Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 08-13 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL 1 ),CENDA City of Brooklyn Center August 1.3, 1979 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call. 3. Invocati011 4. Approval of Minutes - July 23, 1979 5. Open Forum 6. Performance Bond Releases /Reductions: - Reductions a. ifedtronics, 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway h. Earle Brown Bowl, 6440 James Circle C. Speculative 8 Industrial Building (Palmer Lake Plaz.), 6850- 60• -70 Shingle Creek Parkway - Releases a. McDonalds, 5525 Xerxes Avenue North b. Speculative '7 Industrial. Building, 1600 67th Avenue rlort. C. Twin Lake North Apartments, 471.0 58th Avenue North • d. Dr. Mattison Dental C'lin.ic, 5827 Brooklyn Boulevard 6. Acme TYpewriter, 1900 57t1, Avenue North 7. Resolutions a. Accept__nc; Bid and Approving Contract Form (Bridge and Roadway Construction Contract 1979 -D) -isids for this project were received on Juiy 25, 1.979. It is recomme���ded that the proposal of C. S. McCrossan, inc. in the amount of $894,103.96 be accepted for this work. b. Consideration of Bids for Pedestrian Bridge over T.H. 100. at. Sur:r , iit Drive alor_ (Brooklyn Center Improvement Project No. 1977 -10, S. P. No. M54C2 f (io ) ) -It is recommended than. the City Council concur in award of -this contract to the low bidder (Progressive Contractors, Inc.). In accordance with Resolution No. 79 -153 adopted .Tune 25, 1979, the Coran:issioner of Trans- portation has been authorized as the City's agent to.actually award this contract for this F.A.U. projc ^t. C. Accepting Work for Alley Surfacing Contract 1.978 - (3 resolutions) United Asphalt Company, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the alley surfacing work associated with the following three : improvement projects. ._- 1977 -13 --- 1977 -22 -- 1978 -? • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- August 13, 1979 d. Accepting Work for Street Surfacing Contract 1978 -K (2 resolutions) - United Asphalt Company, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the street surfacing work associated with the following improvement projects. -- 1978 -20 -- 1978 -24 e. Accepting Work for Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Contract 1978 -0 (2 resolutions) - Deluxe Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the water main and sanitary sewer work for the following improvement projects. -- 1978 -4 -- 1978 -5 f. Establishing Reforestation Improvement. Project 1979 -7 and Ordering Preparation of Specifications -It is recommended that this project be established in order to replace boulevard trees removed under Diseased Shade Tree Removal Contract 1979 -B. g. Approving Specifications for Reforestation Improvement Project 1979 -7 and Directing Solicitation of Quotations (Reforestation Contract 1979 -F) - Should the Council act favorably upon the resolution establishing this project, it is proposed that direction for solicitation of quotations be approved. Since the cost of this work is projected to be under the $1.0,000 limit established by statute, it is possible to simply solicit quotations for the work. In this manner, it is projected that a contract will be executed in a timely manner so that reforestation may proceed during the fall planting season. h. Establishing Street Improvement Project 1979 -8 and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications -It is intended that the final segment of Unity Avenue within the Ponds Development (Plat 5) be constructed. i. Establishing Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1979 -9 and Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications -It is intended to construct sidewalk along 69th Avenue North (County Road 130) in two areas. The project includes 69th Avenue between Dupont Avenue and T.H. 169. j. Calling for a Public Hearing Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 474.01, Subd. 7b -For Cass Screw Company. k. Accepting Bid for Six Compact Police Patrol Sedans 1. Amending the 1979 General Fund Budget to Provide Funds for the Purchase of Six Police Squad Cars M. Accepting Quotations for a 10,000 Gallon Fuel Oil Storage Tank n. Amending the 1979 General Fund Budget to Provide Funds for a 10,000 Gallon Fuel Storage Tank CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- August 13, 1979 o. Amending the 1979 General Fund Budget to Provide Funds for the Purchase of Microfilming Equipment 8. Public Hearing (8:00 p.m.): a. Public Hearing on industrial revenue bond proposals from: Medtronics -Dale Tile 9. Planning Commission Items (8:30 p.m.): a. Application No. 79018 submitted by Arthur Kvamme for a rezoning from R -1 (single family residential) to R -3 (townhouse /garden apartment) of an approximate 3 -1/2 acre site located between 55th and 56th Avenues at at Aldrich Avenue North. This item was tabled by the Commission and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group on April 12, 1979. Application No. 79018 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. Application No. 79018 was tabled at the June 25, 1979 City Council. meeting and the Council asked the developer to investigate private covenants as a way to insure owner - occupied townhouses. Application No. 79018 was again tabled at the July 23, 1979 City Council meeting because the developer and the neighbors in the area had not reached an agreement. b. Application No. 79029 submitted by George Shimshcck for a resubdivision of two pre - existing parcels combined for tax purposes in 1971. Application No. 79029 was recommended for approval at the July 26, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. C. Application No. 79039 submitted by Mr. Ems Systems, Inc. (Embers) for extension of a special use permit granted in conjunction with the site and building plan approval (Application No. 78045) for an Embers Restaurant located on James Circle, south of Freeway Boulevard. Application No. 79039 was recommended for approval at the July 3.2, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. d. Application No. 79046 submitted by St. A1phonsus Church for a special use permit for an addition to a storage building. (Churches are special uses in the R -1 (single family) district.) Application No. 79046 was recommended for approval at the July 26, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. J 10. Discussion Items: a. Condition of Brook Lane Shelter Building b. Update on Community Development Block Grants C. Execution of Agreement Concerning Brookdale Ten Apartments d. Recommendation from Planning Consultant, BRW, concerning the Cha.rlson Plat e. Report on Pedestrian Crossing /Speeding Problems on Lyndale Avenue at 73rd Avenue f. Return of Part of Liquor License Fee for Cicero's 11. Licenses: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- August 13, 1979 12. Consideration of Specified Licenses: a. Rocky Rococo - Operate on -sale nonintoxicating liquor license at Rocky Rococo Pan Style Pizza, 1267 Brockdale Center. b. Denny's Restaurant - Operate on -sale nonintoxicating liquor license and on -sale wine license at Denny's Restaurant, 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North. 13, Adjournment June tl i, 1 9 79 Dean Nyquist, Mayor City of Brooklyn Center 0301 'in Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center; MN 55430 Pear Mayor quilt: As a taxpaying citizen of Brooklyn Center and resident for some 22 years, I am concerned about the "No Parking from Ma l to September 15" signs which have recently appeared on the streets near the public access on the east side of Twin Lake. I am interested in the rationale for these signs Apparently it is the intent of the City of Brooklyn Center to make the public 4,caeqs to Twin Lake ineffective for taxpaying ci tizens other, U those rho 'hgve lakesbore property. If this i's 'the purpose, then I would euggest that the public access should be closed and no further public funds spent on lake improvement or maintenance. However; I would personally object to the closing of the public access since I own a small fishing boat with a six horse power motor and occasionally lik�a to fish the -lake. I also fish the lake in the wintertime. In the pent fuel shortage and in years to come I am sure it will become increasing- ly necoaaary to utilize th natural resources which are available nearby. As a taxpaying citizen of Brooklyn Center and of the State of ,Minnesota, I feed: that public tax dollars are being spent on two items from which I and others can receive little or no benefit. These are namely, the management of Twin Lake by the'Depaxtm:ent of Natural Resources, and the public streets of Brooklyn Cemtex Upo : which I am not wallowed top C. I certainly do not agree with high - power, high--speedboats traversing _all lake shah as Twin Take. If this is the problem, then the horse power aiA:e can easily be limited'. If the residents object to this limitation on horst..power because of their personal activities, then I' believe the lake must the general bm legit open to en r public under the same rules. , P. g Thus, I question the reasons for the extent of the No Parking signs throughout the entire area. Certainly the No Parking signs along the dead end streets to the north and south of Fake Breeze Avenue can't be related to a trsaffic ccangestion `problem. However, the present situation appears to be a dog -in -the manger maneuver by the l.akeshore property owners to prevent the other taxpayers who support the streets and lake from using them. I would ask the Brooklyn Center Council to explain the rationale for the Nos Parking eigns along the streets on the east side' of Twin Lame. I would ask I i m�` - - Fvp f Y RR��f I+ y the minnioata i�l� nt Qf' Natural £des ©urea p€�li ies a parking 904!er has imposed are in acc4xdance with the £NR's policies T r 3 � �'�r� �cb�,ic �` a►�� w�t�s . o r ' amosota pa Anent Qf Na turai Resources ry 7 . � i xk�l I ; r iJ k gJ 4 y{ g� 3 e e [ F �, t y . d � l 9 5 t i.. p a e � 4 A! i �GaRk e } _yF r Jt r , w � r t F d r`S 1 Y t r f� Tickler Date MEMO CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER To G. G. Splinter 1 Date August 2 1 979 From Gene Hagel See attached memo. I strongly concur with the recommendation and request authority to proceed with the demolition as soon as possible. District #279 officials have also expressed their concern several times. AVOID VERBAL MESSAGES Tickler Date MEMO: CITY OF BROOKLYN ENT R To e�isi� Date Fro . a t Am I :�;� . AVOID VERBAL MESSAGES i August 3, 1979 Brooklyn Center City Council Park and Recreation Commission Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Councilmembers and Park and Recreation Commission Members; I address myself to you, council members, to exercise the legislative power vested in you to solve this City problem. It is hoped that this letter will convey the present state of affairs at the Twin Lake swim- ming beach. We, the residents living near the beach, feel it is our responsibility to make you aware of the problem and offer a viable solution to that problem. We also feel it is your responsibility to act on these suggestions and turn them into realities so that we can have our rights as a Brooklyn Center resident restored. The rights I speak to here are the right of a decent nights sleep! Let me explain. The Brooklyn Center Park at Twin Lake is suppose to close at 10:00 P.M. The sign at the entrance of the beach states this fact. Unfortunately this city ordinance is being broken and several times an evening! I'm sure I need not go into detail, as all of you ca,n imagine the aggravation created from loud often intoxicated youth at all hours of the night. If you cannot imagine the aggravation let allude to some of the disturbances. Stereo systems blaring, yips and yelps from cars parked in the secluded parking lot and then when the police do arrive we can observe the youth scattering through our own yards in an attempt to avoid the police. I beg you to consider our suggestion and put it into effect as this problem must be put under control immed- iately! Our suggestion to you is to erect some sort of deterrant to parking in the beach parking lot. Now you may argue that such a device would not solve the problem and that the offenders would park in the street and continue to be a problem. I think not. The beach parking lot is conveniently secluded by trees and such and offers a "perfect" spot for these offenders. We suggest a gate similar to the gate loca- ted at Twin Lake 1 in Robbinsdale. To make this operational a patrol- man could vacate the lot and park if need be and very simply secure the gate. In our opinion, this would reduce, if not, alleviate the cells made to the police at night and certainly satify our basic need of sleep! It is hoped you place this at the ttp . of your list and act on a solution before summers end. Also a seasonal parking deterrant need be adequate as the problem is from say May 15- September 15. Please take to heart these considerations. With your continued assistance we can make the Brooklyn Center beach a joy to every- one* Thank you, Lynn Schultz 4214 Lakeside Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Please feel free to contact me. I'm also interested in being present at the discussion of this topic. 1`1' Siwtw�ohS f f 30 cA•N,¢N N art� rNiNrl¢Apo�is 30� �►1iNN. I Tuesday A. M., August 7, 1979 Gerald Splinter, City Manager 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Dear Mr. Splinter: The opening pages of the attached report to our Bellevue Park Neighborhood Association members give, a condensed account of the negotiations which took place last week, and the two differ- ent documents which came out of those negotiations. Last evening (Monday, August 6) and this morning, I had conversations with Mr. and Mrs. Kvamme. The sticking point seems to be, quite simply, that we want to make sure we have a real Covenant which goes with the land regardless of who owns it, and they are only willing to sign an Agreement which does not include language binding future owners or developers. We believe that the Covenant should be filed and recorddd with the deed to the property at the Hennepin County Government Center. Mr. Kvamme insists that such an action would "jeopardise the marketability of the property and make it more difficult to obtain financing." We cannot understand how restricting the use of the land to the building of townhouses for sale to individual owners would make it more difficult to finance and develop the land by the building of townhouses for sale to individual owners which is what Mr. Kvamme has been telling the Planning Commission and the Council and the Bellevue Park Neighborhood Association he wants to do! We can only wonder if he has other plans, involving rental development or other possibilities we would find unacceptable, after he is granted R -3 zoning. Our attorney, Mr. John Herman, will be in touch with Mr. Kvamme's new attorney, Mr. Stephen Davis, before the end of the day today. We hope we can get a real Covenant out of this expensive business; if not, all our work and money will have been wasted and the Agreement which does not bind future owners will be "just a piece of paper." One good thing about this, from my personal point of view: I +m learning a lot about city govermmnent! sincerely y , 4r:=;O Mary H. S ons, President BELLEVUE ARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN. Copies to: Mayor Dean Nyquist City Attorney Richard Schieffer J L i O l 1 go All go Whom ghese Presents Shall Come, Oreeting: 1 J Whereas, Articles of Incorporation, duly signed and acknowledged under oath, i have been recorded in the office of the Secretary of State, on the —___. -- 25th -- day of July , A. D. 1.9 for the incorporation of jig, llevue Park Neighborhood Association under and in accordance with the provisions of the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation )' Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 317 Now. gherefore, by virtue of the powers and duties jested In me by law, as Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, I do hereby certify that the said — Bellev Park Neighborhood Association. is a legally organized Corporation under the laws of this State, i Witness my official signature hereunto sub ., i scribed and the Greet Seal of the State of Minnesota hereunto affixed this -- twenty- fifth - day of July in the year of our Lord , one thousand nine hundred and s ®verity -nine Secretary of State. SC-M19-02 BELLEVUE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION -- PROGRESS REPORT -- The Bellevue Park Neighborhood Association (BPNA) was formed on July 20, 1979, at the suggestion of Brooklyn Center City Council members. We were in- structed to meet with representatives of the Madsen Floral Company and others for the purpose of negotiating a Covenant under which the City Council could rezone the Madsen Floral property to R -3 without, in our opinion, causing undue detriment to the neighborhood. BPNA representatives met with representatives of the Madsen Floral group on Monday, July 30. The meeting was amicable, but the Agreement presented to BPNA on Friday, August 3, by the Madsen group's attorney did not meet our most important requirements On 'behalf of the affected neighbors, BPNA negotiators have formulated a Covenant, a copy of which is attached, which we believe includes the minimum requirements to protect our property values and neighborhood quality of life. - The most important differences between our proposed Covenant and the Agreement submitted to us by the Madsen group�.s attorney are as follows: 1. To prevent the purchase of several units by one owner for the pur- pose of renting, our Covenant states that no purchaser can own more than one unit in the development. 2. The Madsen group's Agreement "includes' individually owned units, but does not prevent a developer from setting aside a block of units for rental purposes. Our Covenant states that all units must be sold to individual owners. 3. Our Covenant binds any future owner or developer to the Articles of the Covenant; the Madsen group's Agreement does not. 4. Because the Madsen group's attorney has inaccurately, defined Association members as "property owners residing within 350 feet," we have corrected the terminology and described the affected property owners as "Neighbors." That's , where matters stand today, Sunday, August 5. We don't know what will happen during the coming week, but we do know we need your supports If you have not yet joined your Bellevue Park Neighborhood Association, please do so this week. The membership fee is only $5 per family or $2 for retired people on fixed incomes FOR INFORMATION, C 560 - The next City Council meeting is on Monday, August 13. We have ar- ranged for the use of the basement hall of Harron Church, at 55th and Dupont, at 7'p.m. on Sunday, August 12 , the day before the Council meeting. Please come on Sunday evening to learn what happens during the coming week! BPNA Officers and Incorporators: Paul Fagerhaugh Lynne Johnston (Secretary) Marie J. Johnston William Milstead Marvin Nemec (Vice President) Dorothy Pouliot Arne Saf Mary H. Simmons (President) Paul Worwa (Treasurer) r . Utte 444X THIS COVENANT is executed this day of , 1979, by and among Madsen Floral Company, a Minnesota corporation, Olga Madsen, a widow, Edwin A. Trombley and Lorraine E. Trombley, husband and wife, Myra:Swennes, a widow, Darlene Walter, single, James F. Sher, single, and John M. Hansen, single (hereinafter collectively, "Property Owners"), and all persons who are property owners residing within 350 feet of the hereinafter described Property (hereinafter collectively, "Neighbors ") and Arthur Kvamme. WHEREAS, the Property Owners are the owners in fee of a certain tract of land situated in the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota, which is legally described as follows, to wit: The West one -half of hots 40 and 47, the North 168 feet of tbP East one -half of Lot 46, and the South 168 feet of theEast one -half , of Lot 46, Gravelon's Addition (hereinafter, the "Property"); and � WHEREAS, the Property Owners are desirous of usi their Property in the most economically advantageous manner; and WHEREAS, the Property is well - suited to the construction of a townhouse development which will include certain areas and facilities to be owned in common by and for the benefit of th a townhouse residents; an d WHEREAS, use of the Property for the construction of single-family townhouses can be accomplished without affecting existing streets,, side- walks or utilites, thereby avoiding special assessments'to other land- owners, and will beautify the Property, improve and enhance land values' of adjacent land, and make the use of the Property more compatible with the use of adjacent land; and WHEREAS, use of the Property for construction of single- family townhouse units shall place responsibility for the maintenance of road- ways in the development upon the individual owners of the townhouse units; and WHEREAS, before construction of the development can commence,; the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota must rezone the Property to an R -3 district permitting the contemplated townhouse devel- opment; < and WHEREAS, the Neighbors agree to the above - described rezoning upon these terms and conditions. NOWv THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the parties agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners agree that if the Property is rezoned for purposes described within the R -3 zoning classifications of'the City of Brooklyn Center, they shall limit the development of the Property to a townhouse development as described above; that the townhouse development shall be restricted to individual residential townhouse units and must be sold and conveyed to separate owners who may own or purc- hase no more than one unit in the townhouse development; that each town- house unit shall contain not less than 1350 square feet of living space, excluding double garage and unfinished storage areas; that adequate visitor parking spaces shall be provided within the proposed townhouse development, to comply with the parking requirements contained in the zoning ordinance of the City of Brooklyh Center for R -3 residential areas; that all townhouse units shall be constructed with a brick or cedar siding exterior; that the townhouse development will be screened from adjoining property by evergreen hedges, fences, or some other attractive means which shall be installed at theexpense of the Property Owners, 2. The parties agree that the Property Owners shall notify the Neighbors by United States mail at least one week before every meeting of the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission or the Brooklyn Center City Council at which the rezoning or development plans of the Property shall be under consideration. 3. The parties agree that the Neighbors, their successors or assigns, shall have the right to enjoin, abate or remedy by appropriate legal proceedings either at law or in equity the breach or violation of the terms and conditions of this Covenant, should this Covenant become effective as in Paragraph 6. The parties agree that the Property Owners, their successors or assigns, shall be bound by this Covenant for a period of 30 years from the effective date of this Covenant. 4. The parties agree that if any variance from the currently existing Brooklyn Center zoning ordinance for R -3 residential districts is sought by the Property Owners, their successors or ' assigns, the request .for the variance must first be approved by two- thirds of the Neighbors prior to its submission to the City Council. 8 a. T 5. The parties understand and agree that they have executed this 0ovenant so that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center may grant the above - mentioned request for rezoning. This Covenant shall be Submitted to the members of the City Council or Planning Commission at all meetings at which the rezoning or development plans of the Prop- erty shall be under consideration, 6. This Covenant becomes effective upon the date of the adoption by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center of a resolution rezoning the Property to an R -3 classification, MADSEN FLORAL COMPANY By Its By Its Olga Madsen Edwin A. Trom ley horraine`E. Trombley' Myra Swennes Darlene Walter` James P. Shetler John M. Hansen Arthur gvamme ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS RESIDING WITHIN 350 feet of - "PROPERTY ": Roger EngstFom 5448 Bryant Ave. N, Brooklyn Center Paul. Worwa 5519 Camden Ave. N., Brooklyn Center Y Ai­ n THIS AGREEMENT is executed' this day of.; , 1979, by and among Madsen Floral Company, a Minnesota corporation, Olga Madsen, a widow, Edwin A. Trombley and Lorraine E. Trombley, husband and wife, Myra Swennes, a widow, Darlene Walter, single, James F. Shetler, single, and John M. 'Hansen, single (hereinafter collectively, "Property Owners "), and 'Bel evue Park Neighborhood Association, a Minnesota non- profit corporation (hereinafter, "Association "). WHEREAS, the Property Owners are the owners in fee of a certain tract of land situated in the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota., which is legally described as follows, to -wit: j The West one -half of Lots 40 and 47, the North 168 feet of the East one-half of Lot 46, and the South 168 feet of the East one -half of Lot 46, !Q_ s Addition (hereinafter, the "Property "); and WHEREAS, the Property Owners are desirous of using their Property in the most economically advantageous manner and WHEREAS, the Property is well- suited for the construction thereon of a townhouse development, including individual residen- tial townhouse units to be sold and conveyed to separate owners, rt. and including certain areas and facilities to be owned in common by and for the benefit of the owners of said townhouse units; and WHEREAS, use of the Property for continued commercial pur- poses represents inadequate utilization of the said Property and land -locks a substantial tract of land; and WHEREAS, use of the said Property for the construction of single - family townhouses can be'accomished without affecting existing streets, sidewalks or utilities, thereby avoiding special assessments to other landowners, and will beautify the said Property, improve and enhance land values of adjacent land, and make the use of the Property more compatible with the use of adjacent land; and T, WHEREAS, use of the said Property for canstructon of single- family townhouse units shall place responsibility for the maintenance of roadways in the said development .upon, the individual Dui owners of the townhouse units; and WHEREAS, before construction of said development can commence, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, must resolve to rezone the said Property to an R-3 district permitting the contemplated townhouse development; and WHEREAS, the Association members constitute; property owners residing within 350 feet of the said Property, who will agree to the above - described rezoning upon the terms and conditions speci- fied herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners hereby agree that if the said Property is rezoned for purposes described within the R -3 zoning classification of the City of Brooklyn Center, they shall limit the development of the said Property to a townhouse development as =E above described; that each townhouse unit shall contain not less than 1350 square feet of living space, excluding garage and un- finished storage areas; that adequate visitor g q parking spaces shall be provided within the proposed townhouse' development, said parking areas to comply with the P Y parking requirements contained in the zoning ordinance of the City of Brooklyn Center for R -3 residential areas; that all townhouse units shall be constructed with a brick or cedar siding exterior or with an exterior of materials compara- ble in quality and durability; that the townhouse development will be adequately screened from adjoining property b evergreen q Y 7 g pr p y y ey r ,g hedges,' fences,, or some other attractive means whach,shall be installed at the expense of the Property Owners. 2. The parties hereto agree that the Property Owners shall notify the Secretary of the Association in writing by United States mail at least one week before every meeting of the Brooklyn Center City Council at which the rezoning or development 2- <,. y plans of the said Property shall be under consideration by the Council. 3. The parties hereto agree that the Association, its successors or assigns shall have the right to enjoin, abate or remedy by appropriate legal proceedings either at law or in equity` the breach or violation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, should this Agreement become effective as provided in Paragraph 6 hereof, 4. The parties hereto agree that if any variance from the currently existing Brooklyn Center zoning ordinance for R -3 resi- dential districts is sought by the Property Owners, the request for the said variance must first be approved by the Association prior to its submission to the City Council. 5. The parties hereto understand and agree that they have executed this Agreement to incude the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to grant the above- mentioned request for rezoning, and that this Agreement shall be submitted to the members of the said Council at all meetings of same at which the rezoning or development plans of the said Property shall be under consideration by the Council; provided, however, that if the said City Council shall impose terms and conditions upon the grant of the rezoning or development requests which conflict with or render impractic- able any of the terms or conditions hereof, the terms and condi- ri tions imposed, by the said Council shall supersede and take the place of the affected provisions of this Agreement. 6. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary. this J - _Agreement becomes effective only upon 'the date of the adoption by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center of 'a resolution rezoning the said Property o an R -3 classification, Y a MADSEN FLORAL COMPANY By s Its By Its Olga Madsen -3- , I i f Edwin A. Trombley Lorraine E. Trombley Myra Darlene Walter James F. Shetler John M. Hansen BELLEVUE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, By Its -4- v MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT , THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT, between the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the City), and rledtronic, - Inc. (the Company), provides as follows: 1. Preliminary Statement Among the matters of mutual inducement which have resulted in this Agreement are the following: (a) The City is authorized and empowered by the provisions of Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, as amended (the Act), to issue revenue bonds to defray, in whole or in part, the costs of a project as defined in the Act'. (b) The Company has proposed that the City, pursuant to the Act, issue its revenue bonds to defray, in part, the costs to be incurred in connection with the.acquisition of certain properties, consisting of the constructing, furnishing and equipping of certain real and ersonal properties in the City P P P Y to be d use b the n addition o its Y Company as a adds t P Y present manufacturing acilities (the Project), 7 , and that the City and the Company enter into a lease, sale or loan agreement or similar agreement satisfying requirements of the the g Y g Act (the Revenue Agreement). ) (c) The Company wishes to obtain satisfac- tory assurance from the City that the proceeds of the sale of the revenue bonds of the City will be made available to finance costs of the Project. (d) Subject to due compliance with all requirements of law, the City by virtue of such _statutory - authority as may now or hereafter be conferred by the Act, will issue and sell its revenue bonds in an amount not exceeding $1,000,000 (the Bonds) to pay, in part, the costs of the Project. (e) The Bonds shall be special obligations of the City and the principal of 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 Revenue Agreement. 9 2. Undertakings on the Part of the City Subject to the conditions stated in (d) of paragraph 1 hereof, the City agrees as follows: (a) That it will forthwith submit an application for approval of the Project to the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota. (b) That it will authorize the issuance and'sale of the Bonds, pursuant to the terms of the Act as then in force. (c) That,:if it issues and sells the Bonds, it will as requested by the f7ompany enter into the Revenue Agreement with the Company. The lease rentals, installment sale payments, loan payments or other amounts payable under the Revenue Agreement will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable. 3. Undertakings on the Part of the Company The Company agrees as follows: (a) That it will use all reasonable efforts to find one or more purchasers for the Bonds. (b)_ That contemporaneously with the delivery of the Bonds the Company will enter into the Revenue Agreement with the City under the terms of which the Company will provide security to the City for payment of sums sufficient in the aggregate to pay_ the principal of and interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable. 4. General Provisions (a) All commitments of the City under paragraph 2 hereof and of the Company under paragraph 3 hereof are subject to the conditions that within twelve (12) months from the date hereof (or such other date k as shall be mutually satisfactory to the City and the Company), the Commissioner of Securities of the State of Minnesota shall have approved the Project and the City and the Company shall have agreed ee d to mutually acceptable terms and conditions of the Revenue Agreement, the Bonds and of the other instruments and proceedings relating to the Bonds. r (b) If the events set forth in `(a) of i_ this paragraph do not take place within the time set forth or any extension thereof and the Bonds are not sold within such time, the K Company agrees that it will reimburse the City for all reasonable and necessary direct out -of- pocket expenses which the City may incur at the Company's request arising from the execution of this Agreement and the performance by the City of its obligations hereunder, and this Agreement shall thereupon terminate. IN-WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Agreement by their officers thereunto duly authorized this day of 1979. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA By Mayor And (SEAL) City Manager MEDTRONIC, INC. By Its And Its (SEAL)- MEMORANDUM TO Allen Lindman, City Clerk Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works James Noska, Superintendent of Engineering Paul Holmlund, Director of Finance Gene Hagel, Director of Parks and Recreation Peter Koole, City Assessor Cap Smith, Superintendent of Water Hank Davis, Superintendent of Streets James Lindsay, Police Chief Ronald Boman, Fire Chief FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectio , . DATE: July 26, 1979 SUBJECT: Temporary Restraining Order Regarding Brookdale Ten Apartment Complex The City is under a court order enjoining any agents of the City from entering onto the Brookdale Ten Apartment Complex for purposes of making inspections g p without first obtaining an order to do so. This order was issued on July 13, 1979 and, although the City has not yet been officially served with that order, the City Attorney advises it is nevertheless binding. Brookdale Ten is also under a court order barring them to allow any units that become vacant to be occupied until this matter is resolved. After consultation with the City Attorney, he has advised me to inform all department heads that effective immediately, City employees should not enter onto the premises of the Brookdale Ten Apartment Complex for any purpose that might be construed as an inspection. Please advise all persons under your supervision of this matter. The City Attorney also advises that the order does not prevent City personnel from going on the premises for life- safety emergencies or law enforcement purposes. It is further his interpretation that the order prevents the City from making any further inspections even if requested to do so by the owner, his agent, or someone contracted by him to do work on the property. For the City to respond to these nonemergency requests, the owner, or his attorney, will need to have the court order modified. If you feel it is necessary for you or your subordinates to enter onto the Brookdale Ten premises, please contact me so that I can coordinate the action with the City Attorney. Again, normal police and fire services, with the exception of inspections, are not affected by this court order according to the City Attorney. If you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me. cc: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Richard Schieffer, City Attorney oe G_ 33 O �/p a., 4i E " s , !� t Q • F v . U Q- A� 2 S i MEE�iORANDUM - - (• . TO: Ronald A. Warren , Director of Planning and Inspection FROM: Will Dahn, Building Official SUBJECT: Performance Bonds Recommended for Release or Reduction DATE: August 8, 1979 The following performance guarantees are recommended for release or reduction as specified: I. McDonalds Restaurant 5525 Xerxes Ave. N. Planning Commission Application No. 73020 Amount of $25,000:00 Performance Bond (Bond holder - Kraus Anderson Construction Company-of St: Paul).. Landscaping exceeds approved plans-in quantity of trees a-nd shrubs. Some species of trees and shrubs have been changed or relocated for aesthetic purposes Recommend total release. 2. Spec. 7 Industrial Building 1600 - 67th Avenue North Planning 9 Application pp cation No. 74044 Amount of guarantee $25,000.00 Performance Bond. (Bond holder Lund Martin Construction Company) Original bond for $75,000.00 was reduced to $25,000.00 on November i` 28, 1977. All landscaping completed per approved plans. ,;Noted sorry recent replacement of trees which apparently did not survive. Recommend total release. 3. Medtronics 6700 Shingle Creek. Parkway Planning Commission Application No. 76036 and. 78054 Amount of guarantee $10,000.00 (Bond .holder Lund Martin Construction Company) Original bond in amount of $50,000.00 was reduced to $10,000.00 on . February 7, 1977. The-reduced bond-was still in effect and held for - continuation of guarantee for construction of outside storage building on Planning Commission Application No 78054. There are still 5 maple trees missing along the north property lime. Also, 6 dead trees (3 pine trees at northeast corner of property line, and 2 :maple trees and 1' pine tree at the northeast corner bf the building. Recommend reduction by $8,000.00 and retain $2,000.00. Page 2 4. Twin Lake North Apartments 4710 58th Avenue North Planning Commission Application No. 77058 Amount of guarantee - $12,000.00 Performance Bond (Bond holder Gittleman Corporation - Melvin Gittleman) Bond was to cover site alterations affecting Twin Lake North Apart- ments resulting from joint access to condonimums. All improvements have been completed per approved plans. Larger trees have been in- stalled than was required on the plans. -Recommend total release. 5. Dr. Mattison Dental Clinic 5827 Brooklyn Boulevard Planning Commission Application No. 77066 Amount of guarantee - $13,000.00 Cash Escrow (certificate of deposit) (Bond holder - Dr. William Mattison) All parking improvements completed per approved plans. Original guarantee was in amount of $20,000.00 - Cash Escrow and was reduced to $13,000.00 by City Council on June 11, 1979. Recommend total release 6. Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle North Planning Commission Application No. 78023 Amount of guarantee - $60,000.00 Performance Bond (Bond holder - Lund Martin Company) All site improvements have been completed except as follows: 1. Handicapped parking signs not installed. 2. Trash containers improperly and inadequately screened from view. Recommend reducing bond by $59,000.00 - retaining $1,000.00. 7. Acme Typewriter Company 1900 - 57th Avenue North Planning Commission Application No.. 75007 Amount of guarantee - $750.00 Cash Escrow (Bond holder Ronald Lee, Owner) All site improvements completed per - approved plans Recommend total release. Page 3 8. Spec 8 Industrial Building (Palmer Lake Plaza) 6850 -60 -70 Shingle Creek Parkway Planning Commission Application No. 78036 Amount of guarantee - $140,000.00 Performance Bond -(Bond holder Lund Martin Company) Estimated approximately 75% to 80% of site improvements have been completed. Recommend reducing bond by $100,000.00 - retaining $40,000.00. Approved Ronald A. Warren, Director of arming and Inspection r Mm-ber introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (BRIDGE AND ROA NAY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 1979 -D) WHEREAS, the City Clerk and the City Engineer have reported that on July 25, 1979, at 11:00 A.M., Central Standard time, they opened and tabulated bids received for Bridge Improvement Project No. 1978 -6, Street Grading Improvement Project No. 1978 -45A, and Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1979 -5, and that said bids were as follows: Bidde Total Amount C. S. McCrossan, Inc. $ 894,103.96 Park Construction Conpany 921,955.33 Progressive Contractors, Inc. 962,891.20 Sehlins and Geer Construction 996,769.10 Cy Con, Inc. 1,097,996.40 Minn Kota Excavating 1,332,239.00 WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Engineer to the satis- faction of the City Council that the bid of C. S. McCrossan, Inc., is the best bid submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the bid of C. S. McCrossan, Inc., in the amount of $894,103.96, as to furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, and equipment in connection with the above mentioned improvement projects, according to the plans and specifications herefor now on file in the office of the City Clerk, is deemed to be the best bid submitted for said work by a responsible bidder, and said bid is hereby accepted. BE IT FUITHER. RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute a contract with said bidder. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The notion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by rnm ber , 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 3mved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CONSIDERATION OF BIDS FOR PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE BRIDGE IMPROVE= PR=CT NO. 1977 -10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, has authorized the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to act as its agent in the letting of a contract for Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Improvement Project No. 1977 -10 (S. P. No. 109 - 115 -01, M.5402(10)) by Resolution No. 77 -125, adopted July 11, 1977; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reported that on July 30, 1979, at 11:00 A.M., Central Standard time, he and an authorized representative of the Coundssioner of Transportation opened and tabulated bids received for Pedestrian/ Bicycle Bridge Improvement Project No. 1977 -10 and that said bids were as follows: Bi Total Amount Progressive Contractors, Inc. $304,192.01 C. S. McCrossan, Inc. 313,702.54 Paul A. Laurence Company 318,570.14 Matheny Construction Company 334,210.00 Cy -Con, Inc. 377,207.00 Park Construction Company 385,465.82 Arnold Beckman, Inc. 393, 321.33 Sehlins and Geer Construction 428,116.32 WHEREAS, it has been determined by the City Engineer to the satisfaction of the City Council that the bid of Progressive Contractors, Inc., is the best bid submitted. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the bid of Progressive Contractors, Inc in the amount of $304,192.01, as to furnishing all labor, materials, tools, and equipment in connection with the above mentioned improvement project, according to the plans and specifications therefor now on file in the office of the City Clerk, is deemed to be the best bid submitted for said work by a responsible bidder. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby recommends to the Commissioner of Transportation that a contract for said work be awarded to said bidder. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The notion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the follow - ing voted in favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 Nor introduced the following resolution and tmved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER MT7T,� CT 1978 -H WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1978 -IH signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, United Asphalt Co., Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Alley surfacing portion of Alley Improvement Project No. 1977 -13 (Alley Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1977 -13C) Alley between James Avenue North and Knox Avenue North from 53rd Avenue to 54th Avenue North. NOW, TBEREFURE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of vork performed is greater than the original contract amunt by $9.26 due to an underestimation of quantities for bituminous wearing course mixture in driveways. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, takes - ig the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said imprcvement under said contract shall be $3,308.16. i Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its acbption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING MW PER UNDER CONTRACT 1978 -11 WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1978 -H signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, United Asphalt Co., Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Alley surfacing portion of Alley Improvement Project No. 1977 -22 (Alley Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1977 -22C) Alley between Twin Lake Avenue North and T,akeview Avenue North from Lakebreeze Avenue North to 300 feet - north of Lakebreeze Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is greater than the original contract arount by $338.04 due to a general underestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking zro the Contractor s receipt in full. The total aun t to be paid p d for said shall 2 improvcnent under said contract s ha be $ , 348.04. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote beincl 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 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1978 -H WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1978 -H signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, United Asphalt Co., Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Alley surfacing portion of Alley Irrprovement Project No. 1978 -7 (Alley Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 - 7B (C) ) Alley between Humboldt Avenue North and Irving Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North to 54th Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is less than the original contract amount by $235.62 due to a general overestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $3,160.58. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The notion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seoonded by member and upon vote being taken therm, 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 N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1978 -K WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1978 -K signed with the C'Ly of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, United Asphalt Co., Inca has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Street surfacing portion of Street Grading, Base, and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -20 (Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -20C) Irving Avenue North from 150 feet -1 south of 70th Avenue North to Irving Lane; Irving Lane from Irving Avenue North to 250 feet - west of Irving Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of viork performed is less than the original contract amount by $114.94 due to a general overestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $4,110.06. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon wte 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 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1978 -K WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1978 -K signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, United Asphalt Co., Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Street surfacing portion of Street Grading, Base, and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -24 (Street Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -24C) Aldrich Avenue North from 68th Avenue North to cul-de -sac. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is greater than the original contract amount by $25.48 due to a general underestimation of planned quantities. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $4,245.48. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the follow - ing 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 Proved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION ACCEPTING GCRK PERFOR1\ MINER CONTRACT 1978 - 0 WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1978 -0 signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, De -Luxe Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily oa i accordance with said contract: win isr� t n le the folio rovemen � g p Water Main Improv rant Project No. 1978 -4 On an easement from an existing water min 5' north of the City limits and 210' west of T.H. 152 westerly and southerly into Brooklyn Center, crossing T.H. 152. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The irk completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. r ved. 2. The value of cork performed is less than the original contract amount by $210.05 due to the elLai.nation of one (1) service lateral and appurtenances, the elimination of the granular bedding material item, and an overestimation of the quantity for granular backfill material. • 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be rade on said con - tract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvement under said contract shall be $15,148.75. , 148.75. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted h favor thereof and the following voted against the same: whereupon said - resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEnber introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLTTTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1978-0 WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1978 --0 signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, De -Luxe Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract: Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5 Beginning 15 feet north of the City limits of Brooklyn Center at an existing sanitary sewer manhole approximately 204 feet west of the Brooklyn Boulevard (T.H. 152) right -of -way; thence east along the City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard; thence southeasterly approximately 160 feet along the southeast edge of said right -of -way; thence across Brooklyn Boulevard to a point approximately 44 feet south of the City limits on the northeast right -of -way line of Brooklyn Boulevard. NOW, Z`HE='ORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. The work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved. 2. The value of work performed is greater than the original contract amount by $1,073.20 due to the following: a. Change Order No. 1 (construction of 39 lineal feet of B624 concrete curb and gutter and construction of a 24 foot oonmercial concrete drive apron at the property owner's request) resulted in an increase of $2,484.30 in the contract amount. b. A general overestimation of planned quantities resulted in a reduction of $1,411.10 in the contract amount. 3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said contract, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said project under said contract shall be,$22,040.70. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and roved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING REFORESTATION IMPROVQ`ENT PROJECT NO. 1979 -7 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to initiate Reforesta- tion Improvement Project No. 1979 -7 in order to provide for replacement of trees rezroved under Diseased Shade Tree Removal Contract 1979 -B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of nt Minnesota, try direct the City Brooklyn Center, Minne Y to prepare specifi- Engineer cations for said improvement project described as follows: 1979 -7 Reforestation Furnishing and planting of shade trees upon public boulevards and park property at various locations within the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Mayor ATTEST: .Cleric The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by III zreanbe r and upon vote being taken thereon, the following L po g voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i Member introduced the following resolution and roved its adoptions RES0LUTI013 NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR REFORESTATION IMPROVE= PROJECT NO. 1_979 -7 AND DIRECTING SOLICITATION OF QUOTATIONS (REFORESTATION CONTRACT NO. 1979 -F) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The specifications for the following improvement prepared by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk: Reforestation Improvement Project No. 1979 -7 2. The estimate of the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation for this irk is under the $10,000.00 limit set by M.S. 471.345, and therefore the City Council hereby directs said persons to solicit quotations for said vork. Date Mayor ATIEST: 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 N0. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1979 -8 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, a petition has been presented to the City Council request- ing Street Improvement Project No. 1979 -8; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to initiate the above mentioned inprovement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement project described as follows: 1979 -8 - Street On proposed Unity Avenue North (Outlot A, The Ponds) from approximately 1500 feet north of the centerline of 69th Avenue North northerly approximately 600 feet. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MedoW Cor poration 7400 CANDLEWOOD DRIVE A BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA 55445 ._ TELEPHONE 425 -8222 June 26, 1979 Mr. James Noska Director of Engineering City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: Completion of streets Ponds Plat Five (Unity Ave.) Dear Jim: Concurrent with our approval. for "The Ponds Plat Five ", Meadow Corporation hereby requests the installation of curbing and streets along Unity Ave. in the subject area by the City of Brooklyn Center. I believe all of the necessary utilities have been installed along Unity Ave. but you might want to check on that. Bids for the private work on 72nd Circle will be let next week so I would appreciate your help on Unity Avenue. Sincerely, MEAD CORPORATIODt J� Duane H. Dietrich President DHD:jea Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SIDaALK IMPROVE Y= PROJECT' NO 1979 -9 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges the concern on the part of residents in the area along 69th Avenue North (Co. Rd. 130) with regard to pedestrian activities associated with Evergreen Elementary School; and WHEREAS, the City Oauncil deems it necessary to initiate Sidev,ralk Improvement Project No. 1979 -9 in order to alleviate potential pedestrian/ vehicular conflicts in said area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, to direct the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for said improvement project described as follows: 1979 -9 - Sidewalk Construction of bituminous sidewalk along 69th Avenue North (Co. Rd. 130) from Dupont Avenue North eastward to West River Road (T. H. 16 9) Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the follow- ing 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 7 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 474.01, SURD. 7b WHEREAS, a proposal has been made to this Council by Weis, Greenwald & Greenwald, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Company "), to undertake a project (the "Project ") pursuant to the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Develop- ment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the "Act "); and WHEREAS, the Project consists of the acquisition of an office and manufacturing building in the City and the construction of an addition and other improvements thereto, a parking lot and various site improvements, all to be owned by the Company and leased to Cass Screw Machine Products Company; and WHEREAS, Section 474.01, Subd. 7b, of the Act requires this Council to conduct a public hearing on said proposal and to publish this notice of said public hearing not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing; and WHEREAS, the Company has agreed to deliver to this Council a draft copy of a proposed application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, and said application, attachments and exhibits will be on file with the City Clerk upon publication of the required notice. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. A public hearing shall be conducted by this Council on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project on September 10, 1979, at the City Hall, at which hearing all parties who appear shall be given an opportunity to express their views with respect to said proposal; and 2. Notice of the time and place of hearing, and 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 shall be published at least once not less than 15 days nor more than 30 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, in the official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation of the City. The notice shall state that a draft copy of the proposed application to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, shall be available for public inspection following the publica- tion of such notice and shall specify the place and times where and when it will be so available. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR SIX (6) COMPACT POLICE PATROL SEDANS WHEREAS, the City Clerk and Director of Finance have reported that on August 1, 1979 at 11:00 a.m. they opened and tabulated bids received for furnishing six (6) compact police patrol sedans and that said bids were as follows: Unit Power Tilt Total Price - Price Windows Steering less options Iten Chevrolet $6,217.00 $160.00 $65.00 $37,309.50 Suburban Chevrolet $6,034.00 $150.00 $60.00 $36,204.00 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the bid of Suburban Chevrolet for the furnishing and delivering of six police patrol sedans in accordance with the speci- fications is deemed to be the best bid submitted by a responsible bidder and said bid is hereby accepted. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 7 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1979 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SIX POLICE SQUAD CARS WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make permanent transfers between all Funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with the provisions of relevant covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or State Statutes; and WHEREAS, individual energy intensive operating departments of the City were asked to review their usage of gasoline, diesel motor, and heating fuel; and WHEREAS, the police Department is the largest gasoline user in the g i . City due to the use of gasoline for I ' Y g o the - six marked patrol cars, and WHEREAS, the Police Department is currently using a compact Nova police sedan with a 350 cubic inch V -£3 engine which averages between nine and ten miles per gallon over a full year; and WHEREAS, a considerable fuel consumption savings can be obtained by switching to a vehicle which would provide better gas mileage; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended switching to a front wheel drive vehicle with a V -6 engine and the City Council concurs with the City Manager's recommendation; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND in the amount of at least $36,564 to be transferred for GENERAL FUND use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to amend the 1979 GENERAL FUND Budget by increasing the Police Department (Dept. No. 31) Capital Outlay Mobile Equipment Account (No. 4553) by $36,564 to provide for the purchase of six police squad cars._ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the increased appropriation shall be financed by Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and that funds in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND shall be encumbered in the amount of $36,564. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actual transfer of funds will be made from the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND to the GENERAL FUND on a reim- bursement basis at such time and by Council resolution when the GENERAL FUND has expended funds for the appropriation authorized. Date Mayor ._ ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and -moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A 10,000 GALLON FUEL OIL STORAGE TANK WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction work by informal quotations when the amount of such contract is less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the purchase of a 10,000 gallon steel fuel oil storage tank and has determined that the quotation of Midwest Tank Company in the amount of $2,890 is the best quotation submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be authorized to contract for the purchase of a 10,000 gallon steel fuel oil storage tank in the amount of $2,890 from Midwest 'Tank Company. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i • QUOTATIONS FOR A 10,000 GALLON FUEL OIL STORAGE TANK Midwest Tank $2,890.00 3 -4 week delivery Roll Tank Company $2,863.62 15 week delivery Brown Minneapolis Tank Co. $3,080.00 2 week delivery Quotations are for a 9 x 21 tank with 18" manhole delivered to our site. Estimated costs for installation and hookup are approximately $500.00. f • MEMO TO: Jerry Splinter, City Manager FROM: Al Lindman, City Clerk ek DATE: July 18, 1979 I spoke to Al Parent of Minnegasco regarding using firm gas as opposed to interruptible gas, which we are presently using. He said the policy of the Gas Company is to not allow any conversions of this type unless the demand for fuel is less than 1,500 cubic feet per hour. Our boilers now are at 7,500 CF /hr.at the maximum, and Mr. Parent said it is very unlikely that the City could perform any economy measures to reduce our usage to the 1,500 CF /hr. Therefore, at the present time it is doubtful that the City can change over to firm gas. The comparable rates are firm 2,6871 per cubic foot and interruptible 2,2681. June 22, 1979 MEMO i TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FRO14: Allen S. Lindman, City Clerk SUBJECT: Standby Fuel Storage Interruptible Gas Service According to Minnegasco, any of their customers using natural gas for heating in combination with a fuel oil (or other) standby system, they recommend that a minimum of a 30 day supply of standby fuel be on hand in the event of severe weather for extended periods. At the present time our 10,000 gallon standby supply is adequate for approximately 17 or 18 days of extremely cold weather -- 0 to -25. To comply with this requirement we should install a second 10,000 gallon storage tank. About the only place this could be placed would be on the west side of the building, probably out beyond the enclosure for the chiller fans. The best price for a 10,000 gallon tank 9' x 21' is $2,890 delivered, piping • and installation using force labor estimates to be $500. Today's best oil price is 60.7 per gallon amounting to $6030 to fill up the tank. This expense is provided for in the 1979 budget. f Member introduced the following resolution 71 - L- andmoved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1979 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A 10,000 GALLON FUEL STORAGE TANK WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City Council with full authority to make permanent transfers between all Funds which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with the provisions of relevant covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or State Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has received notification from the City's gas supplier, Minnegasco, that the City should have on hand a thirty day supply of heating oil because the gas supply to City Hall and some other municipal buildings is interruptible during peak heating periods; and WHEREAS, the present storage facilities will accommodate only a fifteen day supply of heating oil; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended the addition of a second 10,000 gallon storage tank and the City Council concurs with the City Manager's recommendation; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND in the amount of at least $3,400 to be transferred for GENERAL FUND use. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to amend the 1979 GENERAL FUND Budget by increasing the Government Buildings (Dept. No. 19) Capital Outlay Other Equipment Account (No. 4552) by $3,400 to provide for the cost of acquiring one 10,000 gallon oil storage tank. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the increased appropriation shall be financed by Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, and that funds in the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND shall be encumbered in the amount of $3,400. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actual transfer of funds will be made from the FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND to the GENERAL FUND on a reim- bursement basis at such time and by Council resolution when the GENERAL FUND has expended funds for the appropriation authorized. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member o er introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: , RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1979 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF MICROFILMING EQUIPMENT WHEREAS, the City Council initially appropriated $10,000 in the 1976 General Fund Budget for the purpose of purchasing microfilming equip - ment necessary to implement the City government's records microfilming program; and WHEREAS, because of changes which were taking place in the art of microfilming, the City delayed its microfilming program and subsequently ! transferred the microfilming appropriation to the 1977 and 1978 General Fund Budgets; and WHEREAS, at the end of 1978 a balance of $9,353 of the original $10,000 appropriation was still unexpended and was therefore closed into unappropriated surplus; and WHEREAS, Section 7.08 of the City Charter authorizes the C?_ty Council to appropriate funds from unappropriated surplus in an amount equal to a previous appropriation if not in fact expended or encumbered for that purpose in the previous fiscal year; and j WHEREAS, because of the recent availability of LOGIS computer output microfilm (COM), which added a new dimension to the microfilming planning, the City is now ready to resume its microfilm program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to amend the 1979 General Fund Budget to increase the Unallocated Departmental Expense (Activity No. 80) Office Furnishings and Equipment Appropriation (Object No. 4551) by $9,353 to provide for the balance of microfilm equipment to be purchased. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said appropriation be funded from unappro- priated surplus. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. y ed the following resolution Member introduced g and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY WILLIAM J. DALE UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES FOR APPROVAL THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT WHEREAS, there has been presented to this Council a proposal by William J. Dale, an individual residing in the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota (the 'Owner "), that the City undertake a project pursuant to the Minnesota - Municipal Industrial Development Act (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474), to provide financing for the construction in the City, adjacent to an existing facility used in the business of Dale Tile Company (the "Company "), of a building to be used as an office, showroom and warehouse facility, and the acquisition and installation of equipment therefor, together with any site improvements required in relation thereto (hereinafter called the "Project "). Under the proposal, the Project will be called by the Owner and leased to the Company. The Owner will enter into a loan 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 interest on up to approximately $1,400,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds of the City to be issued pursuant to said Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, to provide monies for the Project, and the City will pledge its interest in the loan agreement to secure the bonds; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council conducted a public hearing on August 13, 1979, as required by Chapter 474, Minnesota Statutes, 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 of 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 and stating that a draft copy of the proposed Application to the Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, shall be available for public inspection at the office of the City Clerk, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to and including the day of hearing; and all parties who appeared at the public hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Owner and the Company have 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 and whether or not the Project is carried to completion and to indemnify the City, its officers and employees from all liability which the City and any officers and employees may incur in connection with the Project or the issuance and sale of the bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1 It is hereby found, determined and declared 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, agriculture and commerce so as to prevent, so far as possible, the emergence of blighted and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemploy- ment; the retention and development of industry to use the RESOLUTION N0. 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 City, County and School District where the Project is located. 2. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City subject 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 bonds and the Project 3. In accordance with Section 474.01, Subd. 7a, Minnesota Statutes, the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Clerk, and such other officers and members of the City as may from time to time be designated are hereby authorized and directed to submit an Application for approval of the Project to the Commissioner of Securities and request his approval thereof, and the Mayor, the City Manager, the City Clerk, and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with such preliminary information as he may require. and counsel, Besnasb e e n a r r .The ,Owner, the Company, Mess s Fag • the City Attorney, Y and other City officials are also o 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. 4. The Owner and the Company are hereby authorized to enter into such contracts, in their own names and not as agents for the City, as may be necessary for the acquisition and construction of the Project by any means available to them and in the manner they determine without advertisement for bids as may be required for the acquisition or construction of other municipal facilities, but the City shall not be liable on any such contracts. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION NO. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by • member , and.upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i M August 13, 1979 Minnesota Commissioner of Securities Minnesota Department of Commerce Securities Division 500 Metro Square Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 ATTENTION: Mr. Tony Bibus Re: City of Brooklyn Center Industrial Development Revenue Bond (William J. Dale Project - - Dale Tile Company, Lessee) Dear Sir: William J. Dale, an individual residing in the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota (the "Borrower "), advises us that he intends to use the proceeds of the above - referenced issue to assist in the financing in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City "), adjacent to an existing facility used in the business of Dale Tile Company (the " Company "), of the construction ' and equipping; of a building to be used as an office, showroom and warehouse facility, together with any site improvements required in relation thereto (the " Project "). The Project will be owned by the Borrower and leased to the Company. 1 Based on.the certification of the Borrower, I believe that the Project will serve a valid public purpose under the laws of the State of Minnesota, including the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474 (the " Act "), for the following reasons. Minnesota Commissioner of Securities Page Two August 13, 1979 a. It is anticipated that the Project, upon comple- tion, will create approximately 6 new _jobs at an annual payroll of approximately $104,800 based upon currently prevailing wages. The Project will thereby assist in - halting the migration of persons out of the City and sta- bilizing the commercial character of the community. b. It is anticipated that the acquisition, development and construction of the Project will provide new construc- tion and employment opportunities to the - construction Indus - try and that the Project, upon completion, will assist in stabilizing and expanding the real property tax base of the City. c. It is therefore anticipated that the Project will assist in preventing economic deterioration; providing for development of sound industry and commerce to use the available resources of the community in order to retain the benefit of the community's existing investment in education and public service facilities; halting the movement of talented, educated personnel to other areas and thus preserving the economic and human resources needed as a base for providing governmental services and facilities; and providing a more adequate tax base to finance the costs of governmental services. 2. I further certify, in order to provide the informa- tion required to be supplied to the Commissioner of Securities as Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 to the Application to the Commissioner for approval of the Project, as follows: a. Upon entering into the revenue agreement for the Project between the City and the Borrower, the information required by Section 474.01, ;subd. 8; Minnesota Statutes will be submitted to the Department of Economic Development. b. The Project 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. c. In .connection with the Project, a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Section 474.01, i Minnesota Commissioner of Securities Page Three August 13, 1979 sbud. 8, Minnesota Statutes, at the City Hall of the City at o'clock P.M. on August 13, 1979, and at said hears g all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA - By Mayor Member introduced the following resolution 1 and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE AUTHORIZATION AND ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 474, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING A PROJECT THEREUNDER; AND AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY TO THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF SECURITIES WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Minnesota in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act), has found and declared that the welfare of the State requires active promotion, attraction, encourage- ment and development of economically sound industry and commerce through governmental acts to prevent, so far as possible, emergence of blighted lands and areas of chronic unemployment; has authorized municipalities to issue revenue bonds to finance, in whole or in part, the cost of the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, improvement and betterment of projects, including any properties, real or personal, used or useful in connection with a revenue producing enterprise engaged in any business; and has authorized municipalities to enter into "revenue agreements ", as defined in the Act, with any person, firm, or public or private corporation or federal or state governmental subdivision or agency (the Contracting Party) providing for the payment by the Contracting Party of amounts suffi- cient to_ provide for the prompt payment of principal and interest on the revenue bonds; and WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City issue its revenue bonds, pursuant to the authority of the Act in an amount not exceeding in a P y g gg re- _ gate principal amount $1,000,000, to finance, in part, the costs of the construction of a new building of approximately 52,000 square feet, on land located within the City, and the acquisition and installation therein of certain equipment (all such properties being hereinafter referred to as the Project), and to make the proceeds of the sale of those revenue bonds available to Medtronic, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the Company), which will agree to pay the City amounts sufficient to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the revenue bonds, and will agree to cause.the Project to be constructed. The Project is presently estimated to cost approximately $4,300,000; and WHEREAS, the City has been advised that conventional, commerical financing to pay the capital cost of the Project is available only on a limited basis and at such high costs of borrowing that the scope of the Project or the economic feasibility of operating the Project would be significantly reduced, but that with the aid of municipal financing, and its resulting low borrowing costs, the Project can be constructed as designed and its operation is economically more feasible; and WHEREAS, this Council has been advised by Dain. Kalman & Quail, Incorporated (the Underwriters), the proposed underwriters of the revenue bonds described herein, that revenue bonds of the City could be issued and sold upon favorable rates and terms to finance the Project; and WHEREAS, there has been presented to this Council a form of Memorandum of Agreement relating to the issuance of revenue bonds of the City to finance costs of the Project; and j i RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subdivision 7b, this Council, pursuant to a resolution adopted on ,July 23, 1979, called and held a public hearing on the proposal to undertake and finance the Project, and notice of the time and place of the hearing, and stating the general nature of the Project and an estimate of the principal amount of bonds to be issued to finance the Project, was published at least once not less than fifteen days nor more than thirty days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, in the official newspaper of the City and a newspaper of general circulation of the City, and a draft copy of the proposed application t'o the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities, together with all attachments and exhibits thereto, was available for public inspection following the publication of such notice at the place and times set forth in the notice; and WHEREAS, all parties who appeared at the public hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to undertake and finance the Project, and this Council has heard and considered the views expressed at the public hearing and the information submitted to the City by the Company and the Underwriters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that: 1. On the basis of information given the City to date, and the views expressed at the public hearing, it is found and determined that the Project furthers the purposes stated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, and that it would be in the best interest of the City to issue its industrial development revenue bonds under the provisions of the Act to finance, in part, costs of the Project in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000 (the Bonds). 2. The Project is hereby given preliminary approval by the City and the issuance.of the Bonds for such-purposes approved. The Bonds shall not be issued until the Project has been approved by the Commissioner of Securities as provided by the Act and until the City, the Company and the Underwriters have agreed upon the details of the Bonds and provisions for their payment. 3. If the Bonds are issued and sold, the City will enter into a lease, mortgage, direct or installment sale contract, loan agreement, take or pay or similar agreement, secured or unsecured, satisfying the requirements of the Act (the Revenue Agreement) with the Company. The amounts payable by the Company to the City under the Revenue Agreement will be sufficient to pay the principal, interest and redemption premium, if any, on the Bonds as and when the same shall become due and payable. 4. The form of Memorandum of Agreement is approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Memorandum of Agreement, with such changes as the City Attorney may approve, on behalf of the City. RESOLUTION.NO. 5. In accordance with the Act, the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for the Project to the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities for her approval of the Project. The Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with any preliminary information she may need for this purpose, and the City Attorney is authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project. 6. The City will comply with all of the provisions of the Act, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 474.01, Subidivision 8, in the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the Project. 7. In all events, it is understood, however, that the revenue bonds of the City shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City except the Project, if it becomes the property of the City, and from the revenues received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof, and shall not constitute a debt of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. M & C No. 79 -19 August 10, 1979 FROM THE OFFICE la-- OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROCKLYN CEN'T'ER Subject: Status of Madsen Floral Rezoning Application No. 79018 To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: By way of review the above application is a requested rezoning from R -1 (single family residential)to R -3 (townhouse /garden apartments) of approximately 3.5 acres located within the 5500 block between Ca,;den and Bryant. The City Council has given the applicant and adjoining property owners an opportunity to work out certain agreements which may get the neighborhood together in support of this particular project. while the Council has been considering its merits. I have met with Mr. Kvamme, representing Madsen Floral Company, on Wednesday of this week and with Mrs. Mary Simmons, President of the Bellvue Park Neighborhood Association. Attached is a copy of an agreement dated August 8, 1979 which represents the fruits of deliberations between the two parties. Mr. Y.vamme presented this document to me on Wednesday afternoon and was meeting with the neighborhood association that evening. On Thursday I discussed the document with Mary Simmons and at that time her concerns with the document focused on Articles 5 and 6. In Article 5 she was concerned regarding the language and the words "render impractical" as it relates to the relationship City requirements might have in reducing or removing the 1350 square foot per unit requirement. In Article 6 the concern was that the two year life of the agreement is not a perma- nent covenant and was an unacceptable period of time in her and the neighborhood asscciation's mind. Mr. Kvamme stated that he felt it was a fair doca—iment and it represented at that time as far as he could compromise. By way of summary, the City Council must decide on the rezoning based on the criteria found for .rezoning which was adopted by the City Council sometime ago. In the agreement between the Madsen Floral group and the neighborhood association not- withstanding, the decision for rezoning rests with the City Council based on the guide - lines adopted and governing the situation. Attached is a copy of those guidelines. From the staff's point of view the proposed rezoning is one that could be judged either way, depending on the weight given various factors. The land currently is occupied by a nonconforming use and to remove that nonconforming use from the area would be a desirable thing. However, the use proposed is an increase in density in the area and from that point of view, there are some negative aspects. Regardless of the Council's action either to approve or reject the proposed rezoning, it is my recommendation that your action on Monday ever_ing be to direct the staff to prepare an ordinance for rov� s T app al or a resolution of denial for your passage at y our next Council meeting. It has been your practice an the past to handle these matters to allow the opportunity for the attorney and the staff to prepare the proper rationale in the approval or denial document. ., Re /tf, r ly /submitted, 4�efa� G Splinter City Mane er CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER encs. • 1. Pu rpos� . '. The City Council finds - that effective maintenance of - the comprehensive planning and land use classif ications is enhanced through uniform and equitasle evaluation of periodic proposed changes _ to - this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by - the adoption of Resolution N o. 77 -167, - the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. poll It is the policy of - the City - that: e) zoning classifications must be consistent with - the Comarehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proucsals shall not Constitute 11 spot zoning defined as a zoning.decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plat: or to accepted planning principles. - 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will. be considered on its merits, measured agains t - the above policy and against 'these guidelines which may be weighed c ®llectively or individually as deemed by - the City. 4. Guidelines _ (a Is - there a clear and public need,or benefit? _ (h ) - Is -the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with - • Surrounding land use classifications ? ° {c} Can all permitted uses in - the proposed zoning district be Contemplated for development of - the subject property. - (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification " charades in the area since - the subject - property was zoned? (e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is - there a goad public purpose evident? _ {f) Will - the subject property bear fully -the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts ? - (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in - ' the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? • (h) 'Will the rezoning result - the expansion of a zoning district, _ warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) - the lack of developable land in - the proposed zoning district; or 3)_ the . best interests of the community? I} Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual r4arccl? AGREEMENT } THIS AGREEMENT is executed this day of , 1979, by and among Madsen Floral Company, a Minnesota corporation, - Olga Madsen, a widow, Edwin A. Trombley and Lorraine E. Trombley, husband and wife, Myra Swennes, a widow, Darlene Walter, single, James F. Shetler, single, and John M. Hansen, single (hereinafter r collectively, "Property Owners "), and all persons who are property owners residing within 350 feet of the hereinafter described property, whose names appear on a list as such maintained by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (hereinafter collectively, "Neighbors "). WHEREAS, the Property Owners are the owners in fee of a certain tract of land situated in the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota, which is legally described as follows, to -wit: I The West one -half of Lots 40 and 47, the North 168 feet of the East one -half of Lot 46, and the South 168 feet of the East one -half of Lot 46 Garce d Minneapolis Ions Addition to M P (hereinafter, the "Property "); and WHEREAS, the Property Owners are desirous of using their Property in the most economically advantageous manner; and WHEREAS, the Property is well suited for the construction thereon of a townhouse development,including separate residential townhouse units to be sold and conveyed to individual owners, and including certain areas and facilities to be owned in common by and li • for the benefit of the owners of said townhouse units; and WHEREAS, use of the Property for continued commercial pur- poses represents inadequate utilization of the said Property and land -locks a substantial tract of land; and WHEREAS, use of the said Property for the construction of single- family townhouses can be accomplished without affecting existing streets, sidewalks or utilities, thereby avoiding special assessments to other landowners, and will beautify the said Property, improve and enhance land values of adjacent land, and make the use of the Property more compatible with the use of the adjacent land; and WHEREAS, use of the said Property for construction of single- family townhouse units shall place responsibility for the maintenance of roadways in the said development upon the individual t ;owners of the townhouse units; and WHEREAS, before construction of said development can commence, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, must resolve to rezone the said Property to an R -3 district permitting the contemplated townhouse development; and WHEREAS, the Neighbors consent and agree to the above- described rezoning on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The Property Owners hereby agree that if the said Property is rezoned for purposes described within the R -3 zoning classification of the City of Brooklyn Center, they shall limit the development of the said Property to a townhouse development as above described, which development shall be restricted to separate townhouse i units to be sold and conveyed to individual owners who may own or purchase no more than one unit in the townhouse development; that each townhouse unit shall contain not less than 1,350 square feet of living space, excluding double garage and unfinished storage areas; that adequate visitor parking spaces shall-be provided within the proposed townhouse development, said parking areas to comply with the parking requirements contained in the zoning ordinance of the City of Brooklyn Center for R -3 residential areas; that all townhouse units shall be constructed with a brick or cedar siding exterior or with an exterior of materials of equal and comparable quality and durability; that the townhouse development will be adequately screened from adjoining property by evergreen hedges, fences, or some other attractive means. 2. The parties hereto agree that the Property Owners shall notify the Neighbors in writing by United States mail at least one week before every meeting of the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission or City Council at which the rezoning or development plans of the said Property shall be under consideration. -2- 3. The parties hereto agree that the Neighbors, their successors or assigns, shall have the right to enjoin, abate-or remedy by appropriate legal proceedings either at law or in equity the breach or violation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, i t should this Agreement become effective as provided in Paragraph 6 hereof. The Property Owners hereby agree that this Agreement shall bind all developers and contractors engaged by the Property Owners or by their successors or assigns to develop the Property. A. The parties hereto agree that if any variance from the currently existing Brooklyn Center zoning ordinance for R -3 residential districts is sought by the Property owners, the request for the said variance must first be approved by a majority of the Neighbors prior to its submission to the City Council. 5. The parties hereto understand and agree that they have executed this Agreement to induce the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to grant the above- mentioned request for rezoning, and that this Agreement shall be submitted to the members of the said Council at all meetings of same at which the rezoning or development plans of the said Property shall be under consideration by the Council; provided, however, that if the said City Council shall impose terms and conditions upon the grant of the rezoning or development requests which conflict with or render impracticable any of the terms or conditions hereof, the terms and conditions imposed by the said Council shall supersede and take the place of the affected provisions of this Agreement. 6. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, this Agreement becomes effective only upon the date of the adoption by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center of a resolution rezoning the said Property to an R -3 classification, and shall remain in effect until the townhouse development described herein as been completed and all townhouse units have been sold, or until September 1, 1981, whichever comes first. MADSEN FLORAL COMPANY By Its By Its -3- Olga Madsen r Edwin A. Trombley f Lorraine E. Trombley Myra Swennes Darlene Walter James F. Shetler John M. Hansen ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS RESIDING WITHIN 350 FEET OF "PROPERTY ": Roger Engstrom 5448 Bryant Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Paul Worwa 5519 Camden Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota -4- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE vl CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 26, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 12, 1979 Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the July 12 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor, Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Malecki and Hawes. APPPLICATION NO. 79029 (George Shimshock Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item for consideration was Ap- plication No. 79029 submitted by George Shimshock, a request to subdivide two pre- existing lots between Bryant Avenue North and Colfax Avenue North at 59th Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the two lots described as Tract Q and Tract R of R. L.S. No. 1271 were combined for tax purposes around 1971. He stated that the applicant wishes simply to redivide the properties along the same lot line. Tract R will be roughly 79 feet by 140 feet and Tract Q will be roughly 80 feet by 131 feet._ The Secretary pointed out that while a lot with deficiency exists for both lots (corner lots should be 90 feet wide in the R1 zone), a variance is not necessary since lot width is a pre - existing condition, unaffected by this redivision. He also stated that Section 35 -500 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that sub - standard lots of record prior to 1976 in the R1 and R2 zones shall be considered buildable as long as all new construction meets current ordinance setback re- quirements. The only zoning criteria in question in this division, he said, are lot depth and lot area. In both these respects, the application complies with ordinance requirements. The Secretary added that the applicant intends to move a house onto the lot at 5900 Colfax Avenue North to be situated in accord- ance with ordinance requirements. Chairman Pierce inquired when the lots in question were created. The Planning Assistant answered that the lots had been platted in 1968. The Secretary pointed out on a transparency of R.L.S. No. 1271 that the property line between Tract Q and Tract R is located three feet from Mr. Shimshock's garage in order to meet minimum ordinance requirements. Commission Hawes inquired whether new construction on the site would meet present ordinance requirements. The Secretary answered that it would, adding that if the lots had been created prior to 1957, structures would have been allowed to within 15 feet of 59th Avenue. Since these lots were created later, however, structures must be set back 25 feet from 59th Avenue and the applicant is aware of this. Chairman Pierce asked whether both of the lots created by the re- subdivision would meet square footage requirements. The Secretary responded that they would. 7 -26 -79 -11- Commissioner Hawes asked whether the lot to the north of Tracts Q and R was a single lot. The Secretary explained that it actually consisted of two lots which were also combined for tax purposes. Chairman Pierce called on Mrs. Shimshock to speak to the application. Mrs`. Shimshock explained that the area now described as Tracts Q and R of R.L.S. 1271 were formerly two lots, one 225 feet deep and one roughly 45 feet deep. This lot division was consistent with all of the other lots on Bryant Avenue North prior to 1968. She explained that in 1968 a registered land survey created many new buildable lots on Colfax Avenue North by placing the property lines roughly down the middle of the block. A CTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79029 (George Shimshock) Motion by Commissioner Hawes, seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval on Application No 79029 submitted by George Shimshock to resubdivide two pre - existing lots combined for tax purposes. Voting in favor, Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 79046 (St. Alphonsus Church The Secretary introduced the next item of business, Application No. 79046, - con- sisting of a Special Use Permit for the construction of a 24 by 30 foot addition to the St. Alphonsus Church service garage. The Secretary pointed out that the garage is located on the west portion of the Church site at 7025 Halifax Avenue North, just beyond the outer service drive. He explained that churches are a special use within the RI zone and any construction requires Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. The Secretary gave a brief description of the proposed construction.' The structure is to be concrete block with a frame roof, consistent with the exist- ing garage. When completed, the garage will be 24 by 60 feet, double its present size. He noted that the enlarged building will be able to house recreational and maintenance equipment presently stored outside. He explained that the pro- posed structure requires no additional parking and added that parking provisions on the site are more than adequate. He also stated that the Building Official, following a site review, has determined that no additional landscaping is re- quired for the site at this time. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the service drive on which the garage is located is a public street. The Secretary explained that it is only a private drive used by the church. In answer to Commissioner Theis, the Secretary explained that the garage would have clear access to the service drive. Chairman Pierce asked Father Lowry if he had anything to add to the Secretary's presentation. Father Lowry answered that he had nothing to add. The Secretary` explained that while the project was minor in scope, because churches are special uses, it is necessary to review any proposed construction. Chairman Pierce asked whether the City was holding a bond for site improvements on the church site. The Secretary answered that the City was not holding a bond and recommended that no bond be held in this case. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce asked if there were any other persons present to speak on the application. Noting that no one else was present, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commis- sioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor, Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against- none. The motion passed. 7 -26 -79 -2- Chairman Pierce asked the applicant whether the exterior of the addition of the garage would be consistent with the existing garage. Father Lowry answered that it would. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79046 (St. Alphonsus Church) Motion by Commissioner Manson, seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 79046, special use permit approval for construction of an addition to the church service garage at 7025 Halifax Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is granted to the applicant as user of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. All maintenance and recreational equipment shall be stored in the garage when not in seasonal use to minimize outdoor storage. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. A PPLICATION NO. 79047 (Church of the Nazarene) The Secretary explained that Application No. 79047 submitted by Church of the Nazarene for special use permit approval for a day care center had been with - drawn the day before. He recommended that the Commission acknowledge the with- drawal of the application. ACTION ACKNO WLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79047 (Church of the Nazarene) Motion by Commissioner Theis, seconded by Commissioner Manson to acknowledge with- drawal of Application No. 79047, submitted by the Church of the Nazarene, con- sisting of a special use permit approval for a day care center. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the fee paid for the application was refunded to the applicant. The Secretary answered that he did not refund the fee in this case. He explained that the research'had been done and the costs had been in- curred for processing the application. He noted that inspections had been made by City personnel and notices sent to surrounding properties. He added that if these costs had not been incurred before the withdrawal, the application fee would have been refunded. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the City is making any attempt to control the number of day care facilities in the City. The Secretary responded that there are not that many day care centers in the City at this time, and added that the special use permit process would allow the City to screen day care approvals and withdraw approval of presently permitted day care centers. Commissioner Hawes explained that he was getting at the question of supply and demand. The Secretary answered that those considerations were not the basis for withdrawing this application. He explained that the withdrawal was based on the cost of some facilities required by the Sanitarian in accordance with various codes. There was a brief discussion of day care centers. The Secretary explained that State Law has been amended to make day care of up to ten children a permitted use in a single family residential zone, and that the number of wards allowed in a foster care home is six. 7 -26 -79 -3- DISCUSSION ITEMS TRAFFIC STUDY BY B.R.W. The Secretary next referred the Commission to a Traffic Study submitted by B.R.W. He reviewed its contents in some detail. He noted that the purpose of the study was to examine the development options for the property owned by Mr. Charlson, north of Brookdale Ford, in terms of accessibility to the site, impact on area wide traffic patterns, capital costs for street improvements, land requirements for streets, and the relationship of any development proposal to the policy for access to Shingle Creek Parkway. Regarding the recommended policy on access to Shingle Creek Parkway, the Secret- ary noted that the report offers four guidelines: 1. Access to Shingle Creek Parkway should be from public streets; exceptions can be made to serve -a major generator or multiple developments. 2. The minimum distances between median openings should be 400 feet; the average distance should be 600 feet. 3. Curb cuts without a median opening providing for "right turns only" to a major generator should be more than 250 feet from the nearest access P of nt. 4. The number of access points should be minimized as far as feasible within the requirements for land development in an orderly and practical fashion. The Secretary then pointed out that the potential users for the site include a racquet and swim club,a retail furniture store, a paint store and a tire store. He then read a description of the original street plan proposed in a preliminary p lat he r lat b Brauer and Associates. T report o that access into the site is e notes t p provided by a cul-de-sac from Shingle Creek Parkway, located at the approximate center of the undeveloped portion of the site. A new cut in the median and curb are shown at the cul -de -sac and two new curb cuts in addition to the one at the cul -de -sac are provided for access to parking areas. The existing median cut, north of County Road 10 serving Brookdale Ford would be closed. The Secretary then described various alternatives for street locations to serve the site and where median cuts would be located under each alternative. Alternative One is similar to the original street plan except that the curb cut to the racket and swim club is eliminated. Under Alternative Two, a single cul -de -sac is provided with access to Shingle Creek Parkway at the north edge of the site. A median cut is provided at the cul -de -sac and access i s provided Bell from -the cul -de -sac. ed to P Alternative Three provides two cul -de -sacs, one at the north edge of the site and one at the south edge of the undeveloped area. Median and curb cuts are provided at both cul -de -sacs. Access is provided to Northwestern Bell and Brookdale Ford from the cul -de -sac. Alternative Four provides a new street across the north side of the site and extended easterly across the Cinema parking area to intersect John Martin Drive at Earle Brown Drive. Access is provided from the street to Northwestern Bell. 7 -26 -79 -4_ Under Alternative Five, a cul -de -sac from Shingle Creek Parkway at the south edge of the undeveloped area would be added to the plan with a street along the north edge of the site. This plan would require a median cut at each public street. Alternative Six is similar to Alternative Four except that the new street crosses through the center of the undeveloped area instead of at the north edge. The new street in this plan intersects John Martin Drive at Earle Brown Drive the same as in Alternative Four. The Secretary pointed out that under all of the alternatives for street develop- ment the median cuts presently serving the Brookdale Ford site and the North- western Bell site would be eliminated. The Secretary then reviewed the evaluation criteria outlined in the report. Ap ng them were: accessibility to the site, impact on area wide traffic patterns, capital cost, land requirements, and relationship to the proposed policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway. For each of these factors in the evaluation, the Secretary reviewed the measures used in comparing the alternatives. The Secretary then referred the Commission to various diagrams in the report which depicted traffic patterns to and from the site for each alternative. He noted that the traffic forecasts for the site are generally higher for the alter - naitves which propose to serve the site with a through street rather than with a cul -de -sac. The Secretary then read the report's evaluation of the alternatives. Accessibility to the site was evaluated by estimating travel times to and from the site for each alternative and by judging how well a driver could perceive the relationship between a destination within the proposed development and the route needed to reach that destination. In general, alternatives which propose to serve the development with cul -de -sacs scored low. Impact on areawide traffic patterns was evaluated on the basis of two factors: interference with through traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway, and relationship to access to neighboring developments. Interference with through traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway was measured by the number of new access points required, distance between these access points -and the forecasted traffic volume generated by the site that would use Shingle Creek Parkway. The report indicated that Alter- natives One, Two, Four and Six would be preferable from this standpoint since they would have only one new median opening onto Shingle Creek Parkway. All alternatives would meet the recommended requirement for minimum distance between access points. The report concluded that access through adjacent developments would be better with Alternatives Four'and Six because no cul -de- sacs are pro - vided. (Some drivers not familiar with the area might mistakenly use a cul -de- sac in attempting to reach a destination on John Martin Drive). Costs for street construction were estimated for each alternative using current unit costs for similar type projects. A 70 foot right -of -way width was assumed for estimation of land area required for streets. Land area requirements in- cluded land required for roadway both inside and outside of the project area. As to the policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway, the report concluded that all alternatives would meet the proposed policy but Alternatives One, Two, Four and Six would require only one access point while the other alternatives would have two. 7 -26 -79 -5- The Secretary concluded his review of the B.R.W. report by discussing its recom- mended plan. The report recommends Alternative Four, subject to solving the following problems: "A portion of the northwest part of the parking area for Cinema I, II, III and IV would be required for street right -of -way. The possibility of the acquisition of this property, either through purchase, land trading, or shared parking must be resolved before final selection of this alternative. In developing the alignment for the new street across the north side of the site, it would be advantageous to dross the southeast corner of the Northwestern Bell property. This would reduce the amount of parking area needed from the Cinema property and would permit flatter curvature of the street." The report considers the advantages of Alternative Four to be as follows: "l. Alternative Four would provide good accessibility to the area. 2. Traffic to and from the site would not unduly interfere with through traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway. 3. Drivers destined to adjacent developments would not be confused with a cul -de -sac street system. 4. With Alternative Four, there is more flexibility in developing land within the project because the new street would not bi -sect the available land." The report concludes that the major disadvantages of Alternative Four are: "1. Construction costs would be more than with some of the other alternatives. 2. Acquisition of land for streets outside the project area would be required. 3. Coordination of adjacent property owners is required." The Secretary then referred the Commission to Figure 15 of the report which shows a recommended location for the new street for Alternative Four. The Secretary noted that Alternative Four could be staged by construction of everything up to the Cinema I, II, III, IV property. At a later date the roadway could be extended to John Martin Drive once the City has received dedication of needed public right -of -way. The Secretary also pointed out that under Alternative` Four the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Drive would most likely be signalized. The traffic volumes forecasted for the new street and Shingle - .Creek'Parkway respectively are close to meeting the volume warrants for a traffic signal at the intersection of these two streets. However, he noted, the signal at John Martin Drive and County Road 10 on Shingle Creek Parkway would most likely provide sufficient gaps in the traffic on Shingle Creek Parkway to allow vehicles on the new street to gain access. After the Secretary had finished his review of the B.R.W. report, Chairman Pierce asked the Planning Commission for continent. Commissioner Hawes stated that he was not convinced that a median cut at the south edge of the Charlson property is necessary. He suggested that traffic probably would use this cut to go west on County Road 10. He also questioned what would happen to the triangle of land south of the A. F. I. A. site. 7 -26 -79 -6- The Secretary responded that that area is presently used for joint parking and that some land trading might be necessary. In response to the median cut con - cern, the Secretary stated that most of the traffic using the median cut would be coming from the north and turning left into Brookdale Ford or another user. If access were provided to Brookdale Ford from a cul -de -sac off the public street to the north, this would be confusing to drivers. He added that control of exiting vehicles could be gained by designing the curb cut at Brookdale Ford so that cars could only turn right onto Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Hawes asked if access to the racquet and swim club adjacent to Brookdale Ford could be gained from that south median cut. The Secretary answered that that was possible. Chairman Pierce asked whether the triangle on the west side of the Northwestern Bell Telephone property could be subdivided. The Secretary answered that the area is used for proof of parking in case the building is ever used for retail. Commissioner Theis asked whether the installation of the road through to Earle Brown Drive would leave enough parking for Cinema I, II, III, IV. The Secretary answered that he was not certain of the exact numbers of parking spaces involved. He suggested that land trading might be required. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the Commission was going through a futile exercise since the recommended proposal has already been proposed to Rauenhorst, the owner of the Northwestern Bell site. The Secretary answered that up until this time there has been no clear policy statement that the median cut for Northwestern Bell would be closed. Commissioner Hawes expressed concern that if the road did not go through to John Martin Drive, the access for all of the property on the Charlson site would be confused. The Secretary stated that the next alternative would be in the cul -de -sac in the middle of the Charlson site and close off all other median cuts between County Road 10 and John Martin Drive. In response to a question from Commissioner Erickson, the Secretary stated that both curb cuts would be allowed under the original proposal. Commissioner Hawes asked whether there was a median cut on County Road 10 in the vicinity of Brookdale Ford. The Secretary explained that there is not a median cut at that location and pointed out that the plan would not prevent private access agreements to Brookdale Ford and Northwestern Bell. Chairman Pierce inquired as to the assessment of road improvements. The Secretary answered that he was not sure whether Brookdale Ford was included in the assess - ment district. He noted, however, that Cinema I, II, III, IV, A.F.I.A. and Northwestern Bell would be assessed for street improvements to the Charlson property, and that the Charlson property has been assessed for street improve - ments to other properties in the assessment district. Commissioner Theis asked whether the City has ever acquired land for public streets in the past. The Secretary answered that to his knowledge all streets have been dedicated and the staff is not recommending a change in that policy at this time. Commissioner Theis noted that this would require dedication of land from the Northwestern Bell site,if the recommended alternative is to be implemented. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the streets indicated on the plan would be public or private. The Secretary answered that the proposed plan comprehends public streets. Chairman Pierce then called on Mr. Brauer representing the owner of the property to speak on the study's recommendation. Mr. Brauer stated that 99% of the time shared streets imply shared right -of -way. He complained about the long delay at coming around to the plan which he had originally proposed over a year ago. He also stated that all of the points made in the study have been made to Northwestern Bell in the past. 7 -26 -79 -7- Mr. Brauer explained that the platting of areas south of John Martin Drive and east of Shingle Creek Parkway is horrible and that his original recommendation was the best rational approach under the circumstances. This, however, did not coincide with the interests of neighboring property owners. He noted that Northwestern Bell would lose its present median cut under the proposed policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway, and he recommended that that policy be adopted. _ He concluded by saying that his client was willing to take the risk that the road would not go through if the plat at least indicated that it would. Commissioner Hawes asked Mr. Brauer if the applicant was anxious to develop the site. Mr. Brauer answered that he was, but that a chicken -and -egg problem existed over access and marketability of the property. He added that under the status quo, everyone is satisfied except Mr. Charlson. Commissioner Hawes asked Mr. Brauer whether he would go along with Alternative Four. Mr. Brauer stated that as long as there was some assurance that the road would, in fact, go through to John Martin Drive, he would favor the plan. The Secretary interjected to say that there was no problem with Alternative Two as a phase for construction, but that continuing the road to John Martin Drive would require, dedication of land which might take some time. The Secretary added, however, there must be assurance that the roadway will go through as Alternative Four proposes because Alternative_ Two, by itself, would be poor planning. Commissioner Erickson asked whose responsibility it is to get the agreements for dedication of right -of -way. The _Secretary answered that the private parties would have to agree to this among themselves. Commissioner Erickson asked whether any of these agreements had been obtained yet. Mr. Brauer answered that only Brookdale Ford had cooperated with their proposal to this point. At that point, Chairman Pierce recognized Mr. Charlson. Mr. Charlson stated that he had owned the property for 27 years and had previously dedicated land for Shingle Creek Parkway. At that time, he said, the village assured him that it would be cooperative in helping him develop his property. He noted that taxes are getting higher every year and that this made the need for developing the property even greater. He stated that many efforts had been made to find the solution for developing and that after a great deal of time the only alternative that assured the development of the property was a cul-de-sac. Michelle Foster, of Rauenhorst Corporation, stated that her firm had been coop- erative with the applicant, but could not agree to dedicating any land. She allowed that Rauenhorst might be willing to sell land for the road if it were acquired. Chairman Pierce asked her which alternative she preferred. Ms.' Foster replied that Alternative Four was certainly preferable over the cul -de -sac. She stated that Rauenhors would be looking for access to a median cut to com- pensate for loss of its existing median cut. Mr. Charlson stated that in his opinion Rauenhorst Corporation had not been very cooperative in trying to reach a solution to allow him to develop his property. He objected to the suggestion that he dedicate all of the land for public right -of -way when much of the benefits would acrue to the Northwestern Bell property. Commissioner Theis asked Ms. Foster if Rauenhorst had been aware of the closing of their median cut. Ms Foster answered that they had not been aware and added that it would definitely affect their position. Mr. Scott Powell, of Brookdale Ford, stated that he sympathized with Mr. Charlson and that without a median cut traffic to the Brookdale Ford site would certainly be confused. He admitted that Brookdale Ford has little leverage in effecting a solution, but would be happy to work with the parties concerned to help imple- ment Alternative Four`. He also stated that he was not opposed to a right -only exit onto Shingle Creek Parkway. 7 -26 -79 -8 The Commission briefly discussed the impact of Alternative Four on the American Family Insurance site. Chairman Pierce noted that the recommeded alternative would not hurt their access. The Secretary added that additional construction on John Martin Drive would adversely affect their visibility and that they would need exposure from another street. In response to a question from Chair- man Pierce, the Secretary stated that Cinema I, II, III, IV, A.F.I.A., Perkins,. Brookdale Ford, Charlson and Northwestern Bell would all be involved in a replat if Alternative Four were agreed to by the private parties. As far as construct - ion, he said that Alternative Two might be built first with the remainder of the road to be finished later. Mr. Brauer stated, however, that his client would not be interested in Alternative Two. Chairman Pierce stated that the consensus of the Planning Commission appeared that Alternative Four is the most desirable, but if it cannot be worked out, Alternative One would be an acceptable backup. The Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission take action to recommend the policy statement for both access and a street plan to the City Council. He added that other parties would be given a copy of the BRW report before the Council meeting and could present their reactions at that time. If the policy were approved by the Council as stated in the B.R.W. report, a plat could be considered by the Planning Com- mission at the August 16 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Brauer stated that he preferred that a plat be approved that night. Chairman Pierce asked whether the City Council could pass Alternative Four as a plat. The Secretary answered that it would be impossible without the proper information. Mr. Brauer stated that the plat, as indicated in Alternative Four, had been in front of the Plan - ning Commission some time ago. The Secretary countered, however, that it would be premature to act on a plat based on a policy not yet approved by the City Council. Chairman Pierce asked whether agreements needed for Alternative Four could be obtained before the City Council meeting. The Secretary answered that he doubted it. Chairman Pierce concluded that approval of any plat would depend on the appropriate agreements. The Secretary stated that, in his opinion, the study and the Planning'Commission action give direction to the applicant by indicating an access policy and .a preferred street plan. Commissioner Erickson stated that he did not feel the Planning Commission should list the various alternatives in the order of prefer- ence. He recommended that one alternative be recommended to the City Council. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE POLICY FOR ACCESS ONTO SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY CONTAINED IN THE BRW STUDY Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of the following policy for access onto Shingle Creek Parkway: 1. Access to Shingle Creek Parkway should be from public streets; exceptions can be made to serve a major generator or multiple developments. 2. The minimum distance between median openings should be 400 feet, the average distance should be 600 feet. 3. Curb cuts without a median opening, providing for "right -turn only" to a major generator should be more than 250 feet from the nearest other access point. 4. The number of access points should be minimized as far as feasible within the requirements for land development in an orderly and practicable fashion. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis Hawes, Manson - and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 7 -26 -79 -9- ACTION RECOMME APPROVAL OF STREET PLAN ALTERNATIVE FOUR Motion by Commissioner Theis secon e by Commissioner Erickson to recommend ap- proval of Street Plan Alternative Four shown on Figure 15 of the BRW study subject to the execution of property agreements to put the proposed street all the way through from Shingle Creek Parkway to John Martin Drive. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Hawes stated that he felt the median cut to serve Brookdale Ford should be examined by the City Council for consistency with the proposed access policy. He felt that it should not be allowed since it would result in the same number of median cuts as exists now. He suggested that access to the site be made via the cul -de -sac from the north._ Commissioner Malecki and Commissioner Erickson voiced disagreement with this suggestion. REC The Planning Commission recessed at 9:48 p.m. and resumed at 10 :20 p.m. DRA ORDINAN AMENDMENTS Fallowing the recess the Secretary reviewed with the Planning Commission two draft ordinance amendments dealing with freestanding signs for apartment complexes and setbacks from major thoroughfares. The Secretary recalled for the Commission the recently denied variance application of Mr. Melvin Gittleman who sought a variance from the Sign Ordinance that he be allowed to put two freestanding identification signs at the entrance to the Twin Lake North Condominium and apartment complex. He stated that the staff had not had time to make a thorough study of freestanding signs, but added that each community has its own unique Sign Ordinance and he doubted that a consistent pattern would emerge from such a study. He read for the Commission, a rough draft of an ordinance amendment which would allow residential developments for com- plexes in the R3 through R7 districts involving three or more buildings and not less than 36 dwelling units to have either one freestanding sign of no greater than 36 square feet in area and extending no more than ten feet above ground level or two freestanding signs identical in size and message, not greater than 18 square feet in area and no more than five feet in height. This option would be allowed at each major entrance not to exceed two entrances. Chairman Pierce asked how the ordinance defines freestanding signs. The Secretary answered that any sign 9 n which is not a wall sign or roof sign is classified as a freestanding sign. He added that wall signs must be attached to the wall of a building. Commissioner Erickson noted that the draft ordinance amendment would not allow the signs proposed by Mr. Gittleman. Chairman Pierce suggested that the word uniform in Sub - section 2 be changed to "identical." The Secretary explained to the rest of the Commission that the City Council did not want to allow two different signs at the same entrance, but seemed amenable to a Sign Ordinance amendment of some kind. The City Council, he said considered two different messages to be confusing. At that point, Chairman Pierce reported that Mr. Gittleman had gone ahead and put up an identification sign in Crystal Chairman Pierce asked whether the term " freestanding sign" covered signs hung on a fence. The Secretary answered that that is how staff had construed such signs The Secretary pointed out that staff had discussed the possibility of removing the phrase "three or more buildings" from Section 34 -140 3C (3) This, he noted, would give all complexes with 36 units or more the right to have a freestanding sign. Chairman Pierce stated that he was opposed to such an 7 -25 -79 -10- amendment since it would allow freestanding signs in some areas that may be undesirable. The Secretary stated that he felt the proposed amendment would give some flexibility to some apartment complexes. Commissioner Hawes asked what is sacred about 36 square feet. The Secretary re- sponded that there was nothing sacred about it except that it is a number which can accommodate various shapes with easy calculations. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there was any restriction on the shape of a freestanding sign. The Secretary answered that there was no particular restriction on the shape of such a sign, but that the area of a sign is calculated using right angles. Chairman Pierce asked how height is calculated for freestanding signs. For instance, would the height of a berm be included in the height of a sign. The Secretary answered that to his knowledge, the height of a sign is measured from the base of the sign. Chairman Pierce noted that a five foot high sign could be bermed up to a ten foot height. Commissioner Erickson suggested that Subsection 2 be revised to say that each sign should be no more than 18 square feet. Compiling the various revisions suggested by the Planning Commission, the Secretary offered a possible ordinance amendment worded as follows: "Cluster developments or complexes in R3 through R7 districts involving three or more buildings and not less than 36 dwelling units shall be entitled to one of the following options at each major entrance, not to exceed a total of two entrances: 1. One freestanding sign no greater than 36 square feet in area and extending not more than 10 feet above ground level. 2. Two identifical freestanding signs, located at opposite sides of the entrance, each not greater than 18 square feet in area and each not to extend more than five feet above ground level." The Secretary stated that staff would continue to study this section of the Sign Ordinance for possible revisions. The Secretary then brought another draft ordinance amendment to the Commission's attention. He recalled for the Commission that during consideration of the plan submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park for 11 single family homes under Application No. 79024, the question of setback from a major thoroughfare arose relative to rear yard setbacks. An investigation of existing conditions revealed that there are only one or two situations in which a structure is located in a rear yard within 50 feet of a major thoroughfare. He noted, therefore, that an ordinance amendment would not create numerous nonconforming uses. The Secretary stated that staff considers the proposed amendment to require a 50 foot setback from major thoroughfares in rear yards to be appropriate because rear yard setbacks are a public concern as other setbacks and the City Zoning Ordinance presently requires a 50 ft. setback from major thoroughfares in front and side corner yards. He added that certain conditions may serve the purpose of a setback although they do not exist on the property, for instance, noise walls, berming, excess right -of -way, etc. He then read a rough draft ordinance amendment to Section 35 -400, footnote number 10: "Setbacks along major thoroughfares as designated in Section 35 -900 shall in all cases be at least 50 feet except in cases where mitigating circumstances exist such as noise walls, berms, excess right -of -way or other condition deemed by the Zoning Official to constitute a substitute for such 50 foot setback. In such cases where a substitute does exist, the standard requirement shall apply." 7 -26 -79 -11- Chairman Pierce inquired whether the setback from major thoroughfares would apply to accessory structures. The Secretary answered that it would apply only to dwellings, but the Planning Assistant notes; that both the existing and the proposed language state that setbacks "in all cases" shall be at least 50 feet. Chairman Pierce acknowledged that the line of site is important in front and side corner yards, but not in rear yards. The Secretary stated that some revisions to the ordinance amendment would be necessary to deal with accessory structures. Chairman Pierce stated that he felt noise walls would eliminate most of the problems with the freeway. Commissioner Theis indicated, however, that placing a house within 35 feet of a noise wall would be annoying. The Secretary pointed out that noise walls are usually placed some distance from an actual property line. Commissioner Erickson asked whether the problem with the school district bound- aries had been solved relative to the plat under Application No. 79024. The Secretary answered that an agreement had been reached on a swap, but that the best procedure would involve special legislation which could not be accomplished until next year. ADJOURNMEN Motion-by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion. passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:14 p.m. Chairman 7 -26 -79 -12- MEMORANDUM ��- TO: Gene Hagel, Director of Parks and Recreation FROM: Will Dahn, Building Official DATE: August 1, 1979 SUBJECT: Condition of Brooklane Park Shelter Building 3607 - 65th Ave. North This is to confirm the joint inspection which you and I and Hank Davis made on Judy 26, 1979, of the Brooklane Park Shelter Building. Also for your reference is a copy of a memo dated June 19, 1978 following a joint inspection which the three of us made on June 14, 1978. The status of the Park Shelter Building at this time is one of severe deterior ation to the structural framing members due to extensive rotting. This being a geodesic dome structure, the wall and roof framing are all one and the same, and rotting of any framing members affects the entire structure. The framing and wall panels have rotted or deteriorated to such an extent that it can no longer be assumed safe to support the minimum snow load requirements in addition to weight of ceiling hung heating equipment. You might refer to my memo of June 19, 1978 following last year's inspection where I estimated a safe use of not more than two (2) years. At this time I can no longer recommend the safe use of,the building through the next winter season without making certain costly structural framing alterations and reinforcement. It is my recommendation the building be demolished and removed from %Pie premises to avoid any possible injury to occupants If it isn't demolished, 1..recommend it not be used any further, but instead it should be locked or secured from public use. cc: Hank Davis 4 Memo To G. G. Splinter City Manager From : Gene Hugel, Director of Parks and R cr ion WW Date : August 6, 1979 Subject Dome Shelter Building For Your Info: The building was purchased in 1963 at a cost of $2114.94. The building was erected by Park and Street Department employees. Labor costs to erect was $1052.20. Total cost of the building in 1963: $3167.14 The building was built as a "stop -gap" measure, intended to last approximately ten years or until city funds were available for a permanent building. f �.� f - 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager P � Y g FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant DATE: August 2, 1979 SUBJECT: Community Development A number of significant changes have taken place in the Community Development Program since Brooklyn Center became a participating community within the Urban County. The changes are of such nature that the City must assess its current Community Development Program and evaluate its future role within the Urban County. As part of our original submission, the City proposed to use approximately $80,000 in Community Development funds for a City -wide housing rehabilitation grant program. The rehab program has been approved and we are currently negotiating with the Metropolitan Council to provide administration for the rehab program. The Metro Council currently provides administration for Brooklyn Center's MHFA rehab funds and we are requesting that the Metro Council administer our Community Development rehab funds in order to avoid a duplication of effort. The Brooklyn Center Housing Commission is also in the process of reviewing and Ostablishing for the selection of grant recipients to reconmiend to the City Council. Hopefully, the rehab grant program should be available to Brooklyn Center residents by October of this year. The second proposed project was the use of $40,000 in Community Development monies to match Brooklyn Center's LAWCON grant in Central Park. The Depart - ment of Housing and Urban Development has expressed their concern that such a project would not principally benefit low and moderate income persons. Based upon an on site visit on June 28 by Mary Youle from the local HUD office, it was determined that Central Park is likely to have a City -wide service.area because of the planned baseball /softball diamond, soccer field, expanded parking lot and other facilities. HUD indicates that the Urban County has failed to demonstrate that a majority of the beneficiaries of this park would be low and moderate income individuals and that the activity as proposed was not acceptable. However, they indicate that the activity might be acceptable if the $40,000 in Community Development funds were used only for recreational improvements immedi ately adjacent to the Section 236 housing project. The 236 project is the high - rise apartment complex next to City Hall. Because all of the improvements will be immediately adjacent to that building, this project has been given a tentative approval from the local office. Brooklyn Center also proposed two (2) projects for the elimination of architec tural. barriers to the handicapped. First, $65,000 was set aside in Community Development money for the construction of an elevator in City Hall. As you are aware, the City Hall complex is accessible to handicapped individuals from two (2) respective levels of the building. However, senior citizens and handi- capped individuals would find and do find this building inaccessible between the two (2) levels. The majority of our long -term parking is located on the lower level while the majority of our offices are on the upper level. The Mr. Splinter -2- August 2, 1979 Department of Housing and Urban Development has expressed a concern that the elevator in question would principally benefit individuals other than handi- capped and elderly. The question seems to be not who will be the majority of the users, but rather what group will benefit most from the installation of an elevator within the City Hall complex. This question is true of all of our architectural barrier projects. Currently, any healthy able - bodied individual will have no difficulty moving from one level to the other. This would not be the case for handicapped individuals. While an elevator would be a convenience for most of its users, it would significantly benefit handicapped individuals who would find the two levels of the building limiting their access to the City's services. Brooklyn Center also proposed to use an estimated $88,000 in the City's park system for the elimination of architectural barriers. The project contemplates the paving of parking lots and walkways, the acquisition or modification of playground equipment to accommodate handicapped individuals, and the modification of existing structures including bathrooms, drinking fountains and doorways to provide access for individuals confined to wheelchairs. The local office has indicated they have questions as to the fundability of architectural barrier removal activities proposed by the City since the activities would provide significant benefit to the general public. They indicate that rampways, bathroom remodeling and door widening which are used by the general public do not provide additional benefit to the nonhandicapped. Using the same logic, I would submit that the majority of the users of sidewalk curb cuts designed for the handicapped are not handicapped individuals but • rather bike riders. The local office has indicated that the activities proposed by the City provide considerable benefit to the general public and that they will request the Washington office to make a policy determination on whether such activities must be considered to provide principal benefit to low and moderate income persons merely because they are categorized as architectura barrier removal. The local office has also questioned the appropriateness of Brooklyn Center's three (3) year accessibility program. They have indicated that they would require the submission of considerable supporting documentation and data with next year's application before they would be able to determine that the con- tinued sizable expenditures of Community Development funds for architectural barrier removal is appropriate to meet the needs of Brooklyn Center and the Urban County. I would add that the Brooklyn Center program underwent consid- erable community participation and that the projects proposed were projects endorsed and supported by our citizens group and that the actions taken by HUD undermine the process of citizen particpation as required under their own regulations. Apart from the position taken by the local office relative to Brooklyn Center's Community Development Program, a HUD position taken towards the Urban County as a whole also has significant impact for the City of Brooklyn Center. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has indicated to all of the 'urban counties throughout the country that the Department will no longer accept Urban County applications that merely group the individual applications of communities and pass them on to HUD irrespective of any Urban County strategy. Mr. Splinter -3- August 2, 1979 HUD is requiring the Hennepin Urban County to rewrite the joint powers agreement establishing the Urban County. In the past, Brooklyn Center was assured of funding for its projects contingent upon their meeting the requirements as set forth in the rules and regulations as promulgated by the Department. Attached for your review is a copy of the new joint powers agreement which must be implemented by August 30 of this year. The most significant change in agreement to be found is in Section IV, item 4, which referring to the County's authority reads, "it shall approve the City's request for the use of block grant amounts received pursuant to this agreement for local needs which are consistent with the strategy the act and regulations and other relevant federal and /or Minnesota Statutes or regulations ". In the past, the County was required to submit a project application without change. Under the terms of the new agreement, the County is empowered to approve or reject the City's application based upon an Urban County strategy. In essence, the City is faced with another level of government passing judgment upon the projects established by the City. The only mitigating factor is that County strategy must be written in conjunction with the participating communities and that generally the Urban County strategy should be broad enough to encompass most programs or activities that the City would contemplate doing. At this time, it appears that the City has three (3) options. First, the City could choose to "opt out" of the Urban County by refusing to enter into the new agreement. By taking such an action, the City would be indicating its unwillingness to participate in Community Development activities in the future. However, we would be required to close out the activities that we are currently • involved in. Second, the City could continue as a participant in the Urban County and continue to receive Community Development funds. In so doing, the City would limit its activities principally to housing related activities which are currently receiving the greatest emphasis from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A number of activities would be possible including some demonstration of solar projects the City might want to consider. Third, the City could continue as a participant and continue with the project set forth for the next three years in anticipation of a struggle to get the projects approved by the local area office of HUD. A meeting of the Community Development citizens group has been scheduled for August 22 to review the developments in the Community Development Program. At this time, I would anticipate that the citizens group should have some rec.- ommendations for the City Council at the August 27 meeting. Some action by the Council will be required that evening to determine whether or not we can continue as a participating community in the Urban County. BH:ln Contract No. JOIPIT COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter r referred to as "COUNTY ", and the CITY OF , hereinafter referred to as "CITY ", said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59; W I T N E S S E T H: In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. I. DEFINITIONS For purposes of this Agreement, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "The Act" means the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Title I, of Public Law 93- 383, as amended (42 USC 5301 et.sea. B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to,the Act. C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. D. "Cooperating Community" means any city or town in Hennepin County which has enured into a cooperation agreement which is substantially identical to this Agreement. E. "Strategy" means.that portion of the Community Development Block Grant Application entitled "Comprehensive Strategy" and which is developed by the County in conjunction with cooperating communities pursuant to the Regulations. F. "Planning Area" means the various regions of Hennepin County as adopted for purposes of the Act by County Resolution 78 -11 -1169. The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the -Act and 24 CFR 570.3 of.the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. II. PURPOSE CITY and COUNTY have determined that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COUNTY qualify as an urban county within the provisions of the Act. This Aareement contemplates that identical agreements will be executed between COUNTY and other cities in Hennepin County which do not qualify as metropolitan cities, under the Act in such number as will enable COUNTY to so qualify under the Act. The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY to cooperate with CITY in undertaking, or assist in undertaking, essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing pursuant to community development block grants as authorized by the Act and the Regulations. III. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on the effective date of October 1, 1979, and terminating no _ sooner than the end of the program year covered by the application for the basic grant amount approved subsequent to the effective date. This Agreement is extended automatically for each subsequent program year unless written notice of termination to be effective at the end of such program year is given by CITY to COUNTY following the same schedule as the "opt out" notification requirements as established by HUD. COUNTY shall provide written notification to CITY of CITY'S right to "opt out" and terminate this Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the "opt out" date. r - Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be terminated at the end of the program i year during which HUD withdraws its designation of Hennepin County as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of CITY and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted ahem by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the CITY in the office of the Hennepin County Administrator, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than August 31, 1979. IV. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES CITY agrees and will undertake and attempt to carry out within the term of this Agreement certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist CITY in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. A. CITY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. It will prepare a grant application for funds in accordance with the provisions of 24 CRF 570 Subpart D ( 5570.300 et.sea. and the applicable Strategy. 2. It will submit its application for funds to COUNTY in such form as is required for timely submission to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies. 3. It will use all funds received pursuant to this Agreement within two program years. Such expenditures will be for activities included in the COUNTY'S application to HUD. 4. It will take actions necessary to accomplish the community development program and housing assistance goals. 5. It will ensure that affirmative action is undertaken with regard to'fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It will comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities. B. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: 1. It shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, all necessary applications for a basic grant amount under the Act. Such application shall, to the maximum extent feasible, consider the actions taken by CITY in support of the community development program and housing assistance goals, together with citizen participation, the Act and any other relevant Minnesota and /or Federal statutes or regulations. In setting such priorities, COUNTY will consider the previous performance of CITY in the expenditure of funds received under the Act in order to fulfill COUNTY'S responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. 2. It shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to CITY in the preparation and submission of the grant applications. 3. It shall provide ongoing technical assistance to CITY to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to.HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing assistance goals. The parties mutually agree to cooperate fully in the preparation of the application for a basic grant amount. In such preparation, the parties will follow the provisions of Hennepin County Citizen Participation Plan as stated in County Resolution 78 -11 -1169 and any subsequent amendments. A.. It shall approve CITY`S request for the use of block grant amounts received pursuant to this Agreement for local needs which are consistent with the Strategy, the Act and Regulations and other relevant P Federal and /or Minnesota statutes or regulations. CITY and COUNTY agree that COUNTY shall establish reasonable time schedules for the submission of grant applications by CITY to COUNTY to insure such timely submission and to protect the rights and interest of CITY and other cooperating communities. COUNTY shall communicate such time schedules to CITY. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY'S responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Acct, including the development of applications pursuant to 24 CFR 570.300 et.s ea. V. ALLCCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain ten percent (10 %) of the total basic grant amount for purposes of defraying its administrative and other costs in performing services 4 for CITY and other cooperating communities and for the conduct of such eligible community development activities as the COUNTY may be authorized by state law to perform. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be allocated by COUNTY to CITY and other cooperating communities in accordance with the following formula for the purpose of allowing the cooperating communities to plan for the application. This amount is only an estimate and is not guaranteed by the COUNTY. The CITY and each cooperating community shall be eligible to receive an amount which bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of CITY and the population of all cooperating communities. 2. The extent of poverty in CITY and the extent of poverty in all cooperating communities. r 3. The extent of housing overcrowded by units in CITY and the extent of housing overcrowded by units in all cooperating communities. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. It is the intent of this paragraph that said planning allocation utilize the same basic elements for allocation of funds as are set forth in 24 CFR 507.102(b). The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. In the event that CITY does not apply for or cannot qualify for a community development block grant, COUNTY may re- allocate the expected grant amount for planning purposes to all other cooperating communities within the same Planning Area. If the COUNTY is informed in writing by the Department of Housing and U -rban Development that the distribution of funds does not comply with Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the COUNTY shall develop and implement a different distribution. No such action shall be taken, however, until and unless the proposed different distribution shall have been presented for review and comment by the cooperating communities. VI. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent or otherwise modify or abrogate the right of CITY or COUNTY to submit individual applications for discretionary funds in the event COL ?ITY does not receive designation as an urban county under the act. CITY and COUNTY mutually agree to indemnify and hold harmless each other from any claims, losses, costs, expenses or damages resulting from the acts or omissions of their respective officers, agents and employees relating to activities conducted by either under this Agreement, the Act or the regulations. In the event there is a revision of the Act and /or Regulations which would make this Agreement out of compliance with the Act and /or Regulations, both parties will review this Agreement and renegotiate those items necessary to bring the agreement into compliance. Both parties understand and agree that the refusal to renegotiate this Agreement will result in the effective termination of the Agreement as of the date it is no longer in compliance with the Act and /or Regulations. VII. FINANCIAL MATTERS Reimbursement to the CITY for expenditures from implementation of activities funded under the Act shall be .made upon receipt by the COUNTY of Summary of Project Disbursement form, Hennepin County warrant Request, and supporting documentation. All funds received by the COUNTY under the Act as reimbursement for payment to the CITY for expenditure of local funds for activities funded under the Act shall be deposited in the County Treasury. CITY and COUNTY shall maintain financial and other records and accounts in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulations. Such records and accounts will be in such form as to permit reports required of the COUNTY to be • prepared therefrom and to permit the tracing of grant funds and program income to final expenditure. CITY and COUNTY agree to make available all records and accounts with respect to matters covered by this Agreement at all reasonable times to their respective personnel and duly authorized federal officials. Such records shall be retained as provided by law, but in no event for a period of less than three years from the date of completion of any activity funded under the Act or less than three years from the last receipt of program income resulting from activity implementation. COUtiTY shall perform all audits of the basic grant amount and resulting program income as required under the Act and Regulations. All program income from activities funded in total or part from the basic grant amount received by CITY shall be held by COU1 in a non - interest bearing account designate: for CITY. COUNTY will release program income funds to CITY for eligible community development activities pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this day of 1979. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE CF MI.NNES( Upon proper execution, this agreement will be legally valid and binding. By: Chairman of its County Board Assistant County Attorney And: Date: Deputy County Administrator ATTEST: ® APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Deputy County Auditor CITY OF Assistant County Attorney Date: By: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: Its The City is organized pursuant to: And: an A Plan B Charter Its CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY R BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 ERENT EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 561-5720 P TO: Gerry Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 7, 1979 RE: Charlson Plat I. HISTORY AND GENERAL COMr'IENT Several weeks ago, a proposed preliminary plat of the Charlson property was submitted to the City by the developer and his architect, Mr. Brauer. Following are some of the significant considerations in evaluating the City's position and giving our approval or disapproval of this plat: 1. The City's consultant- B.R.W. -has evaluated the proposed plat (see report dated July, 1979). That report recommends in favor of an alternate plan (i.e., "Alternate 4 "). However, it also indicates that the layout proposal by the developer is acceptable, and that it meets the recommended "Access Policy" to Shingle Creek Parkway. The report does reoorrmlend that if this layout is used, the existing median openings to Brookdale Ford and to the Northwestern Bell Telephone sites be closed. 2. The owner generally agrees that "Alternate 4 ", or some variation thereof, uould be better than his proposed plan. However, he feels he is unable to implement this totally on his own because it involves acquisition of street right -of -way from other property owners and dedication of a dis- proportionate amaunt of his property as street right -of -way. Also, the costs for installation of streets would be considerably higher.. 3. The City does have "Police Powers" to open or close median openings. These powers are virtually absolute, so long as they are not clearly discriminatory. 4. The City has consistently (at least within the confines of the Indus - trial Park) required dedication of street rights -of. -way by the developer, rather than having the City pay for it. 5. The City does have the authority to purchase .land for right -of -way purposes, so long as it serves a public need. "� n ow Mem7 to Gerry Splinter August 7, 1979 Page 2 of 4 Pages 6. The City does have the ability to levy special assessments for street development, including right -of -way acquisition costs, in accordance with M.S.A. 429. Any special assessments levied must be shown to repre- sent benefits to the property served and such benefits mast be shown to be equal to or greater than the assessment levied. 7. Resolution 70 -90 (copy attached) has been used as the basis for distri- bution of special assessments for street improvements in this Industrial Park. Essentially, that resolution provides that the costs for any inprovements within the development South of I -94 will be assessed uniformly to all properties in this total area. Mr. Charlson's representatives note that he has been required to pay special assessments for improvemnts to John Martin Drive, to Summit Drive, and to Earle Brown Drive, even though none of these improvements have directly benefited his property. Acoordingly, Charlson now asks that the same policy be used to distribute the costs for improvements on his portion of the Industrial Park. And the suggestion has been made that Resolution 70 -90 could be construed to cover the costs for right -of -way acquisition. 8. The property occup-bd by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company is owned by the Rauenhorst Corporation. Michelle Foster from that company has indi- cated that the lease to NWBT provides that the lessee pays special assess - Tents. 9. The existing driveway and median opening to Brookdale Ford were originally approved with the "understanding" that that median opening (and the drivevey ?) were subject to closure at some future date. Whether that understanding implied an agreement to grant a new median opening further North (assuming Brookdale Ford was able to purchase the triangular property from BCIP or Charlson) is unclear. II. POSSIBLE NEGOTIATING POSITIONS Following are five possible positions that the City could take in attempting to resolve this matter: Position 1 : Approve the plat as proposed by Charlson, with the intent to close the existing median opening to Brookdale Ford, construct a new median opening for Charlson's new street, and leave the existing median opening at NWBT. Comments This is the "easiest way out" for the City and leaves all landowners except Brookdale Ford satisfied, even though it is not the optiimxn plan for traffic circulation or circulation within the area. Position 2 : Approve the plat as proposed by Charlson but refuse to provide a median opening opposite Charlson's street. Close existing median openings to Brookdale Ford and to NWBT and provide Metro to Gerry Splinter August 7, 1979 Page 3 of 4 Pages "joint" median openings at the North and South edges of Charlson's property. CComcrents This action might satisfy Brookdale Ford (although they would still have to purchase the triangular tract from Charlson), but would leave both Charlson and NWBT unhappy. Charlson might be forced into amending his plat if he decided he couldn't live with this setup. If, however, he proceeded on this basis, we would wind up with an undesirable arrange- ment- -with major driveways locations offset from the median openings. Position 3 : Deny the plat and advise the developer that Alternate No. 4 is the only acceptable plan and that he is totally responsible for "working out the details" with all other property owners. Comnents This places the developer in a very difficult posi- tion. He would probably be able to successfully challenge this position since B91's report does show that his proposed plat meets most of BRW's policy recomrendations. Position 4 : Deny the plat, but have the City participate in the acquisition of right- of-way to allow develofneant of Alternate No. 4, planning to recover these costs by special assessment in accordance with Resolution 70 -90. Comments The property owners in this inTnediate area might accept this, but I seriously question whether property owners not abutting the new street would accept this application of Resolution 70 -90. And if they decided to challenge its appli- cation to right -of -way acquisition, they would probably also challenge its legality in general, placing that entire policy in jeopardy. Posi tion 5: Deny the plat, but have the City agree to take the lead in right- of-way acquisition for Alternate 4 with the condition that all acquisition costs.be assessed to the abutting property owners only. Roadway construction costs could still be assessed as per Resolution 70 -90 (unless the City Attorney decides against this) . Comme nts: This could be approached informally -by having a meeting with all property owners present -and asking them to reach agree - ment between themselves. or it could be approached formally- by hiring an appraiser (or using the City Assessor ?) to appraise damages and benefits to each parcel. In either case, the City could refuse to proceed with actual right- of-way acquisition until all those property owners who are to be assessed signed agreements wherein they agreed to pay such special assessments. Metro to Gerry Splinter August 7, 1979 Page 4 of 4 Pages III. RECONV=ATION I recom end proceeding under Position No. 5, or some variation thereof. Please review and comment. y pP cb cc: Dick Schieffer Ron Warren Jim Noska Attachment: Resolution 7 (}-90 Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION 110. 70 -90 RESOLUTION A14ENDIIIG THE CITY STREET GRADING BASE 6 SURFACING AND CURB 6 GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT POLICY IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK. AREA, AND ESTABLISHING TWO AS DISTRICTS FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, it is the established policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to assess the cost of street grading, base and surfacing and curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements, herein - after referred to as "street improvements ", in proportion to the dimensions of the benefited property which abut the proposed improvements, and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc., Brooklyn Center Development Company, General Monetary Corporation, and Deil 0. Gustafson, hereinafter called "the Developer ", are the principal owners of the Industrial Park area by owning in excess of 75% of said Industrial Park, and WHEREAS, the Developer owns parcels both abutting and not abutting proposed street improvements, all of which will benefit from said improvements, and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that street improve- ment costs be levied uniformly on an area basis against abutting and non - abutting property within two proposed assessment districts so that development costs may be more equally distributed among the parcels of the Industrial Park, and WHEREAS, the Industrial Park -area north of F.A.I. 94 is intended to be primarily industrial in character, and WHEREAS, the area south of F.A.I. 94 is intended to be primarily commercial in character and is projected to develop sooner than the north area, and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it reasonable and in the best interests of the City and "the Developer and subsequent property owners to assess street improvement costs uniformly on an area basis such that property in the Industrial Park area north of F.A.I. 9 shall share the cost of street improvements constructed north of F.A.I. 94 and property in the Industrial Park area south of F.A.I. 94 shall share the cost of street improvements constructed south of F.A.I. 94, and WHEREAS, the property in R.L.S. No. 1256 has been assessed for the cost of improving Hennepin County Road No. 10, and is primarily served by Hennepin County Road No. 10, and WHEREAS, Lots l and 2 of Block 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park, will be assessed a share of the future upgrading of Humboldt Avenue North from 65th Avenue to 69th Avenue; RESOLUTION 110. 70 -90 NOGG, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City 'Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Council acts under the authority anted b Y g Y Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes, 2. The Council establishes the following street improve- ment districts in the Industrial Park area: A. All property lying south of F.A.I. 94 bounded on the east by T.H. 100, on the south by R.L.S. No. 1256 and T.H. 100, and on the west by a line located 100 feet east of and parallel with Shingle Creek. B. All property lying north of F.A.I. 94 bounded on the north by County Road No. 130, on the west by the west line of Section 35, T. 119 R. 21, and on the east by the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of Outlot A, Twin Cities Interchange Park, thence southerly on the easterly line of said Outlot A to the southeast corner of said Outlot A, thence southerly to the northwest corner of Lot 1 Block 1 Twin Cities Interchange Park thence southerly on the westerly line of said Lot 1 to the northerly right -of -way line of 65th Avenue North, thence easterly on the north .right -of -way line of 65th Avenue North to Humboldt Avenue North, thence southerly along the Y r wester ' - 1 i ht -of wa line of Humboldt g Y Avenue North to F.A.I. 94 and there terminating; and except for Tracts B. C, 6 D of R.L.S. No. 1274. 3. The Council hereby amends the established City street grading, base and surfacing and curb and gutter and sidewalk assessment policy as it relates to the above described areas by'providing that the costs of such improvements constructed from time to time within a respective assessment district shall be uniformly levied on an area basis against properties within s ch assess - ment district. July 13, 1970 Date Fayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member John Leary, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore WiIla'd arid the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B KOU'AL N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 E" NT 1 ER EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 561 -5720 TO: Gerald G Splinter, City Manager FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works DATE: August 7, 1979 RE: Report on Pedestrian Crossing /Speeding Problems on Lyndale Avenue North at 73rd Avenue North In response to questions raised at the July 23rd City Council meeting, please be advised that: The Police Department has conducted speed checks on July 30 and 31 and August 1. These checks reveal_ that 90 to 950 of all traffic on Lyndale Avenue was travelling, within the posted 45 mph speed limit and that less than 20 of the traffic exceeded 50 mph. - I have asked Mr. R. M. (Mike) Robinson, NCI DOT's District 5 Traffic Engineer to review the speed zoning to see if the 45 mph limit is proper (the Police Department's survey appears to verify that it is), and to review the signing to assure that an adequate number of signs are posted, etc. - I did note that the pedestrian crossing pavement markings are partly worn off. Mr. Harlan VanHeel, Traffic Operations Supervisor for MN DOT, District 5, has assured me that these will be repainted by MN DOT. As additional information becomes available and /or action is taken, I'll keep you posted. Yours very truly, Sy P. Knapp cb cc: Jim Lindsay, Police Chief Hank Davis, Street Supt. ` "71a 5� X one .. MEMO TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: Allen S. Lindman, City Clerk SUBJECT: Cicero's Liquor License Refund DATE: August 7, 1979 Jos According to Section 11-i . Subd. 0 of the ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center, the holder of a liquor license may request a refund of a portion of the license fee if his request follows the criteria set by the ordinance. Mr. Michael Belknap, the owner of Cicero's, has stated in a letter to the City that due to his health his doctor has ordered he dispose of some of his business enterprises. He has disposed of both his Edina and Brooklyn Center restaurants and is requesting a refund of 5/12 of the $10,000 license fee which amounts to $4,166.65 1 recommend the Council grants Mr. Belknap's request. w 4_. 4 t� 0 t p o D o p City Council City of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center, Mn. Council Members; I am writing to inform you that as of July 18, 1979 Cicero's Inc. will no longer be transacting business in Brooklyn Center. This action has been taken only after { several months of very careful considerations. In January of this year my Doctors made it very clear that it was time for me to cut back my work load or suffer the consequences. In doing this I have at this point sold both my operation in Edina and my operation ..in Brooklyn Center. I am asking that you at this time consider and undertake to -make it possible for me to recover the remaning five months of the liquor license fee. I have read your ordinance and my understanding is that maybe refunded by action of The City Council. Sincerely Yours, ichael Belknap 2100N. .E.MN55►13•Ph.63 1025017101 FRANCE AV: EDINA55435•p1, 9253344 %57 + 7 XE RXE5 A V. N: Licenses to be approved by the City Council on August 13, 1979 CIGARETTE LICENSE 'Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route /} State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Creek Pkwy. C( % • ,' �?�e�?'tZ / ) City Clerk r ,,{ FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Rocky Rococo Corporation 2 E. Gilman St., 4330 Rocky Rococo Pan Style Pizza 1267 Brookdale Center Sanitarian HOUSEMOVER'S LICENSE \, Semple Housemover's, Inc. 1257 Barclay St. Voight Movers R. R. 2, Glencoe, MN Building Official �? MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Atkins Mechanical, Inc. 2531 Marshall N.E. Kleve Heating & Air Conditioning 13075 Pioneer Trail Suburban Heating & Air Conditioning 8419 Center Drive ' �.' • ( -,� r. . Building Official NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Sanitarian ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Denny's, Inc. 14256 E. Firestone Blvd. / Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. No, Rocky Rococo Corporation 2 E. Gilman St., #330 Rocky Rococo Pan Style Pizza 1267 Brookdale Center City Clerk ON -SALE WINE LICENSE -� Denny's, Inc. 14256 E. Firestone Blvd. Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. No. City Clerk PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE Interstate United Corporation 1091 Pierce Butler Route State Farm Insurance 5930 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Sanitarian MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police DATE: July 10, 1979 SUBJECT: On Sale Non - intoxicating Liquor License Application I For Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza Investigator Dirks has completed the background investigation in this matter. Randolph Szymanski of Madison, Wisconsin is the designated Manager. The investigation has revealed nothing that would be contrary to issuing the above captioned license. I The following is a resume concerning Case File #79 -07974 by Investigator Robert DIRKS; transcribed and typewritten by Pat SWEDBURG, clerk-typist_ for the Brooklyn Center Police Department. This resume is dictated on 6 -11 -79 at 10:44 a.m.. This resume is in regard to a Liquor License Investigation regarding an application by OM FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., apply- ing for an On -Sale Non - Intoxicating Liquor License, this license to be for one Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza, which will be located at 1267 Brookdale Center. The following is a list of Officers of OM FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., which is incorporated out of the State of Delaware and which will be operating the business of Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza at 1267 Brookdale Center: 1. Pierre Goff BEACH, JR. 41 Fuller Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Chairman of the Board 2. Eugene Ernest JARREL 814 Charing Cross Road Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Vice President 3. Leon D. SHELDAHL 11 Fuller Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Secretary I ' 4. Roger B. HOSTETLER 5625 Comanche Way Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Treasurer and Assistant Secretary 5. Harold Washington WILKIE JR. 50 Golf Course Road Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Secretary Assistant e t S c Y 6. Randolph Alan SZYMANSKI 1614 Forden Apartment #107 Madison, Wisconsin Manager Randolph.SZYMANSKI is current manager of a Rocky Rococo's Pan Style. Pizza in Madison, Wisconsin and he will be moving to the Minneapolis area to manage the Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza at 1267 Brookdale Center. Investigator DIRKS was first instructed to conduct a liquor license investigation on 6 -7 -79 for the business of Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza, which will be operated at 1267 Brookdale Center. In regard to i this investigation, Investigator DIRKS was given copies of the applica- tion forms and these forms included the above listed five parties who are officers of OSCAR MAYER FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. out of Madison, Wisconsin, who are the parent company and owner of Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza. Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case File #79 -07974 Page Two • In addition to the information on those parties, Investigator DIRKS was given the name and application form of Randolph Alan SZYMANSKI, who, according to the applications, would be operating and managing the Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza at 1267 Brookdale Center. Investigator DIRKS first started this investigation on 6 -7 -79 and did so by running records checks, including Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension criminal history, local Hennepin County warrants, Minne- sota ota dri r ve s license checks, NCIC checks and MINCIS .checks. In regard . to these checks, Investigator DIRKS, in checking on Randolph Alan SZYMANSKI and his wife, Jane Araxi SZYMANSKI, found no criminal history, warrants, NCIC or MINCIS wants and found their driver's license on Randolph to be valid with Jane SZYMANSKI not having one. Investigator DIRKS next checked on the members who are officers with the OM FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. and, in checking on all five of these parties, as well as their spouses, found no criminal histories of any kind, NCIC or MINCIS wants, and found that all had valid driver's licenses with the State of Wisconsin and found that the wife of Pierre Goff BEACH, that being Mary Ellen BEACH, did not have a license and Shirley M. SHELDAHL, wife of Leon D. SHELDAHL, did not have a license within the State of Wisconsin and never have had. Investigator DIRKS also did send a teletype to the Madison, Wisconsin • Police Department, indicating that we were doing a background investiga- tion on all six of the parties previously listed, as well as their spouses, and also inquired if they had had any problems with the pizza place known as Rocky Rococo's Pan Style. Pizza as there are three of them within the Madison area. Investigator DIRKS received back a teletype on 6 -8 -79 from the Madison Police Department where they advised that they have never had any problems with the Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza and that the business is a very reputable. one within their city. It was also indicated that the Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza had recently been purchased by the OSCAR MAYER CORPORATION and that the arties we were inquiring about that P q g , being the five officers in the company, were known by the Madison Police Department to be members ers of that company and reputable citizens. P Y very re P It was also indicated that the sixth party, that being SZYMANSKI, was a manager at one of the locations and is someone that they have had no problems with also. In regard to criminal checks on these parties then with the Madison Police Department, it was indicated in the teletype that they have had no contact in a criminal manner with any of the parties that information was requested on, that being the officers for OM FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. and their spouses and also Mr. SZYMANSKI and his spouse. Investigator DIRKS did receive a second teletype on 6 -8 -79 which stated • further that they have, in the area of Madison, Wisconsin, actually four of the. Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizzas and that they have never had any problems with them and have had no criminal record of any kind with the management of these particular establishments, Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case File #79 -07974 Page Three • The information received by Investigator DIRKS up to this time then indicated completely that the parties involved with this Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza operation that wished to open within the City of Brooklyn Center appeared to be very reputable, upstanding citizens and good businessmen. Investigator DIRKS, after completing this portion of the investigation, did contact the character witnesses listed in the general information application form #2 and did talk first with Mr. Peter DORSEY, home address of 1814 Mount Curve Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430, phone: 374 -1353, who works at 2300 First National Bank Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, phone: 340 -2607. In talking with Mr. DORSEY, he ex- plained to me that he is with the law firm of DORSEY, WINDHORST, HANNAFORD, WHITNEY & HALLADAY and he is an attorney himself. Mr. DORSEY indicated that they are a large law firm who represent many corporations in regard to business type matters and pride themselves on only being established with firms that are of a reputable nature. Mr. DORSEY stated that in his dealings with the OM FOOD PRODUCTS, known as OSCAR MAYER FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., he has found them to be a very reputable firm and feels that is the only type of people they try to represent. Mr. DORSEY indi- cated that he is familiar with them through past workings with OSCAR MAYER as well as currently, when they became involved in the paper work involved with the purchasing of Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza. Mr. DORSEY indi • cated that this firm of Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza had recently been acquired by OM FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. and it had been very successful with T ea where the were started. is operation and in the Madison, Wisconsin area, y th , It was, therefore, determined by OM FOOD PRODUCTS, INC. to expand this portion of the business, that being Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza, by looking into the opening of the one in the Minneapolis Metropolitan area. Mr. DORSEY indicated it was at that time that he, along with two other attorneys from his firm, became more familiar with the project as they helped set up the paper work for the opening of the Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza at 1267 Brookdale Center. The other two attorneys involved with this were a William R. SOTH of 6921 Galpin Lake Road, Excelsior, Minnesota 55331, phone: 474 -3154, business address of 2300 First National Bank Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, phone: 340• -2969 and also a Mr. Irving WEISER of 5009 Park Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417, phone: 824 -5005, business address of 2300 First National Bank Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, phone: 340 -2761. These two attorneys are listed also as character wit- nesses on the general information application form #2. The information received in regard to the Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza then indicates that it is a subsidiary of OM FOOD PRODUCTS and that it has recently been acquired by the OM FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.. The information on the general information form indicates that the parent corporation of OSCAR MAYER & COMPANY, INC. will be contributing a capital contribution • of One Hundred Eighty Thousand ($180,000.00) Dollars to start tie Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza at 1267 Brookdale Center. It is further indicated on this form that the location at Brookdale Center will be on a lease for ten years and seven months and will cost Two Thousand Five Hundred ($2,500.001 Dollars per month, plus 6% of all gross sales over $508,866.00. Resume by Investigator DIRKS Case File #79- 07974 Page Four Investigator DIRKS, in checking on the corporation of OM FOOD PRODUCTS and its officers, finds no reason for denial of a non - intoxicating liquor license at the location of their new Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza at 1267 Brookdale Certer. Also, in checking the background information on the party indicated as being the manager of the new Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza at 1267 Brookdale, that being Randolph Alan SZYMANSKI, Investigator DIRKS could find no reason why Mr. SZYMANSKI would not be capable of managing this particular business at Brookdale Center with a license for non- intoxicat- ing liquor being granted. It does appear, in fact, that Mr. SZYMANSKI has been very Rococo's Restaurant successful in his managing of the Rock ococ Y g g Y , working his way up from a delivery person with this establishment to shift supervisor to restaurant manager. Investigator DIRKS then, in conclusion of this investigation, finds no reason that the business of Rocky Rococo's Pan Style Pizza should not be granted a non - intoxicating liquor license for the location of 1267 Brookdale Center. i MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manaqer FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police�� DATE: July 9, 1979 SUBJECT: Application for a Non - intoxicating Liquor License and Wine License Application by Denny's Restaurant, Inc. Investigator Bellm has completed a background investigation into this matter. The manager of Denny's Restaurant is a William John Tanski, who lives at 11606 Marigold Street in Anoka. Mr. Tanski has been manager of Denny's Restaurant in Brooklyn Center since it has opened. The investigation has found no criminal record of any of the members of the board, officers or manager. The investigation has • discovered nothing that would be detrimental to the issuing of this license. • The following is a resume concerning case file #79 -06795 by Investigator Warner BELLM; transcribed and typewritten by Pat SWEDBURG, clerk typist for the Brooklyn Center Police Department. This resume is dictated on ' 5 - 22 - 79 at 1330 hours. This is a liquor license investigation concerning Denny's Restaurant, 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The following listed people are managers, assistant managers and regional managers for Denny's Restaurant. The manager is William John TANSKI, home address of 11606 Marigold Street, Anoka, Minnesota, home phone: 421 -5819, business phone: 535 - 4743. The assistant managers are: #1. Jill Carol JOHNSON, 1061 Rice Creek Terrace, Fridley, Minnesota, dob: 5 -7 -57, business phone: 535- 4743; #2. 1�7illiam John BAUMANN, 701 Balentine Avenue, Spring Lake Park, Minnesota, dob- 7-27-25, home phone: 784 -2375, business phone: 535 -4743: #3. District Manager Edward Thomas 6��ILLIARD, 2508 County Road I, Moundsview, Minnesota, apartment #206, dob: 7 -6 -45, home phone: 786- 7739. Reason for Background Investigation A non - intoxicating liquor license and wine license application has been submitted by Denny's Restaurant, Inc.. An investigation into this matter has been ordered, consistent with City ordinance by Chief of Police, James LINDSAY. Investigation by Warner BELLM, Brooklyn Center Police Department. Date and Time Investigation Be gan: 5- 15 -79. Investigator BELLM was assigned to perform this liquor license applica- tion and, as a result of this investigation, the following information has been obtained concerning employees of the Denny's Restaurant, Inc. situated at 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin. Denny's, Inc. is located at 14256 East Firestone Boulevard, La Mirada, California and they have filed the necessary forms to apply for a non - intoxicating liquor license under their corporation. In reading over the information provided, I was advised that the manager. of the restaurant was William John TANSKI, who lives at 11606 Marigold Street in Anoka. Initially then, I contacted Mr. TANSKI and asked him to come to the station to confer with me concerning this application. Mr. TANSKI came to the station on 5- 16 -79, at which time he advised me that he has been the manager of Denny's Restaurant in Brooklyn Center since it has opened and has worked with Denny's for a period of years. I asked him if he had any financial interest in the corporation, to which he informed me he had none. He states he does not have any drinking problem, does not gamble and it is a company policy that employees may not drink while on duty in the restaurant. A brief background on Mr. TANSKI showed the following. Mr. TANSKI at- tended school at St. Mary's College in Winona from 1962 to 1966, earning • a BA degree in Business. Upon graduation, Mr. TANSKI went to work for the Canteen Corporation, which involved being a route man, tending to vending machines. Shortly thereafter; Mr. TANSKI went to work for Denny's, Inc. in October of 1975. At that time, he was an assistant manager in Rockford, Resume by.InvestigE r BELLM Case File #79- 795 Page Two Illinois and worked there from October of 1975 to October of 1977. In October of 1977, he was transferred to Minnesota, where he was re- sponsible for being the co- manager of the new Denny's Restaurant in Blaine and Roseville. After learning the business better, he was then elevated to the managerial position and was given the responsibility of managing the Brooklyn Center Denny's. Mr. TANSKI is married, has three children; two boys and one girl, and informs me that he grew up in Morrison, Illinois and attended Morrison High School. He states that he drinks moderately and cannot forsee any problem concerning the service of non- intoxicating beer and wine. Mrs. TANSKI is a free lance typist and performs services for the Illinois Court Service. At the present time, the court service in Illinois mails her transcripts which have to be transcribed into typewritten form, which she does perform at home, adding a good, sound and needed income to the family, according to Mr. TANSKI. Mrs. TANSKI has no interest or duties in reference to Denny's Restaurant in Brooklyn Center.. Mr. TANSKI informed me also that he will not be at the restaurant during all the normal business hours, seeing that it is open 24 hours, and ad- vised me that he has two assistant managers, named William BAUMANN and Jill JOHNSON. Both parties, according to TANSKI, are very responsible and eager to learn. He cannot forsee any problems with them and realizes that he will be held accountable for their actions while they are in charge of the business when wine and beer is being served. He informed me that he had been through a liquor license application. earlier, when involved with the Blaine restaurant, and that the Blaine restaurant has an approved wine and non - intoxicating liquor license. Investigator BELLM then checked with all applicable police, county and state agencies, consistent with records on any of the aforementioned individuals. All of the record checks returned back from various police agencies on the local, state and county level indicate no police contact with any of the aforementioned individuals. Also, in reference to the Department of Public Safety, Driver's License Bureau, all 'parties possessed valid driver's licenses and have no history of any activity or citations regarding alcoholic beverages. Investiqator BELLM then contacted Joyce TWISTOL, the City Clerk for Blaine, who advised me that they had complete cooperation with the repre- sentatives of Denny's concerning the obtaining of a non - intoxicating license. They are very happy with the type of service rendered to the citizens of Blaine by the restaurant and informed me that they have had complete cooperation by their management with police and health depart- ment officials. Investigator BELLM then contacted our local health inspector and asked him about Denny's Restaurant, at which time he informed me that they have had nothing but cooperation from the representatives and cannot fors.ee any problem with them obtaining a wine and non - intoxicating beer license. • Investigator BELLM has found nothing derogatory in an of the backgrounds g g Y Y g of any of the above listed individuals and, therefore, feels that the granting of such.a license to such a corporation would not result in any problem Resume by Investigator BELLM Case File #79 -06795 Page Three Investigator BELLM also sent out a form letter to various police agencies concerning the following listed people: 1. Robert Russell MOORE, 2421 Domingo Road, Fullerton, California 2. Edward SHEDLOWSKI, 2279 West Arlinaton, Anaheim, California 3. Terrence Joseph WALLOCK, 21 Ensueno West, Irvine, California 4. Carol Ann CAMPBELL, 160 Belleza Lane, Anaheim, California 5. Robert Maurice CAVANAUGH, 4809 Daroca Way, Buena Park, Calif. 6. Clinton Bruce EVANS, 5127 El Roble Street, Long Beach, Calif. 7. Roman Albert BECK, 2372 Sunset Drive, Riverside, California 8. Ralph Daniel SCHLESINGER, 01425 SW Mary Failing Dr., Portland, Oregon 9. Don RICH, 603 N. Palm Drive, Beverly Hills, California 10. Joan Ann WINCHELL, 1050 Rosalind Road, San Marino, California 11. Kenneth Leroy MC KEE, 4. Green River Dr., Space 13, Corona, California 12. Jeffrey Alan MARSHALL, 13882 Hewes Ave., Santa Ana, California 13. Vincent Albert LAMBIASE, 5972 Sierra -Siena Road, Irvine, Calif. 14. Roger Kirk MERCIER, 2125 Circle Drive, Hermosa Beach, Calif. 15. Franklyn Griffith KOSTLAN, 735 Chaucer Rd., San Marino, Calif. 16. Nick KEPHALOS, 2140 E. Heather Lane, Brea, California 17. Robert Irving HIGGINS, 227 Colton, Newport Beach, California 18. Wilbur Scheirich CLAUS, JR., 15622 Olive Branch Drive, La Mirada, California 19. Ross Eugene ROEDER, 8135 Tuscany Ave., Playa del Rey, Calif. 20. Vern Orvel CURTIS, 4021 Morning Star Dr., Huntington Beach, • California 21. John Henry BARNES, JR., 415 Torrey Pines Circle, Anaheim, Calif.. 22. Verne Hedges WINCHELL, 1050 Rosalind Road, San Marino, Calif. 23. Gavin MILLER, 435 South Rimpau, Los Angeles,California These form letters are being mailed on the day that the investigation on the local people has been completed and will be returned via mail shortly and will be attached to this resume. The aforementioned people in this out of state mailing group are all officers, directors on the board of Denny's Restaurant, Inc.. RROOKLXN CENTER POLICE INVESTIGATION REPORT Form 17 Offense LIQUOR LICENSE INVESTIGATION #9818 Complainant Denny's Restaurant P 3901 Lakebreeze Avenue N. Address 79 -06795 Investigator BELLM sent out twenty -three (23) Brooklyn Center Police Department police records inquiry forms to various law enforcement agencies. in California and Washington. As of 06- 25 -79, Investigator BELLM has received back all but three (3) of them. Three parties that no records have been received on are Vern Orville CURTIS, DOB: 05- 23 -34, his wife Phyllis, DOB: 12- 01 -35, Ross Eugene ROEDER, DOB: 02 -25 -38 and his wife Margaret, DOB: 06- 27 -45, and Gavin NMN MILLER, DOB: 03- 08 -26, wife Camilla, DOB: 08- 05 -34. All other record checks came back from the various agencies consistent with the names submitted, as no record with the exception of one individual. That individual is Clinton Bruce EVANS, whose address is 5127 E1 Roble Street, Long Beach, California. A Long Beach Police Department arrest report was submitted to Investigator BELLM, indicating that on 05 -21 -77 on 0100 hours, Mr. EVANS was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, public drunkeness. The disposition of the matter indicates that he received a suspended sentence for one (1) year. The sentence was not indicated on the arrest report. It just indicated a one (1) year suspended sentence. According to the arrest report, Mr. EVANS was in a parking lot, appeared to be intoxicated t o the extent that he was unable to care for himself or others and had been in fight g a fi t in the evening. Mr. EVANS blood alcohol content was .15% and he was considered to be very polite and well mannered by the Police Officers involved in the arrest. Mr. EVANS gave his occupation as an Administrator for Denny's Incorporated at 1264 Valley View, La Miranda, California, listed his wife as Michelle EVANS living at 5127 El Roble. Since that time the Long Beach Police Department has had no adverse contact with Mr. EVANS. Copies of all of the police record inquiries will be submitted along with this additional resume to be presented to the Chief for his review. The information when received on the three parties should be attached to the case file for future reference. Up to this point, Investigator BELLM has found no reason to question the integrity or the incredibility of any of the local management of Denny's Restaurant regarding the application for anon- intoxicating liquor license and accompanying wine license. pk Signed BELLM Date Time M & C No. 79 -20 August 10, 1979 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject: European Health Spa Pool License To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached please find a copy of a letter I have received from central headquarters of the European Health Spas stating how they intend to rectify problems we have had in the past with their pool and facility management. As you recall, last week or so I met with representatives of the Spa stating I was prepared to go to the City Council and request the revocation of their license due to their poor per - formance. This week they have given me in writing as contained in the above mentioned letter the assurance I believe I need to at least delay going to the City Council with a recommendation for revocation. Mr. Heenan and I have reviewed this matter carefully, and we will be preparing a letter answering Mr. Coassin's letter in which we will state conditions and the type of scrutiny the facility will be given for the next four to six months after it opens up again. As you will see in the letter, the Spa is voluntarily closing down the pool for some renovations, equipment changes, and they are proposing major changes in their management practices which I believe will achieve the goal we have of getting compliance with State and local health regulations. As a part of these discussions it was made clear to the European Health Spa people that we are not dismissing the criminal complaint or ticket regarding employees of theirs advising members to pass through and use a pool in their facility which was specifically posted as closed by our sanAtarian. That aspect of the criminal process will continue on through the courts as any other traffic violation or any other - ordinance violation would. Res ct tally submitted, Gerald G. linter City Manage CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER encs. European e Spas, Inc. PHYSICAL FITNESS FOR MEN AND WOMEN August 9, 1979 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Splinter: This letter shall serve as confirmation of European Health Spas Inc's. (quot European) willingness and desire to cooperate with your office specially with the directives and requests of the Crystal - Brooklyn Center — Brooklyn Park Health Department, in an effort to provide our members and guests with a safe and sanitary environment in which to enjoy their spa privileges. rivile es European understands its P obligations to comply with the regulations propounded by the afore- mentioned health department, and by this letter gives its assurance that said regulations shall be followed With regard to the present situation at the Brookdale Spa the following represents an outline of Europeans plan of action as presented to you in yesterdays meeting. 1. All three pools shall be cleaned and repainted. The work is being performed by Bomac Pools, 5942 Aldrich Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and has already began. After the pools are repainted, Bomac Pools will refill, and assure the chemical quality. This work should be completed by August 10, 1979. 2. European employees shall test all three pools, three times daily, to assure compliance with the regulations on water quality. In this regard we shall utilize the state forms which were supplied to us. Copies of the daily reports shall be sent on a weekly basis to the offices of our Minnesota Area Director and our Director of Engineering in West Hartford, Conn. On a monthly basis a copy of this report shall be sent to the office of Mr. T. L. Heenan, at rage Two Mr. Gerald G. Splinter Crystal Municipal Building, 4141 Douglas Drive North, Crystal, Minnesota 55422 In addition, European has contracted for the services of Poolside Services who will provide us with weekly reports on our water quality. In this regard samples will be delivered to Poolside every Thursday. European agrees to close the pools for an appropriate period, when ever the pool testing results are not in compliance with health department standards. European also agrees that its employees shall not add harmful chemicals to the pools while bathers are present. 3. The ceilings throughout the back area shall be resurfaced and repainted. The resurfacing job has been contracted out to Conroy Bros., 7851 Dupont Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota. This job has already began and should be completed by August 13, 1979. After completion of the resurfacing, the entire ceiling shall be repainted under a separate contract. We expect this entire job to be completed by August 17, 1979. 4. European has engaged the services of Grazzini Bros., 620 South 16th Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota, to perform the repair and replacement. In addition, this contractor shall perform regrouting work throughout the spa. This job should be completed by August 15, 1979. 5. New wooden sauna room seats have been ordered from Finnish Sauna Builders, Crystal Shopping Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is expected that these seats will be installed by August 13, 1979. 6. All floor drains throughout the spa shall be cleared and cleaned by Reto- Rooter Sewer Service, 2231 Edgewood Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426. This work has already begun and has been completed today. 7. Thee four items as listed in the Brooklyn Center Fire Department memorandum have either already been completed, or shall be completed, by August 16, 1979. 8. We have authorized our local personnel to under take the following responsibilities and to complete same, by August 17, 1979: Replace thermostats in massage room, shower area and pool area; replace all door closers in the -wet area; replace three shower heads near the pool; install five new lounge chairs; paint light fixtures in shower area; reupholster chairs Page three Mr. Gerald G. Splinter in vanity area; replace door in vanity area. 9. Fulltime lifeguard/attendants shall be hired by August 17, 1979. Their sole responsibility shall be to maintain a safe and sanitary spa environment. For your information, this position is being added to all our Minnesota Spas. 10. As a result of the inconvenience caused by the closing of the pools all members shall receive a one month membership extension. We hope that our meeting yesterday, confirmed by this letter, represents the beg of a renewed trust between the City of Brooklyn Center and European Health Spas Inc.. We hope to demonstrate our credibility in this regard by giving our full cooperation to the health department or any other city agency. On behalf of European I give you my assurance that this cooperation shall extend from the least senior'Brookdale employee, to myself. I would like to institute direct communication between my office and the offices of any city agency should any problems develop in the future. My toll free number is 800 -243 -8794. We hope the fore going illustrates Europeans desire to maintain a spa facility that our members and employees can be proud of. To further accomplish this objective it is our sincere desire to be allowed to provide our members and guests with uninterrupted spa services. After you have reviewed this letter would you kindly call me on the above listed watts number to me your thoughts. Sincerely, Raymond Coassin Vice- President European Health Spa Inc. RC /js cc: Mr. T. L. Heenan Mr. Buz Scott Mr. Lowell Leefers Mr. Peter Stein