HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 07-09 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
JULY 9, 1979
7:00 P.M.
ROUGH DRAFT
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Approval of Minutes - June 25, 1979
5. Open Forum
6. Resolutions:
a. Designating the Conservation Commission as the Reforestation Advisory
Committee for the City of Brooklyn Center
b. Accepting work for Water Tower Maintenance Contract No. 1978 -G
Schumann Bros., Inc. has satisfactorily completed the painting and
repair work for water towers #1 and #2.
c. Accepting work for Contract 1979 -A
Continental Custom Bridge, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the work
of fabricating and deliverying three pedestrian bridges for Central Park
and Shingle Creek Trailway.
d. Accepting quotations for the purchase of $7,000 gallons of #2 diesel fuel
(tentative)
-It is recommended the quotation of Union Oil Co. be accepted.
7. Planning Commission Items: (7:30 p.m.)
a. Application No. 79023 submitted by B.C.I.P. for a rezoning from R -3 to
I -1 of 7.84 acres of 'a 20.28 acre site located westerly of Shingle Creek
Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. Application No. 79023 was recommended
for denial at the June 28, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
b. Application No. 79030 submitted by B.C.I.P. for site and building plan
approval for the Shingle Creek Plaza speculative industrial complex
located west of and adjacent to Schmitt Music on Freeway Boulevard.
Application No. 79030 was recommended for approval at the June 28, 1979
Planning Commission meeting.
c. Application No. 79025 submitted by Jarold Modeen for rezoning from R -1
(Single Family Residential) to C -1 (Service /Office) the properties from
5455 Brooklyn Boulevard to 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard. Application No.
79025 was recommended for denial at the June 28, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting.
8. Ordinances:
-2-
a. An ordinance amending Chapter 34 and Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances
regarding rummage sale signs
The ordinance was first read on June 11, 1979, published on June 21,
1979 and is presented this evening for a second reading.
-9. Discussion:
10. Licenses:
11. Consideration of temporary occupancy permit for C.E.A.P.
12. Adjournment
MEMORANDUM
T0: Ron Warren, Director of Planning. and Inspection
i FROM: Will Dahn, Building Official
SUBJECT: Performance Bonds Recommended for Release or Reduction
DATE: July 5, 1979
The following performance guarantees are recommended for release:
1. Gabbert & Beck - Westbrook Mall Shopping Center
5717 Xerxes Avenue North - Planning Commission Application No. 74040
Amount of Guarantee - $20,000.00 Performance Bond. Original bond was
for $75,000.00.
Reduced to $32,000.00 on December 22, 1975 and to $20,- 000.00 on November
8, 1976.
All site improvements been completed in accordance with a- revised
landscape plan reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on
November 2, 1978.
(Recommend Total Release)
2. Sheehy Properties - Ground Round Restaurant
2545 County Road 10 - Planning Commission Application No. 77005
Amount of Guarantee - $10,000 Cash Escrow.
Original surety was for $60,525.00 Cash Escrow and reduced to
$10,000.00 Cash Escrow on_November 28, 1977.
All site work has been completed in accordance with a revised landscape
plan approved by the Planning Commission on August 10, 1978.
(Recommend Total Release)
Approved by: ---°
Director of Planning and Inspection
l eC�
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AS
THE REFORESTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF
B ROOKLYN CENTER _
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 18.023 as amended authorizes grants
to local units of government for the purpose of conducting shade tree
disease control and reforestation programs; and
WHEREAS, according to amendments made in 1979, the sanitation
and reforestation grant programs have been combined into one grant
program wherein all eligible municipal sanitation and reforestation
expenses will be reimbursed at one rate; and
WHEREAS, legislation requires each municipality to appoint up
to seven residents or designate an existing municipal board or committee
to serve as an advisory committee to the municipality on the municipal
reforestation program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center designates the Conservation Commission to serve as a
reforestation advisory committee to advise the City Council in the
administration of the reforestation program as per Minnesota Statutes
18.023 as amended.
•
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.
ra�6.r FACT SHEET =A"
SANITATION AND REFORESTATION
Plot GRANT PROGRAM"
1. WHAT IS AVAILABLE? 1979
• Minnesota Statutes 5 18.023 as amended authorizes grants to local units of government'
for the purpose of conducting shade tree disease control and reforestation programs.
In 1979, the Legislature appropriated $25 million for this purpose- - -$14 million is
available for expenditure for calendar year 1979 expenses and $11 million for calen-
dar year 1980 expenses. 1
According to amendments made in 1979, the sanitation and reforestation grant programs
have been combined into one grant program. Ali eligible municipal sanitation and re-
forestation expenses will be reimbursed at one rate. This rate may be up to 50% of el-
igible municipal costs.
2. WHO MAY APPLY?
All cities and counties may apply, as well as certain towns in the metropolitan area
exercising municipal powers. Towns outside the metropolitan area must apply through
the county.
3. HOW TO APPLY?
Cities and counties may apply by completing the Shade Tree Program Application form and
the program description form outlining the applicant's control program. The local con -
trol program must be approved by the Shade Tree Program staff before a grant can be a-
warded.
4. WHAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT — SANITATION?
Sanitation activities eligible for reimbursement include: diseased tree inspections,
tree trimming, root graft control, tree removal and disposal.
Grants may be made for sanitation activities on both public and private property. The
cost of subsidies to owners of private residential property of five acres or less and
f r
to owners o roe used far a homestead of more h f acres b less.
property ty e t an five but than 20 a-
cr s is eligible for reimbursement.
e e e ei
9
Grants may be made for eligible costs incurred after January 1, 1979.
Sanitation costs covered by special assessments are relmburseable as long as the reim-
bursement is passed on to owners of the properties assessed in the form of reduced as-
sessments or direct cash payments.
Eligible costs include: Labor and equipment in the actual inspection, removal and
disposal of diseased elm and oak trees; root graft disruption by trenching or the use of
Vapam; and, equipment repair.
Non-elig,ible costs include: Purchase of new tools and equipment•, labor, equipment and
supplies used to inject Arbotect and Lignasan; and, administrative costs.
5. WHAT IS ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT REFORESTATION?
Grants may be made for up to 50% of the cost of planting new shade trees on pub] ic
perty only Grants may be made for eligible costs incurred after January 1, 1979.
There is no restriction on the number of trees that may be planted for which reimburse-
ment is claimed. However, the reimbursement may not exceed the average cost of $50 per
tree planted.
i Each municipality must appoint up to seven residents or designate an existing municipal
board or committee to serve as an advisory committee to the municipality on the municipal
reforestation program.
Eligible costs include: Purchase price of the tree; labor and equipment used in plant -
ing the trees; and all labor, equipment and materials used in the watering, fertilizing +
and staking of new trees at the time of planting
Non-eii tbtbl�a costs include Purchase of new tools and equipment; labor and equipment
employed o subsequent watering, fertilizing and staking; and, administrative costs.
6. A DIAL INCENTIVES FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES
Cities of less than 1,000 population may be reimbursed for documented "in -kind contrlbu-
tions" for both sanitation and reforestation activities. An "in -kind contribution" is
a cost Incurred by a homeowner to have a tree removed from private property by a tree
removal contractor or to have a tree planted on public property.
,
FACT SHEET
PAGE TWO
Grants to cities and certain metropolitan towns with populations of less than 4,000
may include 90% of the cost of the first 50 trees planted on public property, but not
more than $60 per tree.
Grants to any county may include 90% of the cost, but not more than $60 per tree, of the •
first 50 trees planted on public property In towns that do not have municipal powers, pro-
vided that the town has applied through a county with an approved shade tree program.
7. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
All municipalities must comply with the rules governing the Shade Tree Program. Copies
are available upon request.
In particular, a municipality must:
(a) Retain a tree inspector certified by the Shade Tree Program.
(b) Designate the area in which shade tree disease control and refores-
tation activities will be conducted.
( Submit a description of the municipal shade tree disease control
and reforestation program to the Minnesota Shade Tree Program for
review and approval. Essential components of the program are de-
scribed in the rules.
N-k(d) Submit a copy of the authorizing resolution of the governing body
for the municipal program.
(e) Have an ordinance and /or permit system dealing with the utilization
and storage of elm firewood.
r
I
Prepared June, 1979
76
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING t%DRK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 197 8-G
(CONTRACTED BY CITY)
WHEPEAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1978 -G signed with the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Schumann Brothers, Inc. has satisfactorily
completed the following improvermnt in accordance with said contract:
Water Tower Maintenance Project No. 1978 -30
Cleaning, repairing, and painting of Water Tower Nos. `1 and 2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that:
1. The work completed for said project under said contract is
hereby accepted and approved.
2. The value of work performed is greater than the original
contract amount by $2,211.35 due to the following:
a. The elimination of the ladder modification to Mater
Tower No. 1 resulted in a reduction of $1,000.00 in
the contract amount.
b. The substitution of an alternate painting system pore
resistant to defacement on the lower portion of the
legs and appurtenances of both water towers resulted
in an increase of $3,211.35 in the contract amount.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said
project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. The
total amount to be paid for said improvement project under
said contract, less charges of $382.01 for City removal of
unsatisfactory work and for replacement of City tools,
shall be $44,829.34.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The nation for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
fallowing voted in fawr thereof
and the following voted against the same:
wYkereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
7C_
Member introduced the following resolution and maved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AC=ING wORK UNDER CONTRACT NO. 197
(CONTRACTED BY CITY)
% EREAS, pursuant to written Contract No. 1979 -A signed with the
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Continental Custom Bridge Conpany has
satisfactorily x� leted the following _ rovement in accordance with said
Y mP g �
contract. .
Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Portion - of� Shingle . <Creek Trailways
Improvement Project No. 1978 -42
NOGG, =PEFORE , BE IT - RESOLVED by; the , City , Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center that:
1. The work completed for said project under said contract is
hereby accepted and approved.
2. The value of work performed is greater than the original
contract amount by $4,073.00 due to the _following:
a. The addition of steel skirting to cover the bridge
floor beams in order to protect persons navigating under
the bridges resulted in an increase of $4,073.00 in the
contract amount.
3. It is hereby directed that final payment be made on said
P J � g
project, taking the Contractor's receipt in full The total
arrbunt to be paid for said inpmvement protect under said
contract shall be $24,664.00.
_
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.
7C.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0. ,
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 7,000 GALLONS
DIESEL FUEL
WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for
the purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of
construction work by informal quotations when the amount of such
contract is less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the purchase
of 7,000 gallons of diesel fuel and has determined,that the quotation of
Union Oil Company in the amount of $4,291.00 (61 -3/10 /gallon) is the -
best quotation submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be authorized to contract for the
purchase of 7,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the amount of $4,291.00 from
Union Oil Company.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was - declared duly passed and adopted.
QUOTATIONS FOR DIESEL FUEL
Rollins Oil Company 79 -9/10 /gallon
Koch Oil Company 68- 89/100 /gallon
Union Oil Company 61 -3 /10G /gallon
Standard Oil Company No Quote
Midland Oil Company No Quote
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
STUDY SESSIOtd
June 28, 1979
1 Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: June 14, 1979 (Regular Session)
4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of
the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings.
In the matters concerned in these hearings, the
Commission makes recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council makes all final decisions on these
matters.
5. B.C.I.P.
Rezoning from R3 to I -1 of 7.84 acres of a 20.28 acre 79023
site located westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway and
Xerxes Avenue north.
6. B.C.I.P. 79030
Site and Building Plan Approval for the Shingle Creek
Plaza Speculative Industrial Complex located west of
and adjacent to Schmitt Music on Freeway Boulevard.
7. Jarold Modeen 79025
Rezoning from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to C -1
(Service /Office) the properties from 5455 Brooklyn
Boulevard to 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard.
8. Comprehensive Plan Review: Consultant Presentation 9:00 p.m.
Mr. Bill Weber and Mr. John McNamara of B . R .l ;l . will be
present to discuss the proposed plan for water, sanitary
sewer, storm sewer, and local streets.
9. Other Business:
Citizen input on these and previous plan elements is invited.
'Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79030
Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
Location: Freeway Boulevard, west of Schmitt Music
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
The applicant seeks site and building plan approval for an approximate 140,000
square foot speculative industrial complex west of Schmitt Music on Freeway
Boulevard. The application was tabled at the June 14 Planning..Commission
meeting. At that time, the Commission directed the applicant to submit revised
plans providing for a 140 foot separation between two buildings which is proposed
to be a paved loading dock and driveway area. The Commission also directed
that the plans also be modified to provide a 50 ft. setback for the building facing
Freeway Boulevard.
The applicant has submitted a new plan incorporating these changes.- The
buildings are staggered such that the 140 feet can be maintained with a minimum
reduction in the size of the building.
For other aspects of the proposed plan, the Commission is referred to the previous
information sheet (attached).
Approval of site and building plans is recommended subject to the following
conditions:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building_
Official with respect to applicable codes.prior to the issuance of
w permits.
L 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and -
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guaranteee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager") shall be
submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
u system to meet NFPA �canuard No. 13 and shall be connected to a
central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City
Ordinances
5. All outside trash disposal equipment and /or rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
6. B -612 concrete curb and gutter shall be.provided around all
driving and parking areas.
-_ 7. The plan shall be modified to provide a 50 ft. building
' - setback off Freeway Boulevard which a major thoroughfare.
8. An underground irrigation system shall be provided in all sodded
and planting areas to facilitate site maintenance. The irrigation
system shall not be required in areas by Shingle Creek where
natural ground cover will continue to exist.,
6 -28 -79 -1-
z
Application No. 79030
9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject
to the requirements of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
1.0. A standard utility maintenance agreement approved by the
City Engineer shall be executed prior to the "issuance of
permits.
6 -28 -79 -2-
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application Nlo. 79030
. _ Applicant:_ Brooklyn Center Tndttctrial Park v
Location: Freeway Boulevard
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
The applicant is seeking site and building-plan approval to construct three speculative buildings totaling approximately 140,000 sq. ft. on.a 13 acre site and is
located on Freeway Boulevard, westerly of Schmitt Music. it is bounded on the
south by Freeway Boulevard, on the west by vacant industrially zoned property,
on the east by the Schmitt Music site and on the north by Shingle Creek.
Building No. 1 would be 47,600 sq. ft., Building No. 2 would be 30,900 sq. ft.
and Building No. 3 would be 60,200 sq. ft. The applicant has shown parking for
262 cars which comprehends that approximately 15% of each building could be used
for offices with the remaining portion to be used for manufacturing and storage.
Additional space is available on the site which could be used for more parking
if needed.
There is a 50 ft. building setback off Freeway Boulevard which is designated as
a major- thoroughfare. There is a discrepancy on the plan at the southeast
corner of Building No. 1, which does not meet setback requirements The plan
will have to be modified to accurately reflect the required building setback.
Another concern we have with the site plan is an approximate 120 ft. area between
Building No. 1 and Building 'No 2 which is comprehended as a loading dock area.
It is questionable, depending on the location of the loading docks vihether two
semi- trucks could be docked facing each other and still provide a drivinq lane.
Generally, about 135 to 140 feet is provided in such areas. An existing 25 ft.
sanitary seer easement runs in a southeasterly direction at about the center of
the site from west to east for approximately .635 feet and then heads in a southerly
direction towards Freeway Boulevard. Buildings cannot be located over this type
of easement, but can be built to it.
The .exterior of the buildings would be a vertical scored painted concrete block
with cedar siding on the office side and ends of the buildings. The same vertical
scored painted concrete block with an offsetting painted break off block would be
used on the loading dock side of the buildings.
He proposes berming along Freeway Boulevard to screen parking lot areas as well
as berming around the parking lot area that would face Shingle Creek. Hackberry,
- locust -and spruce trees would be used in the landscape treatment as well as sumac,
mock orange and Japanese barberries.
Approval of this application should be subject to at least the following conditions:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes.prior to the issuance of
permits.
2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantece
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements.
6_14_7
'Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79023
Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
Location: Easterly 7z acres of 20 acre R3 parcel at Xerxes Avenue North
and Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Rezoning
The applicant seeks rezoning from R3 to I -1 of a 72 acre portion of Outlot E,
Twin Cities Interchange Addition. The land is question lies adjacent to Xerxes
Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Interstate 94. The remaining
122 acres of the 20 acre site would remain R3 for development of up to 100
townhouse units.
The application was tabled at the May 10, 1979 meeting and referred to the
Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Commissioner Theis
attended the meeting of the Neighborhood Group on'June 7 at City Hall and has
submitted minutes for the proceedings (attached). The consensus of opinion
among those who attended was that the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle
Creek Parkway would not be suitable for residential development. There was also
general concern expressed that the townhouses constructed not be subsidized with
federal money.`
The staff is at a loss to see the merits of an I -1 rezoning for the neighborhood,
the City, or even the applicant. While a residential use at the corner of Xerxes
Avenue North t
h and
Shingle le
g _ Creek Parkway may seem less optimal, an .industrial use
presents even fewer advantages. The applicant argues without tangible support
that the development of the 72 acres in.question for industrial use will somehow
guarantee a quality owner- occupied townhouse development on the rest of Outlet E.
Logic would suggest that an industrial development, bringing truck traffic and
possibly other annoyances, would make the sale of townhouses more difficult, and
increase the likelihood of a less desirable residential development.
Another consideration is whether the land in question will support the use for
which it would be zoned. Of the 7z acres proposed for rezoning to I -1, over
42 acres would be devoted to a landscaped buffer area 'with underground sprinkling
system. (This is based on a 100 foot buffer between I -1 and R -3 uses and a 50
foot setback off of major throughfares - Xerxes and Shingle Creek Parkway.)
Assuming that at least half the remaining area would be taken up by parking and
dock space along with driving lanes, the area of gross industrial floor space
remaining is only about 65,000 square feet. One 65,000 square foot speculative
industrial building on a 7z acre parcel does not seem to be an efficient use
of land. Only as a prelude to further rezonings of land to the west does this
proposal seem to serve the applicant's interest.
Finally, the proposal seems premature at this time. There is more undeveloped
I -1 land than R -3 land in the City at present and the demand for townhouses is
growing. The development option afforded by the existing zoning does not seem
to have been pursued vigorously. It is suggested that the applicant pursue
the idea of developing a quality mid - density residential complex on the western
122 acre portion of the site first, and then possibly a consideration of re-
zoning to a Cl use on the eastern 72 acres might be appropriate if accompanied
by a specific development proposal that would offer maximum protection for the
neighborhood. Such a rezoning could be considered acceptable as providing further
buffering to the mid - density residential development.
6 -28 -79 -1-
C
Application No. 79023
It is recommended that the requested I -1 zoning be denied because the proposal is
not consistent with the Ordinance Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines
for the following reasons:
1. The rezoning proposal does not demonstrate a clear public need or
benefit. The applicant has not shown that the I -1 rezoning
proposal would assure that -the remainder of the 20 acre site
would be developed as zoned.
2. The I -1 zoning is not considered compatible with the R3 use to
the west.
3. The parcel in question does not seem to allow the efficient -
use of the land under T -1 zoning restrictions.
4. The rezoning would result in the expansion of a zoning district
not warranted by the Comprehensive Plan. Additional undeveloped
I -1 property is located in the immediate vicinity; There is no
preceived need for additional I -1 zoned land in this area
5. The proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests
of the owner of the parcel.
Northwest Advisury- Group t'lteeting
June 7, 1979
To aiemters of theVorthwest Ac?visory Group were - resent, therefore
Richard Theis the laison member from the Planning Commission called the
.meeting to order at ? :L5 P.m-
The following is a comnolete list of all reor,le thetwere at, the r^epting
before it adjourned:
Richard Theis ' 006 Thurber Ild.
Greg �".eGear;) 3007 Thurber Rd.
Al Bei:,n r 'Eprle Bros :ri Farm
Sven Gcti'Oid 68L? York Flpce <dop
Ed hiller 6`?t: York Flnce `To,
Brr -trra D .11ey 681.5 Yor'- c'lacc' i'op
Louis 'f erzich 4815 71r t Ave. : o.
Jerry Zvolski 3m13 68th Ave. iTo.
31,01 6.( th ' ve. 1 p
SadieS:.aith 3101 67tn Ave. I "c.
Al Beisner - ,resented the r.rle Bro .n Ynster Plrxn to the group. He then
e and tha ownhouSRs would be' pion.- the
ex�lrin d the rezunn request, t th e t
old Xerxes. He also exolr:ined hic desire for the Il zoninb rather than the
C1 zoning was that there is more of a I,-r fur the light industrirl or. the
north side of the 'freek,T,ay.
There was a consernsus of oniniun that the corner of Xerxes and Shingle
Creek Psrkwny would not - to - good place for residential.
There vas a request that an er FFnent be provided so the residents can
'walk to the bus service on Xerxes Avenue.
Al Beisn -r resDonded to e question thrt he would not vent to table the
rezoning; until the townhouses werQ bu?.ltp
The fcurle of the neighborhood exrrer;sed a concern ^s to hoWthe tcwnhoucec
would be finrnced. (Frivntely or HUD)
There was Also a question ^bout. c?r� :in- � ; "rr:ffic.
The consensus; of the group wps that they vrere in fr'vor of the rezoning to
Il., but went -e. sore assurances that the tovnhoup.cs woalc not be federrlly subsidized.
The people from the townhouse dpvelo).^ent regl,zestnd they be notif of Pny
additional meetings on the rezoning.
ReGpectful'y subrlit td,
Richard There
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 79025
Applicant: Jarold Modeen
Location: 5455 to 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard'
Request: Rezoning
The applicant, owner of the property at 5545 Brooklyn Boulevard, is joined by
the property owners of 5455, 5459, 5501, 5509 and 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard in a
proposal to rezone six single family residential lots from R -1 to C71 (service/
office). The application was tabled at the May 10, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting and referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and
comment.
The Neighborhood Advisory Group met on May 29 at the Brooklyn Center Library. A
number of local.residents were present and by a vote of 12 to 10 advised against the
rezoning proposal. Advisory Commission members and the interested property owners
constituted nine of the voters favoring the rezoning. Surrounding neighbors were
not in favor of the proposal. The Commission is referred to the previous informa-
tion sheet (attached) for background on the proposal.
As was indicated at the May 10 and May 24 meetings, staff consider the proposal
premature at this time. While the planning consultants have recommended service /'
office (C -1) use in this area in the updated Comprehensive Plan, they have also
acknowledged that present ordinance requirements regarding lot width in the C -1
zone are insufficient to prevent intermittent house conversions.
In order to enhance the likelihood of larger and more attractive developments, it
is recommended that the proposal be denied or deferred until:
1. The City's updated Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Zoning Ordinance
are adequate.
2. A specific development plan for the area has been proposed. Condition
No. 2 is a reaffirmation of the policy established by the City Council
decision relating to the rezoning of the Brooklyn Center Library property
under application No. 76053. In that case, the Council deferred the
rezoning of the old slaughterhouse property until a specific development
proposal was made.
It is also recommended that any rezoning of land between Northport Medical Clinic
and the Library to C -1 include the Clinic in order to eliminate its nonconforming
status.
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the rezoning request be denied
indicating that consideration is being given for a service /office use of this area
in the updated Comprehensive Plan but a rezoning at this time would be premature
for the following reasons:
1. Present ordinance requirements are not adequate to prevent - intermittent,
house conversions and insure a larger, quality development.
2. There is no accompanying development proposal to indicate conceptually how
the area would be developed. The request is, therefore, purely speculative
at this time.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SOUTHWEST ADVISORY MEETING OF THE CITY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN.
Date: May 29, 1979
Meeting Place: Hennepin County Library, Brooklyn Center Branch
Purpose: Discuss rezoning request /Application #79025
Petitioner: Jarold Modeen
Property: 5545 Brooklyn Blvd., plus property owners of 5455,5459 and 5501, 5509,
and 5549 Brooklyn Blvd., rezone from R1 to C1.
Concensus Opinion of Meeting
In a 12 to 10 vote, the neighbors of the properties voted to recommend to the Planning
Commission that they are opposed to the petition to rezone the properities from R1 to C1
Meeting Minutes
1
Call to order Commissioner William Hawes, member of the Brooklyn Center Planning
Commission and head of the Southwest Advisory Group, called the meeting
to order at 7:30PM.
Meeting Proceedings The meeting consisted of the following
1. Background of the area proposals
2. Review of the rezoning request
3. Discussion by those attending the meeting
4. Motion
5. Additional Motion
1. Background of the area proposals
Commissioner Hawes reviewed the "slaughterhouse" meeting of November 8, 1978. He detailed
the resultant rezoning approval by the City Counsil -at the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. At the meeting, the Southwest Advisory group had recommended that the entire
strip from and including the Northport Medical Center at 5415 Brooklyn Blvd. up to and
including the old slaughterhouse property at 5637 Brooklyn Blvd. be rezoned from R1 to C1.
The Planning Commission recommended that action not be followed until a specific petition
for rezoning was received.
2. Review of the rezoning request
A review of petition #79025 was conducted by Mr. Hawes. The discussion included a review of
the new Brooklyn Center comprehensive plan to be finalized in 1980.
3. Discussion by those attending the meeting
Jensen,5501 Brooklyn Blvd , presented his views as to why the area should be rezoned. He
said that changes of the surrounding area have made efforts to sell his property impossible.
He believes the "island of homes" have little value as residential property. The petition
is a.joint request because individually, the properties are worth very little.
Seaburg,5323 Brooklyn Blvd did not realize the library had been rezoned C1. He said the
Ir city counsil should give the citizens assurances that there be no further such encroachments.
Lindstrom,5349 Northport stressed the malignancy theory of such spot zoning.
Brynes,5348 Northport believes the city should have notified more surrounding residents of
Page 2/ Rezoning Request/ Southwest Advisory Group Meeting
May 29, 1979
the November meeting. Agrees that the city has polluted the environment with the spot
zoning, and that the entire area should have more input (not just the legal foot- bordering
property).
Angel,3800 Burquest Lane discussed his efforts to get more neighbors involved. We
definately need more participation but it is difficult. He made phone calls to eight
residents before the November meeting. He indicated to them what was going to happen,
asked them to call their neighbors, but only one neighbor attended the meeting.
Munson,5337 Northport had several questions regarding the comprehensive plan. He also
asked if there was a need for thi type of land in Brooklyn Center.
Kei1,5330 Northport asked what was the reason for the petition. He thinks unless there
is a specific building proposed that it is putting the "cart before the horse ".
Olson,5459 Brooklyn Blvd gave an example that the property had been a buffer zone to
Brookdale and that the building in the area is progress.
Lindstrom,5349 Northport believes that we can discuss the economic needs or property owners
valuations any way we want, but the net effect of the petition is further ,spot rezoning:_
Kiel,5330 Northport stressed the neighborhood had not properly been notified in November.
He presented a letter form four residents who are opposed to the petition and could not
attend the meeting (letter attached)
* 4. Motion
Brynes,5348 Northport "Southwest advisory is apposed to the rezoning request ".
Kiel, 5330 Northport seconded the motion.
* *Vote: 12 yes, 10 no. (results attached)
Jenson,5501 Brooklyn Blvd stressed that there were interested property owners who were
unable to attend the meeting, and that this should be noted in the minutes.
5. Additional Motion
Quady,4725 Twin Lake "Litter along Brooklyn Blvd. near the Red Owl Country Store
should be eliminated. The management of the store should be
required to clean up the parking l and loading dock area.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Minutes submitted by:
F #4f4�
5127 France AIVe. N
Section 3 5 -203. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDLLII i J .
1. Purpose
The City Council finds that effective, maintenance of "the comprehensive
planning and land use classifications is ; enhanced through uniform and equitable
evaluation of periodic proposed charges to this Zoning Ordinance; ar.d for this
purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has establishe s
a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Poli
It is - the policy of the City - that: a) zoning classifications mush h;_
consistent will. the Cor.,prehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not
Constitute "spit `oning," defined as a zonirg.decision which discr'ir?i. ates in
favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comp, cnsive Plan
. or to accepted planning principles.
o
3. Procedure.
Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits; measured
against the above policy and against these guidelines which may be weighed
collectively or individually as deemed by - the City. -
44 Guidelines .
(a)' Is `there a clear and public need,or benefit?
(b) Is -the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with
surrounding Land use c lassifi c ations?
(c) Can all permitted uses in - the proposed zoning district be
contemplated for development of the subject property?
(d) Have - there been substantial physical or zoning _classification
changes in - the area since - the subject property was zoned?
(e) In "the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals is 'there-a
kroad public purpose evident?
Will `the subject property bear fully the ordinance development
restrictions for - the proposed zoning districts?
(g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted ;n
the present zoning district, Nvi"th respect to size, configuration,
: topography or location?
"the • (h) Will the rezoning result i n expansion of a zoning district, P
warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of
developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) '
best interests of the community?
il Does - the proposal' demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Review of'Comprehensive Plan
Presentation by BRW, Bill Weber, John McNamara
Element: Inventory of Public Facilities
Bill Weber and John McNamara will be prepared to.discuss with the Planning
Commission those elements of the Comprehensive Plan relating to the physical
plant of City facilities: sanitary sewer, storm sewer, local streets, and
sidewalks and biketrails. Their presentation will cover existing conditions
and ro osed additions n i
add and repairs.
p p r pa s.
In addition, public comment on elements previously presented will be invited.
Minutes of the Housing Commission's review of the Housing element will be
available at the meeting for Planning Commission review.
EXCERPT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1N THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN' AND THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
June 23, 1979
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman
Hal Pierce at 7:33 p.m.
RO LL CALL
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes and Erickson. Also present were
Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering
James Noska. and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary informed the
Commission that Commissioner Manson had called him before the June 14, 1979 and
indicated that she would not be at the June 26, 1979 meeting. He also stated
that Commissioner Lucht had called earlier in the day saying that he would be
late to this evening's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 14, 1979
Commissioner Erickson noted that he had made the motion for denial of Application
No. 79037 at the June 14 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by
Commissioner Thei to approve the minutes of the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis,
Hawes and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION N0. 7 9030_(� roo k iyn Center In dustrial Park
The Secretary introduced the first business item, site and building plan approval
to construct three speculative buildings totalling approximately 140,000 square
feet on a 13 acre site, located on Freeway Boulevard westerly of Schmitt Music.
He pointed out that the parcel is bounded on the south by Freeway Boulevard, on
the west by vacant industrially zoned property, on the east by the Schmitt Music
site and on the north by Shingle Creek. The Secretary explained that the appli-
cation was tabled at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting and that at .
that time the Commission directed the applicant to submit revised plans providing
for a 140 ft. separation between two of the buildings for a paved loading dock
and driveway area. The Commission also directed that the plans be modified to
provide a 50 ft. setback for the building facing Freeway Boulevard.
The Secretary noted that the applicant has submitted a new plan incorporating
these chances. The Secretary then showed the Commission the plans of the site
which provided for a staggered location of the two buildings such that the 140
feet can be maintained with a minimum reduction in building area. The Secretary
also reviewed for the Commission the fact that the applicant proposes a natural
ground cover along Shingle Creek Parkway at the northerly portion of the site.
He also pointed out an existing 25 ft. sanitary sewer easement which runs in a
southeasterly direction at about the center of the site from west to east for
approximately 635 feet and then heads southerly towards Freeway Boulevard.
Commissioner Theis inquired as to moving the curb cut at the west edge of the
site in order to serve both Shingle Creek Plaza and the property to the west.
Mr. Beisner stated that the property to the west would not be developed before
1930. The Secretary added that he did not see a problem with widening the
driveway later to serve both properties as long as there was common ownership.
In response to Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated that if the property
were sold he still did not see a problem with arranging a common access agreement.
6 -23 -79 -1=
Commissioner Theis asked how much building area was lost as a result of widening
the paved loading dock and driveway area. Mr. Beisner answered that only 2800
square feet of building area had been sacrificed, with the Tema - ning area being
subtracted from open space. Commissioner Erickson asked whether calculating
parking requirements for 15% office usage would be adequate. Mr. Beisner
answered that office usage and other speculative industrial buidings was less
than 10' on average and so he did not see any problem.
Chairman Pierce asked the Superintendent of Engineering about the drainage on
-the site. The Superintendent of Engineering _aaswer-ed_-that most of the water
would be retained on the site, which is preferable, and that the remainder would
flow chiefly toward Freeway Boulevard.
The Commission then discussed.the question of widening the proposed curb cut at
the west end of the site when the property to the west was developed. Chairman
Pierce asked whether a bituminous curb would be the most feasible alternative
in the interim. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that he did not think
there would be a problem cutting through a concrete curb. Chairman Pierce asked
the applicant whether any plan existed for the site to the west. Mr. Beisner
answered that no plan existed at present, but supposed that it would probably be
occupied by an L- shaped building facing Freeway Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue
North.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79030 (Brooklyn Ce nter Ind. Pa rkZ
Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend
approval of Application No. 79030, subject to the fol lowing conditions:
1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to
the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
permits.
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall
be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic extinguishing
system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to a
central monitoring service in accordance with Chapter 5 of the
City Ordinances.
5. All outside trash disposal equipment and /or rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
6. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and
parking areas.
7. An underground irrigation system shall be provided in all
sodded and planting areas to facilitate site maintenance.
The irrigation shall not be required in areas by Shingle
Creek where natural ground cover will continue to exist.
8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
the requirements of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
6 -28 -79 -2-
9. A standard utility maintenance agreement approved by the
City Engineer shall be executed prior to the issuance of
permits.
® 10. A joint access approved by the City Engineer, shall be
provided on the westerly portion of the site to provide
access to the subject site and to the industrially zonedX� Lf
parcel immediately to the west ,mac
.may
Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes and Erickson.
Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 79023 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park)
The next item of consideration was a request by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
to rezone from R3 to I -1, a 7, acre portion of Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchange
Addition. The Secretary pointed out that the land in question lies adjacent to
Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway north of Interstate 94. Under the
current request, he said, the remaining 122 acres of the 20 acre site would
remain R3 for development of up to 100 townhouse units. The Secretary noted
that the application was tabled at the May 10, 1979 meeting and referred to the
Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Commissioner
Theis attended the meeting of the neighborhood group, on June 7 at City Hall,
and has submitted minutes for the proceedings, he said. The Secretary reported
that the consensus of opinion of those who attended was that the corner of Xerxes
Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway would not be suitable for residential
development. He also stated that there was a general concern expressed that the
townhouses constructed not be subsidized with federal money.
The Secretary stated that staff is at a loss to see the merits for the neighbor-
. hood, the City, or even the applicant, of an I -1 zoning. He indicated that
while a residential use at the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek
Parkway may be less than optimal, an industrial use presents even fewer ad-
vantages. The applicant, he said, argues without tangible support, that the
development of the 7, acres in question for industrial use will somehow guarantee
a quality owner- occupied townhouse development on -the rest of Outlot E. However,
he reasoned, logic would suggest that an industrial development bringing truck .
traffic and possibly other annoyances would make the sale of townhouses more
difficult and increase the likelihood of a less desirable residential development.
The Secretary also questioned whether the land in question would support the use
for which it would be zoned. He pointed out that of the 7, acres proposed for
rezoning to I -1, over 42 acres would be devoted to a landscape buffer area with
underground sprinkling system This, he said, is based on a 100 ft. buffer
between I -1 and R3 uses and a 50 ft. setback off major thoroughfares Xerxes
Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. Based on these constraints, he main-
tained, the site is only able to accommodate one 45,000 sq. ft. industrial
building. This, he said, is only about half the land use efficiency being
obtained on the average in the rest of the Industrial Park. The Secretary con
sidered this an inefficient use of land. Only as a prelude to further rezoni
of land to the west, he stated, does this proposal seem to serve the applicants
interest.
The Secretary also argued that the proposal seems premature at this time. He
noted that there is more undeveloped I - 1 land than R3 land in the City at present
• (if The Ponds Development is considered to be developed) and that the demand for
townhouses is growing. The Secretary stated that the development option afforded
by the existing zoning does not seem to have been pursued vigorously. He sug
gested that the applicant pursue the idea of developing a quality mid- density
complex, on the wester 122 acre portion of the site first and then possibly
6 -28 -79 -3-
propose a less intense use, such as Cl, on the eastern 7 acres if accompanied by,
a specific development proposal that would offer maximum protection for the
neighborhood. The Secretary considered such a course to be the most acceptable
to provide buffering to a mid - density, residential development.
The Secretary concluded that the requested I -1 zoning should be denied because t
the proposal is not consistent with the'ordinance Rezoning Evaluation and Review
Guidelines for the following reasons:
1. The rezoning proposal does not demonstrate clear public need
or benefit. The applicant has not shown that the I -1 rezoning
proposal would assure that the remainder of the 20 acre site
would be developed as zoned
2. The I -1 zoning is not considered compatible with the R3 use to
the west.
3. The parcel in question does not seem to allow the efficient
use of land under the I -1 zoning restriction.
4. The rezoning would result in the expansion of a zoning district
not warranted by the Comprehensive Plan Additional undeveloped
I -1 property is located in the immediate vicinity. There is no
perceived need for additional I -1 zoned land in this area.
5 . The proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of
the owner of the parcel.
Chairman` Pierce then called on the applicant to speak to the proposal. Mr.
Beisner noted that previous proposals for rezoning of this area have been denied,
although he could not explain why. He pointed out that it is generally agreed •
that residential use is not appropriate at the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and
Shingle Creek Parkway. He also maintained that Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
does have a master plan for the Industrial Park. Mr. Beisner said that people
are afraid of subsidized housing. He stated that the Industrial Park could have
built such housing on the site, but that they were interested in being cooperative
with the neighborhood.
He then reviewed previous conceptual plans for the area He indicated that the
site must be developed either for rental or for sale, not a nix. Previous ideas
for use at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North, he said,
included apartments, then office buildings and now finally, an industrial
building.
Mr. Beisner maintained that Brooklyn Center Industrial Park could make more money
off rental units than by sel ling townhouses. He said that he was trying to
satisfy d the it the
School Board which
s a � f groups; neighborhood, eC
y number o g oups the ne ghbo h y, �
is interested in 100 new families entering the area), and the owner of the land.
He acknowledged that A Cl or C1A use at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and
Xerxes Avenue North would cause visual pollution to the neighborhood to the west.
As to the efficient use of the land, he said, it is the City which requires the
large green area.
In conclusion,he stated that he thought the School Board, the City and the
neighborhood would be satisfied with the I -1 zoning. He mentioned the fact that
he has tried to discuss the proposal with everyone involved and that while not •
everyone would be 100% satisfied, most people would be perhaps 75% satisfied.
6 -28 -79 —4-
L
Chairman Pierce inquired whether Brooklyn Center Industrial Park owns the Earle
Brown Patio Homes remaining to be built. Mr. Beisner admitted that he was not
sure, although he didn't think so. He acknowledged that the Homeowners Associ-
ation Agreement for the Earle Brown Patio Homes indicates that Brooklyn Center
Industrial Park is the owner. If so, he said, the Farm would try to tie those
• houses in with the townhouses to be built,to the east.
Looking over the conceptual plan presented by Mr. $eisner, Chairman Pierce
inquired whether it met all ordinance requirements. There was a brief examin-
ation by the Secretary. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the conceptual
plan takes no account of the 100 ft. buffer required between I -1 and R3 uses.
This buffer area cannot be used for driving, parking, or any other use, but must
be a maintained green area. Mr. Beisner responded that the precise line drawn
to indicate the proposed zoning districts was not cast in concrete and that they
would be willing to accept a different 7z acre configuration. Chairman Pierce
questioned whether the City could rezone land in concept without specific bound-
aries. The Secretary stated that the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to show
precise areas belonging to particular zoning districts. Mr. Beisner again stated
that the line could be redrawn.
Commissioner Theis asked whether any information regarding restrictive covenants
had been gained from the Monday night Council meeting. The Secretary answered
that the City Attorney had said that the zoning cannot place such covenants on
the land, but that owners can. The Secretary continued that if Mr. Beisner is
looking for direction regarding a recommended use for the land, that direction
is given by the Comprehensive Plan which recommends an R3 use. He argued that
I -1 is not a aood buffer between a residential development and the rest of the
Industrial Park. He clarified that City staff had never recommended that I -1
zoning on the parcel and that his recommendation at this time would be to de-
velop a quality mid- denisty residential complex on the easterly portion of the
site before looking at any rezoning of the area by Shingle Creek Parkway and
Xerxes Avenue North.
Chairman Pierce inquired what the traffic count was at Xerxes Avenue North and
Shingle Creek Parkway. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that at
present it is between 12,000 and 15,000 cars per day. Commissioner Hawes asked
whether stop signs had been considered for that intersection. The Superintendent
of Engineering answered that even signals had been considered, and in answer to
Commissioner Theis indicated the same for the corner of 69th Avenue ;forth and
Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioners Hawes asked whether truck traffic would
be allowed on Xerxes Avenue north. The Superintendent of Engineering responded
that since it is a MSA road, it would be allowed.
Mr. Beisner again stated that the line could be changed in order to have the
most efficient use of land.
Commissioner Lucht arrived at 8:28 p.m.
Commissioner Theis, speaking on behalf of the residents in the area, stated that
the single family homes in the area were in favor of the industrial concept. Mr.
Dilley of the Earle Brown Patio Homes Association stated that the residents of
the townhouse association had switched their recommendation to denial of the
rezoning request because of the way they were treated by the applicant'relative
to site improvements. Commissioner Theis noted that the neighborhood was in-
terested in controls over the development and assurances that it would be of
high quality. " He commented, however, .that the Planning Commission could not
assure such things. The neighborhood meeting, he said, indicated that people
in the area were in favor of the industrial rezoning. The meeting did not
really discuss the alternative of service /office or retail use, he said.
6 -28 -79 -5-
He observed that once the rezoning takes place, the leverage which the City would
have over the development would be lost. He added, therefore, he would prefer
to withold the rezoning until some of the townhouses were built, but indicated
he was not opposed to some kind of rezoning.
Mr. Beisner said that he wanted to avoid working up a total plan for the area
and then to have the rug pulled out from under him by not having the property
rezoned. It would take too long to develop a specific plan, he said, and in the
meantime Brooklyn Center Industrial Park would not have its rezoning. He asked
for direction as to what would be allowed.
Commissioner Hawes stated that the intersection is probably not good for resi-
dential, but agreed with the Secretary that an I -1 zoning would not be good
either. Mr. Beisner countered that the corner is not good for retail or office
either, and since it is not good for residential, it must be used for industrial.
Commissioner Hawes stated that it would not be suited for industrial without a
variance.
Commissioner Malecki stated that she agreed with the position recommended and
that taken by Commissioner Hawes. She noted that no assurances could, be given
in conjunction with the I -.l rezoning that would guarantee a quality development.
Commissioner Hawes suggested a recreational use at the corner of Xerxes Avenue
North and Shingle Creek Parkway as part of the residential development.
Commissioner Theis asked Mr. Beisner ►which would be developed first, the town-
houses or the industrial building. Mr. Beisner answered that he would prefer
that they be built simultaneously, but that townhouse financing was not available.
Chairman Pierce commented that some types of industrial uses might be compatible,
but that the configuration of the land does not seem appropriate and that the
proposed conceptual plan placing truck docks adjacent to the residential area is
undesirable. Commissioner Hawes pointed out that the City has relatively plenty
of R3 and I -1 vacant land, but very little Cl land and asked Mr. Beisner whether
this would not be a good indication that there is a need for more Cl land. Mr.
Beisner answered that the need for Cl land in the City generally could not be
taken.as an indication that any particular parcel would be suitable for service/
office use.
Chairman Pierce called for a motion on the rezoning proposal. Commissioner Theis
stated that he would prefer that reason No. 2 be stricken from the list of reasons
for denial since he did not want to close the door to I -1 use forever. Commis -
sioner Lucht responded that he could not see any-reason to rezone the land to I -1.
He stated that Xerxes Avenue North is the best buffer between the Industrial Park
and the residential development to the-west, and that an I -1 use would never be
appropriate for the land in question. He preferred to see the entire parcel
remain R3 and be developed as such. He noted that a common area, could be developed
with the townhouses to assure adequate protection at that corner.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Erickson, Commissioner Theis pointed
out that the minutes to the neighborhood meeting were an indication of the
neighborhood's feelings, not that of the advisory groups, since only one advisory
group member had been present.
Commissioner Malecki agreed with Commissioner Lucht that I -1 zoning at the
corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North was not appropriate.
6 -28 -79 -6-
• Commissioner Theis commented that the application was not only for I -1, but also
for C1A. Mr. Beisner asked if the land would be rezoned to C1A as a result of
the denial of the I -1 zoning. The Secretary answered that that would not be the
case. He noted that the applicant had indicated at the May 10, 1979 Commission
• meeting that the Service /Office zoning was undesirable and, for that reason,
it is no longer being considered. The Secretary added that the C1A proposal
has not really been discussed further by the Commission or the Neighborhood
Advisory Group and that what comment does exist on the indicates people
in the area would be opposed to a zoning without a height limitation. Commis-
sioner Theis asked the Secretary if a Cl zoning for the land in question would
be appropriate. The Secretary responded that the City has, on a number of
occasions, indicated its preference for the development of the entire 20 acre
parcel as mid - density residential. He pointed out that a Cl rezoning of the
easterly area might be considered appropriate to buffer a townhouse development
from the rest of the Industrial Park. He agreed with Commissioner Lucht's
observation that a townhouse development could be designed so that recreational
and large common areas could be located in the vicinity of Shingle Creek Parkway
and Xerxes Avenue North to provide protection, or a buffer, for the residential
development.
ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79023 (Brooklyn Center I ndustrial Park)
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial
of Application No. 79023, rezoning of 72 acres of Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchanne
Addition to I -1 and /or C1A for the following reasons:
1. The rezoning proposal does not demonstrate a clear public need
or benefit. The applicant has not shown that the I -1 proposal
would assure that the remainder of the 20 acre site would be
• developed as zoned.
2. The I -1 zoning is not considered compatible with the R3 zoning
to the west.
3. The parcel in question does not seem to allow the efficient use
of land under I -1 zoning restrictions.
4. The rezoning would result in an expansion of a zoning district
not warranted by the Comprehensive Plan.. Additional undeveloped
I -1 property is located in the immediate vicinity. There is no
perceived need for additional I -1 zoned land in this area.
5. The proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests
of the owner of the parcel.
Voting'in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Lucht and
Erickson. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. Commissioner
Theis stated that he felt the motion did not deal adequately with the application.
Commissioner Erickson stated that the application.had been dealt with adequately
with the recommendation to deny the rezoning request. Commissioner Theis stated
that C1A zoning was not given adequate consideration. Chairman Pierce asked if
Planning Commission members favored a Cl zoning. Commissioner Lucht responded
that he felt the land should remain entirely R3. He noted that the area can
be appropriately developed for townhouse use.
Mr. Beisner asked for a poll of the Planning Commission's feelings regarding
the best use of the land. Commissioner Lucht favored the existing zoning. All
other Commissioners except Commissioner Theis stated the same.
6 -28 -79 -7-
RECESS
TTie Planning Commission recessed at 9:14 p.m. and resuemd at 9 :31 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 79025 (Darold Modeen)
The next item of consideration was a request by Jarold Modeen and the owners of
the property between 5455 and 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard that their properties be •
rezoned from Rl to Cl (Service /Office). The Secretary noted that the application
was tabled at the May 10, 1979 Planning Commission meeting and referred to the
Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
The Neighborhood Group, he said; met on May 29, 1979 at the Brooklyn Center
Library. He reported that a number of local residents- were present and by a vote
of 12 to 10 advised against the rezoning proposal. He pointed out that Advisory
Commission members and the interested property owners constituted 9 of the votes`
favoring the rezoning, while surrounding neighbors were not in favor of the
proposal.
The Secretary indicated that the staff considers the rezoning proposal premature
at this time. He explained that while the Planning Consultants have recommended
service /office use in this area in the updated Comprehensive Plan., they have also
acknowledged that the present ordinance requirements regarding lot width in the
Cl zone are insufficient to prevent intermittent house conversions and are
recommending 1 -50' mimimum lot width requirements in Cl zones to enhance the
likelihood of larger and more attractive developments, he recommended that the
proposal be denied or deferred until: 1) The City's Comprehensive Plan and
accompanying Zoning Ordinance are adequate and /or 2) A specific development
plan for the area has been proposed.
The Secretary pointed out that condition No. 2 is reaffirmation of the policy
established by the City Council relating to the rezoning of the Brooklyn Center
Library property under Application No 76053. In that case, he said, the City
Council deferred the rezoning of the old slaughterhouse property until a specific
development proposal was made. The Secretary also recommended that any rezoning
of land between Northport Medical Clinic and the Library to a Cl use include the
'Clinic in order to eliminate its nonconforming status.
Chairman Pierce called on the applicant to speak on behalf of the proposal. Mrs.
Modeen of 5545 Brooklyn Boulevard stated she would like feedback from the Plan-
ning Consultants on the proposed use for the area. David Jensen, owner of the
property at 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard argued extensively in favor of the proposal.
He stated that he did not consider the proposal premature in light of recent
rezonings of property in the area and in light of the Planning Consultants
recommendation that the land be rezoned to Cl use. He admitted that the rezoning
request was not backed by any specific development, explaining that the property
owners could not afford such a marketing study. As to intermittent house con -
versions, he said, any developer would have to receive City approval before
such a conversion and would certainly be discouraged from such an attempt
because of the various code requirements for commercial buildings. He confessed
that there had been some confusion over the inclusion of the Clinic in the re-
zoning request, but added that the applicants would have no opposition to the
rezoning of that property to C1 also.
The Secretary acknowledged Mr. Jensen's arguments,., but replied that it would
be better to defer the rezoning until the Zoning Ordinance were amended tof
requi re a larger lot width, th.ereby ensuring larger quality developments. He
also pointed out that in the rezoning of the Library property, the slaughterhouse ,
property had specifically been excluded because there was no development proposal
for it.
6 -28 -79 -8-
Mr. Jensen argued the fact that the Northport Medical Clinic is not included in
the rezoning is no reason to deny the proposal, since the rezoning of the
slaughterhouse property also did not include the Clinic. He maintained that
rezoning the property to Cl would do away with the hardship of the residents in
the area who suffered under the existing R1 zoning. He stated that he felt the
rezoning request met the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. He also called on
the Commission to differentiate the present rezoning request from that of the
slaughterhouse property if the Commission chose to deny the rezoning. He finished
by saying that the property owners could get very little for their land and
houses under the existing zoning. A rezoning to Cl he said would rectify this.
Commissioner Hawes asked when the Comprehensive Plan would take effect. The
Secretary answered that the plan must be approved within a year by the City
Council. Implementation of its recommendations, he estimated, would take up to
a year and one -half. Mr. Weber of BRW, stated that amendments to the lot width
requirements could be approved prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan,
and that he saw no reason why the rezoning could not be approved if these changes
were made
Commissioner Theis stated his concern that the present Zoning Ordinance would
allow intermittent house conversions, but the proposed Zoning Ordinance amend -`
ment would eliminate that possibility. He cited this as one difference between
the present request and the rezoning of the slaughterhouse property. Commissioner
Lucht asked whether there was any advantage to deferring rather than denying
the proposal. The Secretary explained that he did not see the merit of deferring
the proposal, but felt the rezoning was premature until the Comprehensive Plan
studies were finished, or until a specific development proposal was presented.
Commissioner Lucht noted that if the request were approved, it would create six
nonconforming parcels.
The Secretary compared the present request to the exclusion of the slaughterhouse
property from the Library rezoning on the basis of no development plan. Com-
missioner Hawes agreed and recommended waiting until any lot width amendment
is adopted. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the Zoning Ordinance could be
amended prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary answered
that while it was possible he recommended that all Zoning Ordinance changes be
considered during review of the Comprehensive Plan. He added that to change
the current Cl lot width requirement to 150 feet should also be accompanied by
an analysis as to the effect this would have on other Cl zoned property already
in existence.
Chairman Pierce asked whether there was a lot area requirement in the Cl district.
The Secretary nswered that y t t there is none. Commissioner Erickson stated that he
would favor the rezoning after an Ordinance amendment might be adopted. Further
discussion ensued concerning the proposed lot width amendment.
Chairman Pierce asked the owners of the property along Brooklyn Boulevard whether
they had been approached by potential developers. Mrs. Modeen stated that the
Northport Medical Clinic had approached her as to the possibility of acquiring
part of their lot. No other property owners reported any offers.
Mrs. Gloria Byrnes, of 5348 Northport Drive, said that her opposition was best
stated by the staff report. She advised a moritorium on rezonings until the
Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Mr. Jensen stated that the proposal is no more
premature than other rezoning requests which are not being delayed by Compre-
hensive Plan review. He maintained that waiting for a development proposal is
not necessary because existing tools are sufficient to avoid possible
conversions.
6 -28 -79 -9-
Commissioner Maiecki observed that the applicant is arguing for the same treatment
as the slaughterhouse property, but noted that rezoning of the slaughterhouse
property was deferred until a development proposal was brought forth. She'also
pointed out that small office developments and house conversions could not be
denied provided ordinance requirements were iiiiet. once the rezoning takes place.. Mr.
Jens n a gain maintained that other ordinance -tc:ols are sufficient to control
dove opni nt. r
Commissioner Hawes observed that Mr. Jensen's property, which is in the middle,
would likely suffer in value if the properties at the ends of the request con-
verted first. In response to Mr. Jensen's concerns over the ability to sell his-
property. Commissioner;Maiecki stated that he could tell buyers the Planning
Commission favors Cl zoning in the future.
Chairman Pierce stated that he was reluctant to see six nonconforming parcels
created by the rezoning. He cited another example of a Cl zoning along Brooklyn
Boulevard which has not been developed under its current zoning and that an
addition to the nonconforming structure on the site had to be denied because of
its status. In answer to a question from Mr. Jensen, Commissioner Hawes stated
that the Planning Commission would not consider'a rezoning request accompanied
by development proposal to be premature. Mrs. Byrnes interjected, however, that
she would oppose Cl development at any time because it would affect her. Mrs.
Olson of 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard, stated that the parking requirements would not
allow more than three commercial buildings in that area. Commissioner Hawes
assured Mrs. Olson that the Planning Commission is not bound to follow the
neighborhood feelings in making its recommendations regarding rezonings. Mrs.
Byrnes interjected that she expected Commissioner Hawes to listen to the neigh -
borhood, but conceded that the neighborhood would have to have good reasons for
denying the
ACT ION RECOM MENDING DEN IAL OF ARPLI-CATLON NO. 79025 (Darold Plodeen
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Erickson to deny Application
No. 79025, submitted by Jarold Modeen, requesting rezoning from R1 to Cl, noting
that consideration is being given for a Service /Office use of this area in the
updated Comprehensive Plan, but a rezoning at this time would be premature for
the following reasons:
1 Present ordinance requirements are not adequate to prevent
intermittent house conversions and ensure larger quality
office development.
2. There is no accompanying development proposal to indicate
conceptually how the area would be developed. The request
is, therefore, purely speculative at this time.
Also, the Commission would consider a rezoning to a Service /Office use if a
specific development proposal is put forth.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki Theis, Hawes, Lucht
and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
In answer to a question from Mr Jensen, The Secretary explained that the City is
under a time table established to ensure that applications are dealt with promptly.
Those requirements do not prevent the applicant from withdrawing the request or
holding it in abeyance for a longer period of time prior to City Council review,
but he recommended that the applicants allow the application to be considered
by the City Council at this time, in order to receive 'their reaction to it
rather than presume that the Planning Commission's feelings would be acceptable
to the Council
6 -28 -79 -10-
i
CITY
.
O= 6:301 HIN! aLE CREEK PARKWAY
B - RovK"' V+4
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
'�
_ j � � EM sEiVCY'- POLIr,;E_FIF'E
I
July 3, 1979
Mr. Jarold Modeen
5545 Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Center, Mn. 55429
Dear Mr.. Modden:
Please be advised that the City Council of Brooklyn Center will
_ review Planning Commission Application Fo, 79025, submitted for
a proposed rezoning, at its meeting Yon.day, July 9, 1979 at
approximately 7:30p.m. The meeting is held in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway.
The applicant or a designated agent should be present at this
meeting.
Questions you may have should be directed to this office.
Sincerely,
�
Ronald A. Warren
Planning Commission Secretary
fit
f y ,
7 't
e
•� �z r C L '� s utra �, s •e - 5ftscet'lrG fq Vj W et.�f� n
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -7154
RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY REINSTATING THE OPERATING LICENSE
OF BROOKDALE TEN APARTMENTS
WHEREAS, the operating license of Brookdale Ten Apartments has been
revoked by the City Council for numerous code violations; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the inspection report of the Department of
Planning and Inspection dated June 25, 1979, several code violations remain
uncorrected; and
WHEREAS, the licensee has offered to enter into binding contracts
with various suppliers and contractors to remedy these code violations and
has further agreed to post a performance bond or other financial guarantee
to insure the completion and correction of said code violations prior to
October 1, 1979.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the operating license of Brookdale Ten is hereby
conditionally y
reinstated effective Jul 1 1979 if, and only if, the
following conditions are met by the licensee:
1. That the licensee agree that all apartment units in
the Brookdale Ten Apartments which are vacated at the
t end of the month of June, 1979, said apartment units
being identified as follows:
3417 441 3425 -4110
3421 #203 3305 - 44208
3305 - 44204 3311 #208
3425 44109 3409,- 0103 .
3409 - 4106 3425`- 444
3311 - 44202 3433 - 44204 .
• 3421 4106 3311 - #204
be posted with notices stating that the said units
are not properly licensed for occupancy.
2. That the said notices shall be posted by City inspectors
on June 27, 1979 and shall remain so posted until all
conditions of this license reinstatement have been met.
3. That the work to be completed and the code violations
to be corrected shall be described and identified by
the Director of Planning and Inspection and that the
licensee shall enter-into the City's standard performance
agreement (modified as needed by the City Attorney) to
guarantee the correction of the code violations identified
by the Director of Planning and Inspection.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -154
4. That if the licensee fails or refuses to enter into the
said performance agreement to correct the code violations
as described and identified by the Director of Planning
and Inspection, the operating license of Brookdale Ten
Apartments shall not be reinstated as 'set forth herein.
June 25, 1979
Date
ATTEST:
Cler
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and
Gene Lhotka;
and the following voted against the same: none,
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 AND CHAPTER 35 OF THE
CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING RUMMAGE S SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 34-110 of the City Ordinances is hereby
amended to read the following:
Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale,
by an occupant on his premises, of personal property, including general
household rummage, used clothing and appliances, provided: the exchange
or sale of merchandise is conducted within - the - residence or accessory
structure; the number of sales does not exceed four (4) per year; the
duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) consecutive days; any
realted signery shall be limited to the premises and to other residential
property provided that property owner's permission has been obtained to
d'zsplay such signery shall conform with the sign ordinance provisio-ns
for home occupations and shall be removed at the termination of said sale;
and the conduct of the sale does not encroach upon the peace, health,
safety, or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center.
Section 2. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances is hereby
amended to read the following:
Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale,
• by an occupant on his premises, of personal property, including general
household rummage, used clothing and appliances, provided: the exchange
or sale of merchandise is conducted within the residence or accessory
structure; the number of sales does not exceed four (4) per year; the
duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) consecutive days; any
related signery shall be limited to the premises and to other residential
property provided that property owner's permission has been o btaine d to
display such signery shall conform with the sign ordinance provisions
for home occupations and shall be removed at the termination of said sale;
and'the conduct of the sale does not encroach upon the peace, health,
safety, or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption_
and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1979.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk _
• Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter)
M & C No. 79 -17
July 6, 1979
FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Subject: Departmental Energy Audits
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
For the last approximate month or so individual operating departments of the City,
which were considered to be energy intensive, - were asked to review their usage of
_such fuels as gasoline, diesel motor and heating fuel. This review-was conducted
to analyze our present usage of these expensive resources and to s.ee if there are
any actions which could be by us -to conserve_cn their'use. - _Currently our --
supplier has us on,a'75 allocation. Because of the current debate on whether--
`there is a shortage of .gasoline and diesel fuel, our analysis__ been based
on the current short supplies but rather on the long term look - to the cost
4 impact of the recent price increases. The Public Works Department, Government
Buildings'Department and Police Department use practically all the fuel supplies
of the City.
- The Public Works Department reviewed its equipment use and found that in terms of
gasoline usage - their policy last year of ordering smaller pickup trucks (4 cylinder
engines) for the supervisors will have-the-greatest impact in terms of s aving on
gasoline as these vehicles by far put on the most mileage of any of their equipment.
This approach is being contemplated again for the 1980 budget by going to smaller
vehicles- where it is feasible. The problem in the Public Works Department is that
with the larger vehicles needed for snowplowing and hauling, there is no sense in
going to smaller equipment because it simply cannot handle the job.
In the Government Buildings Department, which is responsible for heating oil and
the heating of the various municipal buildings, Mr. Lindman has received notice
from our gas supplier, Minnegasco, that we should have on hand a 30 day supply of
heating oil as the gas supply to_.City Hall and some other municipal buildings - is
interruptible during the peak heating periods. During these peak heating periods
the Civic Center complex must switch to heating oil as a source of heat for the
buildings. The present storage facilities will allow only approximately a 15 day
supply of heating oil. Minnegasco anticipates increased residential. customer gas
sales, which may require longer periods of requiring us to burn heating oil rather
than natural gas. Mr. Lindman is recommending that we install an additional 10,000'
gallon heating oil tank at the Civic Center complex to give, us the additional, heating
oil storage capacity. The estimated price of installing and purchasing such a tank is
between $5,000 and $6,000. We have reviewed this recommendation with the firm doing
the energy audit of the Civic Center complex and other_ municipal buildings, and they
concur with Minnegasco's recomT.endation because the supply of heating fuel will be
the most sensitive for the foreseeable future.
The Police Department is the largest gasoline user in the City. Of the police usage
by 'far the largest use is by the six marked patrol cars. Using the last 12 month's
experience the police department has used 27,500 gallons of gas. We are currently
driving a compact Nova police sedan with a 350 cubic inch V8 engine which averages
between 9 and 10 miles per gallon over the full year. The EPA rating for this type
of vehicle is 15 miles per gallon and so it appears that the type of driving the
Psi & C No. 79 -17 -2-- July 6, 1979
Police Department does reduces the mileage by approximately fi ve miles per gallon.
The Police Department has analyzed where savings could be made in terms of gasoline
usage and they are restricting the air conditioner usage this s1 will only
have a very minor effect and will help us in terms of getting over the summer when
it is anticipated gasoline supplies to be short. The major improvement needed try
make a savings in this area would be to go to a vehicle which would provide us with
better gas mileage. The Police Department has reviewed a number of types of potential
police vehicles and found that the new General Motors front wheel drive vehicles with
V6 engines offer an opportunity to get an improvement of approximately five miles per
gallon in squad cars. These model vehicles will offer similar inside room as the
present vehicles being used for squad cars and will have sufficient room in the trunks
to handle the various equipment needed to be carried by a squad car. The vehicles
would be powered by a 6 cylinder engine which in the department's opinion appears to
have sufficient acceleration to be used as a squad car. With the use of this type of
vehicle and achieving 'the 15 mile per gallon level, the annual savings in gasoline
priced at $l a gallon would be $7, 167 per year for the six vehicles. The estimated
purchase price of this type of vehicle would be somewhere between $6,000 and $6,500.
In order to achieve this kind of savings the total :six car marked fleet would have to
be replaced at a cost of approximately $40,000.
To implement the purchase of the additional h`atina oil storage and the purchase of
the squad cars out of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds, it will be necessary for the City'
Council to set a date for a special hearing for the expenditure of Revenue Sharing
Funds. It is also recommended that the Council authorize us to go out on bids for
the purchase and installation of the heating oil facility and the new squad cars con-
• currently so that at the time of the public hearing we would have accurate cost fig'Lres.
Generally speaking, we would ha��dle such items as a part of consideration of the 1980
budget. However, with. regard to the heating oil storage situation the consideration
through normal 1980 budget hearing would carry us to' point where we doubt whether we
could get the equipment installed in time to use during the 1979 =80 h.ating session.
With regard to the squad cars, the delivery of these vehicles would be between four
and six months and most likely six months. If we were to order now we could get them
in early 1980. The 1980 proposed police budget calls for the purchase of three ✓o'ad
cars at an approximate cost of $20,000. We are recommending the purchase of six so
as to get as many fuel efficient vehicles into the fleet as possible to attain more
savings in gasoline usage and cost.
Respectfully submitted,
Gerald G. Splinter
City Manager
CITY OF EROOKL17N CENTER
�N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection e ���(,
DATE: July 9, 1979
SUBJECT: Extension of Temporary Occupancy Permit for CEAP
We have received a request from the Community Emergency Assistance Program, Inc.
(CEAP) to extend the temporary occupancy of the properties at 5607 and 5625
Brooklyn Boulevard until February 1, 1980. You will recall that the City Council
authorized the temporary occupancy of 5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard for CEAP
on January 23, 1978. The approval was for a 12 month period provided certain
conditions were met.
CEAP currently is in the process of attempting to find a permanent location for
their operation within Brooklyn Center,.but,as of this date, no final plans have
been approved by the City. They, therefore, are seeking to have their temporary
occupancy extended until February 1, 1980.
The Building Inspector and Fire Inspector have reviewed both of the buildings
currently being utilized by CEAP. Their reports indicate no major problems and
that for the most part, the conditions of the temporary occupancy have been met.
` The Fire Inspector recommends that any extension of the permit be contingent upon
no smoking being allowed in 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard. This structure is presently
being used for storage of clothing and other material that CEAP collects and
distributes. The Building Inspector has issued a Compliance Order to CEAP in-
dicating that rubbish containers should screened or contained within an
enclosed building. He also discovered some bathroom fixtures located on the
premises and indicated that these fixtures should either be removed from the site,
stored in an accessory building, or that the yard area be appropriately screened.
Madeline Roche of CEAP indicates that these matters have been addressed. She is
also fully aware of the Fire Inspector's recommendation and has no objection to
complying with that directive.
It-is recommended that the City Council authorize the temporary occupancy of 5607
and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard until February 1, 1980 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Use and occupancy for each floor of each building shall be as
indicated on the approved floor plans. Changes must be approved
by the City.
2. Storage of clothing, dry goods and other items for distribution
is limited to those areas shown on the appoved plans, and as
directed by the City.
3. The basement areas are not to be accessible by the public.
4. There shall be no public assembly or group meetings in either
building.
5. All storage and trash disposal is to be within the buildings or
within approved screening devices. Trash and garbage must be
kept in approved containers.
CEAP
Page 2
July 9, 1979
6. Adequate off - street parking on approved areas is to be provided.
Use of City or County adjacent properties - (Library or Northport
Park) should be coordinated with the City Public Works Department
and the County Library.
7. Any signery must conform with the Sign Ordinance.
8. The yard areas must be maintained in a clean and aesthetic
manner.
9. Smoking is not permitted anywhere in the building located at 5625
Brooklyn Boulevard.
It should be noted that violation of the above stated conditions shall be grounds
for the City Council to consider revocation of the temporary occupancy for these
buildings.
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on July 9, 1979
GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE
Bergstrom Trucking 6509 76th Ave. No.
Brooklyn Disposal 1014 Klondike Dr. j` N 6 A—
Hilger Transfer Company 8550 Zachary Lane _1 , 4 4LLP'__d__ A—/
Metro Refuse 8168 W. 125th St.
l i Waste Control _ 95 W. Ivy_ St.
Woodlake Sanitary Service 4000 Hamel Road ;`. Y 1 tt✓iti
Sanitarian
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Fabian Seafood Company Galveston, TX
(6849 Brooklyn Boulevard) 7 � 1���' /?. d--^—
Bonnie Wagner 7025 Halifax Ave. No.
._ (St. Alphonsus Fun Fair)
Sanitarian
TEMPORARY ON —SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE
Bonnie Wagner 7025 Halifax Ave. No.
(St. Alphonsus Fun Fair)
City Clerk