The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979 06-25 CCP Regular Session 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 25, 1979 7:00 P.M. ROUGH DRAFT 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Invocation 4. Approval of Minutes - June 11, 1979 5. Open Forum 6. Resolutions: a. Commending the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities for their accomplishments in the 1979 session of the Minnesota Legislature b. Commending the League of Minnesota Municipalities for their accom- plishments in the 1979 session of the Minnesota Legislature c. Awarding worker's compensation insurance contract d. Approving plans and specifications and ordering construction of Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge Project No. 1977 -10 7. Planning Commission Items: (8:00 p.m.) a. Application No. 78062 submitted by Oasis Petroleum for a special use permit, site and building plan approval to remodel and operate the existing Dayton service station at 2605 County Road 10. This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 5, 1978. Application No. 78062 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. b. Application No. 79018 submitted by Arthur Kvamme for a rezoning from R -1 (single family residential) to R -3 (townhouse /garden apartment) of an approximate 32 acre site located between 55th and 56th Avenues at approximately Aldrich Avenue North. This item w��.tabled by the Commis sion and referred to the southeast neighborhoodC " oup ry on April 12, 1979. Application No. 79018 was recommended for approval at the June 14,`1979 Planning Commission meeting. c. Application No. 79024 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park for a preliminary plat approval to create 11 single family residential lots on an approximate 3 acre site located easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of I -94. This item was tabled by the Commission on May 10, 1979. Application No. 79024 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. -2- d. Application No. 79028 submitted by Hot Line Realty ( Moorwood Townhouses) for preliminary plat approval to subdivide 3 outlots into Moorwood Townhouse Addition located at 58th Avenue and Shores Drive. Application -79028 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commis- sion meeting. - e. Application No. 79038 submitted by Hot Line Realty ( Moorwood Townhouses) for site and building plan review for the construction of additional townhouse units in the Moorwood Townhouse development located at 58th Avenue North and Shores Drive. Application No. 79038 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. f. Application No. 79031 submitted by Meadow Corporation for site and building plan approval for Phase V of the Ponds planned residential development located at 72nd and Unity Avenue North. Application No. 79031 was rec- ommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. g. Application No 79032 submitted by Meadow Corporation for preliminary plat approval for Phase V of the Ponds planned residential development located at 72nd and Unity Avenues North. Application No. 79032 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. h. Application No. 79033 submitted by Dayton Development for preliminary plat approval to subdivide and create an approximate 2.5 acre parcel on the Dayton Development property between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, north of County Road 10. Application No. 79033 was recommended for approval at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. i. Application No. 79036 submitted by James Talmahe for an appeal from an administrative ruling regarding a nonconforming structure located on the northeast corner of 50th and France Avenues North. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the appeal on Application No. 79036 at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. j. Application No. 79037 submitted by Howe, Inc. for an appeal fro�m�aan dmin- istrative ruling regarding the application of current zoninglle for the reconstruction of the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 at Howe, Inc., 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the appeal from an administrative ruling on Applica- tion No. 79037 at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. 8. Ordinances: a. Ordinance vacating an easement on Lot 1, Block 1,J.R. Murphy Addition - Ordinance is presented for a 1st reading. b. Ordinance amending Chapter 17 -104 of the City Ordinances regarding residency requirements for police officers. Ordinance is presented for a 1st reading. -3- 9. Discussion Items: a. Update on the problem of dying lawns and gardens in the vicinity of Howe, Inc. b. Update on,the Central Park project c. Discussion of alternate power sourcesfor City lift stations d. Update on Cable T.V. Council appointment of one citizen to needs assessment committee., - Notification of informational seminar on cable T.V. on Tuesday, July 17, 1979 from 1 :00 to 4:00 p.m. 10. Licenses 11. Consideration of specified rental dwelling license: - Chippewa Park Apartments 12. Adj ournment . �1'1Ai° S�N11 X530 CAv►�t�¢» »art w.i » r,¢G►l�o�i5 30" «? f Q em.l A 4 i fib o - o4+33l MINUTES O F `Mil; PROCEI?Z11,G Or Tiii: ' (" NEIGIHBOR.HOOD ATfVISORY GROUP TO TIP -': PLANNIEG CO'•EjTS'110N Oir is �; CITY OF B OOINLYN CENT021 IN THE COU1 O IE;I4'ial:PIN ANY) THE bTLTxs OIL 7• ilh1*,'.`.;OTA. THURrD.A.Y EVENING, '!AY j, 1 919 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER : A•;, 7 :30 an attendance shte t was distributed to the interested parties present. The meeting was then called to order at 7 :40 by Mr. Louis Sullivan, Chairman. ROLL CALL OF ADVI"ORY GROUP: Chairman Louis Sullivan, Bt-n Davidson, June Mr. Lucht says,he Boofield Dolorfas Ha.stini*s. Also present was arrived at 8:15 Planning Commission Liaison Inc•. George Luchts and didn't hear the neighbors' ques- MEVIOUS KINUTES : The previous mnttirg of this group on March ? 3, tions and 'votes . " 1978 had no bearing on th!s Review and this was so stated to the group present. The . nLinutes were not read. CHAIPPAN REMARKS: It was requested by Chairman 5ul.li :van that certain ground rules should be follov ttd during the meeting and these w•!�re stated by the chair. They group agreed to follow suggested j;,roced:are, and it was asked of them that oecauso roll had been taken and all present iaere on a list submitted that the list be followed so that each interested person would be allowed to speak to the issue, So agreed. THE ISSUE: An application had been. submitted by 1�h% Arthur Kvamme, senking rezoning from Rl (Single Family) to R3 (Townhouse /Gard = - Apartments) on a (approx) 3 acre site l ocated between. 55th & 56th Ave. at approximately Aldrich Avenue No. PARTIES IN AT` ENEENCE Intere:eted parties in attendance in the order that they w re c,71: Led o speak to thn issue ie people ::,hoses_ names are under- were Art Kvar .e, John`"Iiansen j Harriet Enninga.. -ned in black areagainst re- Arnold Ennima �arri ll Nel; -on, Mary i.n Nemec. wing, and have signed .the at- Edwin P L y erne Din!r1r., Lie ores Kvarrcne ached petition. Only Ann Jarvi -- Dava.c—""° j Larson Eloul.s n Larson �or „ rRo . y iki, among the neighbors, favors , �--. ' �' Dorothy Shoc�.i:s x. to t,ron.ander Liner C onander ?zoning. The other names are Y Fri t,i,, ra , nne Arne Saf gin Trombl , Swo-.B lose of rezoning applicants, --- ---- -- s S � � p a V.-nireck (actin? as Atty. for Myra Swennes) and A nn Jarv a�L QUESTION ANb ANS,IOER- Mr Art Kva.mme. was asked If he would present diagra;is, maps andstate the plan as his had requested in the application to the Planning Co, %•nission. This was aoa_lowtd by each party listed Above gi finis his e r t.P S' opinio position ( for or against' l or any com. je;nto; they wi_shed to make. r Continued Rage r Page 2 MINUTES OF TIIN PROCEE?)I1 01F `i'fil; SOU`i'HPIk��T NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP IIAY 3, 1979. FACTUAL DATA: Each person asking pertinent facttial questions were given qualified answers by members of the committee„ NO QUESTIONS WERE UN'API- TVIERED. TIME FACTOR: 8 :30 Atthis time everyone had had a chance to state his or her wishes and it was requested by Chairman Sullivan that the meeting end at 8:40 so the members of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group could spend time in review. Everyone was in agreement to this time plan. Chairman Sullivan thanked all who attended and stated that anyone could stay if they wished. REVIEW BY GROUP: The advisory group requested of Mx. Kvamme additional information on the plan as drawn. June Scofield stated that the Planning Commission should take a long look at the exact type of housing that was to be built. Dolores Hastinr and Ben Davidson expressed concern with the free access for emergency vehicles. After discussion of comments made Pro and Con it was the general concensus that the review made by the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group found that by voice vote all members recommended the following. RECOMENDATION: The Southeast Preighborhood Advisory Group tN7c9 review of Planning Commission Application 01 (Regoning) ecor�aends to s a pplication submitted by M1 . Arthur Kv favorably consider o ly c nider . . It is to a noted that phone calls from th absent members of the Advisory Gro up, Everndh (working) and Mrs. David Bra.ndvold (out" of ity on School Board business) also approved of advisory groups approval of Recommendation ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9 :15 P.M. Res ectfull Submitted Louis E. Sullivan Chairman Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group . A Me tom, June 16, 1979 Brooklyn Center POST 8801 Bass Lake Road Minneapolis, MN 55428 To the Editor: We, the undersigned home - owners in the immediate neighborhood, strongly object to the proposed rezoning of the Madsen Floral_ Company property in southeast Brooklyn Center. The Planning Commission has ignored our objections by voting approval of the proposed rezoning plan. None of the members of the Commission live in the affected neighborhood. Perhaps for that reason, they haven't considered the negative effects that a A -acre pocket of high- density housing could have on our stable, long - established neigh- borhood of single - family homes. Rezoning to R -3 would allow construction of seven 4 -unit apart - ment buildings, totalling 28 housing units. These 28 units would occupy a A -acre site sandwiched between two rows of existing homes which face Bryant and Camden avenues. The planned apartments, as described, would be small, "basic" housing. Because there would be only two bedrooms in each unit, we neighbors doubt that many families with school -aged children would stay for any length of time. Because both bedrooms would be on the second floor, we doubt that many elderly people would be interested in living in them. We are concerned because the-Planning Commission admits that, once the rezoning is approved, the city would have no legal means to protect our neighborhood from the deterioration which so often accom- panies a high turnover of transient apartment - dwellers. A dangerous side - effect of high density housing is heavier traffic on adjacent residential streets. Even without the addition of 28 hous- ing units in our midst, the completion of Highway 94 will funnel more traffic down Camden and Bryant avenues on the way to and from the 53rd Avenue North freeway ramp. The recent tragic accident, in which one of our neighbors and her little boy were killed, happened at an - intersection only one -half block from the Madsen Floral property. We think we have legitimate fears and interests, and we believe that the least our city goverment should do for us is investigate the possibility of opening the Madsen Floral property for development as R -1 with variances in lot size, or as R -2 (duplex and double bunga- low) with appropriate variances, before it accepts the present R -3 proposal. Double bungalows and single - family houses are compatible with the existing homes in our neighborhood. High density "garden apartments" are not! Sincerely, ........ e . • • . • . • • .err .... • .... • ... • . • • • .. • .... • . r • . r • • . • • . • . • . • . e .. • 4>5 s eo wel * iv �� Page 2: Signatures of neighborhood hone- owners who object to the proposed R -3 zoning of the.Madsen Floral Company property, continued: cell" _01 �Q A{� i f4 C a - o I i ow I " t(I rO 1) t' f' I_j J v rezoninci subm, by Arth;Ar 1""." III,!W/ 1 1 1a, I en !'If o al tavier App i IJ 0 n ['10 01 Highw - y �e 05501 Camden Ave. N. Louise Fa erna 1 tioh t St Highway Dept. I d' ar •5507 Camden Ave. N. Edwin BeN, 1)arcc 00 00►►aid ar 05513 Camden Ave. N. James 1-1. Forshier & 6224 Camden Cou rt 05519 Camden Ave. N. Gisella Hey & Pa u I loo rwa •5525 Camden Ave. N. John Storm 803 56th Ave. N. 05531 Camden Ave. N. Arne 0. & Judith S 45537 Camden Ave. N. David C. Larson ��` �``'�� 05543 Camden Ave. N. Ronald Stave 809 -56th Ave. 11. 5601 Camden Ave. N. Daniel Uachter 1 111 �n 05607 Camden Ave. N. J ohn Kranitz P41-s , Z_3 a� 05615 Camden Ave. U. Harlan K. Nyberg 5501 Aldrich Ave. 1. 05621 Camden Ave. N. Lavern Dingley 5431 Camden Ave. N. James Stegeman - 6691 Mdpira� Ai N - 1 -64;5 eam4@m Aye. 5607 Aldrich Ave. N. - L.J. Gieseke 5439 Camden Ave. N. Kenneth Witbeck 5613 Aldrich Ave. N. -.Vern Velasco __544i 4,--p-Ausustus Angelso 0=0 ID5619 Aldrich Ave. N. - Merrill Nelson 11528 - 3rd Ave. 5625 Aldrich Ave. N. -Jaines Jarvimaki M 55441 -5699 A! drieh Ave. NN#vA 44s I'la k i 05445 Camden Ave. N. Paul Faqerhauqh 5606 Aldrich Ave. N. Wm. R. Anthony 5603 Camden Ave. N. Prisci Medel 5612 Aldrich Ave. N. Bruce Hendricksoj 95614 Camden Ave. N. 3.J. ShocinskiU.M.Gormley 5618 Aldrich Ave, N. Eva Albertson *5436 Camden Ave. N. John BaUrr 5524 Aldrich Ave. N Robert Wedekind 95438 Camden Ave. 1 Irene Kokoschki 563 AAAAn�_k A. . ". EU w f k, Pe+ O 05444 Camden Ave. N. Florence Meyer Independent School 286 (Brooklyn Cents 95443 Camden Ave. N. Clara Nelson 1 1400 - 65th Ave. N. *5516 C a P, e n Ave. N. Joan & Robert Edi•iards I City of Brooklyn Center (Park & Rec) 05522 Camden Ave. N. Herbert Ostendorf 05530 Camden Ave. N. Mary H. Simmons 5533 Camden Ave. N. Marvin Nemec •5560 Camden Ave. N. M & S Stanhope 32 2pti r) A - - Ko 4z" r r -Y anj yant Ave. Gary hay Applicant: Arthur Kvamme *5440-5444 Bryant Ave. N.-Ralph Johnson 8424 Riverview Lane 65448 Bryant Ave. N. Roger Engstrom -U-t- - I J.) 05520 Bryant Ave. N. Harvey Johnston 05530 Bryant Ave. N. Einer Cronander Mrs. Rudol Sjoberg (vacant) Box 212 Waupaca, Wisc. 54981 5540 Bryant Ave. N. David Brandvold-(6006 Colfax Ave. N) 5542 Bryant Ave. N. Arthur Schmicle 5600 Bryant Ave.. N. David Louis 7 606 Bryant Ave. N. J. L. Gibas � I ack oA in 05614 Bryant Ave. N. Carl McCarthy 05622 Bryant Ave. N. Harold Jorgenson imwe V5453 Bryant Ave. N. Robert Ellingson ;t 05513 Bryant Ave. N. Vim. A. Milstead sil5neA +ka 05523 Bryant Ave. N. Arnold Enninga 5529 Bryant Ave. N. R. J. Wallace *5535 Bryant Ave. N. Thomas Stewig 5541 Bryant Ave. N.(" lcl) Doddirqton 0 819 - 55th Ave. N. Richard Biggs - >Ewnia Kompe'rud(q_-'j'. i —1 Dar I ere !4a t er .,VqWCFVV-- Mrs. Myra S%qcrnes(tz- 910 - 55th Ave. N. Mae Lent 520 - 55th A, ' e. N. Victoria Strauch •516 - 55th Ave. N. Darrel J. Peterson 0510 - 55th Ave. N. Elmer Pouliot ha�se.�10�e � 8520 - 56th Ave. N. Donald L. Bergstrom Notices Mailed 4-2..79 B -------- home "Pt T. aafla&- Notices Mailed 7 t Y ,/ �� Notices 'Ma. i I ed BY _71 .mom I i ad Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION COI'01EN'DING THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES FOR THEIR ACCOMPLISHEtIENTS IN THE 1979 SESSION OF THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center is a dues paying member of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities; and WHEREAS, one of the primary functions of the Association of Metro politan Municipalities is to formulate and promote legislation which will help -each municipality to better serve their respective constituents; and WHEREAS, the Association of MetropolitatvMuni.eipalities was very successful in promoting passage of several bills which will have a signifi- cantly favorable impact on our City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City�of Brooklyn Center commends the Board of Directors and_.staff of. the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities for their accomplishments during the 1979 session of the Minnesota Legislature. l • Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES FOR THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN THE 1979 SESSION OF THE MINNESOTA LEGISLATURE WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center is a dues:'.paying: member of the League of Minnesota Cities; and WHEREAS, one of the primary functions of the League of Minnesota Cities is to formulate and promote legislation which will help each munici- pality to better serve their respective constituents; and .WHEREAS, the League of Minnesota Cities was very successful in promoting passage of several bills which will have a significantly favorable impact on our City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center commends the Board of Directors and staff of the League of Minnesota Cities for their accomplishments during the 1979 session of the, Minnesota Legislature. Date Mayor _ ATTEST:_ Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FOR RENEWAL OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center sought proposals in the year 1978 for worker's compensation insurance for a period of one year to commence July 1, 1978; and WHEREAS, only one proposal was received and that proposal was submitted by the Associated General Agency for the Home Insurance Company; and WHEREAS, the City Council accepted the proposal and awarded an insurance contract to the Associated General Agency and the Home Insurance Company; and WHEREAS, the Director of Finance has negotiated a renewal of that con- tract at the same premium rates for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 1979; _and WHEREAS, the Director of Finance has advised the City Council that no other insurance carrier has expressed an interest in submitting a proposal to the City for worker's compensation insurance coverage; and WHEREAS, all of the City's insurance coverages, except the worker's compensation coverages, are written on a calendar year basis; and WHEREAS, the Director of Finance has advised the Council that he wishes to include the worker's compensation coverage with other City insurance coverages on which he will seek insurance proposals for the calendar year 1980: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to accept the proposal of the Associated General Agency and the Home Insurance Company and renew their contract fora Level 8% Dividend Plan of worker's compensation insurance coverage for the period from July 1, 1979 to July 1, 19 80 ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said coverage shall be included with other City insurance coverages on which proposals will be sought for the calendar year 1980 and that, in the event that the 1980 proposal contains a proposal for worker's compensation coverage which would be more advantageous for the City, that the worker's compensation insurance contract herein awarded, shall be canceled. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by P g g y 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. A21), R 6 AGENOW, ma 6490 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD — SUITE W -306 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426 AREA CODE 612 927 -4051 May 15, 1979 Mr. Paul Holmlund Finance Director City of Brooklyn Center 5800 85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 Dear Paul This letter is in regard to our telephone conversation of May 14th, 1979 where it was suggested bringing all of your insurance to a concurrent date of January 1st. This would be done by renewing your Worker's Compensation Policy in July of 1979 and on January 1st, 1980, cancellling and rewriting the policy. The policy would be cancelled Prorata along with your 8% Dividend and would have run for the period July 1st, 1979 to December 31st, 1979. This would bring all of your insurance to a concurrent date of January lst. Yours very truly, Jerry Coughlin JC:tr General Insurance: Fire • Bonds • Casualty o a D � a a ' o 0 oc�o 6490 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD -SUITE W -306 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55426 AREA CODE 612 927- 4051 June 14, 1979 Mr. Paul Nolmlund City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Paul enclose your Worker's Compensation premium for the period 7/1/79 to 7/1/80. CODE REMUNERATION RATE PREMIUM 9410 400,000 2.07 $8,280.00 9015 165,000 5.95 9,818.00 5506 270 8.53 23,031.00 7720 665,000 6.07 40,366.00 9102 325,000 4.28 13,910.00 7520 105,000 5.42 5,691.00 8017 430,000 .23 989.00 7708 35,173 pop ulation 34.74 12,228.00 Total $116,189.00 Preliminary Experience Modification .78 90,627.00 Less Premium Discount 14.3% -12,960.00 TOTAL $77,667.00 Yours very truly, Jerry Coughlin JC:tr General insurance: fire Bonds • Casualty Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. • RESOLUTION ORDERING CONSTR';CTION OF AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE BRIDGE IMPROVE - MENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, established Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge Project No.- 1977=10 by Resolution No. 77 -82, adopted April 25, 1977 and WHEREAS, said City Council authorized the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement with the firm of Egil Wefald & Associates, Inc. (now Strgar- Roscoe, Inc.) for preparing plans and specifications for said improve - ment project by Resolution No. 77 -125, adopted July,.l1,.1977; and WHEREAS, .said City Council authorized the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to take such steps as necessary to have said improvement project approved by the Federal Highway Administration as a - Federal Aid Project eligible for the expenditure of federal funds thereon and eligible for construction and the letting of a contract therefor by Resolution No. 77 -140, adopted July 11, 1977. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that it is necessary and for the best interests of the City that the following improvement be constructed: Project No. Description Estimated Cost 1977 -10 Pedestrian /Bicycle Bridge $292,127.80 (SP 109- 115 -01, over T.H. 100 (Bridge No. Minn. Proj. No. 27615) M5402) 2. The plans and specifications for the aforementioned improve - ment project, prepared by the firm of Strgar- Roscoe, Inc., are hereby approved and ordered filed with the Citv Clerk. i 3. The City Council recognizes the authority granted unto the Commissioner of Transportation by Resolution No. 77 -140 to prepare the proposal for the above mentioned improvement project and to advertise for bids for said work. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Treasurer be directed to encumber the amount of $74,773.00 as the City's proportionate share for construction of said project from the Municipal State Aid Fund. Date � Mayor ATTEST: Clerk RESOLUTION N0._ • 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: I whereupon said resolution declared duly passed and adopted. • P LEASE NOTE THE NEW STARTING TIM PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR SESSIOtJ June 14, 1979 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: May 24, 1979 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. Oasis Petroleum 7$062 Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan approval to remodel and operate the existing Dayton's Service Station at 2605 County Road 10. (This item was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 5, 1978). 6. Arthur Kvamme 79018 Rezoning from Rl (Single Family Residential) to R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartment) of an approximate 32 acre site located between 55th and 56th Avenues at approximately Aldrich Avenue North. (This item was tabled by the Commission and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group on April 12, 1979.) 7. Brauer & Associates 79019 Preliminary Plat approval for the Charlson and Brookdale Ford property, an approximate 30 .acre site, located at the northeast quadrant of County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway. (This item -- was tabled at the April 12, 1979 meeting) 8. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park 79024 Preliminary Plat approval to create ll single' family residential lots on an approximate .3 acre, site located easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of I -94. (This item was tabled by the Commission on May 10, 1979) 9. Hot Line Realty (Moorwood Townhouses) 79028 Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide three Outlots in the Moorwood Townhouse Addition located at 58th Avenue and Shores Drive. 10. Hot Line Realty (Moorwood Townhouses) 79038 Site and Building Plan review for the construction of additional townhouse units in the.Moorwood Townhouse Development located at 58th Avenue North and Shores Drive. . R I 11. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park 79030 Site and Building Plan approval for the Shingle Creek Plaza Speculative Building located adjacent to Schmitt Music on Freeway Boulevard. 12. Meadow Corporation 79031 Site and Building Plan approval for Phase 5 of The Ponds Planned Residential Development located at 72nd and Unity Avenues North. 13. Meadow Corporation 79032 Preliminary Plat approval for Phase 5 of The Ponds Planned Residential Development located at 72nd and Unity Avenues North. 14. Dayton Development 79033 Preliminary Plat approval to subdivide and create an approximate 2.5 acre parcel on the Dayton Development property between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, north of County Road 10. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 15. James Talmage 79036 Appeal - from 'an administrative ruling regarding a nonconforming structure located on the northeast corner of 50th and France Avenues North. 16. Howe, Inc. 79037 Appeal from an administrative ruling regarding the application of current Zoning Ordinance requirements for the reconstruction of the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 at Howe, Inc., 4321 Xerxes Avenue North. 17. Other Business 18. Adjournment 4 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 78062 Applicant: Oasis Petroleum Location: 2605 County Road 10 Request: Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking a special use permit and site and building plan approval to remodel the existing Dayton's Gasoline Service Station with a more convenient self service operation containing two pump islands. The concept shows a one person operation with an attendant on duty primarily to oversee the site and accept payment for gasoline purchased. It would be a 24 hour, 7 day a week operation for dispensing only gasoline and oil and the sale of cigarettes on the site. The applicant, Oasis Petroleum Corporation of Los Angeles, California, has entered into a lease agreement with Daytons for remodeling the gasoline service station's facilities at Southdale, Brookdale, Ridgedale, Rosedale and Burnsville Shopping Centers. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 5, 1978 at which time the Commission recommended approval of the application subject to certain conditions. Your attention is directed to the minutes of that meeting. This application is being brought back to the Planning Commission for review because at the time of the October 5, 1978 recommendation the site plan had not been approved by the Los Angeles office. The applicant's representative, fir. Peter Fischer, was informed at that time that if there were any revisions to the site plan following the review by Oasis, the matter would again be referred to the Planning Commission. New site plans have since been submitted that comprehend additional changes to the plan, such as a reduction in the number of gasoline dispensing islands from three to two; the modification of an area designed for customers to obtain air, water, .and check oil. Additional landscaping has also been provided on the site with the revised plans. The applicant is also proposing to retain an existing storage building that is presently being utilized on the site. In addition, it is their intention to install concrete rather than blacktop in the service area. The traffic flow through the site is designed in such a manner to provide a one way flow through the site. The plans seem to be in order and approval of the application is subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building 'Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Drainage, grading, utility and landscaping plans are subject to 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 prior to the issuance of permits. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6 -14 -79 -1 Application No. 78062 5. The plans shall be certified by an architect and engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 6. The Special Use Permit is issued to the operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 7. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, including special licensing requirements, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6 =14 -79 -2- A U ss V .r! a i EAR APP�. tc�T�a , �l C2 m WA v co . , Aft i COUNTY FP ROA \ \ `d u � t5A �\ PPPOC.6710AI . \ Ab , 7 0 A Q LIONS PARK w AV WATER TOWER j c�'E�� di 54 " t- z $ o t ° Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79018 Applicant: Arthur Kvamme (Madsen Floral) Location: Between 55th and 56th Avenues at approximately Aldrich Avenue Request: Rezoning The applicant is seeking rezoning from Rl (Single Family Residential) to R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) of an approximate 3.5 acre tract located within the 5500 block between Camden Avenue North and Bryant Avenue North. The property is bounded on the north by 56th Avenue; on the south by 55th Avenue; on the east by single family residential homes facing Camden Avenue; and on the west by single family residential homes facing Bryant Avenue. The land in questions includes what is presently the Madesen Floral property and the property owned by Mrs. Olga Madsen at 5501 Aldrich Avenue North. In addition, the rezoning proposal includes the south 168 feet of 803 and 809 - 56th Avenue North, the north 168 feet of 806 55th Avenue North and the north 158 feet of 800 55th Avenue North. The applicant is seeking the rezoning to construct approximately 7 quadra homes on the site if the rezoning is approved. The applicant has submitted a letter indicating that the rezoning would be beneficial and citing the following: the fact that the area is in need of a condominium complex for many of the older residents in the area; that public utilities to service the area are already available; that the -joint effort of combining the properties in the rezoning eliminates potentially landlocked property and makes_ practical use of the land; that traffic to the area will be decreased; that the development will increase the City's tax base; and that the City would rid itself of a nonconforming use (Madsen Floral). This item was considered by the Planning Commission and a public hearing was -held on April 12, 1979. The matter was tabled and referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Your attention is directed to the April 12, 1979 Planning Commission minutes relating to Application No. 79018 and also the Planning Commission information sheet for that application. The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group met on May 3, 1979 and recommended that the application be given a favorable consideration. Minutes of that meeting are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant contends that the property cannot be suitably developed for single family homes. It is true that a variance either from Chapter 15 as to street — ` ___w -dth _or.. from:_Chapter 35-from lot depth _requirements would be needed for a jogged extension of Aldrich Avenue North through this area. Such variance requests might be justified if the current Rl zoning were retained on the grounds that they would be necessary to allow the owner the reasonable use of his property. The applicant's chief concern seems to be, understandably, financial; return. This is not, however, the major consideration in rezonings. The over- all public welfare should be the chief concern and if the proposed zoning is compatible and consistent.with surrounding land uses. With respect to the rezoning, it can be pointed out that there is a scarcity of mid- density residential housing in the Southeast Neighborhood, relative to other neighborhoods in the City. The proposed rezoning is, therefore, a way of meeting broader housing needs with a minimum of disruption to the surrounding residential uses. 6 -14 -79 -1- r 1 Application No. 79018 The Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances (attached) relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. It is the City's policy that all rezoning requests be consistent with these guide- lines. It does not appear thatthe rezoning request would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines for the Southeast Neighborhood, but the re- zoning proposal should be considered on its merits and measured against the established Guidelines either collectively or individually as the case may be. It does seem that the rezoning proposal may have some public need or benefit in that additional mid- density residential property would be available in an area of the City that does not have much of this type of zoning. The rezoning proposal also seems consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classific- ations in that single family residential and townhouses, garden apartments and single family attached condominiums are compatible. All of the permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development on the subject property, subject to Zoning Ordinance restriction. The subject property can be considered generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district because variance requests would be needed to develop it as single family residential. Further review of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines should be undertaken by the Commission and any recommendation to approve the rezoning request should specifically cite the reasons for the recommendation. 6 -14 -79 -2- T MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP TO THE PLANNING C0101ISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HEN14EPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. THURSDAY EVENING, 'SAY 3 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: At 7 :30 an attendance sheet was distributed to the interested parties present. The meeting was then called to order at 7:40 by Mr. Louis Sullivan, Chairman. ROLL CALL OF ADVISORY GROUP Chairman Louis Sullivan Ben Davidson, June Scofield, Dolores Hastings. Also present was Planning Commission Liaison Mr. George,Lucht, PREVIOUS MINUTES: The previous meeting of this group on March 13, 1978 had no bearing on this Review and this was so stated to the group present. The minutes were not read. CHAIRMAN REMARKS: It was requested by Chairman Sullivan that certain ground rules should be followed during the meeting and these were stated by the chair, The group agreed to follow suggested procedure and it was asked of them that because roll had been taken and all present were on a list submitted that the list be followed so that each interested person would be allowed to speak to the issue, So agreed, THE ISSUE: An application had been submitted by Mr, Arthur Kvamme,, seeking rezoning from RI (Single Family) to R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) on a (approx) 32 acre site located between 55th -& 56th Ave. at approximately Aldrich Avenue No. PARTIES IN ATTENDENCE: Interested parties in attendence in the order -that they - were called to speak to the issue - - were Art Kvamme, John Hansen, Harriet Enninga, - Arnold Enninga, Merrill Nelson, Marvin Nemec, Edwin Beck, LaVerne Dingley, Delores Kvamme, David Larson , Elouise Larson, Dorot#y Rog,, Dorothy Shocinski, Rita Cronander, Einer Cronander, Arne Saf, Edwin Trombly, Myra Swennea, Edward Vavreck (acting as Atty. for Myra Swennes) and Ann Jarvimaki, QUESTION ANb ANSWER Mr Art Kvamme was asked ff he would present diagrams, maps andstate the plan as he had requested in the application to the Planning Commission. This was followed by each party listed above givintt his or her opinion, position (for or against) or any comments; they wished to make. Continued Page 2 - Page 2 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP MAY 3, 1979. FACTUAL DATA: Each,- ►, asking pertinent factual questions were given qualified answers by members of the committee. NO QUESTIONS WERE UNANSWERED, E TIME FACTOR: 8:30 Atthis time everyone had had a chance to state his or her wishes and it was requested by Chairman Sullivan that the meeting end at 8 :40 so the members Y of the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group could spend time in review. Everyone was in agreement to this time plan. Chairman Sullivan thanked all who attended and stated that anyone could stay if they - wished. REVIEW BY GROUP: The advisory group requested of Mr. Kvamme additional information on the plan as.drawn. June Scofield stated that the Planning Commission should take a long look at the exact type of housing that was to be built. Dolores Hasting and Ben Davidson expressed concern with the free access for emergency vehicles. After discussion of comments made Pro and Con it was the general concensus that the review made by the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group found that by voice vote all members recommended the following. RECOMMENDATION: The Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group in its review of Planning Commission Application No, 79018 (Regoni.ng) recommends to the Commission that the application submitted by Mr. Arthur Kvamme be _- favorably considered, It is to be noted that phone calls from the two absent members of the Advisory Group Everett Lindh (working) and Mrs. David Brandvold (out of the city on School Board business) also approved of the advisory groups approval.of Recommendation. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9 :15 P.M. _ - Res ctfull Submitted - -- Louis E. Sullivan Chairman Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79019 Applicant: Brauer and Associates Location: Northeast quadrant of County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Preliminary Plat Approval The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval for an approximate 30 acre site located at the northeast quadrant of County Road 10 and Shingle, Creek Parkway. The property is bounded on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway; on the south by County Road 10; and on the east by the parking lot of the Brookdale East Cinema L,II,III,IV Theater. The theater parking also abuts some of the site on the north with the balance of the northern boundary being abutted by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company. Your attention is directed to the April 12, 1979 Planning Commission minutes and Planning Commission information sheet for Application No. 79019. The parcel is proposed to be subdivided into three blocks, with Block 1 being 16.22 acres, Block 2, 8.3 acres and Block 3, 4.22 acres. Block 1 will contain four lots ranging in size from 2.5 acres to 4.9 acres and a .49 acre Outlot. Block 1 is presently undeveloped and zoned C2. The subdivision is proposed for future development of this area and the projected uses are unknown at this time. Block 2 is currently occupied by Brookdale Ford and the boundaries have changed some- what as a result of acquisition of former NSP property by Brookdale Ford. Block 3, lying westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway and easterly of Shingle Creek, is City Open Space. Access to the lots in Block 1 would be accomplished by utilizing Shingle Creek Parkway, and by constructing a roadway in the center of the site which would terminate in a cul -de -sac at Lots 2 and 3. The proposal also envisions a median cut along Shingle Creek Parkway where the cul -de -sac roadway would be located. .Proposed curb cuts are envisioned for right- turn -in and right -turn -out for Lots` 1 and 4 which abut Shingle Creek Parkway. These access points would be close to the common property lines with Northwestern Bell on the north and Brookdale Ford on the south so that common use can be made of these curb cuts. The Planning Commission, following a'lengthy discussion and a public hearing on April 12, 1979, tabled the matter and directed the staff to work with the affected property owners to determine if a better plan for the area could be realized. There was concern raised regarding the location of a proposed median cut adjacent to the proposed cul` -de -sac. Such a location for a median cut would virtually eliminate any other median along Shingle -Creek Parkway in this area. It -is - -- ' anticipated that the present median cut that services the Brookdale Ford site will be eliminated around the time that the Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange with I -94 is opened. Another median cut for Brookdale Ford would not be permitted because it would be located too close to the median cut servicing the proposed cul -de -sac. At the Planning Commission's direction, the City staff met with representatives of Brookdale - Ford, `the Rauenhorst Corporation (owner of the property on which the Northwestern Bell facility is located), a representative of Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, representatives of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company on May 7 and May 17, 1979. At the May 7 meeting the plat was reviewed and persons in attendance wished additional time to review the matter for possible negotiations for common roadways and median cuts that would serve all of the affected properties. At the May 17 meeting further discussions were held regard - ing the matter and that it seemed that a workable solution could be reached to address the matters of concern. 6 -14 -79 -1- s L r On May 25, 1979, I received a phone call from Michelle Foster of the Rauenhorst Corporation who informed me that Northwestern Bell is not interested in partici- pating financially to obtain a roadway and median cut at the north property line of the Charlson property. She indicated that Rauenhorst Corporation was, there- fore, not in a position to negotiate the matter further, and that they would be assuming their previous position of desiring a median cut in the area, but not wishing to dedicate right -of -way or participating the cost to reimburse the property owner for roadway dedication. The plat is, therefore, before the Commission as it was on April 12, 1979. The City staff has serious reservations about recommending the plat as submitted containing the proposed median cut along Shingle Creek Parkway. It is felt that if such a median cut were approved and installed, there would be no further opportunity to create median cuts that could be shared by abutting properties as well. Also, we have received no concrete development plans for the undeveloped C2 parcel owned by Mr. Charlson. It is therefore our recommendation to recom- mend approval of the plat minus any consideration for median cuts along Shingle Creek Parkway. The matter of median cuts would be reviewed in conjunction with development proposals and, hopefully, agreement as to common access for all parcels concerned can be reached. Approval of Application No. 79019 should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of the City Ordinances. 2. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engines r. 3. The final plat shall be revised to indicate no median cuts along Shingle,Creek Parkway. Further consideration of median cuts will be given by the City at the time development proposals for the undeveloped parcels are submitted, with the understanding that it is the City's intention-to , provide, if possible, common access and median cuts to affected parcels. . L . 6 -14 -79 -2- I: FI , ---- PROPOSED ROADWAYS PROPOSE) BRIDGES I MM lllf' Iii r i iii�i� �N■■ 1 -mm a q ire ■■� r �� .�L■ n mm • s� � sew � iii . x r� ■■m m s m NO m MM m EM mm M. q= � � M q !- r � �u�iiuu • ` Planning Clommission Information Sheet Application. No. 79024 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Location: West Portion of Outlot H, Twin Cities Interchange Park (southeast quadrant of I -94 and Xerxes Avenue North) Request: Preliminary. Plat Approval The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximate 3 acre tract into 11 single family residential lots. The parcel is located adjacent to and easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of the Freeway. The area is bounded on the west by Xerxes Avenue North; on the north by the Freeway ramp; on the east `__by City park property and on the south by single family residential lots that face 65th Avenue North. This matter was tabled by the Planning Commission.on May 10, 1979 and the Com- mission's intention is directed to the Planning Commission minutes and Planning Commission information sheet of that date. The application was tabled until questions regarding rear yard setbacks from major thoroughfares could be clarified and an opinion obtained from the City Attorney's office. The Commission had also requested a statement from the Department of Transportation regarding when the Xerxes Avenue freeway ramps would-be vacated. The Commission's action also in- dicated that the Planning Commission felt the plat was in order except for clari- fication regarding the setbacks from major thoroughfares. Attached is a copy of a letter from William Clelland of the City Attorney's office regarding the matter of whether or not 50 ft. setback requirements would be applied to the front, rear and side corners of the lots in question in the plat. It is the City Attorney's opinion that even though the property does abut a major thoroughfare, the minimum 50 ft. setback requirement for abutting a major thorughfare will apply only to the front and side corner setback requirements of these lots. The City Engineer has also received correspondence from MN /DOT regarding the status of the Xerxes Avenue freeway ramps. " This application points out a possible inconsistency with respect to the setback requirements for major thoroughfares. It does not seem reasonable that if an q J 9 extraordinary setback is required off of a major thoroughfare that the rear yard setback be excluded from this requirement. Likewise, further review of the ordinance-setback requirements regarding major thoroughfares might well be in - - - - - order, in particular, where noise abatement walls are located. It is felt that an argument can be made that the extraordinary setbacks need not be required where such structure are either in place or contemplated in the relatively near future. The staff will be reviewing this matter for a report and a recommendation at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Approval of Application No. 79024 is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of City Ordinances. 2. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 3. Agreement between the Osseo School District and the Brooklyn Center School District regarding district boundary lines running through this area shall be resolved prior to final plat approval. 6 -14 -79 0 CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BRVVAL.1 A BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430. TELEPHONE 561 -5440 "Nr""vR EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE 561 -5720 r; Jtine 5, 1979 bbm to: Ron Warren From: Jim Noska Re: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Plat, easterly of Xerxes Ave. No., south of I94, Planning commission file #79024. Attached is a letter I received recently from Earl Howe of Mn /DoT District 5 right -of -way office. As you can see from the letter, Earl makes no commitment that the area will be vacated. However, he did indicate to me on the phone, if the surplus is there, they will proceed with vacation, and the City will have first right to acquire same. Should you wish to discuss the matter at further length, please let ne know. " .So.k&"9i Nam L 1 , Minnesota Deis -artment of Transportation District give L ,? 5801 Duluth Street o; - Fo Golden Valley, Minnesota 5S422 (612) 545.3761 May 30, 1979. Mr. Jim Noska City Engineer 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: S.P. 2786 (94 =393) Parcel 39 .at I -94 & Xerxes Ave. Dear Mr. Noska: This letter is to inform you that upon completion of the construction contract for I -94 in the area of Xerxes Avenue, in Brooklyn Center, this office will review the right of way. If our review indicates there is surplus right of way we will initiate the necessary procedure to reconvey the surplus right of way. Sincerel E. R.HOWE, P.E. District Right of Way Engineer An Equal Opportunity Employer a LAW OFFICES SCHIEFFER A-wD CARSON, LTD. 610 BROOKOALE TOWERS 57'Lm AVENUE NORTH AT BROOKDALE CENTER RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER ` MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS430 TELEPHONE JEFFREY A. CARSON (612) 561 =3200 WILLIAM G. CLELLAND 24 May 1979 Ronald Warren Director of Planning & Inspection City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shinale Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: EARLE BROWN FIRST ADDITION Dear Mr. Warren, At your request, I have examined the setback requirements with regard to the preliminary plat of Earle Brown First Addition located at the junction of Xerxes Avenue North, 66th Avenue North and 94. Specifically, I examined the question as to whether or not the 50 foot setback requirement for properties abutting major thoroughfares would be applied to the front, rear, side interior and side corners of these lots or whether that 50 foot setback requirement would apply only to the front and side corner setbacks. After reviewing the applicable ordinance, Section 35 -400 it is clear that Earle Brown First Addition lies wholly within an R -1 district and considering the language of the ordinance, it appears that even though this property does abut a major thoroughfare, Interstate 94, the minimum 50 foot setback requirement for abutting a major thorough- fare will apply only to the front and side corners of these lots. Quite clearly, the 50 foot setback requirement as to major thoroughfares s.referenced by footnote only to the front and side corner lots and, Further, in the language of footnote two itself, setting forth the 50 foot setback, the only setbacks described by name are the front yard and side corner setbacks.' Accordingly, it is my opinion that the 50 foot setback requirement .for, abutting on a major thoroughfare will apply only to front and side corner setbacks. If -you have any questions, regarding my opinion, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, - SCHIEFFER AND CARSON, LTD. lam G. Clelland WGC /tjh t Section 35 -208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose. . The City Council finds - that effective maintenance of - the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through unforrn and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes - to - this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, -the City Council has established; a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. _ Poli It is - the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with 'the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute °sFot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in fa-vor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 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: 4. Guidel -fines. (a) Is there a clear and public need, or benefit? (b) - Is - the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with . surrounding land use classifications? ' =(c) Can all permitted uses. in the proposed zoning distriot 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? (f) Will the subject property bear fully - the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? '(h) Will the rezoning result - in - the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2} the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the t best interests of the community? 1) Does - the proposal demonstrate merit beyond - the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? IY . n i urn MOUND CEMETERY CITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING N miss Will uw� �p�p Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos. 79028 and 79038 Applicant: Hot Line Realty Request: Preliminary Plat Approval (79028) and Site and Building Plan Approval (79038) Location: 58th Avenue North and Shores Drive The applicant is seeking-preliminary plat approval under Application No. 79028 to subdivide - Outlots A, B and C of the Moorwood Townhouse Addition into 16 lots consisting of Block 1, 2 and 3 of the Moorwodd Townhouses Second Addition. The area in question is located north of County Road 10, east of the Twin Lake North Apartments and lies westerly-of the single family residential homes facing June Avenue North. It is'the intent of the applicant to complete the yet unbuilt portions of the Moorwood Townhouses. Approximately two to three years ago,,the First Wisconsin Bank took over ownership of the complex following foreclosure on the developer of the then Shores Townhouses. Foundations had been laid in the et area eiontemplatedruct for development under this application and the City required ion on the units be completed or the open foundations filled in because the situation was considered a hazard. First Wisconsin chose not to continue the construction and filled in the found- ations. A platting for the Moorwood Townhouse Addition was pursued at that time which established the three blocks under consideration as Outlots A, B and C for future development. Application No. 79038 is a request for site and building plan approval to construct 16 townhouse units ( 6 in Block 1, 6 in Block 2 and 4 in - Block 3). It is the applicant's intent to complete the buildings exactly in the manner approved originally by the City with no deviations or changes. The First Wisc-onsin Bank has posted a site Performance Bond and has undertaken the completion of the approved landscaped plan for the common areas. A site performance inspection has been made and we have met with a representative of First Wisconsin and the applicant regarding site work remaining to be completed. They indicated they would reach an agreement on completion of the site work. We will -be prepared to recomend release of the remaining portion of the bond follow - ing assurance that the original landscape plan will be implemented. One change from the original site plan is the continuation of Lake Curve Drive. Under the original plan this street was not intended to make a complete loop to Shores Drive, although blacktop has been installed'. It is our understanding the continuation of the loop. B -612 concrete 'persons living in the complex desire _ curb and gutter would be required in'this area. A public hearing has been scheduled for the preliminary plat. 'Both Application Nos. 79028 (Preliminary Plat) and 79038 (Site and Building Plan) are recommended for approval. Application No. 79028 should be subject to at•least the following conditions,: 1. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 6 -14 -79 -1- t Applications 79028 and 79038 ----- Application-No.-79038- should t: __ to at least the_following_ conditions: 0 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. Any drainage, grading and utility plans are subject 'to the - - review and approval of 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 site improvements. 4. The Homeowners Association Agreement is subject to review by the City Attorney to assure that the lots being developed are properly included in the agreement. 5. Plan approval comprehends completion of Lake 'Curve Lane as a full loop through to Shores Drive. B -612 concrete curb and gutter is required in the area where it is not already in place. 6. Development of this portion of the Moorwood Townhouses shall also be subject-to applicable conditions of the original development approval by the City Council under Application too. 70012. 7. The property is subject to final plat approval prior to - the issuance of occupancy permits. f 6 -14 -79 -2- I hot i i n R EA LTY 5700 TWIN LAKE TERRACE � MINNEAPOLIS, ;"LET. 55429 s 612- 533 -9796 May 1 5, 1979 Brooklyn Center City Offices 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, M4. 5543 Attention: Mr. Ron Warren I RE: Plat of Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition Dear Sire Pursuant to the meeting, I had with you and Mr. Will Dahn April 26, 1979 and your request I am herewith enclosing three copies of the plat which includes the individual platting of outlots A, B, C, as prepared by the firm of BRIM. BR'nr is the engineering firm that provided the original en- gineering platting, and survey data for the site. This letter is to confirm it is our intention to complete the buildings on the above mentioned site exactly as approved by your city originally. There will be no deviations or changes, consequently the new buildings will blend in with the existing structures. Enclosed please find Hot Line Realty, Inc. check #1234 in the amount of '�' which is the 25.00 fee required and 11.00 eac'n for the sixteen Lots. We are.submitting this information at this early date to-be assured the issue will be cFrtain of being on the Planning Commission June meeting and the June Council meeting. It is our intention to begin construction immediately upon the approval of both bodies. Please feel free to call me any time if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Dale K. Melby DKM /mhs Encl: 3 sets of platting for Moorwood Townhouses Second Addition Cheek #12 in the amount of �' 141..00 • New Construction Remodeling • Add b — PERRY AV[ L our i _ I Cpl k/ (A fl 0 ✓/ "/ / f f / / / ONO / / / ©r' o 1� o n CRYSTAL TWIN LAKE TE �i is /;' / / / � j r' z D- � ARBORETUM MAJ ft SPACE PEI rn LAKE D C CURVEt- .. v n i o � } �\ LANE _ L K Y n ' StiU;�$ ` 4 K m ".` DRIVE PE I � Iz �' SPACE z t auwE_ to pa \ p _ +A - z . - - 4.. _ r pL ACf ° r A C t A + S CI- A vE o1, l" V "Wi Y ice- r 3 i )D � .� I h.r:" 1 wk y ' �f I . , ...e�. °i ''O" Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79030 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park 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 pproximately i5/ 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 desi 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. l and Building No. 2 which is comprehended as a loading dock area. It is questionable, depending on the location of the loading docks whether two semi- trucks could be docked facing each other and still provide a driving lane. Generally, about 135 to 140 feet is provided in such areas. An existing 25 ft. sanitary sewer 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-up 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 - -- tree -s- -would be used - in - the - landscape - -treatment as well as 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 9 pp g guaranteee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 6 -14 -79 -1- Application No. 79030 4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard 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 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 is 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. 9._ Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the requirements of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. - 6 -14 -79 -2- LAKE - � / PARK AST PALMER ± LAKE ' / } 1' P t � _ 3L `i ca��r r t lo ` \ t i o1! �� CITY° m -j a!o 1, MAINTENANCE a 00 BUILDING I yf�GC VE E ...._ F M ........ .......... SHI NGLE CREEK APPLICATION NO 79030 anew €AY Q OPEN SPACE Jr y SCHMIT a MUS Dc TO BE CLOSED • / ' 1 1 i s Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos. 79031 and 79032 Applicant: Meadow Corporation Location: 72nd Circle and Unity Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Review (79031),and Preliminary Plat Approval (79032) The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval under Application No. 79032 for The Ponds Plat 5 consisting of-all of Outlots E and H and part of Outlots A and F of The Ponds located at approximately what will be known as 72nd'Circle and Unity Avenue North. The platting is in conjunction with the site and building- approval sought under Application No. 79031. The plat comprehends the creation of 76 lots, 72 of which would be for dwelling units, three of which would be for common areas and an outlot for a private roadway to be known as 72nd Circle. Application No. 79031 is for site and building plan approval for the final de- velopment phase in The Ponds development. This development comprehends 72 condominium single family attached dwelling units. In addition to other trees' and plantings, the landscape plan indicates that 11 six inch green ash or silver maple trees to be installed throughout this phase of the development in accordance with the ordinance requirements. The plans seem to be consistent with the master plan for the development area. We will be prepared to review these plans in more detail. A public hearing has been scheduled for the preliminary plat under Application No. 79032. Approval of the site and building plans under Application No. 79031 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, utility and berming plans are subject to 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. Development of this portion of the overall development shall also be subject to applicable conditions of the original development approval by the City Council under Application No. 76041, including fencing along the R1 (single family residential) zoning district boundary. 5. Viable turf, such as sod or seed, shall be provided for all open space areas in accordance with approval by the City. 6- 14•,79 i FAIR OAKS SCHOOL r BROOKLYN. PARK UNITY �71 AVE .... :', I T - AV { �� k• s` i sco T AVE - , T T . WEST IL tD -i w r �/ Cs z - ,.4 , ti 1 y W ES n r x L n f 7D C 11 • o ,.. —. O q CL rn AV I �I = VA1L �! � rn 10 O N N RRY\� 1 0 N X I i PLACE �\ V C) Ft 0 QC, D p ; n O Ay 9 ORCHAg10 LANE I �' O , ORCH R A4E A p 9 '1 < w i _ z z NOBLE—LAN N E AV AJOR AVE _ �Q► _ -. -1 Z � , -- _- iw �? - -, n -- 1 >E r N LE E i t - x I _q EE AVE Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79033 Applicant: Dayton Development Company Location: Tract A, R.L.S. 1262 (Dayton Development property located between Xerxes Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, north of County Road 10 Request: Preliminary Plat Approval The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 10 acre parcel known as Tract A., R.L.S. 1262 into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Brookdale Second Addition. The parcel is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by County Road 10 and Northway Drive, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North and on the north by single family residential property. The affect of the plat would be to create an approximate 2.5 acre parcel on the easterly portion of this site abutting Xerxes Avenue North and Northway Drive and an approximate 7.5 acre parcel abutting Brooklyn Bouelvard, County Road 10 and Northway Drive. The applicant has indicated that a bank is proposing to develop the easterly 2.5 acres. The City Engineer has requested some revisions and additional information regarding the plat, but it seers at this time, to be in order. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Approval of the application should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 6 -14 -79 -- i } Mm mm M mm M ME M Mm MM mm M MM M MM MM Mm mm mm mm ME CIA 79033 5 MM No 1' SCHOOL W WATER TOWER a ll NINO Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79036 Applicant: James Talmage Location: 5000 France Avenue North Request: Appeal from Administrative Ruling The applicant seeks reversal of an administrative ruling concerning use of a vacant nonconforming single family home at 5000 France Avenue North. Fie is seek - ing to obtain a Rental Dwelling License for that property to use the home for single family dwelling purposes -. The property is zoned R4, in which single family homes are not a permitted use. According to Section 35 -11,1 of the City Ordinances (attached), a nonconforming use which ceases for two years cannot be rezoned. City records indicate that the home has not been occupied since -- before January, 19.77 and the Director of Planning and Inspection has refused to accept the owner's application for a Rental Dwelling License. A letter indicating the rationale for this decision is attached for your review. The applicant states in his letter of appeal (attached) that the property was purchased for the purpose of constructing a parking lot (this is accessory off- site parking for an industrial use, also a nonpermitted use in the R4 district). He contends that the reason the property has remained vacant for over two years is unusual since during that time he has had several discussions with members of the City staff regarding the use of the property for a parking lot. He feels such a s u e would . be. reasonable. In the past two years, there have been a number of written communications between the applicant and the former City Manager and the former Director of Planning and Inspection and various meetings at which time it was indicated that the parcel of land at 5000 France Avenue North cannot be used for off -site accessory parking. Mr. Talmage has also been urged to make the premises fit for use as a single family residence and the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Ordinance and Rental Dwelling License applications have been conveyed to him. Another consideration in this matter might be whether the property in question is appropriately zoned. Under current ordinance requirements for setbacks, density and parking, no more than three R4 type units could be placed on the parcel in question without a variance. The lot could possibly be considered less than suitable for the use to which it is zoned. The issue of zoning is important in this case since a rezoning to R1 or R2 make the appeal unnecessary. Strictly speaking, however, the Commission must either recommend upholding or overturning the Director of Planning and Inspection's ruling. For the Commission to overturn the ruling that a nonconforming use may not resume occupancy after being two years vacant, ,}yet must note the unique circumstances surrounding the case and must determine that there is reason for a contrary ruling. The applicant will be present to make additional comments and to respond to questions by the Commission. 6 -14 -79 �• r*b6y \yT "°y4'C•- y�MT+.•.1�'w?.r . CITY OF -- << 5301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY �� , J ,T BROOKLYN CENTER,` MINNESOTA 55430 l TELEPHONE 561 -5440 E ' T EMERGENCY— POLICE —FIRE 561-5720 �6it�lco•ii -�' da.3. May 10, 1979 Mr. James Talmadge Mikros Engineering 3715 -5t OhAvenue North Brooklyn Center, IMN 55429 Dear Mr. Talmadge: This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the use of the property at 5000 France Avenue North. Specifically, you desire to obtain a rental d1welling license to-rent out the single family residential structure located on that site. The property in question is zoned R4 and has been since 1969. This zoning district permits multiple family dwellings of N to 2 stories in height at u ueris , 1,y v 1 1L. UiV6 r 1 1 11 9 U11 1 1,a jsci dcre. Tile Z011 d i s ti` t i, a ' ' Jo a 1 l ows use permittea in the R3 zoning aistrict which include to a;ld garden apart - ments at a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. Single farr,iiy dwellings are not permitted in the R4 district. The existing single family structure is, therefore, a nonconforming use. As a nonconforming use, the property in question falls under certain restrictions contained in Section 35 -111 of the City Ordinances (copy attached). This section of the ordinance allows the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance to be continued even it the use not conform to the regulations of the ordinance under certa circuristances. Point 4 of that section of the ordinance states: "if a nonconforming- use occupies , a building and ceases for a continuous period of two years, any subsequent use of said building shall be in conformity to the use regulations specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is located." Our records and information indicate that you purchased the property at 5000 France Avenue j North prior to January y 1, 1.,a 77 and that the single fa:,il ,, residential structure had been vacant for some time prior to that date. Our records also indicate that you have previously been informed of the requirements nor licensing teat residential structure for rental purposes. Because the si ^gle family resident ial structure at 5000 France Avenue North has been vacant and has not been used for single family residential purposes for mlore than two years, the Zoning Ordinance would, therefore, not permit the nonconforming, use to again be undertaken. " We .Soove.'.r Vl a2: 6- ,O5 ,, e r - Mr. James Talmadge Page 2 May 10, 1979 Section 35 -251 of the City Ordinances (copy attached) provides for an appeal process from an order, requirement or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, where it :is alledged that ' some error in interpretation or judgment exists.. The appeal must be submitted in writing and should set forth the appellant's position showing the alledged error in interpretation or judgment. The appeal must be filed at least 14 days t prior to the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals (the Planning Commission). The next regular meeting of the Commission a.t which time the appeal could be heard would. be June 14, 1979. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me. _ Sincerely, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection RP,W : ml g cc: Richard J. Schieffer, City Attorney Will Dahn, Building Official File Enclosures D Mikros Engineering Inc. - CUSTOM INJECTION MOLDING • TOOLING • DESIGN • PRODUCTION 3715 - 50th Ave. No. s Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55428 May 16, 1979 Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning and Inspection City of Brooklyn Center,Mn. Dear Mr. Warren] You recently determined that the property at 5000 France was not suitable for rental because it was vacant for two years and therefore could not continue as a non - conforming use in an R4 district. I wish to appeal this determination on the grounds that the property was purchased two years ago for the purpose of constructing a parking lot. Several discussions between myself and city staff have taken place during the two years with no positive results. As long as the property has remained vacant for such an unusual reason, I think we should be allowed to rent it. This would at least defray the cost` of holding the property while we continue to explore the parking problem. It seems to be the consensus of opinion that a solution to parking problems in our area needs to be found. I know that the site in question presents some problems from a planning standpoint, but it does offer some potential for a - solution as long as it is not developed as permitted in the R4 district. Sincerely, amen Talmage Mikros khgineering,Inc. JT/sgc Section 35 -113.. NON - CONFORMING USES Unless specifically provided otherNise herein, the law'.ul use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance, provided: 1. No such non - conforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 2. Such non- conforming use shall not be moved to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. 3. A non - conforming use of a building existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided no structural a.Itera tions except those required by ordinance, law, or other regulation are made therein. Excepted from the structural alteration limitation are single family dwellings, located in residential districts other than R1 or R2, provided any structural alterations or additions shall conform with the requirements of the R1 district. 4. If a non- conforming use occupies a building and ceases for a continuous period of two years, any subsequent use of said building shall be in conformity to the use regulation specified by this ordinance for the district in which such building is located. S. Any non - conforming use shall not be cortin.acd following 60% destruction of the building in which it was conducted by fire, wind, earthquake, or explosion, - according to the estimate of the Building Inspector, approved by the City Council. 6. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, where there is a non - conforming use of lard on a parcel with no structure or where there is a non- conforming use of .land (such as storage of equipment and supplies.), on which there is a conforming structure, such use shall be terminated within two years following the effective date of - this ordinance Section 35 -200 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING The City Council hereby undertakes to carryon comprehensive study and planning as a continuing guide for land use and development legislation within the municipality. For this purpose, the City Council has adopted by Resolution 66 -295 a Comprehensive Guide Plan for the City of Brooklyn Center, and designates an advisory planning agency by Section 35 -201 to aid in such planning. oil [a 1111111111111IN Iloilo 10 oil r ROOM Is1u� mom A r ■ i1!lSSi p _ �_..rci Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79037 Applicant: Howe, Inc. Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Appeal The applicant is seeking an appeal from an administrative determination made by the Director of Planning and Inspection regarding the application of current Zoning Ordinance requirements to the reconstruction of the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 at Howe, Inc. Since the April 19, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, at which time the Commission recommended certain findings of fact and also recommended the denial of two applications submitted by Howe, Inc., Application No. 79016 (site and building plan review) and Application No. 79017 (variance), the City staff has met with Mr. Howe and his representatives to discuss that action and the possibility of developing a new site plan. On May 14, 1979, the City Council concurred with . the Commission's recommendation regarding certain findings of fact, but the applications were withdrawn with the indication that new site plans would be submitted. As a follow up to those meetings and to various conversations I had with the applicant's architect and /or his attorney, I forwarded a letter to Mr. Hoare conveying the action taken by the City Council and the direction given for further review of the plans. Attached is a copy of that letter, dated May 17, 1979, in which certain procedures and requirements were established. Shortly thereafter, a plan was submitted that was reviewed by the City staff in terms of the May 17, 1979 letter and the current Zoning Ordinance Standards. irle again met with the applicant and his representatives on June 1, 1979 to request certain revisions prior to accepting an application for site and building plan review. At that meeting we again indicated that the current ordinance provisions relating to setback requirements, landscaping, parking, drainage and other matters would be applied, perhaps not in their entirety, but at least to the area proposed for the reconstruction. It was pointed out that, based on design, a building similar in size (both square footage and cubic footage) and functional ability could be provided while meeting ordinance requirements for setbacks, buffers, and some landscape treatment. It was also indicated that traffic circulation could be continued around and through the site although somewhat modified and that the application of the current Zoning Ordinance requirements was un- reasonable. At that meeting I was furnished with a copy of a letter from Donald E. Notvik of the State Attorney General's office regarding the highway property at 49th and Brooklyn Boulevard which could change the interpretation for requiring ,a 50 ft. building setback. I informed those in attendance that a building setback of 10 ft. might be appropriate because the indication was that the property was acquired not for the construction of a roadway, but rather to provide access to the scale area of the Howe property. The affects of the revisions requested on the Howe site plan were to address and apply the current ordinance provisions to the area immediately north of the middle building and to also provide additional delineated parking on the site, as well as to address the need for correcting drainage problems. The suggested revisions would not have caused a major change in traffic patterns on the site, would have provided a 100 ft. buffer and landscape area north of the middle building and between the reconstructed building and the single family residential property lying to the west. 6 -14 -79 -1- 1 Application No. 79037 Curb and gutter was a matter that was required to be installed as much as possible throughout the site to assist drainage. We also requested revisions to the land- scape plan. When 'asked by Mr. Howe's attorney if I would accept the plan that did not meet the requested revisions, I responded that I would only if a variance application was submitted concurrently along with a written indication as to how the current Ordinance Variance Standards were met. If these were not submitted, I would not place the matter before the Planning Commission because they would be reviewing a plan that did not meet current ordinance requirements. Mr. Russell indicated that because Howe, Inc. is nonconforming as to use and structure that under the language contained in the ordinance both nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures are to be given the same treatment. He in- dicated that Zoning Ordinance requirements adopted after the structure was built cannot be applied and no variances would be required. He cited his May 25, 1979 memo (attached) as his position. I explained that based on the direction I had received from the Planning Commission in past precedent where the City has required compliance with current Zoning Ordinance Standards when major structural alterations were undertaken, that I would only accept an application showing that the requirements were met or 'a variance from these standards was sought. I added that the City Attorney had reviewed his May 25, 1979 memo and had advised me that I was proceeding properly. I also informed Mr. Russell of his right to appeal my decision not to accept a plan inconsistent with current Zoning Ordinance requirements without a variance request. Ina notice of appeal dated June 4, 1979 (attached), Howe, Inc. appealed the administrative determination. - The May 25, 1979 memo from Mr. Russell serves as their basis for the appeal. Attached is a copy of a memo from City Attorney Richard Schieffer_ regarding the appeal of the administrative ruling. His opinion indicates that the application of certain ordinance requirements regarding setback, landscaping, buffering, parking, and other matters, result in no significant loss of investment and that can be built on the site a building f the same size and general configuration 9 9 while adhering to buffer and setback requirements. He adds that there is no unconstitutional taking of property or property rights without compensation; therefore, the basis for for building to be erected - in violation of these requirements do not exist. It is also the City Attorney's opinion that it must be recognized that nonconforming use provisions simply do not provide the property owner with the justification to ignore all regulations which have come into being after 1957. Only those regulations which deprive the property owner of a substantial investment must be relaxed. The applicant's attorney will be present to provide additional information and respond to Commission inquiries. A recommendation by the Planning Commission to overturn the administrative ruling, if concurred with by the City Council, would have the affect of permitting Howe, Inc. to rebuild the structure as it existed without applying any of the current Zoning Ordinance Standards. 6 -14 -79 -2- BRUCE E. RUSSELL PHONE: 348 -3653 'M MES N. RUSSELL R. HFiRCY MC LEOD RUSSELL, RUSSELL & M C L E O D AREA CODE 612 - ATTORNEYS AT LAW 202 THORPE BUILDING 8085 WAYZATA BOULEVARD GOLDEN VALLEY. MINNESOTA 55426 June 4, 1979 Board of Adjustment and Appeals City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway - Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 NOTICE Or APPEAL BY HOWE, INC Gentlemen: This is your notice that Howe, Inc., appeals from a determination by the City Planner that, although the Howe, Inc., buildings and land uses were established under an earlier zoning ordinance and were legal thereunder and the current zoning ordinance exempts such established uses from its regulations (Sec. 35 -111), Howe, Inc., is nevertheless bound by the regulations of the current zoning ordinance. Yours very truly, ames H. !Russell JHR /mp 2188 A �d JUN 1979 t ;, d,��•s�7 MEMORANDUM RE APPLICATION OF HOWE, INC FOR BUILDING PERMIT Section 35 -111 NONCONFORMING USES provides Section 35 -111, NONCONFORMING USES, Unless specifically provided otherwise herein, the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance, provided: (emphasis added) 1 0 O O O 2 30 4, aoo 5, Any nonconforming use shall not be continued following 60 destruction of the building in which it was conducted by fire, wind, earthquake, or explo- sion a Building Inspector, in he estimate of the u according to t t g g P approved by the City Council, The point is made by the City Manager in his letter of April 17, 1979, that no distinction is made by the nonconforming __ --w-. se__ or. dinance __between_nonconforming.use: and nonconforming struc- tures. The language of the ordinance shows that both kinds of nonconformity are contemplated and accords them both the same treatment. The Howe case demonstrates both kinds a. Land or structure nonconformity - The Howe, Inc., buildings were built when either there was no restric- tion on industrial construction or the restriction was i that buildings could occupy no more than a certain percentage of ground area. Later setback and green strip requirements were imposed which made the indus- trial use of the west and north portions of the land nonconforming. The land west of the build- . ings has always been used for traffic circulation, loading and unloading activities, storage, rail car movements and parking. The present ordinance requires a 100 foot green strip to buffer an indus- trial use from land zoned residential, b Use nonconformity -- The manufacturing of ammoniated . fertilizer was in conformity when commenced and made nonconforming when omitted as a permitted use under a later zoning ordinance. Since Section 35 -111 exempts both legal nonconforming land and buildings from the regulations of the zoning ordinance when the use of the land and buildings was legal at the time of the adoption of the ordinance and when less than 60% has been destroyed by fire, it follows that: a. Howe, Inc. has a right to rebuild its burned building which, although totally destroyed, repre- sented less than 60% of the total building complex. b. Howe, Inc., has a right to the use of its land which was dedicated to an industrial use before the fire because less than 60% destruction of the total building complex took place. -2_ If the above position is correct, then special permission for variance from the Zoning Ordinance is unnecessary. Section 35 -240 deals with discretionary variances from the regulations of the zoning ordinance from which Howe, Inc,, is exempt by reason of the application of Section 35 -1110 Dated: May 25, 1979 e s H. Russel for Russell, Russell & McLeod Attorneys for Applicant 202 Thorpe Building 8085 Wayzata Boulevard Golden Valley, MN 55426 Tel. (612) 545 -5653 -3- z CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CHEEK PARKWAY -�T t BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 T TELEPHONE 561 -5440 EM ERG ENCY- POLICE -FIRE rA. %u V 561.5720 May 17, 1979 Mr. Bill Howe Howe, Inc. 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. _Howe: This letter is to inform you of the procedure for Planning Commission and City Council rev of s ite and building plans for th construction of a bu ? ding to replace the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 at Howe, Inc. At the City Council meeting on Monday, May 14, 1979, your attorney, on behalf of Howe, Inc., withdrew Planning Commission Application No. 79016 which was a re quest for site and building plan approval, and Planning Corrimission No. 79017 which was a request for a variance. Your attorney indicated that Howe, Inc. would be submitting a new plan for review. The City Council, by consc-nsus, ' acknowledged the withdrawal of these applications. Based on that acknowledge - ment, Appplication Nos. 79016 and 79017 have been closed. The City Council proceeded to mare certain findings relating to the matter of rebuilding. The action taken by the City Council was as follo:N +s: 1. That Howe inc. was a valid use in 1946 and became a nonconforming use under the City Zoning Ordinance in 1957. 2.. That the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 was part w_- - - of - entire complex, that less than 60% of said complex was - - destroyed by the fire and that, therefore, the applicant is entitled to rebuild a similar warehouse on the site. The City Council also requested the City Manager and the City Attorney to review and report on any options available to the City to set a specific time for the phasing out of nonconforming uses and any potential City liability under such a plan. Following the April 19, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, the staff had the opportunity to meet with you and your representatives to discuss and review the Planning Commission's recommendations and a possible new site plan that you were then considering. The following is a list of items relating to either previously discussed natters or matters which should be kept in mind when sub mitting a new plan for Planning Commission and City Council review: Mr. Bill Howe Page 2 May 17, 1979 1. A full set of drawings including a site plan, drainage plan and landscape plan should be submitted which comprehends all current ordinance standards such as parking provisions land- scaping, buffering and setbacks, 2. A certified site survey drawn by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing conditions accurately dimensioned should be submitted, 3. Copies of any agreements or lease arrangements Howe, Inc. has with the Soo Line for use of certain portions of the Soo tine property must also be submitted. Presently Howe, Inc. uses Soo Line property for outside storage as well as vehicle access to some of the buildings on the site. It has also been noted that a portion of the south building is on Soo Line property, 4. Copies of any agreements or arrangements Howe, Inc. has with MN /Dot for use of, or access over, highway right -of -way property by 49th and Brooklyn Boulevard. Any correspondence or documentation from MN /DOT that would indicate the property is considered something other than highway right - of - way property should also be submitted. 5. A new application for site and building plan approval will have to be executed at least two weeks prior to the Planning Commission's next regular business meeting, which is June 14, 1979. 6. A replatting of the Howe, Inc. site will also have to be _ undertaken as per City Ordinance which states. multiple parcels _ dfland which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development and which are under common owner- o r ship hall 'be combined � a parce throu p lattin g n into single c n p p 9 p 9 9 registered land survey." 7. The City staff will be reviewing the plans and ordinance require- in -terms of - he -e ire sit which is- i :.kee in with the t nt t.. P 9 finding made by the City Council that the building destroyed by fire on January , 1979 was y part of the entire complex. This is also in keeping with past City policy dealing with similar matters. 8. The size and type of material, as well as uses permitted in the building, are matters not yet clearly defined and are subject to further clarification and /or review. 9. Any requests for variances will have to meet the ordinance Standards for Variances contained in Section 35 -240 (2) (copy attached). We received a preliminary site plan submitted by Cletus Klein on May 10, 1979 and, it is my understanding, he will be submitting preliminary drai and landscaping plans shortly. The staff will review these preliminary drawings as soon as possible and attempt to arrange a meeting to discuss any needed revi prior to submitting the matter for: the Planning Commission's review. Mr. Dill Howe Page May 17, 1979 The City Manager has requested me to inform you that he will be researching various alternatives associated with an accelerated phase out of nonconforming uses. Also, the City g prepared Manager is to review and discuss further the P matter of the dynamiting permit which was deferred by the City Council, at your request, on May 14, 1979. If you have any questions or comments regarding these matters, please contact either Gerald Splinter, or myself. Sincerely, ci CA-�� Ronald A. Marren Director of Planning and Inspection RAW :mlg cc: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager Richard J. Schieffer, City Attorney James Russell Cletus Klein N MEMO To: Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections From: R. J. Schieffer, City Attorney Re: Appeal by Howe, Inc. from Administrative Rulings (Planning Commission Application No. 79037) i The essence of the Planning Director's decision, as set forth in Item 9, Page 2, of his letter to Howe, Inc., dated May 17, 1979, is that structural non - conformity, including setbacks, landscaping, parking, buffer zones, etc., which existed on the Howe site prior to the fire on January 6th must be either corrected, or variances obtained from such ordinance standards. Accordingly, the Director of Planning advised Howe, Inc. that variances from these ordinance requirements should be sought. The position of Howe, Inc., pursuant to its attorney's letter of May 25, 1979, and its notice of appeal of June 4, 1979, is that Howe has the right to re- establish and continue both the use non-conformity, and the structural landscaping, parking, and other kinds of non - conformity which existed in the past. As we have previously noted, in the City Manager's Memorandum of April 17, 1979, our ordinance does not set forth specific pro- visions for the treatment of structural non - conformity, at least in the general way. (There are some specific provisions dealing with, e.g.,_ substandard (non- conforming)lots in Section 35 -500 of the zoning ordinance.) We noted in that same memo that the Planning Commission and City Council have permitted the alteration of struc- tural non - conformity when the structure contained permitted uses. The procedure followed was the simple expedient of a variance, where the standard of variance could be met. Where the standard of vari- _ ante could not be met, the proposed construction or alteration was not permitted. The attorney for Howe, Inc., in his memo of May 25 1979, quotes the following language from Section 35 -111 of the zoning ordinance: the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of adoption of this ordinance may be continued even if such use does not conform to the regulations of this ordinance (emphasis supplied by Mr. Russell). Mr. Russell takes the position that the use of the word "land or building" means that the rules under that section of the zoning R r ordinance apply to both structural non- conformity and use non- conformity equally. This view is not warranted, either by the language of the ordinance, by Minnesota Statutes, or by the theory of non - conforming use. The _City has interpreted this section of the ordinance to permit the granting of a variance for the extension or expansion of a non - conforming structure if the standards for variance can be met. This action is permitted by the ordinance. Also, Minne- sota Statutes Section 462.357 Subd. 6 (2) specifically forbids granting a "use variance" while placing no restriction on the granting of variances as'to setback, dimensions, etc. Therefore, the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant amore liberal interpretation of the non - conforming use provisions by granting such variances from structural require- ment. The essential and universal purpose of all non- conformin& use provisions is to prevent an unconstitutional taking of pro - perty without paying compensation for it. Zoning regulation of bare land does not violate the constitution because mere ownership of land, without further investment, does not create a- vested right to a particular kind of zoning. This issue was decided in the first zoning case, Euclid vs. Ambler Realty Co. 272 U.S. 65,` (1926). Going slightly beyond that, zoning or inances have been applied retroactively even after permits have been issued, to pre- vent the construction of non - permitted uses as long as there has been no "substantial prejudice" to the proper owner. Hawk vs . County of Itasca 304 Minn. 367, 231 NW 2nd 279`(1975 ); A! quist vs. Town o Marshan 308 Minn. 52, 245 NW 2nd 819 (1976). In 'the Hawkinson case, property which was partially developed for a resort was rezoned to residential. This was a large tract of land, con- sisting of many different projects such as townhouses, recreation facilities, retail establishments, and other types of uses. The Court picked those which were substantially complete and declared them to be non - conforming uses. Other projects which had a minimal investment, were ordered discontinued pursuant to the new zoning ordinance. Although these cases are not directly relevant to our problem they illustrate that the Court takes a very practical approach, protecting investment where investment exists, and permitting the ordinance to operate where there is no substantial destruction of existing investment. Another illustration is found in the comparison of two recent Minnesota cases, Connor vs. Township of Chanhassen 249 Minna 205, 81 NW 2nd,789 (1957) and State, by Lord vs. Pahl 254 Minn. 349 95 NW 2nd, 85 (1959). Both of these cases involve land partially destroyed by a condemnation. Although condemnation is not directly e analagous to a fire, both destroy value, and both raise questions of'whether or not setback and other non- conforming use provisions Apply to partially destroyed property. In the Connor case, the highway took a small building site but left a small remainder tract. The building was moved back to another part of the site which raised the question of whether a non - conforming use could be moved to an- other part of the site in spite of the non - conforming use ordinance which prevented:it. The Court held that if the building could not be moved, a taking of property without giving compensation would result. Apparently the condemnation had occurred a few years earlier and the highway department did not pay for the taking of the building itself. In the Pahl case, the highway department took the front 35 feet of a large building. Because the taking established anew property line, the front 60 feet of the remaining building was in the setback area. The Court ruled that the highway department would have to pay for the 35 feet it actually took plus the 60 feet which was "taken" by the setback ordinance. Therefore, the setback provisions of the ordinance were enforced but the State of Minnesota paid for the loss. In discussing these two cases, the Court simply stated that in the Connor case they could not enforce the non - conforming use ordin- ance because a substantial 16ss would result to the property owner. In the Pahl case the setback provision was enforceable simply be- cause the highway department was in Court and the Supreme Court could require them to pay for the owner's loss of investment. Thus, we can see that the Courts will put aside the complexi- ties of zoning ordinances, setback provisions, non - conforming use requirements, construction formulas, and get down to the ,basic material at hand: Has the property owner suffered a significant loss of investment as a result of the zoning ordinance? As the Planning Director's memorandum indicates, the application of certain ordinance requirements regarding setback, landscaping,, buffering, parking, and other matters, result in no significant loss of investment. In short, a building of the same size and general ____� ___configuration can be built on the site while adhering to buffer' -and - setback requirements. Traffic circulation can continue although the main traffic artery through the site will be moved somewhat southerly to run between the north and the middle building. The imposition of ordinance requirements does not reduce the size or usage of the building as it existed in 1957. There is no unconstitutional taking of property or property rights without compensation; therefore, the basis or justification for permitting the building to be erected in violation of these requirements do not exist. Finally, it must be recognized that non- conforming use provisions simply do not provide the property owner with the justification to ignore all regulations which have come into being after 1957. Only those regulations which deprive the property owner.of a substantial investment must be relaxed. R.J.S. June 11, 1979' Lfl e ven Nor J CT Or c"' Z _.^....- .A 3- �V 2 333y � a -;- a• 3- --�. 33 5 4 33 `9 33 y3 i . 3 3 3 2t �33j3 a / 1 33�S 331q 33 . �� $ 33 32( Zr- t" o 13 330, 33 / 4'�� 3105 3101 3�y� r t d � N w � f r vi '- , an 1 4 , V MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN A14D THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSIOtI June 14, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem William Hawes at 7 :32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary informed the Commission that Commissioner Manson had called him and informed him that she would be out of town for the June 14, 1979 and June 28, 1979 Planning Commission meetings. A PPLICATION NO. 78062 (Oasis Petroleum) Following the Chairman's e)planation, the first item to be considered was a request for a special use permit and site and building plan approval to remodel and operate the existing Dayton's Gas Station at 2605 County Road 10. The Secretary explained that the remodel plan envisioned a self service operation containing two pump islands with one person on duty ,primarily to oversee the site and accept payment for gasoline. The Secretary also explained that the appli- cation was being brought back to the Planning Commission for review because at the time of the October 5, 1978 recommendation, the site plan had not been approved by the applicant's (Oasis Petroleum). home office in Los Angeles. The applicant's respresentative, Mr. Peter Fischer, he said, was informed at that time that if there were any revisions to the site plan following the review by Oasis, the matter would again be referred to the Planning Commission. The Secretary pointed out that the new site plans do comprehend changes such as a reduction in the number of gasoline dispensing islands from three to two the modification of an area designed for customers to obtain air, crater and check oil, and additional landscaping. He indicated that the applicant is also proposing to retain an existing storage building that is presently being utilized on the site, and that concrete, rather than blacktop, would be installed in the service area. He also noted that the site is designed in such a manner as to provide a one -way traffic flow. Chairman Pierce arrived at 7:40 p.m. The Secretary added that the plans would have to be certified by an.architect and engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and that the landscape' plan should show tree dimensions in inches rather than gallons before building permits would be issued. The Commission then discussed the traffic pattern implied in the plan and the effect of the 45 degree driveway outlet on existing traffic. Chairman Pierce called on the applicant to speak. on behalf of the proposal. The applicant stated that the hours of operation would probably be less than the original proposal of 24 hours a day, citing the gas shortage as a primary reason. Commissioner Erickson asked whether the plan had been approved by the corporate office of Oasis Petroleum. The applicant responded that it had._ Com- missioner Theis expressed a concern over the freezing of the air and water lines during the winter. The applicant responded that proper filitration to purge water from these lines would prevent a freeze up in the winter time. 6 -14 -79 -1- r In response to Commissioner Hawes, the applicant also indicated that they did not plan to sell oil as previously indicated. Chairman Pierce expressed concern over the radius of the curb at the point of egress from the 45 degree driveway. The applicant indicated his willingness to work out this problem with the City Engineer. In answer to additional questions from the Commission, the applicant indicated that the building on the site would be of the same size as previously proposed with a concrete foundation. The drainage pattern, he said, would be toward the perimeter road. He explained that the traffic flow system on the site was de- signed to control the cars using the self service islands to ensure payment. He indicated that the site, if motorists use it efficiently, could accommodate up' to 10 to 12 cars at a time. Commissioner Lucht asked whether there would be any problem rectifying the designation of tree widths on the landscape plan. The applicant replied that there would be no objection that gallons measurements was simply the way Oasis Petroleum designates the size of trees and plantings. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 140. 78062 <(Oasis Petroleum Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78062"submitted by Oasis Petroleum for special use permit and site and building plan approval o remodel and operate the p e 9 P resent t p p Dayton's Gas Station at 2605 County Road 10, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Drainage, grading, utility and landscape 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 prior to the issuance of permits. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The plans shall be certified by an architect and engineer registered in the State of Minnesota prior to the issuance of permits. 6. The special use permit is issued to the operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 7. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, including special licensing requirements, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. The curb cut on the east end of the site shall be modified in a manner approved by the City Engineer to provide a better turning radius. 6 -14 -79 -2- Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 79018 (Arthur Kvamme) The next item of consideration was a request by Arthur Kvamme to rezone from Rl to R3 an approximate 3.5 acre tract of land located within the 5500 block of Camden Avenue North and Bryant Avenue North. The Secretary pointed out the location of the property and explained that the applicant is seeking the rezoning to construct 7 quadra homes on the site if the rezoning to R3 is approved. The Secretary outlined for the Commission the arguments made by the applicant for the rezoning. The applicant contends that the area is in need of a condomimium complex for many of the older residents in the area; that public utilities to service the area are already available, that the joint effort of combining the properties in the rezoning eliminates potentially landlocked property and makes practical use of the land; that traffic to the area will be decreased; that the development will increase the City's tax base; and that the City would rid itself of a nonconforming use (Madsen Floral Company). The Secretary informed the Commission that the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group had met on May 3, 1979 and recommended that the application be given favorable consideration. The Secretary also noted the applicant's contention that R1 development of the property as presently zoned is _unfeasible. Such development would require variances from either Chapter 15 or Chapter 35, he said. He added, however, that such variances might be justified on the grounds' that their denial would not allow reasonable use of the property. The Secretary acknowledged the applicant's financial concerns, but stated that such consider- ations should not be the deciding element in rezonings. Rather the overall " public welfare should be the chief concern and whether the proposed zoning is compatible and consistent with surrounding land uses. With respect to the proposed zoning classifications, the Secretary said, there is a scarcity of mid - density residential housing in the Southeast Neighborhood relative to other neighborhoods in the City. The Secretary referred the Com- mission to the Rezoning Y Evaluation Policy and Guidelines of Section. 35 -208 of the City Ordinances and Y encouraged them to judge the present rezoning request 9 J 9 p g q on the basis of these guidelines. After the Secretary's presentation, Chairman Pierce called on the applicant to speak to the proposal. Mr. Kvamme indicated that he had tried to get the opinion of realtors as to the compatibility of townhouses with single family residential homes. What feedback he had received, he said, was generally ,positive. He added that the complex might be able to make use of the boiler presently on p 9 p y the site which utilizes both gas and oil. He also indicated that solar energy might be a viable energy source at some time in the future. In response to Commissioner Theis, the applicant stated that there were six owners involved in the proposed rezoning and that all of the owners agreed to the proposal. Asked by the Chairman to speak to the neighborhood's reaction, Commis- sioner Lucht,who attended the neighborhood advisory group meeting,stated that members of the advisory group preferred that the roadway be a through street for safety reasons, rather than the two dead end streets proposed by the applicant. Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for comments by residents in the area. Bob Ellingson of 5453 Bryant Avenue North stated that the primary concern of the neighborhood is over the density allowed under the proposed zoning. He asked what control exists to limit the density of the project. The Secretary answered that the zoning designation is the primary control. Setbacks and buffers, he said, also play some role. Under the proposed zoning, he said, 3 units per acre would be allowed which would result in a maximum of 28 units 6 -14 -79 -3- for the site. Mr. Ellingson asked what the definition of a garden apartment is. The Secretary replied that garden apartments are three or more dwelling units horizontally attached in a linear or cluster arrangement. The units are separated from each other by a wall, or walls, extending from foundation to roof. He added that a characteristic of garden apartments is their private entrances. Mary Simmons, of 5530 Camden Avenue North, asked for confirmation that once the land is rezoned, it could be developed for rental units as well as owner occupied units. Chairman Pierce acknowledged that the City cannot control owner - ship by zoning classification. Mrs. Simmons asked whether there was anything to prevent a rental complex on the site. The Secretary stated that although the City cannot dictate a rental or owner /occupied development in the R3 zone, it has established a rental licensing program as a means of controlling the maintenance and upkeep of apartments. He cited the City' s- ongoing,enforcement of the Housing Maintenance Ordinance. David Simmons of 5537 Camden Avenue North contended that the townhouse complex would add to traffic in the area of 56th and Camden Avenue North, a particularly dangerous intersection. Commissioner Lucht questioned whether the traffic would actually be significantly more than if developed for single family. The Super- intendent of Engineering responded that traffic projections for multiple family. units are 6 to 8 trips per day while single family units are projected at 10 to 12 trips per day, therefore, he said, the total amount of traffic would not be significantly greater even though more units existed on the site. Mr. Ken Trombley, of 803 - 56th Avenue North stated that he was one of the owners `involved in the proposed rezoning and that he planned to stay in the area. He assured those present that he would not favor anything that would be detrimental to his own property. He also cited the fact that the new freeway would likely draw some of the traffic away from the neighborhood. Mrs. Simmons contended that.traffic would be increased on Camden Avenue North, where she lives. She cited a recent accident at 56th and Camden Avenue in which two people were killed and warned against traffic in that area. Commissioner Theis asked whether the concerns over traffic have been brought to the attention of City staff. Mr. Arnie Saf, of 5531 Camden Avenue North, recalled that the neighborhood brought a petition for a stop sign at the intersection of 56th and Camden Avenues North, but that they were refused. A discussion then ensued over the sentiment of_the neighborhood concerning the proposed rezoning. A number of Commissioners could not reconcile the fact that the neighbors present seemed unanimously opposed to the rezoning, while the minutes of the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting indicated unanimous support for the proposal. The Administrative Assistant pointed out that the minutes of the neighborhood meeting record a vote only of the members of the Neighborhood Advisory Group. The reaction of neighbors living adjacent to the — land in questions was definitely mixed, he said... Mr. Saf stated that he had been at all the meetings and that more were opposed than in favor. Commissioner Theis asked what the present traffic count for the Madsen Floral Company was. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that it was difficult to make an estimate without knowing the size of the operation, but that generally traffic for commercial space is calculated at 14 trips per thousand square feet of gross floor area per day. Commissioner Malecki asked why the owners had chosen an R3 zoning designation rather than R2. Mr. Kvamme stated that it would amount to the same number of units at 5400 square feet per unit. A discussion then ensued in which the Secretary clarified for the Commission the different conditions attaching to R2 and R3 development. R2 development allows one unit per 6200 square feet. he said, and that is exclusive of area dedicated for streets. 6 -14 -79 -4- Building Official Will Dahn noted that a variance from the required lot depth would be necessary to develop the property for two family units. Mr. Kvamme argued that the cost of developing the street would make single family develop- ment uneconomical. Chairman Pierce, however, did not see a marked difference between R2 and R3 units in terms'of street costs per hand unit. The Building Official noted that private roadways are slightly narrower than public right-of- way Commissioner Theis inquired when the Madsen Floral property was zoned Rl The Secretary responded that to his knowledge it was in 1968. .Chairman Pierce stated that the question at hand boils down to what the best use of the land is and what impact that use will have on the surrounding neighborhood. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 79018 (Arthur Kvamme) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend approval of Application No. 79018, submitted by Arthur Kvamme, noting that the proposal is consistent with the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and further citing the following: 1. The proposed rezoning will benefit and not detract from the neighborhood and the rezoning will provide additional mid- density residential property to the Southeast area of the City which has relatively little R3 zoning, thus providing a wider range of housing choice. 2. The _proposal will assist in the eventual elimination of a nonconforming use, 3. The subject property can be considered generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district because a variance would be needed to develop the property as single family residential. 4. The proposal will make better use of extraordinarily deep parcels that could be used for other development. 5. Traffic impact on the area will be nominal Voting in favor:- Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: Commissioner Hawes.- The motion passed. Commissioner Hawes explained his dissenting opinion by stating that he felt the neighborhood should be given greater consideration in changing the zoning designation of the land in question. Chairman Pierce suggested that the neighboring property owners be notified for review of site and building plans. APPLICATION NO. 79019 (Brauer & Associates) The Secretary introduced the next business item, that of consideration of a pre - liminary plat for an approximate 30 acre site located at the northeast quadrant of County Road 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary stated that the Plan - ning Commission had tabled the matter on April 12, 1979 and directed staff to work with the affected property owners to determine if a better plan for the area could be realized. There was concern raised regarding the location of a proposed' median cut adjacent to the proposed cul -de -sac, he said. The proposed location for a median cut would virtually eliminate any other median cuts along Shingle Creek Parkway in this area. Brookdale Ford, meanwhile, would lose its present median cut and not be allowed a new one because of its proximity to the proposed cul -de -sac 6 -14 -79 -5- The Secretary reported that City staff met with representatives of Srookdale Ford, the Rauenhorst Corporation (owner of the property on which the Northwestern Bell facility is located),a representative of Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, and representatives of Northwestern Bell Telephone Company on May 7 and May 17, 1979. These meetings seemed to be making progress when on May 25, 1979, the Secretary was informed by phone that Northwestern Bell is not interested in participating financially to obtain a roadway and medain cut at the north property line of the Charlson property. Therefore, Rauenhorst Corporation was not in a position to negotiate the matter further, and they would assume their previous position of desiring a median cut in the.area, but not wishing to dedicate right -of -way or participating in the cost to reimburse the property owner for roadway dedication. The Secretary added that without such cooperation a revised plat is not possible and the owner wishes to proceed with the preliminary plat as proposed. The Secretary stated that if the proposed plat were approved with one median cut servicing the Charlson property there would be no further opportunity to create median cuts that could be commonly shared by abutting properties as well. He also noted that there are no concrete development plans for the undeveloped C2 parcels owned by Mr. Charlson. He recommended approval of the plat without consideration to median cuts along Shingle Creek Parkway. He further stated that the matter of median cuts should be reviewed in conjunction with develop - ment proposals and, hopefully, agreement as to common access for all parcels concerned can be realized. The Commission briefly discussed the median cut situation along Shingle Creek Parkway. Chairman Pierce then called on the applicant to speak to -the - proposal. Mr. Brauer admitted that both public and private experts have recommended a bad solutLion. He suggested that the solution is for the City to assess half of the right -of -way acquisition costs to neighboring properties who will benefit by the installation of a public street. He stated that his client would prefer to have two median cuts, but that since the City would not allow this,the only solution is to put a road in at the north end of the Charlson property with half of the costs assessed to other properties. If this alteration were in- cluded in the Commission's recommendation to the City Council, he said, his firm would be happy to submit a revised plat proposal. Chairman Pierce asked the Superintendent of Engineering for his recommendation. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that he could not make a recommendation regarding assessment of right -of -way acquisition costs since the `City ' had not assessed such costs in the past. Mr. Brauer clarified that he only recommended assessment of the half of the street that abuts other properties and that this cost would be spread over the entire assessment district. The Superintendent of Engineering outlined for the Commission the boundaries of the assessment district in question and stated that the City's policy in the past has been that right -of -,ray be dedicated by the owner of the property with the cost of construct- ion assessed on an area basis to all of the land within a given assessment district, so that the cost of roads could be born by all users in the Industrial Park. Commissioner Theis questioned the applicant concerning the proposed location of the road. Mr. Brauer explained the logic of the proposal, noting that it would allow use by the Northwestern Bell Telephone Company which presently desires another median cut and at the same time would not penalize Brookdale ford which would otherwise lose its only median cut. Chairman Pierce asked why the applicant proposed larger lots abutting Shingle Creek Parkway with smaller lots in the rear of the property. Mr. Brauer answered that the larger users prefer frontage on Shingle Creek Parkway and that the proposed arrangement is to accommodate those users. 6 -14 -79 -6- At that point the Secretary suggested that the Commission again table the appli- cation to allow the applicant and City staff to deal with the technical problems with the plat and questions regarding the assessment of right -of -way acquisition. Chairman Pierce asked the Commission whether it was their consensus that the new proposal presented by the applicant was something which they would approve if these details were worked out. The Commission generally acknowledged their agreement. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 79019 (Brauer & Associates Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to table Application; No. 79019 with direction to staff to investigate the outstanding questions -re- lating to the plat. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. R ECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:54 p.m. and resumed at 10:08 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 24, 1979 Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Erickson to approve the minutes of the May 24, 1979. meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Erickson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Lucht. The motion passed. A PPLICATION NO. 79024 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park} The Secretary introduced the next item of business,that of consideration of a preliminary plat to subdivide an approximate 3 acre tract into 11 single family lots. The tract of land is located adjacent to and easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of the freeway.. The Secretary noted that the plat was tabled by the Planning Commission on May 10, 1979 in order that a question regarding the appli- cabi1ity of a 50 foot setback off major thoroughfares for rear yards could be addressed by the City Attorney's office. The Commission had also requested a statement from the Department of Transportation regarding when the Xerxes Avenue freeway ramps would be vacated. Regarding the 50 ft. setback from major thoroughfares the Secretary informed the Commission that he had received a'letter from the City Attorney's office _which interpreted the ordinance provision as applying only to the front and side corner yard setbacks. The Secretary also reported that the City Engineer has received correspondence from the Department of Transportation regarding the status of the Xerxes Avenue freeway ramps, but that no date had been set for the vacation of the freeway ramps. The Secretary pointed out that the application reveals an inconsistency of the City's Zoning Ordinance with respect to the setback requirements for major` thoroughfares. It does not seem reasonable, he said, that if an extraordinary setback is required off a major throughfare, that the rear yard setback be excluded from this requirement. He recommended that the Commission consider this matter at an upcoming meeting and that the subject of setbacks off major thoroughfares be considered generally. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether any noise walls would be installed behind the lots in question. The Secretary answered that they would not: There was a brief discussion of the future use of the land now being used for the freeway ramps. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79024 (B.C.I.P. Motion by ,Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hawes to recommend approval of Application No. 79024 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 6 -14 -79 -7- I 2. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to final plat approval by the City Council an agreement shall be reached between the Osseo School District and the Brooklyn Center School District so that their common boundary line does not intersect proposed lots. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 79028 and 79038 (Hot Line Realty) The next items of consideration were Application No. 79028, preliminary plat approval, and Application No. 79038, site and building plan approval, for the Moorwood Townhouses. The Secretary stated that the area in question involved the present Moorwood Townhouses that are located north of County Road 10, east of the Twin Lake North Apartments and lies westerly of the single family residential hones facing June Avenue North. He added that it is the intent of the applicant to complete the yet unbuilt portions of the Moorwood Townhouses. The Secretary reported that the applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval under Application No. 79028 to subdivide Outlots A, B, and C of the Moorwood Townhouse Addition into 16 lots consisting of Block 1, 2 and 3 of the Moorwood Townhouse Second Addition. He stated that approximately two or three years ago, the First Wisconsin Bank took over ownership of the complex following fore- closure proceedings. Foundations_ had been laid at that time in the area con - templated for development under this application and the City required that either construction uct on on the units be completed or the open fi�undations.fiTl d " p p e in because the situation was considered a hazard. First Wisconsin chose not to continue the construction and filled in the foundations. They also undertook a platting at that time which established the three blocks under consideration as outlots for future development. The Secretary stated that Application No. 79038 was a request for site and building plan approval to construct the 16 townhouse units. It is the applicant's intent to complete the buildings in the exact same manner as originally approved by the City with no deviations or changes. The Secretary also responded that the First Wisconsin Bank has posted a site Performance Bond and has undertaken the completion of the approved landscape plan for the common areas. He stated that a site performance inspection has b � been made and that F' t the staff has m r et with a representative of First Wisco nsin and the applicant regarding site work remaining to be completed. The bond will be held until the City has assurance that the original landscape plan will be implemented. The Secretary noted one change from the original site plan, that being the con- tinuation of Lake Curve Lane. He stated that under the original plan this street was not intended to make a complete loop to Shores Drive, although blacktop has been installed. He added that it was his understanding that persons living in the complex desire the continuation of the loop.' He noted that B -612 concrete curb and gutter would be required in this area PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He asked the applicant whether there was any significant change from the original proposal. Mr. Dale Melby responded that no changes were contemplated at this time and indicated to the Secretary that he would pick up liability for the site work not yet completed by First Wisconsin by way of a cash deposit. 6 -14 -79 -8- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Th e is, Hawes Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79028 Hot Line Realty Motion Commissioner Malec i seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 79028 subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City , Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79038 Hot Line Realt Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 79038 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 permits. 2. Any 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 Homeowners Association Agreement is subject to review by the City Attorney to assure that the lots being developed are properly included in the agreement. 5. Plan approval comprehends completion of Lake Curve Lane as a full loop through to Shores Drive. B -612 curb and gutter is required in the area where it is not already in place. 6. Development of this portion of the Moorwood Townhouses shall also be subject to applicable conditions of the original development approval by the City Council under Application No. 70012 7. The property is subject to final plat approval prior to the issuance of occupancy permi 8. Trees and shrubs for the new townhouse units shall be compatible with plantings for the existing uni Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 79030 (B.C.I.P. Shin le Creek Plaza � o g The Secretary ntroduced the ne - it em f c on s ideration, site and buildi y xt e o cns d gp lan approval to construct three speculative buildings totalling approximately 140,000 sq. ft. on a 13 acre site located on Freeway Boulevard west of Schmitt Music The Secretary noted that the applicant has shown parking for 262 cars which 6 -14.79 -9- implies that approximately 15% of each building could be used for offices with the remaining portion to be used for manufacturing and storage. The Secretary pointed out that Freeway Boulevard is designated as a major thoroughfare and that a 50 ft. building setback is therefore required. He stated that there is a discrepancy on the plan at the southeast corner of Building No. •3 which does not meet setback requirements. He added, however, that the architect has acknowledged this discrepancy and will correct it. The Secretary voiced another concern having to do with the 120 ft. area proposed between Building No. 1 and Building No. 3 which is intended as loading dock area. Generally, about 135 to 140 feet is provided in such areas. The Secretary also noted the existence of a 25 ft. sanitary sewer easement which runs in a south- easterly direction at about the center of the site from west to east for approxi- mately 635 ft. and then heads in a southerly direction towards Freeway Boulevard. He indicated that buildings cannot be located over this type of easement, but can be built up to it. The Secretary then discussed the building exterior and landscape treatment proposed for the site. The area behind Building No. 1 along Shingle Creek would be treated with a natural ground cover. Mr. Beisner emphasized that the use on the site would be a service center and would not require a great deal of truck traffic. He stated that the idea behind the narrower driving lane was to, in fact, discourage such traffic and to widen the lane to 140 ft. would have the opposite effect. He voiced the assumption that potential users would look at the layout of the building and would locate elsewhere if their operation involved the use of large trailers. The-Secretary pointed out that this might turn out to be wishful thinking, that other types of uses could come in eventually to aggrevate the situation. Commissioner Hawes asked whether all of the dock doors could be moved to one building. Mr. Beisner responded that the space arrangement within the buildings prevented this. He also made the point that increasing the driving area width by 20 feet would simply eliminate 20 feet of green area. Commissioner Hawes further asked the applicant about the possibility of drive -in doors. Mr. Beisner replied that drive -in doors were being considered, but that dock doors tend to be rented faster than drive -in doors. In answer to Chairman Pierce, Mr. Beisner commented that the large open preserve at the northwest portion of the site was left unused because of poor soil conditions and in order to make for an attractive view from the offices. The Planning Commission then discussed with the applicant the possibility of moving the westerly curb cut further west to serve two properties at the same time. The Commission then debated the question of the separation between the two buildings at some length. Mr. Beisner reiterated that his firm was not en- couraging the use of large semis in this area of the Industrial Park, and estimated that only 25% of the.dock doors were being used in the Industrial Park at any one time. Commissioner Lucht stated that he preferred to see the plan contemplate the optimum use, not simply what the applicant can get by with. Commissioner Lucht left the table at 11:15 p.m. and returned at 11 :23 p.m. 6 -14 -79 -10- 'I The Secretary recommended that the applicant either widen the driveway or put in one building solely with drive -in doors. Mr. Beisner argued that the long range interest of the owner and that of the City are essentially the same, but the Secretary countered that the City would have to live with the decisions made now long after he and Mr. Beisner have left the scene. In further discussion, Commissioner Erickson pointed out that controlling the size of the vehicle making deliveries would be difficult. In response to a comment by Mr. Bei'sner, the Secretary stated that the Planning Commission did have the authority to require a wider separation between buildings. Chairman Pierce asked what the problem would be with widening the separation. Mr. Beisner answered that soil conditions to the northwest prevent moving Building No. and parking requirements would make it difficult to move building No. 3 toward Freeway Boulevard. He suggested the possibility of staggering the location of the front building in order to widen the driving lane. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 79030 Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application too. 79030 for site and building plan approval for Shingle Creek Plaza, with direction to the applicant to provide a plan indicating a 140 ft. separation between Building Nos. 1 -and 3. 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 intent to get a different clientele for the building was genuine and did not feel that the 140 ft. separation was necessary. APPLICATION NOS. 79031 and 79032,l eadow Corporation The next item of consideration was Application Nos. _79031 and 79032 submitted by Meadow Corporation for site and building plan approval and preliminary plat approval for Plat 5 of The Ponds townhouse development. The Secretary explained the proposed plat under Application No. 79032 consisted of all of Outlots E and H and part of Outlots A and F of The Ponds located at approximately what will be known as 72nd Circle and Unity Avenue North. The plat, he said, would create 76 lots, 72 of which would be for dwelling units, 3 of which would be for common areas and an outlof for a private roadway to be known as 72nd Circle. The Secretary noted the landscape treatment proposed on the site and building plan and indicated, that the plans seem to be consistent with the overall master plan for the development area. The Secretary also added that there would be fencing required between Rl and R3 districts to the east of the site. Mr. Dietrich acknowledged that 640 feet of fencing was planned for this phase of The Ponds. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce opened the meeting for a public hearing Noting that no residents from the area were present to speak to the proposal, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary asked the applicant about the progress in selling existing lots Mr. Dietrich replied that 106 of the 136 lots developed to date are sold. There was -a brief discussion on the status of construction approved to date. Chairman Pierce inquired whether any of the units constructed would be for rent. Mr. Dietrich explained that Phase 7 and 8 of The Ponds would be for rent, although the units would be platted in the same fashion -as condominiums,. 6 -14 -79 -11- The Superintendent of Engineering pointed out the existence of an 3 inch water main through the common area on the east side of the plat, but added that no problems existed with the easement. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79031 Meadow Cor oration Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval for Application No. 79031 (site and building plan) for The Ponds Plat 5 as submitted by the applicant 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 permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to 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. Development of this portion of the overall development shall also be subject to applicable conditions of the original development approval by the City Council under Application No. 76041 including fencing along the RI (single family residential) zoning district boundary. 5. Viable turf, such as sod or seed, shall be provided for all ooen spaces in accordance with approval by the City. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed: ACTION_ RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79032 (Meadow Corporation Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 79032 (preliminary plat) for The Ponds Plat 5 subject to the following conditions: I. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The final plat shall indicate necessary drainage, utility and walkway easements on the easterly portion of the site. APPLICATION NO. 79033 (Dayton Development Company) The Secretary introduced the next item for consideration, preliminary plat approval for Dayton Development Company to subdivide a ten acre parcel known as Tract A, R.L.S. 1262, into Lots l and 2, Block 1, Brookdale Second Addition. The Secretary pointed out the parcel is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by County Road 10 and Northway Drive, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North and on the north by single family residential property. He explained that the effect of the plat would be to create an approximate 2.5 acre parcel on the easterly portion of this site abutting Xerxes Avenue North and Northway Drive and an approximate 7.5 acre parcel abutting Brooklyn Boulevard, County Road 10 and Northway Drive. The Secretary also commented that a bank is proposing to develop the easterly 2.5 acres. He indicated that certain corrections to the Plat requested by staff had been submitted by the applicant on the day of the meeting 6 -14 -79 -12- Chairman Pierce called on the applicant to speak on behalf of the proposal. The applicant's representative, Mr. Emmett Alberghotti, stated that his company was considering making the division of the land along an easement to the west of the line presently proposed for property division. Chairman Pierce asked whether parking would be allowed on the easement. The Secretary indicated that parking would be allowed, but not buildings. In answer to Chairman Pierce, the Superintendent of Engineering stated that if 'a different boundary line were proposed, the plat would have to be revised prior to final plat approval. Mr. Alberghotti stated that he had no objection to this procedure. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the bank would have use for the additional land if the property line were moved to the easement line. Mr. Alberghotti admitted that the bank did not have any interest in the extra land. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting aginst: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79033 yton Development Company) Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis'to recommend approval of Application No. 79033, preliminary plat approval of Brookdale Second Addition subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2, The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favo -r: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Superintendent of Engineering left the table at 12:12 a.m, and returned at 12:23 a.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS A PPLICATION NO. 79036 (James Talmage The first item of consideration for the Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals was an appeal by Mr. James Talmage seeking reversal of an administrative ruling concerning the use of a vacant nonconforming single family home at 5000 France Avenue North. The Secretary explained that Mr. 'Talmage is seeking to obtain a Rental Dwelling License for the property in order to use the home for single family dwelling purposes. The property, he noted, is zoned R4 in which single family homes are not permitted. The Secretary went on to explain that according to Section 35 -111 of the City Ordinances, a nonconforming use which ceases for two years cannot be resumed. City records indicate, he said, that the home has not been occupied since before January 1977 and that he has, therefore, refused to accept the owner's application for a Rental Dwelling, License. The Secretary indicated that the applicant had purchased the property for the purpose of constructing a parking lot accessory to the industrial use which he operates across the street. This is also a nonpermitted use in the R4 district. He noted the applicant's contention that the circumstances surrounding the non • use of the property over the past two years are unusual since during that time he had several discussions with members of the City staff regarding the possible use of the property for a parking lot. He added, however, that the former City Manager and former Director of Planning and Inspection had communicated many times to the applicant, both in writing and at various meetings, the unlikelihood 6 -14 -79 -13- I of using the property for a parking lot. Those communications also urged the applicant to make the premises fit for use as a single family residence. The Secretary also raised the issue of zoning, and noted that no more than three R4 type units could be placed on the parcel in question with a variance. He a o of parcel would make the pointed out that rezoning t R1 or R2 the p appeal .unnecessary. The Secretary asked the Commission, however, to rule strictly on the appeal and stated that if the Commission were to overturn the ruling concerning the status of the nonconforming use, it must note the unique circumstances surrounding the I case and must determine that there is reason for a contrary ruling. Chairman Pierce asked whether the residence had been inspected for a Rental Dwelling License. Building Official Will Dahn answered that it had not. Chair- man Pierce and Commissioner Theis inquired about the surrounding land uses. The Secretary indicated a four plex existed on the parcel to the east and single family homes were located north of the parcel. He explained that the R4 zoning- of the parcel was clearly to establish a - buffer between the industrial use to the south and the single family residential use to the north. Chairman Pierce recognized the applicant. Mr. Talmage explained that he had intended to use the land for a parking lot and did not rent the house on the parcel because he was pursuing this option. This attempt went on for two years, he explained, ear ruled out he laved, and now that the use far parking had been clearly , P p 9 y wished to rent out the existing home. While the ruling is technically correct, he admitted, there seemed to be unique circumstances which justify his appeal. Chairman Pierce stated that the purpose of the nonconforming use classification is to phase out uses that are incompatible. Mr. Talmage answered that to deny the appeal would deny him the use of the property. Chairman Pierce noted on the other hand, that to repair the property for rental would extend the life of a nonconforming use. The Commission then discussed the possibility of rezoning the parcel to R2. Chairman Pierce asked whether rezoning the parcel to R2 would affect the structural conformity of Mikros Engineering across the street as to setback. Mr. Talmage answered that Mikros Engineering would meet that setback require- ment. Commissioner Lucht asked whether rezoning such a small parcel of land would constitute spot zoning. The Secretary explained that spot zoning does not necessarily relate to the size of the parcel. He added that spot zoning is a zoning that is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the buffer purpose of the present R4 zoning, Mr. Talmage stated that he could not understand how an apartment would be a better buffer than a- single family home. Commissioner Theis explained that the nonconforming single family home at 5000 France Avenue "forth would be left without a buffer. Commissioner Lucht argued that to allow the house to continue its use on the property would defeat the purpose of phasing out nonconforming uses. He maintained that the two year vacancy under the ordinance is the same as 60% destruction. The Commission briefly discussed the option of down zoning the property to R2. Mr. Talmage opposed this course. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79036 Talmage Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to deny the appeal of James Talmage and to uphold the administrative ruling by the Director of Planning and Inspections relative to his use of the nonconforming m g structure re at 5000 France Avenue North. Vdting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting_ against: none. The motion passed. 6 -14.79 -14- APPLICATION NO. 79037 (Howe, Inc. The M t t� em of consideration was an appeal by Howe, Inc. to reverse an admini- strative determination by the Director of Planning and Inspection regarding the application of current Zoning Ordinance requirements to the reconstruction of Pp 9 q the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 at the Howe Fertilizer property. The Secretary outlined the history of past applications by Howe, Inc. to rebuild the warehouse which was destroyed by fire earlier in the year. The City Council, on May 14, 1979, had concurred with the Planning Commission and made certain findings of fact which would allow Howe Fertilizer to rebuild the north building on their property. A site and building plaq proposal (Application No. 79016 and a variance (Application No. 79017, which the Commission recommended denying, had been withdrawn by the applicant also on May 14, 1979 with the indication that new site plans would be submitted. The Secretary stated that he had dis- cussed the action taken by the City Council and direction given for further review of the plans with the applicant's representatives and in a letter dated May 17, 1979, conveyed the procedures and requirements for that review. A re- vised plan was submitted and a meeting with the applicant was held at which time it was again indicated to the applicant that current ordinance provisions relating to setback requirements landscaping, parking, drainage, and other matters would be applied, perhaps not in their entirety, but at least to the area proposed for the reconstruction. The Secretary stated that it was pointed out to the applicant that based on design, a building similar in size (both square footage and cubic footage) and functional ability could be provided while meeting ordinance requirements for setbacks, buffers, and some landscaping. It was also indicated that the traffic circulation could be continued around and through the site although somewhat modified and that the application of the current Zoning Ordinance requirements was not unreasonable. The Secretary noted that at that meeting he was furnished with a copy of a letter from Donald D. Notvik of the State Attorney General's office regarding the high- way property at 49th and Brooklyn Boulevard which could change the interpretation for requiring a 50 ft. building setback. In light of the letter, the Secretary said that he had informed the applicant that a 10 ft. building setback from the highway property might be appropriate. The Secretary explained that the revisons requested on the Howe site plan would have applied the current ordinance provisions to the area immediately north of the middle building, to provide additional parking on the site, and to address the need for correcting drainage problems. He maintained that the revisions would not cause a major change in traffic patterns and would provide a 100 ft. buffer and landscaped area north of the middle building between the reconstructed building and the single family residential property lying to the west. The Secretary stated that when asked by Mr. Howe's attorney if he would accept a plan that did not meet with the requested revisions, he responded that he would only if a variance application was submitted concurrently with a written indication as to how the ordinance variance standards were met. If this was not submitted, he would not place the matter before the Planning Commission because th ey reviewing would be r viewin a plan that did not meet current ordinance re- quirements. Mr. Russell's response, the Secretary said, was that because Howe Inc. is nonconforming as to use and structure, the Zoning Ordinance requirements adopted after the structure was built cannot be applied and no variances can be required. He based this argument on his memo to the Secretary on May 25, 1979 6 -14 -79 -15- The Secretary explained that based on the direction received previously from the Planning Ccmmission in its review of the Howe site plan and past precedent where the City has required compliance with current Zoning Ordinance standards when major structural alterations were undertaken that he was prepared to only accept a plan showing that the requirements were met or a variance from these requirements was being sought. The Secretary reported that he had informed Mr. Howe's attorney that the City Attorney had reviewed his May 25, 1979 memo and had advised him that he was proceeding properly. The applicant was then advised of his right to appeal the administrative ruling. In a notice of appeal dated June 4, 1979, Howe, Inc. appealed the administrative determination using the May 25, 1979 memo from Mr. Russell as their basis of appeal. The Secretary next reviewed a memo from City Attorney Richard Schieffer. He stated that the City Attorney's opinion indicates, that the application of certain ordinance requirements regarding setback, landscaping, buffering,.parking and other matters, result in no significant loss of investment and that a build- ing of the same size and general configuration can be built on the site while adhering to buffer and setback requirements. - The City Attorney adds that there' is no unconstitutional taking of property rights without compensation. There- fore, the basis for justification for permitting the building to be erected in violation of these requirements does not exist. It is also the City Attorney's opinion, he said, that it must be recognized that nonconforming use provisions simply do not provide the property owner with the justification to ignor all regulations which have come into being after 1957. Only those regulations which deprive the property owner of a substantial investment must be relaxed, he said. After certain clarifications, the Chairman called on the applicant to speak on behalf of his appeal. Mr. Russell briefly reviewed past decisions on Howe, Inc.'s application to rebuild their warehouse. He cited three basic objections. to rebuilding posed by the City: 1. The site is an illegal nonconforming use. 2. The residential area should be rounded out according to the Comprehensive Plan. 3. All current zoning regulations apply after the fire. The first two objections had been dealt with under the last application, he said. He argued that the third objection is equally faulty. He framed the question as whether Howe, Inc. can exist as it did before the fire. This, he said, is a constitutional right. The State cannot deprive a person of property without due process of law, he said. He cited the case of Connor vs. Township of Chanhassen in which the court ruled the plaintiffs had a vested right to operate their business. Mr. Russell stated that for the City to pass an ordinance that allows a 0 setback (as in the 1950 Ordinance) and then to pass an ordinance that requires - a 100 ft. setback amounts to a taking of property if the latter ordinance provision is enforced. He pointed out to the Commission the portion of Section 35 -111 which states: "the lawful use of any land or building existing at the -time of adoption of this ordinance even if such use does not conform to the regulation of this ordinance." Mr. Russell argued that if the City were not in a position to apply the zoning regulations to the Howe property before the fire, they certainaly cannot apply those regulations -after the fire. 6 -14 -79 -16- The only conclusion which can be drawn from a literal reading of the ordinance, he said, is that the building hould be rebuilt in precisely the same lace as 9 P Y p the previous building. In response to Commissioner Theis, Mr. Russell stated that Howe, Inc. was willing to accept the requirements of the Building Code which have been added since 1957 for safety reasons. Commissioner Theis noted that the setback requirements which have been instituted since 1957 also serve a safety function. Mr. Russell disagreed. Commissioner Erickson pointed out that the plan submitted by the applicant was not in fact identical to the old building, but amounted to an expansion. Mr. Russell conceded that there had been give and take on that question. Chairman Pierce stated that any imposition of the current ordinance requirements which would deny Howe, Inc. the use of its property should be rectified by a variance procedure. Mr. Russell denied the need for a variance. Chairman Pierce and Mr. Russell discussed the intent of Section 35 -111. Mr. Russell argued that it allows nonconforming uses to continue without conforming to ordinance requirements. Chairman Pierce stated that it allows nonconforming uses to continue, but that it does not exempt them from ordinance requirements when they , can be applied. In response to Chairman Pierce, Mr. Russell argued that the City's position that Howe, Inca must give up land for buffer and setback purposes is a taking of property which both the City's Ordinance and the Constitution forbid. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, Mr. Russell stated that the applicant only sought an exemption from the zoning requirements of the City Ordinances, not the Building Code. Chairman Pierce stated that according to his reading of the ordinance, noncon- forming uses are entitled to keep what they have at the time they become noncon - forming, but it does not exempt nonconforming uses from current construction requirements when building or adding on to a structure. The Secretary took issue with previous statements made by Mr. Russell implying that the City had been unreasonable and one -sided in its review of the rebuilding of the destroyed building. He stated that the City had looked carefully at a vEry complex issue and had taken into consideration all of the arguements made both for and against the rebuilding before making a finding that a structure could be rebuilt. He added that the minutes of past meetings indicate that the Planning Commission has given clear direction that they expect the current standards to be applied in the review of a site plan.- He.cited examples of other nonconforming situations which, when additions or alterations were under- taken, had to meet current ordinance requirements. He pointed out that he felt Section 35 -111 did not prohibit the application of current Zoning Ordinance Standards in a situation such as this where a building was totally destroyed and the requirements could be reasonably applied. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79037 (Howe, Inc. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki to deny the appeal of Howe, Inc. and uphold the ruling of the Director of Planning and Inspection that the current Zoning Ordinance requirements are applicable to the reconstruction of the building destroyed by fire and that a plan will not be accepted for review unless the requirements are met or a variance is sought. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 6 -14 -79 -17- i a DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary reminded the Commission that two rezoning applications are out- ' standing and that due to the number of business items being received it would be well to consider these at the study meeting on June 28, 1979. Commissioners d s v taken Theis an Hawes indicated that the neighborhood meetings have lace to e p ., 9 consider the rezonin 9 s and that minutes of those meetings would be submitted soon. The Secretary lso stated that rezonin s are not a matter of a vote y t t g , but of the guidelines in Section 35 -208. Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings give an indication, he said, but they are not binding. He added that the Planning Commission has no obligation to concur with the advice of the Neighbor- hood Groups. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commis - sioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. , The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 2:06 a.m. Chairman 6-14-79 -18- CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE N0. _ AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT EXISTING ON A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, J. R. MURPHEY ADDITION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN QS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The utility and drainage easement existing on the easterly five feet of the northerly 132.73 feet of Lot 1, Blocl: 1, J. R. Murphey Addition, according to the plat of record thereof, files of the Co Pecorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, is hereby N , acated as a public utility and draina easement. Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 19 Mayor i ATTEST: Clerk Published in the official newspaper Effective Date (Underline indicates new matter). MEMORANDUM E ORANDUM TO: Mary Harty FROM: - Jim Lindsay j cfi DATE: June 20, 1979 SUBJECT: Pr000sed Ordinance Change for Next Council Meeting. Attached please find a proposed ordinance change relating to residency requirements for sworn police officers. The attached proposed changes of the Personnel Ordinance were reviewed by Mr. Splinter and myself with the . Teamster's Business Agent and several officers representing the rank and file member ship. The City did not negotiate P Y with the union, but agreed to discuss this matter. All arties involved indicated P nd Gated the ro osed chancres would. be an P P ., improvement over the existing ordinance. Mr. Splinter requested this be _placed on the June 25th agenda to be considered by the Council. i . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR POLICE OFFICERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 17 -104 (3) of the City Ordinances is hereby amended to read as follows: (3) Residency Policy. Emergency public safety response requirements dictate that a reason - able public policy be established for police officer residency. It is thereby declared that within eighteen months after original appointment, police officers shall [reside within the following described boundaries :] comply with the following residency require ments: [East of Mississippi River - An area bounded by Mississippi Street on the north, Avenue (Hwy. #65) on the east, and Lowry Avenue on the south.] All sworn personnel must establish his or her residence so that the driving time between his or her residence and the police station will be no more than thirty (30) minutes [West of Mississippi River That area of Hennepin County bounded on the south by 26th Avenue North (extended) and on the west by State Highways #55 and #101.1 Any officer residing east of the Mississippi River, and who would use e Interstate 694 Bridge or the Camden Bri in Minne- apolis, must establish his or her residence so that the dr time from his or her re sidence to either of the aforementioned brid is no more than fifteen (15) rninutes s a d, n dd i.tlo n , saia ff icers must arrive at .ie ther f the a tio br d ;es - sat lea t fifte (15) m Lute before starting time. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective 'as=ter.' adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publica- tion. ORDINANCE NO. adopted this day of , '9 I Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 3. Residency Policy. Emergency public safety response requirements dictate that a reasonable public policy be. established for police officer residency. It is thereby declared that within eighteen months after original appointment, police officers shall comply with the following residency requirements; All sworn personnel must establi.sh.his.or her residence so that the driving time between his or her residence and the police station will be no more than thirty C30) minutes Any officer residing east of the Mississippi. River, and who would use either Interstate 694 Bridge or the Camden Bridge in Minneapolis, must establish his or her residence. so that the driving time from his or her residence to either of the aforementioned bridges is no more than fifteen (.15) minutes and, in addition, said officers must arrive. at either of the aforementioned bridges at least fifteen (15) ` "`minutes before starting time. f CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 DROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561.5440 EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE ENTER 561.5720 June 4, 1979 Memo to: Jerry Splinter; From: Jim Noska f Subject: Power Outage at Lift Station #2 on Saturday, June 2, 1979. At 7:00 a.m. on June 2, 1979 I received a call from Cap Smith informing me that a traffic accident occurring in the vicinity of 55th and Lyndale Ave. North had resulted in a power outage at Lift Station #2. Cab told me that he had notified the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission m y attempt to obtain a tanker and pump to control the flow into the lift station. Also he told me he thought the manholes upstream would act as a reservoir to hold back the flow for a period of time. He eras then in the process of contacting NSP to get the power back on line. I told him I would be available, and he told we he would contact me as to the status of the situation. At approximately 7:30 a.m. Cap called me back and indicated a Metro crew had been dispatched to pick up their tanker and pump from the Anoka site. NSP had also been contacted and would be getting primary power back to the lift station as soon as possible. I told him at that time I was going out to the site and would arrive there at approximately 8:00 a.m. I arrived at Lift Station #2 at 8:00 a.m. and at the site was one of NSP's trouble shooters and two of our crew, Dick Nordstrom and Mark Ambrose. At that time the level of the sewage in the lift station was approximately 6 to 7 feet below the bottom of the floor level and had only been rising slightly since the time of the outage. The NSP trouble shooter informed me his'overheaid crews had been notified and should be on the site shortly. Approximately 8:15 a.m., the AIetro crew arrived with their tanker and began to remove the sewage from the lift station in attempt to control the rising water level. I left the site then to pick up Cap at Well House #6. I arrived at Well House #6 shortly after 8:20 a.m. and discussed the situa- tion with Cap. We took a look at plans of the pipes leading into and out of the lift station and identified which manhole (the mnhole at 57th & Lyndale) would be most susceptible to overflow. We decided at that point not to con- tact the PCA. I attenated to contact you at your home and received no answer. Cap and I then departed from Well House #6 for the lift station site. pa ge 2 We arrived at the lift station site somewhere between 8 :35 a.m. and 8:40 a.m. and reveiwed the situation as to the rising water level at the station. The level of the sewage in the lift station was now 3 to 4 feet below the bottom of the floor level and was now increasing the elevation_ quite rapidly. Metro was continuing to remove the sewage with their tanker but they were not able to keep up with the now increased flow into the lift station. At this time NSP line crews had still not arrived on the site. Myself, Cap, and Mark went to the river to see whether there was any leakage at the manhole on 57th ave. Upon examination of the manhole, we found no leakage at that time and returned to the lift station. We arrived at the lift station at approximately 8 :50 a.m. and found the level of sewage in the lift station had risen another I had Can have Mark turn off the switches to the pumps in preparation of NSP connecting the power so that a power surge would not affect the motors of the pumps. At 8 :55 a.m. I informed the NSP trouble shooter if we did not have power back to us within the half an hour we would be facing a spill condition. He again radioed to his line crews who told him they would be on the site almost L-n ed.iately. NSP line crews arrived at 9:10 a.m. Metro crews were continuing to pLUT down the level in the lift station which had now reached the critical stage. We radioed to police dispatch at 9:15 a.m. that NSP was setting up on the roadway and would be blocking off one lane of traffic and requested they send out a police squad to direct traffic in the area since DISP did not have any flashers or warning signs on their trucks. NSP crews began putting in the primary service line at approximately 9:20 a.m. Shortly after 9:30 a.m. there was a near vehicular accident just south of 55th and Camden where the NSP vehicle was blocking off the traffic. No police squad v7as on the site at that time. At 9:40 a.m. power was restored to the lift station. At t`at time there was less than half a foot of free board in the pump station between the level of sewage in the station and the overflow level. The three pumps began to oper- ate and the level in the station at 9:45 a.m. had dropped significantly by approximately 5 feet. Mark returned to his other duties and we ordered Dick to remain at the site until NSP had finished their work. We told Dick we would have the water tank out on Monday to wash down the pure station area. By 9 :50 a.m. NSP had all their vehicles except for their pole truck off the roadway. At this time no police squad had yet arrived to the area. Cap and I then left the site. Shortly before 10:00 a.m, we arrived at Well House #6. I p1nned Warren Johnson in order to discuss the delays with NSP crews with him. I was informed he would return at approximately 10:30 a.m. Cap and I then discussed the outcome of the incident and the need for some backup power source for our lift stations. Mark came back to the pump house at approximately 10:20 a.m. and use informed him as we had Dick before we left the site to make sure to document times with occurrences and to do so today. page 3 At 10.30 a.m. I contacted Warren Johnson and voiced rcy displeasure to him regarding the lengthy amount of time that NSP had taken to get service back to the lift station. I knew he was aware of the ramifications that an over- flow would have brought about and how such an occurence would have reflected negatively on both the city and r Warren assured me he would look into the matter as to what the delays were and inform me of his findings on rbnday morning. After my discussion with Warren, Cap and I both left for the day. I wish to point out that we were fortunate in being able to control the sit- uation without having to involve the PCA. You are well aware of the potential for adverse publicity which could result in having to call the PCA in on such an incident. Another point I wish to make is this incident again makes it clearly evident of the need for an alternate power source at our lift stations. Had we not been able to make use of i10tro's equipment, and NSP not been able to get ser- vice back to the station, even though it was at the last minute, we would have been faced with a spill condition. I'm sure you are aware of the fines involved which could be levied against the City for point source pollution, in addition to the cost of clean -up that may have been involved. We can no longer be without alternate power sources at our lift stations. I propose we immediately set forth to provide the stand -by generators to all of our lift stations. We can begin at lift station #2 in the remodeling that will be necessary due to the force main. relocation in conjunction with F194 construction. A stand-by generator can be located on the site of Lift Station #2 as part of this remodeling. We should then begin looking t a schedule g g g a St ation c that would provide generating eneratin Po wer next to Lift rr � l and then to all other lift stations by the end of June 1980. Myself and Mr. Smith will be prepared to discuss the recent incident with you and the proposals noted in this memorandum at your convenience. • June 18, 1979 MEMO TO: CATV Commissioner Members FROM: John T. Irving, President - Commission and City Manager - City of.Crystal RE: Seminar At our Cable Television meeting of Monday, June 11, it was decided that a- seminar would take place in the City of Crystal, and would be presented by CTIC.. I have received notification that the seminar will take place on Tuesday, July 17, 1979, from about 1:00 to 4:00 PM. As we discussed previously, our regular meeting will take place at Noon prior to the seminar. This early notification is being ent to you so that g y you can inform your Councils and your representatives to the CATV Commission with sufficient notice so it can be scheduled on • their calendars. Further notice of the meeting and other information will be submitted at the usual time, about a week before the scheduled meeting. If you have any - questions, please feel free to call my office.- JTI:PJH:pjr M & C No. -79 -16 June 22, 1979 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject: Appointment of City Prosecutor To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Currently the City's legal business is conducted with the firm of Schieffer and Carson, Ltd. We have been advised that Mr. Clelland and Mr. Carson, who are employees of that firm, are establishing their own business outside of the firm. For the last two to three years Mr. Clelland has served the City as its prosecutor and representative in court to handling ordinance violations and police tickets and similar related legal business. Mr. Schieffer of the firm has handled the general counsel business of the City. Because the police department and City staff is very satisfied with the services of Mr. Clelland as prosecutor and because it is important to keep continuity as much as possible in those services, we are recommending that Mr. Clelland be appointed City prosecutor. Mr. Schieffer would then still be general counsel of the City. This change was precipitated by the division of the firm and as far as the City is concerned the appointment of Mr. Clelland as prosecutor would assure the status quo in terms of legal services for the City. There is, of course, times no clear division between what might be considered general legal counsel work and City prosecutor work. on those occasions it would be my recommendation the City Manager be allowed to make the final decision in terms of exactly where the work should classified. Also, currently Mr. Clelland is involved in a number of cases involving work other than prosecution and it would be my recommendation we continue to work with the attorneys that we have previously been working with until those cases have been concluded. There will be no increase in the fees being charged by either firm in this process. Therefore, there will be no impact on the budget. Res y submitte plinter nager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER M & C No. 79 -15 June 22, 1979 FROM THE OFFICE 9 OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject: Industrial Development Revenue Bond Requests To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Since the passage of the City Council's policy on the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds /mortgages was passed, I have received three proposals for these bonds. I have had a number of other inquiries about the bonds but in terms of written proposals, I have received a request from Cass Screw for approximately $800,000.00, Dale Tile for $1.4 million and from Medtronics, Inc. for $4.3 million. These requests amount to a total of $6.5 million, slightly over the Council's established 50 of assessed valuation limit. However, the dollar amounts of these requests are preliminary and subject to refinement. The request of Dale Tile and Medtronics is in a slightly more advanced stage than that of Cass Screw. In light of the requests and the fact that during the last legislative session changes were made to the laws governing the issuance of these bonds, I would recommend the following action: 1. Because three projects in the opinion of staff meet the criteria in the Council policy and because new State laws requires a public hearing, we would recommend the Council judge the three projects in compliance with their policy guidelines.;(understanding there may be a problem with the total dollar limit in the guidelines) and set a public hearin g date for the second City Council meeting in July to consider approving these bonds. 2. Between now and the late July hearing authorize the City staff to establish forms consistent with the guidelines of the Council and the State law which will allow the three applicants to fill them out and for the City staff to negotiate with the applicants the cost of review on the part of the City. As you will recall in your policy, the City is to recover any costs it has in analyzing the applicant's proposal. If the applicant and the City staff can agree on the cost part of the proposal, then the next time you would see the final product would be at the late July meeting. However, if the applicant and the staff disagree on the costs, then I would recommend the applicant be allowed to appeal the staff's decision to the City Council at some meeting prior to the late July public hearing. I believe if the Council follows the above recommendations, a minimum amount of Council time and effort can be expended in handling these requests. We are prepared to discuss in further detail any questions you may have regarding the details of this process at the City Council meeting. R p f Pager i ted, era d ter City M CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER June 12, 1979 Mr. Gerald G. Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Medtronic, Inc. Project Dear Mr. Splinter: Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc. has.been retained by Medtronic, Inc. to assist them in financing an addition to their factory located in Brooklyn Center- Contemplated expansion to the existing facility will be approximately 52,000 sq. ft. The projected cost of the project is anticipated to be the following: Building $3,300,000 Dry room equipT�ent 150,000 other equipment 750,000 Financing costs 100,000 Thtal $4,300,000 It is currently projected that this expansion will create approximately 75 new jobs and, of course, a substantial increase in the City's tax base. We have reviewed the Industrial Development Revenue Bond policy adopted by the City Council on Monday, June 11 and believe that this project qualifies thereunder. In fact, Medtronic probably exemplifies those policies better. than any other Minnesota corporation. Accordingly, we respectfully request the City of Brooklyn Center to issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds on the behalf of Medtronic for the purpose of constructing and equipping the project. In addition, we ask that our request be placed on the City Council agenda for June 25, wherein the City would establish a public hearing date for the City Council meting dated July 23, and upon the closing of the public hearing proceed with the passage of the inducement resolution on that date. Dain, Kalman & Quail Incorporated 100 Dain Tower * Minneapolis, MN 55402 * (612) 371-2711 e Telex 290247 * Telegrams DKQ UNDWR MPS Mr. Gerald G. Splinter June 12, 1979 Page 2 Mr. Splinter, we recognize the City's current position, therefore, if there i absolutely anything I can do to expedite matters please call me. I have enclosed my card. Sincerely, Stephen acobs Corporate Finance Department cl Enc. cc: Mayor Dean A. Nyquist Richard J. Schieffer - City Attorney Richard W. Nunn - Medtronic, Inc. MORTGAGE BANKERS Since 1885 4940 VIKING DRIVE EDINA. MN 55435 June 20, 1979 TELEPHONE(612)835 -7511 Mr. Jerry Splinter, City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Re: City of Brooklyn Center Industrial Development Revenue Bond William J. Dale Project Dear Mr. Splinter: As per your suggestion, I am requesting that the above referenced project be placed on the agenda for the next City Council meeting, Monday, .tune 25, 1979. This specific request is for a public hearing as dictated by recent state law. We are striving for a combination of events to occur simultaneously, which will greatly speed the project through its financing stages. Firs Public hearing to be scheduled as soon as possible, preferably July 23, 1979. This hearing needs to be scheduled on the June 25th meeting. Second During this period, June 25 through July 23, an application for tax exempt financing to be put together by the City, and this appli— cation then to be completed by William Dale. Third Upon acceptance of the project by the City Council, adoption of the preliminary resolution on the July 23 meeting, It is extremely important to this project that we utilize time as carefully as possible. Without sacrificing quality for expedience, I hope the above schedule is possible to = EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LENDER 13 01 0502 c1F.rsaaw /w. Zrarura� con Mr. Jerry Splinter June 20, 1979 Page two the City. I earnestly believe this project meets the objectives of the City's newly created policy and would make an ideal beginning for its industrial development revenue bond program. thank you for all the time and energy that you have already spent on this project and with the program in general. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ROTHSCHILD FINANCIAL CORPORATION KAZA ac PJA Richard C. Palmiter Commercial Loan Officer RC P:n j cc: Dean Nyquist, Mayor M & C No.- 79 -14 June 22, 1979 FROM THE OFFICE g OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Subject: Professional Services Contract - Par 3 Golf Course Feasibility Study To the Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached is a copy of a proposal I received from Brauer & Associates to do a feasibility study on a par 3 golf course on the south side of Highway 100 adjacent to the water tower and Lions Park. As you will recall, this idea has been reviewed on a very preliminary basis on a number of occasions by the Park and Recreation Commission. Because we are currently in the process of planning for the Shingle Creek trailway system south of Highway 100, it would behoove us within the next 12 months to conduct such a study as proposed in the attached proposal. I am bringing it to your attention at this time because I see a need for this type of information as an input into our planning process on the trail- way system. If there is to be a golf course in that area, then the trailway system design will be affected. Before we can finalize the planning for the trailway system we should know the feasibility of a golf course in that area. You have two alternatives: You can fund this study out of the City Council's 1979 consulting budget, or you can consider it as a part of the 1980 budget. We sought the proposal from Brauer & Associates because they are the people who have over the years worked with our Parks and Recreation Department and the City on the planning of the parks. They also have had experience in these types of studies in other locations. Res c fully submitted, erald G Splinter City Manager CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER enc. y June 8, 1979 City of Brooklyn Center Parks and Recreation on D nartment City Hall all 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 RE: Contract Proposal for Professional Services Par 3 Golf Course Gentlemen: This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee sche- dule and other elements which will serve, if approved, as an Agreement between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, referred to as the OWNER, and BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC., referred to as the CONSULTANT. It is the intention of the OWNER to retain the CONSULTANT to provide professional services required to complete the following: (1) an economic marketability study; (2) a physi- cal feasibility analysis to site development potentialities; and (3) a concept master plan for development with cost esti- mates outlining phase development alternatives for that por- tion of a potential site totalling 21.63 acres (see Exhibit "An attached) hereinafter referred to as -the PROJECT. The OWNER and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below. • A. SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT'S services shall include landscape archi- tectural, planning, engineering and marketing services as follows: 1. Basic Services - Marketability Phase a. Overview of Programming Opportunities such as golf and park areas, including pertinent golf national, state and metropolitan area trends and projections as a basis for the establishment of design review and marketing criteria, existing facilities and capacities, user projections, facility demand and characteristics. i b. Golf Market in the area based upon projections of users and an inventory and evaluation of existing public and private facilities within the adjacent municipalities and surrounding primary market m F area 7901 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 ❑ (612) 941 -1660 Y City of Brooklyn Center -2- June 8, 1979 c. Construction Cost Analysis developed on the basis of current construction projects in similar situations. A range of costs will be provided together with a general description of the recreation facility. d. Operation Projections and Cash Flow Analysis including an analysis of income and expenses based upon the local market, the construction cost analysis, current salaries and expenses for existing facilities, esti- mated capacity of the proposed facilities, fees and charges consistent with existing quality facilities, and effective administration and maintenance of the recreation facilities. e. Two Meetings with the OWNER'S representative are included during the planning process. RESULT: A brief summary letter report outlining the basic find- ings to this point of the economic marketability of a golf course in this section of the city. 2. Basic Services - Feasibility Phase a. Collect and Review basic planning data including Municipal Comprehensive Plan, existing land use, current development proposals, utility extension programs, transportation proposals and other available data on manmade factors as a basis for design and feasibility recommendations. b. Perceptual Study and Evaluation of the natural con - ditions of a site of approximately 21.63 acres. The perceptual study and evaluation shall include soils, topography, drainage, vegetation, shape, orientation, access and other available data on natural factors which should guide design recommendations. c. Usable Site Acreage Requirements outlined in general map description in priority order, based upon the conclusions derived through completion of the services described above. d. Two Meetings with the OWNER'S representative are included during the planning process to secure data, outline progress, discuss evaluations and describe conclusions. RESULT: Summary Letter Report which will present in written and graphic form the basic data, analysis, conclusions and recommendations outlined above. • City of Brooklyn Center -3- June 8, 1979 3. Basic Services - Concept Master Plan Phase • a. Preliminary Sketch Plan which will describe in graphic form the potential development of the site to meet golf course and recreation area requirements including clubhouse location, vehicular and pedestrian routing, activity areas, and existing physical facilities with schematic illustrations of grading and planting. (This drawing and other subsequent plan proposals will not be suitable for public presentation or promotion but will be used for study and discussion of plan concepts until concept approval is achieved.) b. OWNER Interchange and feedback, including two meetings scheduled at critical phases of the planning process. c. Final Concept Master Plan which will describe in graphic form the revised and approved plan for the site in a form suitable for public presentation and promotion. This plan will be suitable for photo - graphic reduction and use in a public relations prospectus. d. Development Cost Estimates according to a logical and useful breakdown. Cumulative item totals will be uti- lized based on the CONSULTANT'S experience and other similar projects presently under construction. Costs will include allowance for detail design, bidding and inspection fees, administrative costs, surveying, architectural design, and probable increases in construction costs which may occur over the period required to complete the construction work. RESULT: A final Master Plan and development cost estimate. 4. Basic Services - Documentation a. Preparation of a Financial Strategy including antici- pated development costs, phasing potentialities, user fee projection, maintenance and management require- ments including manpower- machinery- budget and other supporting documentation required to establish fiscal responsibility. b. Report Documentation of all findings and recommen- dations resulting from this study to establish meaningful continuity of development, management and maintenance (twenty (20) copies to OWNER). T . City of Brooklyn Center -4- June 8, 1979 r 5. Additional Services The following services are not covered in Paragraph A -1 through A -4 and if any of these services are authorized by the OWNER, they shall be paid for by the OWNER as hereinafter provided: a. Golf Course Traverse stake -out by field survey and grid cross- sectioning of all tee and green areas to be used during the detail design phase to establish a quality base for final construction documents. b. Detail Design and Construction Documents for layout, grading, drainage, planting, seed and sod development work outlined in the master development plan complete and,ready for bidders. c. Bidding Procedures which include preparation of adver- tisement for bids, issuance of drawings and specifica- tions to bidders, clarification of questions by addenda during the bidding period, direction of bidder's conference, analysis of bids received, recom- mendations for contract award and assistance in pre- paration of contract documents for each contract awarded. d. Periodic Construction Observation including review of Contractor's work program and layout, shop drawings, inspector's reports, material samples, and construc- tion methods, proposed certification of contractor's requests for payment, preparation of necessary change orders and final inspection and recommendation for acceptance of the completed work. e. Architectural services including development of a structural program outlining the area and functional requirements of the structure, concept design, design development, cost estimates, construction documents, and specifications ready for distribution to bidders. f. Construction Inspection g. Construction Management h. Construction Staking i. Additional Meetings during the planning process. City of Brooklyn Center -5- June 8, 1979 B. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES • The OWNER shall compensate the CONSULTANT for completion of professional services described in Paragraph A, above,. as follows 1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services, as described in Paragraph A -1 through A -4, above, a Lump Sum Fee which includes all expenses, in the amount of THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($3,850.00). 2. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services, as described in Paragraph A -5, a fee computed on the basis of a specific work outline resulting in a lump sum or a percentage of estimated cost to construct or on the current hourly rate schedule. A proportion of the services fee of Paragraphs A -1 through A -4 will be applied as a credit to the fee of Paragraph A -5 as follows: a. A 50% credit if Paragraphs A -5a through A -5c are authorized. b. An additional 25% credit if Paragraph A -5d is authorized. All overtime required by the OWNER'S schedule involving Technical and Administrative personnel shall be compen- sated at one and one -half times the hourly rate. 3. Actual expenditures other than the hourly fee, directly connected with the PROJECT including mileage, cost of soil borings, testing or special consultants as directed by the OWNER, and identifiable materials, services or supplies used in reproduction of reports, drawings, specifications or field work shall be paid at cost. f C. PAYMENTS TO THE CONSULTANT shall be made as follows: 1. Statements will be submitted to the OWNER on a monthly x basis, with a breakdown of time and expenses for services performed, or work completed, through the 25th of the pre- vious month. 2. Payments on account of the CONSULTANT'S services are due and payable within 30 days of receipt of CONSULTANT'S sta- tement of services rendered. City of Brooklyn Center -6 June 8, 1979 D. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES The OWNER shall make available or allow access to all existing data related to the work and all other data or information which may develop that could possibly have a bearing on the decisions or recommendations made under this Agreement. The OWNER shall specifically provide: 1. Topograhic mapping at two -foot contour intervals with tree locations and structures, aerial photographs, soil sur- veys, borings or other data which describe the general nature and conditions of the site, which are available presently or anticipated during the planning period. 2. Legal Description of the site together with a brief review of all applicable legal restrictions (easements, deed restrictions, purchase contract conditions, etc.) 3. Public Utilities including existing and proposed streets, water, sewer and drainage utilities as they affect the site. 4. Park program and participation information that may be available on Lions Park. 5. Additional data or information which will have a bearing • on the planning or design conclusions and recommendations of the CONSULTANT 6. One designated individual with whom the CONSULTANT can meet, receive instructions and deliver information, and coordinate all planning activities. This individual will represent the OWNER and provide feedback to the CONSULTANT. 7. Legal counsel, advice and services available to the CONSULTANT during the term of this agreement on any or all matters related to the PROJECT such as, but not limited to, title opinions, interpretations of agreements, cove - nants and laws affecting the PROJECT, advice and assis- tance in processing applications, review and prepara- tion of PROJECT agreement documents, participation in presentations to public agency staff and boards, and general counsel on the legal implications of all sub- stantive or procedural aspects of the PROJECT itself. City of Brooklyn Center -7- June 8, 1979 E. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 1 The Term of the Contract shall be concurrent with the work authorized. Estimated completion time for services described in Paragraphs A -1 through A -4 is not less than nine (9) weeks but no more than thirteen (13) weeks from the date of authorization or receipt of basic data, whichever is the latter. 2 Termination may be accomplished by either party at any time by written notice, and shall be effective upon payment in full for all services performed to the date of receipt of such notice. 3. The OWNER and the CONSULTANT each binds itself, its part - ners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party of this Agreement, and to the partners, suc- cessors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. 4. Neither the OWNER nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, _sublet or transfer his interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. F. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. The CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to insure that appli- cants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, physical condition or age. Such action shall include but not be limited to the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compen n and selection for training g including apprenticeship. G. CONSULTANT'S RECORDS, DOCUMENTS AND INSURANCE 1. The CONSULTANT shall maintain time records for hourly fees, design calculations and research notes in legible form and will be made available to the OWNER, if requested. 2. The CONSULTANT shall carry insurance to protect him claims under Workman's Compensation Acts; from claims for damages because of bodily injury including death to his em- ployees and the public, and from claims for property damage. a City of Brooklyn Center -8 June 8, 1979 3. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to secure and maintain • statutory copyright in all published books, published or unpublished drawings of a scientific or technical ..character, and other works related to this PROJECT in which copyright may be claimed. The OWNER shall have full rights to reproduce works under this Agreement either in whole or in part as related to this PROJECT. One copy of each drawing shall be provided in reproducible form for use by the OWNER, but the original drawings will remain the property of the CONSULTANT. H. EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND APPLICABLE LAW 1. This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and super - sedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, whether written or oral, with respect to the PROJECT. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both OWNER and CONSULTANT. 2. Unless otherwise specified, this Agreement shall be governed by the law of the principal place of business of the CONSULTANT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the OWNER and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement, This day of , 1979. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Brooklyn Center, Minnesota In presence of BRAUER & ASSOCIATES LTD., INC. Eden Prairie, Minnesota In presence of: Pa 1 S. Fja e, 1. L.A. President vww ' w • `! A� � " ^ - . c l +.e' 8 IS �� ,why � � ?+' ♦ . G� � �b�'' A � /� ��• � �/ '. �e��ii� � � , � � I X/ c• r (4700 ^• qg� _ , :J n '� (4824) Gy �/� 1 � �i°'� (722:1) :r'>� ERIC0f3 "—-- -- / q ' ) lu y / r 2 3 4 L1 1 2 3 4 'S _- Q` '' '\' I yr,a s�� d / i' _ _...- 11..L_...._...� £d:aZ . f . . "' •rt Y , = - C � 1/ / pL ct // `�• /�% t / / ►° ,.�►�, / �r' 1.�:� 1 [r S a s / ( (l / / /\/ ' !° , ;i+'✓ /,� % h i';- 2UCC al RA T� 55th w w _.' J :.pij�. ... % �' i� '�.!_�_S.._. J ;,•. �/ PAR y gg ✓ / 10� /'� , ' ' 2 Q is •1 or };' J 1 2 A l ^ �i` Z c T, cq, '� ..., -. —a,L. • ,r ,w'_ �.� p er`, ./ L } O!llViV;'' "/ / / , / _, S!:1.� • ,.• __ I •t' � , /y �i,! �1 + �[Z- i � / r % r / r /' J �� / �' � + SI B � 1 t,, 1,:, ,C (2 -- '�— - -- ;2Jty / i Fl` K% S�1ra �.zn ��. Cam" ., p t/� 120) PA .. _ I _ ......r / %, y • Ll .7 9G0 e s _•,� / /: % j� �.•'/ '/ / ' S7 ` FEN { r Cl � A ' L7 197012 P � j � L " ' / Ld • 1 Tf , �?)C G 5:ty D_ 2,)•5 ,YlY0 ;,i4y'.b3YS r / 6 v c f IN�V LOT 19 I t 10; 9 8 7 6 'i 5 4 ' " A E stzo��"'""'...� � W J I�� I+ U . A t ,R � C3 i ��E - �; ) _ ' '' a''' �/I �t° .i ;,� s_:3c / /il (26,s� c� (2620 K 2 F LA IE S� ADD I 16 17 I8 I t9 20 •, 21 24 '" -- l OT 21 V v „3 1 a c'6 sc (5140 23 ' `� 3 2 U:; 4 1 J c ',��a(, �Yad ',IYJ}� 9 ` /t'b �t,i'1�.� 1 �'f0J.. >•�I ;s, Esc ,: ''��3C —� � c J`J t' I'�' nF h� ^•,1.: • y Licenses to be approved by the City Council on June 25, 1979 GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE ; • Countrywide Sanitation, Inc. Box 46, Montrose Dick's Sanitary Service, Inc. 3417 - 85th Ave. No. G. & H. Sanitation, Inc. 12448 Pennsylvania Ave. Gallagher's Service, Inc. 1691 - 91st Ave. No. Gordon Rendering Box 12785, New Brighton Klein Sanitation Box 694, Monticello Mengelkoch Company 119 N.E. 14th St. i Minneapolis Hide & Tallow Box 12547, New Brighton ;l Robbinsdale Transfer Co. 5232 Hanson Court W. & W. Company 501 - 84th Ave. N.E. Sanitarian ' L ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE New Life Homes - His Place 6108 Excelsior Blvd. (group home) 1120 - 69th Ave. No. Sanitarian 1' MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE Airco Heating & Air Conditioning 4014 Central Ave. N.E. l� fit• !)�` �,, Building Official RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: I. Joan Johnson 3313 O'Henry Road • Renewal: Sheehy Management Co. Shingle Creek Tower Gary Scherber 5800 Logan Ave. No./ r� Gary Scherber 5830 Logan Ave. No, Richard & 'Elf reda Ploof 5319,21 Queen Ave. No. 1,41 Raymond & Agnes Janssen 1425 - 55th Ave. No. Jacob & Bonita. Heinonen 1107 - 57th Ave. No. Edward Doll 1201 - 57th Ave. No. Transfer: Lang- Nelson Associates Chalet Courts Stone Investments 5500 Bryant Ave. No. Roger & Marie Krawiecki 5209 Xerxes Ave. No. �- Director of Planning J and Inspection SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE J. W. Leseman Sign Shop, Inc. 730 - 105th Ln. N.E. _ay Building Official TELEPHONE 640 -38i4 tj i �41t CH PaR / AREA CODE 612 - A New Adventure in Apartment Living 790 SO. CLEVELAND AVENUE SUITE 224 ST, PAUL, MINNESOTA 55116 June 19, 1978 Ronald A. Warren Director of la.rninr Inspection 6301 - reek _' _ C 'ar' _7:ray Brooklyn Center, i-iinne ota Near I`•r. tarren: This letter is being Written to you in regard to the follov.i:n� : Fire inspection of 1' a;y 31, 1979 �vrl_ich called for Noy -ie sheet rocking and re: of fire doors and door openers etc.: I personally inspected. each and every itel. on the lis of things to do and found them to be 100;; cerlj l :te. Our r� air�Ueno:�ce rear has instruct i crs to insect the fire doors once a vieek and to ' eel; then operatin- properly. Your letter_ of December 13, 1978, vrhich s of screens, laundry room, floor; and grass area: the Screens and laundry room?_f_loors have been reclaced an ins-ectea. th Ho t .L he Cr;raas Situation is as follows: We contracted v!i'": Virzi! S'Uac'1 ? '1ouSe of Broo Center to lay approximately 2400 yal -s,, Of so0., t;i�ich v. ould be accompanied 15 loads of - blac'= di I personally s�ral.': ed the complex grou'_1ds with 1.1r. Stackhouse and oointcd ou•t. v ere Vie needed the sod. It is ex- -ected that al. of he dare S')ots will be covered and that the complex, when com -olete ;i, Mill, I am sure, Zook great. However, because of all the rain. titre have had the schedule for completirV thi s job has been one delal, T after_ anotl,.er. At this tine We have laid about 1200 yards of rod and i•re are vraitin- for the Weather - to be dry enough for us to complete the job. If the weather is right the job should be completed by July 15,tll. Respectfully, C11 �'�'I A PARK PRO:i' .R IBS Ha.r o t hi ;V: s c `lu t HS, j cr CHASKA NOKOMIS HIAWATHA PONTIAC OSCEOLA