HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 06-25 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
JUNE 25, 1984
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a Council member so requests,
in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.
6. Approval of Minutes - Board of Equalization - June 4, 1984
- Regular Session - June 11, 1984
*7. Performance Bond Reduction for Rosemary Terrace, townhouses located at
1501 -1555 Humboldt Place
8. Resolutions:
*a. Accepting Work Performed Under Contract 1982 -Q (Water Supply Well
Improvement Project No. 1982 -30)
-This contract provided for construction of the City's Well No. 9
* ,
b. Accepting Engineer's Report, Establishing Central Park Tennis Court
Improvement Project No. 1983 -12, Phase II, Approving Plans and
Specifications, and Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1984 -
G)
-This project provides for the paving of four tennis courts in Central
Park.
c. Accepting Engineer's Report, Establishing Sealcoating Improvement
Project No. 1984 -13, Approving Specifications, and Directing
Advertisement for Bids (Contract 1984 -H)
-This project provides for the sealcoating of streets in the
southwest neighborhood.
*d. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public
Service of Herbert Dahmen
e. Authorizing Replacement of Liquor Stores Manager Position
*f. Accepting Quotations and Authorizing Purchase of Water Tank
-This item is contained in the 1984 Budget. The tank will be mounted
on a truck and will be used for watering trees, flooding ice rinks,
etc.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2 June 25, 1984
9. Public Hearing on a Proposed Issuance of Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act (7:30
P.M.)
-This public hearing comprehends a refunding of the industrial
development revenue bond proposal from Brooklyn Crossings.
10. Planning Commission Items: (7:45 p.m.)
a. Planning Commission Application No. 84015 submitted by Byerly's Inc.
for site and building plan approval to construct a Byerly's store and
attached shopping center at the southeast corner of Summit Drive and
Shingle Creek Parkway. The Planning Commission recommended approval
of Application No. 84015 at its June 14, 1984 meeting.
b. Planning Commission Application No. 84016 submitted by Byerly's, Inc.
for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts the
vacant tracts of land west of LaBelle's and Tracts G and I of R.L.S.
No. 1325 at the southeast corner of Summit Drive and Shingle Creek
Parkway. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Application
No. 84016 at its June 14, 1984 meeting.
c. Planning Commission Application No. 84017 submitted by Evelyn Borgen
for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel
of land at the southeast corner of 73rd Avenue North and Fremont
Avenue North, addressed 1219 - 73rd Avenue North.
d. Planning Commission Application No. 84018 submitted by Evelyn Borgen
for a variance from Section 15 -106 of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow creation of a single -
family lot of less than 9,500 sq. ft. area. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of Application No. 84018 at its June 14, 1984
meeting.
e. Planning Commission Application No. 84019 submitted by John Guider
for a variance from Section 35 -400 of the Zoning Ordinance to (a)
expand dwelling space into a garage less than 5' from the north side
lot line and (b) to construct a new garage to the south of the
dwelling less than 10' from the south side lot line. The Planning
Commission recommended denial of Application No. 84019 at its June
14, 1984 meeting.
f. Planning Commission Application No. 84020 submitted by Randy Rau for
site and building plan and special use permit approval to convert an
existing superette at 4401 - 69th Avenue North to a service garage
and to build a new superette to the east of this building. The
existing service station would be demolished and the pump islands
removed with one new pump island under a canopy in front of the new
superette. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
Application No. 84020 at its June 14, 1984 meeting.
g. Planning Commission Application No. 84021 submitted by Randy Rau for
preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot the two
existing parcels at 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4401 69th Avenue
North for a combined development. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of Application No. 84021 at its June 14, 1984
meeting
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 25, 1984
11. Ordinances:
a. An Emergency Ordinance Amending Chapter 25 of the City Code of the
City of Brooklyn Center by Regulating Traffic
-This ordinance is offered for a first reading and would authorize
the City Manager to regulate traffic in certain situations when it
becomes necessary to preserve the public peace and safety.
b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the
Classification of Financial Institutions
-This ordinance is offered for a first reading and would make banks
and financial institutions a separate category, in the zoning
ordinance, from real estate, insurance, and finance offices.
c. An Ordinance Amending Section 11 -111 Relating to the Restrictions on
Purchase and Consumption of Liquor by Persons under 19 Years of Age
-This ordinance is offered for a first reading. The ordinance
incorporates the recent change in State law which prohibits persons
under the age of 19 from consuming any intoxicating liquor or
nonintoxicating malt liquor unless in the household of his or her
parent or guardian and with the consent of his or her parent or
guardian.
d. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Classifying
Certain Land as being within the R3 Zoning District
-This ordinance was first read on February 27, 1984 and was published
on March 8, 1984. A public hearing on the ordinance was held on
March 26, 1984 and consideration of the ordinance was tabled until
such time as the final plat was filed and the ordinance was placed on
the agenda. The ordinance provides for the rezoning of the Madsen
Floral property in conjunction with Planning Commission Applications
84001 and 84002. The ordinance is recommended for a second reading
this evening.
12. Discussion Items:
a. Transmittal to City Council of Recommended Amendment to the Brooklyn
Center City Charter
-This charter amendment recommends that the municipal election
calendar be changed to coincide with state and federal elections,
eliminating odd year municipal elections.
13. Consideration of Specified Licenses:
a. Nonintoxicating Liquor License for Showbiz Pizza
-The license is being recommended for approval conditioned upon the
sale of the business.
14. Licenses
15. Adjournment
_ MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOF.LYN CLTiTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Board of Equalization
June 4, 1984
City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the 'Board of Equalization and
was called to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor_ Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Celia Scott, Rich Theis and Bill.
Hawes. Mayor Nyquist noted that Councilmember Gene Lhotka was out
of town and unable to attend. Also present were City Manager Gerald
Splinter, City Assessor Peter Koole, Property Appraiser Joe DaBruzzi,
and Administrative Assistant Brad Hoffman.
PURPOSE OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
The City Manager reviewed the purpose of the Board of Equalization
meeting and pointed out that the City Council was serving as the Board
of Equalization to conduct a review of assessed valuation within the
City, and to allow time for public inquiry regarding local assessments
after the City Assessor makes his report. The City Manager introduced
Peter Koole, City Assessor, who pointed out that there are various
steps that individuals must take when seeking adjustments in their
evaluations and he explained that the meeting tonight is the first
step, after which the inquiry is passed onto the County and the County
then passes it' on to the State for their review. He explained that
the values discussed this evening will serve as the basis for the 1985
taxes. He added that the Board of Equalization reviews the City Asses-
sor's work and he explained that the City Assessor's staff is fully
certified by the State of Minnesota. He explained that the Assessor's
responsibility is to treat the values of similar properties in similar
ways with regard to valuations. He also noted that the City Assessor's
office has asked that people call his office prior to the Board of
Equalization meeting to make an appointment with the staff to discuss
their particular request, and also, if necessary to register for an
appearance at the Board of Equalization. He explained that the people
who are preregistered would be handled first at this evening's meeting.
He also reviewed new changes in the legislation affecting the valuation
of properties.
PROCEDURAL REVIEW OF PROPERTY TAXATION
The City Assessor explained the appeal process, stating the channel
of appeal begins with the local Board, then onto the County Board,
the State Board, and finally to the Tax Court if carried that far.
He also explained that individuals may appeal to the Tax Court directly
without going to the County Board or State Board. He added that an
individual must go to the Local Board first before they can qualify
for the next step, which is the County Board, and that an individual
must also appeal to the County Board prior to appealing to the State
Board. The City Assessor then explained that the County Board of Equali-
zation is appointed by the County Commissioners and the Commissioner
of Revenue serves as the State Board of Equalization.
6 -4 -84 -1-
The City Assessor stated that the duties and the procedures to be
followed by the Local Board are set in Minnesota Statute 274.01 to
"examine and see that all taxable property in the City has been properly
placed upon a tax list. and duly valued by the Assessor ". Furthermore,
he stated, "on application of any person feeling aggrieved, the Board
shall review the assessment and correct it as shall appear just In
reviewing the duties of the City Assessor, he noted that the State
Statute reads "All real property subject to taxation shall be listed
and assessed every year with reference to its value on January 2,
preceding the assessment ". The Assessor stated this has been done
and the owners of the property in Brooklyn Center have been notified
of any value changes. He also pointed out that Minnesota Statute 273.11
states, "All property shall be valued at its market value ". The City
Assessor further explained the Statute states "In estimating and deter-
mining such value the Assessor shall not adopt a lower or different
standard of value because the same is to serve as a basis for taxation;
nor shall he adopt such criterion and a value the price for which such
property would sell at auction or at a forced sale, unless the Assessor
determines the auction to be a market value sale, or an aggregate with
all the property in the town or district; but he shall value each article
or description of property by itself, and at such sum or price as he
believes the same to be fairly worth in money ". The City Assessor
explained that the Assessor's work is based on historical value and
that their data is based on actual sales and not projections.
THE CITY ASSESSOR'S REPORT
The ,City Assessor next reviewed the sales ratio studies. He explained
that the sales ratio study was a substantive part of what is done by-
the Assessing Department. He briefly reviewed the 1983 sales ratio
study. He stated that the average sale price of a home in Brooklyn
Center is approximately $70,000 and that the average market value is
approximately $64,000. He also explained that the Assessing Department
analyzes the sales by style, location, price, age, and neighborhood.
He reviewed the valuations of several homes located in different parts
of the City, including homes located on a lake or river, in proximity
to a highway or freeway, commercial and multiple family units, and
homes located near parklands.
The City Assessor reviewed inspections by the appraisers. He commented
that State law requires one - fourth of the properties in the City be
revalued and inspected each year. He showed the Council on a map of
the City which areas had been revalued and inspected in 1983 for the
1984 assessment. He noted, in addition to the regular inspections
made each year, the Assessing Department must also inspect the work
on each building permit.
PUBLIC INQUIRY REGARDING LOCAL ASSESSMENTS
The City Manager explained that five individuals had pre - registered
for this evenings meeting, Mr. Burton Peterson, 1112 Woodbine Lane,
Paul Vick, 6423 Colfax Avenue North, Robert E. Luby (Joslyn) , 4837
France Avenue North, Mr. Bill Dale, Vacant Land and Mr. Paul Schwartz,
4006 65th Avenue North.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Burton Peterson, 1112 Woodbine Lane. Mr.
Peterson was not present and Mayor Nyquist suggested they proceed and
return to this case later if Mr. Peterson arrives.
6 -4 -84 -2-
Mayor Nyquist. called upon Paul Vick, 6423 Colfax Avenue North. Mr. Vick
was riot present and Mayor Nyquist suggested they proceed and return
to this case later if Mr. Vick arrives.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Robert E. Luby of Joslyn, 4837 France Avenue
North. Mr. Luby presented an appraisal from Mr. Robert Bobblet, Jr.
He then noted for the Council the pollution problem associated with
the Joslyn Pole Yard. He asked that the Council give consideration
for the cost of the remedial work. The City Manager Gerald Splinter
noted that the City is aware of the problem and it was not sure at
how to arrive at a cost for cleaning up the site. Mayor Nyquist inquired
as to the evaluation. The City Assessor Peter Koole indicated that
the property had been evaluated at $1.00 a foot. The City Manager
recommended that the matter be referred back to the Assessor to work
with the owner to see if they could arrive at an agreement. Councilmember
Theis inquired if an estimate had been made for the cleanup cost.
Mr. Luby indicated that the PCA had given a minimum cost estimate of
$800,000. The City Assessor Peter Koole indicated that he had received
a letter from Mr. Luby from the PCA which he would review. He indicated
that he would try to have an answer for Mr. Luby by Friday. He also
indicated that they would bring this matter back to the Council on
the 11th.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Bill Dale from Dale Tile. Mr. Dale
indicated that he felt that the valuation on his 22 acre site which
had been increased by 48% was too high. He noted that in 1982 the
valuation was $72,000 and that in 1984 it had gone to $154,000. The
City ssessor Peter Koole indicated that the only accurate approach
Y Y PP
for valuation of this property would be a market appraisal. He noted
that he reviewed four comps. He indicated that he now feels that the
market valuation should be changed to reflect. $185,000. He noted that
one of the comps he submitted, reflected an almost identical situation.
The City Appraiser then reviewed all four comps. He indicated that this
is the first time that the City has been able to do actual market comps
on property similar to Mr. Dales. Mr. Dale didn't feel that the first
comp was an appropriate comp: to be used. Following a brief discussion
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there were any soil problems associated with
Mr. Dale's problem. Mr. Dale indicated that there might be a small
area in the front of the property. Councilmember Theis inquired how
our I2 zoning compared with that of Brooklyn Park's I zoning. The
City Assessor Peter Koole indicated that he was not sure but that the
type of buildings on the two zonings are comparable. Councilmember Scott
inquired if there were any pollution problems associated with the pro-
' perty. Mr. Dale indicated that he was not sure but he noted that the
people on the site before had complained about the water. Following the
discussion it was agreed that the matter would be deferred to the
June 11, 1984 Council meeting for further information from the staff.
Mayor Nyquist then called upon Mr. Paul Schwartz, 4006 56th Avenue
North. The City Assessor Peter Koole indicated that he had discussed
the matter with Mr. Schwartz and that he had not problem with the market
appraisal. There was a request that the matter be laid over to the
June 11, 1984 meeting. There was a motion oby Councilmember Theis
and seconded by Councilmember Scott to affirm the recommendation to
hold the matter over until the June 11, 1984 meeting. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott., Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
6 -4 -84 -3-
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember '
Theis to lay over appeals of Mr. Robert. E. Luby (Joslyn Pole Yard site)
and Mr. Bill Dale, Dale Tile until the June 11, 1984 meeting. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott., Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
Mayor Nyquist then inquired of the audience if anyone else wished to
address the Board of Equalization. Mayor Nyquist then recognized
Mrs. Irma Gav�boy, 5803 Shores Drive. She noted that her property was
assessed at $55,000. She felt that the condition of the unit warranted
a $20,000 reduction in the value. She noted that there was faulty
plumbing and electrical and a leaking roof. She had a builder's estimate
of $15,000 to $20,000 to repair the unit. She also noted that there
was extensive deterioration of the unit. The City Assessor Peter Koole
indicated that the unit had been reinspected in May of 1984 as well
as in 1982. He noted that he doesn't dispute that there are problems
with the unit but .there are questions of who is at fault and whose
responsibility it is to maintain the unit. He noted the basic structural
aspect of the unit was okay and that the item really reflected mainte-
nance items. He indicated his concern that should the Board consider
such re- appraisal the implication would be to reassess the entire associ-
ation. He indicated that he would prefer that no adjustment be made
but that they would review the situation throughout the year and make a
recommendation next year. Councilmember Theis inquired if it had been a
single family home that had deteriorated would it affect the valuation.
The City Assessor Peter Koole indicated that it would not if they were
normal maintenance items. Following a brief discussion the Council
requested that the matter be referred to the City Attorney Dick Schieffer
to determine whose responsibility it was to maintain the property.
There was a motion to defer the matter to the June 11, 1984 meeting
made by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. John Kulla of 5315 Logan Avenue North.
Mr. Kulla indicated that his valuation exceeded the actual value of
his house. The City Assessor Peter Koole indicated that he had not
had an opportunity to review the valuation. There was a motion by
Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to defer the
matter to the June 11, 1984 meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized George B. Marrow, 7212 Willow Lane.
Mr. Marrow indicated that his valuation went from $88,000 in 1981 to
$102,000 in 1984. He indicated that the valuation keeps going up and
that he was unable to afford the continued increases. The City Manager
indicated that if he would like to make an appointment with the Assessor
they could have someone come out and go over the specifics of the valu-
ation with him. There was a. motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded
by Councilmember Hawes to defer the appeal to the June 11, 1984 meeting.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Paul and Phyllis Linton of 6915 Indiana Avenue
North. They expressed their feelings that the valuation of their home
at $54,000 was far to high. Again the City Manager requested that
6 -4 -84 -4-
an appointment be made with the City Assessor's office to review their
particular valuation. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and
seconded by Councilmember Scott to defer the appeal to the June 11,
1984 council meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
Mayor Nyquist then recognized Mr. Roger L. Lundquist of 3510 69th Avenue
North. He indicated that he would have a statement to add to the meeting
next week. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded
by Councilmember Hawes to defer the appeal to the meeting of June 11,
1984. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,- Councilmembers Scott, Hawes,
and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember
Theis to continue the Board of Equalization meeting at the June 11,
1984 City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed. The Board of Equalization adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
f e
6 -4 -84 -5-
t
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JUNE 11, 1984
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis. Also present were City .Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance Paul
Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection Ron Warren, City Assessor Peter Koole,
City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Appraiser Joe DaBruzzi, and Administrative
Assistants Brad Hoffman and Tom Bublitz.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Pastor Blomberg of the Berean Free Church.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open Forum
session this evening. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address
the Council. There being none, he continued with the regular agenda items.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Council members requested any items removed from the
Consent Agenda. Councilmember Lhotka requested item 10 be removed from the Consent
Agenda.
FINAL PLAT A PPROVAL - MOORWOOD TOIv',NHOUSES, 2ND A DDITION
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the final plat of Moorwood Townhouses, 2nd Addition (Planning Corrinissi.on
Application No. 79028) subject to approval of the Homeowners' Association documents
by the City Attorney. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PERFORMANCE BOND RELEASES /RE DUCTIONS
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the reduction of the performance guarantee for Brooklyn Crossings, 3300
County Road 10 (Planning Commission Application No. 81017) from $55,000 to $15,000
to cover the cost of deferred curbing. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
release the performance guarantee for 4010 65th Avenue North (Planning Commission
Application No. 82044) in the amount of $ 'i , 000. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
6- 1.1 -84 -1-
L ICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the following list of licenses:
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - OPERATOR LICENSE
Show Biz Pizza 5939 John Martin Dr.
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Interstate United Corp. 1091 Pierce Butler Rte.
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Bridgeman's Brookdale Center
Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N.
GARBAGE AND REFUSE VEHICL LI CENSE
Bergstrom Trucking — 5860 73rd Ave. N.
G & H Sanitation, Inc. 12448 Pennsylvania Ave. S.
Hilger Transfer Co. 8550 Zachary Ln.
Midwest Grease Buyers, Inc. P.O. Box 222
Robbinsdale Transfer Co., Inc. 5332 Hanson Court
Shobe and Sons 3621 85th Ave. N.
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENS
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
MECHANIC SYSTEM LIC ENSE
Total Energy Heating & Cooling 5905 Lexington Ave. N.
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHIN LICENSE
Coca Cola Bottling 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
Evergreen Park Manor 7224 Camden Ave. N.
Interstate United 1091 Pierce Butler Rte.
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
Iten Leasing 4301 68th Ave. N.
PERISHABL VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Interstate United 1091 Pierce Butler Rte.
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
TEMP0R BEER LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Fire Dept. 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Voting n favor: Mayor t unc'
g yo Plyquis,, Coa ilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A PPROV AL OF MI NUTES -MAY 21, 1984
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of INay 21, 1984 as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed. Councilmember Lhotka abstained from voting
as he was not present at the t-iay 21, 1984 meeting.
6 -11 -84 -2--
I
1
CONTINUATION OF BOARD OF EQUALIZATION MEETING
The City Manager introduced the list of cases which were carried over to this
evening's meeting from the Board of Equalization meeting held on June 4, 1984. He
explained the list consisted of items that required follow -up by the City_ Assessor's
staff.
Case No. 3 - Irma Gawboy, PID# 03- 118- 21 -23- 0026,.5803 Shores Drive.
The City Assessor explained the petitioner has requested a reduction in value due to
a water intrusion problem. He stated the assessor's office is not recommending a
reduction at this time.
The City Manager explained the City Attorney has reviewed the documents of the
Homeowners' Association to which Mrs. Gawboy belongs, and he requested the City
Attorney to review his findings with the City Council.
The City Attorney explained that, with regard to rights of homeowners, as opposed to
the rights of the association, the Homeowners' Association documents treat them as
two parties. He reviewed the City's responsibility under the association's
documents. He explained the City does a limited review of Homeowners' Association
documents and is primarily concerned with access for City vehicles, such as
emergency vehicles, and in the event there is a total breakdown of the association
the City has the authority to do the required work necessary to deal with the
emergency situation. He explained the costs of any City work would be assessed to
the common property, and again he emphasized the purpose of the City's review of the
documents is to assure the City's
The City Attorney stated that the Homeowners' Association documents for Moorwood
were originally approved in the mid 1970's, and that the City's request in the
documents was only for access to the development. He explained the City would not
request any rights with regard to homeowners rights and the City does not have
authority to enforce any of these homeowners rights. He again emphasized the City
acts only on an emergency basis when lives are threatened and there is a complete
breakdown of the association.
The City Attorney next reviewed the City's responsibility with regard to code
enforcement. The City Attorney reviewed the question of whether the City is liable
for not enforcing codes. He explained the City is not liable for code enforcement,
and explained that this is a rule of tort law which exists in all but four or five
states. He added that the City enforces the codes at the time of construction. He
concluded that the apparent problem is a maintenance problem and does not affect the
market value of the property,
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
affirm the City Assessor's original recommendation for the 1984 market value of 5803
Shores Drive, owned by Irma Gawboy, (PID/t 03- 118- 21 -23- 0026). Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
gone. The motion passed unanimously,
Case No. 1 - Joslyn Manufacturing Company, PIN 10- 118 -21 -23 -0004, Industrial, 4837
France Avenue North.
The City Assessor reviewed Case Noe 1, Joslyn Manufacturing Company, for the Board
6 -11 -84
f
Of Equalization and noted that a representative of Joslyn was not
e Present at the
meeting. He explained the estimated market value of th
2.3 million dollars not c property was a
onside Y approximately
considering the P tel
reviewed g e Pollution rob Y
the ground problem of t
g and water pollution he property. He the
iv problem on n
en t the
g he Joslyn n
Pollution problems at the site the Y site, and explained that,
$738 000 and ► range of valuation
$ He stated that his fin luation could be between
the propert is 8 al recommendation f
$ 4 or
9 ,800. He concluded the value of
r ed b
property value is extremely difficult noting that the pollution affect
Y ifficult to determine. et on
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Counci
approve the City Assessor's recommendation for valuation of the T Josl n
Manufacturing Company property (PID# 10- 1 18 -21 -23 -0004) at Joslyn
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, $ and T Theis. Vo Voting nn
against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 8
Case No. 2 _ William J. Dale, PID�� 10- 1 18 -21 -31 -0028 - Vacant L _
Avenue. Land Lakebreeze
The City Manager noted that a representative of Mr. Dale was not present this
evening. He added that additional information had been gathered by the staff on the
property and had resulted in the assessing staff's recommendation of ad'ustin
1984 market value from $154,"300 to $185,000. J g the
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember
approve the staff's recommendation for the 1984 market value of the acant la nd
to
owned by William J. Dale, on Lakebreeze Avenue 1,
$185,000. (PID�� 10 ®118 -21- 3 _ la 0028) at
Case No. 4. _.John M. Kulla p
' ID# 02 118-21 -43 -0043 - 5315 Logan Avenue North.
The City Assessor stated the staff is recommending no chap a from
recommendation of $46,400 for the 1984 market value of the ro its original
Logan Avenue North. P perty located at 5315
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded b
approve the staff recommendation Y Councilmember ember S
ati co t
No on for the 1 t to
North, 984 market ke
weed t val
f b value of
y John M. Kulla 5315 Logan Avenue
favor: Mayor Nyquist Councilmembers , �PID�� 02 -118 -21 -43 -0043) at $4b 400.
i
n
against. none. The motion Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
passed unanimously, g
Case
No. 5 _ George B.
g Morrow
PID/I 2 5 - 119- 21 -41 -00 -
37 7212 Willow Lane,
The City Manager explained the staff is recommending an adjustment of the
market value on this property from $102,000 to 1984
has indicated his satisfaction with this adjustmen00• He added that Mr. Morrow
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by mber Hawes
approve the staff recommendation for the 1984 market value of 7212 Willow L ne
owned by Mr. George B. Morrow, (PID# 2 5- 119- 21 -41 -00 ) at
favor Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott,3Hawes,$and6Theis. Voting
in
against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Voting
Case No. 6 - Phyllis and Paul Linton, PID# - 27_119_21_34_0005 6 1
North. 9 5 Indiana Avenue
6 -11 -84
-4-
}
The City Manager stated that the City appraiser had met with Mrs. Linton on June 6,
1984 and she indicated that they were satisfied with his review and explanation of
the recommended assessed valuation.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve the staff recommendation for the 1984 market value of 6915 Indiana Avenue
North, owned by Phyllis and Paul Linton, (PID# .27- 119 -21 -34 -0005) at $54,000.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Case No. 7 - Roger L. Lundquist, PIN 34- 119 -21 -31 -0102 - 3910 65th Avenue North.
The City Manager explained that the property at 3910 65th Avenue North is a four -plex
and that the owner had failed to provide the assessor's office with requested income
and expense information. He explained that the information is now available and
the staff is recommending an adjustment in the 1984 market value from $134,400 to
$127,400.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve the staff recommendation for the 1984 market value of 3910 65th Avenue
North, owned by Roger L. Lundquist,(PID# 34- 119 -21 -31 -0102) from $134,400 to
$127,400. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes,
and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Nyquist noted that the Board of Equalization had not received any other
appeals requests to appear before the Board of Equalization this evening, and he
PPe or q PP
was therefore adjourning the 1984 Board of Equalization meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION N0. 84009 SUBMITTED BY LOMBARD PROPERTIES FOR SITE
AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84010 SUBMITTED BY LOMBARD PROPERTIES FOR A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR OFF -SITE ACCESSORY PARKING FOR SPEC. 14
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages one through three of the May 24, 1984 Planning Commission meeting minutes and
also the portion of the May 10, 1984 Planning Commission meeting minutes pertaining
to Application Nos. 84009 and 84010. He also reviewed the Planning Commission
information sheets prepared for the applications.
The Planning Director reviewed for Council members the location of the Spec. 14
building located west of Shingle Creek Parkway at 67th. He explained the area is
zoned I -1 and that office uses are a special use in an I -1 zone. He then reviewed the
proposed site plan and landscaping plan for Application No. 84009• He explained
that a revised parking plan had been submitted by the applicant which comprehends a
parking ramp in the proof of parking plan. He explained the agreement with the
developer would require the construction of a ramp, if the City determines there was
a need for additional parking.
The Director of Planning & Inspection explained that, following a public hearing,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 84009, subject to
17 conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He stated notices of this
evening's public hearing had been sent to surrounding property owners, and a
representative of the applicant was present this evening.
6 -11 -84 -5-
4
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the special
use permit request for the low -rise industrial building and for the off -site
accessory parking arrangement, both of which are special uses.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Al Beisner, representing Lombard Properties, who
explained to the Council that the grade elevation on the project will be at the same
grade as the Spec. 11 billing.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
close the public hearing on Application Nos. 84009 and 84010. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 84009, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to
the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the
issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial
guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City
Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of
permits to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop
mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from
view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire
extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be
connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with
Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject
to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking
and driving areas.
6 -11 -84 -6-
9. Plan approval acknowledges proof -of- parking for 82 off -site
parking stalls, at least 20 of which are to be located in
the at -grade central parking lot and up to 62 of which may
be located in a future parking ramp. The applicant shall
enter into a written agreement with the City to install the
parking ramp at the request of the City and this agreement
shall be filed with the property at Hennepin County. Site
and landscape plans for the central parking ramp shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to
construction.
10. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall
be grounds for revocation.
11. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges that up to 50% of
the occupancy of the building may be devoted to office use
whether related to an industrial use or not. Office
occupancy of more than 50% of the gross floor area is
subject to amendment of the Special Use Permit herein
granted and to the appropriate parking formulas of the City
Zoning Ordinance.
12. The applicant shall submit a site performance agreement and
supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be
determined by the City Manager) prior to the issuance of
building permits to assure the completion of the central
parking lot.
13. The applicant shall submit master plans for site grading
and utility service to all tracts of :R,L.S. 1572 for
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
permits for Spec. 14.
14. A flowageway shall be constructed in accordance with the
provisions of an executed subdivision agreement, said
flowageway to provide unobstructed overlandflow of excess
storm water from the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway
and 67th Avenue, westerly to Shingle Creek.
15. Upon installation of lateral water matins and /or lateral
sewers, the owners shall provide an as -built survey
depicting the location of said utilities.
16. The owners shall execute a water and sewer main and fire
hydrant maintenance and inspection agreement upon
installation of lateral water and /or sewer mains.
17. All landscaped areas more than 6' wide around the perimeter
of the parking and driving areas shall be sodded.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and
Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
6 -11 -84 -7-
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by
Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No.
84010, subject to the following condition:
1. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges up to 82 off -site
accessory parking stalls on the central parking lot and
future ramp to the west of the site.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and
Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 84014 SUBMITTED BY MARY ZIEBARTH FOR A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONDUCT GROUP DANCE AND BATON TWIRLING LESSONS IN THE
LOWER LEVEL OF THE RESIDENCE AT 5329 4TH STREET NORTH
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council
members pages five and six of the May 24, 1984 Planning Commission meeting
minutes and also the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for
Application No. 84014. The Planning Director reviewed the special use request
and the location of the subject parcel and noted the zoning in the area is R2.
He explained group lessons are a special use in both the R1 and R2 zones. He
then reviewed the letter submitted by the applicant requesting the special
use. With regard to the building inspector's report, the Planning Director
indicated that the building official has recommended certain items be
required, including a handrail on the stairs, a recessed light, and a fire
extinguisher mounted on the wall.
The Director of Planning explained the Planning Commission held a public hearing at
which no one except the applicant appeared to speak. After the public hearing the
Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 84014, subject to seven
conditions which the Planning Director reviewed for Council members. He then noted
that a public hearing on the application has been said for this evening and that
notices had been sent and the applicant is present.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 84014. He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public
hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on Application No. 84014. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
approve Application No. 84014, subject to the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator and
P P PP Pe
is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and
regulations and any violations thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
3. Classes shall be at least one half hour apart on weekday evenings
and shall conclude not later than 8:30 P.M.
6 -11 -84 °8-
4. Class size shall be limited to no more than 10 students at a time
All work recommended in the Building Of re
5 . g Po rt shall be
completed prior to the issuance of the special use permit.
6. On- street parking shall be limited to the area in front of the
applicant's residence and on the east side of the street.
7. Special use permit approval acknowledges group instruction in
the area of dance and baton twirling. Classes in other subjects
are not acknowledged.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONTESTED COMPLIANCE ORDER INVOLVING CHIPPEWA PARK
APARTMENTS
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed for Council members his memorandum to
the Housing Commission dated May 24, 1984. The subject of the memorandum was the
appeal of the Housing Maintenance Compliance Order by Chippewa Park Apartments. He
noted the appeal addressed four points, and explained that the only point different
from the appeal on May 21 was the fourth point which alleged that the faulty fire
doors were not a violation of Section 12 -709 of the Housing Maintenance and
Occupancy Ordinance. He explained the appellant cited a portion of Section 12 -709
regarding "facilities to function" and contended that the term facility was not
defined in the ordinance. He added the appellant maintains that fire doors are not
facilities within the meaning of Section 12 -709 or if they are intended to be
facilities, Section 12 -709 is void for vagueness.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul Steffenson, a representative of the applicant.
Mr. Steffenson explained that the compliance orders have been complied with and
emphasized that the appeal is part of a larger problem with the City that is being
worked out at the present time.
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed for Council members the Housing
Commission Resolution No. 84 -02,a Resolution Recommending Disposition of an Appeal
of a Housing Maintenance Compliance Order given Chippewa Park Apartments.
The Council discussed the appeal process and Councilmember Hawes expressed a
concern that the City may be held liable for injuries related to noncompliance due to
the extension of the waiting period in effect during an appeal. The City Attorney
replied that at this point in time the City would not be held liable. He pointed out
that the policy of the courts is likely to change in the next ten years. He
explained the City can also get relief for correcting problems related to violations
of the Housing Maintenance Ordinance through the courts.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing regarding a
contested compliance order involving Chippewa Park Apartments.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Paul Steffenson representing Chippewa Park
Y Yq g � P
6 -11 -84 -9-
Apartments. Mr. Steffenson explained that when the appeal was filed the appellant
was told that the time for the correction of the violations was suspended. He again
emphasized the fact that the appeal is part of a larger problem with the City and that
it is currently being worked out.
Councilmember Theis questioned that, if the compliance order involves a life safety
issue, can the City then deny suspension of time for complying with the order
resulting from the appeal process. The City Attorney stated that he would have to
do further research before he could definitely answer the question.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the public
hearing. No one else requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the
public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing regarding the contested compliance order involving
Chippewa Park Apartments. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
affirm the findings and recommendations of the Housing Commission contained in
Resolution No. 84 -02, a Resolution Recommending Disposition of an Appeal of a
Housing Maintenance Compliance Order given Chippewa Park Apartments. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCES
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER
The City Manager explained that the City has obtained one signature on the purchase
agreement for the property and the other required signature will be obtained
tomorrow morning. He added the staff is recommending passage of the ordinance.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Authorizing the Conveyance of Real Estate in the City of Brooklyn Center. He
inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No
one requested to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of Real Estate
in the City of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 84 -06
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN
CENTER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution and duly seconded by member
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
6 -11 -84 -10-
E
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and
adopted.
AN ORDI14ANCE REPEALING CHAPTE 8 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO FOOD SANITATION
AND ADOPTING A NEW FOOD SANITATION CODE
The City Manager explained that the ordinance recommended for a first reading this
evening would adopt the Hennepin County Food Sanitation Code. He explained the
adoption of the Hennepin County Code is an effort to standardize the food sanitation
requirements for Hennepin County communities. He added that the Hennepin County
Code also contains many technical sanitation standards which are recognized as
acceptable standards for the industry. He added that the standardization of the
food sanitation code is particularly important since the City shares its sanitarian
with the cities of Crystal and Brooklyn Park, and it is simply a better policy for
both the restaurants and the City to have a consistent standard.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve for first reading An Ordinance Repealing Chapter 8 of the City Ordinances
Relating to Food Sanitation and adopting a new food sanitation code and to set a
public hearing on the ordinance for July 9, 1984 at 8:00 p.m. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
GAMBLING LICENSE FOR KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS, COUNCIL 6772
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve a Class B gambling license for Knights of Columbus, Council 6772. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
waive the $10,000 fidelity bond for the Class B gambling license for Knights of
Columbus, Council 6772. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -95
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A PROJECT UNDER THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACT; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Rich Theis, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the following voted
against the same: Gene Lhotka, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed
and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 84 -96
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION. DECLARING JUNE AS ALTERNATIVES TO LITIGATION MONTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
6 -11 -84 -11-
w ,
Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich Theis; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
•
6 -11 -84 -12-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
FROM: Gary Shallcross
DATE: June 22, 1984
SUBJECT: Performance Guarantee
The following performance guarantee is recommended for reduction:
1. Rosemary Terrace
1501 -1555 Humboldt Place North
Planning Application No. 80030
Amount of Guarantee - $28,000 in two Letters of Credit
Obligor - David Dederichs and Ed Kauffmann
All improvements except about a half dozen lilacs have been installed.
We also need to obtain as -built surveys of the utilities for the project.
Recommend reduction from $28,000 to $1,500 until next Spring to insure
viability of landscaping and receive as -built surveys.
Approved by
Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
introduced the following resolution and
Member i g
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT 1982 -Q
(WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 9 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -30)
WHEREAS, pursuant to written Contract 1982 -Q signed with the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, ABE Construction Company, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed the following improvement in accordance with said contract:
WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 9 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -30
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The work completed under said contract and change order, is
accepted and approved.
Previously
Approved Final Amount
Original Award $358,600.00 $366,453.50
Change Order #1 3,991.00 .3,991.00
TOTAL $362,591.00 $370,444.50
2. The value of work performed is more than the original contract
amount by $7,853.50 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 $370,444.50.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that:
1. There is appropriated the sum of $7,853.50 from the Public Utility
Fund for the additional costs.
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 adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING CENTRAL
PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -12, PHASE II,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT
FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1984 -G)
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City Engineer
regarding the feasibility of completing the construction the proposed Central
Park tennis courts at an estimated cost of $55,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests
of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted.
2. The following improvement is hereby established and ordered
constructed:
CENTRAL PARK TENNIS COURT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1983 -12, PHASE II
3. The plans and specifications for said improvement as prepared by
~} the City Engineer are approved and ordered filed with the City
Clerk.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least
twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin
an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement
under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date for
receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state that said
bids will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on July
19, 1984, at which time they will be publicly opened in the Council
Chambers at City Hall by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will
then be tabulated and will be considered by the City Council at
7:00 P.M. on July 23, 1984, in the Council Chambers, and that no
bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City
Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid
bond, or certied check payable to the City for 5 percent of
the amount of such bid.
5. The accounting for Improvement Project No. 1983 -12 shall be done
in the Capital Projects Fund Division 56.
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.
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
U BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 5543()
Y TELEPHONE 561 -5440
AU
* EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
N - 1 911
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 22, 1984
RE: Central Park Tennis Court Improvement Project No. 1983 -12, Phase II
In accordance with the proposed Central Park Development Plan, staff has prepared
plans and specifications for the surfacing of four (4) tennis courts within the
open space area southerly of the F.A.I. 94 noise wall, westerly of Shingle Creek.
Soil corrections where completed in 1983, thereby providing a stable subgrade
for the proposed project completion in 1984.
A summary of the estimated project costs for surfacing of the courts is as follows:
Construction Cost $4S,000.00
Contingencies 5;000.00
Subtotal $50,000.00
Engineering 4,500.00
Administration 500.00
TOTAL $55,000.00
A review of Phase I costs shows that $72,100.00 was expended for soil corrections
($66,700 in contract costs, $5,400 in Engineering and Administration fees).
Accordingly, the estimated total project cost is $127,100.00.
The proposed project, as described above, is feasible under the conditions stated
at the costs estimated. It is recommended the proposed project be presented to
the City Council at its June 25, 1984 meeting. A resolution approving the plans
and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids thereon is submitted for
consideration by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
f1uyj
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption,:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ESTABLISHING SEAL
COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -13, APPROVING
SPECIFICATIONS, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
(CONTRACT 1984 -11)
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a report from the City Engineer
regarding the feasibility of seal coating various streets in the City at an
estimated cost of $57,420; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary and in the best interests
of the City of Brooklyn Center to complete said improvement:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer's Report is hereby accepted.
2. The following improvement is hereby established and ordered
constructed:
SEAL COATING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1984 -13
3. The plans and specifications for said improvement as prepared
by the City Engineer are approved and ordered filed with the
City Clerk.
4. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least
twice in the official newspaper and in the Construction
Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such
improvement under such approved plans and specifications.
The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days
prior to the date for receipt of bids, and specify the work
to be done, state that said bids will be received by the City
Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on July 19, 1984, at which time they
will be publicly opened in the Council Chambers at City Hall
by the City Clerk and City Engineer, will then be tabulated
and will be considered by the City Council at 7:00 P.M. on
July 23, 1984, in the Council Chambers, and that no bids will
be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and
accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or
certified check payable to the City for 5 percent of the amount
of such bid.
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
i
CITY
{ ROO OK' L YN 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C wh' N r n h EMERGENCY POLICE - FIRE
�L1 911
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 22, 1984
RE: 1984 Street Seal Coating Program
The 1984 operating budget for the Street Maintenance Division comprehends the
seal coating of approximately 17 miles of City streets. Based on past practice
and on the anticipated staffing level during 1984, we had planned to again buy
the required materials under direct contracts with the suppliers, and to apply
these materials with City crews. Recognizing that several employees would be
retiring at the end of 1984 or in early 1985 under the "Early Retirement
Incentive" program we had tentatively planned to change our procedures so as to
place this work under contract starting in 1985.
Contracts for purchase of the required materials were awarded in April.
However, a review of our permanent staffing level shows that, due to earlier-
than- expected retirements and other personnel changes, we now have 2 fewer
permanent employees than we expected to have at this time. Accordingly, it appears
that instead of replacing those employees at this time, it would be better to
place the seal coat application under contract this year instead of waiting
until 1985 to make this procedural change.
A review of the 1984 budget for the Street Division shows that the following
funds are available for the seal coating program:
Object No. Object Budget Appropriation
4100 Salaries for Regular and $31,000
4112 Temporary Employees, plus fringe
4130 benefits
4234 Street Maintenance Materials $76,000
Buckshot = $11,000
Road Oil = 60,000
Trap Rock = 5,000
4393 Machinery Rentals $ 3,000
(1984 budget contemplated
renting a chip spreader)
• .��KetlrcKg 71ZQ�c ��s ,•
June 22, 1984 - G.G. Splinter
Page 2
Object No. Object Budget Appropriation
(various) Costs associated with the use $ 5,000
of City -owned equipment
TOTAL $115,000
*Note: Our review of the 1983 seal coating program shows that approximately
1,900 employee -hours were spent on the seal coating process.
Coincidentally, this total is nearly equal to the number of employee
hours that will be saved by not replacing two permanent employees during
the last 5 months of 1984 - i.e. 2,080 hours.
Accordingly, we have valued this factor as follows:
2,080 hours x $10.76 /hour X 1.40 (adjustment factor for
fringe benefits = $31,333
Recommended Program
By utilizing the $115,000 as a project budget figure, we estimate that we can
still accomplish the seal coating of approximately 17 miles of street.
The area which is due for seal coating this year is in the Southwesterly portion
of the City, i.e. - the area bounded by the South and West City limits, by
Brooklyn Boulevard (on the East) and by 63rd Avenue.on the North. Also included
in the program would be the seal coating of all parking lots located within the
City parks within that area, and any surfaced alleys within the area. A few
exceptions will be made in areas where improvement projects are contemplated
within the next 3 years.
It should be noted that all repair work preparatory to seal coating (i.e. -
crack repairs, patching, thin overlays, etc.) will still be done by City forces.
Costs associated with that work are not included in the above totals.
Following is our estimate of costs for this work:
Contract costs for application of seal coat $ 52,200
Engineering Costs 4,700
Administration 520
Subtotal $ 57,420
Material Costs (to be purchased under existing 54,460
Contracts)*
TOTAL $111,880
*Note: For future work we will recommend that the contract for seal coating
include the furnishing of the required. materials by the contractor.
This would eliminate some possible problems with coordination between
the contractor and the material suppliers. Ifowever, since we have already
awarded contracts for direct purchase of the materials by the City, I
believe we are obligated to follow through with those contracts this year.
This will simply require a small amount of additional coordination and
monitoring by our staff.
Jtjne 22, 1984 - G.G. Splinter
Page 3
A resolution for consideration of this proposal is provided for consideration
by the City Council.
Respectful y submitted,
SK: jn
v�
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption,:
RESOLUTION NO. _
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF HERBERT DAHMEN
WHEREAS, Herbert Dahmen served the City of Brooklyn Center as an
employee of the Street Maintenance Division for more than twenty years from
September 12, 1963 to the present; and
WHEREAS, he will retire from public service in July 6, 1984:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center, that the dedicated public service of Herbert Dahmen is
recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center and that the City
wishes him a long and happy retirement.
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 adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REPLACEMENT OF
LIQUOR STOPI?S MANAGER POSITI
WHEREAS, Truman Nelson retired from his position as Liquor Stores
Manager effective May 31, 1984; and
tJIiFEAS, Truman Nelson qualified for participating in the City's
Employee Retirement Incentive Program as per Council Resolution No. 83-
33; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 83 -33 specifies that positions vacated by
employees retiring under the Employees Retirement Incentive Program will
not be filled without prior City Council approval of funds to be expended
on filling the vacancy; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted a request to the City Council
to replace the position of Liquor Stores Manager and has indicated that
the replacement is in the best interest of the City and essential to the
continued efficient operation of the liquor stores; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has conducted a search for qualified candidates
Z
or the position among current employees of the City of Brooklyn Center
and has appointed a qualified candidate to the position; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 6, Section 6.02, Subdivision 3(a) of the City Charter
does provide that appointments by the City Manager of department heads shall
be made final only upon a majority vote of the City Council:
NOW, IHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the replacement of the position of Liquor Stores Manager
be approved; and
BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED that the City Manager.'s appointment of Gerald
E. Olson to the position of Liquor Stores Manager be approved and that the
City Manager is authorized to enter into an employment contract with Mr.
Olson which will set a starting salary in accordance with the salary setting
authority granted to the City Manager in the City of Brooklyn Center 1984
Eaployee Position and Classification Plan.
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 f��llowing
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
M & C NO. 84 -08
June 21, 1984
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: Appointment of Liquor Stores Manager
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Attached please find a copy of a memorandum from Paul Holmlund relating to the
selection process and recommended appointment of a Liquor Stores Manager. Also
attached is a resolution relating to this matter.
I am recommending your ratification of my appointment of Gerry Olson as Liquor
Stores Manager. I believe the rationale behind the appointment is evident from Mr.
HolmlundIs memorandum, and I will not repeat it here. However, in addition to the
information contained in Paul's memorandum I would like to add that Mr. Olson has
agreed, and indeed requested, that additional training and assistance be given
liquor stores in the marketing area. Paul and I are most encouraged and, in fact,
have been working on this for sometime. This training will be made a part of the
employment contract which will also contain other aspects including ethics
guidelines.
• Should any member of the Council have any questions in this regard, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Res tf lly submitted,
Gerald G.: plinter
City Manager
DEPARTMENT
j CITY OF
r OF
FINANC B ROOKLYN
MEMORANDU C ENTER
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Director of Finance
DATE: June 13, 1984
SUBJECT: Liquor Stores' Manager Recommendation
Your appointed oral interview board, consisting of Tom Bublitz, Personnel
Coordinator; Bob McGuire, Fridley Liquor Stores' Manager; and I, as its
Chairman, interviewed candidates for the position of Liquor Stores' Manager
on June 12, 1984.
We received seven (7) applications for the position in response to the posting
of the position opening to full time and part -time employees of the City of
Brooklyn Center. Tom Bublitz and I reviewed the applications and determined
that, in our opinion, four (4) candidates had the necessary qualifications for
the position. We interviewed these four candidates:
Gerald Olson, Retail Supervisor, Liquor Stores
Russell Husten, Police Department Office Manager
Dean Desjardins, part -time Recreation Building Coordinator
Dennis Kueng, part -time Liquor Stores Clerk
The two part -time employees have full time positions elsewhere. The oral
interview board felt that all four were excellent candidates.
As a result of the oral interviews and our review of the applicants' educa-
tional background and work experience, it is our unanimous opinion that Mr.
Gerald Olson is the most qualified of the candidates and we recommend that he
be appointed to the position of Liquor Stores' Manager..
Mr. Olson was first employed by the City of Brooklyn Center as a Liquor Stores
full time retail clerk on May 14, 1975. He was promoted to the position of
Retail Supervisor on December 18, 1979. In that position, he has assisted the
Liquor Stores' Manager in all areas of the liquor stores' operations. Those
areas include purchasing, employee scheduling, hiring and firing recommendations
to the City Manager, inventory control and marketing. He has shown excellent
progress in his nine years of City employment. He was named acting Liquor
Stores' Manager during the period from September 2, 1983, to March 2, 1984,
during the extended illness of Mr. Truman Nelson, Liquor Stores' Manager. His
performance as acting Liquor Stores' Manager was excellent and the liquor
stores' operations continued to function smoothly under his direction. He was
,•, — �(e a�'asrcetica� �t acct' �'��y
s
Memorandum to Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
Liquor Stores' Manager Recommendation
June 13, 1984
Page Two
again named actin g q Manager Liquor Stores' Mana upon Mr. Nelson's retirement and
P
is now serving in that position.
Mr. Olson was instrumental in the testing, evaluating, and eventual installation
of an automated liquor inventory control system for the liquor stores. Mr.
Olson has used the information generated by that system to make himself a better
store manager. Mien asked during the interview, Mr. Olson made several recommen-
dations in the.area of pricing and marketing, which I feel will improve our
liquor operations. Mr. Olson is at a point in his career where he is experienced,
but still has room for growth. He appears eager to grow in his chosen career
and shows a strong willingness to do whatever necessary to improve himself.
Bob McGuire, Liquor Stores' Manager for the City of Fridley and a member of
our interview panel, recently served on the panel which interviewed applicants
for the position of Liquor Stores' Manager for the City of Mound. That position
was open to all and publicly advertised. Over eighty (80) applications for the
position were received. He said that the panel interviewed nine of the eighty
candidates. I asked Mr. McGuire to compare Mr. Olson to the candidates inter-
viewed by the City of Mound. Mr. McGuire stated that, based on our interview
and a review of Mr. Olson's qualifications, Mr. Olson would certainly have been
one of the top three candidates, and having the advantage of knowing the local
operations, would probably be ranked number one. Mr. McGuire, who has over
thirty years experience in the retail liquor business, was impressed with Mr.
Olson's knowledge of our liquor operation.
Mr. Olson graduated from North High School in 1955. Prior to being employed by
the City, Mr. Olson was employed by Control Data for seven years. During his
employment with Control Data, he attended various management and supervisory
seminars. He has expressed an interest in improving his marketing skills. He
intends to accomplish that objective by enrolling in courses offered by North
Hennepin Community College or another such institution.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul W. Holmlund
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption: °
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A 2,000 GALLON WATER TANK
WHEREAS, the purchase of a 2,000 gallon water tank was approved
in the 1984 budget; and
WHEREAS, written quotations for the purchase of a 2,000 gallon
water tank were accepted until June 15, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the quotations were is follows:-
Bidder Quotation
Ruffridge - Johnson Equipment $5,975.00
Determar Welding & Lock Service 7,800.00
Arrow Tank and Engineering 9,090.00
WHEREAS, the City's purchasing policy requires the City Council
to award purchases between $5,000 and $14,999, upon recommendation
of the City Manager.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center the quotation of Ruffridge- Johnson in the amount of $5,975
. for a 2,000 gallon water tank be 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.
r
Member introduced the following
solution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED ISSUANCE
OF REFUNDING BONDS UNDER THE MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
ACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (this Council) of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the City), as follows:
Section 1. Findings -
It is hereby found, determined and declared as follows:
(01) The City is authorized by the Municipal Industrial Develop -
ment Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, as amended (the Act) to
issue and sell revenue bonds for the purpose of refunding bonds pre-
viously issued under the Act.
(02) Pursuant to previous authorization by this Council, follow -
ing proper notice and public hearing, the City issued its $8,200,000
Commercial Development Revenue Bonds (Brookdale Office Park Partner -
hip Project), Series 1982 (the Original Bonds) in order to finance a
rti.on of the cost of a project on behalf of Brookdale Office Park
artnership, a Minnesota general partnership (the Company). At the
time of.the issuance of the Original Bonds the proposed project
consisted of the acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping
of three commercial office buildings, located in the area northwest
of the Brookdale Shopping Center in the City (the Project). Only one
office building, approximately 55,000 square feet in size, was actually
constructed. As a result, a portion of the Original Bonds was redeemed
prior to maturity. The current outstanding principal amount of the
Original Bonds is $3,450,000. The Company now proposes that the City
issue revenue bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount of
$3,450,000 in order to redeem and refund the Original Bonds (the Re-
funding Bonds).
(03) Pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of
Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code), and the regula-
tions adopted thereunder (the Regulations), a public hearing relating
to the proposed issuance of the Refunding Bonds was held this date prior
to the adoption of this resolution (the Public Hearing) after notice of
the Public Hearing had been duly published in accord with the require-
ments of the Code and Regulations. At the Public Hearing all parties
who appeared were given an opportunity to express their views with
respect to the proposed issuance of the Refunding Bonds.
Section 2. Preliminary Approval -
(01) The issuance of the Refunding Bonds in the approximate
aggregate principal amount of $3,450,000 is hereby approved, subject
to the Company, the purchaser or purchasers of the Refunding Bonds,
the City, and any other interested parties reaching agreement regard-
ing the definitive terms and conditions of the Refunding Bonds and
the other agreements and instruments to be executed and delivered in
connection with the issuance of the Refunding Bonds.
(02) In all events, it is understood, that the Refunding Bonds
shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable,
upon any property of the City, except the,Project, and the Refunding
Bonds, when, as, and if issued, shall recite in substance that the
bonds, including interest thereon, are payable only from the revenues
received from the Project and property pledged to the payment thereof,
and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any
constitutional or statory limitation.
(03) The Mayor, the City Clerk, the City Manager, and other
officers, employees and agents of the City, and bond counsel, are
hereby authorized to initiate and assist in the preparation of such
documents as may be appropriate to the issuance of the Refunding Bonds.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,
innesota, this 25th day of June, 1984.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
The motion for 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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant
DATE: June 22, 1984
SUBJECT: IRB - Brookdale Office Park Partnership
The IRB request before the Council Mcnday evening is a refunding of an ori-
ginal bond for the Brooklyn Crossing Office Complex. Originally, the bonds
issued were for short term financing for the project and it was contemplated
that the applicants would come back to the Council for long term financing.
The bonds are now due and thus the application before the Council. Only
one (1) building has been built and at this time, the other two (2) are
not being considered. As a result, the developers are requesting approval
of a $3,450,000 bond as opposed to the original $8,200,000.
It is the staff recommendation that the Council give approval to the IRB
request.
• MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITE' OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE. OF' MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JU14E 14 1984
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
Thy Planning Cormnission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman
George Lucht at 7 :34 p.m.
ROLE. CALL
Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas,
Carl Sandstrom and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and
Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Janes Grube and Planning Assistant Gary
Shallcross.
APPRO OF' MINU -- MAY 24, 1984
Motion by Comnnissioner I;alecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the
minutes of the May 24, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in
favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom and Nelson. Not voting:
Commissioners Simmons and Ainas because they were not at that meeting. The motion
passed.
Commissioner Manson arrived at approximately 7 :40 p.m.
APPLICA NOS.. 8401 AND 84016 (By erly's, I nc.)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of
business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a Byerly's
store and attached shopping center at the southeast corner of Summit Drive and
Shingle Creek Parkway and a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide
into two tracts, the land on which this development would be built. The Secretary
reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information
Sheet for Application Nlos. 8 and 84016 attached).
Commissioner Simmons inquired regarding the traffic report mentioned in the
conditions of approval. The Secretary stated that the staff had just received a
copy of that report and would have to analyze it to see if signals were needed at John
Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Simmons asked whether
signals would indeed be needed. The City Engineer answered that staff could not say
one way or the other at this time. He explained that the traffic study submitted
only addresses traffic generated by the proposed Byerly's and shopping center uses.
He stated that traffic generated by all of the other uses existing and proposed in
the area of the Industrial Park south of the freeway would have to be considered in
determining whether traffic signals were warranted at John Martin Drive and Shingle
Creek Parkway. Commissioner Simmons asked why the report was necessary if it did
not determine the need for traffic signals. The Secretary responded that the
report does provide part of the information that is needed. The City Engineer added
that physical counts of existing traffic have been taken. He stated that the
information in the study, along with the existing counts, could provide enough
information to warrant ;tutting in signal;, : bile the development is underway rather
than waiting for the develoPz„ent to function for a period of time, or fail to
function in the absence of signals. He also explained that the traffic counts were
necessary in order to justify signals on a X.i_nnesota State Aid Street (Shingle Creek
Parkway).
6 -14 -84 -1-
r
Commissioner Sandstrom inquired regarding the need for security 'Lighting. The
Secretary responded that he assumed that there would be such lighting on the back o#'
the building although it was not shown on the plans at this time. He suggested that
Commissioner Sandstrom question the applicant on this matter.
The City Engineer recommended an additional condition regarding any dewatering of
the site, that it be done in accordance with State and local codes. The Secretary
added that a condition acknowledging proof -of- parking should also be attached to
the approval. The Planning Assistant also pointed out that the restaurant within
the Byerly's building would apparently be over 10% of the floor area of the Byerly's
building. He pointed out that this exceeded the level which is allowed in retail
areas without providing additional parking based on the restaurant formula.
Noting the excess parking contained in the proof -of- parkin;, however, he stated he
did not think there would be a problem meeting parking .requirements.
Chairman Lucht then called on a representative of the applicant to speak. In
response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding security lighting, Mr.
Rice stated that such lighting would be provided and would be shown on the final
drawings submitted for building permits.
The City Engineer then inquired as to the meaning of the proposed driveway easement
on the LaBelle I s property shown on the prel iminary R. L. S. Mr. Rice stated that he
did not know why the easement was shown in that location. The Secretary suggested
that it might be related to the previous R. L. S. which proposed such a driveway
easement for the Byerly's access off John Martin Drive.
PUBLIC H EARI NG (Application No. 8
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone
present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to
close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the
public hearing. The motion passer unanimously.
ACT ION RECOMM APPROV OF APPLICAT NO. 8 ( Byerl y's, Inc.)
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Corpnissioner Tarrson to recommend
approval of Application No. 84015, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of
permits.
2. Grading, drainage,utility and berming plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of
permits.
3, A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee
( in an amount to be dete�rm;ined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of
approved site .improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from viers.
6 -14 -84 -2 --
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA stand.Irds and shall be cor;nected to a central
monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City
Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
9. The R. L. S. for this property shall be given final approval by the
City Council and filed at the County prior to the issuance of
building permits.
10. The plans shall be revised prior to City Council consideration in
the following manner:
a. The driveway openings on John Martin Drive and Summit Drive
shall be widened to meet the recommendation of the Director of
Public Works and shall be revised to be at a 90 angle to
public right -of -way.
b. Additional shade and coniferous trees shall be provided along
the east side of the site, north of the property line jog to
provide better screening of the loading dock area and more
attractive appearance.
c. The exclusion of Tract B from underground irrigation shall be
removed.
d. Additional benches shall be provided in the sidewalk area in
front of the shopping center building.
e. The large parking lot island adjacent to the John Martin Drive
access shall be landscaped with at least two decorative trees
and shrubs consistent with landscaping by the building.
f. An additonal fire hydrant shall be provided at the jog in the
east property line to provide adequate fire protection to the
loading dock area.
g. Berms in the Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway greenstrip
areas shall reach a height of 3' above street grade, subject to
a max imum 3 :1 slope.
, T1. Traffic forecasts for the site including quantity and direction
shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council in
order to determine the possible need for traffic signals - at John
Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway.
G -14 -8� -3-
12. Plan approval acknowledges a waiver of the policy for a 125' offset
for the access onto John ",actin Drive and of the limitation of a 30'
driveway opening for the easterly access on Summit Drive.
13. An as -built survey of the site utilities shall be provided to the
City Engineer prior to release of the performance guarantee.
14. Any soil correction on the site and /or dewatering of the site shall
be conducted in a manner consistent with State and local codes.
15. Plan approval acknowledges a proof -of- parking for 435 parking
stalls on the Byerly's site and 247 stalls on the shopping center
site. The applicant shall agree in writing to provide such stalls
upon a determination by the City that proposed parking for the site
is inadequate. Such written agreement shall be submitted to the
City prior to the issuance of building permits.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ACTI RE COMENDI NG APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84 016 (Byerly's Inc.)
Motion by Commissioner Aims seconded by Commis si6nir Malecki to recommend approval
of Application No. 84016, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final R. L. S. is subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
2. The final R. L. S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter. 15 of the
City Ordinances.
3. Cross access and cross parking easements over the entire R. L.S.
shall be filed with the R. L. S. at the County.
4. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance
agreement with the City as required by the City Engineer.
5. Property irons shall be verified by the Engineering Department
prior to release of the performance guarantee posted for Planning
Commission Application No. 84015.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLI NOS. 8401 AND 84018 (Ev elyn Borge
The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for
preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at the
southeast corner of 73rd Avenue i'orth and Fremont Avenue North and a request for a
variance from Section 15 -106 of-the Subdivision Ordinance and Section 35 - 1 400 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow creation of a single -- family lot less than 9,500 sq. ft. in
area. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning
Comiission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 84017 and 84018 attached).
Chairman Lucht then asked whether the applicant had anything to add. Mr. James
Merila, representing the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add to the staff
report.
6 -14 -84 -4-
PUBL:CC HEARING - (Application Cdos. 84017 and 8
Chairman Lucht, then operlej the in ei �n„ fo ) p�ab) �c bearing on both the st.rbdivisiori
variance and the proposed plat asked '.'hetl anyone present wished to speak.
Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUPLIC iIEARING
iMotion `by Cowmissxaner Manson ,econded by Commi -siotier Sandstrom to close the
public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTIO RECOE APPROVAL OF APPLICrT:` -0^11 1 84017 (Evelyn Borgen)
Motion by Commissioner 19anson seconded by Comimissioner Nelson to recommend approval
of Application No. 84017, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
3. The existing portable shed to the south of the garage shall be
removed from the proposed Lot 2 prior to final plat approval.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Va- lecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ACTION RECOMP 'IENDING AP PROVAL OF APPLICATIOIN NO. 84018 (Evelyn Borgen)
Hlotian by Con Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval
of Application No. 8 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICA NO. 84 (Jo hn Guider)
The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request from Section 35-
400 of the Zoning Ordinance to: a) expand dwelling space into a garage less than 5
feet from the north side lot line and b) to construct a new garage to the south of
the dwelling Less than 10 feet from the south side lot. line. Tile Secretary reviewed
the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Application No. 84019 attached) .
The Secretary briefly showed the Planning Commission a survey of the property and a
proposed layout for the new garage in addition to the existing structure. He
explained the ordinance provisions which effect the application at hand. He stated
that footnote 12 of Section 35 -400 may apply to allow the expansion of dwelling space
into existing garage space at a setback that is at least 70r, of what the normal
setback requirement would be for dwellin`, space. The Secretary briefly recalled
the case of Jack Clifford in 1982 which led to the adoption of footnote 12 to allow
expansion of either dwelling space or acc�,ssory structure space along an existing
setback line if that setback were at least 70 of the normal requirement. He stated
that staff had originally felt that footnote 12 did not apply because the ordinance
differentiates between dwelling apace and accessory space. He felt, however, that
the Planning Commission could find that footnote 12 does apply in this case rather
than grant a variance in a situation which did not seem to be unique.
6- 14-84 -5-
~ '
The Secretary also added that the Buildi Inspector had inspected tbe premises and
reports that it has the characteristics of a two-family dwelling. He explained that,
based on this cIasoifioati0n, the existing use is a nonconforming use in the R1
�
zoning district and, therefore, cannot be expanded.
COnonimo10uer Simmons noted that the conversion has already begun arid that the five
bedrooms within the residence were being used as a two-family dwelling. She stated
that the Assessor may know that this is a two-family situation and is taxing it an
such and that io why the taxes are mohigh. The Secretary acknowledged that this may
be the cane. He explained that the Assessor Is records indicate that there are two
kitchens and essentially two dwelling units within the structure. Be explained
that, based on the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance, the lower unit does
meet the requirements for a second dwelling unit. He stated that the staff could
not really show that the property has not been used as a duplex since 1968 when it
became nonconforming. Be explained that a nonconforming use cannot expand by
occupying a greater area of land , but that the nonconforming use, under Section 35-
lII, could expand the existing structure.
Commissioner Simmons rioted tbemaDy complications involved in this case, but stated
that she felt there was no hardship. She suggested the possibility of building
additional dwelling space on the south side of the bnoze and leaving the existing
garage, a garage. She noted , however , that there seems to be a need for more garage
space if this is a two-family dwelling. She asked whether the two-family dwelling
status was legal. The Secretary explained that the two-family dwelling could
continue as 8 nonconforming Qsc but that ifitceased t0 function as 8 two-family
dwelling for a period Of two years, it could not be resumed.
Chairman Luoht stated that the question boils down to whether the. applicant wants n
two-family dwelling or whether to become a one-family dwelling and seek avariaOu8
to place ugarage to the south of the dwelling. Commissioner Simmons stated that
she felt there were implications for other decisions that have been made by the
Planning Conuniaoion in recent years if the variance requested here were granted.
The Secretary stated that lie DaIt the total circumstances of this case were fairly
unique from anything that has been decided recently.
Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt a two-oar garage isanecessity in the
Minnesota climate and that the lack of such garage would oVDatitQto a hardship for
the applicant. He also noted that the Assessor apparently acknowledges a oeoVod
dwelling unit in the premises. The Secretary expla that the Assessor looks at
property differently from zoning. He stated that the Planning and Inspection
Department had concluded that t}ze property was e two-family dwelling because of
structural characteristics required tinder the Housing Maintenance arid 0ooupeooy
Ordinance, not because of the Aose000r/orecords. lie stated that a variance should
not be granted on the basis only of the Assessor's findings. Commissioner
Sandstrom again stated he felt that two-car garage is necessity and that the lack
of it constitutes a hardship. The Secretary explained that the Standards for 8
Variance require that the hardship be ordinance related. 8e added that City
ordinance does not require a garage, aIthoo gar8geo are required in some
communities, and, therefore, 8 hardship is not based OD the ordinance.
Commissioner Sandstrom stated that if a person has two cars be needs a two-car
garage. Chairman Luoht oVuntered, however, that that logic would mean that 8
person with five cars is entitled to u five-oar grarage.
Commissioner AinaG asked whether there was any R2 zoned land in that area. The --
Secretary responded in the negative, hot added tbot there are some licensed two-
family dwellings as nonconforming uses in that area.
-v-
` CbairmouLUcht then called oil the applicant tospeak. Mr. John Guider, Of 5I15 East
� I*1n I.nkc 13oulevGrd, stated tbcat he had moved into the property six to eight years
a�� aod tbut he has worked continuously to u��ra .
de�he property time He
mxpIaioed Cbat be has a probIerr, vitb water draining in from tbe street, into the
QaraDe Pod finally down into the baomrrieot. He explained tbot it would be very
expon�!ivoCuraise the levol oil his, EzroQr abovcthe level of' the street and that if
be did so tbe door would be too low to 8et s truck into the garoge. He explained
that be waoted a 20' widoQarzQeon the south side of thle house and that only a corner
� of that garage would encroach into the IO` �etUaokrmgulre000t, He stated that he
had oono1dercd the option ofedoLmobed Oo�age, but had been told by the Planning
� Departmcot that a variance frou the frootyard setback would probably not be
considered favurabIy. Degardiug his status as a two-familydwelIiog, Mr. Guider
statcd that his neighbors to the south and tbe north are all two-family or three
family d*eIIiu-gs.
Chairman Lcobt pointed out to Mr. Guider that a two-faroiIy dwelling is a
OOncno[ormin� us
e in that zoning district. He asked Mr. Guider t wished to
stay as e two-faoiIy dwalliog. Mr. Guider responded in the affirmative. Chairman
LUcbt explained that, if he continued to be a two-family dwelling, his house would
ovotiooe to be e nou000formingr use and would not be allowed t0 expand. The '
Secretary clarified that the ordinance would allow the conversion of the garage to
dwSlIinc� spaoo, but that it would not alIootIlle nonconforming use tO cover a greater
area of land. Commissioner Nelson asked whether a garage expansion could be '.
�
distinguished frmo a dwoIIioQ space expansion. The Secretary responded in the
�
negative. '
Commissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Guider had had house problem for years and
asked whether it was really necessary for him to have a larger garage than be
presently had. Mr. Guider stated that it was important for him to have a garage that
wos.Iar8H enough to make the dwelling more marketable and not be o liability in
trying to sell the property. Mr. Guider then discussed with Commissioner Simmons
�
the problems with the existing house and garage and the expense of making the `
existing garage workable.
`
Chairman Luobt asked @r. Guider whether be intended to remain a two-family dwelling.
Mr. Guider stated that he had to, in order to afford to live in the property.
Chairman Lucbt explained that the City`o ordinance does not allow the expansion of
nonconforming use. Ccmon1ssiVoer NaIeoki noted that most of the neighbors in the
area have the same problem. She suggested that the property be rezoned and there
�
would beoo problem with an expansion. The Secretary noted overiaOoe would still �
be Deeded for the garage expansion to the south. Ue briefly recapitulated the way
the issues were stacking up in this case. Be explained that the conversion ofthe
existing garage to dwelling space could be permitted without a variance if the
Planning Cononiosionmade a finding that footnote 12 of Section 35-400 applied in
this caoe. A new garage, however, could not be permitted since the property was
classified as nonconforming use and an expansion would constitute a use variance.
�
Finally, be pointed out that if the property were zoned 82, a variance could be
�
comprehended and would berequired f'or the addition of agarage to the south of the
dwelling.
Chairman Luubt briefly recalled the adoption of the ordinance amendment that put
footnote l2 into the Zooing 8e stated that be did not see any conflict in
�
applying that footnote to the proposed garage conversion in Pert & of the
application. He added, however, that since the property is o nonconforming use, .
0-14-84 -7-
'
interior space could be converted but that an additional garage structure could not
be added. The Secretary agreed and noted that the applicant has applied for a
rental license for the second dwelling unit. Chairman Lucht noted that, if the
in expansion for a new garage w)uld be allowed-, but that a
property were zoned R2, , 9
variance would still be needed.
Conimissioner Ainas asked what percent of the homes in the area were two-family
dwellings. The Secretary stated that he did not know for sure, although lie knew
there were some licensed two -fa -roily dwellings in that area. He stated that the
property could be rezoned, but that this would take further analysis.
Mr. Guider stated that he already had a loan for the work and that he wished to
proceed. He stated that he could withdraw his application for a rental license and
rent the space in the lower level to a relative. The Secretary answered that a two-
family dwelling status is riot determined by who is renting the property, but how the
property is used. There followed a brief discussion between Chairman Lucht and Mr.
Guider regarding the layout of the house.
PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84019)
Chair Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone
present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to
close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
There followed a discussion of footnote 12 of Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance
and the precedent of other variances in the past. The Planning Assistant again
explained that Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance did not permit a nonconforming
use to expand by covering a greater area of land, whether that be a dwelling addition
or a garage addition. He added that that section does allow conversion of space
within an existing structure. He also pointed out that footnote 12 would allow the
expansion of existing dwelling space along an existing building line that was less
than 5 feet from a side interior property line, although it did riot directly address
the question of converting garage space that was less than five feet from the
property line to dwelling space.
Commissioner Manson stated that she felt the conversion of the existi lie garage to
CD
dwelling space is acknowledged by footnote 12. Cozm.missioner Sandstro."I stated that
he felt the applicant request could be met and stated that the property should be
rezoned to R2. The Secretary acknowledged that the property could be. rezoned at
some point in the future, but that that quest could not be settled within the time
frame that the ordinance sets for a variance request.
Commissioner Ainas stated that lie felt that finishing the existing, g, was
acceptable under City ordinance, but not the adddition of a new garage.
Commissioner Sirr.nons gave the aie opinioii. The Secretary stated tlhat the first
part of the application should be ndled thirou,-h an ord in.ancc i 1 pr e 1 C, a t ion and
not a variance. Ile stated that Lf`ie second part of the application could not be
allowed because the property is a
Tar 0 - ,md a use variance must not be
granted. Mir. Guider state - that the r. was asso'.1 that his property was a
duplex. He stated that it was not a &_iplex yet, hut tii t, tic was applyin, fo thel
_I 1 0 it
status. The Secretary disagreed. He stated that Vr. Guider 4i .ad a tv,
dwelling. He explained that, if a rental license wa�s denied, it w0uld be on the
basis of a failure to meet other Housing 111aint and Occupancy Ordinance
requirements, riot on the basis that Uie structure i3 a not a two-f;�mily dw,31ling.
6-14-84 -8-
ACTION kzl.C�)?r9i;i3DT "!C !1 �7PII)1 "tICr T,1:C�; ;' TP;�a "i'H . At'i?I,T.Cf:I3TL.TTY OF FOOTAIO'fH 12 `I'C) PART !1
__ -e_._ ___ _ _ .__ _. __ -- _r _
OF A1'�1 I`'1sI1(J1d t�
1Ji5 E 1 or T J Co lini s . oner 1hn won sec'orid d by Commissi Malecki to recommend a
ra_nr.ing t,hat.; fool - n� try i2 of Section ��_ I�7f) of th Zoning Ordinance applies to the
requ< t.'Co convert the e-1 isting garage tc) dll< lling space arid that no variance need be
granted J, or t,Y "! t !. or tier! of i.1,111ic ..: rl ; ._). 811019. Voting in favor: Chairman
Lu ;ht, Co r ssi.oncr.a r;alfcki, !1.inas, Sandstrom and Nelson.
Voting @ )ainst: none. 'Tine motion pr:s:_sed unani.mou,_aly.
ACTION RE110i IMENDING D NITAL, OF PART P OF APPLICATION NO. 8
Notion 1-;y i .,.,?_l?_a >?.ol "!G Ai.nav :econdcd b ' Nel —son to recol7imend denial of
Rant L of Application l o. 8 on the cund-- that the property is determined to be a
tt;o_t i l d1:,Jc.i_li;i that :it. is, ther a nonconforming use; that a
nonconfor�llini, use ender Section : .; -111 of the Zoning Ordinance is not permitted to
ex,pprid by covering a greater area of land; and that, therefore, to grant such a
variance td'>'a1d be a < us( variance contrai, y to City Ordinance and State law. Voting In
favor: Ch.-- lirrrlan L ucht, Corr itssio` ers la 'eki, Sa_inmons, 1 Ainas, Sandstrom
and 'Nelson. Voting against;: none. '1'1a:: motion passed.
RP,CE SS
TF I -inning Commission recessed at 10:00 p.m. and resumed at 10 :18 p.m.
A.PPLICAIJON NOS. 8 AND 84021 (R2=) Rau)
Foll«winfr 1c. 'he recess y the St cl et ar y the next items of business, a request
for site and building plan and specie use permit approval. to convert an existing
superette at 1 1 1 101 - 69th Avenue Nortla to a ce vice garage and to build a new superette
to the east of dais building, and for pr�e1 iminary plat approval to combine into a
single lot the two existing parcels at 68 ) . 19 Brooklyn Boulevard and 1 1401_ a 69th Avenue
North for at corlioined developiicnt. The Secretary revieured the contents of the staff
report (sue Planning Cominissi.on Information Sheets for Application Nos. 8'1020 and
84021 attached) . The Secretary explained that the demolition of the gas station
and the rcrnodel_i ng of the superette to a service garage could be allowed prior to the
filing of the plat.
Chairman Lucht noted that the plan called for brick on the north and east elevations
and concrete block on the other sides. The Secretary acknowledged this and pointed
out that the Planning Cor,lm:ission and City Council have allowed different materials
in other cases provided there was a consistent overall appearance. He mentioned
the Dale Tile <ippl.ic0zti.on and t;ae Spec. 1 application which involved different
building materials at certain ,points, but; a unifying theme., He pointed out that
there would be a consistent; facia treatment around the entire building and that the
col.oi of the rock - -faced block would be consistent with the color in the brick to
provide a, similar appearance. Commissioner L9anson asked whether the coloring of
the block would be permanent. The Secretary stated that he assumed so.
Coianissioner Manson expressed the concern that if the paint peeled from the concrete
block, this would certainly detract from the appearance. She inquired as to
screening; requirements for this development. The Secretary explained that
screeninL; of parking and driving areas, while generally sought, is only required
under the ordinance when there is a residential abutment. He explained that there
is no such residential abutment in this case and, therefore, no screening is
required.
Chairman Lucht then asked the appl_icant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Randy
Rau, otmer of the property in question, ..fated that: he was interested in trying to
improve the site from .hat presently exists.
6 -14 -84 -9-
PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 8 and 84021)
U — Lucht Sheri opened the meeting :fort public hearing on both the special use
C�
permit and the preliminary plat for this develo and asked whether anyone
present wished to speak regarding these applications.
li Mr. Robert Grosshans of 6920 Lee Avenue North stated that he had no objection to the
proposed development as such. He stated that it appeared to be an ii of
the property. He did express some concern regarding access to the site. He noted
the high traffic volume on 69th Avenue North. he stated that the closing 0 of the
access on Brooklyn Boulevard would appear to improve the general access situation.
He also pointed out that a particular problem is vehicles turning left from Brooklyn
Boulevard onto 69th Avenue North going west and then left again immediately into the
site. The Secretary explained that improvements planned for the intersection of
69th and Brooklyn Boulevard would include a median on 69th Avenue North extending
past the access to this site. The Secretary stated that the main traffic generator in
this area is the freeway itself. Mr. Grosshans stated that the Post Office also
generates a fair amount of traffic. He stated that a median on 69tn Avenue North
would improve the problem left turns into the Mobil station.
Mr. Don Lowry of 6914 Lee Avenue North asked what oi co, i be represented at
the site. Mr. Rau stated that he wa.--- looking at three or four different companies
and also the possibility of becoriing an independent and that he has not yet decided.
Mr. Lowry asked whether the modification to 69th Avenue North would include the
lowering of the street relative to T,ee Avenue Nor th. The City Engineer stated that
that possibility was being looked at, but had not been decided.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
'There b_e_in`g comments from persons present regarding these applications,
Chairman Lucht called for a motion to close the public hearing. 1 by
Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Coiinmissioner Ainas to close the public h earing.
The motion passed unanimously.
0
TI
ACTION REC0Tv'J'MENDINrT APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N 84020 (R an dy Rau)
- Flo — ti6H by Co�rnnissioner Sandstroni to recomtmond
approval of Application No. 84020, subject to tne following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable cones prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berriiing plans are subject t.0
review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of
permits.
3. A site performance agreernent :-2.nd supporting guarantee
(in an amount to he del. by the City shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion
of approved site imprr-)ve
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop me.chanical
equipment , ;hall be appropriately scro.ened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an ai 'itoiinatic fire
extinguishing system to NFPA �;','andards atid shall be
connected to a centr il monit:oringy device in accordance with
Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6-14=84 _10-
6. An under round irrigation system :;hall be installed in all
landscaped areas to facilitiate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
S. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
9. Freestanding lightposts within public right• of-way shall be
relocated onto private prnperty. The freestanding lights
adjacent to evisting punp islands or accesses to be closed shall
be removed during construction of the project
10. Landscape plantings shall not be installed in the site triangle
at the southwest corner of 6�),Iilh Avenue North and Brooklyn
Boulevard.
11. The special use perrmil is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
12. Plan approval is subject to the rec contained in the
City Engineer I s letter to 1 V. Rich Company dated J 7, 1984.
13. The final plat combining the parcels- shall be filed at the County
prior to issuance of any bulding permit for construction of the
new superette building.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
ACTION RECO, APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84021 (Randy Rau)
— 1 ,1 1 , o — t - 16 — n approval
of Application No. 84021, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
3. The preliminary plat shall be revised in accordance with the
letter of the City Engineer to M. V. Rich Co., Inc. dated June 7,
1984.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners tAalecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas,
Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
DISCUSSION ITEMS (McDonald's)
The secreL.aily briefly reviewed with the Planning Commission a proposed plan to make
a minor addition of a pay window at the Ncll.)on. Restaurant on Xerxes Avenue North.
6-14-84 -11-
He pointed out that the proposed addition would have no real. impact on setbacks or
parking requirements and that it was simply an addition to facilitate the flora of
traffic through the drive -up. He asked the Corrnris sion t o m akc a finaira g t} at this
proposal did not represent a significant addition or alteration to the building and
does not need Planning Cori'amission review.
ACTION REGARDING MCD AD DITION
E - 6 -1 ion by Commissioner xansan seconded by Commissioner Minas to find that the
proposed addition of a pay window at the Plc Donald's Restaurant is not a significant
addition or alteration to the building and does riot require Planning Commission or
City Council review. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki,
Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
D R. LESC R ESIDEN CE
T ,e Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission a proposed addition to the
residence at the southeast corner of 62nd Avenue Forth and Brooklyn Boulevard which
is presently owned by Dr. Lescault. He explained that Dr. Lescau_l_t conducts a
chiropractor home occupation within his dwelling. He explained that the original,
garage of the residence was converted to off ices in 1975 and that the home occupation
was considered at that time to be a professional office and, therefore, a perm :itted
home occupation under Section 35 -900 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary
explained that Dr. Lescault wishes to add two more offices and a dining room and
g ,rge to his dwelling. He explained that the residence has no garage at present and
gains access off 62nd Avenue North.
The Secretary stated that the real question is regarding the home occupation. lie
stated that such a medical use was a high traffic generator, certainly in the
category of beauty shops and similar operations. He, explained, however, that this
use has been considered a professional office and, under the Zoning Ordinance, a
permitted home occupation in the Rl zoning district. He asked the CaKmission for
direction as to whether this use should be looked at as a special use permit and
whether the proposed addition would lead the home occupation to go 'beyond the point
of being secondary and incidental to the residential uce of the premises. He also
pointed out that an existing site plan of the property indicates that the proposed
~addition , encroach into a side interior setback and that if a building permit
application were submitted, an as- 'guilt survey of the property would also be
required to verify setback information.
Cocnririssioner Simmons stated that the plans seer, to make the residence look like an
office with living quarters. The Secretary stated that; he felt a doctor's office
should be considered a special horde occupation. He stated that the Commission
could require that a special use permit application be „uklxriitted for the pro-pl)sed
addition and review the home occupation ordinance along with the home cccl]patlon at
th:t time or it could recommend that the staff siNply fine that they r.'}i;e oc=cupation
would no longer be secondary and :inci.dontal. and let Dr. Losc cult appeal such a
finding.
Commissioner Sirrnions stated that it already looks lake an extensive operation
within the home and that it would beeorn more so ;Ij.th the addition. Ito Planning
Assistant also pointed out that the addition of more office space apart from the
single-family dwelling might create they possibility that the residence would be
used as a two 0mll_y dwelling in t,he future, or even a boarding ng hol ce . Chairman
Lucht stated that he felt the doctor's office should be considered a special use.
6 -14 -84 -12
Commissioner Simii stated that felt the doctor I s proposal simply 1 not be
an incidental use within the pr(:. J ses, Casmissioner Sandsicroirri stated that he -f
the- doctor's office should 1) corisJ-dcred a rpecial u!. and that the matter should be
reviewed under a special u.-,e Nation, rather than denied by staff and
then appealed . the PI annir
nd planning staff discussed the option of
an appeal o.- a u-',(--' perrulit and that the proper
procedure would be to take a special u5c permit application.
ADJOURSENT
C AVEY Commissioner Malecki seconded by Corrmiissioncr Nelson to adjourn the
meeting of F)lanning Commission. Ile motion passed unanimously. The Planning
Camnission adjourned at 11:28 p.m.
Chairman
6-14-84 -13-
,
Planning Commission Information Sheet
, .
�
Application N0. 84015
'
Applicant: 8yer|y/S, Inc.
Location: blOO Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
� The applicant requests site and building plan approval for a 66,697 S0. ft. Dyerly's
store and restaurant and a 33,875 sq. ft. strip shopping center at approximately
6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by
John Martin Drive on the S0xth Shingle Creek Parkway On the west, Summit Drive on
the north, and by vacant C2 zoned ?and and LuBPlle on the east. Retail sales
and restaurants without live entertainment are permitted u32S in the C2 zoning
di3trict. A proposal for a 90,000 Iq. f1. Gyerly's store and restaurant was
approved by the City three years ago under Application No. 81007. That concept was
never built and this application is a revision of that original concept.
The site layout calls for one access off john Martin Drive toward the southeast
corner Of the property and two accesses off Summit Drive, one east and One west of
Earle Brown Drive which intersects With Summit Drive On the opposite side of the
street. NO accesses are provided onto Shingle Creek Parkway. Offsets of 125' are
maintained an Summit Drive. It may be difficult to provide a 125 offset from the
State Farm building access as has been the City's policy for driveways. Staff have
requested that all accesses be at 90 to the street right-of-way. The plans must
be revised t0 accomplish this standard policy' The Director of Public Works has
also recommended 4 widening of the accesses including d 32' w1d2 east aCC23S on
Summit Drive Which would exceed D0nmdl ordinance limitations.
Based an the retail formula, the parking requirement for 8yerly'S i3 415 SpdCeS and
for the Strip shopping center 235 spaces. Parking spaces in the main central lot
are to be striped at a width Of lO'. Using the ordinance minimum of 8 / 8" width,
there is d potential of 435 stalls on the By8rly property and 247 stalls On the
shopping center site. The number of parking spaces based on 10 wide striping is
343 spaces and 223 spaces respectively. The proof-of-parking based on ordinance
minimums, therefore, meets the ordinance formula for retail uses. The restaurant
use, provided it i3 not more than 70% of the gross floor of the retail Center
requires no separate additional parking.
The landscape plan calls for approximately 50 shade trees around the 13.43 acre
site including American Linden, Summit Ash, Norway Maple, Gr2eOSpire Linden,
Shademaster Locust and River Birch Clumps. Nineteen decorative trees such as Amur
Maple, Snowdrift Crab and H0pJ Crab are scheduled 670nU With 14 Black Hills Spruce.
Over 200 shrubs and 750 flowers (all white and red Geraniums) are also scheduled.
Staff have requested D few additional shade trees in the large greeDStrip area
along the easterly property line at the point where it j0g3. We have also requested
additional coniferous trees in the northeast Corner of the 8yprly property to
provide additional screening of the loading dock area behind the building. Finally,
we request that the large parking lot island at the south end of the site near the
access to John Martin Drive be landscaped with decorative trees and shrubs inasmuch
as it is d very large island. The landscape plan calls for large shade trees in
6 sodded islands surrounded by integral curb along the front of the shopping
Center. There are also landscape islands adjacent t0 the shopping center and the
Byerly building with benches provided near the entrance to the 8y2rly's restaurant
at the southwest corner of the Byerly building. Staff have requested additional
benches in the large sidewalk area in front of the shopping Center building, The
sidewalk infrOnt of the buildings i3 rather generous, from 20 to 55 wide. Under-
ground irrigation is noted for the Dy8rly site 0nly. This must also he provided
on the shopping center property.
6-l4-84 -l-
Application No. 84015 continued
The grading, drainage and utility plan is not much changed from the plan approved
three years ago, providing for most drainage in the main parking lot to be collected
by three catch basins in the approximate canter of the Byerly's lot: and conveyed by
a 24" storm sewer to the City storm sewer in Summit Drive. A smaller drainage area
behind the Byerly's building also drains by storm sewer to Summit Drive and the
southerly portion of the main parking lot will drain by storm sewer to John Martin
Drive. The parking lot area will sit at a lower elevation than the surrounding
streets. Therefore, although berms are proposed at 2' to 3' heights, it is recom-
mended that berming be increased, especially in the larger green areas, along
Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive to provide more effective parking lot
screening. There is also a need for an additional fire hydrant at the jog in the
easterly property line to provide adequate fire protection to the loading dock area
behind the buildings.
The Byerly's building and the shopping center building will be connected, along a
common wall, but there will be no opening between the two buildings. The exterior
of both buildings will be brick with a brick soldier course approximately 6' wide
along the upper half of the wall around the entire building. There will be no
canopy over the front of either the Byerly's or the shopping center building, but
there will be occasional wing walls coming out from the building. The plan shores
screening walls for the dumpster and loading dock areas behind the building. Site
lighting is provided by high pressure sodium light fixtures on 35' high poles
spaced between 100' and 200' apart. No security lighting on the back of the build -
ing has been shown, but it is presumed there will be such lighting.
Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject
to at least the following conditions.
I. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of {permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion
cf approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fir' extinguishing
system to meet N PA standards and shall be connected to a central
monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped
areas to facilitate site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and
driving areas.
6- 14--84 -2-
Application No. 84015 continued
9. The R. L. S. for this property shall be finaled and filed at the
County prior to the issuance of building permits.
10. The plans shall be revised prior to City Council consideration in
the following manner:
a) The driveway openings on Bohn Martin and Summit Drives shall
be widened to meet the reco;t' ation of the Director of
Public Works and shall be revised to be at a 90 angle to
public right- of -;;ay.
b) Additional shade and coniferous trees shall be provided along
the east side of the site,nor:h of the property line jog to
provide better screening of the loading dock area and more
attractive appearance..
c) The exclusion of Tract B from underground irrigation shall
be removed.
d) Additional benches shall be provided in the sidewalk area
in front of the shopping center building.
e) The large parking lot island adjacent to the John ["Martin
Drive access shall be landscaped with at least two
decorative trees and shrubs consistent with landscaping
by the building.
f) An additional fire hydrant shall be provided at the jog
in the east property line to provide adequate fire
protection to the loading dock area.
g) Berms in the Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway
greenstrip areas shall reach a height of 3' above street
grade, subject to a maximum 3:1 slope.
11. Traffic forecasts for the site including quantity and direction
shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council in
order to determine the possible need for traffic signals at
John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway.
12. Plan approval acknowledges a waiver of the policy for a 125'
offset for the access onto John (Martin Drive and of the
limitation of a 30' driveway opening for the easterly access
on Summit Drive.
13. An as -built survey of the site utilities shall be provided to.
the City Engineer prior to release of the performance guarantee.
6 -14 -84 -3-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. (94016
Applicant: Byerly's, Inc.
Location: 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Preliminary R.L.S.
The applicant seeks preliminary R.L.S. approval for a two tract subdivision at
approximately 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned C2
and is bounded by John Martin Drive on the south, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the
west, by Summit Drive on the north and by La Belle's and vacant commercially zoned
land on the east. This subdivision is the location of the Byerly's and shopping
center development proposed under Application No. 84015.
The property is presently described as Tracts A, B, C, E, F and part of D, R.L.S.
1325. The proposed legal description is Tracts A and B of an as -yet- unnumbered
R.L.S. The total site is 13.433 acres. Tract A on the north portion of the site
for Byerly's - is 8.646 acres. Tract B for the shopping center on the southerly
part of 4.787 acres.
A 10' NSP easement is designated along John Martin Drive and along Shingle Creek
Parkway. No other easements are indicated within the R.L.S. Cross access ease-
ments and cross parking easements over the entire R.L.S. should be filed with the
R.L.S. at the County.
Part of the interior property line separating the tracts is also a building line.
The R.L.S. will have to be finaled and filed at the County prior to issuance of
building permits.
Altogether, the proposed R.L.S. appears to be in order and approval is recommended
subject to at least the following conditions:
1. The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter
15 of the City Ordinances.
3. Cross access and cross parking easements over the entire
R.L.S. shall be filed with the R.L.S. at the County.
4. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance
agreement with the City as required by the City Engineer.
5. Property irons shall be verified by the Engineering Department
prior to release of the performance guarantee.
6 -14 -84
� Planning Commission Information Sheet
�
`
Application NO. 84017
� Applicant: Evelyn 8nrgen
Location: 1210 73rd Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the
parcel at 1219 - 73rd Avenue North. The parcel is Z002d Kl and is bounded on
the 2DSt and south by single-family homes, an the west by Fremont 8Y2AU2 North
and on the north by 73rd Avenue North. The surrounding area is single-family
residential. There exists d single-family home on the northerly portion of the
parcel.
The existing parcel is 19,830 3q. ft, and is described by motes and bounds OS
part Of Lot 45, Auditor's Subdivision N0. 304. The pr0pOscd plat would divide
this parcel into [0t I and Lot 7 of Block l, B0rgen Addition. [0t l would be a
corner lot, 10,790 Sq. ft, in area (the minimum is 10,500 Sq. ft.) and 90 wide
� at the setback line. Lot 2 would be an interior lot, B 5q. ft. in area '9,5OO
� `
� 3Q. ft, i3 the ordinance minimum) and BMW wide at the setback line. Approval
of the preliminary plat application is, therefore, subject to approval of a Variance
for lot area on Lot l. No other substandard conditions would exist'
The existing garage, connected t0 the house at the roof with an Open breezeway,
�
would be 3 from the side interior property line separating Lots I and 2. This
�
meets the minimum SidPyard setback requirement for accessory buildings. A portable
Shed would wind up iU3t south Of the mutual side property line on Lot l and must
�
be relocated unto the applicant's property 'Lot 2\ prior to final plat approval.
� The mutual side interior property line is to be at a skewed angle from the easterly
right-of-way line of Fremont Avenue North. The location of the proposed v
� -- line makes Lot 2 wider at the front and narrower at the back and Lot l (the COrDr
lot) vice versa.
` `
The proposed Lot 2 already has a separate water service to the property line Which
was installed in 1964, and for which the assessments have been almost totally paid
up. There i3 no S2WRr service t0 the property line and this Will have t0 be installed
when a dwelling i5 built On the new interior l0t.
Altogether, the proposed plat appears 10 be in order and approval is recommended,
�
subject t0 at least the following conditions:
�
� I. The final plat is subject t0 review and approval by the City Engineer.
�
� 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
� Ordinances.
�
�
3- The existing portable shed t0 the south of the garage shall be removed
� from the proposed Lot 2 prior to final plat approval.
6-l4-84
'
` Planning ConmflnsiOn Information Sheet
Application N0, 84018 '
Applicant: Evelyn D0rgcn
LocaCi0n: 7219 - 73rd Avenue North
Request: Variance 0
The applicant requests O variance from Section 35-400 Of the Zoning Ordinance and
Section 15-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance t0 allow the creation of an interior
Single-family lot in the RI zone with 72S5 than 9,500 sq. ft. of area. The proposed
lot is located on the large corner parcel at the SVuth2JSL corner Of 73rd Avenue
North and Fremont Avenue North /see Application N0. 84017\. The proposed lot meets
the width requirement of 75 at the property - line and the average depth requirement
of ]]0 The area of the proposed lot is 9,040 5q. ft., 480 sq. ft. less than the
ordinance requirement of 9,500 sq. ft. The VOri8OC8 i3 to the standards
set forth in Section 15-I12 and 35-240 (attached).
The applicant's representative, Mr. Jim Merila, has submitted O letter /attdChEd\
addressing - the Standards for 0 Variance . The letter reviews the facts `utlined '
above and proceeds to point Out that the pr0pO52d interior lot is 95% 0� 1"he required
area and meets the requirements for depth and frontage. It is argued that the
strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable
use of her land. The letter also states that the Variance is necessary for preservation
and enjoyment Of a substantial propert Of the petitioner because the existing
parcel has b28en assessed for t� w
O ate and sewer services. The letter also SLat2S
that there will be no detrimental effect on the public welfare Or to other proper
because the development would have 'little effect on traffic and use would be cons
1,� ith the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the letter notes �hat the proposed
variance i3 not inconsistent With City policy in a number Of similar sUbdiYisi0ns.
Of the four cases cited by Mr' Merild, three involve area variances. These three
were all granted in the early 10 mid 7970'S. In fact, there has not been O variance
granted for area deficiency since 1976. The p NhiCh the City has arrived
at over the years, especially the la5L lU years, is that subdivis var Can
be granted if two Of the three lot requirements /width, depth" and ' area) ar
- and if there is no excess area available on neig lots. 14e are not Certain,
m
but there appears t0 be a slight auunt of excess land on the neighbori 70t t3
�
the south. However, e d0 not'
rec0mmend that the requested var�dnCe be denied
on those grounds, in light Of: 3\ the fact that the proposed interior l0L does
meet two Of the three lot requirements: b extent of the variance is slight' "
c\ the benefit, public and private, of tr 0u
�rring a small �mnt of !and from
one lot to another sCem5 unreos0nab7y small relative- to the c0�t inv0lved; d\
the neighbOring pr 0w�er may b� unwilling t0 sell land at an agreeable ' riCe,
thus preventing an otherwi5e reasonable subdivision.
'
In addition, we agree with the applicant's representative that the prior 35SeISmeUt
of the property for a second water and sewer service certainly indicates an acknowl-
edgement by the City that Jn additional 70t waS feasible. The letter submit ted
oddreIs the standards s8' forth in the Subdivision Ordinance, but riot the standard"
T
in the Zoning Ordinance. he |Otter standards d0 seem more r,�lated L0 the reqUiy2NCntS
pertaining to structures Or i0pr0VCQeUtS on land than 10 the land i15e!f, though
it NUSt be added that lot siZ� is a. zoning as Well as a 5VbdiYiSi0n re�Uirem8nL.
The Zoning Ordinance standards would SC�� t0 b2 met in this ClS9. We believe d
hardship would exist if the rpa3onab7e use Of the app7iCanIt's land were denied
/and this Subdivision dues Seem reasonable to us). Thg circumstances of ihis
application are fairly unique in Chat a second w and sewer service are Jvai]��l'����
t0 th6 existing parcel.
6-l4-84 -l-
�
!
Application No. 84018 continued
The insufficiency of land was not created by the applicant, but is related to the
requirements of the City 0rdinance5. The requirement for a 10,500 sq. ft. corner
lot was not in effect when the existing pa was created and the assumption
at that time may have been that adequate land existed for two standard lots of
9,500 sq. ft. Finally, the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare
or surrounding property.
In conclusion, then, staff agree with the dpplicant's request for a variance
and recommend that the application be approved on the grounds that the Standards
for a Variance are met and in lieu of the conditions attached to Application
No. 84017.
6-14-84 -2-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application Flo. 84019
Applicant: John Guider
Location: 5115 E. Twin Lake Boulevard
Request: Variance
The applicant requests approval of a two --part variance to allow expansion of dwelling
space by converting an existing garage located less than 5' from one side property
line and the construction of an attached garage less than 10' from the opposite side
lot line. These variances are from Section 35 -400, footnote 3b, of the Zoning
Ordinance (attached) and are subject to the Standards for Variance set forth in
Section 35 -240 (attached). The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on
the north and south by residences, on the east by East Twin Lake Boulevard, and on
the west by Upper Twin Lake.
Footnote 3b of Section 35 -400 allows dwelling space to be less than 10', but not less
than 5' from one side interior property line, provided all other setback require-
ments are met, that-there are no windows or doors along the wall less than 10' from
the side lot line and provided there are no accessory structures in the side yard
where a 10' setback is maintained. Staff have interpreted this last provision as
requiring a 10' sideyard setback for any garage that is placed in the other side
yard between the dwelling and the side lot line, when dwelling space is set back
less than 10' in one side yard. The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage
to dwelling space 4' from the north side property line and to build a new garage
7' from the south side property line.
The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a
Variance for each part of this application. We will review and analyze each portio
separately.
Par A: Dwelling space less than 5' from side lot line.
The applicant argues, first of all, that the 4' setback of the existing garage is
a result of an improper action by the builder and the City Inspector in 1953 when
the garage was built and the minimum sideya•rd setback for a garage was 5'. (The
building permit for that garage does indicate a 5' setback, but a recent survey of
the property reveals only a 4' setback). Secondly, he argues that the topography
of the lot places the garage below the street level and that water can drain from
the street into the garage and from there into the lower level of the residence.
Thirdly, the applicant argues that the existing garage space is unsuited to its
use because it is too small to accommodate two regular size cars (part of the
garage is only 14' deep). Finally, the applicant points out that the neighboring
residence to the north is 50' to 60' away and there will be no detrimental effect
on neighboring property as required by standard (d).
In response to these arguments, staff acknowledge that the appliant has little
control over an error made over 30 years ago. We would ask, however, whether this
argument would seem as valid if the garage had been built only 1' from the side
lot line or even over the side lot line? Difficulties of this type were taken
into account in 1982 when the City amended its ordinance to allow expansion along
an existing building line ( fnr 1 or 2 family dwellings) if tnat building line is
set back at least 70% of the relevant requirement (Section 35 -400, footnote 12).
The proposed conversion of space, which incidentallvrras commenced without permits
and has been halted pending action on the variance request, sloes not really fall
under the governance of footnote 12 of Section 35 -100.
6- 14 - -84 -1-
Application NO' 84019 continued
'
�
However, we believe that that footnote dons provide d guide as t0 What N0uld'C0n-
stiiuta an unacceptable setback encrDochmenL in this Case. The existing 4 setback
is more than 70% Of the normal requirement of 5 and would, therefore, he considered
an acceptable 2DCrOach0PUt using this reJsoning.
The topography of the lot d0c5 appear t0 present some hardship in this case in that
the applicant C8DDOt feasibly rJiqe the garage, Which is attached t0 the dwelling,
above the level of the street and reverse the f\ON Of drainage. There may, however,
be alternative ways of diverting drainage away from the structure beside the plan
Of the applicant t0 disconnect the driVcWay from the existing garage. The appli-
cant's concern over the size of the existing 93rdq2 cannot really be the basis for
a VariunCe hardship since City Ordinance does not require 6 two-car garage nor
r2C0g3iZg it as J necessity, As to the effect, OD surrounding property, We would
�
reject the existing l0CJti00 of the neighboring residence as a basis for making a
�
�
favorable finding with respect t0 standard /d\. As long as the neighboring property
owner has the ri h� under SrdiOaOC2,C0 place dwelling space as C7oS8 03 5 or
garage space as close as 3 from the property line, the detrimental effect must be
gU6ged on the basis Of those property rights not existing conditions. Neverthe-
less, we Concur that the effect of the proposed variance would not noticeably
injure those rights.
In general, staff feel that standards /n\ /C\, and (d) Can be Said to be met.
However, it is difficult t0 find that standard (b) regarding uniqueness is met in
light Of the large number Of garages that have been built lgSS than 5' from O side
�
lot line since the setback requirement was Changed t0 3/ in the 1960 Moreover,
�
we are not prepared to offer or recommend any ordinance change to allow dwelling
�
space as Cl0SC as 3 from a Side lot line. The ordinance Change which allowed a 5'
setback for dwelling space on one side was not supported by a community survey; nor
was it arrived at quickly by the City Council. The COnnniISi0D may, of course,
wish t0 consider or recommend such an ordinance amendment as O means of resolving
this and other similar situations. Because the present situation dO2S not seem
unique t0 us, we cannot recommend approval of this part of the variance application.
�
Part B Garage setback of l2SS than 10 on south Side.
�
Regarding the second part of this application, the applicant states that d garage
meeting d lU/ Side rd setback an the south side would be Only 17' wide /t00 Small
� for a double garage) and that a single garage is inadequate for a house With 5
�
bedrooms. A 20' wide garage would have o sidpyord setback Of 7.4 at the closest
�
corner. Mr. Guider states that the hardship is Created by a pie-shaped l0t, If
the lot were rectangular, no variance would be required Since the front of the
garage is 11.3 from the south side lot line. He argues that there would be no
detrimental effect on the public welfare or neighboring property because there
is d garage between the neighboring dwelling and the common property line. He
concludes by saying that denial of the variance would be an extreme hardship for
him h8Cdus2 0 17/ wide garage would be inadequate for his hOme. He adds finally,
that he has worked t0 improve his property and that his property taxes have increased
accordingly.
� Staff agree with most of these arguments as far JS they 8n. It is true that the
�
�
shape and topography 'a detached garage behind the house would be below the 100
� yr' flood level of Mr. Guider lot prevent him from building a two-car garage.
6-14-84 ` -2-
�
'
, Application No, 84019 continued ' ^
It is still O question of whether the lack Of an extra garage stall constitutes J `
hardship or a mere inrOnvenience. The circumstances of this case, taken together,
are fairly un1gUe. We also agree that no detrimental effect should take place
Since, Under normal circumstances, a garage could be as close as 3 from the Side
lot line and the minimum resulting opening between garages in this CnS9 would he
lU', ample for reaching the rear yards. It does not appear, however, that the ,
hardship of being unable t0 have 8 two-Car garage /if that i3 a hardship) south of
the dwelling is unrelated to the original decision of the owner to put the dwelling
where it is and an attached garage on the north side. It is partly caused by the
Shape and topography of the lot in conjunction With ordinance requirements and
partly caused by the h circumstance of the house's location, a circumstance
Cre6ted by someone formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. On its own
merits, the second part of this variance request may be justified, depending on
What i3 judged t0 he d hardship and what is ultimately causing that hardship.
C. Considering both parts.
It should be 0bViOUS that these two parts of Application N0. 84019 are very much
r873t2d, Part (b) i3 definitely subordinate to part (a). If part /a\ i3 not
approved, then the existing garage must remain 3 garage (and the remodeling begun
will have to be reversed). If the existing garage remains, there would probably
be little need for an additional garage on the south side of the dwelling, thus
obviating the need for part /h\ of the variance. It might be feasible t0 add D
dwelling addition t0 the south of the existing residence and leave the garage a
garage. This would require no Variances at all. Finally, it Should be noted that
Mr. Guider has applied for a Rental Dwelling License for o lower living Unit.Staff
have not determined whether a legal nonconforming duplex does exist on the property.
If the property is considered to be a two-family dwelling, it is a nonCGnF8rming
use in the Rl zone. As such, it may not be enlarged or increased or occupy d
greater area of land than that occupied by the use in 1968 when it UeCdm2 noncon-
forming (Section 35-110,subSecti0n I\. Therefore, the addition of 8 garage would
not be allowed under any circumstances except if the property reverted t0 a single-,
family dwelling or the land were zoned R2 and the two-family use became c0DfOrming.
This application i5 clearly very complex and staff are not prepared to give a firm
recommendation at this time. In many ways, it seems that what the applicant wishes
t0 do is reasonable, will increase property value, and Will not be detrimental LO
anyone else. Nevertheless, he cannot d0 so without violating the letter of the
ordinance. The ConmiSSiOn is Urged to Consider this matter carefully in light of
the circumstances of the case and the Standards for o Variance. We will try to
respond t0 any questions at Thursday night's meeting. A public hearing has been
scheduled and notices have been Sent'
6-14-84 -3-
�
^
' ~ Planning Commission Information Sheet
^
Application NO.84020
Applicant: Randy Rau
Location: 6B49 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4401 69th Avenue North
Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use
The applicant requests site and building plan and 5pcCial use permit approval t0
C0;strVCL a service station and 5up2reLtC at the site Of the existing Mobil Station
and SVp8r2tLe Ot 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4401 - 69th Avenue North. Briefly,
the proposal calls for the demolition Of the existing Mobil Station, the conversion
of the existing \Up2rette t0 a service garage with two repair bays, and the
CDDStrUCti0D Of J new 2,160 s0. ft. 5uperette to the east of the existing SU;er2tte
building. In addition, the two gas pump islands on the site will be removed
and a single island installed in front of the Sup8rPtt2. The property in question
i3 ZOA8d C2 and is bounded on the north by 69Lh Avenue North, OD the east by
Brooklyn Boulevard, On the south by the 0ld A & W R2sLnUranL, and on the west
by the U. S. Post Office. Gasoline SprviCe StJ1i0:s offering for sale items
other than fuels, lubricants or 6U1UmoTiv8 parts and aCCeS50ri8I are special
US2S within the C2 zoning district and are subject 10 the standards set forth
in Section 35-220,SUbseCti0n Z (attached).
The parking requirement for the proposed use is d combination of the service
station formula and the retail f0nAUl6. These formulas require 3 SpaC2S per
service bay` plus one for each day Shift employee, plus two 5pdCe3 for service
vehicles. This works Out to l| spaces for two service bays and three employees
and two service vehicles. The retail formula for this Size building is ll spaces
for the first 7,000 5q. ft. of gross floor area, plus 8 spaces for each additional
1,000 lQ' ft. The retail superette is to be 2,150 sq. ft. This works out to
20 parking spaces, based on the above formula. The proposed Site plan calls
for 31 purkingspdc2s, including 4 at the pump island. Counting the spaces at the
pump' island, which meet the requirements for parallel parking stalls, the plan
meets the combined requirement of the service station and retail formulas..
ACCeS3 to the site will be limited to One opening off 69th Avenue North and one
opening off Brooklyn Boulevard. This will result in the closing of one opening
onto Brooklyn Boulevard closest t0 the intersection. The existing opening onto
69th Avenue North is 38' wide measured along the right-0f-way line, Section
35-703 of the Zoning Ordinance limits such accesses to 3 width of 30 The
existing access should, therefore, be narrowed. The plan does take into account
dedication of 8' Of additional right-of-way along 69th Avenue North and parking
and gr22nCtrip areas are adjusted dCCordioO7y,
The proposed landscape plan provides for a 15' wide greenstrip along 69th Avenue
North along Brooklyn Boulevard. There is a lO' wide sidewalk easement within the
greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard. Sidewalks are normally located within right-
of-way; however, there is considerable precedent for allowing sidewalks within
yreenstrip areas along Brooklyn Boulevard because this roadway has been widened
from its original two-lane status. Plantings proposed in the landscape plan
include Marshall Ash, 4 Black Hills 3proC9 and 2 Radiant Crab, all within the
15' green3trip area adjacent 1O public rights-0f-wdy. Two of the Spruce are
indicated in a location that falls within the site triangle at 69th and Brooklyn
Boulevard and should be relocated Outside it. Underground irrigation has not
been noted On the plans, but this requirement has been discussed with the applicant.
`�- 6-14-84 -l-
Application No. 8/1020 continued
No grading and drainage plan has yet been submitted. It is anticipated that at
least onener��,� catch basin may he needed in the northeast corner of the site in
lieu of the closing of an access drive in that area. The City Engineer has directe4111
a letter to the applicant's designers (attached) outlining a number of concerns
regarding grading and drainage and regarding the preliminary plat. The Commission
is referred to that letter for further background. The plan does not presently note
that B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas;
however, the applicant is aware of this requirement and has sought no exclusion.
As stated at the beginning of this report, the existing service station will be
demolished and the new construction will include: 1) remodeling the existing
superette into a service garage; 2) constructing a new 36' x 60' superette attached
to the east wall of the converted service garage; and 3) constructing a canopy over
a new, relocated pump island to the north of the superette. The exterior of the
combined building will be a mixed red brick on the north and east elevations and
partially on the south and west elevations. The majority of the south and west
elevations will be a rock -faced concrete block, painted to catch the doliinant tone
in the brick. The Commission should review the proposed exterior in light of the
City's basic policy of consistent treatment. Around the entire building will be a
buff - colored facia with sand -spray panels. A 4' wide canopy will extend over a
sidewalk on the north and east sides of the building. The proposed canopy is to
be 30' x 50' located 10' north of the canopy.
As to site lighting, there is one freestanding light adjacent to the 69th Avenue
access that is within the public right -of -way. Another freestanding light which
illuminates the area of one of the pump islands and will also have to be relocated
when the property line along 69th is shifted southward by C'• In addition, �ther,
is a freestanding light adjacent to the north access on Brooklyn Boulevard which
will be closed. This light will probably serve little purpose at this location
and should be removed. There is to be lighting within the canopy structures in
front of t he building and over the pump islands. The entire structure will be
fire - sprinklered in accordance with City Ordinances.
,As to the special use standards, it should be emphasized that the proposed use is
little more than a consolidation and upgrading of uses that have existed in this
location for some time. There does not seem to have been a detrimental effect on
surrounding land uses and none is anticipated in t future. The primary concern
in this case is whether standard (d) is met by the provision of 31 parking stalls,
including 4 at the pump island. This issue has been briefly discussed by the
Commission and the conclusion was that pump island parking may be credited to
retail parking requirements though not service station requirements. Staff 'mould
also point out that the access modifications contained in the proposed plan and
staff recomrlendations are the best ,possible arrangement for this site. We, there-
fore, believe that standard (d) is net in this case.
In general, the proposed plan does meet basic requirements and approval is recom-
mended, subject to at least: the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject t3 review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codas prior to the issuance of
permits
6 -14 -84 -2.. 0
�
Application NO.84020 continued
_
2, Grading, drainage, utility and benoinO plans are subject t0 review
and approval hv the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits.
-^
3. A site performance agreemeni and supporting financial guarantee
(in an a[S8UnC LG be d2terNin2d by the City Manager) shall he
submitted prior t0 the issuance of permits LU assure completion Of
approved site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment Shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is t0 be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system t0 meet NFPA Standards and sha|l be connected to a central
monitoring dSViC2 in accordance w4h Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land-
scaped areas t0 facilitate Site maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all 3ignery which is subject to Chapter
34 of the City Ordinances.
8, 8812 Curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving
dr8d5.
Q. Freestanding 7ightpoS1s within public right-Of-Nay Shall be relocated
Onto priYpte property. The fre8stJnding lights adjacent to existing
pump islands Or accesses t0 be closed Shall be removed during
construction Of the project.
10. Landscape plantings Shall not be installed in the site triangle at
the southwest corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn 80Ul2Yard,
lI. The special use permit i3 subject to all applicable codes, ordinances
and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
12. Plan approval is 5Vh'2ct t0 the recommendations contained in the
City Engineer's letter t0 M. V. Rich Company dated June 7, 1984
13, The final plat combining the parcels shall be filed at the County
prior t0 issuance of any building permit for construction of the new
Superet1e building.
0-14-84 -3-
Planning Commission Information Sheet �
Application No. 84021
Applicant: Randy Rau
Location: 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4401 69th Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the
properties presently addressed as 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4401 69th Avenue North.
The property in question is zoned C2 and is located at the southwest corner of 69th
Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. It is the location of the superette /service
station proposal contained in Application No. 84020. Combination of land parcels
for a common use is required by Section 35.540.
The existing legaldescription of the properties is a metes and bounds description
of a part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. The proposed legal description of
the property is simply Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Mobil Addiition. There will also be
a dedication of 8' of right-of -way for 69th Avenue North which is to be widened
slightly in the near future. The area of Lot: I is 27,298 sq. ft. The area of the
right-- of -way dedication is not listed, but appears to be approximately 1,350 sq, ft.
The proposed plat designates 5' wide utility and drainage easements along the south
and west interior property lines. A 10' wide sidewalk easement is provided along
the east property line adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. As noted in the staff
report for Application No. 84020, there is a freestanding lightpost in the 69th
Avenue North right -of -sway and another within the area of the additional 8' of
dedication. It is recommended that removal of these lights not be a condition of
final plat approval, but completed along with other site improvements during
construction.
The plat should be finaled and filed at the County prior to any building permit
for the construction of the new superette building. Otherwise, a building would
o ver o� t contra i s h °
be placed ov�� a pr line in cor�tra�aict;on to City ordinance. Thi ha b
recommended as a condition of the site plan approval. T her e rier {e a're requirements
.pertaining to the preliminary Flat contained in the City P.ngineer's letter to
M. V. Rich Co., Inc. dated Jung 7, 193 (attached). These r nts should also
be a condition of approval of this application.
Altogether, the preliminary plat is in order and approval is recommended, sub ect
to at least the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval b the City
Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the
City ordinances.
3. The preliminary ;.plat shall be revised in accordance with the
letter of the City Engineer to H. V. Rich Co., Inc. dated June
7, 1984
6 -14 -84
M & C NO. 84 -07 `
June 21, 1984
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: Emergency Ordinance Amendment to the Brooklyn Center
Traffic Code
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Y Y
Attached please find a copy of a proposed amendment to Chapter 25 relating to traffic
regulation. This ordinance is being proposed as a direct result of one specific but
other potential situations now becoming evident as a result of more and more people
discovering the convenience of a northern exit out of downtown Minneapolis on I -94.
While this particular roadway provides an excellent exit from the downtown area, the
problem arises as it reaches the 694 bridge in Brooklyn Center and 252• A large
number of people are shortcutting or attempting to find a shortcut through Brooklyn
Center to increase their ability to get across the east side of the river
The major problem in this area is on 66th east of Highway 252. We are having a number
J P
of people U- turning on 66th on the east side of the intersection, and when they It
do that, they are heading down into the residential neighborhood making U -turns in
the middle of the street and turning around in people's driveways. During heavy
peak traffic times in the evening this is becoming especially hazardous for some of
the residents in the area. Damage is being done to boulevards and their driveways.
I asked the city attorney if there is any way of handling this type of a situation,
and he stated other communities have passed similar ordinances allowing the city
manager, under specific conditions as stated in the preamble of the ordinance, some
latitude in establishing traffic regulatory signs. This particular problem is not
n area. We are also Navin traffic bypass situations in
unique to the 66th Avenue a g
other areas of the community and it may be useful, if they become any worse, in other
parts of the community. At this in time this ordinance should allow me to post
No Turn Around in Driveway signs and No U -turn signs in certain areas which the
present authority does not allow.
Please be assured I will use considerable discretion in establishing these
regulations. As you know, I have not been one to put many regulatory signs up, but I
do believe in these special situations it will assist in relieving some of the very
frustrating difficult situations in these neighborhoods where bypass traffic is
h problems but it may occuring. It certainly won't cure the p Y p rovide residents some
relief.
l 11 s
Splinter
ager
CITY OF BRI KLYN ChN -TER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
Of 1984 at p.m. at the City Hail, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider An Emiergency Ordiria.rice Amending Chapter 25 of the City
Code of the City of Brooklyn Center by Regulating Traffic.
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ENIFRGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE CITY CODE
OF THE CITY OF BROOnYN CENTER BY REGULA.= TRAFFIC
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Bt.00KLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
CHAPTER 25. STREETS AND HICHIAYS, is amended by deleting the material
enclosed in brackets and adding the material indicated by underscoring.
SECTION 25 - 601. PREAMBLE. Whereas, fre interchanges are unable
to safely and expeditiou carry the flow of traffic and m rotorists are
att to find alternate r outes throu resice_�tial streets re ulting in
motorists making U_ - turns in public streets, on t]?e baa and i private
driveways, as well a creat traffic concestion in areas inhere streets and
traffic pattern a re not designed for th ran vehicles using the roadways,
the Stoppin and turning movements, ant the unortliodox driving maneuvers whic
occur. -
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Coi -mcil of the City of Brooklyn Center f inds
that an er:i-ergency ordinance is Necessary to preserve the public peace and safety
as follows:
SE CTION 25- -602. PR OF PERSOrIS AND PROP The Ci Manager
is hereby authorized to reaulat` or prot.ibit vehicular or pedest traffic
upon any street, alley, bouleva parking ict o to t he public, or other
p ublic way or public prope for suci: period of- time as s hall be necessar
f or the purposes stated herein. The Qrclh ibition or re of vehicular
or pedestrian traffic Shall be by written order of the Ci M and shall
be valid only after the placement of �z- pr opriate signs s ignals, barricade
or, in the alternative, until p ap r0 ia traf control i;jcr have be
p - -- _�— _
dispatch to th Scene, or in the al ter nat ive, until other appr warning
devices or met hods have IDeen im ple r re teu. Such regulations or prohibitions
shall be for the following pu rposes:
(a) to protect public or private property from damage by
vehicular or pedest traffic;
(b) to r:�ve, expe or control the glow of traffic;
(c) to secure persons and prop f ro-:i trespass, dancer,
invasion of privacy, c unauthorized intrusion;
(d) to r �o tect pe rsons, mot animals or property
_
from dangerou conditions;
r
t }l r iN�ICE NO.
(e) to protec a gain st, to prote pe from, or
to t errtina' e an y b re a ch o f the peace, ass ault,
unla! fu ass ri ot, fig hning a nd bra Lng,
illega use of ajc dru gxs, or cog ^ itro' lc
substances, nuisamce,� civil o c ri mi nal,
trespass, whetr:er civi o r crimina � _sGrcer
c onduct, terroris threa ex or u n-
reasonab noise littering, continuing- v
of the traffic laces, and similar activi o
events.
SECTION 25 -6 _ VIOIAT U IAWFUL. It shall be unlawfu and
!,'Mi.s as provi herein for an —rson to v1Gl or diso anv order
-
the City Mana as a utho riz ed herein, o any renulation, sign, sianal,
1 - - . rrlca traff =i_c control official, or oth warrl%C device, designed, plac
nr er ected to iiaple:itint the order" of t-he City Manag -er.
SECTION 25 -604. PE'iA Any person violating the provis
Of this Ordinance, upon conviction ierecf, , shall be 7unlsil' u by a ili not
t o ex ceed Seven Hundred Dol lars ($700.0 or by impr = Gnl:ent r iot to exceed
ninety (90) days, or both, toget m- the costs of prosecution.
This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty
(30) days following its legal puhlica:tion.
Adopted this day of _ 19
i
Mayor
A1"TFST: _
Clerk
114te of Publication
-ffective Date
(Underline indicates new - natter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspect o
DATE: June 22, 1984
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment Regarding the Classification of Financial Institutions
You will recall that on September 26, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
83 -15 that allowed certain low -rise office uses in the R3 zoning district by a
special use permit. The purpose of that ordinance was to provide some additional
flexibility in the R3 zoning district, particularly along Brooklyn Boulevard where
the Comprehensive Plan has recommended future mid - density residential uses. The
flexibility provided would be to allow certain office uses of not more than two
stories in height by a special use permit in the R3 zoning district. The office
uses allowed are those described in Section 35 -320, Subsection 1 (c), 1 (d) and
1 (j) through 1 (s). (See copy of Section 35 -320, 1 (a) through 1 (t) attached).
Section 35 -320, Subsection 1 (b) was excluded from this consideration because it
included "finance offices" which have been interpreted in the past to include
banks. It was felt that financial institutions such as banks would not be
.appropriate in a mid - density residential district because they can, at times,
generate rather high volumes of traffic and are more similar to retail commercial
uses. The exclusion of Section 35 -320, Subsection 1 (b) also did not allow
insurance, real estate and investment offices.
The Planning Commission, on May 10, 1984, reviewed this matter and came to the
conclusion that finance offices, other than banks or financial institutions,
insurance, real estate and investment offices could be allowed as special uses
in the R3 zoning district along the same lines that.other office uses were
acknowledged in Ordinance No. 83 -15. The Commission also recommended that a new
classification of "financial institutions" be established which would include
full service banks and savings and loan associations'as distinguished from a
"finance office." These financial institutions would be limited to locating in
the Cl and C2 zoning districts as permitted uses and in the 1 -1 zoning district
as a special use.
The Planning Commission is also of the opinion that these financial institutions
should be required to provide parking on the basis of the retail parking formula
rather than the service /office parking formula currently required. Banks and
savings and loans recently constructed such as the First Brookdale Bank remote
facility on 59th and Brooklyn Boulevard and the F and M Marquette facility on
Xerxes and Northway Drive have, on their own initiative, provided parking
facilities that exceed the service /office parking formula. For the most part,
all existing financial institutions have parking that meets the retail parking
formula.
On the June 25, 1984 City Council Agenda is an ordinance, which is offered for
first reading, amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the classi-
fication of financial institutions which incorporates the above recommendations.
mlg
35 -316
c. Retail food shops, drycleaning pickup stations, beauty parlors,
barber shops, and valet shops within multiple family dwellings
containing 30 or more dwelling unit. Such shops shall be
accessible to the public through a lobby with no advertising or
display to be visible from outside the building, and shall be
restricted to the ground floor or subfloors.
d. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when
located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory,
but not including any business or industrial accessory use. Such
accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following:
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Garages and ramps for use by occupants of the principal use
3. Playground equipment and installations including swimming
pools and tennis courts.
4. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
5. A real estate office for the purpose of leasing or selling
apartment units within the development in which it is
located.
6. Home occupations not to include special home occupations as
defined in Section 35 -900.
2. Special Requirements
a. See Section 35 -410 of these ordinances.
Section 35 -320. C1 SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT
I. Permitted Uses
The following service /office uses are permitted in the C1 district,
provided that the height of each establishment or building shall not
exceed three stories, or in the event that abasement is proposed, three
stories plus basement:
a. Nursing care homes, maternity care homes, child care homes,
boarding care homes, provided, however, that such institutions
shall, where requited by state law, or regulations of the licensing
authority, be licensed by the appropriate state or municipal
authority.
b. Finance, insurance, real estate and investment office.
c. Medical, dental, osteopathic, chiropractic and optometric
offices.
d. Legal office, engineering and architectural offices, educational
and scientific research offices (excluding laboratory
35 -320
facilities), accounting, auditing and bookkeeping offices, urban
planning agency office,.
e. Religious uses, welfare and charitable uses, libraries and art
galleries.
f. Beauty and barber services.
g. Funeral and crematory services.
h. Photographic services.
i. Apparel repair, alteration and cleaning pickup stations, shoe
repair.
j. Advertising offices, provided that the fabrication of signs shall
not be a permitted use.
k. Consumer and mercantile credit reporting •services office,
adjustment and collection service offices.
1. Duplicating, nailing and stenographic service offices.
m. Employment agency offices.
n. Business and management consultant offices.
o. Detective and protective agency offices.
P. Contractor's offices.
q. Governmental offices.
r. Business association,professional membership organizations,
labor unions, civic, social and fraternal association offices.
s. Accessory uses incidental to the foregoing principal uses when
located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory.
Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the
following;
1. Offstreet parking and offstreet loading.
2. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance.
3. The compounding, dispensing or sale (at retail) of drugs,
prescription items, patent or proprietery medicines, sick
room supplies, prosthetic devices or items relating to any
of the foregoing when conducted in the building occupied
primarily by medical, dental, ostheopathie,chiropractic or
optometric offices.
t. Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses as
determined by the City Council.
CITY OF I3R00'LYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the
day of , 1984 at p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an amendment to the City Ordinances regarding
restrictions on purchase and consumption, of liquor by persons under 19 years
of age.
ORDINANCE NO. 8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11 -111 RELATING TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON PURCHASE
AND CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR BY PERSONS UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 11 -111 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in the
following manner.
Section 11 -111 RESTRICTIONS ON PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION. It is
unlawful for any:
Subdivision 1. Licensee or his employee to permit any person under the age
of 19 years to consume nonintoxicating malt liquor on the licensed premises [except
as provided in Subd . 51.
Subdivision 2. Person [other than the parent or legal guardian] to procure
. nonintoxicating malt liquor for any person under the age of 19 years.
Subdivision 3. Person to induce a person under the age of 19 years to
purchase or procure nonintoxicating malt liquor.
Subdivision 4. Person under the age of 19 years to misrepresent his age for
the purpose of obtaining nonintoxicating malt liquor.
Subdivision 5. Person under the age of 19 years to consume any
nonintoxicating malt Liquor [unless in the company of his parent or guardian].
Subdivision 6. Person under the age of 19 years to possess any
nonintoxicating malt liquor, with intent to consume it at a place other than the
household of his parent or guardian [,except in the company of his parent or
guardian].
Subdivision 7. No person shall consume or display any intoxicating liquor
on the premises of a licensee who is not also licensed to sell intoxicating liquors.
Subdivision 8. Person u nder the age of 19 years to c onsume any
intoxicating liquor or nonint malt li quor unless in the household of his or
her parent or guardian and with the consent of his or her parent or guardian.
Ordinance No.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.)
Ordinance No. -2-
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 198
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
r f
CITY OF IWOKLYN CINTITER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 26th day
of wirch, 1384 at 8:15 p.m. at the City hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,
to consider an amendment to the Zoning ordinance classifying certain land
as being within the R3 Zoning District..
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMFIvI)ING C11fdxVER 35 OF 'iO3 CITY OL.DINANCES
CLASSIF CERTAIN LAN AS B=NG WITHIN T:E 16 ZONING DIST
TIM, CITY C=JCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLL VS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Sec 35 - MULTIPLE FAMILY IZSIDENCE DISTRICT (R3). The
folla,ri.ng properties are hereby established as being within the (R3) Multiple
F arAly Residence District zoning classification:
B locks 1 through 7 and Lot 3, Block 8, Madsen's F loral Ad
Section 2. This ordinance shall becomes effective after adoption
and upon thirty (30) days folluring its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1384.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk --
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(underline indicates n--%a matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted).
CITY OF C E�NTi-,R
r'u 0 ;DIN ;CCE T.i'/FN T I - , ' CFENTEP. C ITY CH
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROC%.LYN CENTER. DOES CRD .IN AS FOILS:
Section 1. Chapter 2 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter is hereby
ameVed in the following ; kanner
Section 2.03 ELEC TIVE OFFICER' The Council shall l be composed of a Mayor and
fo z,_ ho shall be registe voters of Brooklyn Center, and V. %iln h,"! l
;•<, el act „ .:t 1 :-arse. Each CounciL rrnber shall serve for a term of [t�'zree (3)], fc . r
The Mayor shall s erve for a term of two (2) years. The Council sh-:11
be w iv s•�rs of the election of the Mayor and the Council mer_sbers .
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after_ publication 70
d
nincty (90) days following its :adoption.
Adopt--\-1 this d y of 19
mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Pub1-_shed in the official newspa
E f=ictive Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
(Published in the Brooklyn Center Post )
..w f F 4
R
e
AN OI'.I)I i titii i "1 AIrI ,NDI %i( ; (: ( I I , I J1,11 4 1 C)i` I i it ;'
II;C,I'sI.U11i�a MUEdIC'I WEN YFAR
MUNICIPAL, I I_,I1CTIGNS i`;J) IT'OVIDINv ; l''C)R THE' MOW PICATION
OF TEIUVIS OF I t: 4I3I','N'I' COUNCILI ll ;; IDl lw
THE CITY COUNCIL OF TILE CITY OF BI)(X)KLYN CEINTE'R DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter_ 29 of the City Ordinances of the City of
Broolcl.yn Center is hereby amended in the following manner:
Sectio _2 -403 P.LGULn MUNICIPAL ELECTION. The regular municipal
election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday
in November in e ve n n yea rs. The City Clerk shall give at
least two (2) weeks previous notice of the time and place of holding
such regular election and of the officers to be elected by posting
in at least one (1) public place in each voting precinct and by one
(1) publication in the official newspaper, but failure to give such
notice shall not invalidate the election. At least one (1) week
before any municipal election, the City Clerk shall publish a sample
ballot in the official newspaper, and he shall post a sample ballot
in his office for public inspection.
Section 2. The terms of all incumbents who at the time of adoption
of this ordinance hold of filled by municipal election and whose
terms expire in an odd numbered year are her extended through
the last business day in the even numbered year first following the
date the term would expire.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption
and (30) thirty days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
•
BRCC'r:LtT� CET;' ^r.:t Ct!Y,RT ;a CO?iTTISSIOT' City Manager
MINUTES Gerald Splinter
City Hall
May 23, 1 9J 4
CALL TC CRDER
The ,,,eetin�s was called to order by Chairman Donn Escher at 8:02 P.M.
ROLL I' ALL
T. ;embers present: Ernes Erickson nn Escher, John Lescault, Nary
, Do
7, Dennis Kueng, :1;ona inzman, Jean Schiebel, Vincent Tubman
Heitzi
T ;embers absent and excused: :iichael Beauchane, Neil Smeaton,'f�illiam
Hannay, 3arbara Sexton
Also present: Gerald 1. ::splinter, City Manager
APPROVAL Cr i,`IT,;UT S Schiebel to app rove the
Motion by Ernest Erickson, seconded by Jean
minutes of April 2j, 198 as ,,, with the one correction to the
sixth parar;raph under old Business. The fourth line of that para-
graph shculd read "elections but he did not like the situation of
the mayor running with ". notion passed unanimously.
OLD B - Elections
The material was reviewed which was prepared by City Staf eshowinh
included a memo to > "r. Splinter from Tom: Bublitz, a pag g
possible changes in terms to accomodate even year elections, a Page
showing possible alternatives for changing terms to even year elections,
a proposed ordinance amending the city ordinance regarding municipal
elections, and a proposed ordinance amending the City Charter regard
ing elective officers.
After discussion on this matter, a motion was made by John Lescault,
and seconded by Vince Tubman that Section 2.03 of the Brooklyn Center
City Charter (Elective officers) be amended as follows: that three
(3) be stricken and four (4) be inserted between the words "of" and
'Years". The commissioners were polled, by and all eight
members present passed this motion. The essence of this motion is
that it will amend the City charter to read that each Councilmember
shall serve for a term of four years, and the Mayor's term stall
remain at two years.
Piiotion_..was made by Mary Heitzig, seconded 'by Jean Schiebel that Mr.
Splinter do everything necessary as far as publicity goes (including
publication in the Manager's Newsletter to the public) to inform the
public regarding the proposed charter amendment. Motion was passed
unanimously.
NEXT A'EETING DATE
The next meeting will be held on September 26, at which time the
Code of Ethics will be discussed.
ADJCURT:I -1
Motion by Jean Schiebel, seconded by Dennis Yuen; to adjourn the meet -
ing at 9:02 P.M. IMotion was passed unanimously.
F pectfully Submitted,
Chairman: Donn 'Escher �i���,�,
Secretary: Barb Sexton iro e �i owers, C.P.S., Secretarial Asst.
Donn hscher
3107 E Sth Avenue N .
Brooklyn Center, M:i.nncsota 55429
,Ray 31 1 984
i�ir. Gerald Splinter, City Mfana-er
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, N 55430
Dear Jerry:
Enclosed please find a letter of transmittal to the 1' and
Councilmembers regarding proposed amendments to the City Charter.
If you would, please schedule a time for presentation to the
Council in the near future and inform me of the date.
Should you wish to discuss the amendment any further, please
do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Y
Donn Escher
Chairman
BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COI DRUSSION
cb
Encl.
TO: The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council of Brooklyn Center
FRCA; The City of Brooklyn Center
CHARTER COPLu41ISSION
DATE : ;Way 31, 1984
RE: TRANSP.ZITTAL OF REC0I,iA1I.ENDED AMENDMENT TO THE
BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CryRTER
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 410.12 Subdivision 7, the
Brooklyn Center Charter Commission recommends the adoption
by ordnance of the attached proposed amendment to the
Brooklyn Center City Charter.
Respectfully,
Donn Escher
Chairman
eb
Attachment
e
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: James Lindsay, Chief of Police-
DATE: June 13, 1984
SUBJECT: Beer License for ShowBiz Pizza
Attached please find a copy of a background investigation
done by Investigator Monteen. This investigation was done
on the owners of an organization known as the Sweeney Group
who are in the process of purchasing the Twin City area
ShowBiz Pizza parlors. This sale is to be finalized contingent
on the granting of licenses for all the establishments.
This organization is purchasing 100% of the stock for the
Brooklyn Center location. We therefore consider this a new
license. A background was not done on the manager, however,
as they are retaining the manager we have previously done
an investigation on. We find nothing in the backgrounds
of the new owners to preclude issuance of a beer license.
Therefore, we would ask that a beer license be granted for
ShowBiz Pizza contingent on its final sale. We will notify
you as to that date when it is known to us, so we may have
an effective date of license.
The following is a resume of the investigation of case number 84- 08218,
e application of the SWEENEY Group for a 3.2 beer license as issued by
e City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The SWEENEY
Group proposes to do business as ShowBiz Pizza located at 5939 John Martin
Drive. The SWEENEY Group will be maintaining the Manager, Joseph John
HOLLENKAMP, in the operation. This resume has been prepared by Investiga-
tor A. Paul MONTEEN and transcribed by Pat SWANSON, clerk /typist for the
Brooklyn Center Police Department.
APPLICANT
The SWEENEY Group
4615 North Clifton
Chicago, Cook County, IL 60640
Telephone: (312) 275 -8540
Craig Chandler SWEENEY, President and owner of 33 -1/3 percent
of the outstanding stock.
2909 Sherwood Lane
Colleyville, TX 76034
Telephone: (817) 571 -1694
Perry SNOWER, Vice - President and holder of 33 -1/3 percent of
the outstanding stock.
666 Lakeshore Drive
Chicago, IL 60611
lephone: (312) 266 -6433
David A. BAUM, Secretary - Treasurer and holder of 33 -1/3 percent
of the outstanding stock.
775 Stonegate Drive
Highland Park, IL 60635
Telephone: (312) 433 -8766
MATERIALS CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION
Form 2, Part I, General Information in support of an application for on-
sale intoxicating and nonintoxicating liquor in the name of the SWEENEY
Group, Inc.
Form 3, Personal Information in the name of Craig Chandler SWEENEY,
David Adam BAUM and Perry SNOWER.
A copy of the Articles of Incorporation of The SWEENEY Group.
A copy of the video games and electronic games maintained at ShowBiz
Pizza.
A copy of the blueprints of ShowBiz Pizza.
A copy of the lease agreement between American Property investors and
owBiz Pizza Place, Inc., as well as the assignment of the-lease to The
EENEY Group, Inc, by the BROCK Hotel Corporation.
Resume by Investigator A. Paul MONTEEN Case File #84 -08218 Page 2
onvesti ator MONTEEN has reviewed the facts and circumstances surrounding
g
the transfer of ShowBiz Pizza from the operations of The BROCK Hotel chain
of Wichita, Kansas, to The SWEENEY Group, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois. In-
vestigator MONTEEN has found that the operation of ShowBiz Pizza has fallen
under the direction of Craig Chandler SWEENEY since March of 1980 when the
BROCK Hotel Corporation opened 150 units of ShowBiz Pizza Place nationwide.
At this time and since August of 1979, SWEENEY was an employee of The BROCK
Hotel Corporation of Wichita, Kansas, and became Director of Operations and
Expansion for the North Central area of The BROCK Hotel Corporation which
included the business known as ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc.
Craig Chandler SWEENEY has a post - graduate degree in Business Management
from the University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, and has held positions
dealing in the food and beverage industry since he was employed as the
manager of a 3.2 tavern in the Student Union at the University of Denver.
After leaving the University of Denver, SWEENEY was a financial analyst
with the First National Bank of Seattle, Washington, until beginning his
employment with the BROCK Hotel Corporation in 1979. SWEENEY currently
is residing in Colleyville, Texas.
Investigator MONTEEN has checked the records of the Brooklyn Center Police
Department and finds no reference to Craig Chandler SWEENEY, however, In-
vestigator MONTEEN did find mention of Craig Chandler SWEENEY in the in-
stigation of the BROCK Hotel Corporation, doing business as The Holiday
n, in Investigator SPEHN's liquor license resume from the initial appli-
tion for a license at the Holiday Inn. SWEENEY has no record with his
local Police Department in Colleyville, Texas, nor with the Chicago Police
Department, or the Sheriff's Office for Cook County Illinois. Likewise,
there is no record of Craig Chandler SWEENEY in NCIC or MINCIS. SWEENEY
does hold a valid Texas driver's license with no violations.
The vice - president of the corporation is Perry SNOWER, a private investor
who resides at 666 Lakeshore Drive in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. SHOWER owned
and operated the SNOWER Pontiac dealership of Moline, Illinois, prior to
his involvement with The SWEENEY Group and ShowBiz Pizza.
SNOWER has no record with the Chicago Police Department or the Cook County
Sheriff's Office. Likewise, there is no record with NCIC, MINCIS or the
Brooklyn Center Police Department. Inquiry to the Chicago Department of
Motor Vehicles indicated no driver's license on file in the name of Perry
SNOWER.
David Adam BAUM, the Secretary-Treasurer of The SWEENEY Group, is likewise,
a resident of the Chicago, Illinois, area, living in Highland Park, Illinois,
at 775 Stonegate Lane. Mr. BAUM is the owner of Mechanical Servants, Inc.,
a vending machine corporation operating from the business address of 4615
North Clifton, Chicago, Illinois. Mr. BAUM has no record with the Chicago
Police Department, Cook County Sheriff's Office, NCIC or MINCIS. Likewise,
there is no record in the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. BAUM does show a
lid driver's license in the State of Illinois with no violations.
w
Resume by Investigator A. Paul MONTEEN CAse File #84 -08218 Page 3
The SWEENEY Group is in the process of purchasing the owned assets of
ShowBiz Pizza Place from The BROCK Hotel Corporation, doing business as
ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. The SWEENEY Group has paid $133,333.00 in
cash down from their personal assets and The.SWEENEY Group has a note
with the ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. for the balance of the money. All
leases for land and building, financial obligations on the part of
ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. and rental agreements on the vending machines
have been accepted by The SWEENEY Group.
Joseph John HOLLENKAMP is the current manager of ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc.
and made application for a nonintoxicating liquor license in August of
1982. At that time, Investigator SOLLARS did a background investigation
on HOLLENKAMP and for the purpose of this investigation, MONTEEN did
check the records of the Brooklyn Center Police Department, NCIC, MINCIS
and Minnesota Drivers Motor Vehicle Services. Investigator MONTEEN could
find no record of any criminal activity on the part of Joseph John
HOLLENKAMP. HOLLENKAMP, furthermore, had a background investigation con-
ducted on September 9, 1982, by Investigator MONTEEN when HOLLENKAMP was
named in the application for an operator's license for amusement devices
on the part of ShowBiz Pizza Place.
ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. shows four (4) entries with the Brooklyn Center
Police Department. Two (2) are applications for licenses and two (2) are
&r larcenies which occurred in 1983.
It would appear that the operation of ShowBiz Pizza Place, Inc. will be
maintained in a similar fashion to its operation since opening in December
of 1981 and it would appear that the corporate management and local manage-
ment will be basically the same people as in previous ownership. Investi-
gator MONTEEN can find nothing which would preclude ShowBiz Pizza Place,
its manager, Joseph John HOLLENKAMP, The SWEENEY Group, Craig SWEENEY,
David BAUM, or Perry SNOWER from receiving the license applied for.
Licerises to be approved by the City Council on June 25, 1984
AViUSE DEVICE_ - OPEUTOR
Irooklyn Center Comir;unity Center 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Chuckwagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N.
4*r ceen vanni's 5937 Summit Drive
nny's 3901 Lakebreeze Ave.. N.
Mill Inn 5540 Brooklyn Blvd.
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr.
Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr.
Picadilly Circus Brookdale Center n
Show Biz Pizza 5959 John Martin Dr.
C91H of Police N
AMUSEMENT DEVICE - VENDOR
Advance Carter _ 850 Decatur
B & K Music & Vending 3420 Nicollet Ave. S.
Century Corp. 2910 W. Pontrose Ave.
'Rain City Novelty Co 9549 Penn Ave. S.
C i f of Police U N W W
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE ^
Berean Evangelical Free Church 6625 Humboldt Ave. N. --
Sanitarian
GARBAGE & REFUSE VEHICLE LICENSE
Block Sanitation 6741 79th Ave. N.
Sanitarian
MECHANIC SYSTEMS LICENSE
Able Mechanical Services 6717 83rd P1. N.
Airco Heating & Air Cond. 4014 Central Ave. NE
ildi
Bu g official
NONPERISHABLE VENDING M ACHINE LICENSE
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
C.P.S.I. 2700 Freeway Blvd.
Sanitarian
r
REr.TAL DWELLING LICENSE
Renewal:
Garrit & Mary Memelink 7212 Aldrich Ct.
Gary & Danae Morrison 5104 E. Twin Lake Blvd.
Tracy Rice 5836 Xerxes Ave. N.
Gary DeAuston 6107 Xerxes Ave. N.
Michael Acosta 6113 Xerxes Ave. N.
I�
Initial:
Darrell A. Farr Development Beach Apts.
Elkhorn Properties 5612 Irving Ave. N.
Martha Lahti 5316 Knox Ave.'N.
Martha Lahti 532.2 Knox Ave. N.
Gary Heck 5343 Penn Ave. N.
Sigmund Bona 5201 Xerxes Ave. N. .�
.
Frances M. Lunacek 5211 Xerxes Ave. N. ` 1_!'\_
Director of Planning
and Inspection
SIGN HANGER LICENSE !,
DeMars Signs 4040 Marshall St. NE_.,It _
TuildinO officia
GENERAL APPROVAL:
G a d G,/ pli r, City Clerk