added, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the applica- tion subject to 7 conditions which he reviewed for Council members. Council - member Lhotka inquired whether it is standard procedures to require an exit as one of the conditions for a business of this nature. The Director of Planning 1 -25 -81 -13- and Inspections stated tated that it was often required and that the Building Official may require the exit signs, adding that this can be added to condition no. 6 • of the Planning Commission conditions. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant who stated that the building permit for the electrical work had been taken out and that she has obtained a bid for this work. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether there was anyone else who wished to speak to the application. No one appeared and: he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Council - member Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application No. 81005. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Application No. 81005, a request for a special use permit for a home beauty shop in the basement of the residence at 5308 Humboldt Avenue North, 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 applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the applicant's current state operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. All parking associated with the special use shall be off - street on space provided by the applicant. 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, noon to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Service shall be provided on an appointment only basis. 6. The applicant shall install a fire extinguisher in the beauty shop room and shall separate that room from other areas of the basement with a curtain or door. An exit sign shall be posted indicating the egress to the outside from the beauty shop room. 7. The applicant shall correct all remodeling and electrical work in the basement area which does not meet code requirements prior to the issuance of,the special use permit. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 81006 submitted by Ryan Oldsmobile for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a used car sales office and a Mazda sales office connected to the existing sales building by a canopy, at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81006 at its January 15, 1981 meeting. 1 -26 -81 -14- The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for Council members pages 10 through 11 of the minutes of the January 15, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 8 -1006. The Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed for Council members the location of the subject parcel and also the site and building plan proposed. He noted, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Application No. 81006 and that the proper notices had been sent regarding the special use permit request. The Director of Planning and Inspections pointed out that Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81006 subject to 5 conditions which he reviewed for Council members. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 81006 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to n speak to the application. No one appeared to speak and Mayor y Nyquist enter - tained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on Application No. 81006. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Application No. 81006, a request for a site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a used car sales office and a Mazda sales office, each connected to the existing sales building by a canopy at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The two upper floors and the new sales offices shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with NFPA .standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 3. The special use permit as amended is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 4. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signory which is subject to the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney left the table at 9:40 p.m. 1 -26 -81 -15- The City Manager introduced Applications Nos. 81007 and 81008 submitted by Ryan Construction /Byerly's Foods. He explained, Application 81007 was for site and building plan approval to construct a 90,000 square foot food store with a 200 seat restaurant at 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway, and Application 81008 was for preliminary RLS approval to combine into two parcels the land north and west of LaBelle's, north of John Martin Drive, east of Shingle Creek Parkway and South of Summit Drive. He pointed out, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Applications 81007 and 81008 at its January 15, 1981 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for Council members pages 11 through 14 of the Planning Commission minutes of the January 15, 1981 meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheets prepared for Applications 81007 and 81008. The Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the location of the subject parcel and also the proposed accesses to the site along with the grading and landscaping plans for the project. He noted, the staff suggested the pre - liminary plat account for the maximum square footage planned for the building since it is relatively easier to scale down the project than it is to increase it in size. He added, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Applications 81007 and 81008 subject to conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He added, proper notices of the preliminary plat review have been sent and that the applicant is present at this evening's meeting. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 81007 and inquired if there was anyone, present who wished to speak to the application. No one appeared to speak and Mayor Nyquist enter- tained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 81007. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Application No. 81007, a request for a site and building plan approval to construct a 90,000 square foot food store with a 200 seat restaurant at 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarnatee (in an amount to be determined by the City t shall be submitted Y Mana er ) g prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 1 -26 -81 -16- 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equip- ment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas. 9. Plan approval acknowledges a "proof of parking" meeting ordinance requirements. Should it be determined in the future that installed parking is insufficient to meet the public demand, the City may require installation of additional parking stalls (or restriping) to achieve the ordinance requirement of 623 spaces. 10. The proposed RLS shall have received final approval from the City Council and filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to approve Application No. 81008, a request for preliminary RLS approval to create two parcels of land west and south of LaBelle's, north of John Martin Drive, east of Shingle Creek Parkway, south of Summit Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15. 3. An easement across the northeasterly edge of Tract B shall be filed with the final RLS to provide access from John Martin Drive to the Byer_ly's store. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND PROPOSAL FROM BYERLY'S FOODS Mayor Nyquist noted that the public hearing on the industrial development revenue bond proposal from Byerly's Foods would be continued. Ccuncilmember Lhotka requested to know why the Council set the original $6 million limit on IDR's. The Director of Finance stated that at the time the Council set the limit, the City was new to the area of IDR's and wanted to assess the experience with them gradually. The City Manager pointed out that virtually all other 1 -26 -81 -17- cities dealing with IDR's have abandoned such dollar limits and that essentially the Council has traded the dollar limit for evaluating each project on its own merit. The City Attorney returned to the table at 9:50 p.m. The City Manager pointed out, the staff believes the Council should judge each project on its own merit, adding that interest rates have continued to remain high which is the major reason why IDR's are virtually the only construction occuring in the state in terms of commercial development. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would request the Council to evaluate the status of the City's involvement with IDR's at an upcoming meeting. The City Manager stated, the staff would request some direction from the Council regarding those IDR applications already under way. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like the Council to examine the current status of the IDR's but that this would not necessarily imply placing conditions on granting future IDR's. Councilmember Kuefler inquired of the applicant when the store would be opening. The applicant stated the Byerly's store would be planned for opening in late or middle 1983. 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 Lhotka to close the public hearing on the industrial development revenue bond proposal from Byerly's Foods. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -32 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT; REFERRING THE PROPOSAL TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL; AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS 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, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened at 10:15 P.M. CONTINUATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Application No. 81009, submitted by Thomas Wilhelmy, noting that this item was an appeal from the decision by the Director of Planning and Inspections not to accept an application for a special use permit to 1 -26 -81 -18- construct a convenience store /gas station at the northeast corner of 69th and i Brooklyn Boulevard. He added, the property in question abuts R -1 zoned land at a property line and across June Avenue North, conditions which prohibit a gas station use on C -2 zoned property. The City Manager noted, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the appeal at its January 15, 1981 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for Council members pages 14 through 18 of the Planning Commission minutes for the January 15, 1981 meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81009. He stated, the applicant is appealing an action of the Director of Planning and Inspections and noted that the land in question is zoned C -2 and its abutment to R -1 property means that a special use permit could not be permitted under the provisions of the zoning ordinance. The Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the subject parcel for Council members and noted the appeal of the applicant is on two counts, one being that the secretary of the Planning Commission does not have authority to refuse to accept an application for a special use permit, the other being the interpretation of the zoning ordinance made by the Director of Planning and Inspections. Regarding the first point in the applicant's appeal, the Director of Planning and Inspections noted there is no law prohibiting the action of denying an application by the Director of Planning and Inspections. He pointed out that to be required to accept any and every application which must ultimately be denied by the City Council, absent a change in the Zoning Ordinance, would place an unreasonable burden on the Planning Commission, City Council, and even the applicant. He added that one basic requirement before an application can be accepted is compliance of the use itself to the restrictions in the ordinance. He noted the Planning Commission and City Council have upheld a similar decision to not accept an application under Planning Commission Application No. 79037 submitted by Howe Fertilizer. He added that in cases where the interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is the first and foremost question to be resolved, the appropriate procedure for resolution is the appeal process. Regarding the second point of the applicant's appeal, he noted the applicant is contending that the project proposed by the application is a store, not a service station, and thus is a permitted use in the C -2 zone. He stated, the staff position is that the definition in the Zoning Ordinance encompasses a combination service station /convenience store as a service station. subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed. The applicant, he pointed out, states that in order to be classified as a service station, the business must offer such items as battery, tire and other similar services which the proposed business in Application 81009 will not be providing.. He pointed out, the staff would contend that the inclusion of these type of activities in the service station definition are an option and would not be a necessary function of a service station. He noted that the City has always treated the retail sale of gasoline as a special use, whether it was in conjunction with the service and repair of motor vehicles; whether it was in conjunction with the sale of food or other items such as O.K. Tire, SuperAmerica, 7- Eleven, 0 Petroleum; or as an activity by itself such as at the old Shoppers City Gas Station or Pyramid Gas Station. He pointed out that additions or alterations must conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements and to the conditions specified in Section 35 -111 regarding nonconforming uses. He noted that the existing O.K. Tire is a nonconforming use because it abuts residentially zoned property and, therefore, cannot be expanded to occupy a greater land area or moved to any other part of the parcel of land on which it occupies. He stated that the end result of the 1 -26 -81 -19- applicant's proposal, provided a rezoning was granted, would result in a service station abutting R -1 zoned property at a street line, and possibly at a property line, which is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance and, thus, the application was not accepted. The Director of Planning and Inspections noted there was a lengthy discussion concerning the application at the January 15, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's appeal. He noted there was no public hearing required for this application but that the applicant was present this evening. Councilmember Fignar inquired whether the proposed facility in the application was similar to the SuperAmerica station at 57th and Logan. The Director of Planning and Inspections stated the proposed station would be similar to the SuperAmerica station. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Tom Wilhelmy, the attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Wilhelmy stated his client was seeking to develop a Western store on the corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and that the proposed store is unlike a SuperAmerica or Holiday Station in that these stations have a larger line of products, whereas his client concentrates on food and apothecary items. He explained, the proposed site is a busy area and could not be considered a quiet residential area. Mr. Wilhelmy reviewed the current uses on the site including O.K. Tire, a flower shop, and a TV repair business. He noted the estimated market value of the proposed Western store would be between $250,000 and $300,000 and that the projected taxes would be $9,000 or approxi- mately three times the current amount realized from that site. He explained, there are essentially three issues involved in his appeal, the first being that no authority is given to the Director of Planning and Inspections to reject an application and that the state enabling act vests this power with the City Council. He stated, the second point of his appeal involves the question of whether the proposed use constitutes a service station. He noted the definition of the service station in the Zoning Ordinance discusses the problems and concerns of service stations in that they are very noisy places of business usually with cars to be - repaired standing outside the service station building. He reviewed the case of Minneapolis vs. Southland Corporation and pointed out, the court, in this case, found that the 7- Eleven store did not constitute a service station simply because it had gas pumps and that the City could not prevent a 7- Eleven store from having gas pumps. He noted the Western store is not a traditional service station and that his client's use falls into the automotive sales area but not into the traditional service station functions in that no cars would be waiting outside to be repaired; since there would be no repair work performed on the site. He noted, redevelopment of this parcel would be an asset to the City and would provide a needed service. The third point of his appeal, he pointed out, dealt with nonconforming uses. He noted Section 35 -414 subsection 11 of the Zoning Ordinance dealt with nonconforming use and that it recognizes a particular problem with automobiles and added that Section 35 -414 conflicts with Section 35 -111. He stated, the focus of the Zoning Ordinance is on uses of the property and not of the products sold thus the restrictions on a traditional service station should not be placed on the project proposed by his client. 1 -26 -81 -20- Councilmember Fignar inquired whether the SuperAmerica Station at 57th and Logan • abuts an R -1 zone and was this a precedent setting case. The City Attorney noted that, in the SuperAmerica application, both the City and the applicant agreed the use was a service station and that the argument arose regarding whether the station fronted on Logan or 57th. He stated, this situation has no bearing on the matter before the Council this evening. He added, the kind of merchandising the applicant refers to occurs at other sites throughout the City and they are classified as service stations. The Director of Planning and Inspections pointed out that after the SuperAmerica case, the current Section 35 -414 of the Zoning Ordinance was put in to address the situation where a service station would abut an R -1 zone. Councilmember Fignar stated he does not view this proposed project as significantly different than the 57th and Logan situation. He stated his concern about the project would be related to light splash from the proposed store, potential traffic problems within the site and hours of operation. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Wilhelmy who pro- ceeded to review the proposed site plan of the Western store for Council members. Councilmember Kuefler requested the City Attorney to comment on the action of the Director of Planning and Inspections not accepting the application. The City Attorney stated, there is no specific language in the Zoning ordinance addressing this situation but that the state law says an administrative decision can be appealed by an applicant. He added, when an application is submitted which does not fit into the ordinance, the Director of Planning and Inspections has two choices, one of which is to reject the application and the other is to bring forward the applicant's program and attempt to work it into the ordinance, to make it appear to fit into the ordinance, thus making it something it is not in reality. The City Attorney noted that the Director of Planning and Inspec tions method is the former, that of rejecting the application, and is the most straightforward approach to the problem. He stated he does not believe the Director of Planning and Inspections acted wrongfully in this situation, particularly in light of the fact that the matter is before the Council regarding the ordinance interpretation. He added that the ordinance may be due for an amendment. Councilmember Kuefler inquired whether the Council's past actions on these types of projects would act as a clarifier of the ordinance in this case. The City Attorney explained the Council has classified similar operations as service stations in the past and that these actions would tend to clarify the ordinance. Councilmember Scott stated she would view the operation as a gas station particularly in consideration of the amount of gallons allocated to the applicant. She added, she would support the Planning Commission's recommendations pointing out that the primary function of this project would be dispensing gas. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Wilhelmy who addressed the Council and stated he does not believe an ordinance change is necessary in this situation when he feels the current ordinance would permit his client's project. The City Attorney noted that, regarding the definition of a service station, it should be done by an ordinance change and not by defining this particular project differently than the Council has defined service stations in the past. Mayor Nyquist inquired what the Council's wishes were on this item and there was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to • 1 -26 -81 -21- uphold the Director of Planning and Inspections' decision on Application 81009 and noting that the motion is made with regard to the following three points. 1. The Secretary does have authority not to accept an application that does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is a gasoline service station as defined by the Zoning rdinance and a p p roval of a s pecial u se would be a zoning g pp 1 p u g violation. 3. The existing gasoline service station is not exempt from the non - conforming use provision of Section 35 -111 prohibiting the use from being moved to another part of the parcel of land or to be expanded beyond its existing premises. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: Councilmember Fignar, the motion passed. RESOLUTIONS CONTINUED RESOLUTION NO. 81 -33 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERVICES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; I � S t and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -34 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF LITTER RECEPTACLES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -35 ° Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR SELF- PROPELLED LINE MARKING MACHINE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 -26 -81 -22- RESOLUTION No. 81 -3 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ALUMINUM STREET SIGNS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -37 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING DONATION FROM FARMERS AND MECHANICS SAVINGS BANK The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against, the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared, duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81-38 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ENDORSING AND SUPPORTING THE MINNESOTA RIDESHARE PROGRAM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a handout resolution authorizing the City Engineer to retain the service of Soil Testing Services of Minnesota, Inc. for sub- surface soil analysis on Xerxes Avenue North and 63rd Avenue North. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -3 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF SOIL TESTING SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, INC. FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL ANALYSIS ON XERXES AVENUE NORTH AND 63RD AVENUE NORTH The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 -26 -81 -23- DISCUSSION ITEMS CONTINUED REVOCATION OF PRELIMINARY IDR APPROVAL FOR DALE T The City Manager referred Council members to a memorandum from Administrative Assistant Hoffman dated January 22, 1981 which addressed this item. He stated, the staff is recommending that Dale Tile pay the entire $2,000 application fee. Councilmember Kuefler inquired whether the applicant was aware of the $2,000 fee at the time of the application. Administrative Assistant Hoffman stated the applicant was aware of the $2,000 fee. Councilmember Kuefler suggested indicating the full fee to the applicant but only charging for the actual expenses incurred by the City related to this application. Administrative Assistant Hoffman pointed out, the City Attorney's fees will be in addition to the $2,000. The City Manager suggested authorizing the staff to bill the current City expense and also to rescind the preliminary approval for the IDR since Dale Tile has failed to pursue this project since receiving their preliminary approval. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to authorize the staff to bill Dale Tile for the current City expenses incurred for the industrial development revenue bond application of Dale Tile and also to rescind approval of the industrial development revenue bond proposal from Dale Tile. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE 1981 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Director of Public Works noted that the purpose of this preview is to advise the Council that the Public Works Department is working on preliminary reports and designs covering these projects and that they invite any comments regarding the projects. The Director of Public Works proceeded to review and show transparencies of the various public improvement projects proposed for 1981 including, Shingle Creek Parkway - County Road 10 to I -94 geometric improvements, reconstruction of Xerxes Avenue between County Road 10 and T.H. 100, 55th Avenue from Xerxes to Brooklyn Boulevard and 56th Avenue from Xerxes to Brooklyn Boulevard, reconstruction of 63rd Avenue North from Brooklyn Drive to Beard Avenue, neighborhood park improvements, and 51st Avenue water and sanitary sewer installation, west of Twin Lake Boulevard. 1981 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM The City Manager referred Council a memorandum from Administrative y g C u it members to mo Assistant Hoffman reviewing four major areas of concern with regard to legislative proposals for 1981, including establishment of a municipal speed limit, fire sprinkler statutes, 73rd and the River Road improvements, and the energy conservation program. The City Manager also reviewed prospects for 1981 state aids pointing out that the Governor will Likely recommend no increase in the state aids. He added, other bills such as amendments to the tax increment financing law will likely limit the law's flexibility. He noted that, with regard to data privacy regulations, there will likely be changes made in those laws by the 1981 legislature. GAMBLING LICENSES The City Manager noted, the City had received two applications for gambling licenses, one from the American Little League Baseball Program and the 'other from Orchard Lane Parent- Teachers Association. 1 -26 -81 -24- There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember ' Kuefler to approve a Class B gambling license for the American Little League Baseball Program. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the waiver of a $10,000 fidelity bond on the Class B gambling license for the American Little League Baseball Program. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the application for a Class A gambling license from the Orchard Lane Parent- Teacher Association. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the waiver of the $10,000 fidelity bond for the Class A gambling license for the Orchard Lane Parent - Teacher Association. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. LICE NSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the following list of licenses: BAKERY FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE Good Earth Restaurant 5717 Xerxes Ave. N. CATERING VEHICLE LICENSE Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. CIGARETTE LICENSE Miernik Vending 7251 Commerce Circle Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. FOOD E LICENSE Baskin Robbins - 31 Flavors Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Big -Bi Service Station 5710 Xerxes Ave. N. Bridgeman Creameries 815]. Normandale Blvd. Bridgeman's 1272 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Bridgeman's 6201 Brooklyn Blvd. Brook Park Baptist 4801 63rd Ave. N. Brookdale Christian Center 6120 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. N. Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. N. Brooklyn Centex High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. 1- 26--81 -25- Burger King 6110 Brooklyn Blvd. Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N. C.E.A.P. 7231 Brooklyn Blvd. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N. • Cross of Glory Church 5940 Ewing Ave. N. Dayton's 1100 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Donaldson's 1200 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N. Evergreen Park Elementary School 7020 Dupont Ave. N. Faith Community Church of God 6630 Colfax Ave. N. Food Enterprises, Inc. 1200 Multifoods Bldg. Hickory Farms Brookdale Shopping Center Mr. Stuart Ackman 100 N. 6th St. Good Earth Restaurant Westbrook Mall Happy Dragon Restaurant 5532 Brooklyn Blvd. Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave. N. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Independent School Dist. ##279 317 2nd Ave. N.W. Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N. Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Drive McDonald's 5525 Xerxes Ave. N. Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave. N. Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. L.G. Inc. 1330 West County B Orange Julius of Brookdale 1396 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. 1265 Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Perkins Cake & Steak, Inc. 5915 John Martin Drive Plitt Brookdale Theather 2501 County Road 10 Service Systems Corp. Soo Line Bldg. N.W. Bell 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Servomation Corp. 7490 Central Ave. N.E. Medtronics Earle Brown Drive Medtronics 6700 Shingle Creek Pkwy. 7- Eleven 1500 69th Ave. N. Smoke Haus 5001 Drew Ave. N. St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N. Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle F.W. Woolworth, Inc. 1212 Brookdale Center _G AMBLING LICENSE Brooklyn Center Am. Little League 2919 64th Ave. N. Orchard Lane School PTA 6201 Noble Ave. N. NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Howard Baurermeister 5809 Boone Ave. N. Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. N. Bill's Juice Vending 3900 Beard Ave. S. Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle N. 1 -26 -81 -26- Bill's Vending Service 7317 West Broadway Brooklyn Center Skelly 6245 Brooklyn Blvd. Bond Tool and Die Co. 6840 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Bonine Vending 125 River Edge Way Brookdale Towers 2810 County Road 10 Cat Pumps Corp. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Consumer Vending Co. 2727 26th Ave. S. Federal Lumber 4810 North Lilac Dr. Cook Paint 4800 North Lialc Dr. Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Gold Medal Beverage Co. 553 North Fairview Ave. Duane's OK Tire 6900 Brooklyn Blvd. Hi -Lo Manufacturing 6520 James Ave. N. North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd. Northport School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd. Snyder Bros. Drug Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Warner Hardware 2105 57th Ave. N. Johnny's Inc. 6846 Brooklyn Blvd. Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Morgan Ave. N. Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 North Lilac Dr. Midwest Screw Products 3410 48th Ave. N. Midwest Vending Co. 2212 West 94th Street Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Miernik Vending 7251 Commerce Circle Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. Minnesota Fabrics 5712 Morgan Ave. N. Precision, Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N. Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. N. Saber Dental Studio 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Theisen Vending Co. 3804 Nicoliet Ave. S. Bill West 2000 57th Ave. N. Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Apple --A -Day, Inc. Route 4, Box 18 Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. Bill's Juice Vending 3900 Beard Ave. S. Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle Bonine Vending Co. 125 River Edge Way Brookdale Towers 2810 County Road 10 Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle Miernik Vending 7251 Commerce Circle Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Bruce & Twyla Van Beusekom 4913 Beard Ave. N. Charles Q. Hillstrom 6527 Drew Ave. N. John S. Tschohl 6912 Morgan Ave. N. Raymond & Grace Harr 6406 Scott Ave. N. Clarence & Irene Fransen 4204 69th Ave. N. 1 -26 -81 -27- • t Renewal: Gary Scherber 4708 Lakeview Ave. N. William & Dorothy coins 6331 Noble Ave. N. Catherine P. Shefeluk 3012, 18 - 51st Ave. N. Gary M. Olson 3715 69th Ave. N. SPECIAL FOOD HA LICENSE Fun Services, Inc. 3701 50th Ave. N. Ideal Drug Store 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Mary Shutes 5212 Kellogg Ave. Gift Shop Too, Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd. Weight Loss Medical Centers 6040 Earle Brown Dr. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion_ passed unanimously. The City Manager pointed out that, two tentative dates had been set for the Joint meeting with the District 281 School Board and the Council, those being February 2 and March 2. There was a general concurrence among Council members to approve the March 2, 1981 date as the date for the joint meeting. _AD There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Clerk Mayor i 1 -26 -81 -28- CITY CF BROOKLYN CE3v'IT;R ' EI�It ERI;�G DTl kRT IL•"W • 6301 Sliir gle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 BID OPF,=G FOR DISEASED SHADE TRH REAWAL CON'11t - 1981 -A PRWECT 1981 -01 BID DATE: February 19, 1981 11:00 A.M. _ Gen tlEn - en: She City of Brooklyn Center would like to express its appreciation for your interest and titre in presenting your bid proposal for the aforementioned project. tabulating the total convenience in g e following o � g list of bidders is for your amounts as read at the bid opening. ffiDDER TOM AMOUNT American. 'Tree $ 29,993.00-- A_ rbor Tree Service $ No Bid Arps Tree Service $ 46 355.00 Blue - Tien 'free Service $ 45,739.0 Clark Landscaping $ 32,975.00 Design Tree $ 31,590.00 Miles es Johnson $ No Bid Midwest Stump Reroval. $ No Bid %chholz Trucking $ No Bid Note to City Council 2/20/81 Staff is reviewing these bids. An evaluation and recommendation will be submitted at the 2123/81 Council meeting. J4 Sy Vapp CITY CF BROOKLYN C E1CI1TER r-, DEPAR'II S 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 BID OPENIIU FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE MC VAL CONTPACT 1981-A PRO= 1981 -01 BID DATE: February 19, 1981 11:00 A.M. Gentlemen: The City of Brookllm Center vrould like to express its appreciation for your interest and time in presenting your bid proposal for the aforementioned project• Zhe followin g list of bidders is for your convenience in tabulating the total amounts as read at the bid opening. BIDDER TOTAL AMOUNT American. Tree $ 29,993-00 A rbor Tree Service $ No Bid 46,355.00 Ares Tree Service . Bluemel -Time Tree Service $ 45,739.00 Clark Iandscaping $ 32,975.00 Design Tree $ 31,590.00 Miles Johnson $ No Bid Midwest Stump Removal $ No Bid Wachholz Trucking $ No Bid Note to City Council 2/20/81 Staff is reviewing these bids. An evaluation and recommendation will be submitted at the 2/23/81 Council meeting. • Sy Vapp 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 FEBRUARY 9, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspections Ron Warren, Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Father Lowry of St. Alphonsus Catholic Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1981 Councilmember Gene Lhotka noted that in the second to the last line on page 13 that the word "sign" should be included between the words "exit" and "as ". There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 26, 1981 as amended. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted that the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session at this evening's meeting. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who wished to use the Open Forum session. Mary Jane Gustafson, representing the Brooklyn Center Historical Society, invited Council members and all of those present at the Council meeting to attend the 70th birthday celebration of the City of Brooklyn Center. She noted that the celebration was to be held February 15 at 1:00 p.m. at the Brooklyn Center Civic Center. FINAL PLAT - MERIWETHER RESTAURANT PROPERTY RLS City Engineer Sy Knapp stated that the RLS was in conformance with the require- ments of City Ordinance Chapter 15. However, he noted that the abstract of title had not been forwarded for review by the City Attorney. He also stated that the legal description of the parcel does not lend itself to review for verification of noted length, bearings, and curve data and therefore they were forced to assume that the land surveyor had correctly depicted the parcel and all of the data. It was the City Engineer's recommendation that final approval of the RLS be contingent of receipt of the abstract of title. The City Engineer, Sy Knapp, also noted that in 1975, the parcel was assessed $467.20 to have the sanitary sewer service extended to the property line as part of a previous improvement project. He also stated that our records indicated that no service line was actually installed. The City Engineer 2 -9 -81 -1- added that the City should consider some form of credit against the building > permits, SAC charges or other charges receivable by the City. It was his recommendation that the City Manager_ be authorized to negotiate the final settlement with the current property owners for the service extension and a credit for the previous payment. A brief discussion then ensued and Council - member Kuefler inquired how the property managed to become assessed. The City Engineer indicated that it hl.d been part of a previous project but that the work to extend the sewer service had never been undertaken by some over- sight. Councilmember Fignar inquired if the City owed something to the current owners. The City Engineer indicated he felt that the City was somewhat responsible to the owner. Councilmember Fignar inquired if the matter had been discussed with the property owner. The City Engineer indicated that a letter had been sent to the owners outlining the problem and acknowledging the previous payment. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a settlement with the Meriwether Restaurant property owner with regards to the extension of sanitary sewer service to the property. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the final plat on Meriwether Restaurant property RLS contingent upon receipt of an abstract of title for review by the City Attorney. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND POLICY DISCUSSION City Manager Gerald Splinter introduced the next agenda item as a discussion of the City's policy guidelines for industrial development revenue bonds. He stated that Brooklyn Center has witnessed an increase in the volume of industrial development bond requests for a number of reasons. First, he noted that because of the current high interest rates on conventional loans, industrial revenue bonds offer the only financing available that was financially feasible. Second, he stated that with the construction upgrading of the highway system around Brooklyn Center, the undeveloped property within Brooklyn Center has become a very hot item. He stated that the City will continue to see a great deal of pressure to develop the areas that remain. He then introduced to the City Council Bond Attorney Dave Kennedy. Dave Kennedy then took the opportunity to briefly review the basic principals involved in municipal tax exempt financing. He added that it was timely for the Council to be reviewing their industrial development revenue bond guide- , lines because the abuse of IRB's was the current target of the state legislature as well as federal government. He stated that under the statute, the City has to make a determination of public benefit for each application that comes before them. He added that the Council is not bound by its guidelines to approve any project. He clarified that by indicating that because an applicant has met all of the criteria set forth in the uidelines does not automatically insure the g Y applicant of an IRB. He noted that on a legal basis each project should stand on its own merit and emphasized the Council's ability not to grant final approval to any project for which the Council did not feel there was a public benefit. He also stated that projects that had received preliminary approval need not be given final approval if the Council were to find that significant changes had 2 -9 -81 -2- occured in the project since the time it was first proposed to the Council. He reviewed a number of potential guidelines the Council could consider incorporating into the present guidelines. First, he suggested that the Council could consider limiting industrial development revenue bonds by type. By type he indicated that the City would issue such financing only to industrial development as opposed to commercial development. Second, he indicated that the Council could consider limiting development to a redevelopment area or to a specified development district. All other applications outside those areas wouldn't be considered. Third, the Council might consider limiting the project by dollar amount. He indicated that there would be a minimum dollar amount for which an IDR would be considered. Fourth, he suggested that the Council consider limiting the extent of the project. By limiting the extent of a project, the Council would take the position that financing would be provided for land and building only to the exclusion of architectural fees, engineering fees, construction financing costs and so forth. And fifth, he indicated that consideration of the project should be done at the time a date is set for the public hearing as opposed to the date of the public hearing_ Mayor Nyquist then inquired if there were any problems, legal or otherwise, with the City issuing too many industrial development revenue bonds. Dave Kennedy replied that there is no legal limit or problem that the City would encounter from issuing IRS's. He also indicated that the issuance of IRS's has no effect upon the City's bond rating. Councilmeraber Kuefler inquired if the Council was empowered to require an equity position on the project. Dave Kennedy affirmed that the Council could take such a position but as a practical matter, equity in the project is required by the lender. He noted that this was especially true in commercial developments. He also indicated that such a position might serve to the detriment of the Council in considering a potential inviting industrial development. Councilmember Scott inquired if the pressure from the number in dollar amounts of IDS's in the market today would create competition for the City's placement of municipal bonds. Dave Kennedy replied that is a rather debatable issue. He added that experts tend to disagree on the range of effect from no effect to approximately a point. He indicated that he was of the opinion that it does affect the market the extent of which he is not sure. City Attorney Schieffer inquired if a project were to fail after its completion, whether or not there is a possibility the City would be involved in a law suit. Dave Kennedy replied that there is always a possibility that the City would become involved in a law suit although under a private placement it would be doubtful and under a public placement of the bonds or mortgage it would be probable. He also indicated that while the City would be sued, the chances of the suing party prevailing were very marginal. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to whether or not the City could control who the lender might be. Dave Kennedy indicated that the City would not desire direct control and he would advise against it. However, the Council receives a letter of financial feasibility for each project and if the Council were unfamiliar with the person reporting on the financial feasibility, it was within the City's right to retain a financial consultant to review the financial feasibility of the project and charge such expenses against the applicant. Councilmember Kuefler asked if the City sets a precedent on issuing IDS's to one type of project and refusing it for a similar project. Dave Kennedy replied that a precedent is not set, that each application has to stand on its own merits. He likened IDR guidelines to that of the comprehensive plan in its relationship to the zoning laws. He noted that the zoning law will prevail and that the comprehensive plan serves only as a guide but is not binding. In tale . same vein, IDR guidelines for the Council serve only as guidelines but do not set precedent or prevail upon the Council or limit their choice. A brief discussion then followed with Mayor Nyquist thanking Dave Kennedy for his time and efforts before the Council that evening. 2 -9 -81 -3- ° PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 81010 submitted by the Classic Car Corporation for determination that assembly of electric cars is a permitted use in the I -1 zone. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for the Council members pages 1 through 3 of the minutes of the January 29, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and also Planning Commission information sheet no. 81010 for their review. The Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the location of the site. He further stated there was no clear precedent of a similar determination by the City Council in the past. Therefore the matter was being brought to the Council for review at this time. He noted there is no new construction involved with the application only the occupancy of the tenant spaces in Spec 8 and Spec 6 industrial buildings. He noted that the activity proposed for the building had been comapred with those of TCR Head Screw Products and Audio Research. It is noted that the City Manager and the Director of Planning and Inspections had an opportunity to review the electric car assembly operation at the company's current location in Plymouth. The operation involves taking reconditioned volkswagon chassis and outfitting them with a number of batteries and then attaching already manufactured single unit fiberglass bodies to the frames. The process also includes the necessary mechanical work to make the unit operational. Assemblv is done in teams rather than the more conven- tional assembly line process. Also viewed at the assembly site in Plymouth was the fiberglassing operation where car bodies are repaired. It is proported by the applicant in his letter to the Planning Commission that the process is relatively clean and free of obnoxious odors and dirt. The Director of Planning and Inspections concurred with that observation. He further indicated that the staff's primary concern is that the manufacturing and assembly be as viewed and as the applicant indicates and not evolving to a more traditional automobile assembly plant. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval. of Application No. 81010 at its January 29, 1981 meeting. Councilmember Scott inquired as to the exact location of the proposed assembly plant. Planning Director Warren indicated that it will. be located at the former Onan site. Councilmember Kuefler inquired as to their explanation or definition of assembly only. The City Manager Gerald Splinter briefly described the team assembly process as opposed to the more traditional assembly line procedures of other plants. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilrrternber Kuefler to approve Application No. 81010 with the three recommendations of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers :Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 81011 submitted by Youth Investment Foundation who were seeking a special use permit to use the single family residence at 4800 71st Avenue North for office, counseling, and group meeting functions of the organization. He added that approval would constitute a determination that the YIF use is a noncommercial use required for public welfare in an R -1 district. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 81011 at its January 29, 1981 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for the Council pages 4 through 9 of the Planning Commission minutes of the January 29, 1981 meeting and also the Planning Cormissi.on information sheet prepared for Application No. 81011. He noted that the applicant requests approval of the -special use permit to use the single family residence for office, counseling . 2 -9 -81 -4- and group meeting functions of the Youth Investment Foundation. The property is zoned R -1 and is bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by 71st Avenue North on the south, by a single family residence on the west and by Creek Villa Townhouses on the north. He stated that special uses permitted in R -1 zones include "other noncommercial uses required for public welfare and an R -1 district has determined by the Council ". He stated that approval of the application would involve a determination that the use described by the applicant is required for the public welfare in an R -1 district. He noted the religious uses proposed for the site and stated that religious uses such as chapels, churches, temples and synagogues are separately acknowledged special uses which are permitted "provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street ". He also stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires measures be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets. Following Planning Director Warren's review, Mayor Dlyquist opened the public hearing on the matter. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Pearson, 4812 71st Avenue - North. Mr. Pearson requested that the Council deny this special use permit. He indicated to the Council that he felt that the proposed use would generate too much of a parking problem for the neighborhood and that the use was not suitable to a residential neighborhood. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Lew Terzich of 4825 71st Avenue North. Mr. Terzich objected to the proposed use reiterating the same reasons as Mr. Pearson. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Delphine Pallum of 4800 71st Avenue North. She noted that she lives in the house at the site and indicated that she felt it was a perfect location for the proposed use. She stated that the house is somewhat isolated from the rest of the neighborhood and that it is generally too noisy for a family. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Thayen, the applicant. Mr. Thayen requested the Council look at the letters that have been submitted from residents next to other YIF locations. He noted that the potential problems that had been expressed to the Council, especially the parking, had not been experienced at other sites. He also indicated that he had spoken to United Methodist Church and there was a possibility that they would let them use their parking lot. He said he felt the property was beneficial because it offered a home atmosphere, its location was readily accessible and it was close to the schools with which he would be working. Councilmember Fignar inquired as to the funding for YIF. Mr. Thayen implied that it was a nonprofit corporation that received donations from churches, individuals and companies. Councilmember Fignar then inquired if their counseling is strictly for the children within that district or would they accept children from anywhere. Mr. Thayen indicated that the emphasis would be on children from this area but that no child would be precluded from the program. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the types of problems they dealt with. Mr. Thayen indicated that they dealt with a wide variety of problems including family, social, drug and other problems. He indicated that they did not function as a treatment center. Councilmember Scott requested the applicant to describe their year round camp operation. The applicant, Mr. Thayen, briefly described the YIF camp noting that it was their philosophy to maintain contact with the youths that attend the camp once they have left. He noted that children at the camp receive closer attention from the counselor. Councilmember Fignar inquired as to how long YIF had been in existance. Mr. Thayen indicated that they have been counseling youths since 1970. The applicant further stated that they were seeking either approval of the special use permit 2 -9 -81 -5- or their request was that the Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Planning Director Ron Warren indicated the use is more appropriate in a C -1 zone and that was the intent of the Planning Commission in their recommendation for denial. Councilmember Scott indicated that she is very familiar with the work of the foundation and she spoke very highly of them. However, she noted that, the location selected by the YIF organization presented some problems for the Council that would establish the precedent that would create problems for them in the future. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council - members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to deny Planning Application No. 81011 based upon the three recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council - members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to why Planning Commissioner Malecki had not voted on the matter. Planning Director Warren indicated she was of the opinion that the use of the special permits had not been discussed in great enough detail to allow her to make a decision on that matter. RECESS The Council recessed at 9:05 and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. RESOLUTIONS The City Manager introduced the first resolution establishing Street Improve- ment Project No. 1981 -02. City Engineer Sy Knapp noted that because of the purchase and development of the property north of Brookdale Ford by Commercial Partners Inc., the Engineering Department's recommending construction of right and .left turn lanes for north and southbound roadway exits to the commercial development. In addition, he recommended construction of left turn lanes along the median at John Martin and Summit Drive, to provide for left turn, northbound to westbound traffic movements to the new Hennepin County library complex. He also proposed modifications for the median adjacent to the City Hall - Civic Center complex. He noted that the median reconstruction.had been designed to accommodate a projected increase in southbound, ea.stbound turning movements in the Shingle Creek Parkway - Summit intersection. Median closures were recommended at the south access to the City Hall and the currently baracaded Civic Center access. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -40 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1981 -02, ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICA- TIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -02 2 -9 -81 -6- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by , . member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager then introduced resolution to establish. Street Reconstruction Project No. 1981 -03. The City Engineer noted that his department had under. - taken the redesign of Xerxes Avenue North from T.H. 100 to County Road 10 adjacent to the Brookdale Shopping Center. He stated that normal design standards anticipate a useful life of 20 years for pavement structures, with a possible 5 to 10 years service lift extension upon proper and timely use of bituminous overlays. He added that in this case the existing roadway structures which were placed in 1961 have shown signs of marked deterioriation for a number of years. He also stated that curb and gutter installations for these streets have also shown premature deterioriation. He stated that special considerations should be given to possible funding sources. He noted that whereas Xerxes Avenue is a municipal state aid street, it is therefore eligible for MSA construction funding although 55th and 56th Avenues are not. He stated the City does have the option of adding the two roadways to the MSA street system and that the staff would recommend such action be taken. He also stated that the.project does benefit the adjoining properties in the area and recommended special assessments be levied to the benefit of the properties. He recommended the City Council consider a reduction of accessible project costs by an amount corresponding to pavement structures surface lift not realized. He recommended 33% reduction in total accessible project costs. He indicated that special assessment rates may be established by the various methods including the area method or the front foot method. The staff recommended that the Council consider the area method of assessment with provisions for establishing establishment of zones of benefit. Following a brief discussion of the proposed assessment plan, Councilmember Kuefler indicated that he felt the majority, of the traffic that was generated by Brookdale and not the other properties that would benefit from the road construction. He expressed a concern that Brookdale was there longer and had made more use of the roadway even before the others were even established. He expressed his concern that the assessment to the benefit of properties be equitable. The City Engineer stated that the assess - ments would be based on total area, therefore the majority of assessment would go to the Brookdale Shopping Center. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -41 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, 56TH AVENUE, STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 1981 -03, ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -03 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 -9 -81 -7- T The City Manager introduced a resolution calling for the establishment of municipal state aid streets. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -42 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a .resolution establishing a City purchasing policy. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -43 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITY PURCHASING POLICY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution recogn.i7ing the public service of Mr. Daniel Erickson. R ESOLUTION NO. 81 -44 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resol.ution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. DANIEL ERICKSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tonv Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. BROOKLYN CENTER'S 75TH ANNIVER A brief discussion ensued relative to preparation for Brooklyn Center's 75th Anniversary to occur in February of 1986. There was general support for some form of celebration. It was agreed that there be merit to contacting people in the community to determine what types of celebrations would be appropriate. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to bring the matter back before the Council one year from this date. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers K.liefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES . There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the following list of licenses: 2 -9 -81 -8- BULK VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Brooklyn Center Lions Box 29092 CIGARETTE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. N. Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy F OOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Arthurs Treacher's Fish & Chips 6100 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Evangelical Free Church 6830 Quail Ave. N. Brooks Superette 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Duoos Bros. Am. Legion Post #630 4307 70th Ave. N. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Frontier Fruit & Nut Co. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Jerry's Brookdale Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. Maid of Scandinavia Co. Westbrook Mall Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Mar'c Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd. Nature Food Center, Inc. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Num -Num Foods, Inc. 3517 Hennepin Ave. Brookdale Snack Bar Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. Peking Place 5704 Morgan Ave. N. Poppin Fresh Pie Shop 5601 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. Winchell's Donut House 1912 57th Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Central Heating & Air Conditioning 1971 Seneca Road Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 K -Tel Drive NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. N.W. Bell 6540 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Cass Screw Company 4748 France Ave. N. Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N. Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Ault Corp. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Ind. Park 6120 Earle Brown Dr. Cat Pumps 1600 65th Ave. N. Earle Brown Apts. 1701 69th Ave. N. Garden Ctiy School 3501 65th Ave. N. 2 -9 -81 -9- Coca Cola Bottling Midwest Continued Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Holiday Inn 1501 65th Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Midwest Federal 5545 Xerxes Ave. N. J.C. Penney Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Perkins Cake & Steak 5915 John Martin Dr. Precision Inc. 3415 N. 48th Ave. Razor Court 5740 Brooklyn Blvd. St. Paul Book & Stationery 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. State Farm Office 6415 Brooklyn Blvd. Willow Lane School 7030'Perry Ave. N. Dale Tile Company 4825 France Ave. N. Davies Water Equipment 4010 Lakebreeze Ave. N. First Brookdale State Bank 5620 Brooklyn Blvd. R.E. Fritz Company 8511 10th Ave. N. Ault, Inc: 1600 Freeway Blvd. Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. State Farm Ins. 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Midwest Bolt & Supply Co. 6820 Shingle Cr. Pk4Ty. Northomation Systems 7421 Bush Lake Rd. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Red Owl Stores Inc. dba Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. N. Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy Twin City Vending Co. 1065 East Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. Park 6100 Summit Dr. • Viking Pioneer Distr. 5200 West 74th Street LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy- N.W. Bell 6540 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. State Farm Ins. 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Northomation Systems 7421 Bush Lake Rd. Brookdale Pontiac, 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Red Owl Stores, dba Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. N. Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Viking Pioneer Distr. 5200 West 74th Street LaBelles 5925 Earle Brwon Dr. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Consolidated Toy Co. 6020 North Lindbergh Blvd. Toy City Store 6000 Earle Brown Dr. Snyder Bros. Drug Brookdale Shopping Ctr. 2 -9 -81 -10- e Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to prepare resolutions of appreciation for Mary Ellen Vetter and Henry Dorff. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Clerk Mayor 2 -9 -81 -11- CORRECTION Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application No. 81004. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the application. No one appeared to speak and Mayor Nyquist enter- tained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to close the public hearing on Application No. 81004. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to recommend approval of Application No. 81004, a request for preliminary RLS approval establishing new boundaries for the parcel of land at the southwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard following highway taking, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final RLS is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 2. The final Rls is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Building permits will not be issued until the RLS is finaled and filed with the County. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers- Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 81005 submitted by Lisa Rogers Carter for special use permit to conduct a home occupation in the basement of the residence at 5308 Humboldt Avenue North. He noted, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81005 at its January 15, 1981 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for Council members pages 9 through 10 of the Planning Commission minutes of the January 15, 1981 meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81005. He reviewed the special use permit application and the ' location of the subject parcel for Council members. He noted the Building Official inspected the premises and noted that some electrical work had been done without a building permit and that the work did not meet code. He stated the staff is recommending that this be corrected before the application is approved. He indicated proper notices had been sent regarding the public hearing on the special use permit and that the applicant was present at this evening's meeting. He added, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the applica- tion subject to 7 conditions which he reviewed for Council members. Council - member Lhotka inquired whether it is standard procedures to require an exit si as one of the conditions for a business of this nature. The Director of Planning 1 -26 -81 -13- and Inspections stated that it was often required and that the Building Official may require the exit signs, adding that this can be added to condition no. 6 of the Planning Commission conditions. Mayor Nyquist recognized the applicant who stated that the building permit for the electrical work had been taken out and that she has obtained a bid for this work. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether there was anyone else who wished to speak to the application. No one appeared ane he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Council - member Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application No. 81005. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve Application No. 81005, a request for a special use permit for a home beauty shop in the basement of the residence at 5308 Humboldt Avenue North, 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 applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the applicant's current state operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. All parking associated with the special use shall be off- street on space provided by the applicant. 5. The hours of operation shall be limited to Monday through Friday, noon to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Service shall be provided on an appointment only basis. 6. The applicant shall install a fire extinguisher in the beauty shop room and shall separate that room from other areas of the basement with a curtain or door. An exit sign shall be posted indicating the egress to the outside from the beauty shop room. 7. The applicant shall correct all remodeling and electrical work in the basement area which does not meet code requirements prior to the issuance of-the special use permit. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 81006 submitted by Ryan Oldsmobile for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a used car sales office and a Mazda sales office connected to the existing sales building by a canopy, at 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81006 at its January 15, 1981 meeting. 1 -26 -81 -14- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION JANUARY 12, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority met in special session and was called to order by Chairman Dean Nyquist at 8:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Dean Nyquist, Commissioners Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were HRA Director Gerald Splinter, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspections Ron Warren, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Tom Bublitz. APPROVAL OF MINUTES AUGUST 11, 1980 There was a motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Lhotka to approve the minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of August 11, 1980 as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Nyquist, Commissioners Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -1 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE FIRST BROOKDALE STATE BANK A DEPOSITORY OF HRA FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none,, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -2 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK A DEPOSITORY OF HRA FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -3 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE FIRST PLYMOUTH NATIONAL BANK A DEPOSITORY OF HRA FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 -12 -81 -1- RESOLUTION NO 8 1 -4 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE HOME SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION A DEPOSITORY OF HFA FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken hereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupcn said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -5 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CAMDEN NORTHWESTERN STATE BANK A DEPOSITORY OF HRA FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -6 Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE FIRST NATICNAL BA14K OF MINNEAPOLIS A DEPOSITOR`.: OF HRA FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. AD JOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Lhotka and seconded by Commissioner Fignar to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Nyquist, Commissioners Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: non--, the motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Housing and Redevelopment Authority adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Chairman • 1 -12 -81 -2- 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 FEBRUARY 9, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspections Ron Warren, Park and Recreation Director Gene Hagel, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Assistant City Engineer Jim Grube, and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Father Lowry of St. Alphonsus Catholic Church. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1981 Councilmember Gene Lhotka noted that in the second to the last line on page 13 that the word "sign" should be included between the words "exit" and "as ". There was .a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 26, 1981 as • amended. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. OPEN FORUM Mayor Nyquist noted that the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum session at this evening's meeting. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone present who wished to use the Open Forum session. Mary Jane Gustafson, representing the Brooklyn Center Historical Society, invited Council members and all of those present at the Council meeting to attend the 70th birthday celebration of the City of Brooklyn Center. She noted that the celebration was to be held February 15 at 1:00 p.m. at the Brooklyn Center Civic Center. FINAL PLAT - MERIWETHER RESTAU PROPERTY RLS City Engineer Sy Knapp stated that the RLS was in conformance with the require- ments of City Ordinance Chapter 15. However, he noted that the abstract of title had not been forwarded for review by the City Attorney. He also stated that the legal description of the parcel does not lend itself to review for verification of noted length, bearings, and curve data and therefore they were forced to assume that the land surveyor had correctly depicted the parcel and all of the data. It was the City Engineer's recommendation that final approval of the RLS be contingent of receipt of the abstract of title. The City Engineer, Sy Knapp, also noted that in 1975, the parcel was assessed $467.20 to have the sanitary sewer service extended to the property line as part of a previous improvement project. He also stated that our records indicated that no service line was actually installed. The City Engineer 2 -9 -81 -1- i s �I added that the City should consider some form of credit against the.building permits, SAC charges or other charges receivable by the City. It was his recommendation that the City Manager be authorized to negotiate the final settlement with the current property owners for the service extension and a credit for the previous payment. A brief discussion then ensued and Council- member Kuefler inquired how the property managed to become assessed. The City Engineer indicated that it had been part of a previous project but that the work to extend the sewer service had never been undertaken by some over- sight. Councilmember Fignar inquired if the City owed something to the current owners. The City Engineer indicated he felt that the City was somewhat responsible to the owner. Councilmember Fignar inquired if the matter had been discussed with the property owner. The City Engineer indicated that a letter had been sent to the owners outlining the problem and acknowledging the previous payment. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to authorize the City Manager to negotiate a settlement with the Meriwether Restaurant property owner with regards to the extension of sanitary sewer service to the property. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the final plat on Meriwether Restaurant property RLS contingent upon receipt of an abstract of title for review by the City Attorney. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT .REVENUE BOND POLICY DISCUSSION City Manager Gerald Splinter introduced the next agenda item as a discussion of the City's policy guidelines for industrial development revenue bonds. He stated that Brooklyn Center has witnessed an'increase in the volume of industrial development bond requests for a number of reasons. First, he noted that because of the current high interest rates on conventional loans, industrial revenue bonds offer the only financing available that was financially feasible. Second, he stated that with the construction upgrading of the highway system around Brooklyn Center, the undeveloped property within Brooklyn Center has become a very hot item. He stated that the City will continue to see a great deal of pressure to develop the areas that remain. He then introduced to the City Council Bond Attorney Dave Kennedy. Dave Kennedy then took the opportunity to briefly .review the basic principals involved in municipal tax exempt financing. He added that it was timely for the Council to be reviewing their industrial development revenue bond guide- lines because the abuse of IRB's was the current target of the state legislature as well as federal government. He stated that under the statute, the City has to make a determination of public benefit for each application that comes before them. He added that the Council is not bound by its guidelines to approve any project. He clarified that by indicating that because an applicant has met all of the criteria set forth in the guidelines does not automatically insure the applicant of an IRB. He noted that on a legal basis each project should stand on its own merit and emphasized the Council's ability not to grant final approval to any project for which the'Council. did not feel there was a public benefit. He also stated that projects that had received preliminary approval need not be given final approval if the Council were to find that significant changes had 2 -9 -81 -2- occured in the project since the time it was first proposed to the Council. He reviewed a number of potential guidelines the Council could consider incorporating into the present guidelines. First, he suggested that the Council could consider limiting industrial development revenue bonds by type. By type he indicated that the City would issue such financing only to industrial development as opposed to commercial development. Second, he indicated that the Council could consider limiting development to a redevelopment area or to a specified development district. All other applications outside those areas wouldn't be considered. Third, the Council might consider limiting the project by dollar amount. He indicated that there would be a minimum dollar amount for which an IDR would be considered. Fourth, he suggested that the Council consider limiting the extent of the project. By limiting the extent of a project, the Council would take the position that financing would be provided for land and building only to the exclusion of architectural fees, engineering fees, construction financing costs and so forth. And fifth, he indicated that consideration of the project should be done at the time a date is set for the public hearing as opposed to the date of the public hearing. Mayor Nyquist then inquired if there were any problems, legal or otherwise, with the City issuing too many industrial development revenue bonds. Dave Kennedy replied that there is no legal limit or problem that the City would encounter from issuing IRB's. He also indicated that the issuance of IRB's has no effect upon the City's bond rating. Councilmember Kuefler inquired if the Council was empowered to require an equity position on the project. Dave Kennedy affirmed that the Council could take such a position but as a practical matter, equity in the project is required by the lender. He noted that this was especially true in commercial developments. He also indicated that such a position might serve to the detriment of the Council in considering a potential inviting industrial development. Councilmember Scott inquired if the pressure from the number in dollar amounts of IDR's in the market today would create competition for the City's placement of municipal bonds. Dave Kennedy replied that is a rather debatable issue. He added that experts tend to disagree on the range of effect from no effect to approximately a point. He indicated that he was of the opinion that it does affect the market the extent of which he is not sure. City Attorney Schieffer inquired if a project were to fail after its completion, whether or not there is a possibility the City would be involved in a law suit. Dave Kennedy replied that there is always a possibility that the City would become involved in a law suit although under a private placement it would be doubtful and under a public placement of the bonds or mortgage it would be probable. He also indicated that while the City would be sued, the chances of the suing party prevailing were very marginal. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to whether or not the City could control who the lender might be. Dave Kennedy indicated that the City would not desire direct control and he would advise against it. However, the Council receives a letter of financial feasibility for each project and if the Council were unfamiliar with the person reporting on the financial feasibility, it was within the City's right to retain a financial consultant to review the financial feasibility of the project and charge such expenses against the applicant. Councilmember Kuefler asked if the City sets a precedent on issuing IDR's to one type of project and refusing it for a similar project. Dave Kennedy replied that a precedent is not set, that each application has to stand on its own merits. He likened IDR guidelines to that of the comprehensive plan in its relationship to the zoning laws. He noted that the zoning law will prevail and that the comprehensive plan serves only as a guide but is not binding. In the same vein, IDR guidelines for the Council serve only as guidelines but do not set precedent or prevail upon the Council or limit their choice. A brief discussion then followed with Mayor Nyquist thanking Dave Kennedy for his time and efforts before the Council that evening. 2 -9 -81 -3- t PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 81010 submitted by the Classic Car Corporation for determination that assembly of electric cars is a permitted use in the I- l The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for the Council members pages 1 through 3 of the minutes of the January 29, 1981 Planning Commission meeting and also Planning Commission information sheet no. 81010 for their review. The Director of Planning and Inspections reviewed the location of the site. He further stated there was no clear precedent of a similar determination by the City Council in the past. Therefore the matter was being brought to the Council for review at this time. He noted there is no new construction involved with the application only the occupancy of the tenant spaces in Spec 8 and Spec 6 industrial buildings. He noted that the activity proposed for the building had been comapred with those of TCR Head Screw Products and Audio Research. It is noted that the City Manager and the Director of Planning and Inspections had an opportunity to review the electric car assembly operation at the company's current location in Plymouth. The operation involves taking reconditioned volkswagon chassis and outfitting them with a number of batteries and then attaching already manufactured single unit fiberglass bodies to the frames. The process also includes the necessary mechanical work to make the unit operational. Assembly is done in teams rather than the more conven- tional assembly line process. Also viewed at the assembly site in Plymouth was the fiberglassing operation where car bodies are repaired. It is proported by the applicant in his letter to the Planning Commission that the process is relatively clean and free of obnoxious odors and dirt. The Director of Planning and Inspections concurred with that observation. He further indicated that the staff's primary concern is that the manufacturing and assembly be as viewed and as the applicant indicates and not evolving to a more traditional automobile assembly plant. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application Non 81010 at its January 29, 1981 meeting. Councilmember Scott inquired as to the exact location of the proposed assembly plant. Planning Director Warren indicated that it will be located at the former Onan site. Councilmember Kuefler inquired as to their explanation or definition of assembly only. The City Manager Gerald Splinter briefly described the team assembly process as opposed to the more traditional assembly line procedures of other plants. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmenibez: Kuefler to approve Application No. 81010 with the three recommendations of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passes} unanimously. The City Manager introduced Application No. 81011 submitted by Youth Investment Foundation who were seeking a special use permit to use the single family residence at 4800 71st Avenue North for office, counseling, and group meeting functions of the organization. He added that approval would constitute a determination that the YIF use is a noncommercial use required for public welfare in an R--1 district. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of Application No. 81011 at its January 29, 1981 meeting. The Director of Planning and Inspections presented and reviewed for the Council pages 4 through 9 of the Planning Commission minutes of the January 29, 1981 meeting and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81011. He noted that the applicant requests approval of the special use permit to use the single family residence for office, counseling 2 -9 -81 -4- and group meeting functions of the Youth Investment Foundation. The property is zoned R -1 and is bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, by 71st Avenue North on the south, by a single family residence on the west and by Creek Villa Townhouses on the north. He stated that special uses permitted in R -1 zones include "other noncommercial uses required for public welfare and an R -1 district has determined by the Council ". He stated that approval of the application would involve a determination that the use described by the applicant is required for the public welfare in an R -1 district. He noted the religious uses proposed for the site and stated that religious uses such as chapels, churches, temples and synagogues are separately acknowledged special uses which are permitted "provided primary vehicular access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street ". He also stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires measures be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in public streets. Following Planning Director Warren's review, Mayor Nyquist opened the public hearing on the matter. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Pearson, 4812 71st Avenue North. Mr. Pearson requested that the Council deny this special use permit. He indicated to the Council that he felt that the proposed use would generate too much of a parking problem for the neighborhood and that the use was not suitable to a residential neighborhood. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Lew Terzich of 4825 71st Avenue North. Mr. Terzich objected to the proposed use reiterating the same reAsons as Mr. Pearson. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Delphine Pallum of 4800 71st Avenue North. She noted that she lives in the house at the site and in that she felt it was a perfect location for the proposed use. She stated that the house is somewhat isolated from the rest of the neighborhood and that it is generally too noisy nor a family. Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Thayen, the applicant. Mr. Thayen requested the Council look at the letters that have been submitted from residents next xt o other YIF locations. He noted that the potential problems that had been expressed to the Council, especially the parking, had not been experienced at other sites. . He also indicated that he had spoken to United Methodist Church and there was a possibility that they would let them use their parking lot. He said he felt the property was beneficial because it offered a home atmosphere, its location was readily accessible and it was close to the schools with which he would be working. Councilmember Fignar inquired as to the funding for YIF. Mr. Thayen implied that it was a n s P nonprofit corporation that received P p ce ved donation from churches, individuals and companies. Councilmember Fignar then inquired if their counseling is strictly for the children within that district or would they accept children from anywhere. Mr. Thayen indicated that the emphasis would be on children from this area but that no child would be precluded from the program. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the types of problems they dealt with. Mr. Thayen indicated that they dealt with a wide variety of problems including family, social, drug and other problems. He indicated that they did not function as a treatment center. Councilmember Scott requested the applicant to describe their year round camp operation. The applicant, Mr. Thayen, briefly described the YIF camp noting that it was their philosophy to maintain contact with the youths that attend the camp once they have left. He noted that children at the camp receive closer attention from the counselor. Councilmember Fignar inquired as to how long YIF had been in existance. Mr. Thayen indicated that they have been counseling youths since 1970. The applicant further stated that they were seeking either approval of the special use permit 2 -9 -81 -5- or their request was that the Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. Planning Director Ron Warren indicated the use is more appropriate in a C -1 zone and that was the intent of the Planning Commission in their recommendation for denial. Councilmember Scott indicated that she is very familiar with the work of the foundation and she spoke very highly of them. However, she noted that the location selected by the YIF organization presented some problems for the Council that would establish the precedent that would create problems for them in the future. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to deny Planning Application No. 81011 based upon the three recommenda- tions of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council- members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to why Planning Commissioner Malecki had not voted on the matter. Planning Director Warren indicated she was of the opinion that the use of the special permits had not been discussed in great enough detail to allow her to make a decision on that matter. RECESS The Council recessed at 9:05 and reconvened at 9:20 p.m. RESOLUTIONS The City Manager introduced the first resolution establishing Street Improve- ment Project No. 1981 -02. City Engineer Sy Knapp noted that because of the purchase and development of the property north of Brookdale Ford by Commercial Partners Inc., the Engineering Department's recommending construction of right and left turn lanes for north and southbound roadwav exits to the commercial development. In addition, he recommended construction of left turn lanes along the median at John Martin and Summit Drives to provide for left turn, northbound to westbound traffic movements to the new Hennepin County library complex. He also proposed modifications for the median adjacent to the City Hall -Civic Center complex. He noted that the median reconstruction had been designed to accommodate a projected increase in southbound, eastbound turning movements in the Shingle Creek Parkway.-Summit intersection. Median closures were recommended at the south access to the City Hall and the currently baracaded Civic Center access. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -40 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1981 -02, ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICA- TIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -02 2 -9 -81 -6- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by . member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager then introduced resolution to establish Street Reconstruction Project No. 1981 -03. The City Engineer noted that his department had under- taken the redesign of Xerxes Avenue North from T.H. 100 to County Road 10 adjacent to the Brookdale Shopping Center. He stated that normal design standards anticipate a useful life of 20 years for pavement structures, with a possible 5 to 10 years service lift extension upon proper and timely use of bituminous overlays. He added that in this case the existing roadway structures which were placed in 1961 have shown signs of marked deterioriation for a number of years. He also stated that curb and gutter installations for these streets have also shown premature deterioriation. He stated that special considerations should be given to possible funding sources. He noted that whereas Xerxes Avenue is a municipal state aid street, it is therefore eligible for MSA construction funding although 55th and 56th Avenues are not. He stated the City does have the option of adding the two roadways to the MSA street system and that the staff would recommend such action be taken. He also stated that the project does benefit the adjoining properties in the area and recommended special assessments be levied to the benefit of the properties. He recommended the City Council consider a reduction of accessible project costs by an amount corresponding to pavement structures surface lift not realized. He recommended 33% reduction in total accessible project costs. He indicated that special • assessment rates may be established by the various methods including the area method or the front foot method. The staff recommended that the Council consider the area method of assessment with provisions for establishing establishment of zones of benefit. Following a brief discussion of the proposed assessment plan, Councilmember Kuefler indicated that he felt the majority of the traffic that was generated by Brookdale and not the other properties that would benefit from the road construction. He expressed a concern that Brookdale was there longer and had made more use of the roadway even before the others were even established. He expressed his concern that the assessment to the benefit of properties be equitable. The City Engineer stated that the assess- ments would be based on total area, therefore the majority of assessment would go to the Brookdale Shopping Center. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -41 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE, 56TH AVENUE, STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 1981 -03, ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1981 -03 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2 -9 -81 -7- t The City Manager introduced a .resolution calling for the establishment of municipal state aid streets. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -42 Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor_ thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefl-er, Bill. Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager introduced a resolution establishing a City purchasing policy. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -43 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITY PURCHASING POLICY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. The City Manager. introduced a resolution recognizing the public service of • Mr. Daniel Erickson. RESOLUTION NO. 81 -44 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. DANIEL ERICKSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon note being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly }gassed and adopted. BROOKLYN CENTER'S 75TH ANNIVERSAR A brief discussion ensued relative to preparation for Brooklyn Center's 75th Anniversary to occur in February of 1986. There was general support for some form of celebration. It was agreed that there be marit to contacting people in the community to determine what types of celebrations would be appropriate. There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and :seconded by Council-member Fignar to bring the matter back before the Council one year from this date. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember. Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar , to approve the following list of licenses: 2 -9 -81 -8- ' BULK VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Brooklyn Center Lions Box 29092 CIGARETTE LICENSE Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189.Eagan Ind. Rd. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. N. Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Arthurs Treacher's Fish & Chips 6100 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Evangelical Free Church 6830 Quail Ave. N. Brooks Superette 6800 Humboldt Ave. N. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N. Duoos Bros. Amw. Legion Post #630 4307 70th Ave. N. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Frontier Fruit & Nut Co. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N. Jerry's Brookdale Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. N. Maid of Scandinavia Co. Westbrook Mall Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Marc Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd. Nature Food Center, Inc. Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Num -Num Foods, Inc. 3517 Hennepin Ave. Brookdale Snack Bar Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N. Peking Place 5704 Morgan Ave. N. Poppin Fresh Pie Shop 5601 Xerxes Ave. N. Brookdale Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. Winchell's Donut House 1912 57th Ave. N. MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Central Heating & Air Conditioning 1971 Seneca Road Rouse Mechanical, Inc. 11348 K -Tel Drive NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. N.W. Bell 6540 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Cass Screw Company 4748 France Ave. N. Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N. Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Ault Corp. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd. Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121- Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center Ind. Park 6120 Earle Brown Dr. Cat Pumps 1600 65th Ave. N. Earle.Brown Apts. 1701 69th Ave. N. Garden Ctiy School 3501 65th Ave. N. 2 -9 -81 -9- s Coca Cola Bottling Midwest Continued Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Holiday Inn 1501 65th Ave. N. K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. Midwest Federal 5545 Xerxes Ave. N. J.C. Penney Brookdale Shopping Ctr. Perkins Cake & Steak 5915 John Martin Dr. Precision Inc. 3415 N. 48th Ave. Razor Court 5740 Brooklyn Blvd. St. Paul Book & Stationery 5810 Xerxes Ave. N. State Farm Office 6415 Brooklyn Blvd. Willow Lane School 7030'Perry Ave. N. Dale Tile Company 4825 France Ave. N. Davies Water Equipment 4010 Lakebreeze Ave. N. First Brookdale State Bank 5620 Brooklyn Blvd. R.E. Fritz Company 8511 10th Ave. N. Ault, Inc. 1600 Freeway Blvd. Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. State Farm Ins. 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Midwest Bolt & Supply Co. 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Northomation Systems 7421 Bush Lake Rd. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Red Owl Stores Inc. dba Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. N. Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy Twin City Vending Co. 1065 East Highway 36 Earle Brown Farm Ind. Park 6100 Summit Dr. • Viking Pioneer Distr. 5200 West 74th Street LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr. PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S. Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd. M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. N.W. Bell 6540 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd. Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N. Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte. State Farm Ins. 5930 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N. Northomation Systems 7421 Bush Lake Rd. Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd. Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N. Red Owl Stores, dba Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N. Servomation 7490 Central Ave. N. Graco 6820 Shingle Cr. Pkwy - Viking Pioneer Distr. 5200 West 74th Street LaBelles 5925 Earle Brwon Dr. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE Consolidated Toy Co. 6020 North Lindbergh Blvd. Toy City Store 6000 Earle Brown Dr. Snyder Bros. Drug Brookdale Shopping Ctr. 2 -9 -81 -10- Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. . There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to prepare resolutions of appreciation for Mary Ellen Vetter and Henry Dorff. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none; the motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Clerk Mayor I • 2 -9 -81 -11- APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CEN TER. PIANNING ADVISORY COMMISSIO 1. N a m e 4 2. Address Phone ,�"�d ZfO 3. How long have you been a resident? .5�y,�5. 4. List special interests, qualifications, excerience which you feel relate to this appointment: Cite Ile rJ.S�/�� /? •..4u i�i9 tai= rat t1 •�f.� .�"Gy /A ✓y4 h - continue on back • �" v�E .�•; r,�c CO7.1�L /C i a, �ti:� �=� 7' ��sCc�i��/L S. Additional remarks concerning your ideas or observations on the role of the Commission: • CAI 1j1A772f eS' rf���`�Lo��,�n..'r" ,ri'y' fSS' ✓.�i� ih'�T .StC_L ��i2c,��!.s%�� i'�'ori %�crS �?. ' . E � i • S T, ' .� � G' eet'G• ,� -'.s f�'c� � j'G .�ra'l t - continue on back - ,� S 5i.s !' iN %rt•�" r' � ,� ��J : c,.�J Ti a l,: e� �- : v 1:1.Z� i°e; f%�s . 6. Are you familiar with the purpose, authority, and responsibility of the Commission as described in the Zoning Ordinance? Yes tl� No 7. Are you aware of the importance of regular Commission meeting attendance (normally twice a month on the 2nd and 4th Thursday nights) , and do you fee! you have L;ie Liiilte a ailC,7 Ule to uC an octive partic. n Yes `` No- Comments: Signature Date Submit to: Mayor City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek P, rkv,ay Brooklyn Center, MN 53430 • �� //✓ G'D/rJ.+�� .E'C: l � G � t iL ° ✓?. � ti`' � %�. �.? �. �." J�.*�•,?/Z': 3 D /L`! /ce: -yam �7 /9G � j:� S i�.� C 7�S ' �SiTf ±SELtG %JCIL' �` •!�E'L�.Gd.r�J�s.E2� -1 s�F:.Sr6st� � L'CN�S/'�.G:i�G'>T%�'�/ J r,��J`"J — /G._ t`Goul � ,���/..� - -s'G: �ri.t/�:�. /yl y ri•E'o� f,�J�.S �GkJ�!'.5 �udh'J�FP G' �. r: s " ",�G v c�liTf/ Gi >y �- S'�/�/C'f= , r "•t -'e�'l Ti 1/c= -(_'i' i_'/��'G;� c_S)%1� -.�� r1r` ,t�2 s',<3G�c'� -T� A ti` 17 i 1 R,5v nl 1� L 4Y 1�dE /�/�11>E /Y/OS f /'t'/��l//U //1/ ce e,5 V r,D.Is • STROM ENGUVEEERS, 0 . Minneapolis Chicago Denver Tampa San Diego 2 January 1980 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Attn: Ron Warren Re: CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLAIMER Ron: My firm does no work for any municipality or other governmental body, being exclusively in the industrial, commercial and limited residential field. We have no clients, past or present, that do business in Brooklyn Center, or have principals as property owners in this city. In the event that a client may have future matters before the Planning Commission and /or City Council, I will abstain from any discussion or vote on such matters. If requested, I will absent myself from the chambers during consideration of the case. I will immediately inform the Chairman of any possible conflict upon reviewing the agenda, if such should occur. Lowell A. Ainas President • LAA 1rc Architectural Design and Engineering 5700 West Broadway Suite 315 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 16121 533-5604 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Gary Shallcross, Planning Assistant DATE: February 19, 1981 SUBJECT: Release of Performance Guarantee 1. The Ponds Plat Six (utilities) Ponds Drive North and Unity Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 78029 Amount of Guarantee - $55,000.00 Obligor - Meadow Corporation All utilities, paving, curb and gutter have been installed in accordance with the approved plan. The Engineering Department, however, has not yet received information regarding the location of curb stops in this development. Recom- mend release of entire guarantee upon receipt of the information regarding curb stops. APPROVED cs.� t,.�l •�.•._.� Rona d A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ` RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND OR TAX EXEMPT MORTGAGE NOTE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING WHEREAS, Chapter 474 of the Minnesota Statutes, known as the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act (the "Act ") gives municipalities the power to issue revenue bonds or tax exempt mortgage notes for the purpose of the encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City "), has received from Brookdale Office Park Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Company "), a proposal that the City undertake and finance a project consisting of properties used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise comprised of three commercial office buildings, to be acquired and constructed by the Company or its assigns through the issuance of the City's revenue bonds or tax exempt mortgage notes (which may be in the of a single debt instrument or in one or more series) (the "Obligations ") pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, before p--oceedirg with consideration of the request of the Company, it is necessary for the City to hold a public hearing on the proposal pursuant to Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b of the Act. NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center: 1. A public hearing on the proposal of the Company will. be held at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing attached hereto. 2. The general nature of the proposal and an estimate of the principal amount of the Obligations to be issued to finance the proposal are described in the form of Notice of Public Hearing attached hereto. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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.. RESOLUTION NO. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS OR TAX EXEMPT MORTGAGE NOTES UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES,.CHAPTER 474, AS AMENDED CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the governing body of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City "), will meet on March 23, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on a proposal that the City issue its revenue bonds or tax exempt mortgage notes (the "Obligations ") under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended, to undertake and finance a project on behalf of Brookdale Office Park Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership, or its assigns (the "Company "). The proposed project will consist of the acquisition of land in the City and the construction thereon of three commercial office buildings. The estimated total amount of the proposed issue is $8,000,000. The Obligations shall be limited obligations of the City of Brooklyn Center and the Obligations and interest thereon shall be payable solely from the revenue pledged to the payment thereof, except that the Obligations may be secured by a mortgage and other • encumbrances on the project. No holder of any such Obligation shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Obligations, or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment against any property of the City except the project. A draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Commissioner of securities for approval of the project, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the offices of the City Clerk, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, weekdays, during business hours. All persons interested may appear and be heard at the time and place set forth above. Dated February 1981. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL By /s/ Allen S. Lindman City Clerk Member introduced the following resolution s and moved its adoption: ` RESOLUTION 1 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING F= -,,qAY BOULEVARD S7REIrI' rJPROVcl`4FT?T PROJB'CT 1981-04, ACCFPTRr, CITY FNCIrT- FR IS REPORT, AND ORDER-- II- PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPEC1- FICATIOH -! MUREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City Engineer regarding the feasibility of constructing a right turn lane on Freeway Boulevard at Fhm Avenue North at an estimated cost of $10,570; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement: NOG], THERFFORF, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of � Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that said improvement be established as Improve - ment Project No. 1981 -04. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted and that the City Engineer be directed to prepare plans and specif.ica -- tions for said improvement project described as Freoaay Boulevard Improvement Project 1981 -04. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The notion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution. was duly seconded by marber , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B R 0 0 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 . 3.r. TELEPHONE 561 -5440 rr`l R U ENi I rn U . EM ERG ENCY- POC{CE -FIRE 561-5720 EWIl\= q S REPORT PROJECT 1981 -04 PRO=T DESCRIPTION: Turn lane installation f PROJ}-CT LOCATION: Freeway Boulevard at Humboldt Avenue I\brth DISCUSSION: In conjunction with the reconstruction of the 1-94, 694, and T.H. 100 interchange by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN /DOT), the City f Brooklyn Center has undertaken a project the HL�nk�oldt Y Yn ec t to .. 7 Avenue- Freeway Boulevard intersection. .Previously ccnpleted improves.ents include the installation of traffic signals and island medians on Humboldt Avenue north of Freeway Boulevard. Additional improvements required to improve . traffic flow through the Freeway Boulevard- Humboldt Avenue intersection include: (1) construction of a right turn lane for eastbound to southbound traffic movements from Freeway Boulevard to T.H. 100; and (2) the future installation of median islands on Freeway Boulevard west from Humboldt Avenue to the west entrance to Duke's Standard Service Station. The installation of the right turn lane will provide for the anticipated in- crease in furning movements resulting from the interchange reconstruction. MN /DOT has acknowledged the anticipated need for the turn lane and has agreed to cooperate with v ' h the C in this de velopment b lacc�rent of the bituminous � � � Y P base and wearing courses. The City would be required to replace the east en- trance to the Holiday Inn, place curb and gutter adjacent to the widened tin lane, and extend existing storm sewer facilities to provide drainage. The future median island installation will prevent traffic entering or exiting the easterly drives to the Holiday Inn and service station from unduly inter- ferinq with the smooth flow of traffic and operation of the traffic signal detectors. The median installation will require wi.d.enincr of Freeway Poulevard on the north by four feet to accomodate two full westbound lanes. MN/DOT will not participate in the development of the proposed median- installa- tion; therefore, the staff recommends the improvement not be included in the 1981 construction program. The staff will, however_, m. nitor the area upon completion of MN /DOT construction and recommend the needed geometric improve- ments be installed when traffic demands warrant the construction. It is appa- rent at this time that Freeway Boulevard will require a bitix overlay within the next two to five years. It would appear that the construction of the median on Freeway Boulevard could best be incorporated into that project. So�:etlu:g Xa7.e Engineer's Report Project 1981 -04 Page 2 lib costs incurred in the turn lane construction are assessable to the adjacent properties. The staff, therefore, recommends the City use Municipal State Aid monies in the financing of the construction project. A brief summary of the City's share of the estimated costs for the right -turn lane construction project are as follows: Construction Cost : $8,660 Engineering Costs (@ 100 of Gonst. costs) 870 Legal & Adminis. (@ 2% of Const. costs) 170 Contingencies (@ 100 of Const. costs) 870 Estimated. Total Cost :$10,570 rya Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR DESIGN OF PALMER LAKE PARK IMPROVEMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to.ekecute an agreement with the firm of Brauer & Associates, Inc. for the design of Palmer Lake Park improvements for landscape architectural, architectural, and engineering services required to complete a master plan for the development of park facilities within the southern portion of Palmer Lake Park as specified in said agreement. The cost for professional services under this agreement is $4,200. Date Mayor ATTEST: _ Deputy 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. February 13, 1961 City of Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Contract Proposal for Professional Services Palmer Lake Park Gentlemen: This letter ro osal outlines a scope of services fee sche- P P P dule and other elements which, if approved, constitutes an agreement between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, herein referred to as the OWNER, and BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC., herein referred to as the CONSULTANT. The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide landscape architectural, architectural and engineering services re- quired to complete a master plan for the development of park faciliites within the southern portion of Palmer Lake Park, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. A. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Basic Services 1. Research, collect, review and synthesize all data that will affect t e p anning process including meeting with staff to establish site needs, priori- ties and phasing. Anticipated needs may include but are not limited to: • Regional Trail . Viewing blinds .. hiking . Potential consideration .. biking to relocate Co. Rd. 0130 liaison with Co. staff • Parking Lot . DNR management recom- • autos mendations .. bus . Municipal snow dump requirements o; 2. Detailed on site evaluation of site conditions to establish ablish the best location for trails in terms of p access and unique natural Environmental resources. 4 3. Preparation of preliminary plan concepts and sup - porting graphics illustrating the location of trails, viewing blinds -- platforms, parking area, planting and (2 'a, incorporate DNR management recommendations for land use and development. 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 City of Brooklyn Center -2- February 13, 1988 4. Pres to staff of graphics including existing land use eatures, public and neighborhood relationships to the PROJECT, natural environmental site elements and a preli- minary land use plan based on specific needs. 5. Revis of plan concepts as required by OWNER feedback. Preparation of a final master plan for the PROJECT area. 6. Pre paratio n_ of a preliminary cost estimate by the MN. in sufficient detail to identify specific area and facility costs with allowance for design development construction documents, bidding and construction obser- vation during the course of site development. Cost esti- mate analysis will incorporate both phased and priority scheduling. 7. Presentation of final master plan graphic and - supporting preliminary cost estimate to OWNER for formal approval. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Additional Services 1. Formal presentations to Park Board and City Council as may be specifically directed and authorized. 2. Design Development, Construction Drawings and Specifi- cations for development work and required detai s complete and ready for bidders. 3. Bidding Procedures which include preparation of adver- t� ements for 6_i3s, issuance of drawings and specifica- tions to bidders, clarification of questions by addenda during the bidding period, direction of bidders con - ference, analysis of bids received, recommendations for contract award and assistance in preparation of contract documents for each contract awarded. 4. Constru Observatio Periodic communication with the oontractor and OWNER and visits to the site on the average of one per week during construction to interpret design intent of the plans and specifications; set up payment schedule; approve shop drawings; make general progress reports; process change orders; and approve field changes. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion of professional services described above as follows: 1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in Paragraphs A -1 through A -7, above, a lump sum:fee of FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($4,200.00) including all out -of- pocket expenses. City of Brooklyn Center -3- February 13, 1981 2. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, as described in Paragraph B -1, above, a Lump Sum Fee of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) per meeting. 3. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, as described in Paragraphs B -2 through B -4, above, a Lump Sum Fee, current hourly rates or a Percentage Fee to be determined following completion of Paragraph A and determination of anticipated construction budget. 4. For the CONSULTANT'S Reimbursable Expenses, actual expen- ditures for t-he CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, other than the hourly fee, directly connected with the PROJECT including mileage, cost of soil borings, testing or spe- cial consultants as directed by the OWNER, and identi- fiable materials, services or supplies used in reproduc- tion of reports, drawings, specifications or field work. D. PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT 1. Statements will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly basis, with a breakdown of time and expenses for services performed, or work completed, through the 25th of the pre - vious month. • 2. Payments on account of CONSULTANT'S services are due and payable within thirty days of receipt of CONSULTANT'S statement of services rendered. E. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY The OWNER shall make available or allow access to all existing data related to the work and all other data or information which may develop that could possibly have a bearing on the decisions or recommendations made under this Agreement. The OWNER shall specifically provide where available: 1. Base mapping including an accurate boundary representation with utilities, easements, etc. 2. Identification of any site restrictions. 3. Soil surveys, utilities, borings and other data which describes the general nature and conditions of the site. 4. Topographic mapping of all areas to be studied including adjacent activity areas. • City of Brooklyn Center -4- February 13, 1981 S. Additional data or information which will have a bearing on the planning or design conclusions and recommendations of the CONSULTANT. 6. One designated individual with whom the CONSULTANT can meet, receive instructions and deliver information and coordinate all planning activities. F. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 1. The Term of the Agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized. Estimated completion time for services described in Paragraph A -1 through A -7 is no less than twelve (12) weeks from the date of authorization or receipt of basic data, whichever is the latter. Coordinating efforts for PROJECT completion will be outlined upon contract authorization to proceed. 2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at any time by written notice, and shall be effective upon payment in full for all services performed to the date of • receipt of such notice. 3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its part- ners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, suc- cessors, assigns and legal.representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. G. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that appli- cants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compen- sation and selection for training including apprenticeship. City of Brooklyn.Center -5- February 13, 1981 H. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and will be made available to the OWNER, if re- quested. 2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his employees and the public, and from claims for property da- mage. 3. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and maintain statutory copyright in all published books, published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical character, and other works related to this PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. One copy of each drawing shall be provided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain the property of the CONSULTANT. I. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW 1. This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and super- sedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the PROJECT. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT. 2. Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be governed by the law of the principal place of business of the CONSULTANT. City of Brooklyn Center -C- February 13, 1981 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and exe- cuted this Agreement, This day of 1981. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center, Minnesota In presence of: €iRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC. In presence of: Eden Prairie, Minnesota 4 , 4 a 1r .A." Vice President v ww Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BRAUER & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR DESIGN OF CENTRAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an agreement with the firm of Brauer & Associates, Inc. for landscape architectural, architectural, and engineering services required to complete a master plan for a "Plaza Area" plus schematic architectural drawings and preliminary cost analysis for a park shelter within Central Park as specified in said agreement. The cost for professional services under this agreement is $5,275. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. February 13, 1981 City.of Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation Department City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Contract Proposal for Professional Services Central Park Gentlemen This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee sche- dule and other elements which, if approved, constitutes an agreement between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, herein referred to as the OWNER, and BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC., herein referred to as the CONSULTANT. The OWNER hereby retains the CONSULTANT to provide landscape architectural, architectural and engineering services required to complete a master plan for a "Plaza Area" plus schematic architectural drawings and preliminary cost analy- sis for a park shelter within Central Park, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. A. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Basic Services 1. Research, collect, review and synt hesize all data that will affect the planning process including meeting with staff to establish scope of PROJECT, facility needs, priorities and phasing. Facilities may include but are not limited to: . structure . play apparatus . walks . lighting . paved areas . planting horseshoes . furniture shuffleboard . site utilities structure consideration 2. Preparation of preliminary land use concepts and su j p p Y P P porting graphics illustrating the placement of speci- fic facilities. O 3. Schematic Architectural Drawings: Drawings prepared in su icient detaiT to suggest general architectural character as well as an outline for building materials and methods which could be used for preliminary costing -�. purposes. M 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 City of Brooklyn Center -2- February 13, 1981 4. Presentation of graphics to staff illustrating rela- tionship to existing public park and neighborhood. 5. Revision of land use plan concepts as may be required by OWNER. Preparation of final master plan for the PROJECT area incorporating OWNER suggestions. 6. Schematic Architectu Drawings: A final set of graphics wiTl be prepare tat represents structural schematics agreed upon between the OWNER and CONSULTANT. These graphics will be prepared in a manner suitable for incor- poration in final report document. 7. Prepa ration of a preliminary cost estimate for the struc- ture one Cost estimate analysis will incorporate priority scheduling. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES - Additional Services 1. Presentation of final graphics and supporting preliminary cost estimate to OWNER - -City Council- -for formal approval. 2. Design Development, Construction Drawings and Specifi- cations for eve opment work ot site an structure and required details complete and ready for bidders. 3. Bidding Procedures which include preparation of adver- tisements or bT s, issuance of drawings and specifica- tions to bidders, clarification of questions by addenda during the bidding period, direction of bidders con- ference, analysis of bids received, recommendations for d and assistance in preparation of contract contract awar a ass st P P documents for each contract awarded. 4. Construction Observation: Periodic communication with the Contractor and OWNER — a — n - d visits to the site on the average of one per week during construction to interpret design intent of the plans and specifications; set up payment schedule; approve shop drawings; make general progress reports; process change orders; and approve field changes. C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion of professional services described above as follows: 1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in Paragraphs A -1 through A -7, above, a Lump Sum Fee which includes all expenses of FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY -FIVE DOLLARS ($5,275.00). City of Brooklyn Center -3- February 13, 1981 2. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, as described in Paragraph B -1, above, a Lump Sum Fee of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) per meeting. 3. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, as described in Paragraphs B -2 through B -4, above, a Lump Sum Fee, current hourly rates or a Percentage Fee to be determined following completion of Paragraph A and determination of anticipated construction budget. 4. For the CONSULTANT'S Reimbursable Expenses, actual expen- ditures for the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, other than the hourly fee, directly connected with the PROJECT including mileage, cost of soil borings, testing or spe- cial consultants as directed by the OWNER, and identi- fiable materials, services or supplies used in reproduc- tion of reports, drawings, specifications or field work. D. PAYMENT TO THE CONSULTANT 1. Statements will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly basis, with a breakdown of time and expenses for services performed, or work completed, through the 25th of the pre- vious month. 2. Payments on account of CONSULTANT'S services are due and payable within thirty days of receipt of CONSULTANT'S statement of services rendered. E. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY The OWNER shall make available or allow access to all existing data related to the work and all other data or information which may develop that could possibly have a bearing on the decisions or recommendations made under this Agreement. The OWNER shall specifically provide where ' available: 1. Identification of any site restrictions. 2. Soil surveys, utilities, borings and other data which describes the general nature and conditions of the site. 3. Topographic mapping of all areas to be studied including adjacent areas. City of Brooklyn Center -4- February 13, 1981 4. Additional data or information which will have a bearing on the planning or design conclusions and recommendations of the CONSULTANT. 5. One designated individual whom the CONSULTANT can meet, receive instructions and deliver information and coordinate all planning activities. - F. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 1. The Term of the Agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized. Estimated completion time for services described in Paragraph A -1 through A -7 is April 15, 1981. 2. Termination may be accomplished by either party at any time by written notice, and shall be effective upon payment in full for all services performed to the date of receipt of such notice, 3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its part- ners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, suc- cessors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. G. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, rational origin, physical condition or age. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that appli- cants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compen- sation and selection for training including apprenticeship. H. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and will be made available to the OWNER, if re- quested. City of Brooklyn Center -5- February 13, 1931 2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him from claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his employees and the public, and from claims for property da- mage. 3. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and maintain statutory copyright in all published books, published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical character, and other works related to this PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. One copy of each drawing shall be provided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain the property of the CONSULTANT. I. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW 1. This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and super- sedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the PROJECT. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT. 2. Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be -governed by the law oil the principal place of business of the CONSULTANT. City of Brooklyn Center -6- February 13, 1981 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and exe- cuted this Agreement, This day of 1981. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center, Minnesota In presence of: BRAUER•& ASSOCIATES LTD., INC. In presence of: Eden Prairie, Minnesota P <� Gera d W.�Pirk , L.A. Vice President v ww Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. HENRY DORFF WHEREAS, Mr. Henry Dorff served as a member of the Conservation Commission from January 1, 1971 through December, 1980: and WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of this 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: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: The dedicated public service of Mr. Henry Dorff as a member of the Conservation Commission and citizen, is recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. lo Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MS. MARY ELLEN VETTER WHEREAS, Ms. Mary Ellen Vetter served as a member of the Conservation Commission from March 13, 1972, and as its Chairman from July 24, 1972 through December, 1980; and WHEREAS, her devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of this Commission contributed substantially to the sound progress and development of the City; and WHEREAS, her public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by 'the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: The dedicated public service of Ms. Mary Ellen Vetter as a member and Chairman of the Conservation Commission and citizen, is recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BffJOKLYN Cl, -TTfFR ORDI MNCL; IT). AN ORDINANCE AMENDING aJAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES . REVISING TITS DESCRIPTION OF PIUPERTY INTI`IMN THE R -3, C -1, AND C -2 ZONING DIS TRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CF.i1I`ER DOES ORDAIN AS FOIT-31S : Section 1. Section 35 -1120 is hereby amended by the deletion of the following: [Lot 1.6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57. The west 1060 feet of Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57. Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57; except highway. That part of Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 described as follows: Cc)mnencing at the northeast corner of Lot 19; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 19 a distance of 112.45 feet; thence southwesterly at right angles 120 feet; thence northwesterly at right angles 130 feet; thence northeasterly at right angles to the north line of Lot 19; thence east to beginning; except highway. That part of Lot 19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 described as follows: Comencing at a point in the northeasterly line of Lot 19 distant 1.12.45 feet southeasterly from the northeasterly corner thereof; thence south - westerly at right angles 120 feet; thence northwesterly at right angles 130 feet; thence northeasterly at right angles to the north line of Lot 19; thence west to the nortl corner thereof; thence south to a point in the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 18; thence east along the last describe line to the northeasterly line of Lot 19; thence northwesterly to the point of beginning; except highway. That part of Lot 19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 lying south of the north line of Lot 18 extended west to the west line of Lot 19. The northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 281 [Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot A, Twin Lake North Addition] [Lot 1, Block 1, DeMac Addition.] [That part of the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 lying southeasterly of 69th Avenue North and northeasterly and easterly of Elsen's City View 2nd and 3rd Additions. Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Northtown Plaza lst Addition. Lots l through 7, Block 4, H. Smilden's Addition.] Section 2. Section 35 -1120 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: The Ponds A 2"lie P P 'Ito, The Ponds Plat Thr The Ponds Plat Four, The Ponds Plat Five, The Ponds Plat Six. Creek Villas Additi and Creek Villas 2nd Addition. Lot 1, Block 1, margin Gardens Addition. Earle Brown Townhouses Addition. Block 1 and Outlot A, RivervUod Tlownhomes Addition. Northbrook Estates Addition. Nborwood Townhouses Addition. j Outlot A, Ztain Lake North Addition. That Dart bf Lot 2, .Block 1, Thin Lake North Addition eribraced within Lot 5 of Aud. Sub. No. 216. Section 3. Section 35 -1170 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition. Section 4. Section 35 -1190 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Lot 3, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 19 I Mayor ATI`EST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted. I Ar MEMO DRANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectio I. J. DAZE: February 20, 1981 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Revising the Description of Certain Property An ordinance amending Chapter 35 revising the description of certain property within the R3, Cl, and _C2 ..Zoning Districts_ has been submitted for a first reading by the City Council on February 23, 1981. For the mist part, this is a routine housekeeping amendment which ackrnwledges two new legal descriptions for properties already contained in the respective zoning districts. The ordinance amendment deletes many of the old descriptions contained in the Zoning Ordinance for property in the R3 District such as for The Ponds, Creek Villa, Earle Brown Farm Townhouses, The Riverwood Townhomes and The Maorwood Townhouses. The amendment also adds to the R3 District the Northbrook Estates Addition which is the small townhouse project being developed by Village Builders on Logan Avenue, just south of 58th Avenue. This property was rezoned by the City Council on November 19, 1979 under Planning Commission Application No. 79055. Also included in this amendment is the new legal description for the property �1 P P PertY located north of Shingle Creek and west of Brooklyn Boulevard. This property was rezoned partly to Cl and partly to C2 for Robert L. Johnson under planning Commission Application Igo. 79014 on Aril 9, 1979. The new LEAP building is P g located on Lot 2, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition. CITY OF BROOKLYN CE-MM ORDINAM 1d0. AN ORDIDP= AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF TfIE CITY ORDINANCES REVISING WE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY =HIN THE R -3, C -1, AND C -2 ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35 -1120 is hereby amended by the deletion of the following: [Lot 16, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57. The west 1060 feet of Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57. Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57; except highway. That part of Lot 18, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 19; thence southeasterly along the northeaster) line of said Lot 19 a distance of 112.45 feet; Y , thence southwester) at right angles 120 feet; thence northwesterly Y g � Y at right angles 130 feet; thence northeasterly at right angles to the north line of Lot 19; thence east to beginning; except highway. That part of Lot 19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 described as follows: Commencing at a point in the northeasterly line of Lot 19 distant 112.45 feet southeasterly from the northeasterly corner thereof; thence south - westerly at right angles 120 feet; thence northwesterly at right angles 130 feet; thence northeasterly at right angles to the north line of Lot 19; thence west to the northwest corner thereof; thence south to a point in the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 18; thence east along the last described line to the northeasterly line of Lot 19; thence northwesterly to the point of beginning; except highway. That part of Lot 19, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57 lying south of the north line of Lot 18 extended west to the west line of Trot 19. The northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 281 [Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot A, Twin Lake North Addition] [Lot 1, Block 1, DeMac Addition.] [That part of the northeast 1/4 of the northeast 1/4 lying southeasterly of 69th Avenue North and northeasterly and easterly of Elsen's City View 2nd and 3rd Additions. Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Northtown Plaza 1st Addition. Lots 1 through 7, Block 4, H. Smilden's Addition.] Section 2. Section 35 -1120 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: The Fonds Addition, The Ponds Plat Tom, The Ponds Plat Three, The Fonds Plat Four, The Fonds Plat Five, The Ponds Plat Six. r Creek Villas Addition and Cre Villas 2nd Addition. Lot 1, Block 1, Marvin Gardens Addition. Earle Brown Farm Townhouses Addition. Block 1 and Outlot A, Riverwood Tbwnhomes Addition. Northbrook Estates A Moorwvod Townhouses Addition. Outlot A, Twin Lake North Addition. - That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Train Lake North Addition a- braced within Lot 5 of Aud. Sub. No. 216. Section 3. Section 35 -1170 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition. following: Section 4. Section 35 -1190 is hereby amended by the addition of the Lot 3, Block 1, Piccadilly Pond Addition. Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. II ' Adopted this day of 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted. CITY OF BROOKLYN? CENTER ORDINANCE NO. _AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF NORTH LILAC D RIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section l: That portion of North Lilac Drive located on the following described property That part of Tract A, R.L.S. No. 546, lying northerly of the westerly extension of the southerly line of Tract B, R.Z.S. No. 546, fil of the Registrar o Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesot is hereby vacated as a public street Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1981. I j Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Published in the official newspaper Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) Notice of Ordinance Adoption published I � . MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: February 19, 1981 SUBJECT: IRB Public Hearings Federal Lumber Federal Lumber is requesting Industrial Development Revenue Bond financ- ing in the amount of 1.5 million dollars to replace the facility they lost in a fire. Since the project contemplates the redevelopment of a business, staff is of the opinion that the project sufficiently meets the City's guidelines to be given consideration for IRB financing by the City. The staff does question the cost of the project relative to the amount of insurance the company received because of the fire. How m of the insurance money is going back into the project. With the reconstruction of Federal Lumber a number of former problems are being corrected. The land is being replatted, with the vacating of the street, setbacks and parking problems have been corrected and the construction of new buildings helps to clean up an area of the City that was becoming blighted. The project is in compliance with • all applicable codes. The project is consistent with the City's IRB guidelines and will help retain the former jobs held at Federal Lumber. It is the staff recommendation that preliminary approval be given to the Federal Lumber request but a clear understanding of the use of the "t<,� insurance money should be known to the Council. Also, in a se 1 - ' motio staff. should be instructed not to s th�.-.- i jedu3 e f pa 1 approval of the IRB regL:estunfiS the replatting has been co mpleted. Brookdale Corporate Center /Ryan Construction This is a request for'8.6 million dollars in Industrial Revenue Bond financing for the construction of an office building to be located at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive. While this project is not a redevelopment, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project is the highest and best use for the site. The project substantially meets the requirements of the City's guidelines. The project is a "quality project "-from our perspective and will have a beneficial impact upon traffic patterns in the area as opposed to other types of possible development. An estimated 232 new jobs will be created with the office complex, with an estimated payroll of 3.5 million dollars per year. It is recommended that the City give preliminary approval to the IRB request. Again, it is recommended that a separate motion be passed instructing the staff to not schedule the resolution of final approval until the replatting of the site is completed. I will be prepared to discuss these projects in greater detail Monday night. • CM-00424-01 ~ •" This Application must bo submined to Commiulonlir in duplicate- n STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE — SECURITIES DIVISION APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND PROJECT Date To: Minnesota Department of Commerce Securities Division 500 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 The governing body of Brooklyn Center County of Hennepa -n_ - -- Minnesota, hereby app!ies to the Commissioner of -the State of Minnesota, Securities Division of the Department of Commerce, for approval of this community's proposed municipal Industrial Revenue Bond Issue, as required by Section 1, Subdivision 7, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes. We have entered into preliminary discussions with: FIRM Federal Lumber Company ADDRESS 4 810 North Lilac Drive CITY Brooklyn Center STATE MN 55429 State of Incorporation Minnesota Attorney Hon i n We iss Address ,500,000 City of Brooklyn Center Industrial Development Bonds Federal Lumber Compa Nams of Proiect . R evenue � p n Pr This firm is engaged primarily in (nature of business): Distribution of hu 1 (91 na material products. The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general nature of , project): acquire, construct and equip an office /war °t,^„sP fari l i ty_ It will be located in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota The total bond issue will be approximately $ 1,500,000 to be applied toward payment of costs now estimated as follows: Cost Item Amount Land A 7 q c uisition and Site Development $ 5 nnn Construction Contracts Equipment Acquisition and Installation i! Architectural and Engineering Fees Legal Fees Interest during Construction Initial Bond Reserve Contingencies Bond Discount � n n n n Other $1,715,000 It is presently estimated that construction will begiN on or about ,�AApri 1 1 r 19 p and will he completed on or about Nov 1 19 1 . When completed, there will be roximately 10* new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approximately w. based upon currently prevailing wages. The tentative term of the financing is 20 years, commencing April 1 , 19 81 The fo'6owing exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by reference: 1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minnesota Stat., Chapter 474.02. 2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue bonds. 3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies the public purpose of Minnesota Stat., Chapter 474.01. 4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or_a letter confirming the feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint. 5. A statement, signed by the Mayor, to the effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement, the information required by Minn. Stat. Sec. 474.01 Subd. 3 will be submitted to the Depart- ment of Economic Development. 6. A statement signed by the Mayor, that tha protect does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence. 7. 'A statement signed by the Mayor that a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 474.01 Subd. 7b. The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and that an o p p ortunity to ex press their views. f! interested pp Y P a p arties were afforded P 8. A copy of the notice of publication of the public hearing. * Will also re—employ p y 40 em employees s out of work due to the previous destruction of the Company's building. We, the undersigned, are duly elected representatives of Brooklyn Center Minnesota, and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. Signed by: (Principal Officers) This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the Commissioner or the state of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the lease to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefor. Date of Approval Commissioner of Securities Minnesota Department of Commerce UPPER MIDWEST'S DOMINANT LUMBER CO. BRANCH YARDS - ". CARLOAD Federal- Southtown DISTRIBUTORS I-Fr m-T, 8436 Pillsbury Ave. S. of the Finest Nationally « - I ­t P�pls., MN 55420 Advertised Building +�? r I ' {' t _ "' t I a Materials for Homes ! 4 f ? e ® Federal - St. Paul and Industry i � ( � ( � t t 2741 Geneva Ave. N. J —° 1J_1 L L L �- 1 A IJ 1 1 t , 1 t L 1 St. Paul, MN 55119 ss ."`g ,,, ... ,� ..:.. a ° i t .V qsn t �' - f°° r d;_ e�;S��t. lt:�. , QOM .', _, t+:ia:�4� t t��tu €� DOOR MAIN OFFICE BUILDING AND YARDS — 4810 NORTH LILAC DRIVE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55429 — Phone 533 -4691 1981 City Council of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: $1,500,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Federal Lumber Company Project) Dear Members of the City Council: We submit herewith a completed City of Brooklyn Center Application for Industrial Development Bond Project Financing, a draft Application to the Commissioner of Securities and draft exhibits thereto in connection with a project under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes (the "Act ")., and our check in the amount of $2000 for administrative charges. We request that the City undertake and finance the Project pursuant to the Act. As a first step, we request that the City Council give preliminary approval to the Project, after published notice and public hearing as required by the Act, and submit the Application to the Commissioner of Securities for the approval as required by the Act. We represent to you that the statements in the draft Application and exhibits are accurate, to the best of our information and belief. As indicated, we believe that the Project will add to the tax base of the municipality, the county and the school district and that the Project upon completion, will create approximately ten new jobs and reemploy approximately 40 employees out of work since the destruction by fire of the Company's building last year. Pursuant to the terms of a Memorandum of Agreement dated as of 1981, with the City, we agree to pay any and all costs incurrecT by the City in connection with its review and processing of this Application or with the Project, including but not limited to items of Project costs, whether or not the Project is approved by the Commissioner of Securities and whether or not the Project is carried to completion. We also agree that the City shall not be liable on any contracts necessary for the acquisition, construction or installation of the Project. Should we pay any portion of the Project Costs in excess of the proceeds of the Bonds, we shall not be entitled to any reimbursement therefor from the City, nor shall we be entitled to any diminution in or postponement of loan repayments. We also agree to release the City from, and agree that the City shall not be liable for, and agree to hold the City, its City Council and its respective officers and employees harmless against any and all losses, claims, causes of action, damages, suits or liability to which the City, its officers and employees may become subject under any law in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and the ,carrying out of any of the transactions contemplated including any loss or damage to property or any injury to or death of any person that may be occasioned by any cause whatsoever pertaining to the Project or the use thereof. We further agree to reimburse the City, its officers and employees, for any out -of- pocket legal and other expenses (including 'reasonable counsel fees) incurred by the City, its officersand employees, in connection with investigating any such losses, claims, damages or liabilities or in connection with defending any actions relating thereto.. We understand that the Bonds shall be limited obligations of the City, and that principal and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely out of the revenues derived from amounts payable to the City by the Company pursuant to the provisions of the Loan Agreement. With the submission of the enclosed and other materials previously forwarded to the City, we trust that we have complied with the City's guidelines for application for industrial revenue bond financing. FEDERAL LUMBER COMPANY Y B _ Its - r - APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND PROJECT FINANCING CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER I. Applicant: a. Business Name: Federal Lumber Company b. Business Address: 4810 North Lilac Drive Phone: (612) 920 -1955 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 area code c. .Authorized Representative : James H. Segal d. Address: 4810 North Lilac Drive Phone: (612) 920 -1955 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 area code e. Business Form: Kpartnership, sole proprietor, corporation) corporation II. Nature of Business: (provide a description of your business and /or products and as proposed with this development if different) Distribution of h• building material products III. Proposed Development:. a. Describe the proposed project and its location. Office /warehouse and other shed -type storage facility located at 4810 North Lilac Drive, Brooklyn 1111 b. Is the proposed project a new facility or an expansion? Describe. Replacement and expansion of office /warehouse destroyed by fire in 1980 e. Explain the need for the project in Brooklyn Center. ® Return employment opportunity for approximately 40 employees whose jobs were affected by destruction of premise d. What other potential uses are there for the facility? None e. Will the proposed facility attract other business to the area? Describe. Possibly - unable to predict IV. Financing: a. Estimated Costs: 1. land $ ( currently owned) 2. building 1,250,000 3. equipment 200,000 ' 4. other (explain) 250,000 5. Total: $ 1,700,000 b. Total amount of financing requested: $ 1,500,000 e. Source of other funds to be used for the proposed project. Equity contribution by corporation, insurance proceeds d. Have you applied for conventional financing? If yes, describe; yes - Northwestern National Bank, Minneapolis, Minnesota If no, why not; e. Have you ever filed for bankruptcy? If yes, provide details. No f. Have you ever defaulted on any bond or mortgage payment? If yes, provide details. No g. Has your business ever received industrial revenue bonds before? If yes, provide details. No V. Other: a. Provide the names and addresses for your underwriter, bond counsel, corporate counsel. Bond counsel - Faegre & Benson, 1300 Northwestern Bank Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Corp. counsel - Gainsley, Squier.& Korsh b. What is your target date for: April 1 1981 1. construction start A P 2. construction completion November 1, 1981 VI. Financial References: a. Bank Camden Northwestern National Bank b. Mortgage 4th Northwestern National Ban • FEDERAL'LUMBER COMPANY Applica . B Date January 21, 1981 For Further Information, Contact City Manager's Office City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Phone (612) 561 -5440 a NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK • Of Minneapolis r Corporate Finance Division January 20, 1981 Commissioner of Securities Minnesota Department of Commerce 500 Metro Square Building St Pau - 1, MN 55101 Re: Proposed $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Project: (Federal Lumber Company Project) Municipality: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Borrower: Federal Lumber Company Dear Commissioner: At the request of the above -named Borrower, we have conducted an informal study as to the economic feasibility of the proposal that the above -named Municipality issue its indus P Y trial development p t bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, to finance, in whole or in part, the above- referenced Project. • Our study has led us to conclude that on the basis of current and expected financial conditions, the Project is economically feasible and the proposed industrial development revenue bonds of the Municipality can be successfully issued and sold. We propose to act as financial advisor for the Municipality and .the Borrower in the sale of the bonds to one or more financial institutions, subject to your approval of the Application being submitted contemporaneously herewith, the final approval _ of the Municipality, the opinion of bond counsel and the mutual agreement of all parties as to maturity, price, interest rate, security and other terms and documentation. S' e y, Robert R. Corrick Assistant Vice.President RRC / j and die•_ -z -a 7th and Marquette Avenue • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480 • (612) 372.8123 ANCb Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY FEDERAL LUMBER COMPANY UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. There has been presented to this Council a proposal by Federal Lumber Company, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company ") that the City undertake and finance a project pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Develop- ment Act Minnesota Statutes 74 Chapter the "Act ") generally consisting of A ( the acquisition, construction, and equipping, on land presently owned by the Company within the Municipality, of an office and warehouse facility (the "Project "). Under the proposal, the Project facilities will be owned by the Company, and the Company will enter into a revenue agreement with the City upon such terms and conditions as are necessary to produce income and revenues suffi- cient to pay when due the principal of and the interest on up to approximately $1,500,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City to be issued pursuant to the Act, to provide monies for the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project; and the City will pledge its interest in the revenue agreement to secure the bonds. 2. As required by the Act, this Council conducted a public hearing on February 23, 1981 on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project after publication in the official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation in the City of a notice setting forth the time and place of hearing; stating the general nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds or other obligations to be issued to finance the Project; stating that a draft copy of the proposed Application to the Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, is available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk, in the City Hall, at all times between the hours of 8:30 a.m: and 4:30 p.m. each day except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays to and including the day of hearing; and stating that all parties who appear at the public hearing shall have an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. The draft application to the Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, was on file and available for public inspection at the place and times set forth in the notice. 3. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474.01 of the Act in that the purpose of the Project is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare by the attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; the retention and develop- ment of industry to use the available resources of the community, in order to retain the benefit of its existing investment in educational and public service facilities; by halting the movement of talented, educated personnel of mature age to other areas and thus preserving the economic and'human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and the more intensive development of land available in the area to provide a more adequate tax base to finance the cost of governmental services in the Municipality, county and school district where the Project is located. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The Company has entered into preliminary discussions with North- western National Bank of Minneapolis, as financial consultant and the financial consultant has reported that the Project and the sale of bonds therefor are feasible. 5. The Company has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Project whether or not the Project is approved by the Commissioner of Securities and whether or not the Project is carried to completion. 6. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City sub- ject to approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Securities and subject to final approval by this Council and by the purchasers of any bonds to be issued as to the ultimate details of the Project and as to the terms of the bonds. 7. In accordance with Section 474.01, Subd. 7 of the Act, the Mayor, the City Manager and such other officers and representatives of the City as may from time to time be designated are hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Commissioner of Securities and request her approval thereof, and the Mayor, the City Manager and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with such preliminary information as she may require. The Company, Messrs. Faegre & Benson as bond counsel, the City Manager, the City Attorney, and other City officials are also authorized to initiate the preparation of a proposed loan agreement and such other documents as may be necessary or appropriate to the Project so that, when and if the proposed Project is approved by the Commissioner and this Council gives its final approval thereto, the Project may be carried forward expeditiously. 8. The Company is hereby authorized to enter into such contracts, in its own name and not as agent for the City, as may be necessary for the construc- tion of the Project by any means available to it and in the manner it determines without advertisement for bids as may be required for the acquisition or construc- tion of other municipal facilites, but the City shall not be liable on any such contracts. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COi;tMERCE - SECU1zITIES DIVISION APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL INDUS`!-',IAL RrVENUE BOND PROJECT Date To: .Minnesota Department of Commerce . Division 500 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 The governing body of Brooklyn Center. County of Rpnnpnin , Minnesota, hereby applies to the Commissioner of the State of Mlnnesot.a Securities Division of the Department of Commerce, for approval of this corn- muna.t proposed M unicipal 'ci a]_ Industrial Revenue Bond Issue, as required by Sectiori 1, Subdivision 7, Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes. lie have entered into preliminary discussions with: FIRM Brookdale Corporate Center, Brooklyn Cen a limited partnership ADDRESS Metro Blvd, Suite 500 CITY Edina STATE Minnesota 55435 State of s �� a p ��°l e _ Dorsey, Windhors , First National Bank Building' • Attorndannaford, Whitney Address Mi nne-apol i -;, -- -&- Name of Project Brookdale Corporate Cent er This firm is engaged primarily'in (nature of business): �stte development and management The funds received from the sale of the Industrial Revenue Bonds will be used to (general nature of project): construct a general purpose office building It will be located in Brooklyn Center Minnesota The total bond issue will be approximately $ 8,600,000 _ to be Applied toward payment of costs now estimated as fallo %•:s: Cost Item Amount Land Acquisition and Site Development $ 1:635 000 Construction Contracts 5,286 25g -- Equipment Acquisition and Installation -Q- Architectural and Engineering Fees Legal Fees 50,000 ----- interest during Construction r-- initial Bond Reserve - 0 - Contingencies Bond Discount Other It is presently estinated that construction will begin on or about .A ;.Zr, 1 1 19 81, and will ba comp le Led on or ab Ap 1 19_x. .1 I�rncil 0 ba approximately 2 3 2 new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of proximately $ 3, 4 8 0, 0 0 0 based upon currently prevailing wages. The tentative term of the financing is 10 years, ccn rencing 19 81 . The fallowing exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by reference: L. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter'474.02. 2. A copy of the city council resolution giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue bonds. 3. A cD-Tprehensive statement by municipality indicating how the project satisfies the public purpose of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474.01. 4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter confirming the feasibility of the project from. a financial_ standpoint. 5. A staterrent, signed by the Mayor, to the effect upon entering into the revenue agreement, the information required by Mirmasota Statutes, Section-474.01, Sub - division 8, will be submitted to the I>ap ar moment of Economic D-avelopffken t. 6. A statement signed by the Mayor_, that the project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consared in the production of property for sale, turd does • not include any housing facility to be rented'or used as a permanent residence. 7. A state-rant signed b the Ma or that a p ublic hearirz was conducted suant to � y Y P g ur P Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b. The staterrtint shall :include the date, time and place of the meeting and that all interested parties v-ro, afforded an opportunity. to express their vie7v.s. 8. A copy of the notice of publication of the public hearing. We, the undersigned, are duly elected representatives of Brooklyn Center , � Y _ Minnesota, and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. Signed by: (Principal Officers) This approval shall not be deemed to be an approval by the CoMMnissioner or the state of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the lease to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefor. 1 c of Approval Cc:rai.ssioner of Securities �Linnescta D °partiir nt of Ccxte,*_,rce APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRUL DEVELOPHENT BOND PROJECT FINANCING CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1. Applicant: a. Business Name:&rookdale Corporate Center b. Business Address: 7401 Metro Boulevard. Phone: )835 -7990 Suite 500 area code Edina, MN 55424 c. .Authorized Representative dim Ryan 612 835 -7990 d. Address: 7401 Metro Boulevard Phone : ) Suite 500 area code Edina, MN 55424 e. Business Form: (partnership, sole proprietor, corporation) Li ited.Partn rsi • II. Nature of Business: kprovide a e desc�ription of your business and /or products - and as proposed with this development if different) Real estate development and management of industrial, commercial and residential f ' projects - III. Proposed Development: a. Describe the proposed project and its location. Construction of a 116,000 square foot several purpose office *build.ing located at Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive b. Is the proposed project a new facility or an expansion? Describe. The project is a new facility c. Explain the need for the project in Brooklyn Center. It has been determined that there exists an office space need in Brooklyn Center d. What other potential uses are there for the facility? N/A e. Will the proposed facility attract other business to the area? Describe. ,:.The building is the first phase.of a larger project • IV. Financing: a. Estimated Costs: ' 1. land 2. building 5,286,259 - 3. equipment -0- 4. other (explain) 1,678 ,741 interest during construction, architect 5. Total: & engineer fees, contingencies, $ 8,600,000 etc. b. Total amount of financing requested: $ 8,600,000 C. Source of other funds to be used for the proposed project. Partnership equity d. have you applied for conventional financing? If yes, describe; Yes. Interest rates are prohibitive or are unavailable for long -term financing If no, why not;. . e. Have you ever filed for bankruptcy? If yes, provide details. -No f. Have you ever defaulted on any bond or mortgage payment? If yes, provide details. No g. Has your business ever received industrial: revenue bonds before? If yes, provide details. 1. Byerly's - Minnetonka .2. Preserve Village Center - Eden Prairie 3. 'Coon Rapids Village Center - Coon Rapids V. Other: a. Provide the names and addresses for your underwriter, bond counsel, corporate counsel. Underwriter = Leonard Champer; Jurar) & Moody, Inc. Bond Counsel - Richard Martin; Briggs and Morgan, P.A.. Corporate Counsel - Duane Joseph; Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay b. What is your target date for: 1. construction start April 15, 1981 2. construction completion April of 1982 VI. Financial References: " a.' Bank Fir6t National Bank of Minneapolis - John. Ferber 1 out �xt treet; P. Box 15 . nnnea is, IN b. Mortgage. N orthland Mortgage- Joseph thaw 66 00 France Avenue South G neapol.i s , MN 55435 Applicant Date For Further Information, Contact City Manager's Office City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Phone (612) 5 61--5440 JURAN & MOODY, INC. MUNICIPAL BONDS EXCLUSIVELY 114 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE 612!298 Honorable Mayor and City Council City Hall Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS OF THE • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA (BROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER PROJECT) Gentlemen: At the request of Brookdale Corporate Center, Brooklyn Center, a Limited Partnership, we have conducted a study of the economic feasibility of the proposal that the City of Brooklyn Center issue one or more of its revenue bonds under the provisions of the S Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of an office facility located within the City of Brooklyn Center. Our study has led us to the conclusion that on the basis of current financial conditions, the project is economically feasible and the revenue bonds of the City can be successfully issued and sold. We propose to purchase said bonds subject to approval of the project by the City of Brooklyn Center and the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities and agreements as to the terms and conditions of the loan. We understand a copy of this letter.will be forwarded by the Mayor of Brooklyn Center to the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota to serve as the letter of intent required by the Commissioner. Very truly yours, JURAN & MUODY, INC. Leonard A. Champer LAC / eh Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECITING A PROPOSAL FOR A COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SAID PROJECT TO THE COMMISIONER OF SECURITIES OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID PROJECT WHEREAS, (a) The purpose of Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, known as the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act (the "Act ") as found and deter- mined by the legislature is to promote the welfare of the state by the active attraction and encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; (b) Factors necessitating the active promotion and development of economically sound industry and commerce are the increasing concentration of population in the metropolitan areas and the rapidly rising increase in the amount and cost of governmental services required to meet the needs of the increased population and the need for development of land use which will provide • an adequate tax base to finance these increased costs and access to employment opportunities for such population; (c) The City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center ( "the City ") has received from Brockdale Corporate Center, Brooklyn Center, a limited partnership to be organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Company ") a proposal that the City assist in financing a Project hereinafter described, through the issuance of revenue bonds hereinafter referred to in this resolution as "Revenue Bonds" pursuant to the Act; (d) The City desires to facilitate the selective development of the community, retain and improve the tax base and help to provide the range of services and employment opportunities required by the population; and the Project will assist the City in achieving those objectives. The Project will help to increase assessed valuation of the City and surrounding area and help maintain a positive relationship between assessed valuation and debt and enhance the image and reputation of the community; (e) Company is currently engaged in the business of real estate development and management. The Project to be financed by the Revenue Bonds is a general office facility to be located in the City and consists of the acqui- sition of land and the construction of buildings and improvements thereon and the installation of equipment therein, and will result in the employment of additional persons to work within the new facilities; (f) The City has been advised by representatives of Company that con- ventional, commercial financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is RESOLUTION NO. available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but Company has also advised this Council that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing cost, the Project is economically more feasible; (g) Pursuant to a resolution of the City Council adopted on January 26, 1981, a public hearing on the Project was held on February 23, 1981, after notice was published, and materials made available for public inspection at the offices of the City Manager, at the City Hall, all as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b at which public hearing all those appearing who so desired to speak were heard; (h) The City, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Sub- division 7b did place a notice, a copy of which with proof of publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk, of the public hearing on the proposal of the Company that the City finance the Project hereinabefore described by the issuance of its Revenue Bonds, said hearing to be held to determine whether it is in the best interest of the City to proceed with the Project and the City did conduct a public hearing pursuant to said notice on February 23, 1981, at eight o'clock p.m., at which hearing all persons who appeared at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal; (i) No public official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project. • NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the proposal of Company that the City undertake the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act (Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes), consisting of the .acquisition, construction and equipping of facilities within the City pursuant to Company's specifications suitable for the operations described above and to a revenue agreement between the City and Company upon such terms and conditions with provisions for revision from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenues sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of and interest on the Revenue Bonds in the total principal amount of approximately $8,600,000 to be issued pursuant to the Act to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project; and said agreement may also provide for the entire interest of Company therein to be mortgaged to the purchaser of the Revenue Bonds;' and the City hereby undertakes preliminarily to issue its Revenue Bonds in accordance with such terms and conditions; 2. On the basis of information available to this Council it appears, and the Council hereby finds, that the Project constitutes properties, real and personal, used or useful in connection with one or more revenue producing enterprises engaged in any business within the meaning of Subdivision la of Section 474.02 of the Act; that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Section 474.01, Minnesota Statutes; that the availability of the financing under the Act and willingness of the City to furnish such financing will be a substantial inducement to Company to undertake the Project, and that the effect of the Project, if undertaken, will be to encourage the development of economically sound industry RESOLUTION NO. and commerce, to assist in the prevention of the emergence of blighted and marginal land, to help prevent chronic unemployment, to help the City retain and improve the tax base and to provide the range of service and employment opportunities required by the population, to help prevent the movement of talented and educated persons out of the state and to areas within the state where their services may not be as effectively used, to promote more intensive development and use of land within and adjacent to the City and eventually to increase the tax base of the community; 3. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City sub - ject to the approval of the Project by the Commissioner of Securities, and subject to final approval by this Council, Company, and the purchaser of the Revenue Bonds as to'the ultimate details of the financing of the Project; 4. In accordance with Subdivision 7a of Section 474.01 Minnesota Statutes, the Mayor of the City is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Commissioner of Securities, requesting his approval, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with such preliminary information as he may require; 5. Company has agreed and it is hereby determined that any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the financing of the Project whether or not the Project is carried to completion and whether or not approved by the Commissioner will be paid by Company; 6. Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association, acting as bond counsel, and Juran s Moody, Inc., investment bankers, are authorized to assist in the preparation and review of necessary documents relating to the Project, to con- sult with the City Attorney, Company and the purchaser of the Revenue Bonds as to the maturities, interest rates and other terms and provisions of the Revenue Bonds and as to the convenants and other provisions of the necessary documents and to submit such documents to the Council for final approval; 7. Nothing in this resolution or in the documents prepared pursuant hereto shall authorize the expenditure of any municipal funds on the Project other than the revenues derived from the Project or otherwise granted to the City for this purpose. The Revenue Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property or funds of the City except the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof, nor shall the City be subject to any liability thereon. The holder of the Revenue Bonds shall never have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the outstanding principal on the Revenue Bonds or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City. The Revenue Bonds shall recite in substance that the Revenue Bonds, including interest thereon, is payable solely from the revenue and proceeds pledged to the payment thereof. The Revenue Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; 8. In anticipation of the approval by the Commissioner of Securities and the issuance of the Revenue Bonds to finance all or a portion of the Project, and in order that completion of the Project will not be 'unduly delayed when approved, Company is hereby authorized to make such expenditures and advances RESOLUTION NO. toward payment of that portion of the costs of the Project to be financed from the proceeds of the Revenue Bonds as Company considers necessary, including the use of interim, short -term financing, subject to reimbursement from the proceeds of the Revenue Bonds if and when delivered but otherwise without liability on the part of the City; 9. The actions of the City Manager in causing public notice of the public hearing and in describing the general nature of the Project and estimating the principal amount of the Revenue Bonds to be issued to finance the Project and in preparing a draft of the proposed application to the Commissioner of Securities, State of Minnesota, for approval of the Project, which has been available for inspection by the public at the City Hall from and after the publication of notice of the hearing, are in all respects ratified and confirmed. Date Mayor ATTEST: Deputy 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. MEMO TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: R.J. Schieffer, City Attorney RE: Expenditure of public funds on private streets Owners of townhouses which abutt private streets have requested that the private streets be maintained and improved by the City through the application of seal coating. The justification set forth by these property owners is that they pay sufficient taxes (when compared r:ith the owners of free- standing single family dwellings built on public streets) to warrant maintenance of these private streets. You have prev- iously received a memo from the City Y.ssessor in which the economic arguments presented by these property owners have been largely neutralized. Also, you have received a memo from the Director of Public Works settincr forth the magn_tude of the private street maintenance and improvements if all nronerty owners who are similarly situated on private streets were accorded the same public service. It needs no research or citation of cases to state the simple fact that equal protection under the laws requires that a p service available to one geogra -phic group of property owners must be made available to other similarly situated in order to operate within the equal protection clause of the Federal and State Cons- titutions. Based upon these considerations, it appears that the economic arguments forwarded by these property owners is not entirely justi fled by facts.. Secondly, we must assume that expenditures for seal coating at one townhouse project must necessarily be followed by expenditures at the many townhouse projects and other dwellings which abutt private streets. Assuming that the City= Council should desire to go forward with a plan of maintaining and improving private streets, a question immediately arises whether or not public fund:, may be expended for that purpose. The Minnesota Constitution, Article 9, among other things, provides as follows: "Section 1 ... Taxes shall be ... levied and collected for public purn Section 10. The cred _t of the ;state shall never be given or loaned in aid of an-­ individual, association or corpora- tion..." Minnesota constitution, Article 4, Section ??rov`des in part: "The legislature shall pass no local, or necial law... authorizing public taxation for a private purpose." Reading these closely inter- related constitutional provisions, public funds derived from taxation may be spent only for a public purpose. See City of Pip estone vs. Madsen 287 MINN. 357, 178 NW 2d 597(1970).' The general principle set forth above is refined, to a certain extent, by several Minnesota cases which, taken together, yield the following standard: If the primary object of an expenditure of municipal funds is to subserve a public purpose, the expenditure is legal, although it may also involve an incidental expenditure which may serve a private purpose. It is equally well settled in the law that, if the primary object is to promote some private end, the expenditure is illegal, although it may incidentally serve some public purpose also. Burns vs. Esslina 156 MINN. 171, 17 4 194 N.1 4 .0 405 • Vis vs F 252 1 '7 NN I 177 89 NW2d 635; Aren vs. - V ill age of�noners, 240 MINN. 386, 61 NW2d 508(1950; B ehren s vs. Minneapoli 199 MINN. 363 271 NW 814 (1937) . _The Behrens case is the closest one in fact - ct to the problem of improving* the private streets, In that case, th.e City of Minneapolis sought to dredge a channel in the p "_i_sissippi River adjacent to property owned by Minneapolis Gas and Light Companl °, a private • corporation This expenditure of funds was opposed by a group of citizens who were able to show that even though the river vas a navigable waterway, the dredging thereof at that location would serve only to im7prove the loading and unloading facilities of the gas company and create an area for the construction of certain large petroleum storage tanks. The Court held that even though the river was navI.aable and some public benefit would derive from the dredging, the principal purpose of the expendi- ture was to imn_rove the loading facilities of a private corporation and therefore, the expenditure was invalid. The urpose for s . p _ spending the money for zm- �rovement and maintenance of the townhouse streets in Brooklyn Center appears to be primer ily motivated by an effort to equalize an alleged additional tax burden through the providing of some additional public services, which would off -set the tax burden. The remedy for such a burden, if it exists, should come thrnucrh an adjustment of the tax struc- ture, rather than the expenditure of p::iblic funds for a purpose which appears to be essentially private. . It is clear that the benefits of the improvement would accrue largely to the adjacent property owners which, as stated above, would be a private purpose. It is also true that some benefit would accrue to the public at large, but it does appear that this benefit would be incidental and secondary to the main benefit whic�� would flow to the private property owners. The decision that a particular expenditure is for a private pur- pose rather than a public purpose is one which cannot be made • with precision and with scientific certainty. Many of the con- siderations are matters of debate and opinion. However, the main focus of the City in reaching a conclusion on the validity of the expenditure should be upon the pri mary purpose for which the expenditure is being made. If the primary purpose is to benefit the public at large through the main�::aining of a network of sound public streets, the expenditure is public. If, on the other hand, the primary purpose is to equalize a tax burden, or to maintain private property, the expenditure is primarily a private expenditure and would not meet the constitutional test. Other questions raised by the Director of Public Works (City liability for defective work) or damage caused to private property by City Concractors, and other matters incidental to the actual construction, can be addressed in an additional -• memo, if desired. R.J.S. 2 -9 -81 cc: File No. 678 MEMORANDUM • Date: January 29, 1981 To: Gerald Splinter, City Manage From: Peter Koole, City Assessor Subject: Tax Ramifications of City Maintenance of Private Property The question. has come up of the City providing fewer municipal services to certain groups of taxpayers primarily because of the lack of maintenance of private roadways. An argument has been made that, as taxpayers, while paying the same amount of City property taxes as other like valued homesteads on City streets, these properties are receiving fewer services. It is a matter of fact, fewer services are provided such as snow removal and street maintenance. However, the question of taxpayer fairness is another matter. I submit that these properties are not being taxed unfairly for services not received, and in fact would realize a much greater tax increase than the cost of these missing services, were they to live in developments that have public standard roadways and set backs. For the 1981 assessment, we are valuing average single family residential lots in Brooklyn Center for tax purposes at $12,000. These lots would be typically in an R1 district and comply with all requirements in that district. Typical townhouse type lots in an R3 district, owner - occupied will be valued at $7,000. The $5,000 difference, using the 1980 mill rates in School District ;`279 on a homestead over $48,000 in value would create a tax of $139.25. A more realistic comparison would be, with the' average taxable value in Creek Villas at about $44,000, and , increasing that to $49,000, the homestead tax would increase from. $495.82 to $580.93 or $85.11 per year. We must also look at how much more the dwelling units would cost if the developer were required to forgo the economics of the R3 type of development and instead build to R1 specifications. The total area of the Creek Villas site is 686-,160 square feet, according to information in the Planning Commission files. The total of number of units allowed on this area is 127. There actually are only 104 units on the property which provides for • a less crowded and pleasant environment. If the approximately 3700 lineal feet of streets were public streets with the required specifications, the buildable area would be reduced by 223,200 square feet to 462,960 square feet. The maximum number of units allowed would be 86, and if developed at its present density, only 70 units could be built. Tax Ramifications - 1/29/81 Page 2 The Victoria Townhouses, a new R3 type of project at 68th and France Avenue North, had a site related cost of $1.05 per square foot including the purchase of the raw land. If we assume this to be a fair representation of the finished cost of land in • an R3 development, which I believe it is, then we can apply this figure to Creek Villas for analysis. Analysis Present - Private Streets 686,160 sq. ft. X $1405 $720,468 Divide by 104 units = $ 6,927 per unit Projection - Public Streets 686,160 sq. ft. X $1.05 _ $720,468 Divide-by 70 units = $ 10,292 per unit .Divide by 86 units = $ 8,378 per unit We see we have from $1,500 to $3,400 in additional costs per unit with the dedication of public streets. This would create an additional tax of from $41.58 to $94.69 per unit depending on what density you assume, permitted or actual. While it_is certainly difficult to determine precisely what the tax ramifications of the private vs. public street has, I do believe that the taxes would most certainly be higher on these units with public streets due to higher unit costs and thus higher taxable values. cc Richard Scheiffer Tickler Date MEMO: CITY OF BRO CENTER Date Pe p To � !'I C ��.- From ( L1J1.�C/f aj IL -i �y , 2oo ' j j A 4Mi� �M/1�W �/- �/� 4 �" t ��2 �vyr� � /j�6�i ��� � r l,-• ti r r. MEMORAtIDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City hSanager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectio nel- ` . &J. . • DATE: February 5, 1981 SUBJECT: Sealcoating Roads at Creek Villa You have requested comments to a question which was posed by the Creek Villa Homeowners Association regarding the City's responsibility for Sealcoating roads at that complex. Their point is that the streets at Creek Villa were in need of maintenance and that the cost must be borne by members of the Homeowners' Association although they pay property taxes comparable to other homeowners whose streets are sealcoated and maintained by the City. Should the City be responsible for maintaining these streets? From a Planning and Zoning perspective, I think it is important to keep in mind the differences bet, nonpublic roadways in a townhouse complex and a public street in a residential district or even a commercial or industrial district. It is also important to keep in mind the various requirements for public streets. First of all, public streets require the dedication of right -of -way, generally 60 to 70 feet although the actual roadway width is generally 30 to 40 feet. Building setbacks are measured from the right -of -way line. On a typical resi- dential street, the front setback for a dwelling unit is 35 feet measured from the right -of- tray, not the curb line. On corner lots, the sideyard setback is 25 feet measured again from the street right -o► -way, not the curb line. In the R3 Zoning District (Townhouses, Garden Apartments, and Single Family Attached Condominiums), setbacks are really a function of the development plan. Standard building setbacks are applied only where townhouses, etc., abut public streets o r other developments. Wfhere private or nonpublic roadways exist, the setbacks can be reduced and are established through an approved site plan. When reviewing a development plan for a townhouse complex, the developer has certain options. He can, for instance, choose to dedicate roadway for public streets and then subdivide his project accordingly so the units would have frontage on those streets. If this is the case, the right -of -way dedication would be as for all public streets and the standard building setbacks would be applied. The developer can also choose to subdivide the project and provide an internal network of nonpublic streets for the complex. In reviewing plans for such developments, the internal nonpublic roadways are viewed as driving and parking areas in much the same manner as an apartment complex. Two tray driving lanes are required to be a minimum of 24 feet wide and are to provide an effective means of internal circulation around the complex and to designate parking areas. Building setbacks would be viewed as a reasonable and uniform distance from these roadways. Obviously, developers choose the private network of roadways because this allows a more dense development and a better return on their investment. The Zoning Ordinance allows 8 duelling units per acre in an R3 Zoning District, or approximately 1 unit for every 5,400 sq. ft. of property. At Creek Villa, • there is approximately 686,000 sq. ft. of land area which would allow approxi- mately 127 units. There are 104 units built at Creek Villa which amounts to approximately 6.6 units per acre. Dwellings and /or garages, for the most part, are set back about 20 to 25 ft. frrn;ti the internal roadway. If the streets at Creek Villa were public streets and right -of -bray was dedicated, the amount of available land area trould be approximately 463,000 sq. ft. and the maximum number of units al1oared would be 86. Memo Page 2 February 5, 1981 Again, standard building setbacks would be applied which would require utilization of more land area. I feel it is safe to assume that the present 6.6 units per • acre would be a reasonable ratio of buildings to land area to maintain the sage "quality of development" and, thus, a total of approximately 70 units could be anticipated if there were public streets at that project. There would be a sizeable difference in land and development costs per unit. It is really not feasible now to even consider accepting the streets at Creek Villa as public streets because the required amount of right -of -way and building setbacks could not be realized. In townhouse complexes such as Creek Villa, The Ponds, Moorwood Townhouses and others, the roadways do give the appearance of winding public streets similar to those in single family residential areas. However, these private or nonpublic roadways should be viewed the same as driving lanes in apartment complexes and commercial and industrial developments. Homeowner Association Agreements are required in cases where the individual lots of a townhouse complex are sold to provide 4aintenance of the common areas. If a townhouse complex i s..ilot to be sold individually, the maintenance of the roadways and common areas is the responsibility of the owner just as the maintenance of a parking lot for an apartment complex (or commercial and industrial project) is the responsibility of the owner. I feel that the City certainly has no responsibility to maintain these nonpublic streets as these factors are pointed out to developers at the time their develop - ment plans are reviewed and the developers exercise the options available. to there at that time. To accept this responsibility on the basis of the Creek Villa Homeowners' Association argument would be, in my opinion, a very bad precedent. The Director - of Public Works in his memo to you has pointed out a number of other nonpublic streets in the City for which the owners of may well make similar claims or requests. The matter of whether the City should consider the possiblity of providing seal - coating and charging the respective property owners for the cost is a matter the Public Works Director also addressed - in his memo to you. cc: Richard J. Schieffer, City Attorney Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works Peter Koole, City Assessor ✓ Y CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKW FP, - ' 4 fl tr,k � BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 5543 TELEPHONE 561.5440 j E 1�3� EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIFE �-`� 561 -5720 TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public 1 DATE: February 5, 1981 RE: Creek Villa Association Request for Sealcoatin.? of Streets ghe following information is suhmitteJ for your use in evaluating this rc nest: 1. The estimated cost (1981) for sealcoating the existin( private street systm within the Creek Vi1la develop is . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,650-00. .Znis estimate is based on the followir_a, assumptions: (a) estimated rac &ay area = 10,800 square yards • This does not include.drive:vays or other mmn- roadway areas (b) cost includes svieepinq aril patching before sealing, aril sweepinc7 up excess cover aggregate after sealinct (c) costs are based on the use of asphalt mulsion with a pea -rock t_y; of. cover aggregate (d) estimated cost = $.80 /Sq.)'d. Actual costs wDuld depend on costs at time of construction 2. Mile the current recn:est is for sealcoating only, the following possible follow -up mestions must be considered: Cuestion Westion /Ccnent (a) G?ho has the responsibility for sub- The existing roadv,ays are rot sec cent raodway failure? construct-r' to the City's nor - pal street standards . Who would assume responsibility for roads v failures \aliich shoe uli after sealcoatii. (locally and /or politically)? (b) Is this a one -time thing, or could Streets should be scalcOJItal City asstlime this responsibility on a approximately every 5 to 7 continuity psis? years. Also, streets should be overlayed after 15 -20 years. (c) HI - kat about snowplowing, sweeping, and no-cause of dcsicm sti rc other iinintcxnance? ('Phis is not beim, duce-d buildinc sethlcks, etc., rec now, but 1~ould hxa an obvious is a major problcm. In ranv c next step.) this rerui.res snow rcroval rat " ?lC .Sa ttiftlttfl� ��IOTt' e I / „ thin sno %,nDlaAn <,. '11�c crests o1 rcmval are many t i In- s hirjhoCr i February 5, 1981 i•.csm to Gerald G. Splinter Page 2 s Question Question /Cb: (d) Could the City agree to do the seal- I don't think this is at all th coating on the basis of the existing intent of the existing aaree>mc­r. maintenance agreaT�ent--on a reimburse Rather, these agrem,--nts allow ment basis, or on an assessment basis? the City to act on an c- .erc:e ncy basis if the health and safety of the residents is involved — or to protect the City's intere in the matter. Also, I do not think the City h should be competing v.ith privat enterprise --if it is determined that this is not a City respon- sibility. 3. A number of othe p�ivate streets exist within the City. Although not all of the conditions are identical to these in Creek Villa, it would be very difficult to draw a clear -cut line to distinguish between them. Zhese areas include the follow (a) The fonds -70th, 71st, and 72nd Circles and the Ponds Drive (b) the Marvin Gardens ccm -plea (c) the driveway between th,� U. Post Office, Brookdale Pontiac., etc. (d) the Victoria Towr - ouse development (e) the York tovmhouses (f) the "67th Avenue" extension west of Shingle Creek Parkway (to the mix c 10, 11; and 12 Industrial complex) (g) the driveway in front of Evergreen School (h) the driveway in front of Brooklyn Center High School (i) the Riven•:ood Court complex (j) the Georgetown co;rplex (k) the Chippewa Park apartrents (1) the "driveway" to Perkins /A.F.I.A. and the Cine�m Theatre . (m) the perimeter road around the BrooMale Shopping Center (n) the private roadways between Xerxes Ivenue and Brooklyn Boulevard, serving the 1,;esthrook IMall, etc. (o) the Brookdale 1_0 cor.plex (p) the Moon%uod `ibvmhcuse developTents (q) the Twin Lake Northw A�nents (r) the Beach Condominium (s) the driveway area in front of the Northport School Considered in total, a decision to asstu-e- . a part or all of the maintenance respon- sibility for these roadc,-ays would constitute a major financial commitment. cb cc: Dick Schieffer, Ron I�brren, Pete Noole, 11ank Davis