HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-12 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
City of Brooklyn Center
March 12, 1979
7 :00 p.m.
1. Call - to Order
2. Roll Call
3 . Invocation
4. Approval of Minutes - February 26, 1979
5. Open Forum
6 Resolutions
The following four resolutions for ordering construction of projects
will be relevant if the City Council votes favorably on the projects
after a discussion of - the results of - the March 5, 1979 informational
meeting. The Superintendent of Engineering will be prepared to review
the results of - the meeting. Review is scheduled at 8 :00 p.m.
a. Ordering Construction of Street Grading, Base and Surfacing
Improvement Project No. 1978 -3$
-This project comprehends - the street grading, base and surfacing
on the north half of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street to Penn
Avenue N orth .
b. Ordering Construction of Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Improvement
Project No. 1978 -39
-This project comprehends - the construction of curb and gutter and
sidewalk on the north side of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street
North to Penn Avenue North.
c. Ordering Construction of Water Main Improvement Project No. 1979 -1
-This project comprehends installation of water main along 53rd
Avenue North from Bryant Avenue North to 4 Street North.
d, Ordering Construction of .Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1979 -2
-This project comprehends the modification of existing storm sewer
along 53rd Avenue North from Penn Avenue to 4th Street North and
the installation of new storm sewer along Oliver Avenue North from
53rd Avenue North northerly approximately 300 feet, and along
Dupont Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North northerly approximately
200 feet.
e. Approving Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Teamsters Public
and Law Enforcement Employee Union, Local #320, and - the City of
Brooklyn Center
- Approval of written contract for Brooklyn Center Police Bargaining
Unit is recommended.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 12, 1979
f. Approving Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Teamsters
Public and Law Enforcement Employee Union, Local #320, and
the City of Brooklyn Center
- Approval of written contract for Brooklyn Center Liquor Store part
time employees bargaining unit is recommended.
g. Authorizing •the City to Execute a Cooperative Agreement with
Hennepin County for Community Development
-The City Council gave prior approval. HUD prefers approval by
resolution which specifically authorizes execution of - the coopera-
tive agreement.
h. Requesting 1978 -79 Local Planning Assistance Grant Funds from the
Metropolitan Council
Additional money from - the S'ta'te is available for comprehensive
planning.
I. Accepting Quotations for Fencing
- Fencing for certain City parks as specified by included memorandum.
The bid of Midwest Fence Company in - the amount of $2,124.15 is
recommended.
J. Accepting Quotation for Fire Department Equipment
-It is recommended - the quotation of Mid ventral Fire and
Safety Company be accepted for miscellaneous Fire Department
equipment as budgeted for in - the 1979 budget. See accompanying
quote sheet.
k. Accepting Quotation for Fire Department Equipment
-It is recommended the quotation of Minnesota Fire, Inc.
be accepted for miscellaneous Fire Department equipment as
budgeted for in - the 1979 budget. See accompanying quote sheet.
7. Planning Commission Items (7;30 p.m.):
a. Application No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom for a rezoning
from C -2 'to R -4 of - the approximate eight acre 'tract located in the 1300
block' south of 69th Avenue North. A letter has been received by
the City staff from Mr. Bergstrom asking for Council deferment of
Application No. 79001 until an April City Council nseting. A copy
of the letter will be provided for the Council.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 12, 1979
b. Application No. 79006 submitted by Arvid Elness Architects, Inc.
for Dale Tile.
-Site and building plan approval for Dale Tile warehouse, showroom
and office on Lakebreeze Avenue westerly of the present Dale Tile
site. This application was recommended for approval at the
February 15, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. The City Council
considered Application No. 79006 at the February 26 City Council
meeting but deferred a decision on - the application due - to questions
on aesthetics until they could see colored renderings of - the proposed
building. The Director of Planning and Inspection will also be pre -
pared to comment on questions raised by the Council on - the existing
Dale Tile building.
8. Ordinances:
a Amending Chapter 23 Regarding License Fee
- Presented for a first reading. Chapter 23 -010 lists - the licenses
issued by - the City, date of expiration and fee. Licenses for rap
parlors, gambling and bingo are added in - the amended ordinance.
b. Authorizing the Conveyance of Real Estate from the City of Brooklyn
Center - to - the Minnesota Department of Transportation in the Area of
Shingle Creek Parkway.
-This ordinance was first read on February 12, 1979, published on
^ �- nn 'I nnn a s FL ; F .J
te'Druary 22, L,7/;J, and is presenocd .11is e'v'ening for a sccond
reading
c. Vacating a Drainage and Utility Easement Existing on Lots 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, and 6 of Block 5, Hipp's 3rd Addition.
-This ordinance was first read on February 12, 1979,- published on
February 22, 1979, and is presented - this evening for a second
reading.
9. Discussion Items;
a Authorization for the Mayor and City Manager to execute a sanitary -
sewer and water main inspection, maintenance, and repair agree-
ment with American Family Insurance Agency Associates (A.F.I.A.) .
-This agreement is the City's standard utility maintenance agree-
ment which• provides for routine maintenance and emergency repair
of a 8 inch sanitary sewer line and 6 inch water main connected to
the City's lines in john Martin Drive and servicing -the new A.F.I.A.
building. A motion authorizing agreement is recommended.
b. Hennepin County Emergency Communications Organization (HECO)
-City Manager will be prepared to provide an update on - the status
of H£CO.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- March 12, 1979
c. Authorization for Mayor and City Manager to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the Metropolitan Transit Commission
to provide for passenger waiting shelter installations.
- Provision has been made - to ensure - that any city will be
eligible for at least one shelter installation per project, if
a cooperative agreement is executed. The agreement calls
for participation in the form of financial reimbursement to the
MTC for one -half of the local funding of the shelter. The
participation share will be approximately $300 - to $500.
10. Licenses
11. Gambling and /or Bingo License Bond Waiver
I' -State law requires - the bingo or gambling manager - to give a fidelity bond
of $10,000 in favor of the organization to insure 'that he /she will faith
fully conduct - the duties of - the office. The City Council can waive 'the
requirement for - the bond by unanimous vote at the time 'the license is
granted. The bond waiver can only be eliminated if -the Council votes
unanimously -to eliminate - the $10,000 bond requirement If 'the Council
so votes, -the bond waiver is stipulated on - the license itself. Included
in the license list for the March 12, 1979 City Council meeting, are
licenses for gambling for the Brooklyn Center High School Athletic
Boosters and for Northport School PTA. Both organizations have requested
{.1 3.,/1.I111A waiver. A m,0 ,1 6 - 4
i1V 1.1Vl1 L. VV6d1.VV {.all,, 411d 4.11V uiL..11JL111V Y...- vote Vl Y1iV
Council is needed - to accomplish - the waiver.
a. Brooklyn Center High School Athletic Boosters - Gambling license
b. Northport School PTA - Gambling license
12. Adjournment
i
I
Attorneys at Law
JAMES S. HOLMES HOLMES, KIRCHER, GRAVEN & REYER
ROBERT E. KIRCHER
DAVID L. GRAVEN
JAMES C7rts REYEx' CHARTERED
LARRY M. WERTHEIM
JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR. 4610 IDS Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
JOHN M. UTLEY
KENDRA DOWDY GJERDINGEN Telephone 612/371 -3900
RANDOLPH J. MAYER
ROBERT J. LINDALL
February 26, 1979
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
BR235- 11829
-- -z -----------------------------------------
For legal services rendered in the above entitled matter through
January 31, 1979, including:
003 Rehabitation Legislation
Description of Services
11/29/78 Phone conference with Brad Hoffman re
Rehabilitation Legislation
12/04/78 Conference with Brooklyn Center
12/28/78 Draft Rehabilitation Frill
01/02/79 Complete draft of Rehabilitation Bill,
letter to Brad Hoffman re same
Fees $395.00
yoll
i�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectionl'�
SUBJECT: Information Requested for Consideration of Planning Commission
Application No. 79006 Involving Site and Building Plan Approval
for _Dale Tile Company
DATE: March 9, 1979
During the City Council's review of Planning Commission Application No. 79006
on February 26, 1979, a question was raised regarding the exterior treatment
required for the current Da Tile building located at 4 815 France Avenue North.
In 1972 under Planning Commission Application 72051, Dale Tile Company requested
an approximate 27,900 sq. ft. addition to the then existing building. Review of
the record indicates that there was some concern at that time regarding the
-! exterior finish proposed for the new addition. The addition was primarily to
the warehouse building on the westerly portion of the site. The office showroom"
area at that time had an exterior treatment of tile similar to what is now in
existence. The warehouse building at that time had an entry area along France
Avenue that was also treated with a ceramic tile exterior while the remainder of
the warehouse was of concrete block. This entrance area has since been treated
with a wood siding.
One of the conditions of the approval of.the building addition in 1972 was that
"the exterior finish of the addition shall be similar to that of the existing
building." The addition has an exterior finish of concrete block and is painted
111� ryq ,
-.e -4 '(,I!!11 i;1" 1 n:O - :1' —1 i i an nio • t. Q r,n i ' ' , �.. ,_,` n
." t ? r1 ,, ,. t.t : U! 't.. uu tut�? T h.
pu tivIi Ut i.iit b ul ►dirty Lnctis puri:'uri i dLing Lhe parki iot has beeit i c t ti
an untreated or natural state. Although the record of 1972 does not indicate
a particular type of exterior finish other than concrete and that the finish of
the addition be similar to the existing building, it is my understanding that
the natural or untreated concrete block finish on the addition was left that way
so that the owner could at some time provide a ceramic tile finish similar to that
on the office showroom area.
A performance bond in the amount of $2,500.00 submitted by Dale Tile Company
relating to Planning Commission No. 72051 was released by the City Council on
December 3, 1973.
t
i
t Philip Cohen
5302 Humboldt Ave. North
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
55430
March 12, 1979
The Honorable Mayor Dean Nyquist
& Members of the Brooklyn Center
City Council.
Subject: 53rt Ave. North Street Improvement
I would like to take this means to register my support for the option
that would provide for a 22' width street on the Brooklyn Center side
along with provisions for parking bays.
My reasons for supporting this option as opposed to the 16' width &
the 24 hour parking ban are as follows:
1. The intersection of 53rd & Humboldt is one of the busiest
ones on the street. It presently creates a great deal of
varied turning movements by drivers of various capabilities
and intent. The wider the street at this location would be
the better, especially in a winter such as this one where
the total street width shrinks with the snow accumulation.
2. The traffic will only continue to increase when the freeway
connection is made and the street should accomodate that as
well as the needs of the residents on 53rd Avenue.
3. Cars do park on 53rd Ave.'North in Brooklyn Center as well
as Minneapolis. Further,when curb and gutter are installed.
the use of unimproved boulevards for parking will no longer
be available, although the use at this time is legally
prohibited.
4. Placing a 24 hour ban for parking on the Brooklyn Center side
will force parking to be on the Minneapolis side, on the North/
South streets or the property owner will have to provide more
parking on their own property.
5. Should the•16 ,wide street be constructed with the prohibition
of parking, it would be an irrevocable decision:- as I understand
the options offered. This would mean if present or future home
owners become unhappy with the 24 hour parking ban they would
not be able to have this ban lifted.
6. The cost to the property owner would be the same in any of the
options noted.
As a property owner at 5302 Humboldt North for the past 22 years, I am
pleased to see the proposed street improvement become a reality, but
I do feel that we should not be short sighted in the decision pertain -
ing to the width of the street.
i
4
i
Mayor Dean Nyquist
& Members of the
Brooklyn Center City Council
Page 2 ( 3- 12 -79)
Perhaps the 22' widening would affect some of my neighbors along 53rd
Avenue North more adversely than it does me. To accomodate this fact
of the 22' width being too much of an intrusion on other property on i
the avenue, consideration for the 20' width with 8' parking lanes could
be a reasonable alternative
i
I also strongly feel that as a property owner who will be assessed my E
proportionate share for this improvement, I should also have the right
to use the street in a reasonable manner for parking purposes.
i
I respectfully urge the City Council to take into consideration not only
the present issues being raised on the construction of the street, but
also the future needs.
Thanking you for your consideration in this matter, I am
Very ul / yours,
Ph' ip Cohen
E
t
Y
P
R
C
R
b
S
4
P
r
I
C v,
c�
A�
tZ el., re6
C-1
�I
HECO CONCERNS
1 . WHAT HAPPENS TO NONEMERGENCY 911 CALLS FOR SERVICE
IF DISPATCHING IS PERFORMED ELSEWHERE?
A. EMERGENCY UTILITY CALLS
B. MINOR POLICE SERVICE CALLS
C. OTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CALLS
2. WHAT WILL BECOME OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S JAIL FACILITY?
A. CONTINUE TO OPERATE 24 HOURS
B. LIMITED OPERATION
C. ELIMINATION
3. COST FACTORS /DISPATCHERS CURRENTLY PROVIDE,:
A. APPROXIMATELY 40% OF THE DEPARTMENTS TYPING
B. PROCESS ALL MISDEMEANOR CHECK CASES
C. MONITOR BURGLAR AND FIRE ALARMS'
D. 24 HOUR REPORT COPYING SERVICE
E. MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY /EVIDENCE ROOM
F. MAINTAIN RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
GAMBLING ORDINANCE
G. CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR SHOPLIFTERS
1 Z
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
FEBRUARY 26, 1979
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order
by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and
Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public
Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul
Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Superintendent of
Engineering James Noska, Director of Parks and Recreation Gene Hagel, Building
Official Will Dahn, Fire Marshal Linus Manderfeld, and Administrative Assistants
Mary Harty and Brad Hoffman.
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Councilmember Fignar.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 12, 1979
Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve the
minutes of the City Council meeting of February 12, 1979 as submitted. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Votinq
against: none. The motion nacPr3 „rani- inp„Gly.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of the Open Forum session. Prior
to recognizing a speaker for Open Forum, the Mayor noted he had written a letter
to the Governor concerning a lack of action to resolve the situation left from the
Howe fire. The Mayor noted in his letter to the Governor that two months had passed
since the Howe fire and•no action had been taken to remove the contaminated snow and
ice. There are still many unanswered questions as to the degree of danger.. With
spring coming and a snow melt, it is important the situation be resolved. Mayor
Nyquist received the assurance of the Governor and the Commissioner of Agriculture
that the State had the situation in hand. The Mayor received information that the
snow and ice residue would be hauled on Thursday to a farm in Martin County. The
Mayor questioned whether there should be a contingency plan if the plan to haul
the snow and ice to Martin County fell through. The Mayor questioned whether it
might be necessary to hire a consultant to attempt-to determine a resolution to the
situation.
The -City Manager explained the major issue was the fact the State of Minnesota
does not have a place within the State boundaries to take care of possible
contaminants.
The City Manager indicated a possible backup contingency plan would be temporary
containment of the snow and ice. He further indicated certain experts are avail-
able if the Council would wish assistance in the future to come up with another
plan.
The City Manager also indicated the Governor has assured the City that a contract
for digging and hauling at the site has been finalized.
2 -26 -79 -1-
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the local jurisdiction had accepted the
hauling of the residue to the farm in Martin County. The City Manager indicated
he was unsure what veto power the local authority would have in this situation.
Councilmember Fignar questioned whether the City must bear any financial responsi-
bility for the digging or hauling. The City Manager explained the City would not
carry any financial responsibility because the State assumed the financial responsi-
bility for the digging and hauling.
Councilmember Lhotka questioned what effect the rain would have on the situation.
The City Manager explained plugs were still in place to prevent backup into the
creek and some diking had also been done, however, a permanent place must be found
for the residue because the Howe site is not a good temporary solution to the
problem.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Virgil Linn, 3112 — 49th Avenue North, to speak at the
Open Forum. Mr. Linn noted many of his questions had been answered by the discussion
prior to his speaking at the Open Forum. Mr. Linn did ask what was to be done with
other debris materials such as building debris. He noted there was a smell which
emanated from the Howe site. The City Manager indicated he would check on removal
of types of debris other than the ice and snow and get back to Mr. Linn with the
information on what was to be done with that.
Mr. Linn noted he was happy, the Mayor had contacted the Governor and that action
would be finally taken. He further questioned whether there was potential for
danger in breathing the air. The Mayor replied one of the biggest problems in
this situation was the lack of hard facts as to the danger potential.
Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Tom Howe, who was in the Council audience. Mr. Howe ,
indicated they would like to get the situation cleared up as soon as possible but
they too were waiting for answers from State agencies. Councilmember Fignar commented
the hands of the people at Howe are tied as are everyone else's until the State
comes to a decision as to what should be a solution.
Mayor Nyquist inquired if there was anyone else present who wished to address the
Council as part of the Open Forum; there being none, Mayor Nyquist proceeded with
the rest of the meeting.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
The final plat approval for the registered land survey for property lying between
Shingle Creek Parkway, County Road 130 and Shingle Creek was recommended. This is
the site on which the Spec 8 is currently under construction. The City Council
approved the preliminary plat under Planning Commission Application No. 78042 on July 24,
1978 as submitted by Roy Hanson for the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
give final plat approval for the registered land survey for ,property lying between
Shingle ;Creek Parkway, County Road 130 and Shingle Creek. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none.
The motion, passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -59
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC
SERVICE OF MR. JAMES MERILA
2 -26 -79 -2-
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
Regarding the resolution, the City Manager again expressed his appreciation for the
fine work of the Director of Public Works, James Merila. Council members also
offered their appreciation for the work Mr. Merila had done for the City and for
the Council. Council members wished Mr. Merila good luck in his new job.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -60
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM (SALT STORAGE BUILDING
CONTRACT 1978 -T)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
Regarding the resolution, the City Attorney explained the contract for the salt
storage building had been bid twice. The first bids received were too high and
in the second bidding only one bid was received. The company which placed the
bid was a subcontractor and was not accustomed to municipal bidding. For this
reasong, certain items which they placed in the bid had to be eliminated from
the contract and there was considerable negotiation after the bid was in.
Despite this negotiation, the City Attorney indicated the contract should be
er -ored 4 ..-to y rti ntel arl s3 s this was the nn.ly bid received for the salt
storage building.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -61
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO IMPLEMENT A FAMILY HOUSING
PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka., and
Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Concerning the resolution authorizing submission of the City of Brooklyn Center
Community Development Program to Hennepin County, Administrative Assistant Brad
Hoffman explained the City of Brooklyn Center had executed a cooperative agree-
ment with Hennepin County agreeing to participate in the Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program. He further explained a three year
community development program and housing assistance plan had been prepared
consistent with the Comprehensive Urban Hennepin County Community Development
strategy and the Community Development Program regulations. The plan has been
subjected to citizen review pursuant to the Urban Hennepin County Citizen Partici-
pation Plan and the plan was presented to the City Council for their approval.
Mr. Hoffman indicated the City Council had given preliminary approval to the
program at the January 8 City Council meeting. He explained the annual program
and the three year program is divided into three basic elements. First, there
are activities directed toward the identified housing problems in Brooklyn Center,
2 -26 -79 -3-
C
including a housing rehab grant loan program and housing incentive option. Second,
there is park development which includes an activity to provide the City's matching
funds for a Central Park LAWCON grant. Third, there are activities geared towards
handicapped accessibility. Handicapped accessibility project activities include the
installation of elevators in the City Hall /Civic Center complex, sidewalk curb cuts
and park accessibility.
�s.,Hoffman noted the City had received on construction of elevators as
proposed for the City Hall /Civic Center complex. Based on the cost, it is the
staff's recommendation to construct the elevator in City Hall this year and construct
the Community Center elevator next year. The remaining $17,000 would be reallocated
to park development. Councilmember Kuefler suggested a chair type apparatus which
fits onto the railing might be appropriate and less costly for the Community Center.
Mr. Hoffman briefly explained the Citizen Advisory Committee response to the proposed
uses of Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds by Brooklyn
Center for the year 1979. He explained the Committee disapproved the park develop -
ment project ($40,000) for Central Park;. gave conditional approval to the handicapped
accessibility improvements to the park system ($73,000); and approved all the other
projects for funding (handicapped accessibility improvements to City Hall, $80,000;
'rousing rehabilitation grant /loan, $66,000; general administration, $18,000; housing
i as a local option activity, $23,000). Regarding the park development,
M -r. Hoffman explained that County staff had expressed concern that the project
does not meet the established criteria for benefiting low and moderate income
people. Based upon that concern it is their recommendation that the City reconsider
t project. The Brooklyn Center Citizens Participation Committee has reaffirmed
its commitment to the project. Mr. Hoffman recommends that the City resubmit the
project as is and require the Department of Housina and Urban Development to rule
on the project. If the C rc � f ruling UD rcla�.i e to
CC1VC , an un�avorwblc i Ui urig frcm iii � c. x
this project it is recommended the City reallocate those monies to the elimination
or physical barriers within the City's park system and include Central Park within
the group of parks to receive such funding.
Relative to the elimination of physical barriers within the park system, the
Hennepin County group has expressed concern with paving 100% of the City's parking
lots within the park system with Community Development funds on the basis of
eliminating physical barriers for the handicapped. They have expressed their
belief that funding for that project should be in a ratio equivalent to the number
_
of parking spaces reserved for handicapped parking in comparison with the total
n - amber of spaces within the parking lot. .Mr. Hoffman noted that other communities
have used community development funds to finance 100% of the construction costs
of parking lots in parks using the same justification.
As indicated earlier, other projects were given approval.
Ccuncilmember Fignar questioned the Director of Public Works as to whether or not
sidewalk barriers should have been removed at the time of sidewalk construction.
The Director of Public Works replied standards were set after the sidewalk system
had been started. Sidewalks built after physical barrier elimination standards
were established were done according to the standards.
Ccuncilmember Kuefler_ questioned what the next step in the process was. Mr. Hoffman
explained the next _step was submission of the City of Brooklyn Center Community
Development Program'to Hennepin County. The County combines all of the communities
programs for submission as the Urban County plan program. The Metro Council will
review the submission as part of the A -95 review.
2 - -79 -4-
r
Mr. Hoffman explained approval was given for both the one year plan and the three
year plan. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Hoffman explained the
three year plan serves as a guide but is not hard and fast and it is possible to
amend the three year plan.
RESOLUTIONS NO. 79 -62
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOP
MENT PROGRAM TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE URBAN HENNEPIN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION, IN ACCORD WITH THE HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill.Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager asked that the next four resolutions listed on the agenda be
deferred until after the public hearing because those four resolutions concerned
issues being dealt with in the public hearing. The Council agreed to defer the
resolutions.
The Director of Public Works explained the resolution next presented was a resolution
pertaining to a supplemental agreement concerning the improvement of traffic control
signals on T.H. 152 at 55th Avenue North and 71st Avenue North. The of
Public Works explained the Council had approved the agreement with but the
funding of the project with regard to federal monies had been changed. The original
• agreement stipulated, that the amount of federal participation 'would ' be'72.080.'
an+
The. aclrPem._ . now si - }ed ircludes ,^ feder: 1 rtz., l`vcl ?6 ' ?4 0
p.�r ' ^irator of - . This
increase in federal participation reduces Brooklyn Center's share from $15,981 to
$13,314. The resolution acknowledges this reduction.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -63
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL AGREE-
MENT NO. is TO AGREEMENT NO. 59271 REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNALS ON T.H. 152 AT 55TH AVENUE NORTH AND 71ST AVENUE NORTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist,_Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott;
and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon.said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
Regarding the next resolution, the City Manager explained due to potential pollution
of the ground water table in the area of the Howe Fertilizer plant during the fire,
the Minnesota Department of Health requested the City of Brooklyn Center to connect
those homes using private wells in the area of the plant to the City of
Brooklyn Center public water system. The City was assured that it would be reimbursed
for the connection costs from the Minnesota Department of Emergency Preparedness.'
Brooklyn Center paid the costs for connection and the State will reimburse those
casts.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
2 -26 -79 -5-
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR INTERIM FINANCING FOR WATER CONNECTIONS IN THE AREA
OF THE HOWE FERTILIZER PLANT
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott;
and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
In response.to questions from the Council, the .City Manager explained the City had
been informed that reimbursement would be received within a reasonable period of
time.
Regarding the next resolution, the City Manager commented the resolution was similar
to a resolution passed by the City of Brooklyn Park regarding signals at 69th Avenue
and 73rd Avenue on present U.S. Highway 169.
There was a consensus amongst the Council that they wished to amend the resolution
to include sending a copy of the resolution to Representative Bob Ellingson.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -65
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO ELIMINATE
THE UNSAFE CONDITIONS ON PRESENT U.S. #169
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the followin g voted in
favor thereof; Dean Nyquist, Tony Kyaefler, Rill Fignar, Cene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the none, whereupon said resolution •
was declared duly passed and adopted,
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -66
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution.and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1979 -3
AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF SPECIFICATIONS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon -said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -67
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING ,SPECIFICATIONS FOR DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1979 -3 AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1979 -B)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution •
was declared duly passed and adopted,
2 -26 -79 -6-
Regarding the resolution on diseased shade tree removal, Councilmember Lhotka
questioned what was to be done with the diseased trees on Durnam Island. The
City Manager explained Durnam Island was located in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn
Park has not sought the removal of those trees.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager introduced an ordinance authorizing the execution of a temporary
easement from the City of Brooklyn Center to the Minnesota Department of Transporta-
tion in the area between Beard Avenue North and Ewing Avenue North. The ordinance
is presented for a first reading. Responding to questions from the Council concerning
complaints from neighbors along 65th and Brooklyn Drive over problems with teenagers .
using the area for beer parties, the City Manager explained certain solutions had
been discussed with residents in the area. Residents in the area do use that property
for access to their back yards. One solution would be to block off the area but that
solution would prevent the residents from using the property for access to their
back yards. In other words, certain solutions will cause certain other types of
problems.
There was motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
offer for first reading an ordinance authorizing he execution of a temporary mporary ease -
ment from the City of Brooklyn Center to the Minnesota Department of Transportation
in the area between Beard Avenue North and Ewing Avenue North. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion.passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 23 regarding the operation °
of bingo by licensed organizations. The ordinance is presented for a first reading.
The City Manager explained g p d the amendment had been resented t
p o the City Council as
part of a discussion s on item
at the previous Council meeting. At that time the Council
had provided direction to the City Manager as to the setting of differential fees,
The amended ordinance reflects the Council's wishes. Motion by Councilmember Scott
and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to offer for first reading an ordinance amending
Chapter 23 regarding the operation of bingo for licensed organizations. voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion asse
p d unanimously.
The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 23 regarding the operation
of certain gambling devices by licensed organizations. The ordinance is presented
for a first reading. The City Manager again noted the-amendment had been discussed
at the previous Council meeting and the amendment reflects the Council's wishes.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 23 'regarding the operation
of certain
gambling ling devices by licensed organizations. g Councilmember Lhotka noted
the same fee differential should be set for bingo and gambling °and he was not in
favor of setting the gambling fee break off point at $3,000 and the bingo fee break
off point at $1,500. He commented he felt both bingo and gambling fee cut off points
should be set at $1,500. In vote on the motion, the following voted in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: Council-
member Lhotka. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Nyquist noted a public hearing on Street Grading, Base & "Surfacing Improvement
Projects No. 1978 -38 and Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Improvement Projects No. 1978 -39
and Water Main Improvement Project No. 1979 -1 was scheduled at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Nyquist
explained the Director of Public Works would present information to the Council and
the Council would be given the opportunity to question the staff regarding the projects.
Following that, the Mayor would open the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing
and citizens could comment at.that time.
2 -26 -79 -7-
The Director of Public Works explained an informational meeting regarding the up-
grading of 53rd Avenue North from Penn Avenue to 4th Street North was scheduled
for Wednesday, February 7, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Brooklyn Center City Hall. He explained the meeting had been held and the
scope of and costs associated with the proposed project were explained. He •
explained the proposed osed w k
P P p or involves reconstructing 3rd Avenue North to municipal
g P
state aid standards as a joint project with the City of Minneapolis. On the
Brooklyn Center side the roadway is proposed to be widened from its present
15 foot width to a 22 foot width
This would p rovide for a roadway that is
44 feet wide d in most areas with
one travel
lane and one parking lane in each
direction. At-the same time, curb and gutter and sidewalk is proposed to remain
generally the same as it presently exists and no major changes in ,grade are
anticipated. In addition to the paving work, the proposed project includes
reconstructing storm sewer lines at various intersections along 53rd Avenue
North and construction of new connecting lines to existing storm sewer lines
along Oliver and Dupont Avenues North just northerly of 53rd Avenue North.
Further it is proposed that a segment of water main be constructed along 53rd
Avenue North from Bryant Avenue to 4th Street North in order to provide Brooklyn
Center water to abutting properties prior to upgrading the roadway.
The Director of Public Works.noted three of 50 homes in the area were represented
at the informational meeting. Additionally, letters had been received from two
parties. The Director of Public Works showed slides of the area.
At the informational meeting, residents expressed concern over four lanes of
traffic rather than two lanes of traffic and two lanes of arkin . The Director
P g
of Public Works further explained a petition had been signed by 78% of the
residents. The petition offered three choices to signers regarding the upgrading
of 53rd Avt!ue. The first Qhuice was to leave 53rd Avenue as it exists. The
second choice was to upgrade the street-as the City has 'proposed with the .exception
being to widen it to three feet instead of seven feet on the Brooklyn Center side
and to post the street for "no parking ". The third choice was to go ahead with
the proposed project as the.City plans. Additionally, a check off was available
if residents wanted the "no parking" restriction of the second choice to be enforced
only during times of heavy traffic. Survey results showed the greatest percentage
of people responding to this survey wished to leave 53rd Avenue as is.
Councilmember Fignar questioned whether or not leaving the street as is was a
reasonable option. The Director of Public Works replied leaving the street as is
would work temporarily but with increased traffic generated by the construction
of the freeway, the roadway would rapidly deteriorate. The road would require
upgrading at a later time when traffic was heavier and the upgrading would be
much more difficult at that time.
The Director of Public Works noted the amount of traffic in the location of 57th
Avenue North between Logan and Humboldt would be fairly representative of the
future traffic on 53rd Avenue.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether or not the State would provide funds if
the upgrading was done at a later time. The Director of Public Works indicated
the State would participate at a later time but the total cost of upgrading would
continue to rise_
The Director of Public Works explained another option might be feasible for this
area. That option would include a 16 foot travel way at intersections and a 22
foot roadway which would include parking bays. He explained that both North and
South St. Paul use this type of configuration in certain segments within their
City. One advantage of this system is that it provides for parking and yet
2- 26-79 -8-
I
ensures only one lane of traffic. The main problem with this type of system is
snow removal. The City of Minneapolis has indicated that they do not intend to
place parking restrictions on their side of the street nor to they intend to
construct a roadway configuration that includes parking bays and narrow inter-
sections.
on the Minneapolis side of the street the width will be 20 to 22 feet.
The Director of Public Works explained another possible option would be to construct
the street at 20 feet wide with no parking bays. A 20 foot wide street would hinder
two travel lanes and encourage one travel lane and one parking lane.
In response to questions, the Director of Public Works replied the.desirable width
for one drive lane and one parking lane would be a 12 foot drive lane and a 10 foot
parking lane. The minimum required would be a 12 foot drive lane and an 8 foot
parking lane.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether or not there were any examples of 20 foot
roadways. The Director of Public Works replied that many Minneapolis and St. Paul
streets are 20 foot roadways. A representative from Minneapolis commented that
most of the 40 foot streets located in Minneapolis are residential not thoroughfare
streets.
Councilmember Fignar questioned whether or not there was a significant number of
mature trees which would have to be removed if 53rd Avenue was upgraded. The
Director of Public Works commented the majority of those trees which would have
to be eliminated were elm trees.
The Director of Public Works further noted that if the three foot roadway width
waG ,qa (l, as ctai - Pd in the petition, street parking would have to be banned all of
- the time.
The City Manager commented based on his experience in North St. Paul there were few
safety problems created by the bay parking configuration. Some snow plowing
problems were created. In this configuration a street appears to be narrower and
people travel more slowly due to the appearance of a narrower street. The parking
bay configuration with a narrower intersection virtually eliminated tail end crashes
with parked cars.
Councilmember Fignar questioned what the speed limit would be and whether or not
there would be traffic signals on 53rd Avenue. The Director of Public Works
explained the speed limit would be 30 miles per hour. There would be no traffic
signals because the volumes of traffic do not warrant signals.
Mr. Bob Carlson from the City of Minneapolis was asked to comment on Minneapolis'
experience with a parking bay configuration. Mr. Carlson noted there were problems
with snow plowing and trying to keep the bays clean. He noted Minneapolis had used
this type of configuration mainly along the parkways and in a small area in the
southeast part of Minneapolis near the University.
The Director of Public works explained there was a provision for deferment of
special assessments for senior citizens if certain criteria were met. Deferment
of the special assessments would apply if 53rd Avenue were upgraded. The criteria
included a necessity that the home be homesteaded, the resident be 65 years of age
or older and the resident's income be $7,500 or less per year.
Finally, the Director of Public Works briefly reviewed two letters which had been
received from citizens regarding the 53rd Avenue upgrading. He reviewed one letter
2 -26 -79 -9-
I
from Mr. Douglas Jordal who was writing in behalf of his mother, Lu M. Jordal who
resides at 516 - 53rd Avenue North. He also reviewed a letter from Mr. & Mrs.
Cliplef.
RECESS
The City Council recessed at 9 :00 p.m. and resumed at 9:20 p.m.
Prior to opening the public hearing for citizen comment, the Mayor noted proper
notices had been sent informing people of the public hearing. He requested
comments be brief.
The Mayor recognized Mr. Don Jordal who represented his mother who resides at
516 - 53rd Avenue North. Mr. Jordal commented he felt undue emphasis had been
placed on the importance of widening the street for purposes of parking. He
noted it was more important to keep 53rd Avenue at its present width because
this would prevent the loss of trees, it would keep the road from impinging
closer on homes, and it would keep'the noise level down in the residential area.
Comparing 53rd Avenue to the present 57th Avenue which is 40 feet wide and
intended for two driving lanes and two parking lanes indicates that 53rd might
well become similar to 57th. 57th Avenue oftentimes has four driving lanes and
people hesitate to park their cars on 57th Avenue.
Again Mr. Jordal stated it was his belief the street should be left at its
present width.
The Mayor recognized 'M . Stcvcn Vi1' as of 5301 E=rscn Avenue North. Mr. Villas
stated the City appeared to be more concerned with motorists than they were
concerned with the .residents _of the area.. He also stated concern over the fact
that two additional options were presented in addition to those presented at the
informational meeting. People were not prepared to make a judgment on the two
additional options. The residents want to keep the street the minimal width as
is possible. Residents do not want the road closer to their homes.
The Mayor next recognized Mr. J. S. Fahrenholz of 620 — 53rd Avenue North.
Mr. Fahrenholz noted the street is in good shape on 53rd Avenue. He said it
was his belief the base of the street was good and with the addition of some
asphalt the street would be in very it'
y g od condition. He noted people presently..
speed on 53rd Avenue and if the street were widened there would be even more
speeding. He clarified that the interchange at 53rd Avenue was a partial inter-
change. He further noted the City of Minneapolis is not assessing their project
to homeowners..
The City Manager commented the Minneapolis tax structure and procedure for paying
for assessments was different than that of Brooklyn Center. The money for the
assessments was taken from the general fund. The City Manager noted because of this,
the mill rate in the City of Minneapolis was considerably higher than the mill rate
in the City of Brooklyn Center.
I II
The Mayor next recognized Mr. Don Rutter of X254 Logan Avenue North. Mr. Rutter
had attended a meeting with Mayor Hofstede and Alderwoman Alice Rainville and they
had indicated that assessments would not be charged. in Minneapolis, the assess-
ment is actually charged to all people within the City of Minneapolis not only to the
people located in the area.
In response to comments made earlier he noted Fremont Avenue North in Minneapolis is
a 40 foot wide street and cars do riot travel four abreast on Fremont Avenue North.
2 -26 -79 _10-
The Mayor next recognized Mr. Victor Andersen of 602 - 53rd Avenue North.'
Mr. Anderson commented he felt the cost should be split to the entire City of
Brooklyn Center not only assessed against the property owners on 53rd Avenue.
The City Manager commented that the City of Brooklyn Center's mill levy was 17.88
mills and the City of Minneapolis' mill levy was 43.42 mills.
The Mayor next recognized Mr. N. W. Fleischhacker of 710 - 53rd Avenue North,
Mr. Fleischhaker noted he had chosen his home in a quiet neighborhood because
it was a quiet neighborhood. Recently he had purchased land in Andover and
anticipated selling his property at 710 - 53rd Avenue in the spring. The total
assessments on his property will be over $2,000 if 53rd is upgraded. He explained
he was currently in contact-with the Spring Realty Company and Mr. Al Soderberg
of the Spring Realty Company has indicated that widening the road will not increase
the value of Mr. Fleischhacker's home. Additionally, water would have to be
connected for the home at a cost between $500 and $1,000. If this home was sold
FHA all of these assessments would have to be paid by Mr. Fleischhacker before the
home could be sold. Mr. Fleischhacker indicated the equity built in his house
will be reduced and fewer people would be interested in purchasing the home.
The Mayor next recognized Mr. Patrick Menth of 5302 Fremont. Mr. Menth questioned
whether or not upon completion of the improvements, real estate taxes would be
raised. The City Manager explained, based on the street improvements, the real
estate taxes would not be raised, unless the average sale price of homes in the
neighborhood increased.
The Mayor next recognized Mr. Percy Anderson of 5319 Logan Avenue North. Mr.
Anderson noted there really was no place for the traffic to go. He commented
he felt that 53rd should not be a through street. He further commented that
Logan Avenue could not handle more traffic. He miestioned whether or not trucks
would be allowed to use the roadway. The Director of Public Works commented
that major trucks would use the freeway but trucks would not be prohibited from
using the roadway.
The Mayor next recognized Mr. Phil Cohen of 5302 Humboldt Avenue North. Mr. Cohen
noted he opposed the "no parking" ban on 53rd Avenue because he felt it would be
shifting the parking burden to Minneapolis which would be unfair and also many
residents and their visitors need the parking on 53rd on the Brooklyn Center side.
In regard to the comments made on the City of Minneapolis not assessing the
particular property owners, he again called Brooklyn Center' residents' attention
to the fact that Minneapolis' mill rate was substantially higher than that of the
City of Brooklyn Center. He also noted that the City of Minneapolis has access to
more State funds and more Community Development Block Grant monies than did suburban
Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Cohen noted he favored the parking bay configuration. He noted he appreciated
the problems of neighbors who have homes closer to the street but felt that the
upgrading was necessary.
Commenting on earlier questions, Mr. Cohen noted property owners would be assessed
but the improvements would not cause an increase in real estate valuation.
Finally, he questioned who would manage the upgrading project if it was approved.
The Director of Public Works explained there was presently no agreement as to who
would manage the project but currently Brooklyn Center was the lead agency in
planning the project and it was anticipated that Brooklyn Center would be the
lead agency in managing the project if the upgrading was approved.
2 -26 -79 -Il-
The Mayor next recognized Mr. L. Jarvits of 5300 Penn Avenue North. He explained
he had planted five evergreen trees several years ago and all five trees will be
taken if the upgrading is approved. He further explained the area was currently
a race way with no stop signs and if the road was widened speeding would increase.
He commented that 53rd Avenue does not need to be improved. He questioned why the
owners of property on 53rd Avenue should be assessed for the upgrading of 53rd
Avenue when the residents did not want the upgrading and other residents within the
City of Brooklyn Center would be benefiting from the upgrading.
The Mayor next recognized Mr. Gerald Taylor of 512 - 53rd Avenue North. Mr. Taylor
questioned who would pay for the frontage road. The Director of Public Works
explained there was no frontage•road between 53rd and 57th. There was a frontage
road between 49th and 53rd but that would be part of the ramp.
Mx. Taylor further asked whether or not he would have to connect to Brooklyn Center
water and why that was necessary.
The Director of Public Works explained there was corrosive build -up inside of the
water lines which reduces the water pressure. If streets are to be torn up as
part of the upgrading then water mains should also be installed so the roadway
would not have to be torn up at a later time for repair of service line. At that
time Brooklyn Center residents hooked up to Minneapolis water would be- hooked up
to Brooklyn Center water.
The Mayor next recognized Ethel Anderson of 600 - 53rd Avenue North. She questioned
w_ would happen with the sewers and cesspools, The Director of Public Works
indicated he was not aware that these were any cesspools in the area. The Dir ctor
of Public Works noted if the water main was improved at a later time, replacement
a -nd restoration costs would also be assessed back to the people which was another
reason that it'would be to the people's benefit to improve the water main at the
sane time the street was upgraded.
The City Attorney left the table at 10:27 p.m.
The Mayor again recognized Mr. Don Jordal who noted a point of
Mr. Jordal stated that if improvements do not actually improve the property or
increase the property value than legally special assessments could not be made to
the property owners. Mr. Jordal questioned whether or not this particular improve-
ment would actually be a benefit or a detriment to the properties.
The City Attorney returned to the table at 10:30 p.m.
The Mayor next recognized Mary Nelson of 5302 Morgan Avenue North. She stated their
property is only 15 feet to the roadway. 2f the street is widened the street will
be almost next to their front door.
The Mavor asked if there were any more comments before the public hearing was
closed.. There were no more comments. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar
and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned Mr. Steven Villas, the carrier of the petition, as
to whether Mr. Villas felt there was need for additional time to consider the added
options. Mr. Villas commented that since two options were added, it did not give
pec,ple time to consider those options.
2 -26 -79 -12-
Councilmember Kuefler commented that the bay parking option had been discussed at
the last Council meeting and the Council had directed that consideration be given
to the bay parking configuration. Councilmember Kuefler suggested he would be in
favor of granting the residents more time`to consider the additional options if a
time schedule was not a problem for the City.
The City Manager also explained that the additional options came based on questions
and concerns raised by the residents at the informational meeting.` The additional
options were an attempt to meet some of the concerns raised by the residents at the
informational meeting.
The Director of Public Works replied to Councilmember Kuefler's earlier comments
stating it would be possible to give the residents additional time but the start of
construction would be delayed. The Director or Public Works stated the basic issue
is whether or not the Council felt there should be upgrading.
Councilmember Kuefler stated he felt the Council should do everything possible to
discourage traffic but the upgrading was needed. Councilmember Kuefler stated
that to do nothing is to ignore the problem. Councilmember Kuefler further commented
he was in_ favor .of allowing the residents more time to consider the additional options.
The City Manager explained he would be happy to hold another informational meeting
to give the residents time to discuss the additional options.
The Director of Public Works again stated there should be a Council decision as to
whether or not there should be an upgrading so that the informational meeting could
be for the purposes of discussing alternatives if that was the Council's wish.
Councilmember Kuefler stated that assessments on the property were assumable if the
nro erty as sold except fo homes sold under FHA and r_y financing in .tl; case
d..t1 1. il-_ lust . ue rleayed.. Councilmember eignar went on to express ... concern .
over tree removal
Councilmember Fignar commented that he had had the opportunity to work with approxi-
mately a dozen different municipalities through his personal business and in his
estimation the City of Brooklyn Center is competently run. Councilmember Fignar
commended the staff for work they had done. He noted citizens had expressed dismay
over the need to upgrade 53rd Avenue and questioned whether the City was handling
the situation correctly. Councilmember Fignar expressed confidence in the City's
handling of the situation.
Councilmember Scott commented that it was not the City's choice that 53rd Avenue
be a major access to the freeway. That decision was a State decision and Brooklyn
Center did not have a choice in the matter. The fact.that 53rd Avenue had been
designated as a major access has necessitated that 53rd Avenue be upgraded. Council-
member Scott stated the issue presently was what is the minimal.amount of upgrading
that can be done to fulfill the needs of the area and yet not upset the neighborhood
balance.
The Council reached a consensus that upgrading was necessary on 53rd Avenue. There
was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to express
the Council intent to approve upgrading of 53rd Avenue. The Council also asked
the City Manager to set up another informational meeting with the residents at which
time various upgrading alternatives could be discussed. A decision on the specific
type of upgrading would be deferred until after the informational meeting. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
2 -26 -79 -13-
The City Manager set March 5, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Hall Council, Chambers as
.the date and time for the informational meeting. All residents were invited to
the i
h nformational e i
mein .
g
The resolutions concerning the upgrading were deferred until the next Council
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79004 submitted
by Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects for a preliminary plat approval of the
property located at 5920 Brooklyn Boulevard. The application was recommended
"
for approval at the February 15, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that on July 10, 1978, the City
Council had approved Planning Commission Application No. 78037, consisting of
site and building plan review for a remote banking facility for the First Brook
dale Bank to be located at 59th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Planning
and Inspection remarked that one of the conditions of approval was that the
P
property be replatted by formal plat or registered land survey into a single
tract or lot prior to occupancy of the building. The Director of Planning and
Inspection pointed out that presently there is a dirt drainage and utility
easement running north and south through the center of the parcel. He explained
that with the development of this parcel there was no longer a need for an
easement and that the City was in the process of vacating the easement through
an ordinance amendment.
The-Director of Planning and Inspection noted -a public hearing had been held at
the Planning Commission meeting. Explaining the traffic engineering aspects of'
the plan.the Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the proposed plat
allowed entrance only from 59th Avenue North. The Director of Planning and
Inspection stated that with the existence of a nonconforming single family residential
structure with a driveway on 59th Avenue North, just south of the site, it was not
feasible to close 59th Avenue North at this time. He added that the approved
layout for the bank facility does not preclude the possibility of a closin g at a
future date.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that Mr. Erickson, the architect
for the project, had indicated that the function of the new remote facility was
not to enerate a new market t for the First ro k e t k
B o dal State Ban but was rather a
means of handling existing g overflow demand.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that both right and left turns
would be allowed onto Brooklyn Boulevard from the site.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the landscape plan was in
keeping with the previous plan.
Councilmember rignar_ commented in discussion of the application that he would like
to see the vacation of 59th Avenue pursued. Councilmember Kuefler noted agree-
ment that the vacation should be pursued by the City.
The Mayor opened the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 79004. There was no one present to speak on the
application. Mr. Erickson, representative of the architect, was present to
answer questions from the Council.
2 -26-79 -14-
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 79004. submitted by Korsunsky, Krank,
Erickson Architects for a preliminary plat approval for the property located at
5920 Brooklyn Boulevard subject to the following conditions:
1. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter
15 of the City Ordinances.
.Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,.Fignar, Lhotka, and
Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79005 submitted by
Hodne /Stagberg Architects. The application is for a site and building plan approval
for the Hennepin County Regional Library, Licenses Center, Social Service Office
and County 'Court and Administrative Offices located on the west side of Shingle
Creek Parkway, south of Shingle Creek Tower highrise apartment building. This
application was recommended for approval at the February 15, 1979 Planning Com-
mission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection commented that access to the site is provided
through a common driveway with the Shingle Creek Tower apartment complex at Summit
Drive while access on the south is through a common driveway at John Martin Drive.
He noted that appropriate easements had been obtained.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the building is approximately
54,500 square feet and that the proper number of parkina spaces has been provided.
Tll� t
%ciyJu Of i.'.0 luilly NrOViu�j al u�:Gc:,' i.v U' t3 ='
1.` Li;�;rary area,. t' � L�.:c� =se an-
Social Services Office through a common entrance. The County Court and Administrative
Offices, although a part of the same building has a separate entrance area and does not
provide public access through the building to other areas. The Director of Planning
and Inspection briefly explained the provisions.made for walkways and pedestrian
access as well as the exterior treatment of the building.
The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded to give a lengthy explanation of
the landscape plan for the site. He explained that sod would be installed around
the parking and driving areas, along the west and north side of the building and
along Shingle Creek Parkway. Prairie grass is to be planted in a large open area
primarily in the east and southeasterly portions of the site. He explained that
prairie grass is a long grass containing wildflowers and is not maintained in a
normal sense being cut approximately once a year. The applicant proposes to provide
underground irrigation for the sodded areas only and not for the area designated
for prairie grass. .The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that at the time
of the Planning Commission meeting, staff had explained to the applicant that the
Zoning Ordinance requires an underground irrigation system to facilitate site land -
scaping and green areas, and that staff at that time felt that the area designated
for prairie grass should be irrigated as well.. After considerable discussion with
the applicant and an explanation by the applicant, it became clear that irrigation
of the prairie grass area would defeat the entire concept of prairie grass. The
Director of Planning and Inspection recommended the City consider holding a per-
, formance bond until the prairie grass took hold and in lieu of waiving the
irrigation requirement. It was noted that the City had not required an underground
irrigation system for the Post Office because it was contended that such a system
was not needed because the below grade area would contain a clay shelf which would
retain .moisture.
2 -26 -79 -15-
Mr. Erickson.showed slides of other areas planted with prairie grass.
Finally, the Director of Planning and Inspection explained the applicant's proposal
of an amphitheater to be shown as an add alternate, meaning that if bid price is in
excess of the building budget, this item would be. deleted.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
approve Planning Commission Application No. 79005 submitted by Hodne /Stagberg
Architects for site and building plan approval for the Hennepin County Regional
Library, Licenses Center, Social Service Office and County Court and Administrative
Offices located on the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway, south of Shingle Creek
Tower highrise apartment building 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 and utility plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in
an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted
to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extin-
quishing system to meet MFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be
connected to an ?rrirnzjrad central mon i i-.nri n g system in
accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and /or rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
6. All landscaped areas shall be equipped with an underground
irrigation system with the exception of the prairie grass area.
A portion of the performance bond shall be held for four years
after installation of the prairie grass to ensure its viability.
7. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed amphitheater as an add
alternate, meaning it could be deleted if the bid price is in
excess of the building budget, provided the proposed area would
be treated with sod and an irrigation system.
8. Any revisions to the building and landscaped areas are subject
to review and approval by the City of Brooklyn Center.
9. The large island in the northwest of the parking lot shall be
given a landscaped treatment to include trees compatible with
the proposed landscape plan and shall be 2� inches to 3 inches
in diameter.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 79006 submitted by
Arvid Elness Architects, Inc. for Dale Tile. Site and building plan approval for
Dale Tile warehouse, showroom and office on Lakebreeze Avenue westerly of the
2 -26 -79 -16-
present Dale Tile site. This application was recommended for approval at the
February 15, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
Councilmember Lhotka left the table at ll;l3 p.m. and returned at 11:15 p.m.
Councilmember Fignar left the table at 11:16 p.m. and returned at 11:18 p.m.
The Director_ of Planning and Inspection reviewed the site and building plan for
an approximate 3,200 square foot warehouse, showroom and office on the site located
on the north side of Lakebreeze Avenue North, just west of the present Dale Tile
Company. The Director of Planning and-Inspection stated that the proposed plan
comprehends using a portion of the present Dale Tile Company site. Replatting of
this area to shift the present property lines easterly is required. The Director
of Planning and Inspection explained that access to this site is proposed to be
via two curb cuts off Lakebreeze Avenue, one lying to the east being a common
entrance with Dale Tile Company. Common access and cross driving easements are
required along the easterly portion of the proposed site to accommodate this plan.
Approximately 2,200 square feet of the building is designed for warehouse and
approximately 9,900 square feet for office and showroom area. The Director of
Planning and Inspection noted some drainage problems on the west side of the site.
Resent revisions have been requested to provide on -site drainage. These revisions
have some effect on the applicant's long -range plans for expansion of the building
to the west. The Director of Planning and Inspection suggested that it might be
possible to work out the drainage problem through a common agreement with Davies
Water Company located to the west of the site. One solution would be a drainage
easement encompassing the portion of the Davies site on the proposed Dale Tile
site. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the applicant proposes
a scored concrete block building with a clear sealer and baked enamel roof panel.
In discussion of the application, the Councii expresses concern over the aesthetics
of the scored concrete block building. The architect apologized for not having
sketches of the building and explained he had not made certain connections which
would have enabled him to bring those sketches to the Council. The architect
explained the aesthetics of the building were in line with certain conceptual
plans of the Dale Tile Company. -
The Building Official noted the present Dale Tile building addition had been
painted white on one side rather than the building being treated in its entirety.
He expressed concern over the aesthetics of this partial treatment. He noted
the Planning Commission had addressed aesthetics and had expressed concern that
the building be treated equally on all sides.
Councilmember Scott expressed a distaste for a scored concrete block building
°because of the aesthetic appearance of the building.
There was a general consensus amongst the Council that they wished to see sketches
of .the building before making a decision.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott to
defer a decision on Planning Commission Application No. 79006 until sketches of
the building could be reviewed, expressing concern over the aesthetics of the
design. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Y.uefler, Fignar, Lhotka,
and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
2 -26 -79 -17-
In further discussion, the Council directed the City Manager to check on the present
Dale Tile building addition.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The City Manager explained that Kaleidoscope would again be held April 22, 1979 and •
the City had been invited to participate. As the Council is aware, City commissions
and advisory groups had been invited to participate and additionally the City Council
had been asked to participate. The Council indicated they were interested in parti.ci-
pating -in a similar manner as to their participation in former years. An informational
booth can be set up and Council members will be available to answer questions of
citizens.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
participate in Kaleidoscope with an informational booth. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers,Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none.
The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced the next discussion item an explanation of an exercise
in which the City was participating, for emergency preparedness. He explained the
City had been working with Hennepin County in an emergency preparedness exercise.
In the first phase of the exercise, department heads had to set up procedures to
deal with a mock emergency situation. In the second phase, a mock emergency situation
will be dealt with from the City's emergency operating center. A third phase, is
recommended which might involve the City .Council in making emergency decisions if
the Council wished to be involved. The City Manager noted if the City Council was
interested, he would make arrangements to arrange an exercise in emergency prepared-
ness for the Council. It was the consensus of the Council that they wished to be
involved in an emergency preparedness exercise.
DISCUSSION OF LIMITED VALUES
The City Manager explained the Limited Value Law as it relates to the assessing
of the properties took effect in 1973 and it restricted the raising of property
values more than 10% in any given year. Currently there is a tax lawsuit which
has been initiated involving affected property owners who say that the law treats
properties unfairly by taxing-them at a rate below market and others at a rate at
market value. The City Manager noted that from an administrative point of view,
the Limited Value Law is not equitable. However, the immediate repeal of the
Limited Value Law would create a shift in the tax burden. The City Manager noted
it appears the most equitable solution at this time would be a repeal on the Limited
Value Law and corrective legislation which would relieve the inequities of the
present law and make adjustments in the assessing system which would compensate
for the shifted tax burden created by the elimination of the Limited Value Law.
He also noted that if the Limited Value Law is not repealed and corrective legislation
passed during this session of the legislature, the inequities and- the - problems of
repairing those inequities created by the Limited Value Law will increase dramatically.
The City Assessor briefly explained the charts which he had drawn up showing a
limited value analysis, a tax effect analysis and several case studies. He explained
that in essence homes built since 1973 are paying a higher tax and the crux of the
issue is fairness. The limited value analysis is intended to demonstrate what effects
removing the limited value will have on property taxes in Brooklyn Center. The
City Assessor noted it was his opinion the property tax law should be modified to
eliminate the Limited Value provisions for many reasons, the most compelling is
equal treatment under the law. He also noted that residential values in suburban
Hennepin County have risen from 15 to 20 per cent from the 1978 assessment to the
1979 assessment. A similar rise in commercial industrial properties has not been
experienced. This fact will cause a further spread between residential, limited
and market values. Any further spread will complicate the analysis of a tax shift
between property types.
2 -26 -79 -18-
L
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -68
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MODIFICATION OF LIMITED VALUE LAW
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
LICENSES
In discussion of the licenses, Council members expressed concern over purported
conditions at Evergreen Park apartments. The Council decided it wished to defer
approval of the rental dwelling license for Evergreen Park apartments until the
next Council meeting.
Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve
the following list of licenses:
BULK VENDOR LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Lions Box 29092
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Acorn Vending 8433 Center Drive
Brookdale 10 Office 2810 County Road 10
Happy Dragon 5532 Brooklyn Blvd.
FODOD ECTTT',%ISII EI T LICy� SE
Kymme Bautista 210 E. County Rd. B2
European Health Spa 2920 County Road 10
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No.
Fanny Farmer Candy Shop #121 Brookdale Shopping Center
Fanny Farmer Candy Shop #123 Brookdale Shopping Center
Farrell's Ice Cream Parlor 5524 Brooklyn Blvd.
Frito -Lay, Inca P.O. Box 35034
Frito -Lay 6800 -D Shingle Crk. Pkwy.
Happy Dragon 5532 Brooklyn Blvd.
Kentucky Fried Chicken 5512 Brooklyn Blvd.
McGlynn Bakery 7752 Mitchell Road
Dayton's Brookdale Shopping Center
Maid of Scandinavia Co. 3244 Raleigh Avenue
Maid of Scandinavia Westbrook Shopping Center
Olive's East Brookdale Shopping Center
Poppin Fresh Pie Shop 5601. Xerxes Ave. No.
Red Owl Stores 5425 Xerxes Ave. No.
Zantigo- American Mexican Rest. 6800 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE
Modern Heating & Air Conditioning 2318 First Street N.E.
Rouse Mechanical 11348 K -Tel Drive
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Beacon Bowl 6525 Lyndale Ave. No.
H. & L. Enterprises 11517 Yukon St. N.W.
Whirltronics 3401 48th Ave. No.
2 -26 -79 -19-
W
Minnesota Fabrics P.O. Box 1748
Minnesota Fabrics 5712 Morgan Ave. No.
Red Cell Stores 5425 Xerxes Ave. No.
C. B. Schut 7536 Douglas Drive
Chuck Wagon Inn 5720 Morgan Ave. No.
Viking Pioneer Distributing Co. 5200 W. 74th St.
LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Drive
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Coca -.Cola Bottling Co. 1189 Eagan Ind. Rd.
Arctic Metals 6530 James Ave. No.
H. & L. Enterprises 11517 Yukon St. N.W.
Whirltronics 3401 48th Ave. No.
red Owl Stores 5425 Xerxes Ave. No.
Viking Pioneer Distributing Co. 5200 W. 74th St.
LaBelle's 5925 Earle Brown Drive
READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE
Frito -Lay, Inc. P.O. Box 35034
Frito- -Lay 6800 - D Shingle Creek Pkwy.
RENTT.L DWELLING LICENS
Initial
Ewing Square Associates Ewing Square Townhouses
George & Judith Gottschalk 4700 -04 Lakeview Ave. No.
Residential Alternatives, Inc. 5449 Lyndale Ave. No.
Renewal:
Harold Swanson 7230 West River Road
Harold Swanson 7250 West River Road`
Edward Sass 5101 -03 Xerxes Ave. No.
Transfer:
Griffin Company, Inc. Columbus Village Apts.
SrEC IAL, FOOD HAN DLING ESTABL LICENS$
I eal Drug Store 6800 Humboldt Ave. No.
Toy City Store 6000 Earle Brown Drive
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A brief discussion ensued as to the situation at Brookdale Ten apartments.
Vie City Manager notod as a point of information the League's Legislative Conference
Day was scheduled for March 1, 1979.
A DCG R�iMENT
2:oti.on by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to adjourn the City
Countil meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar,
L "_otka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously._ The Brooklyn
Center City Council adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Clerk mayor .
2 -26 -79 -20-
t
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con-
sideration of proposed Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Improvement
Project No. 1978 -38.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being; on
February 22, 1979, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING STREET GRADING, BASE &
SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -38
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -38 (M.S.A.P. 109- 113 -01)
c+.,.ect - ar7,n 'hacP F. ciirfaciricr nn the north 1/2
of 53rd Avenue North from 4th Street North to Penn
Avenue North.
The estimated cost is $261,000.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con-
sideration of proposed Curb & Gutter & Sidewalk Improvement Project
No. 1978 -39.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
February 22, 1979, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections$ and the property-
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 110.
RESOLUTION ORDERING CURB & GUTTER & SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -39 (M.S.A.P. 10 - 113 -01)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -39 (M.S.A.P. 109- 113 -01)
C c .....I to c ci.a � %, 1k on the north side of
53rd Avenue North from 4th Street North to Penn
Avenue North.
The estimated cost is $134,000.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con -
sideration of proposed Water Main Improvement Project No. 1979 -1.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
February 22, 1979, which affidavit was examined and found satis
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTIONI 1
RESOLUTION ORDERING WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1979 -1
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project 11o. 1979-1
� wat-er main alona 53rd Avenue North from Brvant Avenue
North to 4th Street North.
The estimated cost is $31,500.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Cler
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
th�reon, 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 followin g resolution`
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1979 -2 (M.S.A.P. 109- 113 -01)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center
established Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1979 -2 by Resolution
No. 79 -34 adopted on January 22, 1979;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Brooklyn Center as follows:
1. It is hereby determined that it is necessary and for the
best interests of the City that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1979 -2 (M.S.A.P. 109- 113 -01)
Modification of existing storm sewer along 53rd Avenue
North from Penn Avenue North to 4th Street North; and
installation of new storm sewer along Oliver Avenue North
from 53rd Avenue North northward approximately 300 feet
and along Dupont Avenue North from 53rd Avenue North
northward approximately 200 feet.
The estimated cost of Brooklyn Center's participation in
said project is $50,000.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof :`
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
1
M & C No. 79 -6
March 9, 1979
FROM THE OFFICE%
OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Subject: Labor Contracts -- Liquor
Store Clerks & Police Officers
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council;
Enclosed with your agenda materials for your approval are contracts which
cover 1979 and 1980 for the liquor store employees and police officers.
Liquor store employees' contract enclosed covers the clerk - stockers and
cashiers in our liquor stores. This is - the first contract and 'the proposed
salary increases, which result in a - top salary of $4 for 1979 and $4.25
for 1980, are within the Presidential Guidelines. These salaries also
represent - the going rate for other part -time personnel in the area and in
other departments within - the City.
The police ,contract was negotiated with Local 320 by the MAMA police
bargaining committee. The 1979 settlement for wages calls for an increase
of 7% and a revised salary schedule which starts at 65% of 'the - top patrol
rate and proceeds to that rate in 3 -1/2 years. This is - the first 'time 'this
schedule was subject to joint negotiations. Previously each individual
community had a different schedule and, I believe, it represents an
improvement over the previous situation. The establishment of this
schedule will mean a substantial savings 'to Brooklyn Center and other
communities when - they hire new police officers. The previous schedule
starts at a much higher rate - than - this one. The 1980 portion of 'the contract
involves a salary increase of slightly over 7.5 %. The contract also calls
for an increase in insurance benefits of $5 over the 1978 level. The total
package will meet Federal Presidential Wage and Price Guidelines of 14%
over the two year period. The additional half per cent in 1980 over 7% is
offset by savings in a lower starting salary and pay schedule for new
employees and no increase in fringes in 1979. The settlement was approved
by a majority of managers from the communities in the MAMA joint bargaining
group and a minority of - those managers felt - that maybe - the 'time was right to
arbitrate for elimination of - the college incentive- longevity plan, which was
imposed on us by -the last arbitration award. However, it was - the collective
judgment - that -there wasn't sufficient potential for that happening - to justify
the risk of going - to further arbitration.
We recommend your favorable consideration on these matters as I believe it
is the best deal we can cut given - the circumstances now existing.
Respectfully submitted,
erald G. linter
City Mana er
GGS:dkw
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION APPROVING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE
UNION, LOCAL #320, AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971 as amended
thereafter requires a written contract between the ;employer and the exclusive
representative of a recognized bargaining unit; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees
Union, Local #320 has been designated as the exclusive representative for the
Brooklyn Center Police bargaining unit; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and affected members of the Metropolitan
Area Management Association on behalf of participating employer municipalities
recommend employer approval; and
WHEREAS, the City Council accepts the City Manager's recommendation
that the terms of the tentative agreement be ratified:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to agree to the incorporation of the following terms and
conditions of employment in a 1979 -80 collective bargaining agreement with
Local #320, Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union.
1. Length of Contract
The aareement shall cover the period from January 1. 1979
through December 31, 1980.
2. Wage Rat
1979
A) Employees hired before February 1, 1979
Patrol Office Grade Hourly Rate
Starting P/A 7.365
After six (6) months P/B 7.690
After twelve (12) months P/C 8.039
After eighteen (18) months P/D 8.364
After twenty -four (24) months P/E 8.713
After thirty (30) months P/F 9.038
Top Patrol after thirty -six (36) continuous months $1,626 per month.
B) Employees hired after February 1, 1979
Top Patrol (after three (3) years) $1,626 per month"
Starting 65% of top patrol
After six (6) months 70% of top patrol
After one (1) year 80% of top patrol
After two (2) years 90% of top 'patrol
RESOLUTION N0.
1980
A) Employees hired before February 1, 1979
Patrol Office Grade Hourly Rate
Starting P/A 7.927
After six (6) months P/B 8.277
After twelve (12) months P%C 8.652
After eighteen (18) months P/D 9.002
After twenty -four (24) months P/E 9.378
After thirty (30) months P/F 9.728
Top Patrol after thirty -six (36) continuous months $1,750 per month.
B) Employees hired after February 1, 1979
Top Patrol (after three (3) years) $1,750 per month
Starting 65% of top patrol
l After six (6) months 70% of top patrol
After one (1) year 80% of top patrol
After two (2) years 90% of top patrol
3. Insurance
The City of Brooklyn Center will contribute up to a maximum of
eighty dollars ($80) per month per employee toward health, life
and long -term disability insurance commencing January 1, 1980.
4. Employees classified or assigned by the City of Brooklyn Center to
the following job classifications or positions will receive eighty-
five dollars ($85) per month or eighty -five dollars ($85) prorated
for less than a full month in addition to their regular wage rate:
A. Investigator (Detective)
B. School Liaison Officer
C. Juvenile Officer
D. Dog Handler
E. Paramedic
5. Employees classified by the employer to the following job classi-
fication will receive fifty dollars- ($50) per month or fifty
dollars ($50) prorated for less than a full month in addition to
their regular wage rate:
A. Corporal
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized
to execute a 1979 -80 collective bargaining agreement between Local #320,
Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union, in corporating
said terms and conditions of employment.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE
UNION, LOCAL #320, AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971 as amended
thereafter requires a written contract between the employer and the exclusive
representative of a recognized bargaining unit; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees
Union, Local #320 has been designated as the exclusive representative for
the Brooklyn Center Municipal Liquor Store Part -time Employees Bargaining
Unit; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends employer approval of the terms
acid conditions of the collective bargaining agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council accepts the City Manager's recommendation
that the terms of the tentative agreement be ratified:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to agree to the incorporation of the following terms and
conditions of employment in a 1979 -1980 collective bargaining agreement
with Local #320, Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees
Union.
1. Length of Contract
The agreement shall cover a period from January 1, 1979
through December 31, 1980
2. Wages
1979 (Effective 1/1/79)
Steps* A B C
Clerk- Stockers 3.50 3.75 4.00 (per hour)
Cashiers 3.50 3.75 4.00 (per hour)
1980 (Effective 1/1/80)
Steps* A B C
Clerk- Stockers 3._ 75 4.00 4725
Cashiers 3.75 4.00 4.25
*A is the starting wage, succeeding steps represent six (6)
month intervals.
3.. That the City recognizes the Union as the exclusive representative
for all part -time municipal liquor store employees in the following
job classifications:
A. Clerk- Stockers
j . I B. Cashiers
RESOLUTION NO.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager be
authorized to execute a 1979 -80 collective bargaining agreement between
Local #320, Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees Union
in the incorporation of said terms and conditions of employment.
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.
(1/
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE HENNEPIN
URBAN COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, Public Law 93 -383, authorizes the formation of "urban counties "; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has joined with municipalities totaling
in population over 200,000 people thereby forming such an "urban county
under the Act; and
WHEREAS, it appears to be to the advantage of the City of Brooklyn
Center to join with the County for the fifth and subsequent years of this
program; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1972 the Brooklyn Center City Council
by motion did authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Joint
Powers Agreement with Hennepin County to make application for Community
Development funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, a duly constituted unit of general local government in
Hennepin County, that the City join with the County, pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes 471.59, to accomplish the eligible activities denoted in Section
570.200 of the rifles and remil.ations to p„bl. r_. T,aw 93 -383.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Manager be
and are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the City the Joint Powers
Agreement attached hereto.
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.;
fif
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
d AREA OFFICE
6400 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
� MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435
N v January 5, 1979
f DflVt
ifkt
F�L • Iflinois 60606 IN REPLY REFER TO:
5.6CM
Mr. Dale A. Ackmann
County Administrator
Urban Hennepin County
A -2300 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
Dear Mr. Ackmann:
Subject Urban Hennepin County
Qualification Process
B- 79 -UC -27 -0001
The HUD Area Counsel has reviewed the four new cooperation agreements
executed with Brooklyn Center, Medicine Lake, St. Louis Park, and Wood-
land and finds them to be legally acceptable. However, the resolution
execution of the
from Brooklyn Center does not specifically authorize ex e
Cooperation Agreement. Such a resolution should ,be adopted by Brooklyn
Center and • forwarded to this office. In addition, we request a copy
T
Oui Area Counsel ha! also reviewed the exi:a:ing, agreements between -
fienrieIjin County rind the 37 munic.ipaliLi.e:: participating in previous
yearn. Although these agreements are legally acceptable, Area Counsel
recommends the following changes:
1) At II.1. W , add the words "as amended ";
2) At II.2., the reference to 570.105(c) of the regulations
should be dropped;
3) V.1.(a) (Allocation of Basic Grant Amount) is confusing be-
cause the Cooperation Agreements were signed in different
years. For that reason, we do not see how "the first year
of this agreement" can be determined;
4) Article VIII should be revised to state that no termination
is to be effective until the end of any program year covered
by an application for a grant;
RECEIVED
a
JAN 8 37 3` tggt
' J S.
AUMiiliSTRATION i
i
s
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REQUESTING 1978 -79 LOCAL PLANNING ASSISTANCE
GRANT FUNDS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 473.851 - 473.872, requires that the City of Brooklyn Center prepare
and submit a comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council and the City of Brooklyn Center
entered into a contract, numbered 78182 and dated October 3, 1978 for a
Local Planning Assistance Grant for 1976 -77 grant funds in the amount of
$10,145 to assist Brooklyn Center in carrying out the required planning; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has allocated $4,277 to the City of
Brooklyn Center in additional grant funds for 1978 -79; and
WHEREAS, the total grants from the Metropolitan Council will not
exceed 75 of the total cost or 1000 of the remaining cost of carrying
out the required planning which is documented in Appendix A of the above
referenced contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center to request the additional 1978 -79 grant funds and authorize
the City Manager to execute the Agreement Amendment to the above - referenced
contract on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center
i
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
DATE: March 8, 1979
MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning & Inspection/?a.tj
SUBJECT: 1978 -79 Local Planning Assitance Grant Program & Agreement
Amendment
The Metropolitan Council has recently adopted guidelines for the distribution
of addi - tional local Planning Assistance Grant Funds for 1978 -79. Under the
guidelines, Brooklyn Center has been allocated an additional $4,277.00 for
1978 --79. When added to the $10,145.00 allocated in 1976-77, our total
allocation is $14,422.00.
The additional $4,277.00 entitlement for 1978 -79 was derived from a formula
allocation approach based on an evaluation of the needs and financial resources
of all communities and counties in the metropolitan area.
Brooklyn Center has already entered into an agreement for 1976 -77 funds and
to receive the additional entitlement for 1978 -79 the City Council must adopt
a resolution requesting the additional funds and authorizing the amending of
the agreement prior to March 14, 1979.
Appendices A. & B. of the agreement have been reviewed anti updated as necessary
. per the requirements of the Metropolitan Council for preparing the agreement
amendment. Copies of the amended agreement and correspondence from the Metro-
politan Council is included for your review. It is recommended that the Council
take the necessary action to obtain the additional entitlement for 1978 -79.
r
.43O !�
? �'t'1N C ►T
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 201 -6.359
January 15, 1979
Mr. Gerald Splinter, Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Subject: Agreement Amendment for 1978 -79 Grant
Dear Mr. Splinter:
On December 14, 1978, the Metropolitan Council approved the aware
of the 1978 -79 Local Planning Assistance grant funds which were
allocated to your corm,- pity.
The �}t '� i. L. rte:... ,_A s ." l 1 .� t^ +»r.l � ..�.. -+.it i.rs .� r+t!7 r+i7 ,-.n c
award o � use fu * ... ... 11ir. 13_ b� G�. l.m. s.�ti.�.t _1 Li1tlC..aldin y \i .a..
origa.nai grant a.yj eemeflt for 1376 -77 tubas. Fite copies of an
agreement amendment are attached for you to complete and return to
the Council, along with a resolution requesting the funds, not
later than March 14, 1979 If the completed amendments are not
sent to the Council by that date, it will be assumed that your
community is not interested in receiving the 1978 -79 funds. In
a hardship case, a community may by resolution request a time
extension if it is sent to the Council prior to March 14,_1979.
Instructions on how to complete the agreement amendment are
attached, along with copies of the progress report forms which
are required in the contract.
If you have any questions, please call me at 291- 6517.
Sincerely,
T1� nda Tomaselli
Grants Coordinator
LT:im
Encs.
cc: Dean Nyquist, Mayor
Ronald warren, Director of Planning
An Al-vo, v Ort to C't•nrvlinate the Nannitt)t anti Develowii •nt. oft )w Twirl Citi#•i Metrolwltt..it AL-4-:t C`.tntl,t t i•:�•; j
r
O�
O`t�� tt
ft�
? SIN CtT��
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291 -6359
November 21, 1978
Mr. Gerald Splinter
Manager -
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Subject: 1978 -79 Local Planning Assistance Grants Program
Dear Mr. Splinter,
On October 26, 1978, the Metropolitan Council adopted the
attached 1978 -79• Local- Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines
for the distribution of additional funds to communiti bs and
rnunti Ac fn- +-hm ac-mml opmont of �mm�rAhPnSi�ra F1 anc rAr rpc�
of them by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
Under the guidelines, your community has been allocated an
additional $4,277 for 1978 -79 which, when added to your 1976 -77
allocation of $10,145, comes to a total of $14,422. Your
1978 -79 entitlement was derived from a formula allocation
approach. The formula, which is described in Section VI of to
guidelines, was based on an objective evaluation of the needs
and financial resources of all communities and counties in the
Metropolitan Area.
Your community has already entered into an agreement for the
1976 -77 funds, and this agreement contains an Appendix A, which
is your original grant application for those funds. The guide
lines, under Section X, provide that if a community's total
grant allocation for both 1976 -77 and 1978 -79 does not exceed
75% of the cost of preparing or updating its plan as shown in
Appendix A, the community would not have to reapply for its
1978 -79 funds. Based on a preliminary review, this appears to
be the case with your community.
Within the next 4 -6 weeks, we will prepare and send to you an
amendment to your original grant agreement. After your commu-
nity,tmakes any necessary changes, passes a resolution officially
requesting the funds, executes the amendment and returns it to
us, the Council will disburse your community's funds. Between.
Aii Akti iev Urnatt -d Io Ctmrdiiiaitr Iho Pli%niiing iiul Dvvvlopmen! cif the T.viit Cltiv4 Aietrnlmlitau Area t t— il.nyim!
now and when you receive your agreement amendment, no specific
action on your community's part is required except that you
may begin to evaluate Appendices A and B of the agreement and
determine the necessary changes and additions.
If you have any further questions, you may contact Linda Tomaselli,
Local Planning Assistance Grants Coordinator, at 291 -6517.
Sincerely,
I n Boland
Chairman
JB:im
Attach.
cc: Mayor Dean Nyquist
Ronald Warrens
k
�r
CONTRACT NO. 78182
FT ST ,*END.M NT TO
GRANT AGREEMENT BETWZ_ - N THE METROPOLITAN COCNCIL
AND THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan council, hereinafter referred to as the "Council," and the
Citv of Brookivn Center , hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee" have previously
entered into a grant agree ^,.ent sor a local planning assistance grant, :Metropolitan Cc•.::c.
Contract No. 78132 , dated October 3 , 197$_, hereinafter referred to as the
"Agreement," and
WHEREAS, the Council has awarded S 4,277 in 1978 -79 entitlement funds to the Grantee
from funds appropriated by Minnesota Laws 1977, Chapter 455, Section 19, Subdivision 3, fc_ the
preparation of its comprehensive plan required by the Metropolitan Land Planning act.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the above- referenced agreement shall be awerde- i
the following particulars:
1. Paragraph lA is amended to read as follows:
"The Council shall pay to the Grantee, in accordance with the schedule set forth below a
total grant amount of $__1_4 Grant funds shall be made available to -he
grantee as follows: $ i ybU , _ ,mediately upon execution of this Agreement.
$ 1.442 upon sarlszaetory evaluation by the Council of the funded port -or:
completion reports submitted by the Grantee pursuant to Paragraph 4B of this Agreement.'
2. Paragraph lB is amended to read as follows:
"B. The Grantee agrees that of the total cost of carrying out the work program set fc=h
in Grantee's application for v_ be financed by ..ant funds awarded Y this Agreement, . a : rant assistance, Appendix A, attached hereto and made a ca^
hereof, h no more than a '
7 ..
n 58 shall b reeae ^- an
z; ,.
that no more than 100% shall be financed by grant funds awarded by this Agreement plus gra:.t
funds from other sources of financial assistance."
3. Paragraph 1D is amended to read as follows:
"D. The Grantee agrees to comply with all provisions of the Metropolitan Council "Aociicatron,
Award and Disbursement Guidelines for the Administration of Planning Assistance Grants,'
hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines" dated October 26, 1978, and dated Apr_ 7 977,
which are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement and made a part hereof.
4. A new Appc di:: ,, as "Ali ina. Z i.rronii }C A" and attached hereto and atade; a paw:
hereof is substituted for the Appendix A of the original Grant Agreement.
5. A new Appendix B, identified as "Amended Appendix B" and attached hereto and made apart
hereof, is substituted for the Appendix B of the original Grant agreement.
Except as hereby amended, the provisions of the above- referenced contract shall remain in =orce
and effect without change.
IN WITNESS WffEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Am endm ent to be executed on this
day of , 1979.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
FORM AND ADEQUACY By !
a
Chairman
Oi.ice oz Star_ GRANTEE Counsel '
Metropolitan Council
By
Title:
� r
1
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint / P3u1, ,Mirnesom 5:-i01
`•-�'" COMMUNITY GRAUT APPLICATION APPENDIX a
namotcommunirf C ITY of BPOOKLr CViTEa
Z. N&= f Leal CorraactPrssan r2 TP5;t5R €; Di rector of P and I nsp ect ion
Tefephone Number 5 0 1 -5440
S. Work Program
Outline --to major risks and the ttrral t~sts of ttioss auks which must be undertaken in order to oreaare or uodate the r�rnuri y's
comprehensive clan ac=ming to its svrems sat -meet, amid prr..are and acapt its Official Controlu i ne outjine s.-sould ic:tow :^.e
format shown on me bacx of this a:otiataon form.
Proposed Work Program and Cost Estimate attached.
4. Comp l e tio n D ata
Esd=ted completion dais of the Work Pnnrams
L Prsrious Planning
Indicate whether this work crcr mm reflects the cost of u-nfating a creviously prepared plan acid, if so. describe to what extent :.ne
plan(s) will be udiized in ctvaloaing me I=mmunity's Comonnonslve Plan.
Completion of this work program will result in an expanded, refined, and upd.t
Comprehensive Guide Plan which was adopted in 1966. That document consists ter;
marily of development goals and policy recommendations. Those elements whic:
have not been completed, superceded, or obsoleted will serve as a basis for re-
search and evaluation in developing current plans and policies applicabie.to t
now fully developed City.
Lht amounts and soureas of outside assisranrr.
$11,100.00 State Critical Area Planning Grant
7. Special Fund Reaussts .
If the community wishes to acoly for a portion of the Soecial Fund: (1) describe the existing or proccscd meuccoli an f *- ttxa or
activity t'sat exists wit!'tin or rear our =mmuni
Y ty tltrst ir• srs the t gal c ;st to trip ccmmunirr of Cr2aarinq cr c; +r.n _ is
COtatprehensrre an relative to cmar earnmunitier. {�) dc^, sment as treat as ecssi�le how lye festure or actvity the ^:=Mg
Criteria (V C 3 of vie Guideiinesj and now it inc»_.es your cost; and l3) seta in* amount requested and indicate wners t-ia a - -urm
is reflected in the work procra.n major task cost estimates.
See attached narrative.
!
s. Grant Amounts) Re
• ._ _a. Community C:.:ncrtnersivq Planniry Fund entitlement S 7 , 895.00
!9 V ' 7i r .r-7 IJA `f �z i 7 G-4.c:�
. - !t. Inventory Ac:�viay Fund entrlement $
r- Sagaal P Pr et: l ems Fun requested a
'Total want amount requested. plus assistance from the counties out of the County Assistance to Fretntane nq GrLwtn C_rten
Fund or Inventory Acttvrtica Fund, may not exceeC 7 5% of in@ total cost of in* work program. or ins toal cdst *= =er "untry.
. CITY OF 3RCO CLY', CF`.Tt'Z Appendi A (continue)
Work Pro rara Total Cono f Performs! #
i f�Sajor Task : Msjor Tzsk: 1 icy: 2 `
• �,'` � , .;. _•.
1. land Use Plan Cat y sta ~,
. `$8,000.00 consul -n .n ass - trace
A. inventory l as n
8. Ceva!opment of -
Policies and Plans:
t. (snd u sa '51 000.00 Sartre
2. Protection 3.000.00 1 Same
r.-- - -�••• K«,:Ir+� 5 sane
.. • • -• - 4. Akport- related ccmiderat?ons 2 i Same
IL FECilities Plan
A. Inv on1cry2' 4, gala
S. OrvejorrMent of
• Policies ar)d Flans:
1. Tran=r=tlom 7,500-00 Same
-- 2 Sawyer PoliCY 2,500-00 4 sam..e
3. Pviu and Cpen Sty 3 , 000.00 R
Sa i
• • lit. imptamesrmzfon Proc=m
.•.. tmar:�,.ry3 2,500.00 Say ;.,
s. Oevafo;.mcm of .
Pro,rams or Cesc ipticrs:
• 1. Official Controls 3, 000. Q0 S are
_.. -. - - -- - Gaimf Imorovemam 6. coo. 00 SaP'
6,000-
•.. - IV. Preczration and .•cccticn of
Otfl6cl Canis 10,000.00 Sane +
Tout Ccst of WorS Pres --n' 68.000.00
outside Assismr ' 1l 100 . CQ
-�
-- Cast :o Crmmunity
510,.
00.00
• llnc!wm all =M deftnW as inCuded in t "o tt tae ar=t of the vrark pro,rsm.
3 1•tad rcran!s), Firn(s) or acrnevts) rtsoomibla fcr :':e rerfc". ancz of J! le c mier •.asks of
if indefinite at pres:nt. ;. your c:a e=rnauen anc indicate t ::at it iS tent , tlYe,
3 For ccinf"vrities t "st arc 61Clibte fcr !nv -nM.y Activity Gran; entidements...^,ec -.'y (1 ) the eti:ibio ��'+�t i
to be undertaken, acid (ce) the cost :o the ccrnmunrty.
f• CITY 0 BROOKLYN CENTER
APPENDIX, 3 .
FUNDED PORTION OF THE .•,ORK PROGR.;V4
List below the work pro h funded gram major mask (s) which will .,e _rund..d .,y
the total grant award o f � � Q /yyl2 if only a porticn o=
a major task is to be funded, list the specific activity(ies) and
cost(s).
Major Task (s) or
Activities to be Funded Cost
I. Land Use Plan
A. Inventory $4,000.00
B. Development of Policies and Plans:
1. Land Use 2,600.00
2. Protection 1,700.00
3. Housing 2,600.00
4. Airport- related considerations 1,200.00
II. Facilities Plan
A. Inventory 2,700.00
B. Development of Policies and Plans:
1. Transportation 4,200.00
2. Sewer Policy .1
3.: Parks and Open Space 1,700.00
( III. Implementation Program
A. jr► I.40b.00 i
V/ r 1 V y 6 "i1'4 V I vca%1 1 1, V 1.4 .
i+CV V i V NulCn i.
1. Offiical Controls 3,800.00
2. Capital Improvement 7,500.00
3•. Housing Implementation 7,600.00
Total Cost of Funded
Tasks or Activities $42,00.00
Less Other ( —) 11,100.00
Financial Assistance
Remaining Cost Funded $ 31,400.00 X E
by Local Planning
, Assistance Grant �
*Must be equal to or greater than the total grant award.
Estimated completion date of the above major tasks and
activities July 1, 1980
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF CHAIN LINK FENCING
WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for the
purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction
work by informal quotations when the amount of such contract is less than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the purchase of
735 lineal feet of 11 ga. x 72" chain link and has determined that the
quotation of Midwest Fence Company in the amount of $2,124.15 is the best
quotation submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be authorized to contract for the
purchase of 735 lineal feet of fencing with terminal and line posts, top rail
and all fittings in the amount of $2,124.15 from Midwest Fence Company.
Date Mayor
RTTLST:
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.
MEMO TO: G. G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM Gene Hagel, Director of Parks and Recreat
DATE March 7, 1979
SUBJECT: Fence Quotations (agenda)
Quotations for fencing at certain parks were received as follows:
Midwest Fence $2124.15
Crown Iron Works 2193.00
Montgomery Ward 2399.04
Viking Fence 2463.00
I recommend acceptance of the bid of Midwest Fence Company in the
amount of $2124.15
This is _a 1979 budgeted item. The amount budget is $2500.00
The fence is for the following parks:
Northport baseball diamond - baseline
Willow Lane baseball diamond - baseline and player's benches
Grandview East softball diamond - Outfield
�` o f
V
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS
FIRE EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS Chapter 4?
1.345 of the Minnesota nnesota atutes p p St pr v des for the
purchase of merchandise material r al
or equipment, or any kind of construction
work b informal quotations u ons when the amount of contract q such o act is less than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the purchase of
miscellaneous fire equipment and has determined that the quotation of Mid
Central Fire & Safety in the amount of $6,998.80 is the best quotations
submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the City Manager be authorized to contract for the purchase
of miscellaneous fire equipment in the amount of $6,998.80 from Mid Central
Fire & Safety.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
QUOTATIONS ACCEPTED FROM MID CENTRAL FIRE & SAFETY
Item
# Qty. Description Amount
5 2 1 1 2" Akron turbo jet with pistol grip nozzles
Model #1720 $ 410.90
6 2 2Y Akron turbo jet 1730 nozzle 633.70
8 1 hose hoist 60.00
9 700' 5" hose with quick couplings (Snap Tite) 3,465.00
12 2 P -244SE Super Vac Fans with one door bar and hanger 1,190.00
13 2 P164SE Super Vac Exhaust fans with one door bar
and hanger 735.00
16 2 A" Nozzle Akron "Marauder" 309.00
17 1 2h" Nozzle Akron "Marauder" 195.20
Total $6,998.80
6k
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MISCELLANEOUS
FIRE EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, Chapter 471.345 of the Minnesota Statutes provides for the
purchase of merchandise, materials or equipment, or any kind of construction
work by informal quotations when the amount of such contract is less than ten
thousand dollars ($10,000); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has obtained quotations on the purchase of
miscellaneous fire equipment and has determined that the quotation of Minnesota
Fire, Inc. in the amount of $1,078.01 is the best quotation submitted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center that the City Manager be authorized to contract for the purchase of
miscellaneous fire equipment in the amount of $1,078.01 from Minnesota Fire, Inc.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
QUOTATIONS ACCEPTED FROM MINNESOTA FIRE & SAFETY
Item
# Qty- Description Amount
11 2 6" N.S.T. W /5" Storz quick coupling adaptor for
keystone on pump panel $ 183.60
14 1 16" X 20 feet exhaust tunnel with fan adaptor 176.00
15 1 24" x 20 feet exhaust tunnel with fan adaptor 292.00
18 1 "Y" 2 x 1� x l 121.38
19 1 3 -way Siamese Clapper 2� x 2� x 2-� 83.48
20 2 Hose Jackets (Repair) Style #74 98.70
2 1 1 Hose Clamp 122.85
Total $1,078.01
QUOTATIONS ON FIRE EQUIPMENT
Item Minn. Mid Central American
# Coyer Fire Fire LaFrance
1 $ 840.00 $1,060.00 $ •695.00 $ 578.70*
2 170.00* 212.80 .220.00 238.80
3 41.00* 53.26 48.00 52.40
4 48.00 41.82 45.00 40.20*
5 476.00 442.48 410.90* 448.00
6 716.50 682.44 633.70* 672.00
7 360.00* 384.16 380.00 414.00
8 67.00 64.12 60.00* 63.00
9 4,123.00 4,109.98 3,465.00* 3,622.50
10 170.00* 176.80 231.50 217.00
11 190.00 183.60* 246.00 207.00
12 1,326.00 1,399.20 1,190.00* 1,376.07
13 800.00 847.20 735.00* 790.39
14 209.00 176.00* 195.00 182.56
15 330.00 292.00* 310.00 291.00
16 350.00 332.72 309.00* 540.00
17 220.65` 210.14 195.20* 210.00
18 168.25 121.38* 129.00 225.00
19 128.40 83.48* 285.00 510.00
20 103.50 98.70 */298.56 - 500.00
21 129.00 122.85* 115.00 205.00
TOTALS 741.00 $1,078.01 $6,998.80 $ 618.90
*Accepted Bids
1._
I "i•9lCA�at".f�`, <' �9J;,y :f�r'•'" ti ;a�:.c,•r�'•.kr,�...t +,,s�„
_ '
vJ ;t -._ >< ,... .� catiFt! .►....,,•a: %1�s .: '.=:
March 5, 1979
The Honorable Dean Nyquist,
Mayor of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Mr-'Ron Warren
Planning Commission Secretary
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that Kenneth L. Bergstrom ias a previous commit-
ment to appear at a council meeting in anc`her village on Monday,
March 1 2th anA wi l 1 nn4 h� able t0 qt :: + �' ,• __ _
-,; ..
_< _ S Brit s_2'ia �c il`?r.
We therefore, respectfull that our proposal for rezoning
that part of .Lot 2, Block 1, Highcrest Square lying east of Regis-
tered Land Survey #1312 (8d' acres immediately east of Humbol0t
Square) from C -2 to R -4 be continued to the first 'Council meeting
in April.
Thank you for your kind indulgence.
Cordially,
MINN - KOTA EXCAVATING, INC.
Fae M. Ohmar.
KLB /fmo
_T
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
STUDY SESSION
March 1, 1979
1. Call to Order: 8:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes February 15, 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. Kenneth Bergstrom 79001
Rezoning, from C -2 (Commerce) to R -4 (Multiple
Family Residential), of the approximate 8 acre
tract located in the 1300 block south of 69th
Avenue North.
4 6. Discussion Items
L
a) Draft Ordinance Amendment Regarding
Directional Signs
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
i
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79001
Applicant:
Kenneth Bergstrom
K h Ber
pp 9
Location: 1300 block south of 69th Avenue North
Request: Rezoning
The applicant proposes rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to R -4 (Multiple Family
Residential) of the approximate 8 acre tract located in the 1300 block south of
69th Avenue North. The property is bounded on the west by the Humboldt Square
Shopping Center; on the north by 69th Avenue North and the City's Public Utilities
Building; on the east by single family residential homes facing Emerson Avenue
North; and on the south by a number of R5 Multiple Family Residential Dwellings.
Your attention.is directed to the January 11, 1979 Planning Commission information
sheet and January 11, 1979 Commission minutes (attached) relating to the appli-
cation. This application was tabled by the Commission following a public hearing
on January 11 and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for
review and comment. The Neighborhood Group met on February 8, 1979 and has
submitted a report relating to their recommendations (attached). The Group was
opposed to the rezoning request noting that the Northeast Neighborhood has an
over abundance of multiple family dwelling units, and that it is felt that
multiple unit buildings of the density proposed, or of a greater density has
permitted in an R4 zoning district, would seriously effect the value of existing
single family homes. The report goes on to indicate that the Neighborhood Group
has favored an R1 rezoning request of approximately two years ago and would
support such a request in the future, but would prefer to see the current C2
zoning designation remain rather than to have the property rezoned to R4. They
• also did not see the request benifiting the community, but rather only the
particular property owner.
An informational report (attached) has been developed indicating the number and
percentage of multiple family residential units by neighborhood. The report
snows the Northeast Neighborhood contains 1,327 units or 37.7% of all multiple
family residential units in the City. The report further indicates that 626
_units or 17.8% of all units in the City can be found within 1,000 ft. of either
side of Humboldt Avenue North, between 65th Avenue North and 70th Avenue North.
Attached for your review is a copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy & Review Guidelines
contained in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances. It is the policy of the City
that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning" defined as a zoning decision
which discriminates cr minates in favor of a p articular landowner and does not relate to the
Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles.
Currently the rezoning proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
calls for a site at the center of the Northeast Neighborhood to be retained as
Commercial for purposes of ultimate development as a neighborhood business center.
The subject site and the present Humboldt Square Shopping Center is the area
designated for the location of such a facility. A favorable recommendation re-
garding the rezoning request would necessitate an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan. The Commission saw fit to make such a- recommendation when recommending a
rezoning of this parcel to Rl approximately two years ago noting that Humboldt
Square Shopping Center adequately serves this neighborhood and satisfies the
Comprehensive Plan designation of the area for retail shopping facilities, and
also that there is substantial vacant commercial 'land elsewhere in the
neighborhood.
3 -1 -79
Application No. 79001
Page 2
It should also be pointed out that the Commission in recommending the rezoning
also looked at the need for additional RI zoned land in the neighborhood which
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation that single family
residential development be the predominant characteristic of this neighborhood.
I feel the question facing the Commission is whether or not there is a need for
additional R4 zoned land in this neighborhood, particularly in light of the
already high number of multiple residential units in the Northeast Neighborhood
and in particular in the immediate vicinity of this site. There is a large vacant
R4 tract of land located between Camden Avenue North and West River Road, just
north of 70th Avenue as well as some smaller multiple residential zoned parcels
in the neighborhood that would seem to satisfy projected needs for this type
development.
It is recommended that the Commission adopt, by resolution, a recommendation to
deny Application No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan recommendation that single family residential development
be the predominant characteristic of the Northeast Neighborhood.
2. There is substantial vacant multiple residential zoned property
in the Northeast Neighborhood.
3. There is no perceived public need or benefit in the proposal in
Tight of the already large number of existing multiple residential
• , structures in the immediate vicinity.
4. The proposed rezoning does not demonstrate merit beyond the
interests of the owner of the property in question.
3 -1 -79
. ,
It RE P'Af2MVotAV �. �....,..
0
< — N V
/� Jaf,tES <
AVE N. —
/ m
m — - - - - --
-- - . -- - ,,J.1 Al E.S AVE N
CD
,� --- iRVIN(v AVE V h :- _
MSCX=
I L --:4
µ .1 f A t LDT
;o
AVE
D
Fa si W T AVE.
-« J E M • T
� R � x T A 'T
- i -�-�� O fTt DER N V a AV N.
} O Z -
�� n -
}�' Q AYE N
4
Q.
u
AYE ! � � �\ tYt d
2 D < Y
I D m / rn x 0 m
f ; m Z -i x Rl
C •.. O t'7 �
rr �,
+ } m
rr
I f
1 iG A v . N.
77�1
p Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79001
Applicant: Kenneth Bergstrom
Location: 1300 Block south of 69th Avenue North
Request: Rezoning
The applicant proposes rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to R -4 (Multiple Family
Residential) of the approximate 8 acre tract, located in the 1300 block south of
69th Avenue North. The property is bounded on the west by the Humboldt Square
Shopping Center; on the north by 69th Avenue North and the City's Public Utilities
building; on the east by single family residential homes facing Emerson Avenue
North and on the south by a number of R5 Multiple Family Residential dwellings.
The applicant has submitted a letter to the file requesting the rezoning. He
indicates in the letter that the site in question has remained undeveloped over.
the years under its current C -2 zoning "because of the apparent lack of a need
for additional shopping centers in the area." He is requesting the rezoning for
the purpose of building quadra homes which he claims would furnish the need for
additional medium- priced housing. He also notes that this concept would provide
an attractive buffer between the existing single family homes and the Humboldt
Square Shopping Center. Permitted uses in the R4 Zoning District include Multiple
Family Dwellings of one and one -half or two stories in height; R3 uses (Townhouses
or Garden Apartments and Condominium Single Family Attached Dwelling Units) provided
such uses adhere to the district requirements that prevail any R3 Zoning District;
and accessory uses incidental to permitted or special uses.
The City's Comprehensive Plan (Page 49) calls for a site at the center of the
Northeast Neighborhood to be retained as commercial for purposes of ultimate
�'• development as a neighborhood business center. The subject site and the present
luimboidt Square, Shopping Center is the area designated for the location for slich
a facility. The Plan also states that it is important that the development of the
shopping center be designed as an integrated unit rather than permitting individual
stores to be built in a piecemeal, unrelated fashion.
The same applicant had requested a rezoning of the subject property from C -2
(Commerce) to R -1 (Single Family Residential) under Application No. 77011 in March,
1977 (Planning Commission and City Council minutes attached). The Planning Commis-
sion, at that time, had reviewed the Comprehensive Plan inconsistencies of that
proposed rezoning and recommended through Planning Commission Resolution No. 77 -2
(attached) that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to provide for the development
of single family housing on the remaining developable land in the southeast
quadrant of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North based upon the following findings:
1. The Northeast Neighborhood is adequately served by shopping
facilities, both within and near the neighborhood.
2.. The Comprehensive Plan designation of this area for future
development as a neighborhood shopping center has been satisfied
with the existing retail center.
3. There is substantial vacant commercial land elsewhere in the
Northeast Neighborhood.
4. The owner has initiated a rezoning, from C -2 (General Commerce)
to R -1 (Single family Residential), of the approximate 8 acre
parcel described as Lot 2, Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition.
1 -11 -79 -1-
Application No 79001
Page 2
5. The proposed use represents a reasonable use of the land and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan development goal for
the Northeast Neighborhood.
The Planning Commission, at that time, also recommended rezoning of the area
through Planning Commission Resolution No. 77 -3 (attached) for the following
reasons:
1. There is need for additional R -1 zoned land in the the Northeast
Neighborhood, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommend-
ation that single family residential development be the pre-
dominant characteristic of this neighborhood
2. The existing Humboldt Square retail center adequately serves
the neighborhood as a centrally located shopping center.
3. There is no perceived need for additional C -2 development in
this area.
4. The owner has proposed the zoning change which represents - a
reasonable use classification of the property.
5. The Commission, pursuant to Chapter 35 -202, has recommended
appropriate amendment of the Comprehensive Plan goals for
this area in Commission Resolution No. 77 -2.
The City Council record of the review of this request i ndica Ges that the Cuuric i`l
was inclined to amend the Comprehensive Plan and approve the rezoning to R -1 as
recommended by the Planning Commission, but continued consideration of the Com-
prehensive Plan amendment and the rezoning until the applicant had submitted a
proposal to the City Manager which showed positive buffering of the property in
question from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. The screening plans were
never submitted by Mr. Bergstrom and the rezoning was never approved. In an
April, 1978 letter, Mr. Bergstrom formally requested the withdrawal of the re-
zoning request which was acknowledged by the City Council on April 24, 1978.
Another aspect of the review of this matter that bears closer scrutiny is the
Comprehensive Plan Goal Statement (Page 48) to "make single family detached
housing the predominant character of the Northeast Neighborhood." A March, 19710
land use inventory of the City indicates single family detached dwellings com-
prised 48.5% of the total number of dwellings of the Northeast Neighborhood.
Townhouses and Multiple Family Apartments together comprised 51.4% of the total
number of dwellings in the Northeast Neighborhood. We are in the process of
updating this inventory and hope to have the results by Thursday's Commission
meeting.
A copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in
Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances is attached for your review. The merits
of a rezoning request must be reviewed against this policy and these guidelines.
1 -11 -79
Application No. 79001
Page 3
The staff met with the ,applicant and a developer in December regarding this site
and potential development. We discussed briefly density requirements and a
possible layout for the quadra home concept. They indicated they would submit
conceptual plans regarding their proposal along with.the rezoning application to
better illustrate a proposed development to meet R4 Zoning District requirements.
To date, we have not received such plans to comment on.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Recommendation
It is established Commission policy to refer all rezonings and Comprehensive Plan
review matters to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group which is, in this
instance,, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. The Commission should dis-
cuss the merits of the proposal and the various planning concerns, and then
table the matter for further review and input by the Northeast Neighborhood
1 -11 -79
A vote was taken to elect Harold Pierce as Chairman. The motion passed unanimously.
Election of Chairman Pro tem
Chairman Pierce next called for nominations for Chairman Pro tem. Motion by
Commissioner Lucht to nominate William Hawes as Chairman Pro tem. .
Chairman Pierce asked for other nominations. No other nominations were made.
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the nomi-
nations. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht, Malecki,
Manson and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A vote was taken to elect William ' -' awes as Chairman Pro tem. The motion passed
unanimously.
Chairman Pierce asked for other nominations. No other nominations were made.
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the nomi-
nations. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht, Malecki,
Manson, and.Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 79001 (Kenneth Bergstrom
Following the Chairman's explanation, the I hst`item of consideration was Appli-
cation No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom. The Secretary introduced the
application and explained that the applicant was seeking a rezoning from C2 to
R4 of an approximate 8 acre tract located in the 1300 block south of 69th Avenue
North. He explained that the ,property is bounded on,-the west by the Humboldt
Square Shopping Center; on the north by 69th Avenue North and the City's Public
Utility Building; on the east by single family residential homes facing Emerson
Avenue North and on the south by a number of P,5 Multiple Family Residential
dwellings. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a letter re-
questing the rezoning indicating that the site has remained undeveloped over the
years, because of an apparent lack of a need for additional shopping centers.
He stated the applicant intends to build quadra homes which he claims would ful-
fill a deed for additional med um -pr iced housing and provide an at truC, t i v 1uffcr
between the existing single family homes and the Humboldt Square Shopping Center.
The Secretary reported that the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for a site at
the Northeast Neighborhood to be retained as Commercial for purposes of ultimate
development as a neighborhood business center. He explained that the subject
site and the present Humboldt Square Shopping Center is the area designated for
the location of such a facility. He noted that the same applicant had requested
a rezoning of the subject property from C2 to R1 under Application No. 77011 in
March, 1977, and that the Planning Commission had reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
inconsistencies and recommended that the Comprehensive Plan be amended for the
following reasons:
1. The Northeast Neighborhood is adequately served by shopping
facilities, both within and near the neighborhood.
2. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this area for further
development as a neighborhood shopping center has been
satisfied with the existing retail center.
3. There is substantial vacant commercial land elsewhere in the
Northeast Neighborhood
4. The owner has initiated a rezoning of the approximate 8 acre
parcel from C2 to R1.
5. The proposed use represents a reasonable use of the land and
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan development goal
for the Northeast_ Neighborhood.
1 -11 -79 -2-
The Planning Commission, at that time, also recommended rezoning of the area
through Planning Commission Resolution No. 77 -3 citing that there is an additional
need for Rl zoned land in the Northeast Neighborhood; that the existing Humboldt
Square retail center adequately serves the neighborhood as a centrally located
shopping center; that there is no need for additional C2 development in the
area; and that the owner had proposed a zoning change which represents a reason
able use classification of the property.
The Secretary explained that the City Council had been inclined to approve the
rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan amendment in 1977, but continued its con-
sideration of these matters until Mr. Bergstrom submitted a proposal which showed
positive buffering of the property from the Humboldt Square Center. The screen-
ing plans were never submitted, and the rezoning request was withdrawn. The
Secretary urther noted the Comprehensive Plan Goal which states "made single
Y p 9
family detached housing the predominant character of the Northeast Neighborhood."
He explained that a March, 1976 land use inventory of the City was discussed by
the Planning Commission during its review of the applicant's 1977 rezoning request.
He stated that at that time, single family detached dwellings comprised 48.5% of
the total number of dwellings in the Northeast Neighborhood, while townhouses
and multiple family apartment units comprised 51.4% of the total dwelling units
for this neighborhood. He further stated that this land use inventory has been
updated and that the figures are now about reversed, that single family dwellings
comprise approximately 51% of the total dwelling units in the neighborhood and
multiple family residential units comprise approximately 49;0.
The Secretary also reported that he had requested the applicant to submit con--
ceptual plans regarding his proposed development to better illustrate how it
would meet the R4 district requirements, but that they had not yet been received.
He stated that the Commission might want to table the application following this
evening's public hearing rather than to refer it to the Northeast Neighborhood
Advisory Group until the applicant had submitted such conceptual plans for review.
Chairman Aierce asked what was the allowable density for R4 Zoning. The Secretary
responded that the ordinance allows a density of 8 units per acre after deductin
9
roadways and abutting setbacks and that approximately 50 units would be allowable.
Chairman Pierce then recognized Mr. Bergstrom, who at that time supplied the Com -
mission with four copies of his conceptual plans for the development. The Secretary
noted that the proposal envisioned four plexes with each building under separate
ownership and subject to a Rental Dwelling License. He went on to state that the
City's concern is the maintenance of the common areas and the potential need for
cross easements for driveway and parking areas. Commissioner Theis then asked
for a.clari €ication of the rent and ownership arrangement. The Secretary ex-
plained that the development would essentially be four plexes with each building
tieing under separate ownership probably for investment purposes. He added that
owners could reside in one of the units or rent out all four units. The Secretary
then asked for, and received, confirmation that a public street was contemplated
adjacent to the development. While considering the plans, the Secretary recalled
that the earlier proposed R1 development would have had to provide screening from
the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. He stated that there are no screening re-
quirements where R4 abuts C2, but that there would be screening requirements
where the proposed R4 would abut R1 on the eastern side of the site.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing and asked
for comments from the audience as to the proposed rezoning. He recognized George
Mayleben, 6824 Emerson Avenue North, who addressed the Commission on behalf of
the neighborhood. Mr. Mayleben argued that the neighborhood was being decimated
by multiple family development, and that there was not much available land for
single family development. He cited Metro Plan calling for a certain percent of
Rl development.
1 -11 -79 -3-
ine secretary interjected that while not familar with the Metro Council's require-
ments for Rl development, he was aware that the Metro Council was concerned with
multiple family development as well. Mr. Mayleben replied that those living in
the area of 69th and Humboldt Avenues are in an area with an abundance of multiple
family dwellings. He stated that the neighbors living around the property in
question had hoped that Mr. Bergstrom would continue with his single family de-
velopment. He also cited growing concern in the neighborhood over declining
School enrollments and the impact that multiple family development would have on
declining entrollments.
Tim Boyle, 6813.Emerson Avenue North, stated that he.was not in favor of the
present rezoning application, while he had been 100% in favor of the R1 rezoning.
Mr. Mayleben then asked whether the buffer was the reason why the Rl proposal
had been dropped before, and why the R4 development was being proposed now. The
Secretary stated that Mr. Bergstrom's 1977 R1 rezoning_ request had been deferred
until he provided the City with a plan for screening the single family area from
the Humboldt Square Shopping Center, and he did not know why Mr. Bergstrom with-
drew that rezoning application for R1. Mr. Mayleben expressed his feeling that
the Northeast Neighborhood is still not predominantly single family residential,
development. Mr. Mayleben stressed the fact that west of Humboldt Avenue, there
is a high "concentration of multiple family development, and that a number of
these apartments are, in fact, vacant. He also commented that he would probably
favor a C2 development over an R4 development in this area.
Chairman Pierce noted that C2 is the highest commercial zoning designation. He
stated further that he had favored an Rl development when it was proposed pre -
viously, but that the present application was for an R4 zoning. Chairman Pierce
recognized the resident of 6804 Emerson Avenue North, who expressed the opinion
that there were enough apartments in the immediate vicinity and that there was
no need for more. Chairman Pierce inquired if anyone else wished to be heard.
No one spoke further relating to the application.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hawes to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79001. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Pierce asked Mr. Bergstrom why he did not pursue the Rl proposal. Mr.
Bergstrom stated that the developer with whom he had previously been working did
not have adequate financing. and that he had encountered technical problems
Building single family dwellings on the.high water table in the area. Commis
.sioner Hawes asked Mr. Bergstrom how many single family dwellings had been con-
templated. Mr. Bergstrom replied 23. Chairman Pierce asked the Secretary what
other alternative zonings could be considered. The Secretary replied that the
land in question could be zoned R3 for townhouses, but that Mr. Bergstrom had
indicated he wanted to stay away from a development involving a Homeowners Associ-
ation. Chairman Pierce stated that the proposed four plexes are similar to
townhouses. Commissioner Hawes asked Mr. Bergstrom if the individual dwelling
units could be owned. Mr. Bergstrom replied that eventually they could. The
City Engineer commented that the developer was considering the possibility of
eventually having each unit available for individual ownership, but that his
short range goal was to develop rental units. Commissioner Theis inquired as
to what other kinds of development would be allowed if the rezoning were approved.
The City Engineer responded that multi residential uses of one and one -half or
two stories in height are permitted. He cited Columbus Village as an example.
MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 79001 (Kenneth Bergstrom)
. following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Theis, seconded
by Commissioner Malecki to table the application and refer it to the Northeast
;Neighborhood Advisory Group. Voting in favor of the motion: Commissioners
Malecki, Theis, Pierce, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: Commissioner Hawes.
The motion passed. Commissioner Hawes indicated that he felt more information
was needed before referring the matter.
1 -11 -79 -4-
A brief discussion ensued with Chairman Pierce commenting that the Commission
should not look at a rezoning strictly on the basis of the availability of
financing, rather, it was important for the Planning Consultant to gather input
from the neighborhood and review the proposal in light of the Comprehensive
Plan. The Secretary commented that while neighborhood feedback was desirable and
necessary, it was not the sole determinant of whether the rezoning is appropriate,
but that the Standards for Rezoning in the Ordinance are the criteria to be used.
A discussion ensued concerning the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Lucht inquired whether information given to the Planning Commission
could in turn be given to the Neighborhood Groups citing acreage figures avail-
able for multiple family-and single family development. The Secretary replied
in the affirmative.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:04 p.m. and resumed at 9:29 p.m.
3
Fj
To Brooklyn Center Planning Commission
oo 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Ginn. 55430 Feb. 9, 1979
Minutes of the NE Neighborhood meeting of 2/8/79 held at B.t.H.9.
' Approximately 30 people present including Von Bergstrom, representing the
petitioner, and Jerry Splinter and Ron Warren of the City.
The-first item of discussion was Bergstrom's petition to rezone approximately
8 acres (application #79001) from C2 to R4. The citizens present were
unanimous in their objection to the rezoning. Their arguments were basically
as follows:
The NE neighborhood is currently over balanced with to many multi -unit
dwellings.
It was felt that multi -unit buildings of the density rpoposed or of
greater density as allowed by R4 would seriously affect the realestate
values of the single family homes in the area.
Homes in the area were purchased expecting the C2 use or possibly the
R1 use requesteddtwo years ago. R1 would be the most preferred use, but
C2 would be much preferred over R4.
There would be no benefit to the community from the rezoning. The only benefit
of the change would be to the owner of the property.
The second item of discussion cantered arounfl reviewing the Comprehensive
plan. The group had no recommended--changes to make. The,only question
that was raised was regarding a possible bike path along the south side of
69th Ave. and the updatina, of the street itself and the need for additional
right -of -way. This will have to be discussed again in the future when either_
of these become a more definite possibility.
The other item discussed was the changing the present #169. The concern
centered around the traffic problems that ibight arise. It was hoped that
such a development would not be of the freeway type but more ,like what
Brooklyn Blvd. is with access about every 3 or 4 blocks.
ect 1 uh itted by
m. D. Hannay, Chairman
Y
Multiple- Family Residential Dwelling Units Existing and Potential,
by.Neighborhood, January, 1979.
Key: a) Existing
b) Potential
C) Total
Neighborhood No. of Units % Tot
Northwest
a) 550 15.6
b) 2._24 21.7
C) 774 17.0
.West Central
a) 387 11.0
b) 88 8.5
C) 475 10.4
Southwest
a) 535 15.2
b) 17.1
C) 711 15.6
Central
^) 397 11.0
b) 0 0
c} .387 .
Southeast
a) 332' 9.4
b) 356 34.6
c) 688 15.1
Northeast
a) 1327 37.7
b) _186 18.1
C)' 1513 33.3
Multiple - Family Residential Units within 1,000 ft. of Humboldt Avenue
north of 65th Avenue North.
Total No. of units 626
Percent of N.E. Neighborhood 47.2
Percent of Total in City 17.8
Percent of Total Potential 13.8
Section 35 -208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELI2ZE�.
I . Purpose .
The City Council finds - that effective maintenance of the comprehensive
Planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable
evaluation of periodic proposed charges to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this
purpose, by - the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, -the City Council has established
a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. Za
2. Poll
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 "spot zoning," defined as a zoning - decision which discriminates i n
favor 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 gyai ^ delines which may be weighed
collectively or indiSidually as deemed by - the city.
4 guidelines.
(a) Is there a clear and ' public need, or benefit? _ t
Is -the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with .
surrounding land use ciassificatians?
. Can all permitted uses in - the proposed zoning - district be
contemplated for development of -the subject property? _
(d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification
changes - in - the area since the subject property was zoned? _ _
(e) In - the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a
hroad 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
best interests of the community? :7
i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond -the interests of an
o wner or owners of an individual pa :cel?
DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Attached is a copy of a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance relating to
directional signs. The proposal would amend Section 34 -140 2(b) to limit
directional signs to an area of less than 16 sq. ft. and no more than 10 ft. in
height. Presently the ordinance permits directional signs to be 36 sq. ft. and
has no height limi tation.
By definition in Section 34 -110, a directional sign is one in which the primary
function is to provide locational directions. An identification sign is defined
as a sign, the primary function of which is to identify an establishment located
on the premises where such sign is located, or to which such sign is affixed.
Signs identifying industrial establishments may secondarily call attention to
the products, goods or materials which are produced, processed,.assembled, or
stored upon the premises.
In zoning - districts Cl, C1A, and R3 through R7 identification signs are permitted
provided they do not exceed a maximum area of 36 sq. ft. nor a height of 10 ft.
from the,ground. It seems inconsistent that a directional sign could be as large
as an identification sign in these zoning districts and not have any height
limitation.
We have surveyed a number of existing directional signs and have found that the
vast majority do not exceed 16 sq. ft. in area. It has also been the policy
of the Planning and Inspection Department to encourage directional signs no greater
than 16 sq. ft. in area because directional messages can be adequately provided
on such a sign.
Also, presently the Sign Ordinance permits only freestanding directional signs.
it is felt th directional signs indicating s thinnq as shirping a receivinn
no parking, fire laic, could in cej°taifi G rit�ii�iaT 2�, Uc a'flowed 01', walls.
We will be prepared to discuss this matter in greater detail with the Commission
at Thursday evening's meeting. Enclosed is a suggested wording change to the
Sign Ordinance which might address these concerns and also various sections from
the Sign Ordinance relating to sign definitions and permitted signs not requiring
a permit.
3 -1 -79
DRAFT ORDINANC
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
REGARDING DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
Section 34 -140, Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit.
b. Wall and freestanding site, pedestrian, vehiclular- traffic C,7
and parking Ldirectional signs as appropriate-7, and othe
appropriate ty es of directional signs as approved by the
Zonin Offi provided such signs are less than thirty
six (36), sixteen (16 square feet in area, and shall not
extend more than ten (10) feet above the ground level.
Brackets indicate matter to be deleted.
Underline indicates matter to be added.
Chapter 34 -110 (continued)
record of survey map, or by metes and bounds, for the purpose of sale or lease
or separate use thereof.
• Lot Line - A ro `
p perty boundary line of any lot held in single or separate
ownership.'
Roof Line - That line at which an exterior wall surface of a building structure
departs from a vertical plane.
0
Rummage Sale - The infrequent temporary display and sale, by an occupant
on his premises, of personal property, including general household rummage, used,
clothing and appliances, provided: the exchange or sale of merchandise is con-
ducted within the residence or accessory structure; the number of sales does not
exceed four (4) per year; the duration of the sale does not exceed three (3) con -
secutive days; any related signery shall be limited to the premises, shall conform
with the sign ordinance provisions for home occupations and shall be removed at
the termination of said sale; and the conduct of the sale does not encroach upon
the peace, health, safety, or welfare of the citizens of Brooklyn Center.
Setback - The minimum horizontal distance from a building, hedge, fence,
Wall or structure to the street or lot line .
Sign - Any publicly displayed message - bearing device for visual communi-
cation or any attention attracting device that is used primarily for the purpose of
bringing the subject thereof to the aTtention of the niihlir including any banner,
pennant, symbol, valance or similar display.
Sign Structure - The supports, uprights, bracing and framework for a sign
Including the sign surface itself. In the case of a wall sign, the sign surface '
constitutes the sign structure. In the case of a sign structure consisting of two or
more sides, where the interior angle formed between any of the sides exceeds 15
degrees each side shall be considered a separate sign structure.
Sign Directional - A sign, the primary function of which is to provide
locationsl directions.
Sign, Identification - A sign, the primary function of which is to identify
an establishment located upon the premises where such sign is located, or to
which such sign is affixed. Signs identifying industrial establishments may
• secondarily call attention to the products, goods or materials which are produced,
processed, assembled, or stored upon the premises.
Sign Illuminated Any sign upon which artificial light is directed or which
has an interior light source.
Chapter 34 -110 (continued)
Sign, Informational -- Any sign which conveys information and which cannot
be classified as a directional, or identification sign.
Sin Flashi - 9 ng A ny illuminated sign on which: the artific light or color
Is not maintained at a constant intensity or color when such sign is in use, except
for that portion of a sign providing public service information such as time, weather,
date, temperature or similar information.
Sign, Freestandina - A sign which is not affixed to any part of any building
and which is rather supported by upright braces or posts placed in the ground.
Win, Gross Surface Area of - The maximum projected area as viewed from
any point, calculated as follows: A polygon with a single continuous perimeter
whose sides are made up of straight lines (which in no case pass through or between
any adjacent elements of the sign and whose interior angles are each less than 180
However, such perimeter shall not include any structural elements � (forms, braces,
posts, etc.) lying outside the limits of such sign surface and not forming an integral
part of the display.
Sign, Portable A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to
another and not permanently attached to the ground or to any immobile structure.
A portable sign may consist of a mobile structure such as a semi -truck trailer or
other device whose primary function during a specific time period is to serve as a
• sign
Sign, Projecting - A sign which is affixed to the wall of a building and
extends outward from the building wall.
Sign Roof - A sign erected or attached in whole or in part upon the roof of
-a building, or a non - freestanding sign which projects above the roof line of a
respective building
Sign, Temporary A sign which is erected or displayed for a limited period
of time.
Sign, Wall - A sign which is affixed upon and parallel to the wall of a
building.
Street Line The common boundary line of a street right -of -way and abutting
property.
Use - The purpose or activity for which the land or building thereon is
designated, arranged or intended, or for which it is occupied .or maintained.
Chapter 34 -140 (continued)
i. Wall Signs on office buildings shall be of a uniform design
• compatible with the exterior appearance of the building.
2. Permitted Signs Not Requiring a Permit
a. Identification signs for one and two family dwellings provided that
such signs are less than two (2) square feet in area (Note: Home
occupation signs are covered by Section 34 -140, Subdivision 3C (1) .)
b. Freestanding site pedestrian vehicular- traffic, and parking directional
signs as appropriate, provided such signs are less than thirty -six (36)
square feet in area.
c. Traffic control signs, noncommercial governmental signs, legal
notices, railroad crossing signs and temporary nonadvertising safety
or emergency signs.
d. Signs denoting the architect, engineer; contractor, or owner when
placed upon a respective worksite and not exceeding an aggregate
of forty -eight (48) square feet in area, to be removed ten (10) days
following completion of construction.
e. Copy or message changing on a printed or painted sign which is
permitted by this ordinance.
f. Portable and freestanding political signs for a period of not more than
sixty (60) days before and ten (10) days after an election provided no
one sign is greater than sixteen (16) square feet in area. Freestanding
political signs may be installed only upon private property with the
permission of the property owner who shall be responsible for removal
thereof. The candidate whose candidacy is promoted by an improperly
placed or otherwise illegal political sign shall be held responsible.
therefor.
g. Signs or posters painted on or attached to the inside of a display
window. This shall include illuminated signs, but not flashing signs.
h. Flags, badges, or insignia of any government or governmental agency,
or of any civic, religious, fraternal or professional organization.
Commercial and industrial establishments may display a single flag
consisting of the official i al cor orate seal or insignia
p as identification
of the individual establishment. s m..nt. Advertisin or promotion of specific
g
p P
products or services is prohibited unless approved in conjunction with
an administrative permit as provided in Section 35 -800.
i. Emergency signs required by other governmental agencies.
J. Temporary displays which are erected to celebrate, commemorate, or
observe a civil or religious holiday.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
March 1, 1979
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman
Hal Pierce at 8:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson, Erickson and Theis. Also present
were Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Director of Planning and Inspect-
ion Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Gary Shallcross.
A PPROVAL OF MINUTES-February 15, 1979
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes
as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes, Manson
and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 79001 (Kenneth Bergstrom - Rezoning from C2 to R4)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was Application
No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom. The Secretary reviewed for the Commission
the proposed rezoning from C2 to R4 of the approximate 8 acre tract located in the
1300 block south of 69th Avenue North. He explained that the property is bounded
on the west by the Humboldt Square Shopping Center; on the north by 69th Avenue
North and the City's public utilities building; on the east by single family resid-
ential homes facing Emerson Avenue North; and on the south by a number of R5 11 multi -
�n f'�mil{ -
r re en"inl ilk.. l i.ngs The C�....'ct s CC'
pl, ItAI{111� {l:J SU t
GIIL IUI UYY l ( IIIyJ♦ 111{.. �l.Vl VLUI� JLtA LI I\tL Wlib. U�/tIl lV.0 {rIV11 Y.uJ
tabled by the Planning Commission following a pUDiic nearing on danudry - ii,, lily
and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
He reported that the Neighborhood Group met on February 8, 1979 and submitted a
report regarding their recclmnendations. He stated that the Neighborhood Group is
opposed to the rezoning request on the grounds that there are already too many
apartments in the Northeast Neighborhood and that the construction of more apart-
ments on the subject property would have an adverse effect on residential property
values in the area. He further stated that the group saw the request benefiting
only the property owner rather than the community.
The Secretary then outlined for the Commission the extent of apartment development
in the Northeast Neighborhood. He explained that presently the Northeast Neighbor-
hood contains 1,327 multiple family residential units or 37.7% of all multiple
family residential units in the City. He added that 626 multiple family units or
17.8% of all the multiple residential units in the City can be found within 1,000
ft. of either side of Humboldt Avenue, between 65th Avenue North and 70th Avenue
North. He also reviewed the Evaluation Criteria for Rezonings, stating that re-
..zonings must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should not constitute
"spot zoning" which is defined as a decision which discriminates in favor of a
particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted
planning principles.
The Secretary went on to state that the current rezoning proposal is inconsistent
with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for a site at the center of the Northeast
Neighborhood to be retained as commercial for purposes of ultimate development as
a neighborhood business center. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan recommends
that single family residential development be the predominant characteristic of
this neighborhood.
3 -1 -79 -1-
Commissioner Malecki arrived at 8:15 p.m. f
In conclusion, the Secretary noted that although the zoning designation of the `
land as C2 was perhaps unnecessary in the light of the fact that the Humboldt
Square Shopping Center adequately serves the neighborhood and that there is
other vacant C2 land in the Northeast Neighborhood, the proposal to rezone the
land in question for multiple family residential development would be inconsist
ent with the Comprehensive Plan's stipulation that the Northeast Neighborhood be
predominantly single family residential. The Secretary recommended that the
Commission adopt a resolution recommending denial of Application No. 79001 sub-
mitted by Kenneth Bergstrom for the following reasons:
1 The proposed rezoning is not consistent, with the Comprehensive
Plan recommendation that single family residential development
be the predominant characteristic of the Northeast Neighborhood.'
r
2. There is substantial vacant multiple residential zoned property
in the Northeast Neighborhood.
3. There is no perceived public need or benefit in the proposal
in the light of the already large number of existing multiple
residential structures in the immediate vicinity.
4. The proposed rezoning does not demonstrate merit beyond the
interests of the owner of the property in question.
Commissioner Erickson inquired whether Mr. Bergstrom had made formal application
for rezoning to R1 in 1977. The Secretary replied that such an application had,
been made and that the Planning Commission met in 1977 to consider the matter and
dealt with the inconsistencies of the Comprehensive Plan; concluded that Humboldt -
cliiar[?
adequate! served the neighborhood as a commercial center, and noted that
O y u..... .,.,,. neighborhood .
'Rl zoning would be cons- istent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation•,that.the
neighborhood be predominantly single family residential. The Planning Commission
in 1977 recommended a resolution to the City Council for rezoning the Bergstrom
property from C2 to Rl. The Secretary reported that the record indicates in 1977
that the City Council was inclined to rezone the property, but requested the
applicant to submit a plan indicating how the proposed Rl area would be screened
from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. That screening plan, however, was
never submitted by the applicant, and a year later the rezoning proposal was
withdrawn at the applicant's request.
Commissioner Hawes asked who would be responsible for providing a greenstrip and
screening if the land in question were to be developed under the C2 zoning desig-
nation. The Secretary answered that it would be incumbent on the new C2 develop-
ment to provide such screening. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis,
the Secretary stated there would be no screening requirement between the C2 de-
velopment and an R4 development, but there would be screening requirements where`
an R -4 development abuts Rl property.
Commissioner Hawes voiced the concern that since land is expensive, houses on
this site would have to be high priced to be profitable, and this might prove to
be a problem because of the already developed C2 use west of the site. The
Secretary explained that the staff generally does not address the economic
feasibility of development, but rather must approach such a proposal from the
standpoint of planning principles and specific provisions within the Zoning
Ordinance. The City Engineer commented that this area had been reviewed in terms
of costs for providing utilities and other necessary improvements, and that it
would seem that an R1 development is economically feasible.,
3 -1 -79 -2-
i
Chairman Pierce then invited comments on the proposed rezoning from persons in
.f attendance. Mr. Adler of 6733 Emerson Avenue North rose to state his dissatis-
faction with the Commission's review of the proposal. He argued that the Com-
mission seemed to be concerned only about buffers and fences while the people
that live on Emerson Avenue North are concerned with correcting drainage problems.
He stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission should be to protect the
people that are already residing in the area, and that what they need is the
water problem addressed. Mr. Adler went on to describe the drainange problems in
the areas as a result of the clay shelf. Chairman Pierce replied that buffers and
fences were requirements that would be required for a new development. He also
stated that development of the site would improve the drainage condition. The
City Engineer added that a similar situation existed in the development on Aldrich
Avenue North. In that case, he explained, a drain tile in addition to normal
storm sewers had alleviated the problem.
Chairman Pierce inquired whether the applicant had arrived. The Secretary replied
that he had not and that in a phone conversation held that day, the applicant ad-
mitted he was considering withdrawing the application. Chairman Pierce stated
the record should show that Mr. Bergstrom, or a representative were not present
during the review of this application.
Commissioner Lucht arrived at 8:30 p.m.
The Commission generally concurred that C2 zoning for the site was perhaps not the
most desirable, but that in light of the number of apartments in the Northeast
Neighborhood, R4 development was even less desirable. Commissioner Manson pointed
out that there is already enough vacant land zoned for multiple family residential
development in the Northeast Neighborhood already. Therefore, she argued, the
rezoning is simply unnecessary.
At that point, the Secretary offered for the Commission's consideration, a
l
U 4-4 0 , +i.. , F l l }' F rnnr �'nv. nnnr..mnv�.liv+n iJnnial n�' }hn nv.nnnt
r eso . i vll i Ulf u I it ttu t l is t ng o r oaas. o r cco. - -2n d - i ng dctt s- l v t tats.. dal
rezoning. Whille the commission was considering zne resolution, Commissioner Theis
asked whether development would affect the level of the ground water table as well
as the drainage of surface water. The City Engfneer answered that development
would have some effect on ground water levels depending on the extent of sub -
surface drainage facilities provided.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 79 -1
Member Richard Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 79001 SUBMITTED
BY MR. KENNETH BERGSTROM
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member George Lucht, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Hal Pierce, Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, William Hawes, Nancy
Manson, George Lucht, and Dan Erickson. Voting against: none,_ whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 8:47 p.m. and resumed at 9:25 p.m.
3 -1 -79 -3-
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (Section 34 -140
The Commission then considered a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance, Section
34 -140 2 (b), relating to Directional Signs. The Secretary introduced the proposed
ordinance amendment, describing the dilemna in which the City ,presently finds it-
self when attempting to regulate - directional signs. By ordinance definition, he
stated, a directional sign is 'one of which the primary function is to provide
locational directions. An identification sign, on the other hand, is defined as a
sign, the primary function of which is to identify an establishment located on the
premises where the sign is located, or to which the sign is affixed. In zoning
districts Cl, CIA and R3 through R7, he pointed out, identification signs are
permitted provided they do not exceed a maximum area of 36 sq. ft. nor a height
of 10 ft. above the ground. He stated that it seems inconsistent that a directional
sign could be as large as an identification sign in these zoning districts and not
have any height limitation. He went on to note that a survey of a number of exist
ing directional signs indicates that the vast majority do not exceed 16 sq. ft.
in area. He stated that the policy of the Department of Planning and Inspections.
is to encourage directional signs no greater than 16 sq. ft. in area because it
is felt that directional messages can be adequately provided on such a sign. He
pointed out that another inadequacy of the present ordinance is that 'it permits
only freestanding directional signs. It is felt that directional signs indicating
such things as shipping and receiving, no parking, fire lane, etc., should in
certain circumstances be allowed on walls.
The Secretary and Building Official Will Dahn ,then carried on a lengthy discussion
with the Commission concerning various examples of directional signs-which seem to
go beyond the intent of the ordinance. The Secretary argued that while needs
vary, the intent of the ordinance seems to be that directional signs should clearly
be secondary signs. The present ordinance does not give adequate basis for reg-
u,la +,inn directional signs, He n ointPd out that while lh sq. ft. may not be anpro-
N r,a�� ��,� all co n t ingenci es, t , w ii, i,Ci>v of spteCl,iC lZmi�cZ�3v„ ii
a v
direc signs. The > Building Official suggested that the Sign Ordinanc , �cottld
restrict the height of directional signs to 10 ft. or one story, whichever is
least. Setting the maximum at 10 ft. is a good way, he pointed out, to get all
directional signs at a :uniform height.
In relation to height of signs, the Commission also discussed' clearance signs.
The Building Official explained that most trailer trucks require at least 12' 6"
of clearance, and that, therefore, any clearance which was less` than 13 ft. would
require a sign. Chairman Pierce pointed out that loading dock signs would normally
be higher than 10 ft. Commissioner Hawes added that such signs placed over the
dock doors might be necessary in areas with a number of trucks.
In summarizing the Commission's feelings on the subject, Chairman Pierce stated
that 16 sq. ft. seemed to be an ample size, and that as far as height is concerned,
signs should not be above the first story. Commissioner Hawes pointed out that
this would allow some very high signs at warehouses which are one story, but 25
ft. high. Commissioner Lucht did not see why the directional sign would need to
exceed 13 ft. The Building Official suggested that a maximum of 15 ft. or one
story, whichever is less, could effectively set a workable maximum height.
Commissioner Theis asked whether freestanding signs would also be allowed to be
15 ft. in height. The Secretary responded that a 10 ft. height limit would cover
the vast majority of freestanding signs. The Building Official interjected,
however, that the definition of freestanding signs includes canopies which quite
often need to have clearances of higher than 10 ft. Chairman Pierce suggested
that canopies, could perhaps be* treated separately. The Secretary stated that
the Commission's thoughts on the matter would be noted and 'that ; another proposed
ordinance amendment would be submitted at a later date.
3 -1 -79 -
ti
r BROOKLYN PARK REZONING
The Secretary then informed the Planning Commission that the Brooklyn Park Planning
Commission is reviewing a proposed rezoning of property on the border of Brooklyn
Center in the area of 73rd Avenue North and West River Road. The proposed rezoning
would be from essentially single family zoning to zoning allowing two- family dwell -
ings and townhouses by special use permit. The Planning Commission of Brooklyn
Park, the Secretary said, would take note of any concerns expressed by the
Brooklyn Center Planning Commission.
Commissioner Theis asked what zoning designation had been given to the land on the
Brooklyn Center side of the boundary. The Secretary responded that it was pre-
dominantly R1 with some R4 just south of the boundary on the west side of West
River Road. Commissioner Erickson asked how large an area the proposed rezoning
in Brooklyn Park entailed. The Secretary answered that the proposal was for an
area of 12.66 acres. He added that his primary concern was over the generation
of traffic into Brooklyn Center as a result of a higher density development.
Chairman Pierce asked what was permitted in Brooklyn Park's R4 zoning. The
Secretary outlined the principal uses allowed in the Brooklyn Park R4 district and
the lot requirements for single family, duplex and townhouse developments. The
Commission then discussed the q uestions of access off 73rd Avenue North and the
possibility of widening 73rd Avenue North if traffic increased.
Chairman Pierce called for specific concerns to be sent to the Brooklyn Park Plan -
ning Commission. Commissioner Theis remarked that unless the rezoning were to
contemplate apartment development, there would be no concern on the part of
Brooklyn Center residents. - Chairma Pierce stated that any open parking lot
should be screened from Brooklyn Center residential, and that access via 73rd
Avenue North should be upgraded.
At the conclusion of the- meeting the Commission discussed future agenda items and
p ossibl e S a t urd ay +-t,.. s pri n g. r ,„ rc•;n rs ecL and( Fri f-4cnn
a oss � u �c �a�ur �.,.,_ _- .. � Mal i
p day nevi i"iii'iy wu� i�� ��iC �Ni i�y. va�uunZ.i., .. .-
stated that they would be unable to attend the meeting of Iviarch i5, 1979.
ADJOURNMEN
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting.
Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Pierce, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and
Erickson. Voting against: none. The Planning Commission adjourned 11 :02 p.m.
Chairman
3 -1 -79 -5-
Member Richard Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -1
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION
NO. 79001 SUBMITTED BY MR. KENNETH BERGSTROM
WHEREAS, Application No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom proposes
rezoning, from C -2 (General Commerce) to R -4 (Multi - family Residential), of
property in the southeast quadrant of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North describ d
as Lot 2, Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 11,
1979 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and
WHEREAS, the item was referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory
Group which, in minutes of a meeting on February 8, 1979, recommended against
the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Commission further considered the matter on March 1, 1979,
and reviewed the request in terms of the Comprehensive Plan criteria for the
area, and in terms of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines
contained in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory
Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 79001 submitted
by li.... ne t t t., n„ .L,_„ L. .. .4 ,. ,..- ,J f 6. ., .C..17,....A .....
by �CIIIrCLII B er gstrvw b e denied ror "Ahe ivrrvwriiy r US 11:3:
1. The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan recommendation'that single family residential development
be the predominant characteristic of the Northeast Neighborhood.
2. There is substantial vacant multiple residential zoned property
in the Northeast Neighborhood.
3. There is no perceived public need or benefit in the proposal in
light of the already large number of existing multiple residential
structures in the immediate vicinity.
4. The proposed rezoning does not demonstrate merit beyond the
interests of the owner of the property in question.
a ted Chairman
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member George Lucht and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Harold Pierce, Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, William Hawes,
Nancy Manson, George Lucht and Dan Erickson. The following voted against the
same: none. Whereupon said resolution was duly declared passed and adopted.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 REGARDING LICENSE FEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 23 -010 of - the City Ordinances is hereby amended
as follows:
Fee, (annual un-
Required less otherwise
Type of License by Section License Expires s'ta'ted)
[Bingo -less than 4 hours 23 -602 Special 1.00 /day
4 hours or more 2.00 /day]
Bap Parlors, Conversation Parlors,
Adult Encounter Groups Adult
-Sensitivity Groups, Escort Services,
Model Services, Dancing Services,
or Hostess Services 23 -1804 Dec. 31 1
!^'amhlinn nn ?4 -1 Q nae- 11
Glass H 5.00
Class B 25.00
Bingo 23 -603 Dec. 31
Class A 5.00
Class B 25.00
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted - this day of 1979
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate material to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL
ESTATE FROM THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO THE
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE
AREA OF SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: PREAMBLE
W_ HE_REAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has made an
offer in the amount of $97,100.00 t the City of Brooklyn Center to acquire
38,685 square fe of certain Brooklyn Center owned property described below
to facilit the construction of the Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange with
F.I. 94; and
WHEREAS, it is determined that the property is not essential for
public use and it is in the best interests of the citizens of Brooklyn Center
to convey the subject property to the Minnesota Department of Transportation; and
WHEREAS, it is determined that the fair market value of the subject
�• property based on a value of $2.51 per square foot is approximately $97,100,00.
It is, therefore, determined to convey the following described real
estate to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, consistent to Section 12.05
of the City Charter.
Section 2: Property description in terms of conveyance
That City of Brooklyn Center owned property described as:
All of the following:
That part of Outlot E, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Plat 1
shown as Parcel 39E on the plat designated as Minnesota
Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 27 -5
on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles
in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota,
togeth with other rights as set forth below, forming and being part of
said Parcel 39E•
Access:
All right of access as shown on said plat by the access
restriction symbol.
ORDINANCE NO,
Temporary
Easement:
A temporary easement for highway purposes as shown on
said plat as to said Parcel 39E by the temporary easement
symbol, said easement shall cease on December 1, 1983,
or on such earlier date upon which the Commissioner of
Transportation determines by formal order that it is no
longer needed for highway purposes
may be conveyed in fee simple to the Minnesota Department of Trans -
portation in consideration of the sum of $97,100.00 to be paid to
the City of Brooklyn Center.
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute an
"Offer to Sell and Memorandum of Conditions" document setting forth the
financial term as represented by this ordinance and a Warranty Deed for
said conveyance after all conditions of sale have been satisfied.
Section 3: This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and
thirty days following its legal publication.
Ariontorl this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Published in the official newspaper
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter).
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS EXISTING ON LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 OF
BLOCK 5 HIPP'S -3RD ADDITION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The drainage and utility easements existing on Lots 1 , 2,
3, 4, 5 & 6, Block 5, Hipp's 3rd Addition according to the plat of record
thereof, files of the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota are
hereby vacated as public drainage and utility easements.
Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty
(30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Published in the official newspaper
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter).
�C_
M e t ropol ft an Transit Commission
801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612/221 -0939
February 22, 1979
Mr. James R. Merila
Director of Public Works
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: 1979 Passenger Waiting Shelter Project
Cooperative Agreement
Site Number(s): C -860
Dear Mr. Merila:
The Metropolitan Transit Commission has approved the plans and specifi-
.cations for its 1979 passenger waiting shelter project. It has also
authorized its Chief Administrator and General Manager to enter into
cooperative agreements with cities and other parties to provide for
passenger waiting shelter installations at locations where ridership
- - -does not meet current MTC guidelines for shelter installations; into
which category the above referenced site(s) fall. The cooperative
agreement is a way to allow for installations in cities which would
otherwise not be included in the shelter program.
Provision has been made to ensure that any city will be eligible for
at least one shelter installation per project, if a cooperative agree-
ment is executed. Basically, the agreement calls for participation
in the form of financial reimbursement to the MTC for one half of the
local funding of the shelter. The shelters are funded by 80% federal
money and 20% local money. We estimate the individual costs of the
new shelters will be in a range from $3,000 to $5,000 the purchase
of shelters, and related site improvement and installation work.
Therefore, the participation share will be approximately $300 to $500
per shelter.
Additionally, the agreement calls for routine maintenance to be performed
by the party entering into the cooperative agreement with the MTC.
Routine maintenance includes litter pickup, snow removal, weed and grass
control in the vicinity of the shelter and window cleaning. Any structural
repairs to the shelter would remain the responsibility of the MTC.
Three copies of the cooperative agreement are enclosed for execution
by the appropriate individuals. Please have the agreement executed
and return two copies to the MTC for execution. A completely executed
COPY will be returned for your records upon execution by the MTC.
We propose to award a contract for the purchase of shelters in mid -April
Mr. James R. Merila
February 22, 1979
Page two
of 1979; therefore, it is imperative that we have executed agreements
as soon as possible, but in no case later than March 15, 1979.
We look forward to your participation in our 1979 shelter project.
If you have any questions regarding the shelter project or the cooperative
agreement, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
cure e R. Schumi
Civil Engineer
LRS:msm /33
Enclosure
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 12, 1979
CIGARETTE LICENSE
Dahlco Music & Vending Co. 119 State Street
Ground Round Restaurant 2545 County Road 10 C ity C
City Clerk
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Hickory Farms Store Brookdale Shopping Center / --�-�
Bernard Lynch 6804 Humboldt Ave. No _
Brooks Superette 6804 Humboldt Ave. No.
Num -Num Foods, Inc. 3517 Hennepin Ave,
Brookdale Snack Bar Brookdale Shopping Center
Pizza Factory 6816 Humboldt Ave. No. _77
Rog & Jim's Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. 7"
-Sanitarian
GAMBLING LICENSE
Northport School P.T.A. 5501 Brooklyn Blvd. -
Brooklyn Center High School
Athletic Boosters 6500 Humboldt Ave. No.
City Clerk ,
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE �
Air Comfort, Inc. 3944 Louisiana Circle .: �' 1 G' '✓
Allen Heating & Air Conditioning 5200 Eden Circle
Blaine Heating 13562 Central Ave. N.E. 0 ' x'
C,O. Carlson Air Conditioning 709 Bradford Ave. No.
Cronstrom's Heating & Air Cond. 4410 Excelsior Blvd. 1✓n
Dependable Heating & Air Conditioning 1 4123 r.Cairie Road N.W. �wi . J � i•
Egan & Sons Co. 7100 Medicine Lake Road
Frank's Heating & Air Conditioning 3107 California St. N.E.'. '
Gas Supply, Inc. 2238 Edgewood Ave. So_ h . �
Golden Valley Air Conditioning 5182 West Broadway Y1�lt� i1 i
Harris Mechanical Contracting Co. 2300 Territorial Road C
Horwitz Mechanical, Inc. 1411 11th Ave. So. Y!�
Hutton & Rowe, Inc. 217 VanBuren Street
Ideal Heating & Air Conditioning 3116 Fremont Ave. No.
Nielsen Heating & Air Conditioning 6442 Penn Ave. So.
Northwest Service Station Equipment 2520 Nicollet Ave.
P. & H. Services Co. 208 73rd Ave. No.
Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2nd Ave. So.
Pump & Meter Service, Inc. 2711 E. Franklin Ave. 4 ,f
Royalton Heating & Cooling Co. 4120 85th Ave. No. I
Sheridan Sheet Metal Co. 4116 Quebec Ave. No. ri
Standard Heating & Air Conditioning 410 West Lake Streetf
Superior Contractors, Inc 6121 42nd Ave. No .
Fred Vogt & Co. 3260 Gorham Ave. i ,^
Ray Welter Heating Co. 4637 Chicago Ave.
Yale, Inc. 3012 Clinton Ave. So.
Building Official'
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Kirby Jensen 4716 78th Lane No.
Sears 1297 Brookdale Center T: �--�
Theisen Vending 3804 Nicollet Ave. So.
Shopper's City 3600 63rd Ave. No. % - • �? 1L
Sanitarian
READILY PERISHABLE FOOD VEHICLE LICENSE
Bernard Lynch 6804 Humboldt Ave. No. / •
Sanitarian '
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Renewal:
Village Properties Evergreen Park Apts.
Director of Plamning
and Inspection
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
!� j R!�
Nordquist Sign Co., Inc. 312 West Lake St. a 9• t J
Building Official �i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection /•
SUBJECT: Rental Dwelling License for the Evergreen Apartments
DATE: March 2, 1979
At the February 26, 1979 City Council meeting during the review of the Rental Dwell -
ing License for the Evergreen Apartments, the Council requested review of certain
items before they would consider renewal of the Rental Dwelling License. These
items include further verification that vestibule lights were in operation, that
snow removal on the site was adequate, that fire lanes were not being blocked and
that the apartment complex had a resident agent or caretaker that was available
for tenant complaints.
Attached ifs a report to me from Building Inspector Andy Alberti regarding recent
inspections and followup to complaints that were handled within the past week.
The report indicates that there had been some disagreement between the owner of
Evergreen Apartments and the resident manager and that the resident manager had
terminated his employment. The report also indicates that the new resident manager
had taken over shortly after this incident and was acting in that capacity. The
owner of Evergreen Apartments has been notified of the requirements in Section 12
904 of the City Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance which requires a re-
sponsible agent or owner who can be contacted for tenant complaints.
The Building Inspector has also assured me that the resident manager is aware of
our concernc tat vesti bule '
�,,,,��,,,,, h th _ ±re�tl_ „,�, llnhtlng is not operat properly. HP axnlainPCt
to me t:ha the vest ibuie i Igi,Ls are ut, a t iwi ly JaV Le acid Iha`i, iiir wuS) iwo uUA w
personally verify that they were operating at the time he was there, but that the
resident manager stated that these lights would be checked to assure that they
were functioning properly at the designated times.
The report also indicates that all fire lanes are open and that snow removal at the
site is adequate. The Building Inspector has also informed me that when he was at
the site a front end loader was being used to clean up some areas that may have
been a problem.
Based on the Building Inspector's report and my conversations with him, it is felt
that the areas of concern expressed by the City Council have been adequately ad-
dressed, and I would recommend that the City Council authorize the renewal of the
Rental Dwelling License for the Evergreen Apartments at its next City Council
meeting.
V DATE: February 28, 1979
MEMO TO: Ron Warren
RE: Evergreen Village
722 Camden Avenue North
Tenzuit: Complaint to Councilwoman Celia Scott
Complaint #C -668 Dated 2 -23 -79
2- 23--79
Called owner's home and talked to owner's son and left message for his
father to call me as
soon as P ossible.
2 -26 -79
I did not receive a call from the owner today. I inspected site and
found all sidewalks and fire - lanes open.. I received no answer at
resident manager's apartment.
2 -27 -79
Per Ron Warren's request, I returned to make sure all walks and fire
lanes were open and they were. I also called at resident manager's
apartment and rec:eived.an answer. The women who answered happened to
be the daughter of the former resident manager who left the complex due
to personal conflicts with the owner. She informed me that from the day
her father left there had been a resident manager assigned to the complex.
Vhf? U�,:..�
....v. .���... ���� 't ta 4 thcrc �., a Cca ct7l,:,- all f nt1_G.. - j htt 1, ry-
ing. Mr. Weber, the complainant, lives in a with a caretaker,
who lives next door to him. This caretaker is to be relieved of his
duties immediately because of his poor maintenance performance in the.
common areas of the building. It is my understanding in talking to t-he
former manager's daughter, that Mr. Weber and her father were very good
friends and Mr. Weber was upset with the actions by the owner which causef
her father to leave his position. It is her opinion that this complaint
was one method Mr. Weber could use to get back at the owner.
2- -27 -79
A certified letter was send to village Properties, P.O. Box 991, minneapo -is,
Minnesota 55440, stating that Section 12 -904 of the City Housing Maintenance
Ordinance requires a responsible agent or owner who can be contacted for
tenant complaints
MEMORANDUM
To: Jerry Splinter, City Manager
From: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Polic� ".
U
Subj: Application for Gambling License (BCHS Athletic Boosters)
Date: March 9, 1979
A records check of the person named as gambling manager, Mrs.
Etta Mae Dolphin, as well as her husband, Byron Earl Dolphin,
has verified that neither have had any police contacts, arrests
or convictions
The applicants are stable local residents who have lived at their
present address for twenty -five (25) years. The Police Department
can find nothing to indicate that the license, as applied for,
should not be granted.
MEMORANDUM
To: Jerry Splinter, City Manager,
From: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Polic�' ',&
Subj: Application for Gambling License (Northport PTA)
Date: March 8, 1979
A records check of the person named as gambling manager,
Mrs. Barbara Jean Bird, as well as her husband, James Earl Bird,
has verified that neither have had any police contacts, arrests,
or convictions.
The applicants are stable local citizens who have lived at
their present address for over 10 years. The police department
can find nothing to indicate that the license, as applied for,
should not be granted.