HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 02-22 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
February 22, 1982
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Approval of Consent Agenda
-All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be 'routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate
l discussion of these items unless a councilmember so requests, in which -
event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in
its normal sequence on the agenda.
*6. Approval of Minutes - February 8, 1982
7. Request by Ryan Construction for an Extension of the Preliminary Approval
for the Industrial Development Revenue Bond for Byerly's
-City policy for IRBs specifies that a project should begin twelve months
after preliminary approval is granted. This has exceeded the one
year time period and Ryan Construction is proposing to proceed with the
Byerly's project this year.
8. Resolutions:
*a. Approving Change of Bid Opening Date for Contract 1982 -B
Contract 1982 -B comprehends Street Improvement Project 1982 -02,
Reconstruction of Xerxes Avenue North between T.H. 100 and County
State Aid 10, 55th Avenue North between Xerxes Avenue North and
Brooklyn Boulevard, and 56th Avenue North between Xerxes Avenue
North and Brooklyn Boulevard and also the Brookdale Access Improvement
Project.
b. Transferring Funds from Federal Revenue Sharing to the General Fund
c. Amending the 1982 Budget
-This item reflects the budget adjustments proposed as a result of State
Aid reductions.
*d. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation for the Achievements and Public
Service of Boy Scout Troop 529 and Cub Scout Pack 632
*e. Recognizing the Achievement of Diane Lemke as One of the Ten Outstanding
Young Minnesotans of 1982
•
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- February 22, 1982
9. Planning Commission Items (7:30 p.m.)
a. Application No. 82005 submitted by James Madden /Earle Brown Bowl for
site and building plan and special use permit approval to expand the
bar and lounge at the Earle Brown Bowl at 6440 James Circle.
-This application was tabled at the January 25, 1982 City Council
meeting to the February 22, 1982 meeting to again review and
consider the food /liquor sales split for the Earle Brown Bowl.
10. Discussion Items:
a. Review of Municipal State Aid System Designations
b. Development of 69th -70th Avenue Connection in Evergreen Park Area
C. Alignment of 69th Avenue North between West Palmer Lake Boulevard and
Shingle Creek Parkway
d. Airport Liaison Committee
The Council's interest is being solicited by the City of Crystal
regarding the creation of a Committee to discuss issues and problems
related to the Crystal Airport.
*11. Licenses
12 Adjournment
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL'
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
FEBRUARY 8, 1982
CITY HALL
CALL TO O
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order
by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:01 p.m.
ROL CA
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public Works
Sy Knapp, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning & Inspection
Ron Warren, Director of Parks & Recreation Gene Hagel, Assistant City Engineer -
Jim Grube, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman and Tom Bublitz.
INVO
The invocation was offered by Pastor Rabine of the Brookdale Covenant Church.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist noted the Council had not received any requests to use the Open
Forum session this evening. He inquired of the audience if there was anyone
present who wished to address the Council, there being none, he proceeded with
the regular agenda items.
CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST BY SUMMIT STATE BANK
The City Manager introduced Mr. Jack Weber_ representing the Summit Bank of Brooklyn
Center. Mr_ Weber referred Council members to a _letter from Gary Wollan, Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Summit State Bank, and stated that
he believes the letter is self - explanatory and that the Summit State Bank is
requesting that the City reinstate the Bank as a depository for City funds.
Councilmember. Hawes inquired whether Mr. Weber would care to comment on the
indictment recently brought against the bank President. Mr. Weber stated that
he believes it would be improper for him to comment on the indictment, as it is
a personal indictment against the owner of the bank and has nothing to do with
bank operations. He stated that no Summit Banks have lost any money and he
emphasized that the banks are sound and stable financial institutions subject
to regular review by various regulatory agencies. He added that the capital
ratio of the bank is 8.7, and explained that the number represents the ratio
of capital to deposits. He added that this level of capital ratio is considered
very good and that he believes it is in the top 25 banks in Minnesota with regard
to its capital ratio.
Councilmember Lhotka stated that he is not concerned over the soundness of the
bank but that his concern is over the moral and ethical question involved. He
stated that the President of the bank has been indicted and published articles
have indicated that the bank was used to conduct certain transactions which led
to the indictment. Mr. Weber replied that the indictment is against the President
2 -8`82 _1 _
of the bank and not the bank itself, noting that the President has voluntarily
suspended himself from all bank operations.
Mayor Nyquist stated that he is satisfied that the Summit State Bank is taking
every precaution to separate the issue of the indictment from bank operations
and that he has no concern or problem with authorizing the bank as a depository
of City funds.
Councilmember Hawes inquired whether the City Attorney had any concerns regarding
this matter. The City Attorney stated that appointing a bank as a depository of
City funds is at the complete discretion of the City Council.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether the Director of Finance had any concerns
over the use of the bank as a depository of City funds. The Director of Finance
stated that he has no concern noting that the indictment does not directly involve
the bank.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -28
Member Gene Lhotka introduced. the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE SUMMIT STATE BANK A DEPOSITORY OF CITY FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, 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.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Nyquist inquired whether any Council members would request any items on the
consent agenda removed and placed on the regular agenda. Councilmember Lhotka
stated that he would request that item 9c on the agenda be removed from the consent
agenda and Councilmember Hawes requested that items 13b and 15 be removed from
the consent agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUT - JANU _2 5, 198
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 25, 1982 as submitted.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembe.r_s Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - GARC S A DDITI ON
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
approve the final plat of the Garcelon Second Addition located at 56th Avenue
North between I -94 and Camden Avenue (Planning Co:n ^i� >sion Appl.icati.on No. 87.002)
subject to the following conditions:
1. The owner shall submit an abstract of title or registered property
report to the City Attorney for review and approval prior_ to filing
at the County.
2. The Mayor and City ?Manager are authorized to enter into a subdiv:i.sion
2 -8 -82 -2
agreement with the owner to provide for installation of private service
extensions to Lot 2 and installation of survey monuments as required
by Chapter. 15 of the City Ordinance. Said agreement shall be executed
}'prior to filing of the Plat with the County.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilrrtembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RE 110. 82 - 29
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION) EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF MR. RICHARD THEIS t;
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution`jwas duly seconded by
member Rich Theis, 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 folk voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 - 30
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNI`i''ION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF MR. WILLIAM HAWES
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, 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.
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIED LICENSES - LIQUOR LICENSE F LYNBROOK BOWL
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis
to approve the on -sale intoxicating liquor license application for Lynbrook
Bowl, Incorporated Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council.members Lhotka,
Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced a Resolution Establishing Diseased Shade Tree Removal
Project No. 1982 -04, Approving Specifications For Diseased Shade Tree Removal
Project No. 1982 -04 And Directing Advertisement for Bids (Contract No. 1982 -C).
In discussion of the resolution, the City Manager noted that the cuts in aid by
the State of Minnesota included $25,000 for the Dutch Elm disease sanitation
program. Of this total amount, he pointed out, $15,000 was slated for removal
costs and $10,000 was planned for reforestation. He added that traditionally
the City has received approximately $25,000 per year from the State for the
Dutch Elm disease program. Councilmember Lhotka stated he is concerned that
something needs to be continued with regard to the program. The City'Manager
stated that the staff is proposing that the City pays 500 of the cost of diseased
tree removal on boulevards and is proposing a continuation of the sanitation
program, He stated that a sanitation program has proven to be essential to
2 -8 -82 -3-
i
I
saving at least some of the elm trees. He explained that 60% of the elms in
the City have been removed because of disease and that with a proper sanitation
program at least some of the elms could be saved. He cited the example of the
State of Iowa which had experienced Dutch Elm disease years before it reached.
Minnesota and without sanitation programs, in certain parts of Iowa there are
virtually no elm trees left.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired what the total cost of the Dutch Elm program was
for 1981. The Director of Finance stated that the City paid out approximately
$35,000 for the sanitation program on City property and along boulevards and
that the City anticipated getting $25,000 from the State. Councilmember Theis
inquired what percentage of the elms are lost in any riven year. The Director
of Parks & Recreation stated that approximately 10% of the elms are lost per
year. The City Manager re- emphasized the benefits of a sanitation program and
recommended that the Council. approve the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -31
Member Bill Hawes introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1982 -04, APPROVING
SPECIFICATIONS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL PROJECT NO. 1982 -04 AND DIRECTING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1982 —C)
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, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scutt, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF SPECIFIE LICENSES - LIQUOR LICE FOR YEN C HING RES
Councilmember Hawes stated that he has a concern that the persons indicated in
the background investigation of the liquor license for the Yen Ching Restaurant
have moved a great deal and have also made name changes. He inquired whether
the staff was satisfied with the background investigation of the applicant. The
' c� was very thorough City Manager stated that the background invests at.�_on s y h and even g
included investigation into immigration records.. Fie added that the staff is
satisfied that the applicants are legitimate capable people, capable of running
a successful restaurant.
Councilmember Hawes inquired who the liquor license would actually be issued to.
The City Attorney replied that the license would be issued to the Minnesota
Corporation formed specifically to run the restaurant. The City Manager pointed
out that the Corporation was the Yen Ching Restaurant, Incorporated.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott
to approve the on -sale intoxicating liquor license for the Yen Ching Restaurant.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
CONSI OF P ROP OSE D INIPROVE`IENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 (RECON OF
XERXES AVENUE N OR TH BETWEE IV. H. 100 AND COUNI`1 STATE AID HTG WAY 1 0, 5 5TH
s
2 --8 -82 -4-
AVENUE NORTH PETWEEN XERXE AVENUE NORTH ATU) BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, AND 56TH
AVI,NIJ2 tI�;'t'iTfi 3,I3iDJFTsII ,tF:RrES AVUiItIE !`IC�1,1. I,Ill i;`:Ot�Y:7YN BOC3LFV
• In di, c u >si on of the proposed i1 <<)rovF ment p o ject the Director of Public Works
noted that the project was originally raro����.�.d for 1981. As a result of the
input provided by merchants and property owners in the project area, the proceedings
were terminated in 1981 and instructions were given to the staff to proceed in
1982 for reconsideration of the project.
The Director. of Public Works informed Council members that notice of the public
hearing scheduled for this evening has been sent to all affected property owners
and businesses in the project area and has been published in the official paper.
The Director of Public Works stated that if the project is approved this evening
the bids would be obtained approximately one month from today with a proposed
start -up date of mid April and completion by July. The Director of Public Works
reviewed the total project cost and also the project assessment zones pointing
out that two thirds of the total cost of the project would be recovered by the City.
In discussion of the project, Mayor Nyquist commented that the median break on
Brooklyn Boulevard at 56th Avenue should, in his opinion, be closed permanently.
The Director of Public Works stated that from a traffic standpoint the closing
of the median break would be an improvement to traffic circulation.
Councilmember Theis requested the Director of Public Works to comment on why MSA
funds are being proposed for this project. The Director of Public Works stated
that the City's past policy on the use of MSA funds has been that they are directed
primarily at new construction, but in this project it is a reconstruction situation.
He pointed out that the street is 20 years old and that generally the street should
have had a 30 year life expectancy. He added that the MSA funds are recommended
for this project because of the premature deterioration of the street. Council -
member Theis stated that he is concerned because the use of MSA funds on a
reconstruction project has not been tried before and he questioned whether this
policy would then qualify every street in the City for the same type of treatment.
The Director of Public Works replied that for years the City has had a written
policy for the use of MSA funds in residential areas and that this policy has
included a statement on the life expectancy of streets. He noted that the policy
states that the City would participate in the unrealized portion of the life
expectancy of the residential street. Councilmember Theis stated that his concern
is that the City may be taking on a great financial burden given the unknown
conditions of many of the City streets. The Director of Public Works commented
that the City is proceeding from a growth and development phase to a maintenance
phase and that the City may have to share some of the responsibility for streets
where the life expectancy of the street was not fully realized. The City Manager
pointed out that over time the City's assessment policy must be dictated by
financial considerations noting that the portion of Xerxes Avenue proposed for
reconstruction in this project is a heavy commercial street and would not necessarily
set a precedent for other streets in the City. In general, he pointed out, many
of the residential streets in the City have exceeded their life expectancies.
Councilmember Scott stated that she does not feel the City is obligated to pick
up a percentage of the cost simply because the street did not meet its life
•
2 -8 -82 -5-
expectancy but she noted that this particular street does receive wear and tear
that a normal residential street would not receive. The Director of Public works
stated that he believes very few streets in the City would not meet their life •
expectancy.
Councilmember Hawes inquired where the MSA funds are originated from. The Director
of Public Works stated that MSA streets can total 20% of all the streets in a
City as designated by that City. He pointed out that the funds come from gas
taxes, vehicle registration fees and other fees related to transportation. He
noted that the MSA funds are 9% of these total revenues. He added that with regard
to allocation to a particular City one -half of the funds is allocated by population
and one -half is allocated by the actual dollar needs of street improvements in
the City.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on proposed
Improvement Project No. 1982 -02 (Reconstruction of Xerxes Avenue North between
T. H. 100 and County State Aid Highway 10, 55th North between Xerxes Avenue
North and Brooklyn Boulevard, and 56th Avenue North between Xerxes Avenue North
and Brooklyn Boulevard). He inquired if there was anyone present who wished to
speak at the public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a :potion
to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
close the public hearing on proposed Improvement Project No. 1982 -02. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTI NO, 82 - 32 i
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1962 -02 (STREET RECONSTRUC`.1'ION OF
XERXES AVENUE FROM T. H. 100 TO COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 10, 55TH AVENUF; NORTH
FROM XERXES AVENUE TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD, AND 56TH AVENUE NORTH FROM XERXES
AVENUE TO BROOKLYN BOULEVARD)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
- in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hav7es, and
Rich Theis; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The Director of Public Works proceeded to review the Brookdale Access Improvement
Project No. 1982 -03 pointing out that this project would conducted in conjuntion
with Project No. 1982 -02 and would be 100% reimbursed by the property owzlers.
RESO NO. 82 -33
1, 4 -mber Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING BROOKDALE ACCESS IMFPOVEMb:NT PROJECT NO. 1932 -03,
ACCEPTING CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT, AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 --03
The motion for the adoption of the foregoiing resolution was duly seconded by
2 -8 -82 -6-
member Rich Theis, 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.
RESOLUTION NO. 82 -34
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR
BIDS FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 (XERXES AVENUE, 55TH AVENUE,
AND 56TH AVENUE STREET RECONSTRUCTION) AND BROOKDALE ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1982 -03 (CONTRACT 1982 -B)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 82001 SUBMITTED BY WILLIAM DALE FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT APPROVAL TO RESUBDIVIDE THE LAND AT 4815 FRANCE AVENUE NORTH AND THE VACANT
PARCEL TO THE WEST BY SHIFTING THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE EASTWARD TO THE DALE TILE
PARKING LOT.
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 2 through 3 of the January 14, 1982 Planning Commission minutes and also
the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 82001.
•
The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to review the location of the
subject parcel and pointed out that the final plat should indicate the area
that is designated as right -of -way along Lake Breeze Avenue and should make a
reference to MNDOT's request that the City Council indicate dedication of an
easement for right -of -way purposes at the south edge of Lot 1.
The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the Planning Commission held a
public hearing on Application No. 82001 at its January 14, 1982 meeting and that
the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 82001 subject to
three conditions which he reviewed for Council members.
The Director of Planning & Inspection noted that the application was tabled at the
January 25, 1982 City Council meeting because a representative of the applicant
was not present at that meeting. He noted that a public hearing is scheduled for
the application this evening, that the proper notices had been sent, and the
applicant was present this evening.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 82001. He inquired if there was anyone present who
wished to speak either against or for the application. No one appeared to speak
and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
® close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 82001. Voting in
2 -8 -82 -7-
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 82001 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances
3. The plat shall be modified prior to final approval by the City
Council to indicate:
a. Dedication of an easement for right -of -way purposes at the
south edge of Lot 1,
b. The distance from the center line of T. H. 100 to the property
line of Lot 1 as requested by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 and 35 Regarding
Provisions For Home Occupations. He explained this ordinance was first read
at the January 11, 1982 meeting, published on January 21, 1982 and is recommended
for a second reading this evening. He noted a public hearing on this ordinance
has been scheduled for 8:00 p.m.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance
Amending Chapters 34 And 35 Regarding Provisions For Home Occupations. He inquired
if there was anyone present who wished to speak at the public hearing. No one
appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapters 34 And 35 Regarding
Provisions For Home Occupations. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 82 -2
Member Celia Scott introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 34 AND 35 REGARDING THE PROVISIONS FOR HOME
OCCUPATIONS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by
member Bill Hawes, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Gene Lhotka, Celia Scott, Bill Hawes, and Rich
Theis, and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance
was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
2 -8 -82 -8-
AMENDMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION A NO. 81_0
The City Manager explained that the staff is recommending an amendment to Planning
Commission Application No. 81034 submitted by Mrs. LaVonne Malikowski for a home
occupation special use permit to teach ceramic classes in the basement of the
residence at 5509 Logan Avenue North. He pointed out that the agenda shows the
address as 5909 but that the correct address is 5509 Logan Avenue North. He stated
the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 81034 at its June 22,
1981 meeting and explained the proposed amendment would allow ten students in the
ceramics class and would not allow any on- street parking.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
amend condition No. 3 of Planning Commission Application No. 81034 submitted by
LaVonne Malikowski for a special home occupation to read as follows:
3. No more than ten students shall attend any one class in accordance
with Section 35 -406, Subdivision 5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Vacating The Alley In Block 1, NE Perkins
Addition, (Between Dupont Avenue North And Emerson Avenue North, From 54th To 55th
Avenue North). The City Manager explained a petition has been filed requesting
this vacation and that the ordinance was first read on January 11, 1982, published
on January 21, 1982 and is recommended for a second reading this evening.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the location of the alley and explained that
. this alley has never been opened for public travel and has never physically existed.
He added that notices of this second reading and public hearing have been sent to
all abutting property owners and a public hearing on the ordinance has been scheduled
for 8:15 p.m.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the ordinance
and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. Mayor Nyquist recognized
Mr. James Comley, 5421 Dupont Avenue North who requested an explanation of the alley
vacation. The City Manager reviewed the ordinance and noted that a vacation of an
alley means that the alley has been eliminated and cannot be used as a place to
drive.
Mayor Nyquist then inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak at the
public hearing. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a motion to close
the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
close the public hearing on An Ordinance Vacating The Alley In Block 1, NE Perkins
Addition. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes,
and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 82 -3
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
2 -8 -82 -9-
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALLEY LYING BETWEEN DUPONT AND EMERSON AVENUES
NORTH BETWEEN 54TH AND 55TH AVENUES NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, 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 ordinance
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RECESS
The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:25 p.m. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
UPDATE ON PENDING IRB PROJECTS
The City Manager referred Council members to a memorandum from Administrative
Assistant Hoffman which discussed pending Industrial Revenue Bonds in the City.
After reviewing the memo, the City Manager recommended that the City Council
grandfather in the four pending projects and then proceed to make any policy
changes they consider appropriate for new projects.
Mayor Nyquist inquired why the staff is recommending that commercial retail projects
be eliminated. The City Manager stated that there is really very little commercial
retail land left in the City and that a portion of the taxes from commercial retail
property are lost to a metropolitan pool. He also added that the cost of providing
service to a commercial retail area is greater than the cost to provide services to
office and industrial uses. He added that there appears to be enough existing •
commercial retail uses in the area and that the commercial retail type projects
are not recommended to be eliminated in redevelopment areas.
Mayor Nyquist inquired whether there would be any legal problems with changing
the guidelines in this matter. The City Attorney commented that he did not believe
there would but pointed out that no municipal guidelines have been tested in court.
He stated that any rsonable development guidelines should be able to be used by
cities without problems.
Councilmember Lhotka inquired whether granting preliminary approval to an industrial
revenue bond is a commitment to the project. The City Manager reviewed the case
of Hutchinson, Minnesota where preliminary approval was given and the final approval
was not granted to a project. He pointed out that in this case the applicant had
the decision of the City overturned in court. The City Attorney pointed out that
the Hutchinson Council made certain commitments to the development company and the
company was able to demonstrate that it lost dollars because the City did not
grant the final approval. He added that'in situations such as this it is dependent
on the facts of the particular case and no general statement can be made.
Councilmember Scott stated that she has no problem with eliminating the commercial
and retail projects from consideration since the original intent was for industrial
projects.
Mayor Nyquist stated that he was concerned about the area along Brooklyn Boulevard
with regard to projects. The City Manager pointed out that the policy would not
apply to redevelopment areas.
2 -8 -82 -10-
Councilmember Theis stated that he believes the City should look closely at the
next IRB application and believes that IRB's may not be as necessary to encourage
development given the impending completion of the I -94 freeway to Minneapolis.
The City Manager stated that the staff will prepare the changes in the guidelines
as per the Council's discussion.
19 82 PROPOSED B ADJUSTM
Mayor Nyquist commended the staff on the proposed budget adjustments and stated
he believes it was a fine job. The City Manager summarized his memorandum covering
the proposed 1982 budget revisions and proceeded to review the proposed cuts and
revisions in the 1982 Budget. Fie stated that the date proposed for the elimination
of the Detached Worker Program is March 1 and not February 1. He also added that
the elimination of funding for the Band, Harmonettes and Children's Chorus is
proposed for September of 1982.
Councilmember Theis inquired whether the recommendations regarding the City Band,
Harmonettes and Children's Chorus are similar to the previous recommendations
made at the 1982 budget hearings. The City Manager replied that funding would
continue for these programs only through September_ and not January as originally
proposed in the 1982 Budget. He added that there are few Park & Recreation programs
that are not self - supporting.
Councilmember Hawes inquired whether the positions in the Police Department are
now vacant or would officers be laid off. The City Manager explained that the
positions were vacant and at some later time we may or may not decide to replace
the position with another officer. He added that this decision will have to be
based on a judgment based on future service demands.
The discussion continued regarding the funding of the Band, Harmonettes, and
Children's Chorus.. Councilmember Theis stated that he would not like to see these
cultural groups disbanded because they are unable to support. themselves at 100
funding. He added that he believes there is value to the City in continuing the
Band, Chorus, and Harmonettes and that this should be a consideration. He inquired
what the cost of the programs were to the City. The Director of Finance replied
that the net cost of the programs for 1982 were $1,255 for Harmonettes, $1,530
for the Band, and .$2,700 for the Chorus.
Mayor Nyquist requested that the City staff contact the affected groups. The City
Manager stated that he would be contacting the groups and requested the City Council
to authorize the preparation of a resolution amending the 1982 Budget for consideration
at the next Council meeting.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
authorize the staff to prepare a resolution amending the 1982 Budget and reflecting
the proposed 1982 budget revisions. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Lhotka, Scott, and Hawes. Voting against: Councilmember Theis. The motion passed.
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION ON REQUIREMENT THAT PROSECUTOR BE PRESENT
AT ARRAIGNMENTS
The City Manager stated that at an earlier meeting he and the City Attorney were
2 -8 -82 -Il-
under the understanding that the courts were backing off from the requirement of
requiring prosecutors at all arraingnments. He pointed out that at this time the
requirement still stands and the staff is requesting the City Council to authorize
the staff to seek an Attorney General's opinion regarding this requirement._ The
City Attorney pointed out that the Attorney General's office has indicated that
they may not be able to give an opinion on this matter, explaining that they are
reluctant to address separation of powers issues. He added that this requirement
could add as much as $4,400 annually to the City's cost. He stated that the
judge's believe that by having prosecutors present at arraingnments they may answer
questions of the defendant and may reduce the number of trials and also clear up
any questions before the case goes to trial. He added that in Brooklyn Center's
case, the presence of the prosecutor at arraingnments would have little value,
since Brooklyn Center has very thorough and extensive Police Department reports
which generally do not require additional information at the arraingnments. He
stated that this added requirement of having the prosecutor attend arraingnments
would not benefit Brooklyn Center.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
authorize the City staff to seek an Attorney General's opinion on the requirement
that the prosecutor's presence is required at arraingnments.
RESOLUT.1 RECOGNIZING ACHIEV AND PUBLIC SERVICE
Mayor Nyquist noted that Diane Lemke, a member of the Brooklyn Center Human Rights
Commission and Brooklyn Center resident had been elected as one of the ten out-
standing young persons in Minnesota by the Jaycees organization. He suggested that
the Council authorize the staff to prepare a resolution commending Diane for her
award.
There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
direct the staff to prepare a .resolution commending Diane Lemke for her achievement.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against. none. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Nyquist also pointed out that the local Boy Scouts have been shoveling out
fire hydrants in the area and also pointed out that this week was National Boy Scout
week. He recommended that a resolution be prepared to recognize the achievements
of the local Boy Scouts.
There was a motion by Councilmember_ Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to
direct the staff to prepare a resolution commending the Boy Scouts for their work
inthe City. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott,- Hawes,
and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
LICENSES
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to
approve the following list of licenses:
BULK VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
K -Mart Corporation 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave.
Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N.
2 -8 -82 -12-
CIGARETTE LICENSE
• ABI Vending 1250 Angelo Dr.
Marc's Budgetel 6415 James Circle
Betty Varcoe 974 Rice St.
Holiday Inn Gift Shop 1501 Freeway Blvd.
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LI CENSE
Alano Society 4938 Brooklyn Blvd.
Baskin Robbins - 31 Flavors Brookdale Ctr.
Berean Evangelical. Free Church 6625 Humboldt Ave. N.
Bridgeman Creameries Brookdale Ctr.
Bridgeman Creameries 6203. Brooklyn Blvd.
Brook Park Baptist 4801 63rd Ave. N.
Brookdale Covenant Church 5139 Brooklyn Blvd.
B.C. Babe Ruth (Evergreen Park) 7112 Bryant Ave. N.
B.C. Babe Ruth (Grandview Park) 1600 59th Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Baptist Church 5840 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center High School 6500 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Evangical Free Church 6830 Quail Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center National Little League 2006 Brookview Drive
Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. N.
Community Emergency Assistance Program 7231 Brooklyn Blvd.
Cross of Glory Church 5940 Ewing Ave. N.
Dayton's Brookdale Ctr.
• Donaldson's Brookdale Ctr.
Duke's Properties 6501 Humboldt Ave. N.
Duoos Brothers American Legion 4307 70th Ave. N.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
Earle Brown Elementary School 5900 Humboldt Ave. N.
Fanny Farmer Candy Shop Brookdale Ctr.
Fisher Food Products 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N.
Green Mill 5540 Brooklyn Blvd.
Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Rd. 10
.Harron United Methodist Church 5452 Dupont Ave, N.
Hickory Farms Brookdale Ctr.
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Jerry's Brookdale Super Valu 5801 Xerxes Ave. N.
K -Mart 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Lutheran Church of the Master 1200 69th Ave. N.
Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr.
Maid of Scandinavia Co. Westbrook Mall
Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
Northbrook Alliance Church 6240 Aldrich Ave. N.
Northport Elementary School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd.
Num - -Num Foods, Inc. 3517 Hennepin Ave.
Brookdale Snack Bar Brookdale Ctr.
Orchard Lane School 6201 Noble Ave. N.
J.C. Penney, Co. Inc. Brookdale Ctr.
• Perkins Cake & Steak. 5915 John Martin Dr.
Peking Place 5704 Morgan Ave, N.
2 -8 -82 -13-
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE cont.
Plitt Brookdale Theater 2501 County Rd. 10 •
Pontillo's Pizza 5937 Summit Ave. N.
St. Alphonsus Church 7025 Halifax Ave. N.
7- Eleven 1500 69th Ave. N.
SuperAmerica Service Stations 6545 W. River Rd.
SuperAmerica Service Stations 1901 57t1i Ave. N.
United Artist Movies 5810 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Willow Lane School 7020 Perry Ave. N.
F. W. Woolworth, Inc. Brookdale Ctr.
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Community Emergency Assistance Program 7231 Brooklyn Blvd.
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Green Mechanical, Inc. 8811 E. Research Ctr.
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
A & J Enterprises 2367 University Ave.
Bob Ryan Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
Howard Baurmeister 5809 Boon Ave. N.
Pizza Feat 6816 Humboldt Ave. N.
Bill's Vending Service 7317 W. Broadway •
Brooklyn Center Skelly 6245 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brooklyn Center Country Boy 4401 69th Ave. N.
Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. N.
Hennepin County Library 6125 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd.
MTC 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
N.W. Bell 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Cass Screw Company 4748 France Ave. N.
Christy's Auto 5300 Dupont Ave. N.
D. L. Service Co. 2516 83rd Ave. N.
Lowell's Auto 6211 Brooklyn Blvd.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
First Brookdale Bank 5620 Brooklyn Blvd.
K -Mart Corporation 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Lynbrook Bowl, Inc. 6357 N. Lilac Dr.
Malmborg's Inc. 5120 N. Lilac Dr.
Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
N.S.P. 4501 68th Ave. N.
NSI /Griswold Co. 8300 19th Ave. N.
Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd.
Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N.
Pilgrim Cleaners 5748 Morgan Ave. N.
Plitt Brookdale Theater 2501 County Rd. 10
•
L
2 -8 -8 -14-
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MA LIC ENSE Cont.
Precision, Inc. 343.5 48th Ave. N.
Ralph's Super Service 6601 Lyndale Ave. N.
SuperAmerica Stations 6545 W. River Rd.
Theisen Vending 3804.Nicollet Ave.
Thrifty Scot Motel 6445 James Circle
Bill West 2000 57th Ave. N.
Viking Pioneer Distributing 5200 W. 74th St.
LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr.
Woodside Enterprises 2500 Nathan Lane
Brooklyn Center City Hall 6301 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
ON -SALE INTOX LIQUOR LICENS
Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr.
Yen Ching Restaurant 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
ON -SALE SUNDAY INTOXICATING LIQUOR. LICENSE
Lynbrook Bowl 6357 N. Lilac Dr.
Yen Ching Restaurant 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
PE RIS HAB LE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
A & J Enterprises 2367 University Ave. N.
Bob Ryan Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd.
Ault Corporation 1600 H. Freeway Blvd.
Canteen Company 6300 Penn Ave. S.
Hennepin County Library 6125 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd.
M.T.C. 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
N.W. Bell 5910 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
NSI /Griswold 8300 10th Ave. N.
Brookdale Pontiac 6801 Brooklyn Blvd.
Northwest Microfilm, Inc. 1600 67th Ave. N.
Plitt Brookdale Theater 2501 County Rd. 10
Viking Pioneer Distributing Co. 5200 W. 74th St.
LaBelles 5925 Earle Brown Dr.
R EADILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE
Ted Burlingame 5919 June Ave. N.
Fisher Food Products 106 6th Ave. N.
SIGNHANGER'S LICENS
Creative Sign Co. V 7027 Newton Ave. S.
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTA LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #1 6800 Humboldt Ave. N.
Brooklyn Center Liquor Store #2 6250 Brooklyn Blvd.
2 -8 -82 -15-
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE cone.
Brooklyn Center Liquor Store 43 Nor"Lllbrook Shopping Ctr.
Fun Services, Inc. 3701 50th Ave. N.
Ideal Drug Store 6900 Humboldt Ave. N.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously_
_A DJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Theis 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 9:28 p.m.
Clerk Mayor
2 -8 -8� -16-
i
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION M.
RESOLUTION APPRC VING CHAFE OF BID OPEN= DATE FOR CONTRACT
1982 -B (STREET IMPRCVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1982 -02 AND BROOKDALE
ACCESS 1MPR9V - 0 N PROJECT NO. 1982 -03)
MiEREAS, Resolution No. 82 -34, adopted on February 8, 1982,
established the bid opening date of March 4, 1982 for Contract
1982 -C; and
T%1EE2EP5, Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, requires that three
weeks must elapse between first publication of the advertiserent
for bids and the opening of said bids if the estimated cost _
exceeds $100,000.00; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Council that
it is necessary to change the bid opening date to March 11,
1982, to provide the required three week advertising period.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE City. Council of the City of
f Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that:
;+ 1. The bid opening date for Contract 1982 -B is hereby rescheduled
to March 11, 1982.
2. The City Engineer is hereby instructed to issue an addendum to
the Contract Documents advising all planholders of said change.
f
4
t
Date Mayor
1
ATTEST:
Clerk
t
a
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 F b
moved its adoption:
RESOLU'T'ION NO.
RESOLUTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND
TO THE GENERAL F
WHEREAS, Section 7.11 of the City Charter does provide the City
Council with full authority to make permanent transfers between all funds
which may be created, provided that such transfers are not inconsistent with
the provisions of related covenants, the provisions of the City Charter, or
State Statutes; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 1979, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 79 -227 which approved the 1980 Annual Budget for the City and encumbered
Federal Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of $286,077 to be transferred to
the GENERAL FUND subsequent to the expenditure of funds by the GENERAL FUND
for appropriations in said 1980 Annual Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently amended the 1980 Annual Budget
and encumbered additional Federal Revenue Sharing funds as follows:.
Resolution No. 80 -197, August 11, 1980 in the amount of $4,800
Resolution No. 80 -247, October 6, 1980 in the amount of $645
Resolution No. 80 -253. October 20, 1980 in the amount of $3,667; and
WHEREAS,_ on December 22, 1980, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 80 -299 which'authori.zed reimbursements of expenditures made through that
date in the amount of $221,687.50; and
WHEREAS, certain expenditures have been made from the GENERAL FUND
since those previously reimbursed, and they are as follows:
Date Voucher No. Amoun _V endor Purpose
1 -12 -81 012021 (13) $ 300.00 Addo X Agency 2 calculators
1 -12 -81 315004 (19) 3,171.89 Advance irrigation Irrigation System
1 -12 -81 012004 (19) 868.74 Advance Irrigation Irrigation System
4 -13 -81 103507 (19) 240.00 Twin City Garage Radio Door Control
3 -23 -81 36964 (19) 181.04 Walter Hammond Drill
1 -12 -81 (31) 430.00 Northland Security Sensor
1 -12 -81 329046 (31) 361.34 Business Furniture Card File
1-12-81 315672 (31) 645.00 West Photo Color Analyzer
1 -12 -81 329602 (32) 320.00 Ziebart Undercoat Fire Truck
1 -12 -81 329751 (32) 2,250.00 Dennis Sylte Install Van Cabinets
2 -23 -81 36423 (34) 810.36 Daniels Electric Siren Installation
2- 9 -81 36099 (34) 165.78 Broadway Rental Boom Rental
2- 9-81 35744 (41) 10,000.00 Mark Hurd Aerial Photo
2- 9 -81 301684 (66) 520.00 Economy Register Cash Register
2- 9 -81 329788 (66) 981.34 Lindberg- Pierce Arch.- Pool.Impr.
2- 9 -81 36745 (66) 751.95 Insulation Sales Tile
„ 2- 9 -81 36863 (66) 574.00 Acoustic Assos. Acoustic Material
5 -26 -81 145699 (69) 4,966.00 Instant Shade Trees
2- 9 -81 36230 (69) 2,920.00 MacGills -Gibbs Posts
TOTAL $ and
RESOLUTION NO.
WHEREAS, on October 6, 1980 the City Council adopted Resolution No.
80 -238 which approved the 19 Annual Budget for the City and encumbered Federal
Revenue Sharing funds in the amount of $391,610 to be transferred to the
GENERAL FUND subsequent to the expenditure of funds by the GENERAL FUND for
appropriations in said 1981 Annual Budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council amended the 1981 Annual Budget and encumbered
additional Federal Revenue Sharing funds as follows:
Resolution No. 81 -72, March 23, 1981 in the amount of $2,960
minutes of June 1, 1981 in the amount of $7,500; and
WHEREAS, certain expenditures have been made from the GENERAL FUND,
and they are as follows:
Date Voucher No. Amount Vendor Purpose
11- 9 -81 313709 (13) $ - 127.16 Victor Calculator
'4-27-81 117 77 Slitter
2 6 13 7 95 Envelope Sli
( ) 1 9. M. F. Bank o
P
I
2 -23 -81 054275 (15) 66.91 LaBelle 's Calculator
7 -13 -81 194046 1
0 ( 5) 53.00 Business Furn. Coat Rack
3 -23 -81 082006 (15) 125.50 Albinsons Planimeter
7 -13 -81 194046 (15) 53.00 Business Furniture Chair
3 -23 -81 082201 (16) 922.50 IBM Typewriter
3 -23 -81 082765 (16) 149.96 Frederick- Sherry 4 side chairs
5 -11 -81 131687 (19) 5,788.00 Neenah Foundry Grate- Street Garage
6- 8 -81 159653 (19) 384.00 Bob, Inc. Grate - Street Garage
7 -13 -81 194666 (19) 24,856.00 Jacobson Roof Reroof Bldg. -6250 B.B.
8 -24 -81 236673 (19) 1,000.00 Jacobson Roof Reroof Bldg. -6250 B.B.
5 -21 -81 159654 (19) 381.95 Brissman 2 Vacuum Cleaners
5 -25 -81 145652 19 4 Benson's 2 Rotary ( ) 00.00 enson s Svc. R y Mowers
8 -24 -81 236450 (19) 149.95 Reed's Sales Hedge Trimmer
5 -11 -81 131678 (19) 1,110.00 Telesystems Telephone Improvements
10 -12 -81 285655 (19) 182.59 Hauenstein Telephone Improvements
12 -28 -81 362706 (19) 575.00 Consulting Eng. City Property Platted
7 -13 -81 194046 (31) 357.91 Business Furn. Lateral File
8 -24 -81 236846 (31) 111.13 Business Furn. Desk Chair
2 -23 -81 054686 (31) 1,485.00 Systems 3 10 Cassette Recorders
3 -23 -81 082201 (31) 922.50 IBM Electric Typewriter
2- 9 -81 040575 (31) 400.00 Wahl & Wahl Transcriber
10 -26 -81 299657 (31) 2,632.30 North Star Video System
1 -11 -81 011666 (31) 324.75 Sound of Music Video System l
12 -28 -81 362658 (31) 258.09 Century Camera Video System
8 -10 -81 222534 (31) 675.20 Uniforms Unlimited Riot Helmets
5 -18 -81 138650 (31) 775.00 Honda Town Trail Bike
8 -24 -81 236679 (31) 95.00 Honda Town Trail Bike
2 -23 -81 054534 (31) 665.00 Uniforms Unlimited Light /Sound System r
2- 9 -81 040534 (31) 425.00 Uniforms Unlimited Light /Sound System
9 -14 -81 257653 (31) 180.00 Fridley Cyclery 5 Speed Bike
9 -14 -81 257721 (31) 193.62 Leonard Harrell Dog Kennel
1- 5 -81 005204 (31) 45,282.66 Iten Chevrolet 6 Police Cars
11 -23 -81 327666 (32) 8,420.00 Bilateral Hose 2,000' Fire Hose
11- 9 -81 313720 (32) 1,120.48 Motorola 4 Pocket Pagers
1 -25 -82 025667 (32) 930.33 LaFrance Portable Deluge
1 -25 -82 025667 (32) 507.10 LaFrance 10 Elbows
1 -25 -82 025667 (32) 1,029.27 LaFrance 2 Hard Suction Hose
1 -25 -82 025667 (32) 333.48 LaFrance 2 Hose Jackets
12 -26 -81 362726 (32) 880.00 Viking Partner Saw w
10 -26 -81 299308 (32) 2,788.00 Mid Central 45 Fire Helmets
RESOLUTION N0.
Da Voucher No. Amount Vendor Purpose
1 -25 -82 025667 (32) 990.58 LaFrance 2 Water Vacs
12 -26 -81 362726 (32) 141.84 Viking Voice Hailer
7 -13 -81 194700 (32) 945.00 P.rmstrong Recording Annie
7 -13 -81 194700 (32) 335.00 Armstrong Suction Unit
11- 9 -81 313664 (32) 938.00 Road Rescue 2 Resuscitators
11- 9 -81 313664 (32) 341.00 Road Rescue 4 Oxygen Tanks
7-27-61 208165 (32) 540.03 W. W. Grainger Air Compressor
7 -13 -81 194160 (32) 72.90 Goodin Air Compressor Conn.
8 -24 -81 236656 (32) 4,211.00 Emergency Fire Water Drill
I ' I 12 -14 -81 348308 (32) 3,893.00 Mid Central 30 Coats & Pants
10 -26 -81 299308 (32) 900.00 Mid Central Boots
5 -25 -81 145696 (34) 145.12 Modern Bin 2 Shelving Units
7 -13 -81 194700 (34) 945.00 Armstrong Resuscitation Annie
7 -13 -81 194700 (34) 525.00 Armstrong Resuscitation Annie
2- 9 -81 040062 (41) 50.27 Copy Equip. Electric Eraser
4 -13 -81 103062 (41) 13.13 Copy Equip. Electric Eraser
8 -10 -81 222062 (41) 171.06 Copy Equip. Planimeter
7-27-81 (41) 665.20 Tierney Lettering Machine
4- 22-81 117665 (41) 16,500.00 Mark Hurd Aerial Mapping
8 -24 -81 236044 (42) 43,984.86 Bill Boyer Dump Truck
12- 24 -81 348673 (42) 55.00 Municilite Roto Beam
6 -22 -81 173459 (42) 15,719.00 Ruffridge- Johnson Striper
12 -27 -81 348670 (42) 8,194.00 Itasca Equip. Snow Plow & Wing
12 -27 -81 348673 (42) 55.00 Municilite Roto Beam
4 -13 -81 103655 (42) 887.75 Air Power Jack Hammer
12 -28 -81 362289 (42) 87.77 Lowell's Auto Wing Plow Lights
4- 13-81 103325 (43) 215.00 Minn. Toro Rotary Blade Grinder
4 -13 -81 103450 (43) 377.27 Reed's Sales Impact Wrench
2 -23 -81 054681 (43) 260.00 Old Dominion Brooms For Sweeper
5 -11 -81 131046 (61) 644.56 Business Furn. 4 Side Chairs
5 -25 -81 145046 (61) 86.29 Business Furn. Table
5 -25 -81 145046 (61) 306.18 Business Furn. Credenza
5 -25 -81 145046 (61) 333.39 Business Furn. 3 Secretarial Chairs
2 -23 -81 054651 (61) 131.57 Century Camera Camera
5 -26 -81 146650 (66) 2,181.48 Gra bar Elec. Patio Lighting
Y g g
7 -13 -81 194076 66
1,824.60 Daniels Elec. Patio Lighting
g g
5 -25 -81 145677 (66) 312.50 Lindberg Pierce Tile Pool Deck
1 -29 -81 029651 (66) 18,000.00 Land O'Lakes Tile Tile Pool Deck
3- 9 -81 068653 (66) 7,200.00 Land O'Lakes Tile Tile Pool Deck
7 -13 -81 194667 (66) 5,340.00 Land O'Lakes Tile Tile Pool Deck
3 -23 -81 082655 (66) 45,907.66 Carlton McKinney Replace Lockers
8 -24 -81 236657 (66) 402.00 Foldcraft 3 Tables -c.c.
9 -28 -81 271667 (66) 34.52 Transport 3 Tables- Freight
4 -27 -81 117743 (66) 268.50 Tradewinds 3 Lounges -c.c.
5 -11 -81 131683 (66) 37.88 Transport 3 Lounges Freight
8 -13 -81 257130 (66) 150.00 Fitness Sit -up Board
9 -28 -81 271654 (66) 6,960.00 Associated Pool Chemical Controller
9 -28 -81 239000 (66) 2,390.00 Associated Pool Pool Vacuum
12 -14 -81 348102 (66) 95.35 Elvin Safety Dispenser
6 -22 -81 173732 (66) 162.00 Superior Table Top Base
6 -8 -81 159662 (66) 253.44 Insulation Sales Acoustic Tile
810 -81 222716 (69) 1,055.00 Lindberg - Pierce Remodel Riverdale
11 -23 -81 327293 (69) (318.00) Lindberg - Pierce Remodel Riverdale
11- 9-81 313724 (69) 7,435.2G Superior 77 Remodel Riverdale
12 -14 -81 348735 (69) 151.74 Superior 77 Remodel Riverdale
12- 14 -81 348732 (69) 9,211.20 Don Morin Shelter Bldg. Roofs
(
RESOLUTION N0.
Date Voucher No. Amount Vendor Purpose
1 -11 -82 011699 (69) 7,774.80 Don Morin Shelter Bldg. Roofs
11- 9 -81 313692 (69) 1,122.74 Lindberg- Pierce Shelter Bldg. Roofs
4 -13 -81 103676 (69) 873.99 Peterson Mach. Radial Saw
6- 5 -81 194450 (69) 262.50 Reed's Sales Weed Cutter
9- 8 -81 281658 (69) 365.00 Jack's Vacuum Vacuum Cleaner
4 -13 -81 103450 (69) 1,170.00 Reed's Sales 2 Snow Blowers
5 -11 -81 131325 (69) 2,650.00 Minn. Toro Overseeder
2- 9 -81 040325 (69( 23,876.00 Minn. Toro Tractor Mower
4 -13 -81 103164 (69) 2,075.00 R. L. Gould Tractor Mower
9 -28 -81 271665 (69) 491.98 Small Engine City Lawn Mower
8 -24 -81 236717 (80) 7,500.00 City of Fridley Copying Machine
4 -13 -81 103682 (80) 2,960.00 Tele- Terminals CRT Terminal
3- 23-81 082751 (19) 181.04 Walter Hammond Hammer Drill
TOTAL $371,316,24
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to transfer the amount of $401,773.68 from the FEDERAL REVENUE
SHARING FUND to the GENERAL FUND.
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 aginst the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AME NDIN G THE 1982 GENERAL FUND 'BUDGET
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has informed the City that certain
State shared revenues, which were committed to the City of Brooklyn Center
at the time of the 1982 Budget preparation, will be reduced; and
WHEREAS, the reduced revenues are in the amount of $220,359; and
WHEREAS, appropriations were made by the City Council in the 1982
Budget in anticipation of the receipt of said revenues:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the 1982 General Fund Budget be amended to reflect
the decrease in estimated revenue from the following sources:
Local Government Aid $179,467
Homestead Credit Aid 15,892
Shade Tree Disease Control Grants 25,000
Total $220,359 and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following departmental appropriations
are decreased in the amounts indicated:
City Manager's Office (13) $ 7,386
Independent Audit. (17) 1,000
Legal Counsel (18) 3,000
Government Buildings (19) 11,000
Detached Worker (21) 12
Police Protection (31) 43,065
Fire Protection (32) 3,920
Planning and Inspection (33) 2,000
Animal Control (35) 500
Engineering (41) 10,700
Street Maintenance (42) 24,200
Vehicle Maintenance (43) 10,000
Street Lighting (45) 750
Adult Recreation Programs (62) 2,135
Teen Recreation Programs (63) 500
Children Recreation Programs (64) 13,050
General Recreation Programs (65) 3,500
Community Center Programs (66) 3,550
Park Maintenance (69) 36,150
Unallocated Departmental Expense (80) 14,468
Total $203,707 and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following Revenue Estimates are
increased in the amounts indicated:
Transfer from Community Development Fund $ 14,138
Transfer from Liquor Fund 2,514
Total $ 16,652
RESOLUTION NO.
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.
V
tt
r .
k
a
t
d
i
U �
t:
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR
THE ACHIEVEMENTS AND PUBLIC SERVICE OF BOY SCOUT TROOP 529
AND CUB SCOUT PACK 632
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center Boy Scout Troop 529 and Cub Scout Pack 632
have initiated a program of clearing away snow and ice from City fire hydrants; and
WHEREAS, their efforts have greatly aided the emergency preparedness
of the Brooklyn Center fire Department and contributed substantially to the
safety of Brooklyn Center residents; and
WHEREAS, their public service and civic effort for the betterment of
the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center; and
WHEREAS, it is highly appropriate that the services and achievements
of Boy Scout Troop 529 and Cub Scout Pack 632 should be permanently recognized
and expressed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center that Boy Scout Troop 529 and Cub Scout Pack 632 are hereby
awarded this resolution in recognition of their public service and achievements
as a visible and lasting expression of gratitude for all the service they have
rendered and the benefits they have secured to the residents of Brooklyn Center.
a
Date M ayor
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 adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution
r ..
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF DIANE LEMKE AS ONE
OF THE TEN OUTSTANDING YOUNG MINNESOTANS OF 1982
WHEREAS, Diane Lemke has been chosen as one of the Ten Outstanding
Young Minnesotans of 1982 by the Minnesota Jaycees; and
WHEREAS, this prestigious award serves as recognition of Diane's
personal achievements and service to the community; and
WHEREAS, Diane Lemke is involved in a variety of activities that
merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center including membership
on the Brooklyn Center Human Rights Commission, founder of the Out of Sight
Clubs in conjunction with the Lions Club in Brooklyn Center, and founder of
ABLE, Association for Blind Living & Education.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the Council congratulates Diane Lemke on being chosen
as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Minnesotans in 1982 and hereby awards
ds
this resolution in recognition ition of her achievements g hievements a
nd community service as
a lasting expression of gratitude and congratulations.
Date
Mayor
ATTEST: I
t.
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 avor thereof..
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly s
y p used and adopted.
i
n
fl
r T
9
}
M 6440 Jarnes Circle N.
Minneapolis, MN 55430
566 -6250
February 19, 1982
Mr. Jim Lindsey
Brooklyn Center Police Chief
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway -
Brooklyn Center, MN. 55430
Re: Earle Brown Bowl
Restaurant & Lounge
Dear Mr. Lindsey:
Enclosed are actual lounge and restaurant sales figures for
the period January 15, 1982 to February 14, 1982.
Liquor & Beer
Lounge Sales $ 21,287.98
Lanes Liquor & Beer Sales 26,931.97
TOTAL 48,219.95
Food Sales (including
banquets, special
events, etc.) 49,464.66
As you can see, the liquor sales on the lanes represent a large
percentage of total liquor sales. We anticipate that this will be
the case from now until approximately the end of April when the
bowling season ends. At that time we anticipate lounge sales to
remain relatively constant, lane sales to fall substantially and
food sales to continue to increase.
Sincerely,
/James E. Madden
President
JEM:jcm
1. The two lots meet the requirement for width and
area and make appropriate use of land served by
two access points.
2. The size of the existing parcel was determined by
taking of land for public right -of -way.
3. The variance.will not cause a detriment to
surrounding properties.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Hager. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 82005 ( James Madden /Earle Brown Bowl)
The Secretary introducers the next Item of business, a request for
site and building plan and special use permit approval to expand the
bar and lounge at the Earle Brown Bowl at 6440 James Circle. The
e e t report see Planning
Secretary r th contents of th s p { g
Commission Information. Sheet for Application No. 82005 attached).
The Secretary also reviewed the seating layouts inside the restaurant
and lounge and the bowling alley existing prior to late December of
1981, those in effect at present, and those proposed by the applicant
for approval.
There followed a discussion regarding restriping the parking lot to
conform with the Proof --of- Parking plan submitted by the applicant.
The applicant assured the Commission that he intended to restripe
the parking lot during the summer of 1982 and would not oppose a
condition requiring such restriping during that time.
Commissioner Malecki asked whether the trash containers for the
• i
bowling alley were enclosed, The Secretary responded n th e affirmative.
The Secretary briefly pointed out that three handicapped p parking stalls
on the Proof -of- Parking plan would have to be relocated closer to the
building to meet Building Code requirements. He also explained that
the staff, recommended deferring the seven stalls along the north side
of the parking lot west of the bowling alley, because installation
would cut into a large berm along Freeway Boulevard. He stated that
ti r d
J ames Circle and /or
if parking problems arose, with carte parking on Ja es i c /
Freeway Y
Boulevard the City could require that at least the seven
additional stalls be put in: Commissioner Hager was somewhat puzzled
as to why the stalls were deferred, whether they were required, or on.
what basis they would be required. Chairman Lucht explained that
deferral of parking stalls is sometimes approved because the Commission
has no desire to see a "sea of blacktop" simply for the sake of meeting
parking requirements. The Secretary explained that the parking re-
quirements must at least be met through a proof -of- parking. He
noted that the parking requirements are not only to provide adequate
parking, but also effectively control the density Y of structures per -
p �
mitted on a given amount of land.
PUBLIC HEARI
Chairman I,uC}1 then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Com-
missioner Malecki asked whether the dance floor was comprehended
under the existing special use permit for the bowling alley. The
Secretary answered that the bowling alley does have a special use
permit for live entertainment and that the dance floor would be
1- 14--82 -5-
comprehended under that permit.
C LOSE P IIEAPJNG
There being no other comments from those present in the audience
regarding the application, there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki
seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The
motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECO14MENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82005
(James Madden /Earle Brown Bowl)
notion by Corana_ssioner Ai.nas seconded by ComaHssioner Sandstrom to
recommend approval of Application No. 82005, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The amended Special Use Permit is issued to the
owner as operator of the facility and is nontransferable.
2. The amended Special Use Permit is for the expansion
of the facility and comprehends all applicable con -
ditions of the original approval granted under
Planning Commission Application No. 78023.
3. Building plans are subject to review and approval
by the Building Official with respect to applicable
codes prior to the issuance of building permits.
4. 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
building permits to assure completion of approved
site improvements..
5. Plan approval comprehends a "Proof-of-Parking"
showing that ordinance required parking can be
installed on the site. Restriping of the lot to
the "Proof -of- Parking" shall be accomplished by
midsummer of 1952. Construction of the seven
additional stalls on the north side of the westerly
parking lot may be deferred unless it is determined
by the City Manager that the stalls are necessary to
accommodate parking needs.
6. The north exit onto James mes Circle shall be eliminated
and two additional parking stalls constructed. B -612
curb and gutter shall be installed to match the
existing curb and gutter and the area shall be
landscaped.
7. Plans shall be modified prior to consideration by
the City Council to include the following:
a. a sidewalk from the north entrance to
connect with existing sidewalk on
Freeway Boulevard.
b. a sidewalk from the north entrance to the
westerly parking lot.
C. the building elevations shall be modified to
eliminate the existing canopy that is a part
1 -14 -82 -6 ,
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Hager. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
R ECES S
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:13 and resumed.at 9:34 p.m.
Upon resumption of business, Chairman Lucht stated that Commissioner
Simmons had.asked to be excused from the meeting because she was ill.
APPLICA 110. 82006 (Farrell's)
THeSecretary introduce' tie next item of business, a request for
special use permit approval to convert a 17' x 28' dining room
into a game room for use by restaurant patrons at 5524 Brooklyn
Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report
(see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. o
82006 attached).
Following presentation of the staff report, Chairman Lucht asked
Mr. Tom Schlueter, the manager of the Farrell's Restaurant, whether
he had anything to add. The applicant stated he had no additional
comment.
PUBLIC HE. RING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and
asked �•.hether anyone present wished to comment on the application.
There being none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing.
C LOSE PUBLIC H EARING
Motion by Coi icner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Hager to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECO APPROVAL OF APP N O. 8200 (Farrell's
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commis zs oner l-lanson to
recommend approval of Application No. 82000, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator
of the facility and is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all codes, ordinances and
regulations, and any violation thereof shall be
grounds for revocation.
3. House rules shall be posted and strictly enforced and
a copy of said rules shall be kept on file with the City.
4. Should the game room be reconverted to a dining area
at some time in the future, the seating capacity of
the restaurant shall be subject to the parking re-
quirements in effect at such time and no claim to
the seating capacity existing prior to the operation
of the game room shall be valid.
Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Ainas, Sandstrom and Hager. Voting against: none. The motion
i passed.
1 -14 -82 -7-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 82005
Applicant: James Madden /Earle Brown Bowl
Location: 6440 James Circle
Request: Special Use Permit Amendment to expand liquor lounge area
The applicant is seeking an amendrr,ent to his special use permit which authorized
a bowling alley, restaurant and cocktail lounge use in the industrial park zone.
The original approval was granted by the City Council on May 8, 1978 under
Planning Commission Application No. 78023. The bowling alley, restaurant and
liquor lounge are located easterly of James Circle, south of Freeway Boulevard
and the property is surrounded by vacant industrially zoned land to the east
and south and by James Circle on the west and Freeway Boulevard on the north.
The amendment proposed by the applicant comprehends the expansion of the liquor
lounge through interior remodeling to gain additional area which would allow for
an increased seating capacity. The proposal also comprehends the elimination of
the existing entrance and the construction of two new entrances on the west side
of the building. Also comprehended is the upgrading of an existing entrance ors
the north side of the building.
This application is the direct result of problems the applicant has`had complying
with certain provisions of the City's liquor licensing ordinance. Specifically,
the Earle Brown Bowl did not truly have a minimum of 150 restaurant seats as re-
quired by the ordinance and, also, the applicant has never been able to meet the
requirement of the liquor ordinance that the principal part of the restaurant/
liquor operation be from the sale of food. After much review by the City Council
in December, 1981 and serious consideration being given to revoking the license,
the City Council did approve a license for Mr. Madden on the condition that he
remodel the premises to provide a minimum of 150 restaurant seats at the estab-
lishment plus provide his written assurance that he will create a "supper club
atmosphere" in 1982 and also assure, in writing, his intent to meet the liquor
ordinance required food.salesto liquor salesratio in 1982.
The City has issued various building permits, primarily for interior remodeling
to accommodate the required changes. This includes the building of new full wall
partitions between the lounge and restaurant area; the construction of a partial
wall partition around the coffee shop; the building of a new entrance to the
restaurant on the west side of the building;and the upgrading of the existing
entrance on the north side of the building. These changes were considered to be
within the realm of the original approval because the facility was not expanded
beyond its approved capacity. With these changes the liquor operation at the
Earle Brown Bowl was allowed to continue.
Mr. Madden now wishes to expand the operation further which does require the need
for additional parking and exterior remodeling to the extent that site plan
approval is also required.
The expansion Mould amount to an increase from the 50 existing lounge seats to
86 by removing an existing interior wall and the construction of new walls to
allow the expansion into an area now used as an entrance corridor. The existing
entrance on the west wall would be eliminated and a new entrance constructed to
the south primarily to serve as an entrance to the bowling alley. The new
entrance mentioned above would serve as a primary entrance into the restaurant
and cocktail lounge.
1 -14 -82 -1-
Application No. 82005 continued
With respect to required parking, the applicant has submitted a "Proof of Parking"
which shows that the seating expansion can be accomoodated by reducing the width
of stalls to meet the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirement; adding seven new stalls
to the northwest parking lot; eliminate an existing exit onto James Avenue; and by
relocating handicapped parking to more appropriate locations. The staff acknow-
ledges that this is feasible, however, we would recommend that the driveway exit
be eliminated and reconstructed immediately. Restri P in g of the lot to the Proof
of Parkin should
be accomplished '
� r ished whin restriNing would normally be undertaken.
The seven proposed stalls would not have to be installed provided the applicant
agrees to construct these stalls upon a determination by the City that they are
necessary.
t
With the construction of new entrances the applicant is proposing to construct
entrance canopies similar to the existing canopies. The building wall exterior
where the existing entrance is to be removed will be covered with material to match the
existing stun building di n
exterior. However, 9 c ver they hey propose to leave the existing canopy in
9 py
place although there will be no entrance beneath it. The staff feels that a review
of the building elevations will dictate the need to eliminate this canopy and
would recommend that the Planning Commission consider this as a requirement of
plan approval. It is also recommended that the applicant be required to provide
a sidewalk from the north entrance to the existing City sidewalk running along the
south side of Freeway Boulevard and also extend sidewalk westerly from this north
entrance to the westerly parking lot. k
t
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
With some modifications, the plans seem to be in order and the amendment of the
special use permit does seem to be consistent with the standards for special uses
contained in Section 35 -220:2 (copy attached) and approval is recommended subject
to the following conditions:
f
1. The amended Special Use Permit is issued to the owner as operator '
of the facility and is nontransferable.
2. The amended Special Use Permit is for the expansion of the facility i
and comprehends all applicable conditions of Vu original approval
granted under Planning Commission Application No. 78023.
3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of building permits.
• 4. 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 building permits to assure
completion of approved site improvements.
5. Plan approval comprehends a "Proof -of- Parking" showing that
Ordinance required parking can be installed on the site.
Restriping of the lot to the "Proof- of- Parkincj'should be
accomplished when restriping is normally redone. Construction
of the seven additional stalls on the north side of the
westerly parking lot may be deferred unless it is determined
by the City Manager that the stalls are necessary to a
9 y c m-
ca
modate arkin
p 9
needs.
;
1 -14 -82 -2-
Application No. 82005 continued
6. The north exit onto James Circle shall be eliminated and two
additional parking stalls constructed. D612 curb and gutter
shall be installed to match the existing curb and gutter and
the area shall be landscaped,
3
7. Plans shall be modified prior to consideration by the City Council
to include the following
a: a sidewalk from the north entrance to connect with
existing sidewalk on Freeway Boulevard.
b. a sidewalk from the north entrance to the westerly
parking lot.
c. the building elevations shall be modified to
eliminate the existing canopy that is a part of
the existing entrance.
1 -14 -82 -3-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police
V
DATE: February 19, 1982
SUBJECT: Gross Receipts from Beverage and Food at the Earle
Brown Bowl
Attached please find a letter from Jim Madden listing the split
between liquor_ sales and food sales for the period January 15
through February 15.
The letter lists a gross receipts for liquor and food at
$97,684.61. Of this $49,464.66 or 50.64% represents food
sales. Of the total $48,219.95 or 49.36% represents liquor
sales. These figures represent a seating arrangement that
currently has 150 seats assigned to food and 50 seats assigned
to the lounge area.
I
t
MINUTES U ' '1't4E VEC)C;I .E P NGS OF THE F :LIUr' -M'1NC C OMI 51UNI
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN'
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
FEBRUARY 11, 1982
• CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order
by Chairman George Lucht at 7:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL
C'hasrman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson,
Lowell Ainas and Richard Hager. Also present were Director of
Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer
James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary
noted that Commissioners Simmons and Sandstrom had called to say
that they would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and
asked to be excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 28, 1982 _
Niotlon by Commissioner iyialec i seconded by Commissioner Manson to
approve the minutes of the January 28, 1982 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commis -
sioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Hager. Voting against: none.
The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 82008 (Bergstrom Realty)
Fallowing the C a.irman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the
first item of business, a request to rezone a 7.5 acre tract of
land lying east of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center from C2 to
R3. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning
Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82008 attached).
Commissioner Malecki asked whether the 1977 rezoning request was
approved pending submittal of a screening and buffering plan between
the shopping center and single family residences on the subject
property. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission had
recommended amendment of the old Comprehensive Plan and approval of
the rezoning to Rl. The application was referred to the City
Council, he said, which did not take final action on the application,
but waited for a screening plan which was never submitted. Commis-
sioner Malecki asked whether it was standard procedure to attach
conditions to a rezoning. The Secretary answered that, in the case
of the Madsen property rezoning in 1979, the land to be rezoned had
no formal legal description and needed to be replatted into identi-
fiable land parcels before the property in question could be listed
in the Zoning Ordinance as R3. He stated that since this had not
been done, the rezoning has not really taken effect. Commissioner
Manson asked whether platting was always necessary with a rezoning
and whose responsibility it was: the owner's or the City's. The
Secretary stated that platting is not always necessary with a re-
zoning of land, only when the land to be rezoned has no platted
legal description. He stated that platting must be completed prior
to -the issuance of building permits and that it is the owner's
responsibility to complete this process if he wishes to develop
the property.
2- 11 -82 -1-
Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Jim
Merila, of Merila and Associates, representing Bergstrom Realty,
spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that a meeting had
been held with the neighbors to the east of the property in
question on February 2. He stated that the general consensus
at the meeting was apprehension over a possible rental or sub-
sidized housing project on the property. He stated that the
assurance that the owner can give that the property will not be
developed for rental subsidized housing is that the rezoning be
made subject to a replatting of the property into a planned unit
development townhouse project. Mr. Merila then showed some slides
of the land in question and of the surrounding land uses. He also
showed a conceptual plan of the area and pointed out that a pond
would be constructed to lower the water table in the area. He ex-
plained that the pond would drain to a storm sewer in 67th Avenue
North. Mr. Merila then showed some slides of similar townhouses
and reviewed other owner- occupied townhouse developments in Brooklyn
Center. 'He stated that he felt a townhouse development would be a
good transitional use between the shopping center and the single
family homes to the east. He stated that there is no intent that
the project be a subsidized housing development and added that,
with the budget cuts at the federal level, there is almost no money
for subsidized housing at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr.
Dale Stelzer of 6837 Emerson Avenue North asked some questions re-
garding the conceptual plan for the townhouse development. He
asked how high the berms would be along the east side of the devel-
opment and whether water would flow over or between the berms to a
storm drain running behind the homes facing Emerson Avenue North.
The Secretary stated that building permits would not be issued until
the site and building plans for the project had been approved, and
that buffer and screening is required between Rl and R3 developments.
He explained that berming is not required between the two uses,
but that it can be used as a fulfillment of the screening requirement.
He also pointed out that a drainage and utility plan is required as
part of 'the site and building plan approval and that this drainage
plan must not adversely impact on surrounding property. Mr. Stelzer
stated that he did not want six feet of water in his basement, which
could happen if all of the water from property to the west drained
toward the single family homes facing Emerson, which are at a lower.
elevation. He also stated that the proposal for 64 townhouse units
is almost like putting up an apartment building, as far as resi-
dential density is concerned. The Secretary stated that buildings
with common entrances are not permitted in the R3 zone. Mr. Stelzer
-
e
asked whether there was any n Fra Y thai. the proposed ro seed development c ould"
turn into a low income rental project. The Secretary answered that
the Zoning Ordinance does not control ownership, but rather things,
such as height, bulk, density, setback and buffer requirements. Mr.
Stelzer asked whether townhouses were more beneficial than single
family homes from a tax base standpoint. The Secretary answered
that there would be more value added to the tax roles with individ-
ually-owned townhouse units. F ?e explained that owner- occupied
townhouses are appraised on the basis of their market `value, whereas
rental townhouses are apl on the basis of their income po-- •
tential. Mr. Merila stated that it was the applicant's intent to
l of the drainage- from the subject ec;t ro ert
take care g � property Y by using an
existing catch. basin and .ate }3vrt"1 sewer on the east side of the site
and with a couple of additional storm seer lines connecting the
a `
2-- 11--82 -2-
proposed holding pond to storm sewer in 67
Mr. Duane Bass of 6807 Fraierson Avenue North asked whet ' her the pro--
je(-,t. would be built all tit once or over a period of years. Mr.
Morila answered that it would probably be I-)uilt over a couple of
years time and that thc first thing to be secured would be financing.
Mr. Bass asked where buil w Mr. Merila stated he
I
was not sure, that it would depend on which units were sold first.
Ile added, however, that the grading and drainage would be completed
at one tire, before the building of any townhouses. In answer to
a question from Mr. Bass regarding berming, the Secretary stated
that berms ar(� not required, but may be used to f the screen-
ing requirements between R3 and RI uses. He stated that a per-
formance agreement would be required to ensure the completion of
approved site improvements.
Mr. Tim Boyle of 681.3 Emerson Avenue North stated that he favored a
single family development on the property in question. He cited
the policy in the Comprehensive Plan that the Northeast Neighborhood
be predominantly single family residential in character as grounds
for rejecting the rezoning request. He also stated that the con-
ceptual plan has three dead end streets, which he felt would be
hazardous. The Secretary explained that those streets would be
private and not publicly owned and that maintenance of the private
streets would be by the townhouse association. Mr. Boyle noted
that the land on which the townhouses would be built is approxi-
mately four feet higher than the land on which his house sits. He
stated that two story townhouses would look over into his house.
Chairman Lucht pointed out that single family hor could be built
in the same way and could have the same effect.
Mr. Alvin Frederick 6825 Emerson Avenue North stated that the drain
tile which Mr. Bergstrom put in some years has not done much good.
He stated that water still drains into the back yards and basements
of homes facing Emerson Avenue North. Chairman Lucht stated that
the City is certainly aware of the drainage problem in that area
and that it would be considered in the review of any proposed
development.
Mrs. Judy Stelzer of 6837 Emerson Avenue North asked whether the
Brooklyn Center School District is really looking at the townhouse
proposal. She asked whether 64 townhouses would be better than
22 single family residences, as far as the school district is
concerned. She also asked whether the Planning Commission and
staff consider the effect on school districts when land is zoned.
The Secretary stated that school district concerns are not always
primary in evaluating rezonings. He stated that zoning takes into
account the characteristics of the land in question and does not
require that a development consist of units with so many bedrooms,
etc. He stated that there were no City regulations requiring more
than one bedroom in a townhouse or in a single family dwelling,
for that matter. He guessed that the basic unit would be a two
bedroom unit with the option of having a third bedroom, however.
Regarding the school district, the Secretary stated that townhouses
tend to attract both young families and those families which no longer
have children. He cited the example of the Creek Villas townhouse
project, in which census information indicated that one block of 20
townhouse units had a population of 35 people, or 1.75 persons per
household. Ile stated that the Brooklyn Center School Di * strict needs
more students, not so much an increase in property valuation.
2-11-82 -3-
Mrs. Stelzer asked whether Mr. Bergstrom could put up whatever
he wants, be it rental or owner -- occupied, once the property is
rezoned. The Secretary answered that as long as the structures
were permitted under the zoning ordinance restrictions, a rental
or owner-occupied development could be constructed.
Mrs. Arlene Frederick of G325 Emerson Avenue North noted that the
econLends R1 zoning for the property in
new Comprehensive Plan r T
�< g P P Y
a d o pted. question. She asked when that .plan was ad op The Secretary ex
plained that the plan has not been formally adopted, but will be
in the very near future. Mrs. Frederick asked whether zoning the
property R3 would constitute "spot zoning" since there is no other
R3 land adjacent to the property. The Secretary stated that zoning
of a single parcel to a classification different from surrounding
properties would not necessarily constitute "spot zoning" if the
zoning met with general planning principles and was called for by
the rehe si om, P Frederick stated that she favored
C n ve P lan. Mrs re
P
the Rl recommendation of the new Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning Assistant, noting the general concern over drainage
expressed by those present, stated that an R3 development generally
receives more scrutiny from the standpoint of drainage than an Rl
development and that it would be easier to require and obtain certain
drainage improvements as part of a townhouse project. The Secretary
also noted that the cost of correcting - the existing drainage problem
could be met more feasibly by spreading it over a larger number of
units than would be the case with a single family development. Mrs.
Frederick stated that she considered 64 units to be too high a density.
Air. Gerald Peterson of 634:3 Emerson Avenue Forth speculated that the
applicant could et the property ert rezoned and then change the con-
._ P g P P Y
ceot�.al plan if the proposes. conceptual p lan does not sell. He
asked whether that could be controlled. The Secretary stated that
zoning could not control ownership, only bulk, density, height,
setback, etc. He stated that there was no guarantee that the land
would not be developed for rental housing. The Chairman pointed
out that an owner-occupied development: :1.s probably more likely be-
cause of the cost of correcting the drainage problem and would be
easier to pass on with more expensive units. Two of the residents
s -'
living to the Past of thy, parcel. in que st-io n stated they would prefer
that the property either remain C2 or be rezoned to Rl or Park,
rather than R3.
Mr. Merila made a few cortucents regarding the high water table. He
stated that if the property were e developed for single family homes,
FHA and VA financing agencies would require that basement elevations
be three feet above the water. table. He pointed out that, �• ith the
high water table, fill would have to be brought in to meet this re-
quirement. This process would rake the :lots more expensive, he said,
and would place the houses even higher above-,= the single family homes
to the east. Mr.. Mer la also pointed out teat townhouse developments
do appeal to families whose children have left ho .m (empty-nesters) ,
but many of these older c ooples come from existing single- family
homes within Broolklyn Center. As t:i'!ese o.J.('er families move out,
he said, younger f amilies ili.es ritove into the v cR ' In - this
,ray, he ex plained, t%@ bu l urng of tUvvnl� , oL:is s ie Lds indi rectly to
more children wi.thi.n '
tnc: district the opt:.ion to
change the entire devc l opiiiicnt of ter approval of the rezoning, I�x
Merila acknowledged that tai s was a , but S'Lat eel t
11 after a plat is approved and filed as a condition of the rezoning,
2- 11--82 --4-
development must: cc;, form to the play t.
` C C?N!t': U E' Pt 'B a lC. 1 31, AR 111
Motion bF C, l_ ssa_ol?cr 14p
(2 i.:c. SeCQTlCt£ -?d by Commissioner I1agt'r to
continue she public h- c on Ppp1 ic- ti:on No. 8- submitted by
Be rgstrom ealt:y iu t.i_l sa later meet.in.g aft-:r review by the Northeast
Ne_igbbo rhood Advisory G.i - oup„ Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht,
C'.o1wl ,t:Ls J_Cinc,; "s ? .a.l ^,.i, Yk an, o Ainas and 11& 3 r . Votin a g ai nst:
none, The motion passed.
Chairman Liacht asked if the applicar -.t had considered a different
mix of housing on the site, perhaps including single family resi-
dences. Mr_. Merila answered that putting single family homes along
the east side of the proper�.y with access to a public; street, would
crocti7c` the townhouses and the ponding area to the west and perhaps
result in a lower quality develop rent. Chairman Lucht stated that
there was obviously a concern over the density of the project and
that a plan with fewer units should be considered. Commissioner
Hager noted that R1. zoning would rc- in 22 units, that R3 could
result in 64 units. He asked whether. an R2 zoning would allow for
enough units to break even on the development of the property. The
Secretary and the Planning Assistant reviewed briefly the R2 re-
quirements for lot sizes and explained that:., in the R2 zone, there
is no such thing as a zero lot line split ownership.
`.'AB APPLICATION N O. 82008 (Bergst Realty)
taot�_on by Cc3i,.?rt s�ca er a °Tenser. �;econ.c fed by Commissioner Ma.lecki to
table Application No. 52008 and refer it to the Northeast Neighbor -
hoot? Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chair-
man Lucht, Cowamissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Hager. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
Mr. Tim Boyle asked wily the application was referred to the Northeast
N eighborhood eLgi Advrsary Group and not directly to the City Council.
Chairman Lucht explained that the procedure is a standard one in
rezoning applications and it is designed to obtain as much comment
from nearby property owners as possible. The Secretary explained
that there are certain time constraints placed on the City in
processing a rezoning application which require that the application
receive a hearing and be decided upon within a limited period of time.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:16 p.m. and resumed at 9:42 p.m.
DISCUS ITEM
A musement Centers and Devices
The Secretary next reviewed with the Planning Commission some pro-
posed revisions to the draft ordinance dealing with amusement de-
vices and amusement centers submitted at the January 28, 1982 Plan-
ning Commission meeting. He reviewed a proposed restriction on the
location of machines in the proposed Section 23 -2109 and the defini
tion of an amusement center in the proposed Section 23 -2102 A. He
also reviewed various minor word changes throughout the ordinance.
The Secretary explained that he tried to make the changes to allow
machines as a secondary use in certain types of establishments
which do abut residential property, but to prohibit "amusement
centers" from abutting residential property. The Planning Assistant
asked whether, under the proposed language, a ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant
could be allowed to abut residential property. The Secretary answered
that the Planning Commission and City Council would have-to determine
2- 11--82 -5-
whether a use such as ShowBiz Pizza were primarily a restaurant
or, ,in fact, .an amusement center..
Commissioner Manson asked what the effect of the changes would be
on Holiday Inn. The Secretary answered that the machines at the
Holiday Inn would have to be licensed, but that the establishment
itself would not be considered as an amusement center and, there-
fore, could abut residential, property.
The Secretary asked for other reaction from the Planning Commission.
Chairman Lucht asked whether machines in churches would be regulated.
The Secretary answered that he had not considered this possibility,
but that machines in churches could be listed under "certain machines
not licensed ". Commissioner Ainas suggested that possibly a barber
would want to have an amusement device in the waiting area of his
shop. There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility
of allowing amusement devices in employee lounges, lunch rooms,
and customer waiting areas. The Secretary noted that he did not
feel machines in employee lounges or lunch rooms would be subject
to the licensing requirements provided they were used only by employees
and not the general public.
OTHER BUSI
Chairman Lucht checked briefly with the Planning Commission members
as to whether they had contacted Neighborhood Advisory Group meytil:fers
to see if they still wanted to serve on these bodies. Planning
Commission members stated that their poll of advisory group members
was not complete and Chairman Lucht carried the matter over to the
following meeting.
AP, UM
NttOon key Commissioner Ma.lecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to
adjourn the meeting of the Planning Cointtl:t a sion. The motion passed
unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10 :30 p.m.
i
2- 11-12 -6-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 82008
Applicant: Bergstrom Realty Company
Location: 1300 block of 69th Avenue North
Bequest: Rezoning
The applicant requests rezoning of the 7.5 acre tract of land lying east of the
Humboldt Square Shopping Center from C2 (General Commerce) to R3 (Townhouse). The
property is bounded by 69th Avenue North (P.5 across the street) and the City Well
House NWT. 6 on the north, by single- family homes (RI) on the east, by the Hi Crest
apartments (R5) on the south, and by Humboldt Square Shopping Center (C2) on the
west.
The property was the subject of two previous rezoning requests in 1977 (to Rl) and
1979 (to Q. The first request was given tentative approval by the City Council
subject to submission of an adequate screening and buffering plan to separate the
residential development from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center to the west
(Ordinance Section 35 -412 requires a 35 foot buffer strip and 8' high opaque wall
when C2 uses abut Rl, R2, R3 uses at a property line). That plan was never submitted
and the rezoning request was ultimately withdrawn. In 1979, the request to rezone
to R4 was withdrawn after a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission.
The new Comprehensive Plan calls for the property in question to be zoned Rl for
single-family residential development. One of the main reasons for this designation
is to further policy #1 for the Northeast Neighborhood which states: "Make single -
family detached housing the predominant character of the Northeast Neighborhood.
Our best estimate of the current breakdown between attached housing and detached
housing in the Northeast Neighborhood is:
Detached units 1276 (49 °ro)
Attached units* 1328 (51%)
Total 2604
*includes townhouses
This ratio is a slight improvement since the 1977 count of dwelling units in the
Northeast Neighborhood, but still leaves the neighborhood short of being predominantly
single- family detached residential in character. If owner- occupied attached units
(39) are included with all detached housing (some of which are rental themselves),
the ratio is tipped slightly in favor of "single - family" housing: 1315 (50.5 %) single
family units vs. 1289 (49.5 %) multi - family units. The balance of housing in the
Northeast Neighborhood was a major issue in the Planning Commission's favorable
recommendation of Application No. 77011 (to Rl) and disfavorable recommendation of
Application No. 79001 (to Q. The reasons for denial of Application No. 79001
were contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 79 -1 and are listed below:
1. The proposed rezoning (to R4) is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan recommendation that single- family residential development be
the predominant characteristic of the Northeast Neighborhood.
2. There is substantial vacant multiple residential zoned property in
the Northeast Neighborhood.
3. There is no perceived public need or benefit in the proposal in
light of the already large number of existing multiple residential
structures in the immediate vicinity.
2 -11 -82 Q-
Application No. 82008 continued
+ 4. The proposed rezoning does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests
of the owner of the property in question.
It should be pointed out that since the recommendation on Application No. 79001, the
City has acquired a large tax - forfeited parcel of R4 zoned land north of 70th Avenue
North, west of Highway 252. This is the only large parcel of vacant multi- family
laird in the neighborhood and will likely be used for expansion of Highway 252 right-
of-way and other public purposes. Thus, there is no longer a substantial amount
of vacant land in the Northeast Neighborhood for multi- family housing . It should
also be noted that the most recent conceptual proposal for use of that land, prior
to the City acquiring it, was for an R -3 type development. (Planning Commission
Resolution Nos. 77 -2, 77 -3 and 79 -1 are attached for the Commission's review).
A letter addressing the Zoning Ordinance Policy Statement and the Guidelines for
Evaluating Rezonings has been submitted by Merila and Associates on behalf of the
applicant {a copy of the letter and the guidelines is enclosed for the Commission's
consideration). The letter addresses the policy statement forbidding "spot zoning
by pointing out that the proposed rezoning would benefit the City of Brooklyn Center
and the Brooklyn Center School District besides the property owner. Mr. Merila
also points out that the R3 zoning is more compatible with the surrounding land uses
than the R1 zoning. These two points are further expanded upon in the discussion
of the guidelines. ;sir. Merila also states that the owner intends to develop the
property as a Planned Unit Development with owner- occupied townhouses clustered in
pairs along the area adjacent to single family homes and in groups of four or six
in areas adjacent to multi - family structures to the south and Humboldt Square
Shopping Center to the west. Mr. Merila points out that almost 91% of all town-
houses built (97% of all occupied are homestead properties). This percentage
excludes udes townhouses built for rent which amount to 50.5% of all townhouses built
or partially built in Brooklyn Center ( 326 rental vs. 319 potentially owner - occupied)
Mr. Merila states that there is no real demand for the land under its current C2
zoning because Humboldt Square meets the neighborhood's cormerci al center needs.
Staff would certainly concur with this assessment and that is partly why the new
Comprehensive Plan calls for a zoning change to residential. Mr. Merila also
explains that development of the property for single- family homes is not econ-
omically feasible because the cost of correcting a `nigh wator table problem on
the property cannot be recouped from a 22 lot subdivision !the 1977 plan), but
can be from a planned unit development with more units. A conceptual plan for 64
townhouse units has been submitted. (This implies some density credit for tuck -
under garages since the maximum normal density for a 7.5 acre parcel would be 60
units).
Upon reviewing the material presented on behalf of the applicant, staff would
agree with the contention that R3 zoning adjacent to Hur;holdt Square has advantages
over R1 zoning. We would also acknowledgy that the economic feasibility of de-
veloping the property is improved with the development of more housing units.
Though economic hardship is not considered a factor in variance requests, it may
be a factor in rezonings if coupled with unique circumstances (the high water
table) and appropriate locational criteria (i.e. more intense surrounding develop-
ment). The contention that a 64 unit townhouse development will help the Brooklyn
Center School Dsi tri ct more than a 22 unit single-family development is Very
questionable in light of the fact that owner -- occupied townhouse developments in
the Cray have very few children. t,
Staff also have some .concern as to the abrl i ty
to sell townhouses located adjacent to the Hr!w dt Square Shopping Center. Town -
houses built west of Humboldt Avenue have been d i f f i c u l t to market because of
surrounding intense land uses. Nor does it seem that additional townhouse density
will help the sale of townhouses. Yet it does seem that single-family homes would
be equally, if not more difficult, to sell in the same I ocati on.
Application No 82008 continued
On balance. staff are neutral to the rezoning proposal. The land should be developed,
and developed with an appropriate relationship to surrounding land uses. The con-
ceptual plan takes these factors into account. Yet, an even greater variety in
housing types, perhaps including single-family residences adjacent to the existing
homes to the east, might be an equally feasible alternative. Rezoning of any of
the land in question to a classification othor than RI would involve an amendment
to the new Comprehensive Plan either before or after its adoption.
As with all rezonings, it is recommended that the Commission, after holding a public
hearing, table the proposal and refer it to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group for review and comment.
2-11-82 -3-
CITY
OE 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
4 T, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561-5720
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FIRM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Vbrks
DATE: February 13, 1982
RE: Review of Municipal State Aid Street System. Designations
Attached hereto is a map ( Fxhibit 1 ) showing those streets which are currently
designated as "?Municipal State Aid Streets" by action of the City Council, with
concurrence by the CaTmissioner of Transportation. This system has remained
essentially the same during the past _five years except t] 55th and 56th Avenues
between Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue were added to the system in 1981.
,Several factors indicate that it is incumbent to evaluate this system now and
mike desired changes at this time, i.e.,:
(1) regulations relatinq to the MSA system provide that any Citv is linl#ed
to desim 20 percent of its local street system. mileage (not
including `i' - Hiq ways or County State Aid Highways) as M.S.F.
streets. On this basis, Brooklyn Center's maxir?ana allowable mileage
is 20.22 *Hi les. The __system now desi.cmated totals 39.40 miles, pro-
- -- - .
vidi.nq undesiqnated allowable mileag(o o- 0 82 miles.
^ (2) the designated M.S.A.. system includes the extension of " Shingle Creek
Parkway" frcm 69t_h Avenue (C.R. 130) to the north corporate 1 its- -
r
through the Palmer Lake -Pasin. All plans for develonp.ent of this secant
have b ',a
een abandoned m for ny years. Accordingly, the M.S.A. desicYnation
, ,J of this secs -ent should be revoked, allowing that mileage (0.63 miles)
to be used elsewhere.
(3) the designated M.S.A. system also includes the extension of 63rd Avenue
across Central Park from Brooklyn Drive to Shingle Creek Parktrdy. All
plans for de-velonaient of this segment have also been abandoned for a
number of years. Accordingly, the M.S.P... desicmation of this secan
should also be revoked.
Because M.S.A. rules require that all M.S.A. streets terminate at a Trunk
Highway, at a County State Aid Fighway, or at another M.S.A. street
I (either at an intersection, an .interchange, or as an extension into
another City) , this vxDuld recTuire revication of the M.S.A. desicmation
on 63rd A between Broo}-_lyn Pr.i.ve and Xerxes (total mileage to be
r ' revoked on these tt x) se,7- ,exits of 63rd rvenue is 0.57 miles) .
� it
i
I "Cbruary 18, 1932 - G. "pli-rit.cr
Pa( je 2
( ) ulxan corn )letian of the rort:h ;otut_ru scy�rent of T -94. (probable ca- nletion
date: late fall, 19 �,��� /txyr p1zins to "turnkxzck" that- p~�r_t.irn of.
• _ . _ - _
Lyncj<rle Avenue 1J:�f� c n 53rct rand 57th Avenues (apnroxilnately 0.6 miles)
to the City. ?lunzc.i.T t�utc ,Ai.cl rc<T�ulat:i.ons t�rovi_de tl - ot when such a
turnback occurs, spocial "tttri-Lack funds" are made available for improve-
ment of such road(%,mys. however, if such funds are used., that roar
is then added to th(z:� City's M.S.A. system and the length of that rc, ,.cl. -my
is includod into max:LmLti,t mileage ccx?trutatiors. "...however, the rpaxitnum
mileage for State Aid designation r-ay he exceeded to the extent necessary
to designate trunk_ hirrihway turnl�acks, only if sufficient mileage is not
available..." The rules continue, to provide that no additional mileage
miy fie adctcd until the City's total design,-tted mileage, including_ the
" I , tur nback roadway, falls Jhcicxr the 20% limitation.
(5) upon develognent and mrtoletion of pro;xDsed T.N. 252 redeveloment
(scheduled for 1985 -87) MNI /DOT will also plan to "turnback" that par_tion
of existing W est River Road between 66th FNvexuue- and 73rd Avenue Tbrth -
(approximately 0.9 miles) to the City. Again, the regulations rec?ardim
` 1
turnback mileage noted above will apply.
Sum-ary lValuation of Cur rent System Desic and Tur_nback Considerations
One course of action the City could. take would be to simply desicmate additiora. l
Municipal State Aid Streets totaling 0.82 miles, to bring our d.esi =uted mileage
to the currently allaeed ry-ixin.u7n, leaving the M, designation to exist on the
above rated non - existing sezits of Shincle Creek Parkway and of 63rd Avenue
fbrth. The problem with this alternative is that after either_ or both of the
"turnlx occur, the City could not "sww:)" desianations between b%o streets.
Rather, any mileage revoked would first have to be applied to the excess created
by the turnback before it could be used elsewhere. Tor Rrooklvn Center, this
ireans that no additional streets could be ac�.ded to the systen unless ap r�ximatel��
7.5 *riles of aclditi_onal reu local streets are developed (0.6 + 0:9/0.2 7.5 mil es) .
Because Brooklyn Centor is .almost totally developed, this probably will never_
hapnen.__._.Acdjrl�z _i._apprs_ ltkzt now is our last anror_tunity to adcl scnifi-
pant M.S.A. mileage -- i.e. -- before the turnback of Tyndale Avenue occurs.
l is . r7y . opinion that the City can - utilize its M.S.A. svrstem desigration r
more ef_fectivel
y . by__ z,el.ing . -any necde . system ehinc -es ro Tn doinn so, we need
th cons:xder all streets witrLi.n the City and their_ functional classification
(i.e. - do they serge as arterials, collectors or local streets ?), their j uris-
diction-al res (i.e. what gove=.ental agency has desio ated the street
as a part of its system?), the needs for systc m =proverrents and the extent to which,
the responsible jurisdiction is able and w.illina to program and fund the needed
improvff cents. ` `
i°? I/1? T,_= ?uZut?an__CoLUaty.. ruci.....the. ?Seta 7r�l tan Cuw -icil all aO.vo ate the following
policy regarding jurisdiction of functionally classified streets.
ft=ti on-tl. Cl ass ifica tion Ju Res nonsibility
Principal Arterial. & interstate State/Pederal
• Tntermcxlia to i\rtori<-r1 tioads State
Minor. L t.erial I�.:xids Cbunty
Collec and Lc al Street:. s City
_
It is noted that on this basis, MN /DCrr is proTiosing to turn jurisdiction of Brooklyn
Boulevard (now P . T.H. 1.52) over to I'ennenin Cour. ty .
And, it is further noter.1 that the ,JMletro Council has appointed a "Fighway
Jurisdiction Task Force" for the pur_fx)se of inplernentinci this policy.
Review of Possible New Desianations
In a previous mcrna dated April 2, 1981 and in discussion with the City Council`=
on April 6, 1981, several possible additions to the M.S.A. system were discussed
and rejected, i.e.:
(1) 65th Avenue - from Brooklyn Boulevard to Unity ??venue and Unity Avenue
from 65th to 63rd Avenues. (This meets the connection recRrirements
because connections would be ma(le with T.H. 152 and with 63rd - another.
M.S.A. street.)
Comment 65th and Unity do not carry enough traffic to make this a
priority choice for M.S.A. desicjn_ation.
(2) Newton Avenue rbrth from 69th to 73rd Avenues and /or 73rd Avenue from
Humboldt to Newton Avenues. 'this could only be accoP.,rDlished with the
cooperation of Brooklyn Park since either the extension of Newton I\brth
of 73rd or the designation of the north half_ of 73rd would have to be
initiated by Brooklyn Park.
Comrent Neither Newton Avenue nor this section. of 73rd carry enough
traffic to make this a priority choice for M.S.A. desicm.at_on.
(3) Woodbine Avenue /73rd Avenue from Noble Pver_ue to France Avenue.
Ccment t- bodbine does riot carry enough traffic to make this a
priority choice for M.S.A. designation.
At that Peril 6, 1981 r^.eeting, the City Council tentatively indicated approval of
two additions to the ., .S.A. system, i.e.:
(1) 51st Avenue rbrth frcn Brooklyn Boulevard. (T.F. 152) to Xerxes avenue
Minneapolis/Brooklyn Center corporate limits line). The designation
of this sevent is possible because the City of Minneapolis designated
51st Avenue easte -rly frm Xerxes as a P1.S.A. street before the regulation
requiring connections was adopted. Therefore, our designation of this
short extension would make Minneapolis' designation conform to existing
regulations.
Co?mient: This secront appears to be a viable choice for M.S.A designation.
(2) the designation of some portions of 69th Avenue North.
Corment Although the entire 69th Avenue North is currently
as "County State Aid Highmay 130" it is possible, with the
concurrence of Hennepin County, to either (1) revoke that
C.S.A.H. designation and establish a Municipal State Aid.
Street designation or (2) to establish a joint County- L�kunicipal
State Aid designation or (3) a coirbination of both P.ra hcds.
It has been obvious that while 69th Avenue is desiggnated by
Hennepin County as C.S.A.H. 130 and is in need of najor repairs
or reconstruction, such a project does not achieve a hicrh
enough priority to be included in the County's 5-year procrar.
•
February 18, 1982 - G. Splinter
Pan ( 4
Hennepin County's Master_ Plans, the Metro Council's 197(
Functional Classification Plan, aim the City of Brooklyn
Center_.'s Comprehensive Plan all identify 69th Avenue as an
"Urban. Collector ". Tn view of the above -noted policies
re<YardincT jurisdiction of collector streets, it is very
doubtful that Hennepin County would ever assume the respon-
sibilit for major reconstruction of 69th Avenue. In
recognition of these considerations, the City Council, or_
April 6, 1981, authorized discussions with Hennepin County
officials regarding charges in the designation of portions
of 69th Avenue.
rIegotiati.ons With Hennepin C ounty
Shortly after April 6, 1981, Hennepin County advised us of their plan tD place a
bitumincus overlay and bituminous shoulder paving; on 69th Avenue bet - kaeen Shincsle
Creek Parkway and wrest River Road (T.H. 252). 7b provide our best barctaininO
position, we delayed contacting Hennepin County for discussions regar('. system
changes until after that project was completed.
Attached. hereto ( Exhibit 3 ) is an outline for a discussion meetina we held
with Hennepin. County officials on Outobex 27, 1981. P -1so attached are copies
of correspondence in which Hennepin County proposes certain c'hanges (Fxhibit 4),
we requested consideration (F� 5) and Hennepin County restated its position
(Exhibit 6).
Rec
Based on all of the above considerations, I reeorm r)d that the City accent Hennepin
County's proposal as outlined in their 72/22/81 letter_ (Exhibit 4). Followincr is
a strAary of the amendments required to Brooklyn Center's Municipal State Aid
Street system to implement all of above reccm.erdations:
Iter? 1 - Hennepin County revoke C . S . A . r? . designation of 69th Avenue
from T.H. 152 to T.H. 252 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.52 miles
Item 2 - City of Brooklyn Center to revoke its M.S.A designation
of the following streets:
63rd Avenue North Xerxes Avenue to Brooklyn Drive 0.20 rules
63rd Avenue I Brooklyn Drive to Shingle Creek Parkway 0.37 miles
*Shingle Creek Parkway C.S.A.H. 130 to North City Knits 0.63 miles
62nd Avenue rbrth Dupont Avenue to 0.32 miles Fast 0.32 riles
67th Avenue North Dupont Avenue to Lyndale Avenue 0.43 miles
*73rd Avenue North Dupont Avenue to Humboldt Avenue 0.12 miles
'.TOTAL PTNIOCATIONS 2.07 pules
*Note: Revocation of these two se(rents requires concurrent action by the City
of Brooklyn Park. preliminary discussions with Brooklyn Park's Director
of Public 1 indicate their probable approval.
February 13, 1982 - G. Splinter
Pace ti
Item 3 - City of Brooklyn Center to designate the following additions
to its M.S.A. systcTn :
51st Avenue IQorth Fast City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard 0.O8 miles
69th Avenue ibrth u st City Hy-nits to Brooklyn Boulevard
(T.I 152) - as a joist County- �tunicipal
State Aid Street 0.67 miles
69th Avenue North T.H. 152 (Br(x l yri Boulevard) to T.H. 252
(Wiest. River Poad)
Note: this assumes desicmation via the
proposed 69th -70th Avenue connection (see
separate report) 2.60 miles
TMAL P?DDITIONS 3.35 miles
System Surmry
Designat "Iileage Computat
TEE] current miles designated 19.40 miles
Less proposed deletions 2.07 miles
17.33 miles
Plus proposed additions 3.35 miles
Total Designated Miles After Chancres 20.68 rules
Maximum Ir ileage Computations
Current .S.A. maximar. mileacse allowed 20.22_ miles
Plus Additional M.S.A. mileacxe
allowed as a result of 2.5 2
miles of C . S .A.II . revocation
= 2.52 X .20 0.50 miles
Revised maximum M.S.A. mileage 20.72 miles
Accordingly, with all of these system chances, we would be within 0.04 miles of our
maximum allowable mileage. Once the turnbacks occur, we vould pexmanently exceed.
the noa_mially alloc=able Mileage, and our system woul:9., for all practical Purnoses,
be unchangeable.
It is re-ow ended that this natter be prose -rated to the City. Council as a "dispassion
item" at the February 22, 1982 meeting. if th-- Council develops a eoncensus at that
time, the rec -aired resolutions, etc., will be submitted for formal consideration
at a subsequent meeting.
_.. 441
Director of Public bbrks
'I I .. -- _ - -r (= �, �.6 „f
�--- � - ----• r j 1 1 I I ...'°'
jA
III � � I F » 44
Y � T,
.� YO �. ♦ i � , ,ry cII "A zN�x 0 `J �� z ' I� . � � r' . \�( �I. ._ �l �. • i `__ '1 ._Jl �� �� �1 nw (� i
'7hY �t 5 noSN]w1��
cr
4 I ` -
__ _
3'v1� 1.[W77b7• ”' x .' - a[� 1v "'1 Q� __._. N �� —�+
i. -..( +v d (. .y: : :. -- - 'Ti - 5n7 smear T•c�xr , �
N. '71' ii tlxv 5j� �E RRR '
P xaxtxk v .xxaiaayxS.va- cxx,n'['[ixTB J 4' [
�f �I ar n 7WV SNO -,N111
,�
i GLYi arN ➢nr b�\ - 1� JL
'Ya C Yp — Aµ J J � a . ll ..3Ar x
l - _
I ( �S�r jj Y6L n I IT,,'.... M � S+^ror Ir: _ ` 1x uc�y�. x..l,xxxaa: •risx x�N a'K. = p
��- - Q
aG 1
�
'ir` �r � � N abWy �.ti :;'. -. F ++9�, : M 4• 3 � - k li l ___ Z
('N
«.1 i � $'/ • �; � ` 1 (. C � ,. \ ' o' y 3tli�"e x.,�� � ' �i'�:`. &1I IL.ti.sil�iuTd7 ,
L 4 dop ya: �1 �' 1 \ , {4�I x�I 1L .sir j
dl �: J� ti�` =' \ �
� v1 v 1 / d ` •� A.� env �i�3ssnu'."��
se i.
•�''{ 1 i o J t +)f\{t � � _. G� 4�� .� r 1��.;�1, n x '7FY No3dn I, � � 3c y — _ � r _
"1 /
...
+
LLl
` 7'v' p
E-4
r
1
} '.f ,,.: ♦ _ _ 1 �, - Ml�dO y - 1 k G 4 3nrFlr 7e. +
W
3 ..ax/q rxx.ua x 1.., It II w I li TnrTW ( rti t , I li N '' :
� � y
i �;
,,I �
31 rtl9 N N W1 b 1 �x 1. h p _-
I
�� ( ! _ ��
Y , !. �i _ —_ � !11 � `��� i�' � o °
a
3Fr am
,- _
i
. 'rf #
tl 33iv -r �� I a r (xV
7
� ) it S , t f
� {+
�lltl (411 l{ � I,ISlfli
j ) _
• t9 �� — rjvmw, II !�
N
+ [ av • � � Gt9� O3 f I1w � ) t.. - 'iif.a v.;�
u
?12iVd NA"1K0pa9
Ole' 13R(X)1:I.YN C'.LN71TF2 FXNZI3I7'' 2
r.U7:' -197?
0 f
76 0
eeo
v. xi j_..�• 7 ' - 3. .[7 .A F ' .. F „ �' a / lam _
•" `4� yr , rJ,ne ._ F .. . � , � t
t�•G _ 6 �(� � BOG �• L r` � �` ... ,.�° - ,,, 7� �
SAO Joyns
C.
jj
•+FS ~ — -`-�` � .� � /�.•J., %'», .t �rl'��y/[f7��L��yO\v1'1' i 1 �t�% r,,c
y } Cf r ✓, - `/, • f i �\�� e � �� / /y / r - l
m <'. �f y_ i� °.t. } li' 1. /�'` ,;• ��� "f .N J ` _♦. ,f
T7i �: �� 6t
• S ���f \_�',� '_ F J ln� 1 •I ;•. �- /.'-}O 7a:t
•
r
•,.! ♦A2w /L� - E' `,
mw /-�
_3 }
j= R a _ j ♦ # W
_ --=-
!� v ows / 1
• i� �� � � �._ 7 Ci t 1 �• { / /.3C h i C�r� �f 5 d� � J { {t \ ♦ t � `1 F.
r a.a � tint` +:a 5! �O • . O � r ,! ' � �',��✓ � i � xt � � � � V1�'`
;. _ =� - t _ �; - ANA
P y :F �_ /r 17 !'� — _� ^° TT1•«, J l e -.(",Y ``
/
.t ts:t Y = , (A "OV-, 7`c d
9 r y �nO.:i /� /S/n �.'•.- !/ r i 7 '/
ft�9aNgcal.c
qC '
EXHIBIT 3
CITY
Or 0301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
r. •r Itl'�� I`•7 ,+ ,l` ff BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
JL
TELEPHONE 551 -5440
EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
5G1 •5720
DAU: October 27, 1981
17OR: City of Erooklyn Center /Iiennepin County Staff Conference
RE: C.S.A.H. 130 1 % 69th Avenue North) in Brooklyn Center
Outline for Discussion
1. Review Brooklyn Center's current municipal State Aid System. (see map)
2. 1 future Tniri}c lliglTvay Turnbacks from IVTJ /DOT
(a) Lyndale Avenue frau 53rd to 57th Avenues north
(in 1902) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.51 miles
(b) Crest River Road from 66th to 73rd Avenues North
-after T.H. 252 reconstniction
(estimated in 1987 or 1983) . . . . . . . . . 0.89 miles
7bta1_ 1.40 miles
Not e: The following policies have been adopted by the l2SA Screening
C�iiittee:
MI= E
- The maximum mileage for Municipal State AiJ Street designation shall
be 20 percent of the municipality's basic mileage - which is ca`nprised
of the total improved streets less Trunk Higliway and County State Aid
Highways.
- however, the =, - -u um mileage for State Aid designation may be exceeded
to the extent necessary to designate trunk higITRay turnbacks, only if
sufficient mileage is not available as determined by the Annual Certi-
fication of Mileage.
- Any mileage for desigiiat.ion prior to the trunk highway tur..nback'shall
I>--- used for the turnkback before exceeding the rraxirnzm mileage.
- In the event the r:�- ,ximum mileage is exceeded by a trunk highzjay turn-
back, no additional designation other than trunk hiahkay turnbacks can
be considered until alla.A2d by the ccrputa;tions of the Annual Certifi-
cation of Mileage within which the riaxhnum mileage for State rid desig-
nation is determined.
Comment: To add 1.40 miles of turnback streets into the MSF system, the
C.ity's basic local street system would have to be increased as follows:
1.4 7.00 miles
0,20 _ 1.40 miles (the turnback section)
5.60 riiles = Not incroiase -in local streets required
Because Brookl Center is almost totally devoloped, it is apparent that the City
will never increase its street systtCm by that amount of mi.le,=�re.
Acc ordincjly, it is apparcnt tivit once the Trunk I1icrhway turnbacks occur, the
City': ability to adjust its NINA sysLciu will bo scverrly limited.
r
August 27, 1981
69th Avcnuc-- Ibrth Outline for Discussion
Page 2
3. Proposed Systc^q Changes:
Plan A: Joint Designation of 69th Avenue as a County-municipal State Aid Street
Pro - posed Deletions
63rd Avenue Xerxes to Brooklyn Drive 0.20 mi.
63rd Avenue Brooklyn Drive to Single Creek Parkway 0.37 m1.
Shingle Creek Parkway C.S.A.H. 130 to North City Limits 0.63 mi.
62nd Avenue Dupont to 0.32 stiles east 0.32 mi.
67 t h Avenue Hua boldt to Lyndale Avenue 0.67 mi.
73rd Avenue Humboldt to Lyndale Avenue 0.32 mi .
2.51 mi.
Pro posed 69 Additio (69th Avenue as a C!
th Avenue North __ West City Limits to T.H. 152 (Br.Blvd.) 0.67 mi.
69th Avenue North T.H. 152 (Br.Blvd.) to W. Palmer Lk.Dr. 0.55 mi.
69th Avenue North lost Palmer Lake Drive to S.C. Parkwy. 0.30 mi.
69th Avenue North Shingle Creek Pkwy. to T.H. 252 1.67 mi .
(Fbst River Road)
3.19 mi.
Syst SZm
Zbtal Current Miles Designated = 19.40 mi.
Less Proposed Deletions = — 2.51 mi .
16.89 mi.
Plus Proposed Additions — 3:19 mi .
Total Designated Miles After Changes = 20.08 mi.
Current MSA maximum mileage allowed = 20.13 mi.
i
Aug(m,t: 27, 1921
69th Avenue I-Jorth Out- -linc for Discus: >>i.on
Pagu i
PI an B: Hennepin Co�.nty revoke C.S.A.1I, designation of entire 69th Avenue in
Brooklyn Center. City of Broo }:lvn Center to designate entire 69th
Avenue as an MSA street.
Pr Deletions
63rd Avenue Xerxes to Brooklyn Drive 0.20 miL.
63rd Avenue Brooklyn Drive to Shingle Creek Pkwy. 0.37 mi.
Shingle Creek. Parkway C.S.A.H, 130 to North City Limits 0.63 mi.
62nd Avenue Dupont to 0.32 miles east 0.32 mi.
73rd Ava-iue Humboldt to Lyndale Avenue 0.32 mi .
1.84 mi.
Prop osed Additions: (69th Avenue as a MSA Street)
69th Avenue IOrth 'West City Limits to T.H. 152 (Br.Blvd.) 0.67 mi.
69th A venue north T.H. 152 (Rr.BI_vd.) to W. Palmer Lk.Dr. 0.55 mi.
69th Pvenue North West Palmer Lake Drive to S.C. Pkwy. 0.30 mi.
69th Avenue North Shingle Creek Pkwy. to T.H. 252 1.67 mi.
.(West River Road) 3.19 mi.
System 5D.u�, ry :
Total Current Miles Designated = 1.9.40 mi_.
Less Proposed Deletions = 1.84 m i.
17..56 mi.
Plus Proposed �irlditions = 3:19 mi .
Total Designated Miles after Changes = 20.75 mi.
Current MSA m:_ixhmm mileage allowed 20.13 mi.
Plus Additional MSA mileage
allat r-d as a result of 3.19 miles
of C.S.A.H. revocation = 3.19 x
.20 — 0.64 mi
Revised Maximum MSA mileage allowed 20.77 mi.
AIIrIuat. 27, 39
G9Lh livc:r,ue lbrtli Oitl ine for Di,>cussion
page 4
S Plan C: Ilennclpin Coiv to revoke CSNI designation of G9th Avenue from
Ijrcx Boulevard to VL? st Riven Fr,-ad, r5at retain CSM designa--
tion •rest of Brooklyn Poulevard. City of Brooklyn Center to
designate the revokcxl section as a MSA street.
Proposed Delet
63rd Avenue Xerxes to Brooklyn Drive Q.20 mi.
63rd Avenue Brooklyn Drive to S. C. Parkmy 0.37 mi.
Shingle Creek Parkvuy C.S.A.H. 130 to North City Limits 0.63 mi.
62nd Avenue Dupont to 0.32 miles east 0.32 mi .
1.52 mi.
Proposed klditions (69th Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard to West
River Road as a MSA street) _
.69th Avenue North T.H. 152 (Br.Blvd.) to W. PahTex 0.55 mi.
Lake Drive
69th Avenue North Vbst Palmar Lake Drive to S.C.Pkwy. 0.30 mi.
69th Avenue Perth Shingle Creel. Pkwy. to T.H. 252 1.67 mi .
Guest River P,oad) 2.52 mi.
System Sun ,i.ry:
Total Current Miles Designated = 19.40 mi.
Less Proposed Deletions 1.52 m•
17.88 M .
Plus Proposed Pdditions - 2.5 P.A
Total Designated Miles after Changes - 20.40 mi.
Current MSA ma_xiiyum mileage allowed - 20.13 mi.
Plus Additional mileage allowed as
a result of 2.52 miles of CSAH
revocation = 2.52 x .20 - 0.50 mi .
Revised Maximums MSA mileage allowed - 20.63 mi.
Augj 27, 1931
69th AvenLx-� 1k)fth Gatli.ne for Di.Y?aSSI.On
Page 5
4. Recollreridcd Improzrerr mts to C.S.A.H. .130 (69th Avenue North)
Sc�gmejjt No. 1 - I-L-st City Limits to Brooklyn Boulevard (T.H. 152)
Length = 0.67 mi.
1979 AUf = 6.800 vpd
Proposed Design: Storm surer installation as needed and
modifications of C.B., etc.
lower grade approximately one foot between
I\bble Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard.
Widen to 36' or 50', with turn lanes at
Brooklyn Boulevard
Sidewalk on north side.
Estimated Cost: $450,000.00
Segment Ab. 2 - Brooklyn Boulevard (T.H. 152) to West Palmer Lake Drive
Length = 0.55 mi.
1979 'ADT = 8,700 vpd
Proposed Design: Storm sewer modifications as needed.
Widen to 50' with turn lanes at Brooklyn Boulevarc-
Sidewalk on both sides.
Estin Cost: $380,000.00
Segme�zt No. 3 - West Palmer Lake Drive to Shingle Creek Parkway
• Length = 0.30 mi.
1979 ADT = 6,190 vpd
Proposed Design: Complete reconstruction on new alignment
(see plan layout) with 50' street and side -
walks tied Into trail system.
Estimated Cost: $580,000.00
Segment M. 4 - Shingle Creek Parkway to West River Road
Length -° 1.67 mi.
1979 ADT = 6,000 vpd
Proposed Design: Retain existing roadway except for the following
ir>provEments :
(1) Construct new 50' wide bridge across
Shingle Creek: Est. Cost.= $790,000.00
(2) Possible relocation of segment between
Dupont and T River Poad (see enclosed
report dated 9 /24/81 and plan layout).
No cost estimate - assume this relocation
at City cost.
5. Discuss progranmming of system changes and construction prcx,rammung.
Sy Knapp? Director of Public wbrks
CITY CF BROOI.0 YN CENTER
cU
Attaol S
EXHIBIT 4
DITAR I KENT OI TRH N PORTAIION
320 Wash inc. tare Av. Souih
G: 1I e j
Hopkins, ��iini� s 1a 55343
935 -3381
e .
December 22, 1981
Mi . Sy Knapp
Director of Public Works
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parki\
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Mr. Knapp:
Re: CS N-I 130
lVe reviewed the City's proposed system change with respect to CSAH 130 and agree
CS,Idl 130 should be tinder City jurisdiction. The County is prepared to begin the
turnback process and proposes the following:
- Brookl.yin Center assume jurisdiction of CSAJ -I 1.30 from TH 152 to RI 252.
IIciuiopin County will overlay, or provide an equivalent cash payment for
overlaying CS.NH 130 from 'FH 152 to Shingle Creek Parkway. (CSAH 130 from
Shingle Creek Parla ay to TH 252 was overlaid this past stunn:er.)
Mn /DOT is currently studying signal operation at the 711 152 /CSAH 130 inter -
section. If this study shows a signal revision is warranted, Hennepin
County will participate in a state project under the standard cost participation
policy.
- Brooklyn Center add CSAH 130 from the City's west limits to TH 152 to their MSA
system. This sesnent wi11 be designated a joint MCSAS.
If this meets your approval, scrnd us a City Council resolution requesting County
revocation of CST 130 between 'HI 152 and 111 252 and requesting County concurrence
in joint IMCSAS designation of CSAH 130 between the west City limits and TH 152.
Please direct any comments or questions to Jim h or Doug Mattson of our
Planning and Prograrmiing Division.
Sincer ly,
Herbert 0. Kl.ossner, P.E.
Director
110K /DhN: p i
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on equal opportunity employer
CITY F_.YHZRTT 5
vl- • . 6301 sllirllGLE CREEK PARK
Y7 T i ,T BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
EMERGENCY-POLICE
DecaTbcr. 29, 1931
Mr. 1 rt O. °Ylossner, P.E., Director
llennepin County Depar - Ument of Transportation
320 Washi.rr lion 1`: ,7errae South
p:ciz s, HN 55343
RE: C.S.A.H. 134
Dear Mr. kaossner:
91=k you for your letter dated December 22, 1981. Please be advised that
Z have reviewc-0 your proposal 1 -vith City Manager Minter, and it is our
opinion that, while all other elements of the proposal appear acceptable to
us, there is one oth2x item which reeds to be addressed, i.e., the bridge
at Shingle Creek.
As you know, this bridge has load restrictions (23 tons per vehicle, 36
a ail c.�nbi nation) . More seriously,
fans px truck a�� full trailer or semi-trailer- Y e� c
it is narrow, i.e., 30 feet bet4een railings; and it is low—providing a sub
�tarztial restriction or
7 T "the Shingle Creek floodu�ai . Accordingly, we feel tha
a
Ilia replacement of this bridge mist be programmed within the next five to ten,
years.
We have estimated the 1982 cost for a new bridge at this location at $790,000.
And we request that h ennepin County agree to pay for 50 of the cost of this
structure--- either as a cash payment at the time the City assumes jurisdiction
of 69th Avenue or on a 50% reimburserzent basis at such titre as the City proceeds
ulith construction.
We wish to bring this matter to our City Council for their consideration at
their January 25 meeting. lccordingly, we ask tit you consider this request and
respond by January 15. `L`nat will give us adequate tire to prepare the required
resolution for consideration by the Cbuncil.
Yours very truly,
Sy Knapp
Director of Public lbrks
cb
k
DEPARTMINT r ANSI'ORTATION
310 Washingfori Av. South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 4
'-
Nl So'
935 -3381
January 8, 1982
Mr. Sy Knapp
Director of Public lVorks
City of Brooklyn Center
6301. Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Mr. Knapp
Re: CS A 1 130
We discussed your proposal that Hennepin County agree to 50% cost participation
for a new CSAH 1.30 bridge over Shingle Creek. You estimated the total replace -
ment cost, in 1982 dollars, at $790,000. Our review included consideration of
load restriction, bridge sufficiency rating, project priority and funding. In
short, we cannot justify expenditure of $395,000 or more in County funds for the
bridge; nor can we commit County funds for a possible replacement project beyond
our Five -Year Capital Improvement Program.
• h1hile the existing bridge is posted, this posting prohibits overload vehicles.
Where are no restrictions on vehicles carrying legal loads. The sufficiency
rating, which is based on a corlbination of items but does take into account load
limits, condition, design, and ieateni adequacy, does just qualify for the bridge
replacement list. However, the rating is too high to receive priority for any
type of federal funding. Also, the bridge does not have priority among potential
County road improvement projects, and County Board approval to spend $395,000 for
replacement is unlikely. Finally, our Capital Improvement Program, as you know,
is progra;ined for five years with only the first year actually funded. We cannot
costmiit County funds for a project five to ten or more years in the future.
We feel the jurisdictional change of CS.N1 130 is of mutual benefit and we recommend
continuat of the turnback process based on our proposal of December 21., 1981.
Sincer Y,
Q .
Harbert 0. Klossner, P.E.
Director
11OK /DBM: p j
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
a BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
_�.
R I
r 0 . Y N
. .TELEPHONE 561-5440
U E D- E R EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561 -5720
`O: Gerald G. Splinter, City manager
.rR(24: Sy Knapp, Director of Public works
DAZE: February 18, 1982
RE: DI;VF=ENT OF THE 69TH - 70TH AVENUE CONNECTION IN THE IVERGRM? PARK AREA,
Attached hereto are the following items:
- a copy of my Septapber 24, 1981 report covering alternate improv(:_ment
concepts in the Evergreen Park area. ( Note : at the September 28,
1981 Council_ meeting, the City Council tentatively indicated an
interest in "Concept B" and requested staff to prepare a comparative
cost analysis of the twU alternate concepts.
the cam rative cost analysis as requested b the City Council
� Y ( � Y Y )I and
- four layouts showing alternating schematics for the 69th or 70th
Avenue connections to preconstruction T.H. 252.
It is recommended that this matter be presented to the City Council as a "discussion
its at the February 22, 1982 meeting. If the Council then wishes to pursue further
the development of "Concept B" it is reccmended that staff conduct an informational
meeting with residents and property owners from that neighborhood before formal
action is considered by the City Council.
Sy Knap"
Director of Public [Nbrks
Attachments
k
4
i
Il
'l /' �c 5�")Wcdti,� Afa2e t
r�
r ` CITY
Of 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
E BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, 55430
.... _ i
K LYN
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C E N T E RLAI EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561 -5720
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
rRcm: Sy Knapp, . Director of Public Works
DATE: Septanber 24, 1981
RE: Evergreen Park Area Improvement Concept
Outline for Discussion
1. misting Conditions:
- Evergreen Park
- Evergreen School
- City Maintenance Annex - building and "bone yard"
- Water tower and wells
- Arterial and collector streets:
T.H. 252 (West River Road)
C.R. 130 (69th Avenue)
73rd Avenue (State Aid street)
69th Avenue (State Aid street)
- Local streets
C curden Avenue
72nd Avenue
70th Avenue (dead -end)
Tax- forfeited property
2. Current Proposals:
- T.H. 252 improvements (including acc iisition of all property half -block
west of West River Road)
West River. Road - future N /DOT turns ack to City
- C.R. 130 - designation as a Municipal State Aid Street (possible Hennepin
County turnback project)
i
L �
r t
September 24, 1981
Memo to Gerald G. Splinter RE: Evergreen Park Area Improvemnt Concept
Page 2
3. Needs, Problems and Requests:
- Cleanup maintenance yard
- Reserve site for possible future water treatnnt plant
-,,.Traffic and pedestrian conflict problems at Evergreen School driveway & parking lot
` - >70th Avenue extension (petition by property owner)
Soccer fields
4. Development Concepts:
W NCEPT A
Major Elements: - Bryant Avenue "local road" extension from 69th to 70th Avenue
- Retain 69th Avenue as major roadway ,
Retain maintenance annex site as future site for possible water
treatment plant
- Locate soccer fields on the tax - forfeited property east of Camden
Avenue
Advantages: Maintain current ownership lines
-69th Avenue is nua established as the major roadway
Disadvantages: - Bryant Avenue extension would be offset at 69th Avenue
9th Avenue provides no connection =tA area east of T.H. 252
- Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings at 70th Avenue
- Soccer fields would require construction of additional parking lot
- Maintenance annex /storage yard and treatment plant are adjacent to
single family residential area and Evergreen :school
CONC B:
Major Elements: - Develop a new 69th -70th Avenue connection as tha major street
from Dupont Avenue to West River Road
-69th Avenue, east of Bryant would be downgraded to local street
status
Relocate maLntenai - ce annex /storage yard to tax - forfeited property
site
Designate tax - forfeited property as site for future water treatment
plant
Ix?cate soccer f i.el.ds in vicinity of Evergreen School
8
September 24, 1981
Moro to Gerald G. Splinter RE: Evergreen Park Area Improvement Concept
Page 3
CONCEPT B CON' T
Advantages: - Allows development of 4-way intersection at T.H. 252
Provides for controlled pedestrian crossing at 70th Avenue
- Soccer fields located next to existing recreational facilities
and could utilize existing parking lots
Maintenance annex/storage yard and water treatment plant would
be ccapatible with other land uses in this area
Disadvantages: - Requires property exchanges
- Requires acquisition of scme private property to allow sirooth
reverse -curve alignment
- Existing 69th Avenue is abandoned as major roadway
Implementation
Requirements: - Agreement with MN /DOT
- Agreement with Hennepin County
Agreement with Evergreen School
- Acquisition of right-of-way
Approval to use tax- forfeited property for these uses.
cb
, a i
r
t �
v
t �
� 1
h
t
r
l
f '
t
_ t s
,
1 jy
k ��r
e
_ +
r
Y
AN
A l
a
n'
a
vs
�
s 2
r
s
t� ;
r
l�,I�DE
/�io•�P'DYrE' r
z v.
+xi'evF�dCi@ fW'1Vvi�Mn" K .: t'•�'�.::14iF8agre7. '^.3=7
;- ....
� 3
Ac
k
f
r r
� M1
a i �
• a _u
t -T
OUPONT
low
«t , " - O e Ste 1` �-t L __l
r
t
* p
r "" 1
t
uj
L
♦
r E --
(
\Nx
g TFi�gT. N� �
Mw
b
,
{
N ®•
Y'. �b9
d ! i
r �
t a,
r
Y
LL S
�` ii11R T s K I V
,
E
- � y .. �
"�� �.
t: 1q'.
ry
n
.r: 4
�`yec
R�� �M�'Y
�� � s.? �..' � ��' �'r- k,,
.
. , s
rr
,.
.,,
,. � ' -9
,. "T
.M
� «.
?,,,e�,
,.
,,, --
�'E �.
,... v.�SSr�^. .,tom.. �� ra< .MtM#? "`
J sr •,. ....'
-r,• ,,_
,, > ,�„ �,.> a • .. ,,.
,�
.,..� �. w ' ' � .._.
� *; ra ' s
,� y .
.. .(
. _.. ,.r
.. �
a- .�..
_ � L` _
i- - _. ,.�
� � ..
7 ..�
." ' e
a �
_. i
_ a
4 ,.:.+
"- '
,�
p � x
1. :. - .. .., t.�
a .
# F
- w - r
�? s ...
F
"v
t
r` 3
, S
S
r �
i - F R W h T AVE- � F 7 A
{..:..i»:.a...._.v1..�._.__...j _ .�,.— �._a.�.J. ri
AN �
FH
,
I
I
r " a co D
rrl\
l
. A vvv
1 1 ,
STH S7.
I
I
r
f f i D LL S R
�- ( i x
RIVI
C04MATWE MVALY'SIS OF AL FMTE WPM MUMS
FOR
IMFROMMTT CF 69TH MID 70TH AVE TES NORTH
BED 7FTN
DUPONT AVENUE NORTH AND T.H. '252
DISCUSSION: TW roadway development concepts have been proposed for the Evergreen
Park area between 69th and 70th Avenues North and Dupont Avenue North and T.H. 152.
The development concepts, as presented in a September 24, 1981 staff memo,. provides �
the City alternate land use and roadway options as negiotiatons with the various•
affected parties progress.
Briefly stated; Concept A provides for the construction of Bryant Avenue bet-mm
69th and 70th Avenues and retention of 69th Avenue as a major collector street
within the area. Provided later in this report is a variation of this concept
whereby 70th Avenue is extended to Dupont Avenue, foregoing the.construction of
Bryant Avenue.
Concept B -provides for development of the connection of - 69th and 70th Avenue be-
tween Dupont and Camden Avenues. In this concept, the major collector route
traverses 70th Avenue between T .H. 252 and Carden Avenue, follows the proposed
69th Avenue and 70th Avenue connection to Dupont Avenue, and continues westerly
along 69th Avenue.
Final street alignment and land use will be affected by positions' taken by the
following affected parties:
1. Minnesota Department of Transportation
2. Hennepin County
3. City of Brooklyn Center
4. Anoka Hennepin School District
5. Private landowners /developers
The remainder of this report addresses design criteria essential to the develogrent
Of the street improvements within the subject area. Also included is the estimate
of costs for development of the streets accordincx, to the established design criteria.
UTILITY EXTENSION
The area available to future development may be provided sanitary sever and 'water-
main S via extension of service laterals from existing mains in the 70th
Avenue right of way. Storm sewer extensions within the improvement area will be
provided in conjunction with the street improvement project, and no individual
storm sewer improvement levy evy is proposed.
STREET DTPDVE4MT DWELOPMENT COWEPT A-1
Design Considerations
Concept A -1 provides for the irtprovrrent of 69th Avenue North frtm Dupont Avenue A,
North to its proposed intersection with T.H. 252 according to existing Municipal
State Aid (M.S.A.) standards : for ,collector streets The recom Tended impmven t
based upon 1980 traffic counts and preliminary traffic growth projections, consists
of subgrade correction, construction of concrete curb and gutter, placement of a
bituminous overlay of the existing pavement, and widening of the street width to
provide a`32 foot wide street with parking restrictions on either si& of the
street. Included in the street,ir.provement is placement of concrete sidewalk along
one side of 69th Avenue to provide for extension of the City's sidewalk system 1 7-
fran Dupont Avenue to T.H. 252 and construction of concrete driveway approaches
for all driveways having access to 69th Avenue.
Also comprehended under Cbncept A -1 is the construction of 70th Avenue fro Dupont
Avenue to Camden Avenue and the irrprov mnt of existing 70th Avenue between CaPrIen
Avenue and T.H. 252 to provide 'a 30 foot residential street. included in the
street improvement between Dupont and Camden Avenues is the establishment of a
60 foot street right of way taken fran the proposed water treatment facility
property at 69th and Dupont Avenues.
It is anticipated that subgrade correction is required throughout >this 'area ' result
ing in replacement of an estimated 3 feet of unacceptable material. Also included
is placement of sidewalk along one side of 70th Avenue between Dupont and Camden
Avenues.
Construction Phasing.:
The City s three options in providing for the completion of Development Concept
A -1:
1. Complete all work over the upcoming one or two construction seasons
based upon. the ,position taken by. IIN /DOT regarding T.H. 252 access,
2. Complete all work over one or two construction seasons upon ccffpletion
of T.H. 252 construction
3. Complete construction of 70th Avenue between Dupont and CairTden Avenues
in 1982 and improve both 69th and 70th Avenues under phase construction
in conjunction with T.H. 252.
Funding Sources
e Crty Council may levy assessments against the benefited properties abutting
the 69th Avenue North improvement in accordance with the established assessment
I
policies or M.S.A. Street Construction. As provided in said policies, all assess-'
able frontage, may be assessed at a maximum rate of $11.00 per foot for concrete
curb - and gutter and $10.40 per foot ` for paving where rx) previous street ir,Tprovermt K
assessment has been levied. Since no previous assessment has been levied, swh a
levy may be considered appropriate.
Whereas existing assessment policies for non -M.S.A street construction provide
for the levy of assessments in any arcunt less than or equal to the street
improvement costs, the staff recommends rates for the various improvements be
comparable to those considered equitable throughout the City: curb and gutter -
$15. 00 per foot; bituminous overlay' -- $12.50 per foot, grading base and paving --
$25.00 per foot. Estimated assessments for residential street construction on
70th Avenue reflect this proposal. _
1
S'
7.
S
Summary of Costs for Development 9 ncept A -I
t.
The following su ary of costs reflects estimated construction costs and revenue
sources for 1982 construction. The suwrtary provides costs related to the varims
segments of work, thereby allocating a conwarison of the alternate development
concepts on a present day basis.
Assessment Assessment
Estimated Against Private Against City A itio al
Improvement Total Cost Property Property city Cost
Watermain'F.xtension $ 5,680.00 $ 18,160.00 ** $ 0,00 $ 0.00
Sanitary,Sewer,Extension 11,710,00 11,710.00 0.00 0.00
Street Improvements
1. 69th Avenue (Dupont- TH252) 180,420.00 52,520.00 13,270.00 114,630.00
2. 70th Avenue (Dupont- Camden)134,390.00 ccrnbined combined combined
C
3. 70th Avenue (Camden- TH252) 28,240.00 ccanbined combined ccrnb
Subtotal 70th Avenue $162,630:00 $ 54,020.00 $ 57,010.W$ 51,600.6 x
I
Total Street Cost $343,050.00 $106,540.00 *$ 70,280.00 $166,230.00
*Note: Property costs for street right of way dedication by the City are
not included.
* *Dote: Watennain assessment for trunk, lateral, supply, and storage, as provided',
in City Council Resolution 81 -243, is included in the assessment against
private properties:
S
n
� 5:s �. .aY'^ �* ._r/®F��rr, ' 1 a � _ w � 'a � 1 � F � • 1� ".T� -� w _ — ....
Ilk
M
rt
jot
IW
it . . 1 � -1) ` '� a 11 `y ♦1 � � �. � � � ';�' r ` � °'s : R.i
; `� . DUPONT
COLFAX #
C7 f ., rn a
ili��IUL'
.� y
STREET RIPR MIEN.I' DEVELOPMETU CCUCEPT A -2
Design Considerations
Concept A provi es for the :irTwovament of 69th Avenue Ibrth from Dupont Avenue
Ihrth'to its intersection with T.H. 252 according to the provisions outlined under
Develpsnent Concept A -1 (i.e. the development of"a 32 foot collector with•s dewal.k
on one side). The improvarent'of 70th Avenue between Camden Avenue and T.H.,252
as proposed under Concept A -1 is also proposed under Concept A-2. 1 1he signifid.ant
difference between Concept A -1 and Concept A-2 is the extension of Bryant Avenue
from 69th Avenue to 70th Avenue in lieu of the 70th Avenue extension to Dupont
Avenue. $'
The proposed Bryant Avenue extension provides for placement of a 30 foot residential
street centered upon a 60 foot right of way, said right of ;way provided by the
City fran the easterly portion of the proposed water treatment facility property.
It is anticipated that approximately 3 feet of subgrade correction may be required
to provide a stable street subgrade throughout this area.,
Construction Phasing
City has 6i options in providing for the completion of Development Concept'
A -2:
x
1. Complete all work over the upcoming one or two construction seasons "
based upon the position taken by MtJ /DOT regarding T.H. 252 access.
2. Complete all work over one or two construction seasons upon- corpletion, ;
Of T.H. 252 construction.
3. Complete construction of Bryant Avenue between 69th and 70th Avenues
and 70th Avenue between Bryant and Camden Avenues in 1982 and improve
both 69th and 70th Avenues under phase construction in conjunction
with T. 252.
Funding Sources
The City Council may levy assessments against properties benefited under street
develo t Concept pt A -2 in accordance with the 'provi.sions established under
Concept A -1 for M.S.A. and residential street construction. in sunmry 69th
Avenue - $11.00 per foot for curb and cutter,, $10.40 per foot for paving; 70th
Avenue and Bryant Avenue - $15.00 per foot for curb and clutter, $12.50 per foot
for bituminous overlay; $25.00 per foot for grading, base and paving.
iVI
.
i
z
.
Stmmary of Costs for Development Concept A -2
The following summary of costs ;reflects estimated construction costs and revemel
sources for 1982 construction. The summary provides costs related to the various
segments of work, thereby alloying a ccrparison of the alternate development
concepts on a present day basis.
Assessment Assessment
Estimated Against Private Against City Additional*
Improvement Total Cost Property Prsperty Cite Cost
Watermain Extension $ 5,680.00 $ 1$,160.00 ** $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Sanitary Sewer Extension 11,710.00 11,710.00 0.00
Street Improvement
1. 69th Avenue (Dupont- TH252)180,420.00 52,520.00 11 116,130.00
2. Bryant_ Avenue (69th - 70th) _137,450.00 axpbined ccmbined _o abined
3. 70th Avenue (Cm- Oen TH252 28, 240.00 ccanbined caribined combined
Subtotal 70th & Bryant Ave >$165, 690.00 $ $ 54, 010.00 $ 8a�, 4600.00
Tbta1'Street Cost $346,110.00 $105,740.00'' $ 65,780.00 X174,590.00
*Note: Property costs for street fight of way dedication by the City are
not included.
* *Nate: Wateniain assessanent for trunk, lateral, supply, and storage, as provided
in City Council Resolution 81- 243, is included in'the assessment against
private properties.
1
t
f
r
R
C 4
ow
low
-- • 1`
WW-
k. 4b94 IS
m7m m%
L
i `�- �" ! ~
IP
1p
Low
# / JL
FRI
•,! �- � - � �` ` � : � ".`ms's- - � . .` �. , i r � '� .
U r �' i ,, 1 n
I
Ap
I V
4W lift i� f
C T
STREET RIPRC MMW -- DEVELOPMENT C(?I�'.PT B
Design Considerations
Concept 9 provides or the developrtent of a major collector route traversing 70th
Avenue between T.H. 252 and Carden Avenue, alone the proposed 69th Avenue - 70th
Avenue connection to Dupont Avenue and along 69th Avenue west of Dupont Avenue.
It is recommended the proposed collector street be constructed only if M /DOT pro-
vides access to T.H. 252 via intersection construction at 70th Avenue bbrth.' •If
such intersection construction is provided by MPd /DOT, it is recormended the
collector street be constructed between Dupont Avenue and T.H. 252 according.to
existing M.S.A. standards. Based upon 1980 traffic counts and preliminary traffic
growth projections, it is reccrmv -nded the street be constructed::ta a width.6f.
32 feet with parking restrictions on either side. It is also recommended that a
70 foot right of way be provided through the proposed water treatment facility
Property and private property thereby establishing ''a Parkway ;effect with widened;
boulevards and increased 'tree and shrubbery planting. Sidewalk installation between
T.H. 252 and Dupont Avenue is proposed along one side of the parkway.
Construction Phasing
Construction of the collector street may be completed in phases in conjunction with
the T.H. 252 improvement. The first phase of construction provides for placement
of curb and gutter and permanent street paving along the 69th Avenue - 70th Avenue
connection from Camden Avenue westerly and southerly to a point approximately 275
feet north of 69th Avenue. At this point a tesaorary connection to 69th Avenue
shall be constructed midway between Colfax and Bryant Avenues. All soil corrections
required along the 69th Avenue - 7 0th Avenue connection will be corpleted in
conjunction with the first phase construction. Tb'sidewalk construction is pro-
posed under the first phase construction.
Upon completion of the T.H. 252 - 70th Avenue intersection, 'the permanent connection
will be extended from approximately 275 feet north of 69th Avenue to the Dupont
Avenue - 69th Avenue intersection thereby allowing for movement of through
traffic along the proposed collector street. Also included in the second phase
construction are the connection of Colfax and Bryant Avenues to the collector
street, improvement of existing 69th Avenue and adjacent properties between
Colfax and Dupont Avenues, improvement of 70th Avenue between Camden Avenue and
T.H. 252 by ;construction of concrete curb and gutter and placement of a bituminous
overlay, and construction of concrete sidewalk along one side of the collector
street between: Dupont Avenue and T.H. 252.
91)e third phase construction provides for improvement of 69th Avenue from its
intersection with the 69th Avenue - 70th Avenue connection to 252 by
installation of concrete curb and gutter and a bituminous overlay to provide a
30 foot residential street. Also included is the construction of concrete; side-
walk between T.H. 252 and Dupont Avenue.
Property Acquisition
The construction of the 69th Avenue - 70th Avenue interconnection, as proposed .'
in this report, requires the use of some City - -owned property and the acquisition
of property from two ` private owners. one o umer, represented` by Hussman Investment
Co zany, wishes to develop the property adjacent to the street improvement -and
has been working with the City in the formulation of design concepts for site plans.
r
That Owner has idicated a willingness to cooperate regarding the needed right
of way (0.39 acres)'although no agreements have been drafted. The second party,
Melba Evanson, owns 0.04 acres of the land in question. Eecause of the minimal
impact on that , impa property, no discussions have been :held with that property owner
to date. Estimated costs related to the land acquisition include:
Land Costs (based upon present R - -1 zoning) $13,240.00"
Legal and Administrative Fees 5,000.00
Survey Cost 1,500.00
TO
TAL $19,740.00
Funding Sources
The City Council may levy assessments against the benefited, properties abutting
69th Avenue'- 70th Avenue' connection in accordance with established assessment
policies for M.S.A. Street construction. As provided in said policies, all
assessable frontage, may be assessed at a maxi*um rate" of $11.00 per foot for
concrete curb and gutter and $10.40 per foot for paving where no previous street
improvement assessment has been levied. Since no previous assessment has been
levied for street improvements throughout the 69th Avenue - 70th Avenue area
such `a levy may be considered acceptable.
Since an assessment has been levied previous street improvements along 70th
Avenue between Camden Avenue and T.H. 252, the maxims allowable assessment rate,
as established by-the M.S.A. street construction equity schedule is $5.19 per foot
for bituminous overlay. Curb and gutter may be assessed at the full rate of $11.00
per foot.
Under Concept B, 69th Avenue is considered a residential street, therefore it
may be assessed according to the provisions established: for residential streets
`A
under Concept A -1 and A -2: $15.00 per foot for curb and gutter, $12.50 per foot
for bituminous overlay.
e
t
Summary of Costs for DeveloFrnent Concent B
The follo�d%ng summary of costs reflects estimated construction costs and revenue
sources for 1982 construction. The samkary provides costs related to the various
se of work, thereby allowing a cormparison of the alternate development
concepts on a present day; basis.
Assessment Assessment
Estimated Against Private Aqainst City Additional*
Impravement Total Cost Property Property City cost
Watermain Extension $ 6,360.00 $ 18,160.00 ** $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Sanitary Sewer Extension 13,720.00 13,720.00 0.00 0.00
Street Improvements
1. 69th Avenue (Colfax- TH252)128,830.00 63,510.00 0.00 65,320.00
2. Land Acquisition 19, 740.00 0.00 0.00 19,740 40
3. 70th Avenue (Phase 1) 122,840.00 combined combined ccrnbined
4. 70th Avenue (Phase 11) 100, 200.00 ccx ibined combined axrbined
Subtotal 70t1i: Avenue $223,040.00 $ 26,860.00 $ 44,140.00 $152,040.00
Total Street ?Improvement $371,610.00 $ 90,370.00 $ 44,14 0.00 $237,100.00
*Note: Property costs for street right of way dedication by the City are
not included.
* *Nate: Watermain assessment for lateral, supply, and storage, as provided
in City Council Resolution 81 -243, is `'included in the assessment against
private properties.
z�
Aar
yV , li W ,( ,'fir • ^,~ ' � '�.
DL oc!
/ _ " ! .'!
r _.rte �� � • � ! �_ ' `
r,,• ,, t p•. !
1
low
y t s WV --
_ r
i
., • i,i���
`
jj
40 4
i; AW �
- . y am
-- I. ;
adk
MIS
�.� J � • 1� ■ rte - _ .
�. -
to
AT
' T .. .. ... - ft... _
Aj
to
JA
a � .� r1r �� .l � ,• ��. � • ,�• ,��_ " y .art _. _ + —..,-
as do
all
�- '� � , `- i � w + �� t t �,_ yt mss''` • ,.
+.��a �°��'+�.� rte• t • �'� .: ;
Y
Ao 73RD AVE. N.
—;> - -, tJ 1
AVE Ni w - ASE L_ -.1 -
_ _ I )j ND AVE. N.
L A N E '
I � �L __ -11 � • i�h,'�� r� �
EVERGREEN \ RIVCRDA
IAVE iN I P
ARK ! 1 1
X v PARK �`
,(�� ��ct 71ST AVE. N.
Jr
�_W �- V EVERGREEN�,��.-
ir
> - Z SCHOOL V; Xi��
r J /
-
- 70TH AVE. N. '
CITY - - -- �N --��-- / J.•
W MAINTENANCE
Q � ANNEX
EMERSON LA Q waTEH No.2
y �� —
26'25 _ C. S. A. H. TOWER NO 130 69TH AVE. N.
35;36 AVE. jJ.f-
z IX
a. -J 68TH AVE. N.
I LL ' a
67TH - _ - -- _ -, 8 f ix
'I z o �� t
m
AVE.
- ! > >- 67TH AVE. N.
F
J BROOKLYN CENTER -
HIGH SCHOOL 66TH AVE.N.
JCXXX I I , -
=} FIREHOUSE - -� \ r
%Y PARK
65TH AVE.N.
rR
65TH
',vAY BLVD. -. _p - z : v __ -fir � � 1' il' I I •t _� � J 1 I
__ — —
L - - 64TH AVE_. N.
_ -_ _ _ _ _
^I 63RD AVE. N.
V _ I CAMbCY CI
7 62ND AVE.N
i 3
a
J
- —" -- 7380 AVE'. N.
— }z 1 T iwOO�BINt.
LANE -
ul U.1
AVE N1
. X
E. N.
LANE
72150 ,r`�!`<
- EVERGREEN \ �RIVERDALE
i PARK i PARK'
DAVE NI I X . � 71ST AVE. N. I
cr
Z — c w
Z — EVERGREEN X
- � _ +U- W ; SCHOOL X
- -- - - -- - - - - -- ,lx,(�h/ 70TH AVE. N. /J
CITY
W —�
MAINTENANCE jJ
N 3 1
> ANNEX I — !J O
EMERSON L.A
2625 ®WATER NO.2 I
' -
TOWER ri0. 130 — 69TH AVE. N.
A.H.
- 35136 AVE.
t z c
a
z 68TH AVE. N.
—r °a 1 J Z _ . J
N —1 g '/ +►
i r 67TH - - - p --�� � ►' i — �', Q CO , I Z
—1
:F. ° m I :,lE. +i �� .n -- l,.'1' o o7 AVE.i3-
_Y BROOKLYN CENTER -- Q'. p1. _ �\ 66TH AVE.N-
Q HIGH scHOOL /JCX,'X
FIREHOUSE ` f (
PARK
FIRE
ul 65TH AVE.N.
65
I— TH A E. V -N.-
F WAY BLVD. I — 1� a ` f�� I r
Z `�
I- X 1—r 1
Q - g }� �o t}
z J
°- m o
64TH AVE.N.
694
1;G3 RD AVE. N.
C7
CThtOCN Y J
-- TV
W 6 �tio AVE I !o / 62ND AVE.N
cc
TII N
F-, N
lz
h� IST AVF.
73RD AVE. N.
____
I - - , -
LANE _ {. - "C3 �
- - -_ �R
AvE N 4a - ul
X — -172ND AVE. N.
_ _72ND i`X,�X 1 *
EVERGREEN y RIVERDALE
AVE NI — Z % x \ PARK k PARK
T-0 z o �'CX`/,e \_ 71ST AVE. N.
z cr w W I EVERGREEN'
X. - z -� �' SCHOOL
> w ly
f J 70TH AVE. N.
CI Y INE
W M
N. Q A) p
r J
EMENSON LA 3 C. S. A.H. - -- — t 69TH AVE. N.
t �{
33 36 AVE. INJ
Z�
~ x r I Q a
N z 68TH AVE. N.
- - - C) cr z
_ vu - zz
67TH o - - m
j g —+- E a m
J 1 + ci p
D - �a �
-� , X11 � AVE.
m ' I 5 =r=u ` } 67 T I 1 AVE. N.
C3 I I
- Ir.,
i
BROOKLYN CENTER
HIGH SCHOOL X X 66TH AVE. N.
— -- FIREHOUSE
YX PARK
�l X
FIRE
Sr k 1 65TH AVE.N.
WAY BLVD. 65TH AVE.
z o ►- x ; q
o -
2 : o w —o
t9 tL W O V m J , 'I
- 64TH AVE. N.
1;6 AVE. N.
CAMDEN
�2 r� AVf N 'L � • ✓o V N
62ND A
I / � 1
11 ,
F 119 N
• .. _. -, � � I��(ni FIST AVf_.N
73RD AVE. N.
LANI
WOO
(AVE N) d - w
� i 1
LANE E
EVERGREEN j 1
4 ' I I
, gIVERDAL
AVE IN I —{ h i X
PARK
AV
; RARK_.
71ST AVE. N.
�
�— 1-z o ; �CX`t�(�?�� �x gg tu
_ S w _ - v EVERGREEN y �� //
z � f
j 2 O LL W W SCHOOL -i- /
- - ,`l',�Ch'�% ' I -'�� f� 70TH AVE. N. '
- CITY
W I MAINTENAN
Q ANNEX +a
EMERSON L A WATE 2 ��
I
c. S. A.H. ; TOw N0 130 - ' - !
- ; � 69TH AVE. N.
35 36 AVE. LN. j_ _i I ( 1
°
— 1 z�
— o —, a y N z 68TH AVE. N.
t
►- 67TH - � __ - -�o -� -� t z, • I I � - Q m . � l
O
O
4VE. i - _ — — 1 I.�,,� -t >' 67TH AVE. N_
gig i 1
�1
DROOKLYN CENTER —�i - al j E IN. ` 66T*H AVE. N.
HIGH SCHOOL JCX.'?C
FIREHOUSE
+ , t SARK
65TH AVE.;.
ll
VAY BLVO. 65TH - AVE. -N.-
i /►r I +
O
�
n 1
—t a — o a -0
_o `� t
_ice - - - - -� 1 1
64TH AVE. N-
\ _ \ 1:63 RD AVE. N.
w �' ��� _= Af'` LN 1_ �L.. ` f ;, r GZNDAVEA
Ml
. � ... .. _ .. l:: . _ • • _ - j ,.� i AVE.
y
� { 10e,
7
CITY
J 1 OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
RO" 7-)- LYN
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C ENTER
EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
w 561 -5720
70: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FRUI: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Vbrks ;
DATE: February 18, 1982
RE: REALIGN ENT CP 69TH AVENUE NORTH BMTTN INIEST PRIMER LAb�' BOULEVARD AND
SHII]LE CREEK PARfiv1AY
Attached hereto are two alternate plans for possible realignment and reconstruction
of 69th Avenue rbrth . bett,7een west Palmer Lake Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway.
Both plans meet current minimum design standards for Municipal State Aid streets.
The primary reasons for considering this improvement are:
i
(1) t'_ne hazardous alignment of 69th Avenue at West Palmer Lake Drive (one
fatality, several personal injury accidents and ntunerous property
damage accidents have occurred during the past two years). F
(2) the Shingle Creek Parkway /69th Avenue intersection has a limited
capacity which must be improved as traffic volumes increase due to
continued develor- ent of the Industrial Park, and continued develoT'nent
in Brooklyn Park - resulting in more ha-me-to-work, home -to- shopping,
etc. trips. The followinq sketches show Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
volumes measured in 1979 and forecasted ADT's for the year 2000:
W 7 00 0 5,100 F W 11, 000 5 ,500 F
6,190 10,000
Y
1 979 ADT's S 2000 ADT's S '
The primary reason for considering this rrratter now is that both alternate
plans require the acquisition of some private property from the York
apartment complex. It is recommended that the City select one of these
two alternates, then proceed with acquisition of the required right -of-
way as soon as possible, before develonent of additional buildings on
that site makes such acquisition prohibitive.
Following is a brief description and a summary of some of the advantages
and disadvantages of each alternate:
•• '7lre . a.r;ctfilr N ose �„
February 18, 1982 - C. Splinter
Page 2
• Alternate #1
Description: generally parallels the established S -curve alignment,
but with curves meeting minimum M.S.A. design standards.
Retains the existing `i'--intersection design at Shinale
Creek Parkway, but with special channelization and
turn lane provisions.
Advantages: (1) minimizes the amount of intrusion into the Palmer
Lake basin
(2) requires less right -of -way acquisition from the
York apartment complex (estimated acquisition
required = 0.5± acres)
(3) the S- curve alignment will probably serve to
"Told down" the average speed of U?estbound traffic
(4) construction costs will probably be lower than
for Alternate #2
Disadvantages: (1) the m- intersection at Shingle Creek Parkway requires
the heaviest traffic movement to turn... i.e. -
Ibrthbound to Westbound traffic must make a hard
left turn. However, the Fa stbound to Southbound
turn would be facilitate by construction of a
free right turn ramp
(2) as traffic volumes increase to the forecasted
year 2000 volumes, it will be necessary to install
• a traffic control signal system at the Shingle
Creek Parkway intersection - to facilitate movement
of the afternoon rush hour traffic through the
intersection (esti-Tynted 1982 costs = $85,000).
Alternate #2
Description: this alternate establishes a totally new and more direct
alignment. This alternate also re- aligns the intersection
at Shingle Creek Parkway, providina for direct movement
between the major (west and South) legs of the inter-
section and "teeing in" the minor Fast leg.
Advantages: (1) provides most efficient movement through the Shingle
Creek Parkway intersection
(2) no traffic sic
jnal should be needed at the Shingle
Creek Parkway intersection
(3). the direct alignment should provide the,safest
traffic flow within this area.
Disadvantages: (1) requires substantial_ intrusion into the Palmer
Lake basin. However, the "island" area remining
Southerly of the new alignment could certainly
still be developed and serve as a very appealing
park area t
(2) requires more right - of-way acquisition from the
York apartment complex (estimated acquisition
required = 0.75± acreas)
i
f
i
February l$, 19II2 - G. Splinter
Page 3
(3) the direct aligrpment ma1r tend to encourage higher
spec-u!s for westbound traffic, creating a speeding
problem in the area Westerly of V Palmer Lake
Boulevard.
(4) construction costs will probably be substantially
higher than for Alternate #E1. Preliminary inves-
tigations show very extensive peat deposits along
this route. However., because it would not be
necessary to install any underground utilities
under this new roadway, strong consideration should
be given to "floating" the new roadway on a "geo-
textile" fabric as an alternate to conventional
construction methods. (d the City of Brooklyn
Center has used this method very successfully on
many portions of the bikeirays which were built
during the past two years.)
It is recommended that this matter be presented to the City Council as a "discussion
item" at the February 22, 1982 meeting. After discussion and identification of
other factors which need to be considered, the matter should be referred back to
the staff for such additional evaluation and discussion as the Council may request.
It is noted that a portion of the Palmer Lake basin property was acquired with the
assistance of a H.U.D. Q1-n Space grant. It appears that either alternate would
require intrusion into that property. Conditions attached to that grant and other
• envirorn7ental rules and regulations will require extensive studies and justification
for the use of that property. It is my recor mendatior_ that the City Council tenta-
tively select that alternate which it considers to be in the best interests of the
City, then instruct staff to initiate the actions required to obtain the necessary
approvals. In the meanwhile, action to acquire the right -of -i -ray required for the
selected alternate should proceed.
Sy Knap
Director of Public Works
Attachments: Alternate 41 plan layout
Alternate 92 plan layout
•
x
� 4
po ke
All
w
dom- ,a
-f
-- ,
W. PALMER LAKE DR.
AA � � .,.
6 9TH AVE. NO� Jo
���� ����r E_XISI IN( uIKEWAY
lit
I
IOO
y
f �
f.
?* r'
t.h• I r � F �•• r � 1 fi ! ?Ff _'� � + �] tie �y
�• r .-I-lh
.1 LHN
Phone: 537 -8421
ak � ,��' ''" • .^ •- ,�� -- „�• ,� k '� .`,,,�' f -j
• q7 ` 414?1 DOUGL S DRIVE NORTH
'. -SOTA 55422
CRY TAL, Mi !
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Peter E. Meintsmn
February 5, 1982
Dean Nyquist, Mayor
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Mayor Nyquist::
Recently. the Crystal City Council met with the Metropolitan Airports Commission to
discuss the safety and operations of the Crystal Airport.
The meeting brought out several views, not only from neighborhood residents, but also
from airplane operators and representatives of the Commission and Council.
One suggestion brought forth at the end of the meeting was the establishment of an
Airport Liaison Committee consisting of residents, airport operators, representatives of
the three communities surrounding the airport, and a representative from MAC.
• At its February 2, 1982 meeting the Crystal City Council instructed me to contact
the neighboring communities to discuss the establishment of such a committee which
would consist more specifically of two (2) citizens from each city, one (1) council
member and one (l.) staff member from each city, four (4) or five (5) representatives
of the airplane operators, a representative from MAC and possibly a representative
P P � P P Y P
from the Federal Aviation Administration.
The purpose of this letter is to solicit the interest of your city in creating and
participating in such an effort. I believe such a committee may help to increase
communication between the MAC,. airplane operators, residents and the cities. This
too, may act as a forum for any problems that might arise in the operations of the
airport which directly affect the cities and their residents.
Please discuss the formation of this committee with your Council and let us know your
response.
Yours truly,
Peter E. Meintsma, Mayor
City of Crystal
PEM:djg
cc: Brooklyn Center City Manager
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on February 22, 1982.
BULK VENDING MACHI LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Lions Box 29092 }`
K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr. S, }` to
Sanitarian,,
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Viking Pioneer 5200 °W. 74th St.
LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr.
City Clerk:
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT'LICENSE
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N.
Big -Bi Service Station 5710 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Christian Center 6030 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr.
Brooklyn Center American Little League 6800 France Ave. N.
Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. N. - - - -
Brother's Brookdale Restaurant 1341 Brookdale Center
Burger Brothers 5927 John Martin Dr.
Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N.
Denny's Restaurant 3901 Lakebreeze Ave. N.
Good Earth Restaurant Westbrook Mall
Happy Dragon Restaurant 5532 Brooklyn Blvd.
House of Louie 6800 Humobldt Ave. N.
Jim & Dee's Donut & "Coffee Shop 6830 Humboldt Ave. N.
K - Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr.
McDonald's 5525 Xerxes Ave. N.
Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd.
Meriwether's 2101 Freeway Blvd.
Nature Food Center, Inc. Brookdale Center
Orange Julius of Brookdale Brookdale Center
Pizza Feat 6816 Humboldt Ave. N.
Poppin Fresh Pie Shop 5601 Xerxes Ave. N.
Q. Petroleum Corporation 1505 69th Ave. N.
Red Owl Stores, Inc. 215 E. Excelsior Ave.
Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N.
Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Sears, Roebuck and Company Brookdale Center
Service Systems Corporation Soo Line Building
Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Taco Towne Restaurant 6219 Brooklyn Blvd.
Thrifty -Scot Motel 6445 James Circle �1• � ti. �- .0 ;Y ,__�^�_
Sanitarian
KENNEL LICENSE
Brookdale Pet Center Brookdale Center • LJt. k�C'� YVC� �
Sanitarian t�
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE -
American Vending Company P.O. Box 380
Brookdale Motel 6500 Lyndale Ave. N.
Sears Automotive Brookdale Center
NONPERISHABL V ENDIN G MACHINE LICENSE co
Bond Tool and Die Company -- 6840 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. N.
Bill's Juice Vending 3900 Beard Ave. S.
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Spa Petite 5611 Xerxes Ave. N.
Brookdale Cinema 5801 John Martin Dr.
Country Club Market 5715 Morgan Ave. N.
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
Ault Corporation 1600 Freeway Blvd.
Brookdale Car Wash 5500 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd.
Brooklyn Ctr. Ind. Pk. 6120 Earle Brown Dr.
Earle Brown Apts. 1701 69th Ave. N.
Evergreen Park School 7020 Dupont Ave. N.
Garden City School 3501 65th Ave. N.
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
Holiday Inn 1501 Freeway Blvd.
Iten Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Blvd.
K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr.
Maranatha Nursing Home 5401 69th Ave. N.
Minnesota Fabrics 5712 Morgan Ave. N.
J.C. Penney Brookdale Center
Perkins Cake & Steak 5915 John Martin Dr.
Precision Inc. 3415 48th Ave. N.
Razor Court 5740 Brooklyn Blvd.
St. Paul Book & Stationery 5810 Xerxes Ave. N.
Silent Knight 1700 Freeway Blvd.
State Farm Office 6415 Brooklyn Blvd.
0 Toy City 6000 Earle Brown Dr.
Willow Lane School 7030 Perry Ave. N.
Cook Paint 4800 N. Lilac Dr.
Dale Tile Company 4825 France Ave. N.
Gold Medal Beverage Company 553 N. Fairview Ave.
Duane's OK Tire 6900 Brooklyn Blvd.
Duke's Standard 6501 Humboldt Ave. N.
Hi -Lo Manufacturing 6520 James Ave. N.
Ideal Drug 6800 Humboldt Ave. N.
North Star Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Blvd.
Northport School 5421 Brooklyn Blvd.
Snyder Brothers Drug Brookdale Center
Warner Hardware 2105 57th Ave. N.
Jimmy Jingle, Inc. 2601 2nd Ave. S.
Johnson Control 1801 67th Ave. N.
K -Mart 5930 Earle Brown Dr.
Midwest Vending Company 8900 Wentworth Ave.
Brookdale Chrysler Plymouth 6121 Brooklyn Blvd.
Miernik Vending 7258 Commerce Circle
Brookdale Towers 2810 County Rd. 10
Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N.
Red Owl Stores Inc. 215 E. Excelsior Ave.
Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N.
Country Store 3600 63rd Ave. N.
Service Systems Corporation Soo Line Building
0 Northwestern Bell 5910 Shingle Cr. Pkwy.
T
Vo
NON VI?NDING MACHINE LI cont.
Twin City Vending Company 1065 E. Highway 36
Earle Brown Farm Ind. Park 6100 Suminit Dr.
Sears Brookdale Center
Sanitarian
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Coca Cola Bottling Midwest 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
Hoffman Engineering 6530 James Ave. N.
Jimmy Jingle, Inc. 2601- 2nd Ave. S.
Johnson Control 1801 67th Ave. N.
Miernik Vending 7258 Commerce Circle
Brookdale Towers 2810 Country Rd. 10
Hiawatha Rubber 1700 67th Ave. N.
Red Owl Stores, Inc. 215 E. Excelsior Ave.
Country Store 5425 Xerxes Ave. N.
Twin City Venidng 1065 E. Hwy. 36
Sears Brookdale Center A
Sanitarian
C
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Hioham & Patricia Sabouneh 6933 Brooklyn Blvd.
Paul A. Dorfman 5245, 47 Drew Ave. N.
Michael L. Goodwin 5006 Howe Lane
Harold & Sharon Schindele 5407 James Ave. N.
Joon K. Kim 3616 Violet Ave. N.
Michael & Cecelia Cullen 806 53rd Ave. N.
Renewal:
Egons Podnieks Garden Cit y Court
Michael Gunderson Unicorn Apartments
J.M. Rafter 6331, 6401 & 6425 Beard Ave.
Residential Alternatives, Inc. 5449 Lyndale Ave.
Harold Dripps 3612 54th Ave. N.
Roger L. Lundquist 3910 '65th Ave. N.
Gladys Schwartz 4006 65th Ave. N.
Director of Planning:?
and Inspections
SPECIAL FOOD HANDLING LICENSE
Children's Palace 5900 Shingle Cr. Pkwy. a
LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Dr.
Betty Varcoe 974 Rice St. Terrace
Holiday Inn Gift Shop 1500 Freeway Blvd.
Vicker's Minnesota Oil 6830 Brooklyn Blvd.
Weight Loss Medical Centers 6040 Earle Brown Dr.
. �Lc_C,nt -ct
--
Sanitarian
t
• s
t
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Nancy E. Deno, Public Health Sanitarian
RE: Denny's Restaurant
DATE: February 18, 1982
Inspection was made of Denny's Restaurant, 3901 Lakebreeze
Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota on February 17, 1982,
1:45 P.M.
In response to complaints given to the Health Department. l
1. The problem of dirty water glasses: is a mineral
deposit on the glasses from the hard water of f
Brooklyn Center. Denny's has a low temp dish
machine which uses a chemical rinse (chlorine)
to sanitize the glasses, this sanitizer was
working at the time of inspection. The problem #
will be resolved in the next week, Denny's has
hired anew water softener company to solve
this problem.
2. Hair in the salad: All cooks are required to
wear hair restraints and were wearing hats at
the time of inspection. Waltresses are required
to pull long hair back away from food or a
shorter hair cut is acceptable.
k
The management could not give a reason for hair in the
salad and made an apology. Denny's will inform all waitresses
of this complaint.
Overall, Denny's score was 83 points of 100 possible,
which is good.
NED;jt