HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 05-21 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
City of Brooklyn Center
May 21, 1979
7:00 p.m.
40 1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Open Forum
5. Resolutions:
a. Accepting Bids for Furnishing and Installing a Telephone Communications
System for City Hall
b. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation to Vern Velasco
C. Expressing Recognition of and Appreciation to Joan Skomra
d. Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Bridge Project No. 1978 -6,
Street Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -45,
Curb and Gutter and Sidewalk Improvement Project No. 1978 -46, Storm
Sewer Improvement Project No. 1979 -5, and Street Improvement Project
No. 1979 -6
- Public hearings are scheduled to be held on June 11, 1979, at 8:00 p.m.
These projects comprehend the construction of Shingle Creek Parkway
from 65th Avenue to 69th Avenue and include the approach to bridge
No 27910 on Shingle Creek Parkway over FI -94.
e. Approving the Minnesota Department of Transportation Plans and
Specifications for Construction of Bridge Fill at the Intersection
of FI -94 and Trunk Highway 100
-This project constitutes the first phase of construction of bridges
at:FI -94 and Trunk Highway 100. The project has a scheduled June 8
letting date. It is anticipated that placement of the fill material
at this intersection will follow shortly the contract letting. Actual
construction of the bridges will not commence until 1980.
f. Recommending Alternative for Trunk Highway 169 and Trunk Highway 610
Environmental Impact Statement and Location Design Study
-In accordance with the City Council meetings of April, 30 and May 14, 1979,
it is recommended that the freeway alternatives for Trunk Highway 169 and '
the alternatives connecting Trunk Highway 610 to West River Road be
eliminated from further study in the environmental impact statement.
This resolution is being forwarded as a joint resolution among the cities
of Champlin, Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park.
g. Authorizing the Purchase of Social Hall Vestibule Entryway and New
Conference Room Entryway
6. Planning Commission Items (8:00 p.m.):
a. Application No. 79021 submitted by James Speckman for preliminary plat
approval to combine two contiguous parcels at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Planning Commission recommended approval at the May 10, 1979 Planning
Commission meeting.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 21, 1979
b. Application No. 79022 submitted by New Horizon Day Care Center for
a special use permit to operate a licensed day care center in Berean
`Evangelical Free Church at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Planning
Commission recommended approval at the May 10, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting.
c. Application No. 79026 submitted by James F. Warren for a special use
permit for an animal hospital to be located at 413 - 66th Avenue North
(the former )
7- Eleven store). The Planning Commission recommended
approval at the May 10, 1979 Planning commission meeting.
d. Application No. 79027 submitted by Northbrook Alliance Church for
preliminary plat to combine an approximate 50' x 114' parcel with Lot 1,
Block 1, J.R. Murphy Addition to create a buildable lot in the 6200
block of Bryant Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended
approval at the May 10, 1979 meeting.
7. Discussion Items:
a. Sign Ordinance
-Is there a need to amend the sign ordinance as it relates to rummage
sale signs.
b. Approval of Payment for the Platting of City -owned Property in Conjunction
with the Lynbrook Bowl Plat
-The land surveying firm currently producing the plat for the Lynbrook
Bowl Addition has indicated that for a nominal fee they will include
into said p lat the City -owned parcel at the corner of 65th Avenue and
Lilac Drive. Should the City wish to sell that parcel in the future,
platting said parcel into this plat will facilitate that sale. A
motion authorizing payment is needed.
S. Licenses
9. Rental Dwelling License for Brookdale Ten
10. Appointment of Public Works Director
11. Adjournment
i
C
i
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR MAY 21, 1979 MEETING
1. Resolution Providing for Public Hearing on Proposed Bridge Project
No. 1978 -6, Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Improvement Project
No. 1978 -45, Curb & Gutter and Sidewalk Improvement Project No.
1978 -46, Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1979 -5, and Street
Improvement Project No. 1979 -6.
Note Public hearings are scheduled to be held on June 11, 1979,
at 8:00 p.m. These projects comprehend the construction of Shingle
Creek Parkway from 65th Avenue to 69th Avenue North and include the
approaches to Bridge No. 27910 on Shingle Creek Parkway over F.I. 94.
2. Resolution Approving the Minnesota Department of Transportation
Plans and Specifications for Construction of Bridge Fill at the
Intersection of F.I. 94 and T.H. 100.
Note: This project constitutes the first phase of construction of
Fridges at the intersection of F.I. 94 and T.H. 100. The project
has a scheduled June 8th letting date. It is anticipated that
placement of the fill materials at this intersection will follow
shortly the contract letting. Actual construction of the bridges
will not commence until 1980.
3.. Resolution Recommending Alternatives for the T.H. 169 and T.H. 610
Environmental Impact Statement and Location- Design Study.
Not e: In accordance with the City Council meetings of April 30 and
May 14, 1979, it is recommended that the freeway alternatives for
T.H. 169 and the alternatives of connecting T.H. 610 to West River
Road be eliminated from further study in the environmental impact
statement. This resolution is being forwarded as a joint resolution
among the cities of Champlin, Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park.
4. Discussion of Reinstating the Secretarial Position in the Engineering'
Department.
Note Historically there has been a permanent full time secretarial
position in the Engineering Department. It is recommended that said
position be reinstituted.
Draft Copy
May 21, 1979
NEWS RELEASE
,on May 21, 1979 the City Manager of Brooklyn Center offered the
name of Sylvester Peter (Sy) Knapp for Council confirmation as Public
Works Director for the City of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Knapp has a bachelor's
degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Minnesota, a master's of
Civil Engineering from the same institution and is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of Minnesota. From 1964 Mr. Knapp has been City
Engineer /Public Works Director of the City of St. Cloud, Minnesota. Prior to
his appointment as City Engineer /Public Works Director he served as Assistant
City Engineer in St. Cloud and for a time was acting administrative assistant
to the Mayor. He has served as Secretary, Vice President, President and State
Director of the Lake Region Chapter of the Minnesota Society of Professional
Engineers, and has also held the office of Secretary- Treasurer, Vice President,
and President of the City Engineers:' Association in Minnesota and was a member
of the board of Directors'of the American Public Works Association.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR FURNISHING AND INSTALLING
A TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FOR CITY HALL
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance and the City Clerk have reported
that on February 1, 1979 at 11:00 a.m., C.S.T., they opened and tabulated
bids received fora telephone communications system for City Hall; and
WHEREAS, that said bids were as follows:
1. Cabling Specialists, Inc. $47,155.00
2. Data -.Tel, Inc. 52,330.00
3. Electronic Design Company 54,633.00
4. Hauenstein & Burmeister, Inc. 44,308.00
5. Norstan Communications System 67,539.00
6. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company 36,537.16
7. Telesystems of Minnesota, Inc. 44,987.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Brooklyn Center than
the bid of in the amount of
for furnishing and installing a telephone communications system in City
Hall be hereby accepted.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
N & C No. 79 -12
May 1 8, 1979
FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Subject: Telephone System Bids
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Attached please find copy of a table which indicates the projected ten year
costs of various telephone systems bid by various companies, including the
bid of Northwestern Bell on our specs and the alternate proposal they offered
at a Council meeting. - Because the Council had concern regarding the acceptability
of service of other phone companies other than Northwestern Bell, we sent out a
survey to the various users of the two lowest bidders - -H & B and Telesystems, Inc.
Attached are copies of the latest returns on that survey.
if you wish to consider ten year projected costs, Telesystems, Inc. is low bidder.
Without this projection H & B is considered low bidder. It is our opinion that
either of the aforementioned companies can do a good job on providing us with a
telephone system that will give us good service. H & B offers abetter buy -out
provision in their bid and Telesystems, Inc. has a lower projected maintenance
cost over the ten year projection.
Also attached please find a copy of a memo from Mr. Lindman to myself regarding
a conversation with Mr. Bill Steeger of the Public Service commission stating
that Northwestern Bell could request from the P ublic Service Commission. approval
for selling equipment:.
Res .fu �J submitted,
Gera d Splinter
City M ages
CITY OF BROOKLYN - CENTER
encs.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION`EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION
FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MR. VERN VELASCO
WHEREAS, Mr. Vern Velasco served as a member of the Park and
Recreation Commission from November, 1976 through May, 1979; and
WHEREAS, his devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of this
Commission contributed substantially to the sound progress and develop-
ment of the City; and
WHEREAS, his public service and civic effort for the betterment
of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that:
I
The dedicated public service of Mr. Vern Velasco
as a member of the Park and Recreation Commission and
citizen, is recognized and appreciated by the City of
Brooklyn Center.
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.
i
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION
FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF MRS. JOAN SKOMRA
WHEREAS, Mrs. Joan Skomra served as a member of the Park and
Recreation Commission from February, 1978 through May, 1979; and
WHEREAS, her devotion to the tasks and responsibilities of
this Commission contributed substantially to the sound progress and
development of the City; and
WHEREAS, her public service and civic effort for the betterment
of the community merit the gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City, Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center that:
The dedicated public service of Mrs. Joan Skomra
as a member of the Park and Recreation Commission and
citizen, is recognized and appreciated by the City of
Brooklyn Center.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
by member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -6, STREET GRADING,
BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -45, CURB
AND GUTTER. AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -46,"
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 1979 -5, AND STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1979 -6
WHEREAS, it is proposed that there be constructed improvements
consisting of the following:
Estimated
Project No. Improvement Cost
1978 -6 Bridge on Shingle Creek Parkway crossing over $ 682,500.00
109- Shingle Creek.
;
(MAP g
109-15)
1978 -45A Street grading, base & surfacing on the westerly
(MSAP 109- and southerly half of Shingle Creek Parkway from
109 716 ,17) Freeway Boulevard to the east property dine of
Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1274; Shingle Creek Parkway
from the east property line of Tract A, R.L.S.
No. 1274 to Xerxes Avenue North; and the northerly
and easterly half of Shingle Creek Parkway from
Xerxes Avenue North to County Road No. 130. 337,300.00
1978 -46 Curb & gutter & Sidewalk on'the westerly and
(MSAP 109- southerly half of Shingle Creek Parkway from
109 - 16,17) Freeway Boulevard to the east property line of
Tract A, R.L.S. No. 1274; Shingle Creek Parkway
from the east property line of Tract A, R.L.S.
No. 1274 to Xerxes Avenue North; and the northerly
and easterly half of Shingle Creek Parkway from
Xerxes Avenue North to County Road No. 130. 180,300.00
1979-5 Storm sewer extensions of existing storm sewer -
(MSAP 109 - on Shingle Creek Parkway from Xerxes Avenue
109 -16) eastward approximately 400 feet to Shingle Creek,
and from the southeast corner of the City garage
site westward approximately 750 feet to Shingle
Creek. 144,800.00
The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is as
follows:
I
All property lying north of F.A.I. 94 bounded on the north
by County Road No. 130, on the west by the west line of
Section 35, T. 119, R. 21, and on the east by the following
described line:
It
Resolution No.
Commencing at the northeast corner of Outlot A,
Twin Cities Interchange Park, thence southerly
on the easterly line of said Outlot A to the
southeast corner of said Outlot A, thence southerly
to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Twin
Cities Interchange Park, thence southerly on the
westerly line of said Lot 1 to the northerly right-
of-way line of 65th Avenue North, thence easterly
on the north right -of -way line of 65th Avenue
North to Humboldt Avenue North, thence southerly
along the westerly right -of -way dine of Humboldt
Avenue North to F.A.I. 94 and there terminating;
and except for Tracts B, C, & D of R.L.S. No. 1274.
Estimated
Project No. Improvement Cost
1979 -6 Street extension of existing Shingle Creek
(MSAP 109 - 109- 18)Parkway from City Hall northward approx-
imately 200 feet to the south end of Bridge
No. 27910 and from Freeway Blvd. southward
approximately 250 feet to Bridge No. 27910.$ 80,700.00
The area proposed to be assessed for said improvement is as
follows:
A. All property lying south of F.A.I. 94 bounded on the east
by T.H. 100, on the south by R.L.S. No. 1256 and T.H. 100, and on the
west by a line located 100 feet east of and parallel with Shingle Creek.
B. All property lying north of F.A.I 94 bounded on the north
by County Road No. 130, on the west by the west line of Section 35, T. 119,
R. 21, and on the east by the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Outlot A,
Twin Cities Interchange Park, thence southerly
on the easterly line of said Outlot A to the
southeast corner of said Outlot A, thence southerly
to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Twin
Cities Interchange Park, thence southerly on the
westerly line of said Lot 1 to the northerly right-
of-way line of 65th Avenue North, thence easterly
onthe north right -of -way line of 65th Avenue North
to Humboldt Avenue North, thence southerly along
the westerly right -of -way line of Humboldt Avenue
North to F.A.I. 94 and there terminating;
and except for Tracts B, C, & D of R.L.S. No. 1274.
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made a preliminary report advising
that said proposed improvements are feasible and that they can be
constructed at estimated costs as indicated above.
Resolution No.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The Council r authority c proposes to proceed under a thor ty granted by
Chapter 429,.Minnesota Statutes.
2. A ublic hearing on the
p g proposed improvements shall be held
at the City Hall in the City on Monday, June 11, 1979, at 8:00 o'clock
P.M., central daylight time, and the Clerk shall publish notice of the
time and place of hearing by two weeks' publication in the official
newspaper of the City.
3. These proposed improvements shall be designate& as Bridge
Improvement Project No. 1978 -6, Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Improve-
ment Project No. 1978 -45, Curb & Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -46,
Storm Sewer.Improvement Project No. 1979 -5, and Street Improvement
Project No. 1979 -6.
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
I
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
L
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING AND CONCRETE SURFACING
OF F.I. 94 STATE PROJECT 2781 - 54(94 =392)
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of
Minnesota has prepared: plans, special provisions, and specifications
for the improvement of Trunk Highway No. 394, renumbered as Trunk
Highway No. 94, within the corporate limits of the City of Brooklyn,
Center, at T.H. 94 and T.H. 100 and seeks the approval thereof:
NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions
for the improvement of said Trunk Highway within said corporate limits
of the City, be and hereby are approved including the elevations and
grades as shown and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in
grade occasioned by said construction.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to require
the parking of all vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the
corporate limits of said City, on said Trunk Highway, to be parallel
with the curb adjacent to the hiq_hway, and at least 20 feet from any
crosswalks on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member , and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:-
.
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member - introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE T.H. 169
,AND T.H. 610 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND LOCATION-
DESIGN STUDY
WHEREAS, the City Councils -of the Cities of Champlin, Brooklyn
Center and Brooklyn Park have a common interest in the growth and develop-
ment of the combined area; and
WHEREAS, said cities are promulgating Development Guide Plans
for controlling effective growth according to the Metropolitan Council
guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a transportation system is a basic element of the
overall planning process and involves facilities controlled by Mn /DOT,
the Metropolitan Council and the FHWA; and
WHEREAS, a basic segment of the transportation system is the
North Crosstown Highway (T.H. 610) and T.H. 169, which are presently
under study as a joint Mn /DOT, participating county and city program; and
WHEREAS, this joint program involves the Location - Design Study
and Environmental Impact Study (E.I.S.) to resolve the location and
classification of T.H. 610 and T.H. 169; and
WHEREAS, the "First Level Evaluation of Alternatives ", for these
roadways, has been prepared and widely reviewed by all agencies, and
presents basic data warranting decisions on roadway location, design,
and classification; and
WHEREAS, the present stage of the Study allows for review
( "scoping ") of all alternatives and permits elimination of unimportant
and non- significant alternatives,issues, and concerns prior to detailed
analysis; and
WHEREAS, the extension of T.H. 169 north of T.H. 610 will
adversely impact the effective growth of said cities by:
a. Result in higher traffic volume on T.H. 169,
b. Result in probable acquisition of park lands within
the corridor,
c. Increase the desirability of a freeway section on
T.H. 169 between T.H. 610 and I- 694/I -94,
d. Conflict with the transportation network necessary
to serve the cities of Brooklyn Park and Champlin
and
Resolution No.
WHEREAS, a freeway classification of T.H. 169, between T.H. 610
and I -694 will result in a higher level of service for the west side of
the river than the east side, and induce excessive traffic usage to use
this roadway; and
a.' Will result in opposing the development objectives
of said cities,
a d cit ,
b. Will limit the accessibility of said cities to provide
adequate police and fire protection because of maximum
spacing of interchanges,
c. Will conflict with Brooklyn Center's Critical Area
Plan along the West River Road,
d. Will require excessive private lands to accommodate
the interchange ramps,
e. Will eliminate the continuity of said city's street
network
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCILS OF CHAMPLIN,
BROOKLYN CENTER AND BROOKLYN PARK, that the Commissioner of Mn /DOT direct
the Consultants performing the Location - Design and the Environmental
Impact Statement studies on T.H. 610 and T.H. 169 to:
1. Eliminate from further consideration in the studies, the
extension of T.H. 169 north of T.H. 610, as it relates to a re- connection
to existing T.H. 169 from a relocated T.H. 169 and the interchange with
T.H. 610.
2. Consider T.H. 169 as an arterial roadway with at grade
intersections, with approximately 1/2 mile spacings of city and county
streets and highways.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city clerks of the communities
send a copy of this Resolution to the Minnesota Department of Transportation
Commissioner, the District 5 Director, the Metropolitan Council and
the legislative representatives of the communities.
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.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
SUPPLEMENT TO
FIRST LEVEL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
TH 610 AND TH 169
ROUTE LOCATION STUDY
PREPARED FOR:
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
NORTH CROSSTOWN /TH 169 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
City of Blaine City of Maple Grove
City of Brooklyn Center Anoka County
City of Brooklyn Park Hennepin County
City of Champlin Metropolitan Council
City of Coon Rapids
BY:
BATHER- RINGROSE- WOLSFELD- JARVIS- GARDNER, INC.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
MAY 1979
i
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum responds to questions generated during the public reviews
of the "First Level Evaluation of Alternatives" report for the TH 610 /TH
169 Route Location Study dated February, 1979. Specifically, the elimina-
tion of the "Upgrade I -694" alternative has been questioned and clarifica-
tion of the rationale used has been requested.
The information presented in this memorandum relates not only to this
issue, but also addresses several other related factors including:
Documentation of the need for additional river crossing capacity.
• Analysis of the travel characteristics in the TH 610 /TH 169 corri-
dors.
• Summarization of the relative consequences of a new river crossing
and the upgrading of I -694.
The detailed documentation of the need for additional river crossing capa-
city and the evaluation of the options for providing this additional capa-
city are contained in the "Metropolitan Development Guide" and the "1973
Northtown Corridor Study." Both of these documents have been used as
source material in the "First Level Evaluation" Report.
i
NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RIVER CROSSING CAPACITY
The Transportation Development Guide /Policy Plan of the Metropolitan Council
(1976) contains a' 1990 Metropolitan Highway System Plan which, together
with other elements of the Metropolitan Development Guide, constitutes the
overall development policies of the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. The
1990 Metropolitan Highway System Plan includes the North Crosstown and TH
169 as Intermediate Arterials which are intended to satisfy major travel
desires betweem.Anoka County and Northern Hennepin County. The existing
travel demand currently exceeds available capacity and the projection is
that the demand for travel will continue to increase such that even with an
additional river crossing, the 1990 travel demand will be slightly greater
than the 1990 capacity. The travel demand estimates and available corridor
capacity relationships as presented in the Transportation Development
Guide /Policy Plan are summarized below:
Unsatisfied
Peak Hour
Travel Demand /System Congestion Index Person Trips
1970 Travel on 1970 System 1.54 2850
1990 Travel on 1970 System 3.44 15850
• 1990 Travel on 1990 System 1.15 2480
Source: Metropolitan Development Guide, 1976.
The data presented above indicates that if no change is made to the 1970
roadway network, the travel demand in the corridor will exceed the
available capacity by approximately 3 1/2 times. This was predicted to
occur even in view of the general assumption that .
"The over -all development pattern within the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA) has been established and major improvements or
additions to the highway and transit systems within the MUSA will
not significantly change this development pattern, but will
influence the distribution or location of new development."
Thus, the conclusion was reached that the need does indeed exist for addi-
tional capacity across the Mississippi River in Northern Hennepin County
and Anoka County. The 1990 Metropolitan Highway System Plan responds to
this need by designating a North ,Crosstown Highway from I -94 to I -35W and
with appropriate north -south connections to the central metropolitan area.
2
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRAVEL DEMAND
An analysis of the forecasted travel demand in the North Crosstown /TH 169
corridors was made in order to determine the general breakdown of local
trip making versus commuter trips and "through" trips. This analysis indi-
cated that approximately one -half of the trips crossing the river had ori-
gins and destinations within the local communities on either side of the
river. Such trips consist of home to work travel as well as travel between
residential areas in the corridor to the major commercial generators
Brookdale and Northtown Center.
Another 40% of the river crossings were determined to be relatively long
trips between south and southwestern Hennepin County and Anoka County.
These trips are typical of commuter travel and represent travel from resi-
dential locations in Anoka County east of the Mississippi River to job
opportunities in Minneapolis and the southwestern suburbs of Hennepin
County.
The'remaining 10% of the travel across the river was found to be long east -
west through trips with origins and destinations in the extreme eastern and
western portions of the metropolitan area. Such travel is representative
of social - recreation trips, personal business trips and some extended trips
passing through the metropolitan area.
In order to better understand the consequences of these travel charac-
teristics upon the North Crosstown /TH 169 corridors an analysis was made of
• the individual trip types with and without a new North Crosstown bridge
across the Mississippi River. The results of this analysis are summarized
.by the schematic diagrams shown in Figure 1.
It will be noted that the total travel across the river is approximately
230,000 vehicle trips per day made up of four basic trip types:
• local trips (Type I)
• commuter trips to the south (Type II) .
• commuter trips to the southwest (Type III)
• east -west through trips (Type IV)
The general orientation of each of these trip types is indicated on the
several diagrams for two conditions - with a new North Crosstown bridge and
without a new river crossing.
A review of the travel patterns indicates that the resultant north -south
travel on TH 169 just north of I -694 is approximately the same with or
without a new river crossing. This is due in large part to the large
number of local trips (Type I) which are removed from TH` -169 (just north of
I -694) if a new river crossing is available, but which are generally
replaced by commuter trips to the south (Type II) which use the new river
crossing to access I -94 into downtown Minneapolis.
3
Figure 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAVEL
c
ACROSS THE RIVER
NEW NORTH NO NORTH
CROSSTOWN BRIDGE CROSSTOWN BRIDGE
} TM 52 .��� TH 52
a6,000 �. 60,000
Total River N
Crossings TM 610
80,000
(230,000 vehlday)
:.� 0.
"94
94,000
CD 1-694 !S"'"� 50,000
36,000 48,000
Type 1. �(
Local Trips (50 %) t 37
' 67,000
a2,0oo
c
1 qM
16,E
0,000
• ``�� 30,000
Type It 15,000
Commuter Trips
to the South (20 %)
21,000
ZTr
10,000 16,
Type III
Commuter Trips 15,0W 30,000
to the Southwest --
(20 %) 21
Tr
NONE NONE
VIA
i • Type IV
Through Trips
- 1 ----- � -a•- 8,000
(10 %)
�- -` 15,000 -�---, ---a•- 23,000
A summary of commuter versus local trips on TH 169 north of I -694 is listed
below for both conditions.
Travel on TH 169 North of I -694 (Vehicles per Day)
Commuter Local Total
Without New Bridge 16,000 30,000 46,000
With New Bridge 25,000 19,000 44,000
The results of the analysis indicate that the number of commuter trips
added to TH 169 north of I -694 is very nearly the same as the number of
local trips removed from TH 169 when a new river crossing is provided.
Thus, under either condition the total daily travel is also approximately
the same in the year 2000. In addition year 2000 travel on TH 169 repre-
sents a substantial increase of approximately three times existing traffic
volumes which will require that improvements to TH 169 be made under either
condition.
This situation (of approximately equal traffic flow on TH 169 with or
without a new river crossing) remains true as far north as approximately
'85th Avenue North in Brooklyn Park. Beyond this point, the option of no
new river crossing results in traffic volumes on TH 169 significantly less
than with a new river crossing.
.
5
OPTIONS TO A NEW RIVER CROSSING
Two basic options ; exist to providing a new river crossing in the North
Crosstown corridor. One option, to be fully analyzed in the Environmental
Impact Statement, is the No -Build Alternative. The other option is to
upgrade I -694 in order to accommodate the projected travel demand. This
second option has been evaluated in the 1973 Northtown Corridor Study;
however, while it provided certain benefits, it was not selected as the
optimum solution.
The upgrade I -694 alternatives are very similar to the No -Build Alternative
in terms of the travel characteristics which were discussed in the previous
section of this memorandum. However, the physical characteristics of an
upgraded I -694 are potentially quite disruptive due to the width of roadway
needed to serve the projected travel demand. Figure 2 is a schematic
diagram of I -694 from TH 52 on the west to •I -35W on the east which
illustrates the number of traffic lanes required to accommodate the pro
jetted year 2000 traffic volumes. The critical area lies between TH 100 on
the west and TH 47 on the east where traffic volumes warrant an 8 to 10
lane roadway. In order to physically construct this type of facility would
require that all major interchanges in this critical area be altered in
terms of bridge reconstruction or replacement and that additional land be
acquired in a highly developed area.
In addition, operations in this expanded section of I -694 would
continue to involve substantial weaving between successive interchanges
(e.g. from East River Road to I -94 south into Minneapolis) and the entire
• river crossing segment would contain a mixture of high speed and low speed
traffic. This would occur as a result of the significant amount of traffic
entering and exiting I -694 in order to cross the river (characterized by
acceleration and deceleration maneuvers, merging and diverging, and num-
erous lane changes) intermixed with higher speed through traffic. Such a
condition often results in breakdowns in peak hour traffic flow and an
imbalance in lane usage. Thus, this expanded section of I -694 across the
Mississippi River would likely remain the critical capacity restraint. In
addition, the implementation of the upgrading of I -694 would have to be
accomplished while maintaining existing traffic operations since no viable
detour across the river exits.
I
6
Figure 2
GEN t an -r ®� T[C VOLUM P JJECTION
am
S
AND LANE REQUIREMENTS FOR 1 -94/1 -694
LEGEND
48,000 Year 2000 Dally Traffic
4 Lanes Required
East Silver Long
River Lake Lake
TH 52 TH 152 TH 169 Road TH 47 TH 65 Road Road 1 -35W
48,000 61,000 80,000 104,000 50,000 124,000 80 000 88,000 75,000 65,000 53,000
4 4 -8 6 8 0 8 -10 6 8 6 4 -6 4
n
n
. N
1-94 N
TH 100
1 -94 1-694
CONCLUSION
The selection of an option to provide the needed roadway capacity across
the Mississippi River between Northern Hennepin County and Anoka County
involves the evaluation of numerous factors. In general terms, however,
there exist two or three elements which result in significant positive
benefits relative to a new river crossing in the North Crosstown corridor.
The construction of a new river crossing within the North Crosstown corri-
dor has been demonstrated to attract a significant number of intra -area,
local trips. This is a consequence of the reduced trip length and travel
time required to travel from one side of the river to the other. This has
positive impacts in terms of vehicle miles of travel, energy consumption,
and air pollution. Of the 37,000 intra -area trips using a new river
crossing per day, it is estimated that the average trip length is reduced
by approximately 3.1 miles. This translates into a new reduction in the
following items:
Travel Measure Daily Savings (Year 2000)
Vehicle Miles of Travel 115,000 VMT
r Gasoline Consumption __. 4,300 Gals.
Carbon Monoxide 3,800 Lbs /CO
Based upon these and other factors resulting from the detailed analysis of
river crossing alternatives, both the Metropolitan Development Guide and
the 1973 Northtown Corridor Study recommend that a new river crossing in
the North Crosstown corridor be selected as the preferred alternative. The
First Level Evaluation of Alternatives report of the current Route Location
Study for TH 610 and TH 169 supports this finding for the following general
reasons:
• Provision of adequate river crossing capacity for year 2000 travel.
• Improvement in traffic operational characteristics on I -694 by
removing a significant proportion of relatively short trips (intra-
corridor travel) from I -694.
s Improvement in several travel related environmental measures such as
energy consumption and air quality.
In addition, it is anticipated that I -694 will be upgraded to six lanes
with or without a new North Crosstown river crossing in order to solve cer-
tain existing traffic operational problems and to increase its capacity.
8
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
'RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SOCIAL HALL VESTIBULE
ENTRYWAY AND NEW CONFERENCE ROOM ENTRYWAY
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 a social hall vestibule entryway and new conference room entryway and has
determined that the quotation of Minneapolis Glass Company in the amount
of.$2,330 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 a social hall vestibule entryway and new conference room
entryway in the amount of $2,330 from Minneapolis Glass Company.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member , and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
QUOTATIONS FOR VESTIBULE ENTRYWAYS
Mpls. Glass Company vestibule entryway $1,191.00
door /conference room 1,139 00
• $2,330.00
Gopher Glass Company vestibule entryway 1,925.00
door /conference room 1,161.00
$3,086.00
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION
May 10, 1979
1. Call to Order: 8:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: April 19, 1979 (Special Session)
4.- Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of
the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings.
In the matters concerned in these hearings, the
Commission makes recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council makes all final decisions on these
matters.
5. James Speckmann 79021
Preliminary Plat approval to combine two contiguous
parcels at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard.
6. New Horizon Day Care Center 79022
Special Use Permit to operate a licensed day care
center in Berean Evangelical Free Church at 6625
Humboldt Avenue North.
7. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park 79023
Rezoning from R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) to
C -lA (Service /Office) and /or I -1 (Industrial Park)
of approximately 7.84 acres of a 20.28 acre site
located westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway and
Aerxes Avenue North.
8. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park 79024
Preliminary Plat approval to create 11 single family
residential lots on an approximate 3 acre site located
easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of I -94.
9. Jarold Modeen 79025
Rezoning from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to
C -1 (Service /Office) the properties between 5455 to
5549 Brooklyn Boulevard.
10. James S. Warren 79026
Special Use Permit for an animal hospital to be
located at 413 - 66th Avenue North (the former
7 -11 Store).
11. Northbrook Alliance Church 79027
Preliminary Plat to combine an approximate 50' x
114' parcel with tot 1, Block 1, J. R. Murphy:
Addition to create a buildable lot in the 6200 block
of Bryant Avenue North.
12. Other Business
13. Adjournment
Planning Commission Information' Sheet
Application No`. 79021
Applicant: James Speckmann (Brooklyn Properties)
Location: 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Preliminary, Plat Approval
The applicant is seeking Preliminary Plat approval to combine, into a common lot,
an approximate 28' x 165' parcel adjacent to Northport Drive with an approximate
167' x 291' parcel located at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard (slaughterhouse property).
The Planning Commission on April 26,'1979, under Application No. 79020, recommended
approval of site and building plans for a 14,850 sq . ft. law office on this pro-
posed combined site. One of the conditions of the recommended approval was that
the property is subject to platting prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
This application i.s in response to that approval
The property in question is bounded on the east by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage
road; on the west by Northport' Drive; on the north by two single family residential
properties and on the south by the Library property and two single family homes
occupied temporarily by CEAP.
The survey submitted by the applicant` includes only the ofd slaughterhouse property
and the 28' x 165' parcel that is a portion of the present Library Terrace Addition.
Approval of the applicant's plat, as submitted, would in effect create a metes
and bounds description for the _Library Terrace Addition which is contrary to City
policy. When property is split from platted property and combined,with another
parcel, all of the affected property is required to be platted, thus eliminating
potential metes and bounds descriptions. It is recommended that either the
Library Terrace Addition be included with this plat or that a separate preliminary
plat for the Library property be submitted prior to final plat approval. To
approve the preliminary plat as submitted would be a departure froiti the City
Council's policy and, therefore, would have to be acknowledged as such.
The City Engineer will be prepared to review the plat in more detail. A public
hearing has been scheduled and notices have been.sent.
Approval of the preliminary plat should be subject to at least the following
conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances
2. The final plat is 'subject to review by the City Engineer.
y 3. Prior to final plat 'approval, the plat shall either be revised
to include the Library Terrace Addition or a separate pre -
liminary plat for the Library property shall be submitted.
j
5 -10 -79
Ffi .
won
mm
IP
NORTHPORT
Moll
bt
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79022
Applicant: New Horizon Day Care ,(Susan K. Dunkley)
Location: 6625 Humboldt Avenue North (Berean Evangelical free Church)
- Request: Special Use Permit to operate a child care center at Berean
Evangelical Free Church
The applicant is seeking 'a special use permit to operate a child care and nursery
school facility in the lower level of Berean Evangelical free Church at 6625
Humboldt Avenue North. The property is zoned R -1 and child care and nursery
school facilities are considered permitted special uses in the R -1 zoning district
as noncommercial uses required for the public welfare, as determined by the City
Council.
The property has previously been used for:educational purposes and Faith Academy
was granted a special use permit to operate a parochial school for up to 75
students ranging from kindergarten to ninth grade under Planning Commission Appli-
cation Nos. 73026 and 74038.
The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) indicating their proposal and
outlining other facilities that they operate. They presently operate a nursery
school at the Lutheran Church of the Master, 1200 -'69th Avenue North, in Brooklyn
Center. They contemplate hours of operation that would be from 6:30 a.m. -to 6 :00
p.m. Monday through Friday. The center would provide care and instruction to
children in groups between 16 months and 6 years. Latch key care (before and
after school) would be provided for first graders.
The City has received confirmation (letter attached) from the Minnesota Department
of Public Welfare that the facility is liccrseable for day care for approximately
60 to 75 children, ages 16 months to 7 years (first grade). The City Sanitarian
has indicated in a letter (attached) that certain improvements must be made to
the facilities before his approval can be granted. The Building Inspector and
Fire Inspector have also reviewed the premises and find no problems.
Section 35 -220, 2 indicates that Special Use Permits may be granted by the City
Council; after demonstration by evidence that all_ of the following are met
a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use
will promote or enhance the general public welfare and will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
b. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes
already permitted, nor substanitally diminish and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses ,permitted in the district.
d. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congest -
ion in the public streets.
e. The special use shall, in all other'' respects, conform to the
applicable regulations of the district in which it is located.
5 -10 -79 -1-
Application No. 79022
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Approval of: this ,application should be subject to at least the following
conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as . operator
of the facility and is nontransferable. `
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances
and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds
for revocation.
3.. A copy of the current operating license shall be kept on file
with the City.
4. Approval by the City Sanitarian of all cooking, eating and
washing facilities shall be granted prior to the issuance of
the permit.
5. The number of students at any given time shall be limited to
75.
6. The hours of operation will be from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday.
5 -10 -79 -2-
day care centers & nurse = schools nursery _
April 18 1979
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Attention: Planning Commission
Re: Operating a New Horizon Day Care Center
_Conditional Use Permit at site known as
Berean Evangelical Free Church at
6625 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center
Gentlemen:
The purpose of our application is to obtain a: Conditonal Use Per-
mit at the above location as New Horizon is very interested in
leasing a portion of the premises. We would like to tell you
briefly who we are, our intentions and adequately explain to you
why we feel such a Conditional Use Permit should be' granted.
New Horizon was founded almost eight years ago when we opened our
very first school - a nursery school at Lutheran Church of the
Master which continues at this same location. This was followed
by the Nursery School in Maple Grove. Approximately two years
later, realizing the existing need for expanded child care on a
full time basis, we opened the Brooklyn Park facility as an all
day child care center. Within a few months time, the Spring Lake
Park facility, offering both nursery school and full day care was
opened. In August 1977 we opened our Plymouth location offering
a complete range of day care services. In Plymouth, we purchased,
renovated and utilized a church facility after obtaining a Condi-
tional Use Permit. In August of 1978, we opened a center in the
Minnetonka - Hopkins area and another in Eden Prairie, followed in
September by the center here in St. Louis Park where our office
is located. In March of this year, we opened a day care center
-in New Hope within the Northwest Baptist Church at the intersection
of Boone Avenue and County Road # 10 (Bass Lake Road). We are well
established in the communities and have provided a very necessary
service We will provide to you letters attesting to our programs
and the continued growing need for such day care facilities.
4951 excelsior blvd, st. louis park, minnesota 55416612/927 -4377
k
Page 2.
Child care centers are educational programs that help a child
become independent, inquisitive and learn to share, love and
respect their peers and adults. They are structured similar
to a kindergarten classroom but do not take the place of such.
We work closely with each school district to se.e that our
material correlates to theirs. Our day care centers are not
babysitting services, we are educational schools where the
children learn, grow and have fun in a structured atmosphere
with certified teachers at the helm.
New Horizon, at the present time, in our existing facilities,
has 50 employees, 28 of whom are certified teachers for the
approximate 500 children now enrolled. New Horizon is a private
school, licensed and governed in all its existing facilities by
the State of Minnesota. We are federally certified for Title XX
children.
Our goal is to operate a complete child -care and nursery school
facility in accordance with the standards achieved in our other
centers.
Our research indicates a need in the community for the services
we provide and they include:
1. Full day care 6:30 A.M. to 6: 00 P.M during the week
2 Toddler care Children from 16 months to 31 months
3. Preschool care Children from 31 months to 6 years
4. Latchkey care Children up to 12 years of age for
care (before and after school)
We hope that your decision is to approve our request for a Con -
ditional Use Permit. In your determination, please consider the
following:
1. The benefit of our service to the community and the residents
thereof and the obvious need for a full day care facility in
Brooklyn Center.
2. Our experience in and with other communities.
3. It is our intention to renovate and improve the building
s follows:
oll ows
We will make all interior improvements to
comply with state requirements as designated
by the State Coordinator and Licensing Con -
sultant, Sally Goldberg.
4 Make all improvements and changes as outlined by Lyons Mander
felt, Fire Marshal and Thomas Hennan, Brooklyn Center Sanitar-
ian.
Page 3.
Enclosed please find a diagram of the interior and exterior of
the proposed area for day care along with xerox copy of letter
from the Sanitarian relative to this facility.
Should you have additional questions concerning the matters
covered herein, please call me either at the office or in the
evenings at my home - 938 -6591 so that we may clarify for you,
or in the alternative, obtain the additional information for
your consideration.
Very truly yours,
SD� �� Sue Dunkley
:�
Enclosures: Interior Drawing
Exterior Drawing
Xerox Copy - Letter from Thomas L. Heenan'
day care centers & ru sery Schools
Susan K. Dunkley 6121927 -4377`
( President
4
4951 excelsior blvd., ,st, louis ,pork, minnesoto 55416
_ _ _ ,.P,
A -0 ,tip( .
� _�' t,rs r! 4 := lt'N '.f TJ
Ti �.EPtttlrl� It�i: %) �•h 544Cj
'« +� -� M Tt �
It . c. •t1 s.►.+� I J
March 26 1979
Mr. Syran Dr-nklox
Now Horizon Lntor� Inc.
4951 Excoluior Boulevard
St. Louis Park, VN 55415
Dear ter. Dunk loy
We will approve your proposed day care center at the Berea.n Evangelical
Church, 6625 Hu= Avranuo North, Brooklyn Center, Hinnesota, subji2ct
to the following requirements: j
1. Provids a National Sanitation Foundation approved
dishes &shor. #
2. ` Frovido a NSA' _approved stove, refrigerator and freezer l
(placed oZ caast€rrs)
3. No will not require a tent hood. at thin tiea banod on �
vote- i€ ror ta.on 7:r r!; ne r vin IrTi I3:. brnle�tvor, ,,
requira as cent hood if experience shore's that it is
necassarty,
4. Surfac.-a walls in cooking and food preparation areas with
cara.m.c till, Glaatsboard, or equal.
5. Install brso cove molding in kitchon'.
6. Goat wood cho.lvoa. .
7. Replaca ota rsd coiling tiro.
6. _ F'. play tiood partition in birit.hroom.
4. Ranu$ftc batliroom walla tri, li ax cloana.blea rsurf'aca.
10. Co h eat. pipo in balthroom with A cloanablo ours ace.
11. Psovid: -- bz. < e ' cov ng in bathroom,
lZ. D igaata onn sink a n a ha ndvaashing oink with singlo
sarvio ooaq rand tv.ials. f
If you haves any quzist'=3 p26as® feel free to calf: on ms at' 537 -5421.
Very truly your *,
Thor as Heenan i
Supervising 5anitazriaan
• Brooklyn Center Pealth Dapaartazat
H czbh
r
STATE OF MINNESOTA ,
I •
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE
OFFICE OF THE CENTENNIAL OFFICE BUILDING - GENERAL
COMMISSIONER INFORMATION-
612/246 -2701 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155 612 /296.6117
April 17, 1979
Planning Commission
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, M 55430
Gentlemen:
I have inspected Berean Evangelical Free Church at 6625 Humboldt Avenue
North with Byron and Sue Dunkley of New Horizon Day Care.
This facility will be licensable for day care for approximately 60 to 75
children, ages sixteen months to 7 years, if the operators meet all local`
fire, building, zoning and health codes, and fully meets standards, DPW
Rule 3 for day care.
Feel free to call me at 296 -2873 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sally G dberg
Licensing Consultant`
CT /agf
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
DPW.aa*
x SCHOOL'
cr
cr
S _
V L
CITY ---
R5 - p MAINTENANC
EMERS LANE ANNEX
R 4 2
AVE R
WATER TOWEF
COUNTY AOAO KO.
r30
APPLICATION NO. C2
79022 R
C
W AY
R5 ;
I °
J 67
67 TH AVE
Y z BROOKLYN CENTER d
a > HIGH SCHOOL
a
Y R5 FIREHO� USE-
11
r " w l PAR t
a �
v a y
-'
C2 4
FIRE
STA.
FREEWAY BLVD. 6 —
co
C2 r
o
AVE H.
z
94 W.B. —<— -
CD
Z
894 E9 —
tn � 7
PROPOSED ROADWAYS
PROPOSED BRIDGES a
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79023
Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
Location: Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway
Request: Rezoning from R3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) to C -1A (Service /Office,
no height limitation) or I -1 (Industrial Park)
The applicant is seeking a rezoning from R -3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartments) to
C -1A (Service /Office, no height limitations) or I -1 (Industrial Park) of the
easterly 72 acres of Outlot_E, Twin Cities Interchange Addition. The area in
question is part of an approximate 20 acre parcel that is bounded on the south
by Interstate 94, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North, on the north by Shingle
Creek Parkway and on the west by single family residential property.
We have received a conceptual plan outlining the possible location of two
four story office buildings with parking and buffer area. The applicant has
submitted a letter (attached) requesting the rezoning with particular emphasis
on the I -1 zoning. He notes that the rezoning of this area would make the
development of 100 townhouse units on the remainder of the site more feasible.
He indicates that the rezoning to I -1 is particularly appropriate for the
following reasons:
A. A public benefit exists in that the area will finally be de-
veloped, putting 100 new families in Brooklyn Center;
b. Townhouses would buffer the development from single family
homes.
c. The development is warranted by the Comprehensive Plan since
the development of the property is in the interests of.the
community.
d The proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interest of the
owner since development of the property will aid the school
district,
In 1977, all of Outlot E was proposed for a religious use by a special use permit
under Application No. 77044. The Brooklyn Center School District, Independent
District 286, passed and forwarded to the Brooklyn Center _City Council a resolution
against the granting of the permit on the grounds that it would reduce the
district's tax base and student enrollment. The City Council cited these reasons,
among others, in its denial of the application. It was also noted that at that
time, granting the special use permit would set a precedent for other R3 'zoned
„ property; that it would require amendment of the Comprehensive Plan because the
entire 20 acre parcel would not be used for single family attached housing
purposes that the plan calls for in this area; and that other suitable vacant
property was available in the City for the use contemplated. Other requests for
rezoning of this property have been denied in the past.
The issue of lost tax base is not a concern in this rezoning request. However,
any rezoning could constitute an erosion of the Comprehensive Guide Plan if the
stated goal of promoting single family attached housing (townhouses) was not
realized. Consideration of the C -1A zoning, or possibly even better a C -1 zoning,
for this area may have some merit.' Such a rezoning could provide a buffer for an
R3 development from the remainder of the I -1 uses in the Industrial Park. Obviously,
the traffic for Xerxes Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway will increase substantially
in the next 'few years due to the new Interchange and the completion of Shingle
5 -10 -79
Application No. 79023
Creek Parkway. It.has often been argued that C -1 uses are fairly compatible with
residential uses. A rezoning to I -1 of this area would expand zoning district
which has ample vacant land available elsewhere. Consideration also should be
given to the fact that approval of the rezoning would eliminate the function of
Xerxes Avenue North as a buffer between residential and industrial uses. Finally,
it must be born in mind that some industrial uses are more or less compatible
with residential uses. The City Council, without a Zoning Ordinance amendment,
has no power to stipulate the precise to occupy a site as long as such use is
permitted in the zoning district. Because of these considerations, it is not
felt that the proposed I -1 rezoning has merit without further evidence that the
existing zoning is clearly inferior from a public standpoint.
The Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35 -208
of the City Ordinances are attached for the Commission's review. The Commission
traditionally refers all rezoning requests to the appropriate Neighborhood
Advisory Group, in this case the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, for review
and comment.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Review by the
Commission of the alternate proposals would be in order, and perhaps specific
direction as to the desirability of one of the alternates, rather than the other,
should be given.
5 -10 -79 -2-
9 row
"O"'PLE BRown FRRm
o
C0 MMERC1RLE;in[iuSTR1RLP'F`;RK
6100 SUMMIT DRIVE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430 PHONE 561 -7350
April 25, 1979
Mr. Ron Warren
City Planning Commission
City of Brooklyn Center
6801 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Re: 20.28 acre parcel, Twin Cities Interchange Park
Dear Ron:
I am responding to your request that I e,7.-plain the reasons for the rezoning
Of approximately 7-112 acres of the above captioned parcel to I -1 or .0 -lA.
I will try to cover each of the points or guidelines of a rezoning and hope
that I sufficently satisfy, _,ozz and the planning con=i55ion as to ou4 reasons
for this rezoning request. First of all `I would like to go back into history
and review what we have tried to,do on the parcel and exactly where we
stand on it today.
I understood several years ago BCIP tried to have the entire parcel zoned
to I -1, but was denied because we would not be providing housing as required '
in the comprehensive guidelines_specifiedby the City. Later, approximately
2 - 3 years ago, BLIP tried to sell the land to the Jesus People Church, but
the use of that land for a church was denied by the City. - Reasons given for
,the denial were many and I am not sure exactly the reason for denying that sale
but it was probably was twofold. One, it would not provide housing as
required in the comprehensive plan. Two, it would eliminate 20 acres of
taxable land and possible development from the tax roles.
Since I have been with BCIP we have tried to work out several different pro-
jects that would fit on the property and would satisfy the Brooklyn Center
School District, the neighborhood group, the Northwestern Neighborhood
Association, the owners of the property and the City. According to the zoning
we can develop duplexes, triplexes and garden apartment -type housing on
the land. In today's market it is virtually impossible to finance a
conventional garden apartment complex. We briefly spoke about an Industrral
Revenue Bond or a Mortgage to aid in the financing of that type of development,
0 but the City is cool to the idea of the Industrial Revenue Financing. The
only other type of multi - family housing *.hat we can put on the property would
then have to be government subsidised. This would not sit very well with
the neighborhood, and it generally brings in a type of individual that may
create and cause more problems for the City and the taxpayer than Brooklyn
Center would like to have.
Mr. Ron Varren
April 25, 1979
Pa ve 2
It is also a fact that the intersection of Xerxes Avenue and Shinal e Creek
Parkway is going to be a very bus inter.-ection. And housing on that corner,
of any tune, might not be the most desirable location at all.
We have, in the plan submitted, tried to develop an over all scheme that will
satisfy, all of the groups that we mentioned previously and yet economically
feasable for the owners. We will try to build 100 townhouse units the 2,
3, and possible 4 bedroom type and sell them. We believe that the school
district will be satisfied, even though we are giving up 60 units as per the
zoning, we would be attracting permanent families that will in all probability
have more children and thus aid the school district. The towmhouse units
will provide an excellent buffer between the neighborhood grown on the West
and the rest of our parts development. Owner occuped townhomes will be slightly
higher priced, probably drawing a better citizen as opposed to a- rental
development. We have then requested that remaining 7 -112 acres be rezoned
either for C -lA office building, or preferably 1 -1, industrial with some
self imposed restrictions.
We are stronglu leaning towards the I- 1- zoning and rezoning primarily because
I I
We would be able to develop the prgnerty sooner as there is a big
demand and very little supply for the service center /light industrial
type facility.
- We -have on the draining boards, plans over the next 3 - 5 years
for up to 785,O00 square feet of office space on the South side of
the Park_, and thus an office building or two in that location world
be second class office space, and probably not economically
feasable.
- If we stayed with the low -rise 14' clear type service center building
as opposed to the four story office building, esthetically for the
townhouse owners and for the neighborhood we believe this would be
preferable. I have lived in a neighborhood where the light industrial
has been right next door to and across the street from the single family
housing and it has been very compatible.
The overall quality and design of the light industrial buildings
would be controlled by us. And because we are the owners and the
builders and sellers of the townhouse units, vie have to rake sure
adequate landscaping, buffering etc. is done, to insure us our town-
house units will sell.
L
A',
Al
Mr. Ron Warren
April 25, 1979
Page 3
To us this seems like the only viable and reasonable idea that we can come up
with. Fe think it can work and we are .willing to proceed on that .basis.
We have talked to several townhome lenders and to a contractor about
building the townhomes, and we have drawn, or made some preliminary sketches
as to the service center type buildings that we would be putting up on the
7 -112 acres rezoned 1 -1 or light industrial. We are hoping that at the
Planning Commission or the neighborhood group can sit down with us and work
out some reasonable guidelines for Light industrial zoning.
I will now attempt to answer the questions that merits the rezoning that
we are seeking. I will take these item by item.
a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The need or benefit
will be that we can finally develop this project and put 100 new
families in Brooklyn, Center.
b. Is the proposed zoning consistant with /and compatible with the
surrounding land use classifications ? I say yes, there is I -1
across the street and R -1, that would buffer on the townhouse, which
is an R -2 zone.
C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contem-
plated for development of the subject property? I guess I do not
understand that, I cannot answer.
d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification
f
changes an the area szncP flap subject property wqs zoned. No.
e. Is not applicable.
f. Yes
g. I guess in all honesty, the property is suited for the zoning
with respect to size, configuration, topography, but it might not
be for location.
h. I think the development will or can be warranted by the compre-
hensive plan. I think it is in the best interest of the community
for us to develop that property as soon as possible.
i.,-Again I believe the proposal does demonstrate merit beyond the interest
of the owner, because we will be putting a higher quality multi- family
development there and we will be aiding the school district by attract-
ing 100 families into the area.
I& A, ' .:
Mr. Ron Warren
April 25, 1979
.Page 4
Ron, I hope that answers most of the questions, or intentions - this
proposal. If you have other questions, please ask me before the Planning
Commission meeting. At that meeting I will bring my "dog and pony" show
about the Farm and explain to you and thF Planning Commission what is
happening on the Farm. Thanks for the time.
Sincerely.,
CL
L.A. Beisner,
Vice President /Director of Development
LAB : rs
-
-
ate �r> A& A,
teciion 3J-L ALLUNII' CU LVALUJUIU.N YUlJjI/Y ti1VL LU V1LVY \. VLLLLIIYLv.
_ 1. Purpose
The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive
planning and land use classifications is enhanced through urliforrn and equitable
` ". evaluation of periodic proposed changes to ' this Zoning Ordinance; a nd for this
purpose, by the adoption of Resoiution No 77 -167, the City Council has estaDlisned
a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
Z. Poli
It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be
C rezoning als shall not
w' ..n.. c e Plan, and b r
c onsistent with the ororeh i P
on ., y
C ) roucs
P
11 spot i-i a 2 S _
S .1
W 1C;1 -01 CC_.._ ...0
decis h ___
s �� zoning," defined as a zoning ec
c F t rung, g.
favor of a particular landowner, and does not rely Le 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 gy.:idelines which may be weighed.
collectively or individually as deemed by the City.
C _ Guidelines. _
(a) ' Is there a clear and ' public need, or benefit?
- (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with .
surrounding land use classifications?
' -" (e) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning , distriot be
contemplated for development of the subject property?
(d} Have there been substantial physical.or zoning classification
changes -in area since the subject, - property was zoned?
(e} In the case of City- initiated rezoning_ proposals, is, there a
- broad 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? '
• • 1) Does - the proposal* demonstrate merit beyond - the interests of an
• OMAMCrr nr MAMOrC of an inriivlfiw"3 narcel?
MOUND
P I
CEMET ERY
CITY
Dim
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
FIN
IN
FA
1111111 HIS
IN go mill I
IN
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79024
Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
Location: West portion of Outlot H, Twin Cities Interchange Park
.(Southeast quadrant of I -94 and Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Preliminary,Plat Approval
The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to subdivide an approximate
3 acre tract into 11 single family residential lots. The parcel is located
adjacent to and easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of the freeway. The area
is bounded on the west by Xerxes Avenue North, on the north by the freeway ramp,
on the east by City park property and on the south by single family residential
lots that face 65th Avenue North.
The subject property is 3 acres of an approximate 10 acre parcel that was part
of highway right -of -way. The Highway Department no longer has need for the
property and the City has obtained the 7 acres to the east of this site and
plans to incorporate it into its Central Park plans. The proposed plat compre-
hends creating 11 single family lots that all meet ordinance standards which
would be serviced by a cul -de -sac leading from Xerxes Avenue North.
This site was the subject of a rezoning request under Application No. 79007
which comprehended an R -2 zoning on the north half of the site. This appli-
cation was withdrawn by the applicant following a public hearing held by the
Planning Commission.
The plat seems to be in order with respect to the size and configuration of the
proposed lots. One problem that must be addressed before final plat approval
and the filing of the plat has to do with school district boundaries. The
boundary dine for the Osseo School D+s'LriCt and the Brooklyn Centcr School
District runs through portions of the lots on the north side of the proposed
cul -de -sac. Brooklyn Center School District has been informed of this matter
and the Superintendent has indicated that he will be discussing the matter with
the Osseo School District Superintendent. A redrawing of the district boundary
lines would be in order, but is subject to the approval of both school districts.
The City Engineer will be prepared to review the plat in more detail. A public
hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Approval of the preliminary plat should be subject to at least the following
conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances.
2— final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
3. Agreement between the Osseo School District and the Brooklyn
Center School District regarding district boundary lines
running through area shall be resolved prior to final plat
approval.
5 -10 -79
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79025
Applicant: Jarold Modeen
Location: 5455 to 5449 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning from R -1 .(Single Family Residential) to C -1 (Service /Office)
a owner a 5 5 Brooklyn Boulevard is joined b '
The applicant, own of the t 5 4 y J Y the
property owners of 5455, 5459, 5501, 5509 and 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard in a' proposal
to rezone 6 single family residential lots from R -1 (Single Family Residential) to
C -1 (Service /Office) These lots are bounded on the north by the Library property
and Northport Drive, on the west by Northport Park and Northport School, on the
south by the Northport Clinic and on the east by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage
road. '
We have received a letter from the applicant (attached) in which they argue that
the rezoning is justified for the following:
a. The surrounding property is all commercially zoned and their
property is not suited for residential purposes.
b. The rezoning will benefit the City.
c. There will.be no adverse impact on surrounding properties if the
rezoning is granted.
In December 1978, the City Council approved a rezoning of the slaughterhouse
property, just north of the Library site, to C -1 In conjunction with that rezoning
and in a previous rezoning request (Application No. 76053), the Southwest Neigbor-
hood Advisory Group communicated its support of a rezoning of all property from
the Northport Clinic to the slaughterhouse property. The Planning Commission,
with direction from the C_, ity Council dPciced to review such a_ large scale rezoning
during cev ►ein of the Gv i�i ° c iiC ii i vy cl a n. T at. "�Vlc i s not Uric': Y�.14� �iC1" � "(.'r, it
will be perhaps a year before a new plan is adopted.
The City's exi- sting Comprehensive Plan recommends preserving "existing single
family housing on Brooklyn Boulevard, at least for the near future, where it is an
integral part of a single family residential neighborhood, and not segmented
therefrom by other land uses, and especially where a "frontage road exists or
where one can be installed." The properties in question seem to straddle both
sides of this recommendation in that they are somewhat isolated, yet are served
by a: frontage road.
The lots in question average roughly 140 ft. depth and have variable widths ranging
from 101 ft. to 171 ft. Commercial office developments along a major thoroughfare
Must be set back 50 ft. and have a 35 ft. buffer strip. Rear yard setbacks are
40 ft. Combinations of some of the lots in question would, in all li'kel_ihood,
have to take place to make development of this property feasible. The City Plan -
ning Consultant has looked at this area for possible service /office uses and are
recommending minimum lot widths for C -1 uses al ong a major thoroughfare to be
increased to 150 ft. from the 75 ft. to encourage larger and more attractive de-
velopment, rather than allowing house conversions or small complexes requiring
numerous curb cuts. It is, however, premature at this time to apply these
considerations to the application before the Commission.
5 -10 -79
Application No. 79025
A copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in
Section 35 -208 is attached for your review.
The merits of the proposal must meet the current criteria in order to recommend
approval of the application.
The Commission traditionally refers rezoning requests to the appropriate Neighbor
hood Advisory Group, in this case, the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent:
5 -10 -79 -2- '
?�� ---e• Vic- �zxi _�c -�.�,
Ask
`lt
2 7
'\ i T
�4 4 r x cn
O t _
• ; O - -- z
W L �
9TH AVE N.
CI -�
C' NORTH WAY DR.
— ° 3 R 5
3 0 , C 2 N
OR Tk W
AVE. N. c� 0 A y OR�y
a �
° I
e �s
COUNTY '
i TN ------ - - - - -- -- -- —
E r LAN E O /
< * 56 T A vE
NORTHPORT
AVE N. PARK' / �\
APPLICATION NO.
79025
1/1M I
NORTHPORT�
SCHOOL.
A .
55TH AVE
s �
of £ WATER
a r
Ci
54TH
6 i C
H 53 Z LIL AG DRIVE W
W W �
P AVE H
5 3RD AV E M. o
i W
I
R 5 >
C
A E M
a
52 NO AYE N
ow
W
9d
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79026
Applicant: James S. Warren
Location 413 - 66th Avenue North
Request: Special Use Permit to operate an animal hospital
The applicant is seeking a special use permit to operate an animal hospital for
the care and treatment of small animals, mainly cats and dogs. He is proposing
to locate at the site of the former 7 -11 Store located in a small commercial
center at 413 66th Avenue North. The site is zoned C -2 and is surrounded by
other commercially zoned property. Animal hospitals are special uses within
the C -2 .zoning district.
The applicant has .submitted a letter (copy attached) indicating that there will
be no boarding or grooming of animals on the site, and that a small kennel area
will be maintained for overnight hospitalization of animals needing surgery.
His letter also outlines proposals for dealing with health, noise and odor concerns.`
The proposed hours of operation for the use are 9 :00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m., Monday
through Friday and 9 :00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays. The Standards for
granting Special Use Permits contained in Section 35 -220 are attached for the
Commission's review. The applicant contends simply that the use of the property
for an animal hospital is reasonable. Based on 'the applicant's description of
the proposed operation. there does not seem to be any conflicts with the Standards
for Special Use permits.
The applicant has also submitted the floor plan showing how he proposes to arrange
the animal hospital Offices, a reception room and a waiting room would be
located along the common wall where the area abuts another commercial use in the
cenLer. The inside kennel area wuuld be located on the far easterly wall. The
Building Official has reviewed the plan and the site and the applicant has been
in contact with the Sanitarian regarding sanitation concerns.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Approval of the Special Use Permit should be subject to at least the following
conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of
the facility and is nontransferable
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and
regulations including any special licensing requirements, and
violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. A current copy of the applicant's license shall be kept on file
with the City.
4. No boarding of animals shall be allowed except in conjunction
with the hospitalization of animals interned for surgery.
5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday.
5 -10 -79
4146 Goodwin Ave.
Oakdale, 'On. 55109
April 10, 1979
To the City of Prookly:i Center:
I, Ja!s:es S.Warren DV,kt here!')y request a special use permit for the
- purpose of estanlishinq an Animal hospital in a building located
at W+t 66th Ave.
I am a graduate of St. Olaf College 1964 and the University of
Minnesota College of Veterinary 1,edicine 1977. 1 have been pract—
icing in a small animal hospital in St. Paul- since that time. I am
lieenced, to practice in the state of V,innesota.
The proposed animal hospital shall meet all renuirements or regulat—
ions imposed by the state of lli:inesota and the cities of Minneapolis
and Broolilyn Center. ':he operation of this hospital will -)e for the
care and treatment of small animals, mainly cuts and. clods. There will
he no boarding or aroon?i ng of animals A small kennel area w ill ')e
maintai.lec' for over iiWit hoe - vitalization of surgery cases.
The followi-ag areas of concerti shall - )e dealt with in the man .er
described:
FFU'.' =LIC HEALTh the hospital shall in no way renreseat a public
health hazard al1cl the d- esi and. proposed OPera'tio s shall '- reviewed_
I Pudic Health officials at I.Le federal. level. Also X—ray fa.cil—
ities will meet or exceed stage reauireme ?t:s.
NOISE — `1'ne hospital floor rl.an shall provide for ample separation
of noise - orone areas from adface :it use areas. In ad(I itioi, adeoa ate
soundrroofiag in the form of walls aid insulation will prevent
any possible nuisance.`
St4ELLS — Adequate sanitation provisions will be scrupulously
maintained. Animal wastes will f')e disposed of in a lawful and
sanitary ma°)ner. bodies of animals to ,e disposed of will. t:re kept
in a eeep freeze until i�)ic'lked ur, an age liceficed for this '-irid
of disposal.. Oec late ve ii :ilation `gill e provided in the ca_ -e area
which will cause a , )eF!aiive pressure in this area aid a- air flow in
the hospital toward this area.
It is esse to '.peep in mind that since there will h -e no uoardi;Ig
of animals as such, tliere will rarely 'he more than 5 or 6 animals
in tl- hospital at a givers time, whicli minimizes the magnitude of
the above areas of concern.
In consideration of the al:ove, I feel that the operation of an animal
hospital in tale . sta - ;,ed location co ist.ituies a reaso able use of this`
propertj, are, tl--at a sr.ecial use per',, it silould T - Je tl;ierefore issued.
Sincerely,
.�UDa•rti. 7`0 'dC) Janes S. Warre,i DTM
cl •QOa .-. 740
AI NF ' ANNEX
QQ O J
• ♦ 4` b
WATER TOWER
TOAD xO. 130
10 x
d
Z W
> - J
W '
67TH
AV 1, a.
l� zr
W
cr-
o / RIVERBROOK CT. 5
` c CENTER a Z c ��
NOOL a °
u % gTN av s.
FIREHOUSE
R
. _
FIRE r .
STA. a
Co-
AVE
z
APPLICATION,
r NO. 79026
s
d z
a o�
i
4 V
t V N.
J
i7
�-- " 694 ES. v �....
i� BOAT LANDING '
y'4 CC URT ♦ Q�4x
. .. .... .... H Iil
ii�
b ND AVE N. i Qty
2. Stand for Special Us Prrinit
A spe cial use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration
by evidence that all of the fol lv4ving are met:
(a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use .vill
promcite and enhance the general public welfare and will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public- health, safety, morals,: or
comf or t
(b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for purposes already Permitted,
_ nor substantially - diminish and impair property values within the
neighborhood. _
(c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement : of surrounding, property for _us_es _
permitted in the district.
(d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress,
egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion
in -th-e public streets.-
(e) Tile special use shall, in all other respects , conform to the appli-
cable regulations . of the district in which it -is located.
3. C onditions and Restrictions
:. C t o n m tf r e nd a C it y C � nC� i1 rn-,�,
llE Planning Cw2»I iWS O.. ...a BCOr.^.mC
` .... and tl�. .. ..o2 ..��, i; p
such conditions and reSirictions Upon the eStc"it>>i511men�, ZOCatl0n, tOnS rL2Ct on,
malliterance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the pro -
tection of the public interest and to secure compliance with- requirements
specified in this ordinance.. In all cases in which special use permits are
granted., the City Council. may require such evidence and guarantees as it may
dzern necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith.
4. Resubmission
No application a special use permit which has been denied by the City
Council sIh311 be resubmitted for a period of tYvelve (12)_ months from the date of
the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set
forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which
he relied to yair. the consent of the City Council for resubraission at an earlier
time.
b. Revocation and 'Ex of Speci Use Permits .
: When a special. use -perrl :t has been issued pursua to the provisions of
this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further acti -on by the Planning
♦ Commission or the City Goun::il unless the applicant or his assignee or .
successor conimenc s wort upon the su.); c.t property within one year of the
date the special u -ermit is c rarte;l, or Unless be ore the expiration of the
ono ;*car period tho applicant shall. a plv for an extension thereof by filling out
and su bm itting to th S of t H enn ing Commission a 'Special Use
Permit" appli cation reque stiI? g• su oxt,:insio and paying as additional lee of
•
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 79027
Applicant: Northbrook Alliance Church
Location: 6200 Block of Bryant Avenue North (North Lilac Drive and Bryant Ave.)
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to combine an approximate 50'
x 114' parcel with Lot 1, Block 1, J. R. Murphy Addition to create a buildable
lot to be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Alliance Addition. The parcel is
located westerly of Bryant Avenue and North Lilac Drive.
The existing lot, part of the J. R. Murphy Addition, is substandard and, there-
fore, the combination is needed. The applicant's survey in that there
currently is a 5'.drainage and utility easement running along the easterly edge
of the J. R. Murphy Addition. They are requesting that this easement be vacated
and a new drainage and utility easement established on the easterly edge of the
combined lots that would coincide with an already existing easement along J. R.
Murphy's Second Addition.
The City Engineer will be prepared to review the plat in more detail. A public
hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
Preliminary plat approval should be subject to at least,the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
2. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
5 -10 -79
ROOKLYN CENTER
HIGH SCHOOL
+ •" d
6TH A
FIREHOUSE
3
i
PAR
w
. FIRE >
STA.
AYE
PV E
6 N
Z
APPLICATION NO.a
0 79027 z
: Z a o�
d Q
U P O
AVE N. w -�
v �
r _
arc o fort
w
w
94 W
94 W.B. — —
694 E8._ e
�0
94 ES. r _
Ike �► �� \ 8 ®r
COURT
rr�4
62 No AVE N. 11e��t
a z 4 :::H +�
11
1.1 -
. 1
Z 61 ST N 1 1
,
W 1r
1
94
4 W W W V Ir,
< Q t Q > ? �r
tK <
fi
It firL
u I/
TH AVE M . < f r
it .rr�
EARL BROWN /,r
` SCHOOL o f +
in
z iw _
IK
W - f
A o
f r W
AVE N r n
r r cr
►► 1 I
rr .
I it
it
r rr
4 � r
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
MAY 10, 1979
REGULAR SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman
Hal Pierce at 8:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson.
Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Superintend-
ent of Engineering James Noska, and Planning Assistant Gary Shal.lcross.
A PPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 19, 1 979
Commissioner Erickson noted he di not vote on the approval of minutes for the
meeting of March 22, 1979 as indicated in minutes for the April 19, 1979 meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes
of the April 19, 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission as corrected. Voting in
favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson, Lucht, Theis, Malecki and
Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 79021 (James Speckmann)
After the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was a preliminary
plat submitted by James Speckmann for the two contiguous parcels at 5637 Brooklyn
Boulevard. Noting that the applicant was not present, the Chairman decided to
defer the application until later in the meeting.
APPLICATION NO. 79022 (New Horizon Day Care Center /Susan K.__Dunkley
The Secretary introduced the next item on the agenda, that of an application for
a special use permit submitted by Susan Dunkley to operate a child care and
nursery school facility in the lower level of the Berean Evangelical Free Church
at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary noted the property is zoned RI and
the child care and nursery school facilities are allowed through a special use
permit in that zoning district. He also noted that the property has previously
been used for educational purposes by Faith Academy which operated a parochial
school for up to 75 students ranging from kindergarten to ninth grade.
The Secretary reviewed a letter of application submitted by the applicant in
which it was indicated that the hours of operation would be from 6:30 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The center would provide care and instruction:
to children in age groups from 16 months to 6 years. Latch key care (before and
after school) would be provided for first graders. The Secretary reported that
the City has received confirmation from the Minnesota Department of Public
Welfare that the facility is licenseable for day care for approximately 60 to 75
children, ages 16 months to 7 years. He added that the City Sanitarian has
indicated that certain improvements must be made to the facilities before the
approval can be granted, and that the Building Inspector and fire Inspector
found no problems during a review of the premises. The Secretary then reviewed
the requirements for spe cial use permits and the recommended conditions of approval
for this particular application.
- 5 -10 -79 -1-
Chairman Pierce inquired what improvements had been required by the Sanitarian.
The Secretary responded that those conditions were outlined in the letter which
has been submitted to the Planning Commission and included various improvements
to the cooking, eating and washing facilities. Commissioner Hawes asked whether
the Horizon Day Care Centers had created any problems at other locations. The
Secretary responded that he was not aware of any. Commissioner Erickson asked
whether the operation at the Lutheran Church of the Master required a special
use permit. The Secretary replied that it did and that the letters received by
the City commenting on New Horizon Day Care operations were all generally
favorable.
Chairman Pierce recognized Mr, and Mrs. Dunkley to speak on behalf of their appli-
cation. He asked whether they understood the conditions listed by the Secretary.
They answered that they did.
Commissioner Hawes asked whether the presence of this operation on the property
would bring it back on the tax rolls. The Secretary responded that he was not
aware that it would. The Dunkleys stated that the presence of a day care center
in other churches has never resulted in making the property subject to property
taxes. If it did, would probably be unwilling to allow the operation of
day care centers on their premises. Commissioner Hawes asked who the licensing
authorities were for day care centers. Mr. Dunkley replied that regulation by
the State is extensive. In response to a question from Chairman Pierce, Mrs.
Dunkley stated that the premises afforded plenty of area for the children to
play in.
Commissioner Theis asked the Dunkleys whether they intended to go beyond the 75
children for which they are now licensed. Mrs. Dunkley replied that the facility
is, by the State's estimate, capable of serving 90 children, but that since her
application only sought approval of 75, the license only comprehends 75 at this
time. The Secretary pointed out that an increase of 15 students over the permis-
sion granted in the special use permit would require review by the Planning Com-
mission. The applicants then discussed with the Commission the fact that a State
license is generally made out to the amount desired by the applicant so long as
it does not exceed the maximum permitted. The Planning Assistant suggested that
the condition limiting the number of students be tied to the number allowed under
the State license, but Commissioner Theis stated that since only 60 to 75 children
were comprehended in the present license, he did not see any way that 90 could
be approved at the present time. In response to a question from Commissioner
Hawes, Mrs. Dunkley stated that the facility would be operating year round: except
on the six national holidays.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. No one spoke re-
lating to the application.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING!
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79022. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners
Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht, and Erickson. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously. Chairman Pierce asked the Secretary if he had any
comments on the question of the number of children to be allowed. The Secretary
stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to approve more than 75 at
the present time. He explained that the letter from the State only indicated
up to 75 students and he noted that the approval for the Faith Academy which was
located at the Berean Church had also been limited to 75.
5 -10 -79 -2-
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79022 (New Horizon Day Care Center)
Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconde d by Commissioner Ma ec i to recommend
approval of a special use permit to be issued to Sue Dunkley to operate a New
Horizon Day Care Center at the Berean Church, subject to the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of
the facility and is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and
regulations and any ;violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
3. A copy of the current operating license shall be kept on file
with the City.
4. Approval by the City Sanitarian of all cooking, eating, and
washing facilities shall be granted prior to the issuance of
the permit.
5. The number of students at any given time shall be limited to
75.
6. The hours of operation shall be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson Lucht, Erickson,
Malecki and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 79023 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
The Secretary introduced the next application. 'a rezoning request from R3 to CIA
or I -1 of the easterly 7, acres of Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchange Addition.
He explained that the area in question is part of an approximate 20 acre parcel
that is bounded on the south by Interstate 94, on the east by Xerxes Avenue North,
on the north by Shingle Creek Parkway, and on the west by single family residential
property. He showed the Commission a conceptual plan of the area submitted by
the applicant with two four - storey office buildings, parking, and a buffer area.
The applicant, he said, has submitted a letter in which the development of 100
townhouses are tied directly to the rezoning of the property in question to CIA
or I -1, and that the applicant prefers I -1 zoning. In the letter, the applicant
argues that a rezoning to I -1 is particularly appropriate because it would result
in the development of the R3 zoned property putting 100 new families in Brooklyn
Center; because the townhouses would buffer the industrial development from single
family homes; because the goals of the Comprehensive Plan would be met by the
development of the property; and because the development of the property will
aid the school district.
The Secretary explained that the tract of land presently zoned R3 was proposed
for religious use by special use permit under Application No. 77044. That appli-
cation, he said, was denied principally on the grounds that School District No.
286 would suffer a loss from tax base and potential student enrollment. The City
.Council had also cited other reasons for that denial such as approval of that
special use permit would `set a precedent for other R3 zoned property; that it
would require amendment of the Comprehensive Plan because the entire 20 acre
would not be used for single family attached housing purposes that the Plan
calls for in this area; and that other suitable vacant property was available
in the City for the use contemplated. He also noted that other requests for re-
zoning of this property have been denied in the past.
5 -10 -79 -3-
The Secretary weighed the pros and cons of the applicant's proposal, stating
that any rezoning ould constitute an erosion of the Comprehensive Plan if 9
P t
stated goal of promoting single family attached housing was not realized. He
pointed out that CIA zoning, or even better, Cl zoning, would possibly have some
merit for the area since it could serve as a buffer between a potential townhouse
development and the industrial development across Xerxes Avenue North. He said
that Cl uses have been considered fairly compatible with residential uses in
other cases. A rezoning to I -1 of this area, however, would expand a zoning
district which has ample vacant land available and would eliminate the function
of Xerxes Avenue North as a buffer between residential and industrial uses. He
stated some industrial uses may be more compatible than others with residential
uses. But, while the applicant may have good intentions for the site, once a
rezoning takes place, the City has no control over what is actually put on the
land provided the use is permitted in the zoning district. The Secretary re-
ferred the Commission to the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezoning Requests in
Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances and indicated that the Northwest Neighbor-
hood Advisory Group would be the neighborhood group to review this rezoning
request before a final decision.
Commissioner Hawes asked whether the rezoning request represented a, speculative
venture or whether an actual development proposal was accompanying it. The
Secretary responded that to some extent it was speculative, but the applicant
has submitted a conceptual plan showing two four storey office buildings on the
site. He noted that there is little CiA property in the City. Commissioner
Hawes asked what the maximum height limitation on CIA land is. The Secretary
answered that the height limitation was a function of setback limitations and
that the setback must be equal to the height of the building. Commissioner Hawes
asked whether a 6 to 8 storey building could be put on the property with the
remainder of the land being used for parking space. The Secretary answered that
such a proposal was possible under the CiA zoning. In answer to a question from
Commissioner Hawes regarding screening requirements, the Secretary indicated that
a six foot high opaque fence and 15 ft. greenstrip would be required between CIA
and residential zoned property. Regarding traffic impact, the Secretary showed
the Commission a layout of the coneptual plan with a common entrance for the
office and townhouse uses along Shingle Creek Parkway. In answer.to Chairman
Pierce, the Secretary indicated that the demarcation line between R3 and CIA
zoning was a zoning line only and that no other property lines exist on the land
at this time.
Commissioner Theis asked whether the townhouses indicated in the conceptual plan
would be on their own separate parcels. The Secretary answered that individual
lots would be required if the townhouse units were owner occupied. Commissioner
Theis asked the Secretary whether he considered office uses a buffer between
townhouses and industrial uses. The Secretary responded that to rezone the
proposed parcel to I -1 would expand a zoning district that had ample vacant land
available and would surrender the use of the street as a buffer between resident-
ial and industrial uses. The Cl use, on the other hand, would have some buffer
function between residential and industrial uses. In answer to Commissioner Hawes,
the Secretary indicated that the entrance and exit ramps on Xerxes Avenue and
Highway 94 would be removed at about the time the Shingle Creek Parkway inter-
change was completed. Asked when this would take place, the Superintendent of
Engineering stated that completion of the bridge would probably be within one
year of the bidding on the contract.
5 -10 -79 -4-
Chairman Pierce then called on the applicant to speak on behalf of his rezoning
proposal. Mr. Beisner stated that he wanted to give the Commission an idea of
the overall scheme for the Brooklyn,Center Industrial Park and not simply con-
centrate on the parcel in question. He maintained that within roughly a year
the "farm" would be mostly developed. He showed the Commission where Specu-
lative Industrial Building IX would be located and indicated that another 140,000
sq. ft. of light industrial warehouse space would be constructed in the area
south of Shingle Creek,Parkway and north of Highway 94. He related that Byerly's
had almost concluded a contract to build on a large parcel of land south of
Highway 94 and that plans for a clinic, a sporting goods store, and another high-
rise apartment building were in the works. Finally, he pointed out that a major
office building offering 785,000 sq. ft. of office space, would probably be built
on the site directly east of the City Hall. He stated that the building known as
Palmer Lake Plaza located across Shingle Creek Parkway from the site in question,
was having trouble renting office space and he concluded from this that the area
by Xerxes and Highway 94 does not attract office users-. He indicated that the
type of use contemplated for the proposed site would be similar to a Medtronics
type building or Hiawatha Rubber or other light, clean, industrial uses. He
emphasized that the building would probably be used one half for office and one
half for manufacturing space.
Mr. Beisner said that his interest was to come up with something that was workable
in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. He added that he was not sure
whether any of the proposed uses would turn out to be economical. "Mr. Beisner
then showed the Commission a number of coneptual plans developed for the site in
the recent past. He stated that financing for garden apartments would be im-
possible without a public subsidy. A plan showing townhouses for sale also showed
the I -1 and CIA uses accompanying. Mr. Beisner confessed that he had a strong
leaning toward a light industrial zoning because he was not sure that an office
development could be profitable. He also argued that the industrial development
would be of high quality aesthetically because it would have a'direct bearing
on the ability to sell the townhouses.
At this point, Commissioner Theis asked the applicant which he planned to construct
.first, the townhouses or the industrial development. Mr. Beisner replied that
they would either be built simultaneously or possibly the townhouses would be
built first. Commissioner Theis asked whether the industrial development was
needed to provide the financing for the townhouses. -Mr. Beisner answered that
this was not the case, that the Industrial Park was only interested in getting
the land developed. Commissioner Theis stated that the concern of the residents
is to avoid getting the cart before the horse; that is, they would prefer to see
the townhouses developed first. Mr. Beisner answered that the profitability of
developing townhouses for sale was questionable whereas he was confident that
light industrial development would be economical. Commissioner Hawes asked the
applicant if he would consider putting in 60 more townhouses if the first 100
townhouses were selling well. Mr. Beisner answered that townhouses are simply
not profitable enough and added that the more townhouses were put on the site
the more traffic would probably take place. Commissioner Hawes asked what the
.school district had to say on the subject. Mr. Rossi, Superintendent of Independ-
ent School District 286, stated that the school district had no definite feelings
about the proposal, at this time, but that it felt there was a general need for
more residentially zoned property in the school district. Mr. Beisner concurred
with the tone of Mr. Rossi's remarks, stating that the Industrial Park was very
interested in getting feedback before it proceeded with elaborate plans.
5 -10 -79 -5-
Commissioner Malecki asked why the school district's tax base was not considered
an issue in the rezoning proposal. The Secretary answered that the former pro-
posal for a church use on the site would have made the property tax - exempt.
This proposal, on the other hand, would have no such effect. However, he adde.d,.
the loss of potential students was an issue in the previous application and is
also somewhat of an issue in this application. Commissioner Theis commented
that the tax implications of a development could not be ascertained simply from
its zoning. Different uses, he said, have different service demands as well as
different tax values; and that while a church may not be taxed directly, its
contribution to the community may have had a net benefit on total taxable values.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing and recognzied Mr.
Ward Olson of 3000 - 68th Avenue North. Mr. Olson spoke favorably of the pro
posal- noting that it would cause less traffic than another 60 townhouse units..
Commissioner Hawes asked Mr. Olson how he would feel if the commercial buildings
proposed for the site became 6, 7, or 8 storey office buildings. Mr. Olson
replied that he would not be in favor of such tall buildings Marilyn Olson, of
3000 - 68th Avenue North, stated that she was very much opposed to subsidized
housing because it would bring crime into the neighborhood and would reduce
property values of neighboring homeowners. She stated she was in favor of a
homogeneous development.
Mrs. McGeary, of 3007 Thurber Road, then asked a number of questions about the
Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. Her husband stated that he had no
problem with the proposal, only that he was against rental housing on the site.
Commissioner Hawes asked him if he would prefer a one storey industrial building
or a 6 to 7 storey office building. Mr. McGeary replied that he would be against
a tall office building, but added in response to Chairman Pierce that an office
building of three stories would not be objectionable. John Cross, of 3106
Thurber Road,pointed out that one storey industrial buildings are higher than
one storey office buildings or residential houses. Kate Lachenmayer, of 3001
Thurber Road, stated she did not feel comfortable with a CIA zoning. She did
not want to see anything higher than townhouse from the higher elevations to
the west. Commissioner Theis asked her whether she preferred to see the top of
a one storey industrial building or the side of 'a three storey office building.
He clarified for her the `fact : that berms are used to shield parking 'lots and
not the sides of < buildings.
The Secretary clarified for those present that buildings in the I -1 zone do not
have to be only one story in height. He explained that the staff report on the
proposal responded to a request for industrial zoning and CIA zoning which has
no height limitation. He expressed his opinion that the applicant is basically
speculating by proposing a rezoning and that ,while the contemplated uses for
the site may sound benign, there is no guarantee of a compatible use once the
property is rezoned. It is the opinion of the staff, he said, that some use
other than an industrial use would constitute a beater buffer between residential
uses and the Industrial Park. In response to Chairman Pierce, the Secretary then
listed all of the permitted uses in the Cl zone.
Commissioner Malecki reminded those present that the City, through the Zoning
Ordinance, does not determine whether the R3 zoned land is developed for owner /
occupied units or rental units. In turn, she stated, it cannot control the
type of industrial use on I -1 zoned land as long as that use is permitted within
the zoning district. The Secretary then listed all of the uses permitted in
the I -1 zone, adding that the City could not deny any of those uses on the site,
were it rezoned to I -1. Mr. Beisner countered that nearly all of the uses l - isted
for I -1 zone already exist in the Industrial Park and are not obnoxious. He
resented the negative tone taken by the Secretary in referring to the I -1 zone and
added that there was no outside storage permitted in that zone. Mr. McGeary asked
5 -10 -79 -6-
Mr. Beisner about the possibility of conditioning the development of the indust-
rial site on the development of the R3 site. Mr. Beisner answered that he was
uncertain whether townhouses would work in the area. He added that he wanted to
make them work, but that the only thing that had a guaranteed profit was sub-
sidized housing.
Commissioner Theis asked for comments on whether restrictive covenants could be
workable and whether the City's Zoning Ordinance could be changed to create a
new industrial zone for this property that would allow only certain very com-
patible industrial uses. Mr. Beisner commented that he did not see any partic-
ular problems with restrictive covenants, that such a covenant would probably
have the effect of creating its own zone, and that the Industrial Park would be
receptive to some kind of proposal along that line. He reiterated that he was
interested in receiving input from the neighborhood. The Secretary stated that
he could not recommend establishing a new zone for a single 72 acre parcel of
land. He advised against an ordinance amendment or creating 'a new zone and
recommended that the Planning Commission evaluate the proposal on the basis of
the guidelines for rezoning. Mrs. Olson warned the Commission that subsidized
housing would wind up costing the City. Jerry Zyvoloski of 3013 - 68th Avenue
North pointed out that if the design of the townhouses was attractive, he did
not see why they would not sell. Mrs. Olson and Mrs. McGeary -both concluded
the comments of the residents by stating that they felt Mr. Beisner had done a
good job and that the proposal submitted was a benefit to the neighborhood.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public
hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes,
Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
TABLE APPLICATION NO. 79023 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Lucht to table Application
No. 79023 and refer it to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review
and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis,
Hawes, Manson Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
RECES
The Planning Commission recessed at 10:10 p.m. and resumed at 10:33 p.m.
A PPLICATION NO. 79024 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park)
The Secretary introduced the nextitem of consideration, a request for preliminary
plat approval to subdivide an approximate 3 acre tract into 11 single family resi-
dential lots. The parcel, he pointed out, is located adjacent to and easterly of
Xerxes Avenue North, south of the freeway. It is bounded on the west by Xerxes
Avenue North, on the north by the freeway ramp, on the east by Park property, and
on the south by single family residential lots that face 65th Avenue North. After
a brief review of the past history of the property, the Secretary indicated that
the plat is basically in order, but that two questions remain to be answered.
The Secretary pointed out that one problem relates to school district boundaries
which presently run through the lots on the north side of the cul -de -sac. Since
this is not allowed, he said, a redrawing of the school district boundary lines
would be in order, but would have to be approved by both school districts. In
addition, he stated, the plat comprehends two parcels which would not be build -
able if the City's 50' setback requirement off major thoroughfares were inter-
preted to include rear setbacks. The Secretary noted that he first became aware
of the problem this afternoon when the survey was submitted. He explained that
further research into this matter and perhaps some advice from the City Attorney
was needed before a recommendation could be made.
5 -19 -79 -7-
Chairman Pierce cited one example where a single property was bounded by two
major thoroughfares and in that case, he stated, the 50 ft. setback was enforced
off both thoroughfares. In response to a question from Chairman Pierce, the
Superintendent of Engineering indicated that the State Department of Transport-
ation would not guarantee that the ramps serving Xerxes Avenue North would be
abandoned at any particular time. In answer to Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary
stated that if the ramps were vacated, the City would attempt to acquire the
land for park purposes and in that event the setback problem would be resolved.
The Superintendent of Engineering and Commissioner Hawes then discussed the
potential drainage problems on the site and possible solutions.
TABLE APPLICATION NO. 79024 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park)
Motion byCommissioner Lucht seconded y ommissioner ens o table Application
No. 79024 until questions regarding rear yard setbacks from major thoroughfares
are clarified. While the motion was on the floor, the Secretary suggested that
perhaps a statement from the Department - of Transportation could be obtained
indicating when the ramps will be vacated. Chairman Pierce noted that the
tabling of the application included a tabling of the public hearing on the appli
cation. Commissioner Hawes desired the motion to indicate the Planning Commission
acknowledges that the plat is approveable in present form except for the questions
of setbacks. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis,
Manson, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 79025 (Darold Modeen)
The next item of consideration was a rezoning request from R1 to Cl by Jarold
Modeen, owner of the property at 5545 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary explained
that the owner was joined by the property owners of 5455, 5459 and 5501, 5509 and
5545 Brooklyn Boulevard in proposing to rezone six single family residential lots
from Ri to Cl. He pointed out that the lots are.bounded on the north by the
Library property and Northport Drive, on the west by Northport Park and Northport
School, on the south by the Northport Clinic and on the east by the Brooklyn
Boulevard frontage road. The Secretary stated that he had received a letter from
the applicants arguing that the rezoning is justified because:
1. The surrounding property is all commercially zoned and the
property is not suited for residential purposes.
2. The rezoning will benefit the City.
3. There will be no adverse impact on surrounding properties
if the rezoning is granted.
The Secretary noted that in December of 1978, the City Council approved a rezoning
of the slaughterhouse property just north of the Library site to Cl. In con-
junction with that rezoning, he said, and in a previous request, the Southwest
Neighborhood Advisory Group had communicated its support of a rezoning of all
properties from the Northport Clinic to the slaughterhouse property. The City
Council requested the Planning Commission to consider a larger rezoning of this
area during review of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Secretary cited the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan for Brooklyn
Boulevard, which states that existing single family housing on Brooklyn Boulevard
should be preserved "at least for the near future where it is an integral part
of the single family residential neighborhood and not segmented therefrom by other
land uses, and especially where a frontage.road exists or where one can be installed.
The Secretary noted that while the properties in question are somewhat isolated,
they are also served by a frontage road. He also indicated that even though
review of the Comprehensive
P i st wo would have
Plan is underway, the rezoning request u e
to be evaluated in light of the existing Comprehensive Plan.
5 -10 -79 -R_
The Secretary described the lots in question as averaging roughly 140 ft. in
depth with widths ranging from 101 to 171 feet. Noting that front yard setbacks
off a major thoroughfare are 50 feet and rear yard setbacks in Cl zones are 40
feet, the Secretary inferred that combinations of some of the lots in question
would have to take place in order to make development feasible. He also pointed
out that the Planning Consultant has considered service office uses as a possi-
bility for this area, recommending minimum lot widths for Cl uses along a major
thoroughfare to be increased to 150 feet from the present 75 feet to encourage
larger and more attractive developments, rather than allowing house coversions
with numerous curb cuts. He added, however, that these considerations do not
apply under the existing ordinance, and therefore, must not be considered to
impinge on the property were it rezoned. The Secretary referred the Commission
to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35
208. He advised that the proposal be weighed on the current criteria and that
the Commission refer the rezoning request to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory
Group for review and comment
Commissioner Hawes pointed out that the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group had
met and recommended that this rezoning request be approved. He asked whether
another meeting would be necessary. The Secretary answered that that would be
up to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hawes produced a resolution passed
by the Neighborhood Advisor Group pertaining to the rezoning request. Commiss
9 Y pP 9 9
ioner Theis asked whether the rezoning request was fully petitioned The
Secretary answered that it was. In answer to Commissioner Theis, the Secretary
indicated that the property just south of the lots in question was the Northport
Medical Clinic and other single family homes.
Chairman Pierce then asked the applicant to speak on behalf of the proposal. Mr.
Modeen stated simply that the original proposal of the Southwest Neighborhood
Advisory Group was amended to include the slaughterhouse property when the Mayor
sought to have it rezoned last December. David Jensen of 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard
argued that the property in question is obviously not suited for residential use.
It is bounded on the north, east and west by commercial uses, he said. And the
people to the south of the proposal will suffer no increase in traffic since
cars moving toward the site will all have to approach from the north. He felt
that the request did not violate the rezoning guidelines and could not see any
reasons for preserving the area as residential under the existing Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. George Olson, of 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard, explained that most of the
homes in the area were built before Brookdale and that the resulting development
along the boulevard in the last 20 years has tended more and more to isolate the
properties in question.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then formally opened the meeting for a public.hearing. Mrs.
Gloria Byrnes of 5348 Northport Drive, conceded that the applicants were in a
difficult position, but contended that the people in the neighborhood are con-
cerned about the extent of commercial development along Brooklyn Boulevard and
that support for the proposal is by no means unanimous. She felt that traffic
would increase in the area as a result of the zoning change and that this would
make the area more dangerous for children. She recommended that the Planning
Commission refer the proposal to the Southwest Neighborhood Group.
In rebuttal Mr. Jensen stated that the first time the Southwest Neighborhood
Group called a meeting no one showed up. At the second meeting, he said, the
applicants attended and one other person who objected. That makes only _one
objection, he contended. He allowed that while traffic patterns could be
5 -10 -79 -9-
looked at, he did not see any likely increase over the present. He argued that
the Cl zone is compatible with residential zones, and that to leave the
properties residential would not make them safe for children who might live in
those homes along the boulevard. Mrs. Byrnes admitted that some of the points
which Mr. Jensen made were true. "However," she stated, "the point is that many
people in the neighborhood are not aware of this proposal and may not favor. it
if they are aware of it." Mrs. Ekberg, of 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard contended
that traffic to the west is very isolated and that the impact of the boulevard
is born by those who live along the frontage road.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public
hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes,
Manson, Lucht, and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
TABLE APPLICATION NO. 79025 (Darold Modeen)
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application
No. 79025 and refer the rezoning request to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory
Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners
Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
The Secretary noted that if the Northport Clinic were included in the rezoning
request, this would declassify it as a nonconforming use. Chairman Pierce asked '
whether there were any definite development proposals accompanying the rezoning
requests. Mr. Olson replied that no development proposals exist that he is aware
of. Commissioner Theis asked whether the inclusion of the Northport Medical
Clinic in the rezoning request would make the notices sent to the nei hborhood
9 q 9
invalid. The Secretary answered that it would not invalidate the public hearing.
Mr. Jensen complained that the people involved in the petition labored under the
assumption that the additional recommendation from the Southwest, Neighborhood
Advisory Group was good enough for this proposal.
The Secretary eviewed the histo of the sla rezoning and the re
Y Y 9 9
zoning of the Library property. He pointed out that when the City Council re-
zoned the Library property, it refrained from rezoning the slaughterhouse property
because there was no development proposal comprehended for the slaughterhouse
property at that time. Mr. Jensen argued that there was no comparison between
the Library and the slaughterhouse property. The Secretary stated that the
recommendation of the City Council was to take up the rezoning of properties
along Brooklyn Boulevard between the Northport Medical Clinic and the Library
9 Y P
during the Comprehensive Plan review. He stated that he considered the present
application premature in light of the Comprehensive Plan that is now in force.
Mr. Jensen complained that the slaughterhouse property is also premature in that
case. Mr. Olson asked if the Commission would rule on the ,proposal if the ad-
visory group did return with a recommendation to approve the request, or would
the Commission wait for another year? The Secretary answered that the Planning
Commission could only recommend approval or denial to the City Council based on
the merits of the proposal. Commissioner Theis and Chairman Pierce reminded the
applicants that procedures are important in considering rezonings,:that no re-
zoning can be automatic, but must receive a thorough hearing.
APPLICATION NO 79026 (James S Warren)
The next item of consideration was an application for special use permit to
operate an animal hospital for the care and treatment of small animals at 413 -
6th Avenue North, submitted b James S. Warren. The Secretary noted that the
6 n eueNo y Y
site is zoned C2 and is surrounded by other commercially zoned property. Animal
5 -10 -79 -10-
hospitals, he said, are permitted special uses within the C2 zoning district.
He reviewed the contents of a letter submitted by the applicant outlining the
type of care contemplated, hours of operation, and methods for dealing with
health, noise, and odor concerns. A small kennel area inside the hospital
would be maintained for overnight hospitalization of animals needing surgery
and for no other purpose. The hours of operation would be from 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturday. The
Secretary referred to the Standards for Granting Special Use Permits contained
in Section 35 -220 and noted that there does not seem to be any conflict with the
standards. The Secretary reviewed with the Commission, a layout of the proposed
animal hospital indicating offices, reception room, and a waiting room located
along the common wall where the area abuts other commercial uses and a kennel
area located on the far easterly wall.
Commissioner Theis inquired whether parking would be provided. The Secretary
responded that it would and showed where the parking spaces were located on the
site plan. Commissioner Hawes asked the applicant a number of questions regard
ing his business including whether he plans to offer a pickup service. Mr. Warren
answered that he did not. Commissioner Manson asked whether the hospital would
provide minor treatment such as shots. Mr. Warren answered that that kind of
treatment would certainly be offered. Commissioner Hawes asked whether the
applicant would provide service on Saturdays or Sundays. Mr. Warren answered
that he would be on call for emergencies. In answer to Chairman Pierce, the
applicant stated that he intended to take all requests by himself at first,
but that as time went on, he would develop a referral system with another clinic.
Commissioner Hawes asked if anyone would care for animals over the weekend and
whether the structure would be soundproofed. Mr. Warren answered that weekend'
care would be provided for and that additional soundproofing would be installed
around the keenel area.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. No one spoke
relating to the application.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to close the public
hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes,
Manson, Lucht, and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79026 (James Warren)
Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Manson seconded
b Commissioner er` Ma
lec
Y k i to
recommend approval of a special use permit to .James
S. Warren for the operation of an animal hospital subject to the following conditions:
1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator
of the facility and i s nontransferable. �2
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations including any special licensing requirements,
and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
_3. A current copy of the applicant's license shall be kept on
file with the City.
4. No boarding of animals shall be allowed except in conjunction
with hospitalization.
5. The normal hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to noon on Saturday.
5 =10 -79 -11-
Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson,_
Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Pierce left the table at 12:07 a.m. and returned at 12:08 a.m.
A PPLICATION NO. 79021 (James Speckmann)
The Secretary next reviewed Application No. 79021 submitted by James Speckmann
which was a request for preliminary plat approval to combine into a common lot
the property at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard and an approximate 28' x 165' parcel
adjacent to Northport Drive presently a part of the Library Terrace Addition..
Noting that the survey submitted by the applicant includes only the old
slaughterhouse property and the 28' x 165' sliver of land to the west, the
Secretary explained that approval of the plat would create a metes and bounds
description for the Library Terrace Addition which is contrary to City policy.
He explained that when property is split from platted property and is combined
with another parcel, all of the affected property is required to be platted
thus eliminating potential metes and bounds descriptions. He recommended that
either the Library Terrace Addition be included in this plat or that a separate
preliminary plat for the Library property be submitted prior to the final plat
approval. Any approval of the plat as presently constituted should be openly
acknowledged as a departure from City policy.
The Superintendent of Engineering noted that there was no precedent for allow-
ing a metes and bounds description
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. No one spoke re-
lating to the application.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Erickson to close the
public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79021 (James Speckmann)
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend
approval of the preliminary plat submitted by James Speckmann under Application
No. 79021, subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15
of the City Ordinances.
2. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to final plat approval, the plat shall either be
revised to include the Library Terrace Addition or a
separate preliminary plat for the library property shall
be submitted.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson,
Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 79027 (Northbrook Alliance Church)
The Secretary indicated that the applicant is see ing preliminary plat approval
to combine an approximate 50' x 114' parcel with Lot 1 Block 1 p J. R. Murphy
Y
Addition, to create a buildable lot to be known as Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook
Alliance Addition. The parcel is located westerly of Bryant Avenue and North
Lilac Drive. The Secretary noted that the existing lot, part of the J. R.
Murphy Addition, is substandard and, therefore, a combination is called for.
5 -10 -79 -12-
" The applicant's survey, he said, indicates that there currently is a 5' drainage
and utility easement running along the easterly edge of the J. R. Murphy Addition.
The applicant, he pointed out, is requesting that this easement be vacated and a
new drainage and utility easement be established on the easterly edge of the
combined lots that would coincide with an already existing easement along J. R.
Murphy's Second Addition. The Secretary further noted that the requirement of
a 50 ft. setback off a major thoroughfare would also apply to the lot in question.
However, this requirement would not make the lot unbuildable. The Superintendent
of Engineering added that the City has no utilities in the easement area, and
that he was checking with utility companies to see that the area is clear for
construction.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce opened the meeting for a public hearing. No one spoke relating
to the application.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
otion y Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79027 (Northbrook Alliance Church)
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to approve the
preliminary plat for Lot 1, Block 1, Northbrook Alliance Addition subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances.
2. The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson,
Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The Secretary then asked the Planning Commission to consider starting the meeting
of May 24, 1979 at 7:30 p.m. since a couple of minor business items would need to
be considered at that time. Without objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
Motiion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting
of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners
Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:29 a.m.
Chairman
5 -10 -79 - -l3-
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 property 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.
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 public 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 Directiona - A sign, the primary function of which is to provide
locational 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.
J
Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 21, 1979
FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Winchell's Donut House 9201 Penn Ave. So.
Winchell's Donut House 57th & Morgan Ave. No.
Sanitarian
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE
Davies Water Eq uipment 4010 Lakebreeze Ave. No.m
City Clerk'
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Roland Scherber 5243 Ewing Ave. No.
Renewal:
Robert Huber 3613 47th Ave. No. /�-• `� � }L�
Donald E. Sobania 3701 47th Ave. No. I t l t o i
Norman Chazin 6037 Brooklyn Blvd. '/1 AA1 it✓
Henry & Juanita Holm 5206 Drew Ave. No. LU _
Thomas B. Egan 5239,41 Drew Ave. No. CL Aj "
Roland Scherber 4714 Lakeview Ave. No. I /! .1'7. t ",- J n%-
Director of Planning
and Inspection
TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Jaycees 5918 Halifax Ave. No.
(Early Bird Days) City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection- (A--
DATE: May 18 1979
SUBJECT Brookdale Ten Apartment Complex
Attached are copies of previously supplied information relating to the Brookdale
Ten Apartment Complex which include the following:
1. A memo from the Building Inspector dated April 30;
2. A maintenance and repair schedule submitted by Mr...Rozman on
October 30, 1978 at which time the City Council temporarily
- extended the rental dwelling license through August of 1979;
3. A list of violations -based on an April 29, 1979 inspection
by the Building Inspector.
The Building Inspector will be reviewing the apartment complex on Monday, May
21, 1979 and we will be prepared to report on any corrective measures taken.
Also attached is a copy of a certified letter sent to Mr. Rozman on May 11,
1979 requesting his appearance at the May 21 City Council meeting to show causes
why the rental dwelling license for the Brookdale Ten Apartment Complex should
not be revoked.
Section 12 -910 of the City Ordinances (copy attached) deals with license
suspension or revocation and gives the City Council the authority to suspend
or revoke an operating license should the owner or the resident agent fail to
operate or maintain licensed rental dwellings consistent with the provisions
of City Ordinances and State laws.
MEMORANDUM
TO: File .
FRZOM: Andy Alberti
R" Brookdale Ten Apartments
DATE:. April 30, 1979
On March 22, 1979 the Inspection and Fire Departments conducted an inspection
to review the progress performed on the priority list given to the City Council
October 30, 1978 by Mr. Rozman (copy attached)
Performance is as follows:
List of items for fall 1978 completion; Item No. 2 only has been completed.
List of items for winter 1979 completion; Item No. 12 only has been completed.
On April 20, 1979 an inspection was conducted at the request of the City
Attorney. Attached is a list of violations noted as a result of that inspection.
e.A f�
f
-517 511
c2.
IJLC_ P-1a <1211 - -G J. J�F�'l /�['L• 1� ar ♦tQ %tiff .t.';t, �'c�� S -
P V7
' / r �j °fr' /ic„ ►fie L. G' ! / ?��/3/f.3 � O LU ,�..�j'�" _ _
v4`� .....
_
l i
E
i
i
•/ ,�7i GI '.� �/� ��'.� L c: ✓ -:ACC? L'�L c'Sc = /S. _ ........
• v im• . v�F"J i'�l,L,a �.�?L /,. s� f? l l` �''df3�1S, � S ?�f? < j� i1✓ciC�!• . _ . __.....
h..
:' - !.2- � '�"'�n" .s'Ff'�.yc•.� �,��ia�l��ri�".v� l��arc' Nur�sr3E'2,S .: .... _ _ •
. - jay �' - • - -• .
ctz
re e
ti
•
•
.Q c,o ffC`1• ?LG raV S'Ptl 3C ?
1, 10 RJ& LG' T.S
Ll
. - . ��Fi.tG:,f�.== ��r.t �t .j.''t %S >ia lL • F,,'t !—� f�' pi /�: !�� -�t7 :�0
- '- n .� . i .. r. .• � -� ' � ii �: •.ilk r"! �i r�i �/ f <` _ .__.
YJ'r L: C: A E! ! i
_ I. • �X C H c. r) ±� ��! ✓'V Y!'� •I.� �,,� t p �/ /G,(1 //t��r � Q , f �� /V � /�/9 //vh�(�
y
4 .
/N i c s /L 0/ A;
•' �� /�.�R t� L�� % /l�i�tl �� p �C.' �t ?��r � LL �r,�'7' �� • �C� -S
j
.,
TI hJ L( t' IT' G' �t..l 1c�u t-3 f S •ll
,
t
April 26,, 1979
3305
1. Southeast entrance addressing has all numbers without contrasting color
to building. - 3 -104 See owners priority list dated 10- 20 -78.
2. Southeast lower level fire door closer broken •- Art. 11 Section 11.1
3. Southeast first level fire door propped open -Arta 11 Section 11.1
4. Laundry room rubbish container without lid.- Art. 1 Section 1.5
• 5. 'Laundry room fire door closer broken. Art. 11 Section 11.1
6, Lower level center fire door exit light inoperable. - Art. 11 Section 11.2
7. Lower level center fire door propped open.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
8. first level tenter of west corridor fire door exit light inoperable & missing sign.
! 9. First level center of west corridor fire door has broken closure.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
10. First level west corridor has inoperable light fixture. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
11. Second level east corridor has inoperable light fixture. - 12 -504
12. Electric panel not enclosed in laundry room. - 12 -504
13. Laundry room windows have missing screens. 12 -703
3409
1. Southeast entrance add. has all numbers without contrasting color to building.
(Grey in color) - 3 -104 See owners priority list dated 10 -30 -78
2. Lower level laundry room fire door closer broken. - Art, 11 Sect. 11.1
3. Lower level laundry room electrical panel not enclosed.- See Owners Prior. 10 -20 -78
4. Lower level laundry room window trim not painted.- 12 -703 - j
5. Lower level laundry room window have two out of three screens missing. - 12 -703 I
6. Laundry room window has one broken window. - 12 -703
7. Lower level center fire door east corridor exit light inoperable. - Art. I Sect. 11.2
B. Lower level center fire door has 4" hole in wall. (east) - 12 -704
9. Lower level center west fire door exit light has broken lens. Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
10. Northwest entrance add. number have 34 and 5 without contrasting color and
are grey in color. 3 -104 - See Owners Priority list dated 10 -30 -78
11. Northwest lower level stairway has 4" hole in wall. - 12 -704
12. Northwest first level fire door has broken closer. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
13. First level north corridor has 2 inoperable light fixture. 12 -504
14. Southeast second level fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
15. Southeast second level exit light has missing lens.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
16. Northwest second level fire door closer broken.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3403
.1. Southwest entrance address has #3 and 4 without contrasting color to building -3 -104
2. Laundry room window missing two screens - window open at grade level.
Possible rodent entrance. - 12 -703
3. Laundry electrical panel not enclosed. - See Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
4. Laundry room windows not painted. - 12 -703
5. Laundry room light fixture inoperative. (2) missing bulbs. - 12 -704
6. Laundry room plastic rubbish container without lid.- Art. 1 Sect. 1.5
7. Northeast entrance address has all numbers without contrasting color to building.-3.104
8. Northeast entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1 `
9. Northeast entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken.- 1
10. Northeast entrance stairway to lower and first level has very loose handrails. -12 -406
11. First level west corridor has three inoperable light fixtures. - 12 -504
12. Southwest first level corridor fire door closer broken.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
13. Southwest second level stiarway wall has 3" hole . 12 -704
- 14. Southwest second level stairway roof hutch removed (for fresh air). Own. Prior.10 -30 -7F '
15. Second level west corridor has 1 inoperative light fixture. - 12 -504
3413
1. West entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
2. Laundry room has rubbish container without lid.- Art. -i Sect. 1.5
3. Laundry room has 1 light bulb missing out of fixtures. 12 -504
4. East entrance, lower level corridor fire door propped open.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
S. East entrance lower level corridor exit light inoperable - Art. 11 -Sect. 11.2
6. East entrance vestibule hot water radiator has severely damaged fins,
® leaky valve and missing cover plate. 12 -709
3417
1. West entrance address has #7 without contrasting color to building. 3 -104
2. West entrance lower level corridor fiee door closer broken. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3. Laundry room rubbish container without lid. Art. 1 Sect. 1.5 i
4. Laundry room windows not painted. 12 -703
5. Refrigerator stored in unsafe manner in laundry room.- Minnesota Statute 609.675
6. Laundry room ceiling has holes. 12 -704
7. North lower level corridor has 1 out of 4 inoperable light fixtures. 12 -504
8..• Lower level'cente fire door -has no threshold. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
__ t
3417
.9. East entrance first level corridor fire door propped open. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
10. East second level corridor fire door propped open. Arta 11 Sect. 11.1
3315
1. Lower level east corridor has 1 out of 5 lights inoperable. 12 -504
2. Laundry room has plastic rubbish container without lid. - Art. 1 Sect. 1.5
3. North lower corridor fire door will not close (open approximately 1'2 ")- Art.11Sect.11.
4. Second level east corridor has 1 of 4 light fixtures inoperable. - 12 -504
5. East stairway second level handrail loose. 12 -406
t� 3311
1. Southwest entrance address has all numbers without contrasting color to
building. (very grey) - 3 -104 per Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
2. Northeast entrance address has all numbers without contrasting color to
building. 3 -104 - Per Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
3. Northeast entrance second level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
4. Electrical panel not enclosed. - Per Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -
5. Refrigerator stored in laundry room in unsafe manner. - Minn. Statute #609.675
3307
1. Southwest entrance concrete steps not repaired more hazardous than previous
inspection.- 12 -406
2. Southwest entrance address has all number without contrasting colors to
building. - 3 -104 - Per Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
3. Southwest lower level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
4. Lower level west corridor has 1 of 2 light fixtures inoperable. - 12 -504
5. Lower level east corridor fire door broken exit light lens. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
6. Northeast lower corridor fire door closer broken. - Arta 11 Sect. 11.1
7. Northeast lower level stair has loose handrail. - 12 -406
8. Northeast entrance address has all numbers without contrasting color to building.-3 -104
9. Northeast first level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art. Sect. 11.1
10. First level east corridor has l of 4 light fixtures inoperable. - 12 -504
11. Second level in southwest corridor entranct light lens missing. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
12. Second level center fire door exit light lens missing. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
13. Second level west corridor has 1 of 2 light 'fixtures inoperable. - 12 -504
14. Second level nnrtheast corridor fire door closer missing. - :Art. Sect. 11.1
3421 _
1. Laundry room wall has large holes from pipe repairs done, at lease 2 months ago. -12 -704
2. Laundry room not painted. - Per Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
3. Laundry room plastic rubbish container without lid. - Art. Sect 1.5
4. Northwest lower level corridor exit light inoperable. Broken and pulled from
wail. Wires dangling from fixture Art. 11.Sect. 11.2
5. Northeast stair landing to second floor has loose carpet. - 12 -704
6. Northeast second level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
7. Northeast second level corridor fire door exit light inoperable.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
8. Northwest second level corridor fire door propped open. - Art. it Sect. 11.1
9. Northwest first level stair handrail very loose. - 12-406
3425
1. tower level east corridor center fire door exit light inoperable and has
missing lens. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
2. Lower level west corridor fire door exit light has two lenses missing and
inoperable bulb. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
3. Lower level west corridor has 1 of 5 inoperable light fixture. - 12 -504
4. Northeast lower level fire door exit light has missingg lens. Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
S. Northeast rower level fire door closer broken. - Art. Sect. -11.1
6. First level- center fire door exit light has missing lens. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
7. Northeast second level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3429
1. Northeast lower level corridor fire door does not close tight. - Art. 11. Sect. 11.1
2. Laundry metal rubbish container without lid. - Art. 1 Sect. 1.5
3. Electrical service not enclosed. - See Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
4. Laundry room not painted. - Per Owners Prioirty List dated 10 -30 -78
5. Laundry room windows not painted. - 12 -703
6. Laundry room window has one missing screen (window open). - 12 -703 !
7. Laundry hot water radiator cover missing and has damagged fins. 12 -709
8. Laundry room has 3 of 4 light fixture inoperative. -Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
9. Laundry room fire door closer broken.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
10. Second 'eveT. west corridor has-1 of 4 light fixtures inoperable. 12 -504
3429 continued
11. Second level southwest stair landing has loose carpet, - 12 -704
12. Southwest entrance has number 9 missing from address. - 3 -104 See Owners P. List
3 433 10 -30778 4
1. Northwest stairway to lower level has loose handrail. 12 -406
2. Northwest lower level corridor fire door does not latch. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3. Lower level center fire door does not latch. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
4. Laundry room fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
5. Laundry room window trim loose. 12 -704
6. Laundry room hot water radiator piping bent and fins are damaged. Cover
plate missing. - 12 -709
r 7. Laundry room metal rubbish container without lid. - Art. 1. Sect. 1.5
8. Electrical service not enclosed. - See Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
9. Laundry room has 2 of 4 light fixtures inoperable. 12 -504
10. Southeast lower level corridor fire door won't latch. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
. , 11. Southeast lower level stair handrail loose (bad). - 12 -406_'
12. Southeast first level corridor fire door won't latch.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
13. Second level west corridor has 1 of 4 light fixtures inoperable. - 12 -504
14. Second level east corridor has 2 of 4 light fixtures inoperable. - 12 -504
NOTE: p
Refer to Owners Priority Work Schedule Dated 10 -30 -78
Fall 1978 Schedule
terns , 3, , and have not been corrected.
Winter 1979 Schedule
Items t rou ave not t been corrected.
Wiring 1979 Schedul
No visible work has begun. ;
is
r .
CITY
OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OO MYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C E N "" E " EMERGENCY- POLICE -FIRE
561.5720
April 11, 1979
Mr. Bennie Rozman
400 Dakota Avenue South
St. Louis Park, Mid 55416
Re:- Notice to appear before City Council and show cause why the Rental
Dwelling License for the Brookdale Ten Apartment Complex should not
be revoked,
Dear Mr. Rozman:
On April 30, 1979, at the City Council's direction, the City Manager supplied
a report relating to the Brookdale Ten Complex's progress in meeting a schedule
of maintenance improvements. You will recall that you had submitted such a
plan to the City Council on October 30, 1978. Based on that plan and your
`.., - (IiSc.(IfCif1Y1 t hat even �.r� +h +Mn r4+.. r •1 n �._l n �. +
ni ng ■ + ++ X14 . %,1 6.1 i - , Y OW R e1st a i uwt:!, 1 ng License was
temporarily extended through August or 19i9.
The Bu ilding Inspector and Fire Inspector made inspections of the premises on
March 22, 1979 and the Building Inspector also reviewed the premises on April
20, 1979. The report given to the City Council on April 30, 1979 regarding
your progress in attempting to meet your maintenance schedule for the fall of
1978 and the winter of 1979 indicated that, with the exception of 'a few items,
the schedule has not been met.
The City Council has requested your presence at the May 21, 1979 City Council
meeting to show cause why the Rental Dwelling License for the Brookdale Ten
Apartment Complex should not be revoked.
S' cerely,
l
Ronal A. Warren
Director of Planning and Inspection
cc Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
Richard Schieffer, City Attorney
"'7lc Sa�cethisq. 711 au � ,•
0 SENDER: :omplete items I. -, and ;.
j �y Add your address in the "RETURN TO" spate on
No. 7i 1 �A V i aq reverse.
A / I w I. he following; service is requested (check one).
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL Show to whom and date delivered ..........
_¢
NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— Show to whom, date, and address of delivery. .—e
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL RESTRICTED DELIVERY
(See Reverse) . V Show to whom and date delivered ..........
_¢
SENT TO RESTRICTED DELIVERY.
M 13tnnjR_Ro n sT4 Show to whom, date, and address of delivery.3
K � aCOtd Ave. South (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES)
P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE
St. Loujs Park- M L- 16
6 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO:
POSTAGE $ C i4r. Bennie Roman
CERTIFIED FEE 6 2 400 Dakota Avenue South
Uj W SPE CIAL DELIVERY ¢ m St. LOUTS Park, MN 55416
U.
oe RESTRICTED DELIVERY C m 3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION:
E. A REGISTERED NO. I CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO.
ce w
w W SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE 740975
' DELIVERED Q ap
ac m
r t 'q y SHOW TO WHOM, DATE, AND ` N (Always obtaln signature of addressee or agent)
y ADDRESS OF DELIVERY
c ¢ m I have rece' the arti esc 'bed above.
C6 c v G SIGNATURE ❑ Ad cssee F1 Authorized agent
r W SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE
DELIVERED WITH RESTRICTED Q '
y o ffi DELIVERY _ +
a
CD SH OW WHOM, DATE AND C 4
w AD AD PO$�N(A'T�fK
DRESS SS OF DELIVERY WITH Q 1 A DATE OF DELIVERY ^
RESTRICTED DELIVERY i rn
TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES $ ! . 2
C 5. ADDRESS (Complete only it requested
L; POSTMARK OR DATE 0 ~Y
' rn
I C 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: CLERK'S,/
L
r
M 1 977-0-2 34- 337
A
t '
Section 12 -907. POSTING OF LICENSE.
Every licensee of a multiple dwelling shall cause to be conspicuously
posted in the main entry way or other conspicuous location therein the current
license for the respective multiple dwelling.
Section 12 -908. LICENSE NOT TRANSFERABLE.
No operating license shall be transferable to another person or to another
rental dwelling. Every person holding an operating license shall give notice in
writing to the Compliance Official within five business days after having legally
transferred or otherwise disposed of the legal control of any licensed rental
dwelling. Such notice shall include the name and address of the person succeed-
ing to the ownership or control of such rental dwelling or dwellings.
Section 12 -909. OCCUPANCY REGISTER REQUIRED.
Every owner of a licensed rental dwelling containing three or more dwelling
units shall keep, or cause to be kept, a current register of occupancy for each
dwelling unit which provides the following information:
(1) Dwelling unit address;
(2) Number of bedrooms in dwelling unit;
(3) Names of adult occupants and number of adults and children
(under 18 years of age) currently occupying - the dwelling
units;
( Dates renters occupied and vacated dwelling units;
(S) A chronological list of complaints and requests for repair "
by dwelling unit occupants, which complaints and requests.
are related to - the provisions of this ordinance; and
(6)` A similar chronological list of all corrections made in
response to such requests and complaints
Such register shall be made available for viewing or copying by the Compliance
Official at a r easonable times.
Section 12 -910. LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION.
Every operating license issued under the provisions of this ordinance is
subject to suspension or revocation by the City Council should the licensed owner
or his duly authorized resident agent fail to operate or maintain licensed rental
dwellings and units therein consistent with the provisions of the ordinance of the
City of Brooklyn Center and the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event that
an operating license is suspended or revoked by the City Council for just cause,
i it shall be unlawful for the owner or his duly authorized agent to thereafter permit
l
Section 12 -910 (continued)
any new occupancies of vacant or thereafter vacated rental units until such time
as a valid operating license may be restored by the City Council. Any person
violating this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,and upon conviction
L thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500)
imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days. Each day of each violation
onstitute a separate punishable offense.
Section 12 -1001. ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION AUTHORITY.
The City Manager and his designated agents shall be the Compliance
Official.who shall administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance and
who is hereby authorized to cause inspections on a scheduled basis for rental
units, or otherwise when reason exists to believe that a violation of this
ordinance has been or is being committed. Inspections shall be conducted
during reasonable daylight hours and the Compliance. Official shall present
evidence of official capacity to the occupant in charge of a respective dwelling
unit
Section 12 -1002. INSPECTION ACCESS.
Any owner, occupant, or other person in charge of a dwelling or
dwelling unit may refuse to permit free access and entry to the structure or
premises under his control for inspection pursuant to this ordinance, whereupon
the Compliance Official may seek a court order authorizing such inspection.
Section 12 -1101. UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION
(1) Any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit which is
damaged, decayed, dilapidated, insanitary, unsafe,
vermin or rodent infested, or which lacks provision
for basic illumination, ventilation or sanitary facilities
to the extent that the defects create a hazard to the
health, safety or welfare of the occupants or of the
public may be declared unfit for human habitation.
Whenever any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit
has been declared unfit for human habitation, the
Compliance Official shall order same vacated within a
reasonable time and shall post a placard on same
Indicating that it is unfit for human habitation, and any
operating license previously issued for such dwelling
shall be revoked
(2)_ It shall be unlawful for such dwelling, dwelling unit,
or rooming unit to be used for human habitation until
the defective conditions have been corrected and written
approval has been issued by the Compliance Official.
It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or remove
the declaration placard from .any such dwelling, dwelling
unit or rooming unit.
-18- - _
. 4 `
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager
Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
Linus Manderfeld, Fire Marshall
Council Members
FROM: Andy Alberti, Building Inspector
DATE: May 21, 1979
SUBJECT: Brookdale Ten Apartments
Zfl
On April b, 1979, an inspection of the above apartment complex was requested by
the City Attorney to verify compliance of previous orders, progress of owner's
work schedule dated 10 -30 -78 and note any new housing and fire code violations.
Attached is a summary of that April 3, 1979 inspection.
Also attached is a summary of May 21, 1979 reinspection of the April 3rd list of
violations. This inspection was conducted by Al Proctor of the Fire Department
and myself.
In the process of this inspection, new violations were noted and also attached to
this memo.
0
I
• May 21, 1979
3 305
! entrance addressing has all numbers without contrasting color to building
3 -104 See owners priority list dated 10- 20 -78.
2. Laundry room fire door closer broken - Art. 11 Section 11.1
3. Lower level center fire door exit light inoperable. - Art. 11 Section 11.2
4. First level center of west corridor fire door exit light inoperable and missing sign.A.11S.11
5. Firstlevel center of west corridor fire door has broken closure. - Art. 11. Section 11.1
6. First level west corridor has inoperable light fixture. Art. 11 Section 11.1
7. Second level east corridor has inoperable light fixture 12 -504
8. Electric panel not enclosed in laundry room - 12 -504
9. Laundry room windows have missing screens. - 12 -703
3409
T. Southeast entrance address has all numbers without contrasting color to building
(Grey in color) 3 -104 See owners priority list dated 10- 30 -78.
Lower level laundry room fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Section 11.1.
3. tower level laundry room electrical panel not enclosed - See Owners Priority List-10-20-78
4. Lower level laundry room window trim not painted. 12 -703
5. Lower ,level 'laundry room window have two out of three screens missing. 12 -703
6. Laundry room has one broken window. 12 -703
7. lower level center fire door has 4" hole in wall (east) 12 -704
8. Lower level center west fire door exit light has broken lens. Art. 11 Sect. '11.2
9. Northwest entrance address number have 34 and 9 without contrasting color and are
10. grey in color. - 3 -104 - See Owners Priority List dated 10- 30 -78
11. Northwest lower level stairway has 4" hole in wall. - 12 -704
12. Northwest first lever fire door has broken closer. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
13. Southeast second level fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 SEct..11.1
14. Southeast second level exit light haS missing lens. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
15. Northwest second level fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3403
1. Southwest entrance address has #3 and 4 without contrasting color to building - 3 -104
2. Laundry room window missing two screens - window open at grade level. Possible rodent
entrance. - 12 -703
3. laundry electrical panel not enclosed - See Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
4. Laundry room windows not painted. - 12 -703
5. Laundry room light fixture inoperative. (2) missing bulbs. - 12 -704
- 6. Northeast entrance address has all numbers without color to building - 3 -104
7. Northeast entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 SEct. 11.1
8. Northeast entrance first level corridor fire door closer broken.
9. Northeast entrance stiarway to lower and first level has very loose handrails. 12 -406
10. Southwest first level corridor fire` door closer broken. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3413
T. West entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
2. Laundry room has 1 light bulb missing out of 2 fixtures. - 12 -504`
3. East entrance, lower level corridor fire door propped open. Art.11 Sect. 11.1
4. -East entrance lower level corridor exit light inoperable. Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
5. East entrance vestibule hot water radiator has severely damaged fins, leaky valve and
missing cover plate. 12 -709
- 3417
1. .West entrance address has #7 without contrasting color to building. - 3 -104
2. West 'entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken. Art. 11 Section 11.1
3. Laundry room windows not painted. 12 -703
I' 4. Four refrigerators stored in unsafe manner in laundry room. Minnestoa Statute 609.675
5. Laundry room ceiling has holes. - 12 -704
6. North lower level corridor has 1 out of 4 inoperable light fixtures.
7. Lower level center fire door has no threshold. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
8. East entrance first'. level corridor fire door propped open. Arta 11 Sect. 11.1
3315
North lower corridor fire door will not close (open approximately 11 ") - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
East stairway second level handrail` loose. 12 -406
3 1
T. - Northeast entrance address has all numbers without contrasting color to building - 3 -104
Per Owner's Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
2., Northeast entrance second level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3. Electrical panel not enclosed. Per Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
4. Two refrigerators stored in Laundry room in unsafe manner. Minnesota Statute #609.675
3307
^T. - Southwest entrance concrete steps not repaired more hazardous than previous inspection.
12 -406.
2. Southwest entrance address has all numbers without contrasting colors to building.
3 -104 Per Owner's Priority List dated 10 -30 -79
3. Lower level east corridor fire door broken ,exit light lens. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
3307
Northeast lower corridor fire door closer missing. Art. 11 Sect.. 11.1
5. Northeast lower level stair has loose handrail. - 12 -406
6.- Northeast entrance address has ali numbers without contrasting color to building -3 -104
7. Northeast first level corridor fire door closer broken. Art.- Sec. 11.1
8. Second level in southwest corridor entrance light lens missing. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
9. Second level center fire door exit night lens missing. Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
10. Second level northeast corridor fire door closer missing. - Art. Sect. 11.1
3421
T T: Laundry.room wall has large holes from pipe repairs done at least 2 months ago. 12 -704
2. Laundry room not painted Per Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
3. Northwest lower level corridor exit light inoperable. Broken and pulled from wall.
Wires dangling from fixture. Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
Northeast stair landing to second floor has loose carpet. 12 -704
Northeast second level corridor fire door closer broken. Art. 11 SEct. 11.1
6. Northeast second level corridor fire door exit light inoperable Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
7. Northwest level corridor fire door propped open. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
8. Northwest first level stair handrail very loose. 12 -406
3425
T. wer
Lo level west corridor has 1 of 5 inoperable 1i fixture. -
P light ixtu e. 1�2 504
3429
Northeast lower level corridor fire door does not close tight. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
2. Electrical service not enclosed. See Owner's Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
3. Laundry room not painted. - Per Owner's Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
4.. Laundry room windows not painted. - 12 -703
5. Laundry room window has one missing screen (window open) - 12 -703
6. Laundry hot water radiator cover missing and has damaged fins. 12 -709
7. Laundry room has 3 of 4 light fixture inoperative. - Arta 11 Sect. 11.1
8. Laundry room fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Sect. 11:1
9. Second level west corridor has l of 4 light fixtures inoperable. - 12- -504
10. Second level southwest stair landing has loose carpet. - 12 -704
11. Southwest entrance has number 9 missing from address. - 3 -104 - See Owners Priority
List 10- 30 - 78.
3433
T. stairway to lower level has loose handrail. - 12 -406
2. Northwest lower level corridor fire door does not latch. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
3. Lower level center fire door does not latch. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
4. Laundry room window trim loose. - 12 -704
5. Laundry room hot water radiator piping bent and fins are damaged. Cover plate
missing. - 12 -709
6. Electrical service not enclosed - See Owner's Priority List dated 10- 30 -78.
1. Laundry room has '2 of 4 light fixtures inoperable. 12 -504
8. Southeast Lower level corridor fire door won't latch. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
9. Southeast first level corridor dire door won't latch. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
NOTE:
Refer to Owner's Priority Work Schedule Dated 10 -30 -79
Fall 1978 Schedule
Items 1, 3, 4, and 7 have not been corrected.
Winter 1979 Schedule
Items I through 11 have not been corrected.
Spring 1979 Schedule
No visible work has begun.
April * 197
20 r
3305
1. Southeast entrance addressing has all numbers without contrasting color
to building. 3 -104 See owners priority list dated 10- 20 -78.
2. Southeast lower level fire door closer broken Art. 11 Section 11.1
- Southeast first level fire door propped open -Art. 11 Section 11.1
4. Laundry room rubbish container without lid.- Art. 1 Section 1.5
5. Laundry room fire door closer broken. - Art. 11 Section 11.1
6. Lower level center fire door exit light inoperable. Art. 11 Section 1T.2
7. Lower level center fire door 'propped open. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
8. First level center of west corridor fire door exit light inoperable & missing sien.
' 9. First level center of west corridor fire door has broken closure.- Art. 11 Sect.�Tl.l
10. First level west corridor has inoperable light fixture. Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
11. Second level east corridor has inoperable light fixture.- 12 -504
12. Electric panel not enclosed in laundry room. - 12 -504
13. Laundry room windows have missing -screens. 12 -703
3409
1. Southeast entrance add. has all numbers without contrasting color to building.
(Grey in color)- 3 -104 See owners priority list dated 10 -30 -78
2. Lower level laundry room fire door closer broken. - Art. 71 Sect. 1 1.1
3. Lower level laundry room electrical panel not enclosed.'- See Owners Prior. 10 -20 -78
4. Lower level laundry room window trim not painted. 12 -703
5. Lower level' laundry room window have two out of three screens missing.- 12 -703
6. Laundry room window has one broken window. 12 -703
7. Lower level center fire door east corridor exit light. inoperable. - Art. 11 Sect.l1 .2
8. Lower level center fire door has 4" hole in wall. (east) - 12 -704
9. Lower level center west fire door exit light has broken lens. Art. 11 Sect. 11.2
10. Northwest entrance add. number have 34 and 9 without contrasting color and
are grey in color. 3 =104 See Owners Priority 'list dated 10 -30 -78
11. Northwest lower 'level stairway has 4" hole in wall. - 12 -704
12._ Northwest first level fire door has broken closer. Art. 11 Sect. -11.1
13 First level north corridor has 2 inoperable light fixture. - "12 -504
14. Southeast second level fire door closer broken. Art. 11 Sect. 11.7
15. Southeast second level exit light has missing lens. Art. 11 Sect. 11.2 -
16. Northwest second level fire door closer: broken. - Art. 71 Sect. 11 .1 ;
3403
.1. Southwest entrance address #3 and 4 without contrasting color to - building. -3 -104
2. Laundry room window missing two screens - window open at grade level.
Possible rodent entrance. 12 -703
3. Laundry electrical panel not enclosed. See Owners Priority List dated 10 -30 -78
4: Laundry room windows not painted. 12 -703
5. Laundry room light fixture inoperative. (2) missing bulbs. - 12 -704
6. Laundry room plastic rubbish container without lid. - Arta 1 Sect. 1.5 -
7. Northeast entrance, address has all numbers without contrasting color to bui -3 -
8. Northeast entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken. Art. 11 Sect. 11
9. Northeast entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken. 11
10. Northeast entrance stairway to lower and first level .very loose handrails. -12 -406
11. First level west corri has three inoperable light fixtures 12 -504
12. Southwest first level corridor fire door closer broken. - Art: 11 Sect. 11.1
13. Southwest second level stairway wall has 3" hole - 12 -704
14. Southwest second level stairway roof hutch removed (for fresh air). Own. Prior.10 -30' -7
15. Second level west corridor has 1 inoperative light fixture. - 12 -504
3413
1. West entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken.- Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
2. Laundry room has rubbish container without lid. Art. 1 Sect. 1.5
3. Laundry room has 1 light bulb missing out of2 fixtures. - 12 -504
+ 4. East entrance, lower level corridor fire door propped open. - Art. 11 Sect. 11.1
9 East entrance lower level corridor exit light inoperable . Art. 11 Sect. 11.2 1
East entrance'vestibul.e hot water radiator has severely damaged fins,
leaky valve and missing cover` plate. 12 -709
3417 .x
1. West entrance address has #7 without contrasting color to building.- 3 -104
2. West entrance lower level corridor fire door closer broken. Sect. 11.1
x - 3. Laundry room rubbish container without lid. Art. l Sect. 1.5
4. Laundry room windows not painted.- 12 -703
5. 4 refrigeritors stored in unsafe manner in laundry room. - Minnesota Statute 609.675
6. Laundry room ceiling "has holes._- 12 -704
7. North lower level corridor has 1;out of 4 inoperable light fixtures. 12 -504
8 Lower ievei center- fir.e.door has no threshold.. Art. 11 Sect, 11.1
tr �fEW VIOL ATIONS NOS ED ON Ma 21 , 1 ,979 INSPECTI
3 305
1. Lower level west corridor exit light near fire door has missing lens.
2. First ,level '.center fire door closer and exit light are inoperable.
3. Lower Level has two inoperative light fixtures
3 409
T. First level north corridor center fire door exit light is inoperable.
2. Second lever southwest corridor has inoperable fixture'.
3403
I. — Lower level southwest corridor exit light is inoperable and has missing lens.
2. Lower level southwest laundry room door closer is inoperable.
3. Lower level Corridorhas one inoperable light fixture.
4. Lower level center fire door has broken closer and exit light has missing lens.
5. Second floor corridor near center fire door has hole in wall.
3413
1. Laundry >room window has missing screen.
2. East entrance lower level fire door does not close.
3. Northeast_ entrance address is completely blocked by tree.
3417'
'_MEiectric panel enclosed.
Laundry room window has missing screen.
First level corridor has inoperable light fixture.
First.level center fire door has inoperable light fixture.
Second level center fire door exit light is inoperable.
Second level corridor has one inoperable light fixture.
307
Southwest entrance stairway down to lower level has loose handrail.
Southwest entrance lower level fire door will not close.
Electric panel not enclosed.
Laundry room windows not painted.
Laundry room windows have missing screens.
First level center fire door exit light fixture is inoperable.
311
First level corridor has one inoperable light fixture.
Second level center fire door exit light is inoperable.
. Second level corridor has one inoperable light fixture.
315
Lower level center fire door exit light is inoperable and has missing lens.
First level has one inoperable light fixture.
21 _
• Northwest lower level corridor has large infestation of ants.
25
• Laundry room door will not open more than 1/3.
. Second level corridor has one inoperable light fixture.
29
• Northwest lower level corridor fire door does not close tight.
• First level corridor has one inoperable light fixture.
433
First level corridor has one inoperable light fixture.
Second level center fire door exit light is inoperable.
ENERA ALL AREAS:
1. Broken fence is being removed. Owner should be advised that broken fence
• is to be repaired or replaced a nd not to be omitted.
2. Rubbish container screening deviceshave been removed. Larger rubbish containers
have been furnished. Owner should be advised that rubbish containers are to be
screened and screening' devices are to be approved by th'e City for location and
Construction.
3. Parking areas continue to have debris and chuck holes.
i
i.
-1 14EMORANDUM
TO: Linus Manderfeld, Fire Marshall
FROM: Al Proctor, Fire Inspector
DATE: May 21, 1979
SUBJECT: Brookdale Ten Apartments
On March 22, 1979 I inspected the above apartment complex accompanied by Building
Inspector Andy Alberti. During that inspection it was noted and orders written
for a substantial number of violations on each of the buildings in the above
mentioned complex. Reinspections of the above complex have been conducted by myself
on a weekly basis up to and including today. On March 23, 1979 as a result of our
March 22, 1979 inspection, Chief of Police Jim Lindsay had citations issued to the
property owner Mr. Benny Rozman, for the unprotected and unsafe storage of refriger-
ators. Mr. Rozman has appeared in court on these citations in request of a formal
complaint. As of this date and pending the formal complaint Mr. Rozman has con -
tinued to let these refrigerators be stored in an unsafe and hazardous condition
at three locations, 3307 53rd Avenue North, 3311 - 53rd Avenue North, 3417 - 53rd
Avenue North. As of today he has removed them only from 3307 - 53rd Avenue North.
On April 18, 1979, I requested and received of Police Chief Jim Lindsay the issuing
of citations for failure to comply with Fire Code violations. Again Mr. Rozman has
requested a formal complaint and obviously ignored the orders of this inspection.
Because of the lack of effort on the part of Mr. Rozman and his maintenance staff
to correct unsafe conditions which could result in the rapid extension and spread
of fire in any one of these apartment buildings, I. have maintained a weekly inspect-
ion schedule of this complex.
For the benefit of my reader, it should be pointed out that only in one instance
was any effort made to correct these violations. That involved the building ad-
dressed as 3425 - 53rd Avenue North in which a fire had occurred on December 27,
1`978 which resulted in the posting of two apartments as unfit for occupancy by our
Building Inspection Department. However, when these two apartments had been re-
P P � p
painted and recarpeted, the maintenance staff in order to secure occupancy of the
two apartments corrected all Fire Code violations in this building within 24 hours.
The followingdocumentation lists the violations found during today's inspection.
3305 53rd Avenue North
First Level
East end exit door latch encloser.
Laundry room door closer.
Repair laundry room door.
Center exit light out on one side
Center exit light missing glass on the other.
Second Level
Repair latch west exit door.
Repair center exit l ight and center fire door broken closer.
East exit door repair 'latch.
Third Level
East exit door repair latch and slow closer. Repair torn carpeting and hall
landings.
X3403 - 53rd Avenue North Page 2
First Level
Repair west exit door and exit light.
Laundry room door won't close or latch.
Center exit door broken closer and broken glass on exit light.
East exit door broken closer.
S econd Leve
East exit door broken closer.
Center fire door broken latch.
West exit door broken closer.
Third Leve
West exit door slow closer and broken latch.
3307 53rd Avenue North
First Level
Exit exit door no closer.
Laundry room door broken latch.
Center fire door won't latch.
Center exit light broken.
West fire door won't latch
S econd: Leve
East exit or broken closer.
Center exit light out.
West exit door won't latch.
Third Leve
East exit door no closer.
Center exit light missing glass_.
West exit light missing glass.
West exit door won't latch.
3315 - 53rd Avenue North
First Level
Center exit light bra en.
Repair hole in laundry room door.
South exit door repair closer and latch.
North exit door won't latch.
Second Level
South exit door slow closer.
Center fire door slow closer.
North exit door slow closer.
Third L evel
North and south exit doors won't latch.
3409 - 53rd Avenue North
First Level
Laundry room door no closer.
One center exit light missing glass and one broken.
Center fire door no threshold.
West exit door slow closer and latch.
West exit light broken.
F Second Level Page 3
West exit or no closer.
East exit door repair latch.
Center exit light out.
Third Leve
East exit door no closer,
East exit light no glass.
West exit door broken closer.
Landing carpets torn.
3415 53rd Avenue North
First Level
West exit door repair lat ch.and broken closer.
East exit door broken exit light and broken closer.
West exit door won't latch.
Third Leve
East exit door slow closer.
3425 - 53rd Avenue North
First Level
South and north exit door won't latch.
(it should be noted that this building went into compliance on May 4, 1979 and the
above two violations have occurred since then.
3421 - 53rd Avenue North
First Level
South exit door no threshold.
North exit light broken.
Second' Level
North and south exit doors won't latch.
Third Level
North exit door broken closer and latch.
North exit door light out:
3311 - 53rd Avenue North -
First Level
Center fire door no threshold.
North exit door broken closer.
Laundry room door won't latch.
Thi Leve
mouth exit door broken closer.
Center exit door light out.
Torn carpeting north and south landing all levels.
3433 - 53rd Avenue North
First Level
Worth exit door wont atch.
Center fire door won't latch and missing threshold.
South exit door won't latch.
Repair south landing carpeting.
Second Level
North and south exit door won't latch.
Third Level ,
North exit door won't latch.
Center exit light out.
Page 4
3417 53rd Avenue North
First Level
West exit door repair atch and closer.
Center fire door replace threshold.
East exit door repair latch.
Second Level
Center exit light out.
Third Level
West exit door won't latch.
Center exit light out.
3429 - 53rd Avenue North
First Level
South and north exit door repair latch.
Laundry room door repair closer and threshold.
Center fire door, no threshold.
Second Level
North exit door slow closer.
Repair carpeting 3 levels south end.
T hird Level
South exit door loose closer..
North exit door slow closer.
Center fire door loose closer.
Repair land carpeting on all three levels.