HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 10-16 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
City of Brooklyn Center
October 16 1978
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Invocation
4. Approval of Minutes - September 25, 1978 & September 27, 1978
5. Open Forum
6. Release Performance Bond
a. Tire .City - 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard
7. Final Plat Approval
a. Twin Lake Woods 3rd Addition submitted by Robert Putnam for
property lying on the south side of 52nd Avenue North, easterly
of Lakeside Place. The City Council approved the preliminary
plat on February 27, 1978 under Application No. 78003.
b. Shingle Creek Manor submitted by Real Estate 10 for property lying
easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard between Wingard Lane and the north
corporate limits The City Council approved the preliminary plat
on September 11, 1978 under Application No. 78015.
c. Registered Land Survey submitted by Michlitsch Builders for property
lying on - the west side of Humboldt Avenue, southerly of 67 Avenue
North. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on July 24, 1978
under Application No. 78040.
d. Registered Land Survey submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park
for property at 6100 Summit Dive on which the Summit State Bank is
located. The City Council approved the preliminary plat on May 8, 1978
under Application No. 78019.
8. Resignation of Commissioner Book
- Effective December 31, 1978
9. Designation of Bible Week
November 19 through 26
10. Public Hearings on improvement Projects (8,00 p.m.)
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- October 16, 1978
-Resolutions:
a. Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -4
Located in - the area of Wingard Lane and Brooklyn Boulevard
b. Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5
Located in - the area of Wingard Lane and Brooklyn Boulevard
c. Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -31 (The Ponds)
d. Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -32 (The Ponds)
e. Street Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -33
(The Ponds)
f. Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -34 (The Ponds)
g. Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -35 (The Ponds)
h. S'tree't Grading, Base and Surfacing Improvement Project No. 1978 -36
(The Ponds)
` i. Curb and Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -37 (The Ponds)
11. Resolutions:
a. Accepting Bid and Approving Contract Form for S'tree't Paving and
Curb and Gutter Contract 1978 -P
-Bids are scheduled - to be opened at 11 :00 a.m. on October 16, 1978.
The con'trac't contains - the street grading and curb and gutter projects
for The Ponds
b. Amending Storm Sewer Project No. 1978 -32
-The developer has requested a change in the location of the proposed
storm sewer line in - the above project for The Ponds. The relocation
effectuates approximately a $5,000 $6,000 saving in the proposed
construction cost. The benefiting and assessable areas do not change.
` c. Authorizing .the Mayor and the City Manager to Enter Into Traffic Signal
Control Agreement No. 59271 with the Minnesota Department of Trans-
portation for Traffic Signal Revisions at the Intersections of 55 Avenue
North and 71st Avenue North with Trunk Highway 152
-The work comprehends installing new - traffic signals at 55 - th Avenue North
and revising the controller at 71st Avenue North. 72% of the - total cost
of the project is being funded by federal aid funds with the remaining 38 -'
being split between the City and - the Minnesota Department of Transporta-
tion. The City's share for the above project cost is $15,981.41. The
resolution also appropriates this amount from State Aid Construction
Account No. 2611.
r
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- October 16, 1978
d. Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager - to Execute an Agreement
with the City of Brooklyn Park Relative to Providing Utility Service
to Brooklyn Center Property Owners along Brooklyn Boulevard Northerly
of Shingle Creek
-The Agreement will permit the Real Estate 10 development and proposed
development on - the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard to connect - to
Brooklyn Park's sanitary sewer and water main system.
e. Regarding Contract Form for Utility Contract 1978 -0
-Bids are scheduled to be opened on Wednesday, October 11, 1978
at 11 :00 a.m. The contract contains utility projects as well as - the
lowering of the water main for - the Shingle Creek Relocation Project
No. 1978 -40. (Phase I of Central Park Development Program)
f. Directing Readvertisement for Bids for Salt Storage Building Project
No. 1978 -43. (Contract 1978 -R)
g. Authorizing Purchase of 14,000 Square Feet of 1 -1/2" FR Styrofoam
Delivered
-It is recommended the quotation of Insulation Sales Company be
accepted for the Styrofoam for - the insulation of City Hall.
h. Amending the 1978 General Fund Budget to Assign an Administrative
Car to the Police Department
12. Planning Commission Items (8 :30 p.m.):
a. Application No. 78059 submitted by Robert Fosdick for site and
building plan approval for - the conversion of an abandoned filling
station for an eat -in and carry -out restaurant at 5001 Drew Avenue
North. The application was recommended for approval at - the
September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting. The application
was considered at - the September 25, 1978 City Council meeting and
was deferred in order - to give the applicant a chance -to discuss - the
proposal with neighbors.
b. Application No. 78060 submitted by Brookdale Ford for site and
building plan approval for an office addition, service garage addition,
and body shop addition at Brookdale Ford, 2500 County Road 10.
The application was recommended for approval at - the October 5, 1978
Planning Commission meeting.
c. - Application No. 78062 submitted by Oasis Development Corporation
for a special use permit, site and building plan approval - to remodel
the existing Dayton's gasoline station at Brookdale Shopping Center.
The application was recommended for approval at the October 5, 1978
Planning Commission meeting.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- October 16, 1978
d. Application No. 78063 submitted by Poppin Fresh Pies, Inc. for
site and building plan approval 'to remodel and expand 'the existing
Poppin Fresh Pie Shop at 5601 Xerxes Avenue North.
D. Ordinances:
a. Amending Chapter 35 Regarding Carports and Canopies
- - Ordinance is a second reading and is recommended for the
purpose of defining carports and canopies.
b. Amending Chapter 8 of the Health and Sanitation Ordinance
- Ordinance is a second reading and is recommended for the
purpose of revising Health and Sani'ta'tion Ordinance No. 8- 108.01.
c. Amending Chapter 15 and 35 of - the City Ordinances Relative to
Outlots
- Ordinance is a first reading and is recommended for 'the purpose
of clarifying a previous interpretation of 'the ordinance.
d. Vacating Turn - Around Easements on Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1, and
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, Gregor's Addition
-In 1962 when Gregor's Addition was platted. turn - around easements
were indicated on the plat on the above described lots because
69 -1/2 Avenue, was a dead end westerly of Logan Avenue North.
Now that 69 -1/2 Avenue North (currently named Irving Lane) has
been extended to Irving Avenue North, the turn- around easements
are no longer needed. One of - the property owners has requested
- the easement be removed from their deed. This can only be
accomplished by an ordinance vacation action for the above
referred easements. Ordinance is a first reading.
14. Discussion Items;
a Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council Inventory of Human
Services
- Representatives of Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council
will present information on Council services and on 'the "Inventory
of Human Services".
b. Community Development Block Grants
Feasibility of using Community Development monies for CEAP.
c. Status of Bidding for Sale of Property at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard
d. Authorizing Expenditure of $400 for Supervisory Development Program
from Council's Professional Services Budget
-I°t is recommended the first part of the program be initiated in 1978.
The majority of - the supervisory development program would take
place in 1979 and has been approved as part of the unallocated
departmental expense budget for 1979.
CITY OF
October 13, 1978 PLYI'TOUT
The Honorable Dean Nyquist
Mayor of Brooklyn Center
_
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mayor; .
Shingle Creek carries drainage waters from portions of Minneapolis, Robbinsdale,.
Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Brooklyn Park, New Hope, Maple Grove, Osseo and
Plymouth. No unified action for the management and protection of this common
watercourse has been undertaken to date.
We are suggesting that our nine Cities establish a Joint Powers Cnmmission to
function at our pleasure, for the purpose of managing and protecting the waters
of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. Those of you who are members of the elm
Creek Conservation Distract or the Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission are
aware of the` great - benefits resulting from such cooperation and joint course of
action which provides coordinated conservation of land and water resources.
In order that we might explore this subject together, I have scheduled a meeting
on Thursday, November 9, 1978, at 7:30 p.m. in the Brooklyn Center City Hall
Council Chambers.
I hope you or a member of your City's Staff will plan to attend this meeting.
Respectfully yours,
Z.
Howard L. Hunt
Mayor, City of Plymouth
HLH /bk
cc: City Manager
3025 HARBOR LANE, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441, TELEPHONE (612) 559 -2800
HUBERT H. HU.NII'IIRIiY, III CO i� S£ p1y
Senator 44th District C/Ir"
/� �0
811640th Avenue North tr+ vl ;N
New Hope. Minnesota 55.127
(612) 296.4180 � z
State of Minnesota
MEMORANDUM September 22 1978
TO: All Hennepin County; Municipalities
Mayors and City Council Members
FROM: Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, III
Senate Hennepin County Delegation Chairman
RE Hennepin County Delegation Meeting for Municipalities
The Senate Hennepin County Delegation is interested in hearing
from you with regard *,to any proposed legislation affecting your
city or Hennepin County. It is our intent to review and take
recoru action on legislative proposals prior to the 1979
legislative session which begins January 3, 1979. In order to
accomplish this I would appreciate your forwarding any proposals
you may have to my office, Room 121 State Capitol, St. Paul,
Minnesota, 55155.
The Hennepin County Delegation has scheduled_ a meeting for Wednesday
- - 7;�O p m , at the C *y&t 4- Gi- t y- H-a-1-1, 4141 Douglas
- --- -- D�v�t' North. We invite you to attend and present any proposals
or comments you may have to the Delegation. Please contact
Joanne Garcia at my Senate office, 296 -4180, if you plan to attend
nd /or -make a presentation, or have any questions regarding this
meeting.
The Delegation looks forward to seeing you November 1st.,
HHH:III z jmg
COiNIMITTE.ES finance Ialttratlon Niergy & ilottsing ;5:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -5- October 16, 1978
e. Chairman Kanatz of - the Charter Commission will explain - the proposed
Charter amendments as proposed by the Charter Commission.
15. Declaring Surplus Property
-It is recommended four existing pool tables in the Community Center be
declared surplus property.
16 Licenses
17. Adjournment
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER
-MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1978 -31 AND 1978 -40A; AND
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1978 -32 AND 1978 -35,
AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (UTILITY CONTRACT
1978 -S)
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The plans and specifications for the following improvements
prepared by the City Engineer are hereby approved and ordered filed
with the Clerk:
Water Main Improvement Project Nos 1978 -31 and 1978 -40A
Storm Sewer Improvement Project Nos. 1978 -32 and 1978 -35
2. The Clerk shall advertise for bids for such improvements
by publication at least once in the official newspaper and in the
Construction Bulletin the date of first publication not less than
ten (10) days prior to the date for receipt of bids Said notice
shall state that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed
- and accompanied by a cash deposit, bid bond, cashier's check or
certified check payable to the City -Clerk in the amount of not less
than five per cent -(5 %) of the bids.
3. Bid date is set for Monday, October 30, 1978 at 11:00
o'clock, a.m., 'central standard time.
4. The City Manager and City Engineer shall be authorized to
open and tabulate the bids.
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:
L` whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed,and adopted.
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR
SESSIO N
SEPTEMBER 25, 1978
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by
Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7:05 p.m,
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and
Celia Scott. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Public
Works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul
Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Ron Warren, Director of Parks and
Recreation Gene Hagel, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, and Administrative
Assistants Mary Harty and,Brad Hoffmann
INVOCATION
The invocation was offered by Councilmember Celia Scott.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 & SEPTEMBER 13, 1978
Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to approve
. the minutes of the City Council meeting of September 11, 1978 as submitted. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve
the minutes of the Special Session of September 13, 1978 as submitted. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
OPEN FORUM
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of the Open Forum explaining a
request had been received from Sandra Rath of 6531 Humboldt Avenue North to address
the City Council concerning a problem with day care. Sandra Rath was not present.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he had spoken with Sandra Rath over
the phone concerning the problem of day care for one of her children. He noted she
resided in the apartments located on 65th and Humboldt which was zoned R -5.
According to the present City ordinance, day care facilities are not a permitted use
in the R -5 area. Sandra Rath can receive grant money to pay for licensed day care
for her children but only if the day care center is licensed, Although the County
licenses day care centers not the City, the County will not license a day care
center in an apartment or a home in the City which is not zoned for day care centers.
A neighbor of Ms. Rath, also living in the apartments at 65th and Humboldt has
consented to care for the child but this person cannot be licensed for day care
because the City Ordinances do not allow day care centers in the R -5 zone. The
9-25 -78 -1-
Director of Planning and Inspection indicated Sandra Rath wanted to speak to that
issue before the Council.
It was the consensus of the Council to wait to deal with the issue until Sandra
Rath presented the information to the Council,
Mayor Nyquist next recognized Phyllis Plummer. Phyllis Plummer of 6520 Brooklyn
Boulevard spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters and the Housing Com-
mission and thanked the Council for their support of the Housing Awareness Seminar.
She thanked Councilmember Fignar and Mayor Nyquist for their presentations at'
the seminar. She also thanked Councilmember Kuefler for his attendance at the
seminar.
Councilmember Kuefler noted the seminar was excellent and provided a great deal
of information in the area of housing-. He expressed his thanks to the League of
Women Voters and the Housing Commission for co- sponsoring the seminar.
The Mayor next recognized Mr. Ron Blake of 3812 Janet Lane. Mr. Blake presented
a statement and a signed petition to the City Council urging the Council to grant
an additional $40,000 contract for services to LEAP. He stated under the current
situation, the City had realized a cash in hand advantage of $85,000 from the
insurance and will realize a cash in harid advantage of approximately $100,000
from the sale of the property on Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted the City would be
in a position to collect tax revenue on the property after the property is sold,
whereas, if the fire had not occurred, the City would have title to the land and
the building, but would not have the cash in hand option as both the land and
building would have been used by CEAP for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Blake
also stated consideration must be given to the fact that the Brooklyn Center Jaycees
donated over 6,000 hours of labor and $2,500 of Chapter Funds to the renovation
of the building for CEAP. The signers of the petition feel it is not unreasonable
to expect the City Council to allow CEAP a fair return of the insurance money to
enable them to again conduct their business, especially• in view of the cash in
hand advantage that'the City now enjoys
Mr. Blake stated he had spoken with Council members individually in the past
few weeks, as a citizen of Brooklyn Center. He indicated the petition was not
presented as a resolution from the Jaycees Chapter but rather it was a petition
signed by 70 past and present members of the Jaycees. Mr. Blake also noted
he was not presenting the petition as a board member of CEAP nor at the urging
of CEAP. He asked the Council to consider this statement and the petition as
the Council proceeded in their budget discussions.
Mayor Nyquist next recognized Mr. Arnie Foslien of 7215 Dallas Road. Mr. Foslien
stated he was before the Council because he was concerned about finding property
for CEAP to rebuild on. He recommended Council consideration of property located
at 69th and Dupont, east of the Church of the Master near the water tower. He
indicated he had spoken with the City Manager and with individual Council members i
concerning the appropriateness of this property for a future building site for LEAP.
9- 25-78 -2-
The City Manager explained the site suggested by Mr. Fosiien was set as the
potential site for a future water treatment plant facility. Presently the site is
used for storage of miscellaneous City equipment and materials.
The Director of Public Works showed a milar reproduction of the site pointing
out the area designated for the water treatment plant. He explained a survey
will be conducted in the winter of 1979 to ascertain whether or not the residents
of Brooklyn Center desire a water treatment plant within the City. The present
site is approximately 10 acres and is zoned R -1
Councilmember Fignar inquired whether it was feasible to .use a small part of
that 10 acres, approximately I acre, for a CEAP building The Director of
Public Works indicated he was unsure whether this was feasible because he
did not know the exact amount of land needed for the water treatment plant.
Presently there does not appear to be an - excess of land. Further study would
have to be undertaken in order to determine that.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted, in the past, CEAP was located
to the C -1 (Service /Office) area
PERFORMANCE BONDS - Release and Reduction
The City Manager explained site inspections had been made and on the basis
of completed site improvements bond releases are recommended for: Bermel
Smaby, and Schell Clinic. A bond reduction is recommended for Hiawatha
Rubber.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember
Lhotka to release a $2,500 bond submitted by Bermel -Smaby of 6500 Brooklyn
Boulevard; to release a $1 000 cash escrow submitted by Dr. Robert Schell
for Schell Clinic of 412 6,6th Avenue North; and to reduce a $5,000 bond sub-
mitted by Hiawatha Rubber to $1, 000 for Hiawatha Rubber of 1700 67th Avenue
North. Voting in favor: Mayan Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar,
Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -202
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SHADE TREES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none,, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted,
The City Manager explained the next resolution was being recommended to express
the appreciation of the City to Lieutenant Bob Leonard for his 22 years of service
on the police force in the City of Brooklyn Center.
9 -25 -7$ -3-
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -203
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION OF AND APPRECIATION FOR THE
DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF LIEUTENANT ROBERT LEONARD
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -204
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENT NOTES
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof. Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced the resolution for improvement projects for the Ponds.
He noted the 'public hearing is scheduled to be held on October 16, 1978 at 8:00
p.m. The projects are located on Unity Avenue North in the area of 69th Avenue
North and 73rd Avenue North. The Director of Public Works explained the project
had been requested by 100% of the owners so technically, a public hearing is not
required but the City will be holding a public hearing on October 16, 1978.0
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -205
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WATER MAIN
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978-31, STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1978 -32, STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1978 -33, CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -34, STORM
SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -35, STREET GRADING, BASE &
SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -36, AND CURB & GUTTER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -37
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: - - none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -206 ,
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption
9 -25 -78 -4-
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET GRADING,
BASE & SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -33 AND 1978 -36; AND
CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -34 AND 1978 -37, AND
DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (STREET PAVING AND CURB & GUTTER
CONTRACT 1978 -P)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar,' and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and
Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted,
I The City Manager introduced the next resolution for improvement projects located
on Brooklyn Boulevard south of the northern City boundary. The Director of Public
Works explained the projects had been requested by 100% of the property owners'
so a public hearing is not technically required. A public hearing will be held on
the improvement projects and the hearing is scheduled to be held October 16, 1978'
at 8:00 p. m.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -207
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED WATER MAIN
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -4 AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
• PROJECT NO. 1978 -5
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager requested the resolution accepting quotation for Landscaping
Contract No. 1978 -Q be deferred until the Special Session Council meeting
on September 27, 1978,
The City Manager recommended the resolution authorizing the rental of a drag
line for the Central Park relocation. The Director of Public Works explained
the quotations from vendors for equipment rental had been taken. It is recom-
mended the quotation of $3,818 per month from the Hayden Murphy Company
be accepted. In response to questions from Council members, the Director of
Public Works stated three quotations had .been received but no two quotations
had been received on the same size machine. The size equipment quoted in
the Hayden Murphy quotation seemed to best fit the needs of the City at the
price quoted The Director of Public Works stated the work would begin in
the latter part of this week or early next week and would last approximately
two to three months. The work will be initiated dependent on the approval
of the County Commission and the passage of this resolution by the City Council.
The dragging of Central Park will be done in house because a person experienced
in operating drag line equipment is employed by the City.
9 -25 -78 -5-
The funding for the excavation of the creek does not come directly from the LAWCON
grant because the guidelines of the LAWCON grant prohibit creek relocation. The
actual excavation will not be paid by LAWCON monies but the grading and moving
of the material excavated from the creek will be paid by the LAWCON grant.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -208
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RENTAL OF A DRAG LINE FOR CREEK RELOCATION
PROJECT NO. 1978 -40
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted,
The City Manager introduced a resolution to amend the Central Park Creek Reloca-
tion Contract to include a portion of Shingle Creek Relocation Project No. 1978 -40
relating to lowering a 16" water main,
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -209
Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78 -198 APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR UTILITY CONTRACT NO. 1978 -0 AND DIRECTING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and
Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -210
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALT STORAGE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROTECT
NO. 1978 -43 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager recommended a resolution to approve plans for a salt storage
building. The Director of Public Works showed Council members photographs
of a similar structure, currently used by the State Highway Department. He noted
the material used in construction of the building is the same as the material used
9 -25 -7$ _6-
in constructing the noise walls.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -211
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SALT STORAGE
BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -43, AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT
FOR BIDS (CONTRACT 1978 -R)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and the
following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared
duly passed and adopted.
It was decided to defer the resolutions concerning proposed assessments until
after the special assessments hearings had been held.
The City Manager introduced a resolution to appoint a citizen to the Citizen's
Participation Committee for Urban County for the Community Development Block
Grant. The City Manager noted the person appointed to the Committee could not
be a presently appointed Commission or Council member,
The Council made several suggestions for members to the committee, Council
member Scott recommended Mr. Bogucki, Councilmember Lhotka recommended
Mr. Maurice Britts, Councilmember Fignar recommended Mr, Howard Heck
or Mr. Henry Dorff, and Mayor Nyquist recommended Mr, Vernon Ausen. It was
decided to defer the actual appointment until the people recommended could be
questioned as to their availability and preference for being on the Committee.
It was decided the appointment would be made at the* Special Session Council
meeting on September 27, 1978.
ORDINANCES
The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the Health and
Sanitation Ordinance. He noted the ordinance amendment is first reading and is
presented for the purpose of changing Health and Sanitation Ordinance 108.01.
In discussion of the proposed amended ordinance, Councilmember Lhotka °noted
the City Sanitarian had spoken aggainst the amended ordinance in earlier Council
meetings. The City Sanitarian explained control would be a problem with the
amended ordinance. Councilmember Lhotka indicated there is a potential health
problem and this problem should be looked at carefully. Councilmember Lhotka
indicated he was not in favor of amending the ordinance.
In response to Council members questions, the City Attorney indicated it is doubt-
ful the City's liability would be increased. as a result of the amended ordinance.
Liability would increase only if there was negligence on the part of the City staff
concerning enforcement of the health and sanitation ordinances
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember
Scott to offer for first reading Chapter 8 of the Health and Sanitation Ordinance.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott.
9 -25 -78 -7-
Voting against: Councilmember Lhotka. The motion passed.
The City Manager introduced an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City
Ordinances. The ordinance is a first reading and is presented for the purpose of
changing 35 -400 (2) of the City Ordinances. The City Manager noted the City
Attorney was prepared to comment on the legal ramifications of this proposed
amendment.
As a point of clarification, the City Attorney explained it is doubtful the City
wotad be able to prove there is a difference in need for setbacks on 75 foot lots
as opposed to 90 foot lots If a 25 foot corner setback is necessary and reasonable
for a 90 foot corner lot it is also reasonable fora 75 foot corner lot. The setback
requirements should not be related to the width,of a lot if they are in fact reasonable
and necessary. Councilmember Scott noted the ordinance language as proposed
does not address only lots of 75 feet. The proposed ordinance language addresses
all corner lots under 90 feet.
Councilmember Kuefler asked whether a challenge by residents of 90 foot corner
lots regarding a setback of only 15 feet allowed to substandard corner lots would
win in court. The City Attorney indicated a challenge of this nature would likely be
sucessful.
Mayor Nyquist stated the original ordinance lanugage "was of legal record on
December 19, 1957" was appropriate.
Councilmember.Fignar stated the average citizen is not aware of ordinance require-
ments. Councilmember Fignar explained he felt all residents of substandard lots
should be treated equally regardless of when the property ,became a property of
record. Councilmember Fignar indicated he did not wish to see two sets of rules
applied
Councilmember Kuefler stated he did not support reducing the setback require-
ments, on 90 foot corner lots and therefore, he felt the ordinance should not be
amended because of the legal ramifications of amending the ordinance to allow
less of a side yard setback on substandard lots.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler
to recommend denial of the amended ordinance because the Council would be hard-
pressed to justify changing the ordinance. The wording in the original ordinance
is clear and in establishing the date, the ordinance as written is justifiable in
court. Additionally, the people living on corner lots chose to live there, in part,
because of certain amenities which are protected by setback requirements.
In discussion of the motion, Councilmember Fignar indicated he opposed Council -
member Scott's motion language because of the double standard that exists in
the setback requirements Councilmember Fignar indicated he felt the language
was discriminatory.
Councilmember Lhotka indicated he would not vote for amending the ordinance
but at the same time he also felt discrimination exists in the present ordinance
wording.
9 -25 -78 -8-
In the vote on the motion, the following voted in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council -
members Kuefler, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: Councilmember Fignar.
The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
It was decided to defer discussion and the public hearing on Federal Revenue
Sharing until later in the meeting. There was no one in the audience to participate
in the Federal Revenue Sharing public hearing.
The Mayor opened the special assessment public hearing at 8:10 p.m. The City
Manager explained the public hearings for all of the proposed assessments would
be held first and afterwards, the resolutions concerning those proposed assess-
ments would be considered. The Director of Public Works briefly explained the
statutory authority for the proposed assessments and the payment plans available
for paying for the assessments. He noted all of the property owners had been
notified concerning the public hearing on the proposed assessments
A public hearing was opened for the Street Surfacing Project No. 1977 -14 located
at 52nd Avenue North from ,Drew Avenue to the east approximately 135 feet. The
assessment method was unit assessment. There was no one to speak on the
project. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Council -
member Scott to close the public hearing on Project No. 1977 -14. Voting in
` favor: ' Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on the Water Main Project No. 1977 -15 located on
Unity Avenue from 460 feet north of the center line of 69th Avenue. The assess -
ment method was footage and area assessment. There was no one to speak
on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by
Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1977 -15.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and
Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1977 -16 located on
Unity Avenue from 420 feet north of the center line of 69th Avenue to 73rd Avenue.
The assessment method was unit assessment. There was no one to speak on the
project. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Council -
member Lhotka to close the public hearing on Project No 1977 -16. Voting in
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on Street Surfacing (storm sewer portion) Project No
1977 -17 located on Unity Avenue from 443 feet north of the center line of 69th
Avenue northerly approximately 460 feet. The assessment method was acre
method. There was no one to speak on the project. Motion by Councilmember
Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on
Project No. 1977 -17. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
9 -25 -78 -9-
A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Sewer Project No. 1977 -21 located on
Lakeside from the center line of Twin Lake Avenue easterly approximately 170
feet. The assessment method was unit assessment. There was no one to
speak on the project. Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Council-
member Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1977 -21. Voting in -
favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on Street Surfacing Project No. 1978.. -17 located
on Irvinq from approximately 165 feet south of 70th to 69th Avenue, proposed
Irving Lane from approximately 723 feet east of Logan to Irving, and services
on the north side of 69th from Irving westerly approximately 245 feet. The
assessment method was unit and footage assessment. The Mayor recognized
Mr. Robert Ryan, an attorney representing the owner of Brookdale Towers
apartments. Mr. Ryan asked that the public hearings on special assessments
be called off and rescheduled because the City had given improper notice
concerning the special assessment public hearing. He noted, according to
Minnesota Statute 429.061, reference must be made to Statutes 435.193 and
435.195 in the public notice. Reference to those Statutes had not been included
in the public notice sent to Mr. Ryan's client. In addition to the fact that
proper notice had not been given, Mr. Ryan noted there was no increase in the
market value of the property due to the recommended improvements. Mr. Ryan
indicated he was prepared to argue on behalf of his client that neither the present
use of the land nor the future use of the land in question will be benefited from
the proposed improvement project. He stated there would be no increase in
services to the property as a result of the improvement projects.
As a point of clarification, the City Attorney noted the City need not be limited
by the present use of the land in establishing benefit and carrying out improve -
ment projects. The property in question could be rezoned in the future. The
City Attorney questioned Mr. Ryan as to what prejudice his client had suffered
,through lack of complete notice. Mr. Ryan replied no prejudice had been suffered
but other people may have suffered prejudice in that they did not realize that they
might fall under -the hardship category as designated in the Statute.
The City Attorney question the Director of Public Works as to what schedule and
timetable problems might result in deferring a decision on this project. The
Director of Public Works indicated a delay in passing the resolution on this
improvement project would require the City to until next year to assess
the project. Carrying costs and interest charges would be carried over until
next year resulting in a higher cost to the property owners. At this time, the
Director of Public Works also explained, in greater detail, the City's assess-
ment procedures. (Assessment Procedures Manual)
Mr. Ryan suggested $5,000 would be an excessive cost for whatever benefit
might acrue to his client as a result of the additional fire hydrant made- possible
by the improvement project. Mr. Ryan further noted the City's assessment
policy was one that could potentially charge present property owners for work
done in the past. The law states assessments must bear resemblance to the
improvement. Each assessment must benefit the property owner being assessed.
Mr. Ryan indicated he was prepared to argue, the assessment, as proposed,.
9 -25 -78 -10-
does not benefit his client.
It was decided to defer action on Improvement Project No. 1978 -17 until the
City Attorney had a chance to review the Statutes.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember
Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -17. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Lateral Improvement Project No. 1978 -18 _
l located on Irving Lane from an-existing manhole 718 feet east of Logan easterly
118 feet; and Irving Lane from Irving westerly approximately 175 feet and
services to Lot 1, Block 1, Irving Estates. The assessment method was unit
assessment. There was no-one to speak on Project No. 1978 -18. There was a
motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -18. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -19
located on Irving from 70th to Irving Lane. The assessment method was unit
assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by
Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public
hearing on Project No. 1978 -19. Voting in favor:- Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on the Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -25
located on the proposed James Circle from Freeway Boulevard southerly approximately
- 545 feet. The assessment method was area assessment. There was no one to speak
on the project. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Council-
member Fignar to close the public hearing on Project No. 1978-25. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on the Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -26
located on the south side of Freeway Boulevard from proposed James Circle easterly
approximately 200 feet to an existing inlet on Freeway Boulevard. The assessment
method is area assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There
was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
close the public hearing on Project No. 1978 -26. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on Sanitary Sewer Hookup Improvement Projects
located at the Ponds and at 7242 Knox Avenue North; The assessment method
was the square foot assessment. There was no one to speak on the project. There
was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to
9 -25 -78 -11-
close the public hearing on the Sanitary Sewer Hookup Project. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on the Water Hookup Projects at the following
locations: 1601 67th Avenue North, 7000 Brooklyn Boulevard, 3400 48th Avenue
North, 6637 Humboldt Avenue North, 4210 -14 Lakeside, 3918 57th Avenue North
7242 Knox Avenue North. There was no one to speak on the projects. There was
a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to
close the public hearing on the Water Hookup Projects. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on the Diseased Shade Tree Removal Project No. {
1978-1. There was no one to speak on the project. There was a motion by
Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public
hearing on Project No. 1978-1. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed
unanimously. - -
A public hearing was opened on assessments for delinquent public utility accounts.
There was no one to speak at the public hearing. There was a motion by Council -
member Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing
on delinquent public utility accounts. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Council-
members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion
passed unanimously.
A public hearing was opened on assessments for delinquent noxious weed cutting
accounts. There was no one to speak at the public hearing. There was a
motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close
the public hearing on delinquent noxious weed cutting accounts. Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -212
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DISEASED SHADE TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: bean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and
Celia Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said
resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -213
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO THE .
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
9_25 -78 -12-
The I motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following_ voted in
favor thereof: Dean - Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
• Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO 78 -214
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING DELINQUENT NOXIOUS. WEED CUTTING ACCOUNTS
FOR 1978 CUTTING TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
j was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
RECESS
The City Council recessed at 9 ;03 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m
PLANNING COM ISSION ITEMS
The City Manager introduced Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington
M for site and building plan approval for a wholesale distribution center on the
C -2 property located at 4455 68th Avenue North. The application was recom-
mended for approval at the September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection showed a transparency of the area and
reviewed the application. He stated the applicant proposed a wholesale distribu-
tion center consisting of three 20,000 square feet office warehouse buildings
on the C -2 zoned property located easterly of the NSP facility and westerly of the
Iten Chevrolet site. He explained the same applicant had received site and
building approval under Application No. 77049 in October, 1977 for a commercial
speculative building proposed for multiple tenancy on the same site. He stated
the applicant had not been able to market the concept and contends the site is
not well suited for standard commercial retail uses due to its location, accessi-
bility and the nature of neighboring land uses. He explained the Commission
had reviewed the applicant's proposal and had determined there were three
possible approaches to the concept: one, to rezone the land to 1 -1; two, to
amend the zoning ordinance to provide for certain special uses in a C -2 district,
such as wholesale distribution; and three, to accept an application for the
proposed development and make a finding that the proposed use was similar
to other uses permitted in the C -2 district. The Director of Planning and Inspec-
tion stated the Commission had determined the third alternative was the most
viable and the application was formally reviewed by the Planning Commission
at its August 10, 1978 meeting, and a number of concerns were raised,
including parking for this site under the. proposed uses, as well as future
parking needs if the property were to be converted to a strictly retail use. The
Director of Planning and Inspection noted the concern is not with the use compre-
hended in this proposal, but if in the future, a proposal would comprehend more
9 -25 -78 -13-
of a C -2 use, would parking be adequate.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the applicant had proposed
the possibility of providing a restrictive covenant', similar to that used in the
S & H greenstamp application involving property at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North,
that would require additional parking to be provided inside one of the three
buildings as parking became a problem at a future date. The Director of Planning
and Inspection reported the City Attorney had reviewed a proposed restrictive
covenant and had recommended not placing a restrictive covenant on the property
for the following four reasons: 1, The City must go through a sham transaction
of owning the property, and then deeding it back to the applicant in order to
place itself in the , chain of title for enforcement purposes. 2. Real estate law
is imbued with the rule against perpetuities, an ancient concept which looks
unfavorably on owners of real estate who attempt to control the future land uses,
therefore, restrictive covenants are not favored in litigation and courts can
effectively remove them upon a change of circumstances. 3. The remedy for
violation of restrictive covenants includes a district court civil action on the
part of the City, the obtaining of an injunction, and the problems in enforcing
a judgment of injunction, once it is obtained.. By contrast, control of land
by Zoning Ordinances effected through criminal court procedures which are
much faster and which carry more positive forms of inducement to abide by
the regulation, 4. There are no enclosed parking ramps within the City of
this suburban area; certainly there are no one story enclosed parking ramps
anywhere, leading to the conclusion that such a use of land is not economically
feasible. If the property eventually does become more suitable for a retail
use, the _use of a large portion of it for garage facilities would make less
sense than it does under present conditions. Attempting to enforce by restrictive
covenant, a land use which is economic nonsense would find deaf ears in the
market place and the courtroom.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated another aspect of the application
which the Commission had carefully reviewed was a determination as to whether
the applicant's proposed use is similar in nature to other permitted uses in the
C -2 district. He pointed out the applicant felt this proposal was similar to the
American Bakeries use on 69th Avenue North, which was not specifically listed
in the Zoning Ordinances as a permitted C -2 use.
The Director of Planning and Inspection also reviewed the conditions of approval
as recommended by the Planning Commission for Application No. 78043.
A discussion ensued concerning the application. Councilmember Kuefler questioned
whether the use of the structure was compatible with the Zoning Ordinance. The
Director of Planning and Inspection explained the wholesale distribution use was
not comprehended in the present ordinance language. The applicant states the
use is similar to that of the American Bakeries.
There were several questions from the Council as to why a restrictive covenant is
needed on the property when the proposed use meets the parking requirements.
Councilmember Kuefler asked why the issue should need to be resolved in advance
of a specific proposal. The City Attorney explained that a restrictive covenant
would have to be placed on the property at this time because the City may not be
9 -25 -78 -14-
able to place the restrictive covenant on the property at a•future date.
Councilmember Scott expressed concern over whether there was too large a
building on too small a portion of land. She explained she had observed this
type of building in New Hope and Wayzata and there was a severe problem with
traffic and parking.
In response to questions from the Council, the City Attorney indicated his concern
with the restrictive covenant is not a concern to the degree which was indicated
in his original memo. He explained that any time an ordinance or covenant requires
something which is not economically feasible, there would be a potential problem
if the case would go to court. .
Councilmember Kuefler indicated he had not opposed the suggested use because
he was aware that the developer had tried in the past to develop the land. Council -
member Kuefler noted the property was not aesthetically the best piece of property.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember
Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78943 submitted by
Jerry Harrington for site and building plan approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of
permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and landscape plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee ,
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted prior to the issuance of permits to insure completion
of approved site improvements.
4. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet MFPA Standard No. 13
5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by
the City Engineer.
6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
7. Plan approval comprehends parking to support the proposed
wholesale distribution use; a restrictive covenant, approved by
the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the property to
provide parking in one of three buildings should the wholesale
distribution uses cease and be converted to another C -2 use
requiring more parking.
9 -25 -78 -15-
8. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
Voting_ in favor: Mayor, Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and
Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78053. submitted
by Eloise Lowry for a special use permit for a home occupation to conduct
porcelain art instructions at 6914 Lee Avenue North. The application was
recommended for approval at the September 14, 1978 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection showed a transparency of the area and
noted the applicant had submitted a letter outlining the proposed home occupation,
which includes instructing individuals on the basic procedures for brush stroke
and application of paint on porcelain, and instructing basic art concepts in
connection with porcelain painting. The applicant had originally proposed to
hold three classes per week for two eight week sessions, one in the fall and
one in the spring. Initially, the applicant had also requested to have six or
seven students per class.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that a special use permit was
required for the teaching of more than one, but no more than four nonresident
students at any given time. He noted the applicant had been informed of this
ordinance requirement
The Director of Planning and Inspection reported the Building Inspector had
inspected the applicant's home and found there should be no problem with code
related concerns with the application. The Building Inspector indicated off
street parking for four nonresident students could be provided in the applicant's
driveway.
Based on ordinance requirements, the Planning Commission suggested to the
applicant that she might like to add another class per week in view of the fact
she would be limited to four students. The applicant responded affirmatively
to this suggestion.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purposes of a public hearing on Appli-
cation No. 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry. The applicant was present but did
not wish to add further comment concerning the application. There was no one
else to speak on the application. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott
and seconded by Councilmember Fignar to close the public hearing on Application
No. 78053. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar,-
Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember
Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No. 78053 submitted by
Eloise Lowry for a special use permit for a home occupation to conduct porcelain
art instructions at 6914 Lee Avenue North subject to the following conditions:
1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use
and is nontransferable.
9 -25 -7$ -16-
2. The permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations,
and violation shall be grounds for revocation.
• 3. All parking related to the special use shall be off street parking on
appropriate space provided by the applicant.
4. The operation shall be limited to not more than four students as
provided in Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances.
5. The hours of operation shall be 9 :30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through
Thursday, with no more than two classes per day and four classes per
week.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, LIA - iotka, and Scott.
Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78057 submitted
by Blumentals Architectural, Inc. for a site and building plan approval for an
addition to the existing industrial building at 1601 67th Avenue North. The
Planning Commission recommended approval at its September 14, 1978 meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection showed a transparency of the site showing
the building and the proposed addition. He stated the reason for the addition to
the building was to provide additional space for a new tenant for automotive parts
distribution. He added that no additional office space was comprehended for the
addition. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that 67 additional
parking spaces would be required with the new addition, based on the ordinance
formulas. He stated the applicant had proposed that 62 parking spaces would be
provided and had submitted a proof of parking plan which showed that the required
67 spaces could be provided on the site.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that with the building addition,
the applicant also proposed that the loading dock area be expanded to accommodate
the addition. He explained the applicant had inquired about the possibility of
moving the required 8 foot high opaque woad fence :which was to extend northerly
from the existing building and provide screening for the parking area in the north
portion of the site. The applicant indicated the fence would be better located close
to the property line, to screen the parking lot from the adjacent R -1 institutional
use, and to provide easier access to the 50 foot green area between the property
line and the existing building for maintenance and irrigation purposes. The
Director of Planning and Inspection noted the City held a performance bond for
various site improvements comprehended under Application No. 77053 and it
was felt the bond amount could adequately cover any additional improvements.
The Director of Planning and Inspection also reviewed the recommended condition
of approval.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Counci.lmember Fignar
to approve. Planning Commission Application No. 78057 submitted by Blumentals
Architectural, Inc. for a site and building plan approval for the addition to the
existing industrial building at 1601 67th Avenue North subject to the following
conditions:
9- 25--78 -17-
1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of •
permits.
2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire
extinguishing system to meet MFPA Standard No. 13
4. All outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view,
5 The current performance agreement being held for Application No.
77053 shall be retained to insure completion of any additional
site improvements.
6. The fence approved for screening purposes under Application No.
77053 may be located near the property line.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and
Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The City Manager introduced Planning Commission Application No. 78059 submitted
by Robert Fosdick for site and building plan approval for the conversion of an
abandoned fillling station for an eat -in and carry out restaurant at 5001_ Drew
Avenue North. The application was recommended for approval at the September 14,
1978 Planning Commission meeting.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed a transparency of the area and
stated the site had been the subject of previous proposal by Assurance Glass
under Application No, 78018 to upgrade the existing service station to a new
service. He indicated the proposal had not materialized, and the owner of the
property had submitted a letter stating that proposal was no longer active.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained the applicant's proposal
comprehended remodeling the service station for the restaurant and utilizing the
existing storage building on the westerly portion of the site to provide some
employee parking. He explained that 28 restaurant seats and a maximum number
of four employees were proposed, which would require 16 parking spaces.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the plans indicated 14 parking
stalls around the proposed restaurant and two employee stalls in the adjacent
storage building.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted the ordinance required a 35 foot
greenstrip and opaque screening where C -2 abuts R -1 property and that the home-
owner directly to the north of this site at 5013 Drew Avenue North presently has
a six foot high opaque fence which provides screening from the C -2 site. He
stated there is an existing six foot stockade fence apparently erected to screen
9 -25 -78 -18-
the service station from the residential property. He noted the applicant proposed
to relocate the stockade fence, to provide screening for the trash receptacle and
some of the parking spaces.
The Director of Planning and Inspection stated when Application No. 78018 was
considered, the property owner to the north had agreed that his - existing fence
could serve as screening. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained
the homeowner was aware that screening was the responsibility of the C -2
property, and he felt his own fence probably had a maximum life expectancy of
five years The Director of Planning and Inspection stated the owner of the C -2
property was aware of the requirements, and it is recommended, if the screening
f is to be deferred, that the owner execute an agreement to file with the property
title acknowledging that screening would be installed should the screening on
the adjacent property prove inadequate or be removed.
The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed the recommended conditions
of approval and stated that deferral of the eight foot opaque fence was recom-
mended for a maximum of five years.
In discussion of the application, there was a question from the audience
concerning screening in the northwest quadrant of the property. The Director of
Planning and Inspection explained no direct screening was required between
C -2 and R -4 property. There were other questions raised from citizens in the
audience. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted no public hearing
was required for site and building plan approval but he suggested it might be
helpful if the applicant would discuss his proposal with neighboring residents.
In further discussion of the application, Councilmember Fignar suggested
deferring the application until the next Council meeting in order to give the
applicant a chance to discuss the proposal with neighbors
Councilmember Lhotka questioned whether or not sprinklers were required in
this building. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained sprinklers
were not required because the building was under 2, 000 square feet. Mr. Pyle
of 5013 Drew Avenue North, as a neighbor to the proposed restaurant, explained
he preferred an eight foot fence because of the possible night hours of business.
Mr. Pyle also indicated he was concerned as to what type of operation was
being proposed because of communication Mr. -Pyle had with a possible employee
of the new restaurant. The applicant, Mr. Robert Fosdick, explained there was
a misunderstanding when Mr. Pyle spoke with the possible employee. The ,
applicant explained the misunderstanding had occurred because he had spoken
with a representative of the University of Minnesota Home Economics Depart -
ment in hopes of finding employees for his restaurant. The woman that Mr. Pyle
had spoken with did not understand the nature of the position available.
Councilmember Scott noted she was in agreement with Councilmember Fignar's
M suggestion to defer the application. Councilmember Scott suggested the appli-
cant should reconsider whether or not the stockade type fence should be reused.
Councilmember Scott suggested the applicant might wish to consider extending
i
9 -25 -78 -19-
the opaque fence further in order to screen the lights of the business from the
residents. She also indicated she would prefer to see the business closing
before 2 :00 in the mornings
Councilmember Kuefler indicated he was concerned about the possible odor
which would be associated with a smoke house. He suggested that the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Air Standard for odor emissions should be
reviewed. There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Council-
member Kuefler to defer consideration of Planning Commission Application No.
78059 until the October 16, 1978 City Council meeting in order that the applicant
might discuss the proposal with the neighbors and consider the suggestions
made by the Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler,
Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Nyquist asked the Council to return to consideration of the resolution to
confirm assessments for certain improvement projects as discussed earlier in the
Council meeting The Mayor asked the City Attorney to comment on appropriate
action. The City Attorney explained the City's notice did not refer to the Statutes
as mentioned earlier by Mr. Ryan. The City Attorney stated that the Statutes omitted
from the notice referred to senior citizen deferments and that the City of Brooklyn
Center had not adopted an ordinance pursuant to the Statute. Therefore, the
notice would be irrelevant- in a practical sense. The City Attorney noted, the City
of Brooklyn Center, in the future, should include reference to those Statutes.
The City Attorney indicated the court might invalidate the assessment due to lack ,
of notice but the City Attorney recommended going ahead with the passage of
the resolution. The City Attorney further noted that the questions as brought
up by Mr. Ryan as to benefits is a fact question. The City Attorney also noted
uses of the property in question could change in the future,
Councilmember Fignar stated he felt it was unfair to hold up the assessments and
charge additional interest to the property owners by holding up the assessments
until 1979,
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -215
Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT 1977 -15
AND 1978 -17; AND SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT 1977 -16, 1977 -21, 1978 -18
AND 1978 -25; AND STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT 1978 -19 AND 1978 -26; AND
STREET SURFACING IMPROVEMENT 1977 -14 AND 1977 -17; AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
WATER HOOKUPS AND SANITARY SEWER HOOKUPS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, Gene Lhotka, -and Celia
Scott; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution
was declared duly passed and adopted.
9 -25 -78 -20-
DISCUSSION ITEMS
The City Manager explained City staff was prepared to recommend programs to
the City for use of Community Development Block Grant money. He explained
the City Attorney had reviewed the Urban County Joint Powers Agreement with
Hennepin County, as per the request made by the City Council, and had recom-
mended certain changes. The City Manager explained Hennepin County is not
willing to modify the contract, particularly in light of the fact that 36 other
communities have signed that contract. The City Manager further noted, if the
City of Brooklyn Center signed the Joint Powers Agreement and later decided not
to participate, the City of Brooklyn - Center still has the option to withdraw from
the program by not submitting a program plan of spending. Hennepin County
would retain the right to use Brooklyn Center's demographics but would reallocate
the money to other communities.
The City Manager stated the City, in planning programs for Community Develop -
ment Block Grant money, had attempted to design programs which were administratively
less intense. Programs, as recommended, would not tie the City to programs
impossible to continue if the funds were terminated after three years.
Brad Hoffman reviewed project recommendations in the following areas: housing,
handicapped projects, park development and administration. Mr. Hoffman noted
the City would attempt to piggy back already existing programs in order to make
them less administratively intense. Responding to questions from the Council,
Mr. Hoffman stated the County does provide technical assistance in the area of
Community Development Block Grants but does not ordinarily provide administrative
• assistance for the various programs.
Councilmember Kuefler inquired whether or not it was possible to pool with other
communities to handle administering the various types of programs and applications.
Councilmember Kuefler further questioned whether part of the Community Development
Block Grant funds could be allocated to pay for that sort of an administration resource.
Councilmember Lhotka was excused at 10 :45 p.m.
Eileen Oslund of 6000 Ewing Avenue North inquired whether or not a building for
CEAP was a possibility for a program under Community Development Block Grant.
Mr. Hoffman explained the City of Brooklyn Park had requested $85,000 from
Community Development money as a capital improvement type project and, to the
best of his knowledge, had acquired the money.
Councilmember Kuefler inquired whether or not Brooklyn Center could apply for
funds for CEAP from Community Development monies for a similar capital improve-
ment type project.
Councilmember Lhotka returned at 10:47 p.m.
Councilmember Scott indicated she was in favor of supporting CEAP with Community
Development money if this was a possibility. She suggested some of the money
proposed for housing might instead be used for CEAP.
9 -25 -78 -21-
Mayor Nyquist was excused at 10 :50 p.m. ,
Eileen Oslund also questioned the amount of money recommended for park acces-
sibility for the handicapped Mr. Hoffman explained the money recommended
included several different aspects including paving of parking lots, walkways
and accessibility equipment for the handicapped within the parks. In response
to questions concerning whether or not pedestrian bridges are being recommended
as part of Community Development programs, the Director of Public Works explained
pedestrian bridges are part of the development of Central Park. Some of the
pedestrian bridges are included in separate grants, for instance the LAWCON grant,
Mayor Nyquist returned at 10:53 p.m.
Phyllis Plummer of 6520 Brooklyn Boulevard asked whether Community Development
money could be combined with tax increment financing to provide land for low and
moderate income people. The City Manager replied this was a possibility, but
again, this type of use would be administratively intense.
Further discussion ensued concerning a signature of the Joint Powers Agreement.
Mr. Hoffman noted he had spoken with County staff and they indicated the contract
would not be modified.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to adopt the Joint Powers Agreement Contract as written. Voting in favor: Council-
members Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka, and Scott Voting against: Mayor Nyquist. The
motion passed,
The City Manager explained the rental dwelling license for Bennie R o zman for
the Brookdale Ten apartment complex had been temporarily extended to August, 1978.
Mr. Rozman had agreed at that time to meet certain priorities in fixing the property.
Inspections had been made based on those priorities. The City Manager noted a
series of problems are still evident in the Brookdale• Ten apartment complex. Many
of the problem areas have not been dealt with. In conversation with Mr. Rozman,
Mr, Rozman indicates flooding has caused delays in repairs and also a fire in an
apartment complex belonging to Mr. Rozman, in St. Paul, has caused delays.
The City Manager noted it appears Mr. Rozman is fighting a losing battle. Mr.
Rozman indicates he is attempting to deal with the problems within the apartments
because he feels the interior of the apartments is more important than the exterior
of the building. Mr. Rozman, again in conversations with City staff, explained
that he is attempting to raise the caliber of the tenants,
Councilmember Kuefler noted the residents of Brooklyn Center have felt, from the
beginning of the complex, that there are severe problems. Councilmember Kuefler
stated gains for the City can only be made if the complex is turned around. He
suggested the Council's approach at this point, might be to trust Mr. Rozman's
sense of direction in taking care of the problem. .Councilmember Kuefler suggested
the Council might wish to consider extending the license temporarily and asking
Mr. Rozman to comeback to the Council with a timetable and schedule of repairs.
Councilmember Kuefler suggested Mr. -Rozman should make a commitment, based
on his own evaluation of the problems, to the Council.
9 -25 -78 -22-
Councilmember Scott noted the two lists of repairs required indicate many of the
repairs are safety repairs. She stated the list seems to be increasing rather than
decreasing. She further stated a crew could take care of many of those repairs
in a very short period of time and she is not able to understand why the list gets
continually longer. Councilmember Scott noted she would like to see some teeth
in whatever the Council would recommend.
The City Manager indicated the City Inspectors could go through almost any other
complexes in Brooklyn Center and find a long list of needed repairs. He noted
this statement was not in total defense of Mr. Rozman because he also feels
there's definitely a problem in the Brookdale Ten apartment_ complex. The City
Manager indicated the suggestion made by Councilmember Kuefler might be a
reasonable approach to dealing with the problem.
Councilmember Lhotka suggested, if Councilmember Kuefler's approach was
pursued, definite guidelines and time frames should be determined for Mr. Rozman.
The City Manager stated, if it was the Council's wish, Mr. Rozman could be
invited to put together such a timetable and schedule of repairs and be asked to
present that to the Council in the next month.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained it would be important to define
priorities because Mr. Rozman seems to feel his priority is dealing with the
problems inside the apartments first, whereas, the Council seems to be concerned .
about the exterior of the complex as well.
There were several people in the audience who commented briefly on the problem
with the Brookdale Ten apartment complex. One citizen concurred with earlier
comments in the Council meeting that the Council needs to put some teeth in
whatever action it chooses to take. He suggested Mr. Rozman might be pursuaded
by taking some of the problems to Column I or Action News.
Mr. John Healy, employed by Mr. Rozman as maintenance crew leader, spoke
concerning the problem. He noted nine people had been hired by Mr. Rozman
for the maintenance crew. He explained, since-the last Council meeting when
Brookdale Ten apartments were discussed, one of the boilers had split open in
the apartment complex. Additionally, 26 apartments had been flooded by the
heavy rains this summer. He stated the magnitude of the problem was enormous
as evidenced by leaking roofs, balconys falling off, and some of the original
tenants in the building. He explained out of the 310 total units, 230 had been
recarpeted by Mr. Rozman and all of the hallways had been recarpeted. He also
noted the caliber of the tenants had improved considerably since Mr. Rozman
had taken over this complex. He further explained one of the big problems was in
the construction of the building which made the hallway temperatures extremely
hot. As a result of the heat in the hallways, tenants often times attempt to keep
the fire doors open by breaking the springs on the doors
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember
Fignar to defer a decision on the license renewal for Mr. Rozman and ask Mr.
Rozman to address the Council and provide for the Council a plan to deal with
the problems, to include priorities, a schedule of repairs, and a definite time-
9-25-78 -23-
table. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka,
and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING ON FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
The City Manager explained the reason a public hearing was held for Federal
Revenue Sharing was to give citizens a chance to provide input into the spending
of Federal Revenue Sharing funds, Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the
purposes of a public hearing on Federal Revenue Sharinga There was no one to
speak at the public hearing, The public hearing was closed.
- The Director of Finance explained Federal Revenue Sharing funds were for the
purpose of assisting State and local governments to provide services Federal '
Revenue Sharing funds were first established in 1 972 and changes were made in
the law in 1976. Federal Revenue Sharing funds are slated to be terminated in
September of 1980. Federal Revenue Sharing payments are made to the City on
quarterly basis. The funds are allocated based on tax effort, income per capita,
and population. As noted, changes were made in the Federal Revenue Sharing
program as a result of 1976 amendments to the law. As a result of the changes,
restrictions were lessened_ on the spending of money. Some of the restrictions
were still. maintained and these restrictions included the following requirements:
revenue sharing hearings, publication of certain information concerning the
expenditure of the funds, an audit every three years, a practice of nondiscrimination
in the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds, a use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds
which abides by fair labor standards, and the compilation of use reports.
The City of Brooklyn Center has followed a policy of using Federal Revenue
Sharing funds only for capital expenditures and for expenditures that do not
create on doing programs. The 1979 Budget proposal comprehends a proposal
to fund all capital outlay expenditures from Federal Revenue Sharing funds.
The Director of Finance noted there is a considerable increase in the proposed
use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds as compared to the past.
The Director of Finance briefly reviewed the proposed use of Federal Revenue
Sharing funds in the 1979 Budget within each departments
Councilmember Kuefler reminded other Council members of the Metropolitan
Municipalities Program scheduled to be held October 12, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Richfield Council Chambers.
LI CENSES
Motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve
the following list of licenses:
CIGARETTE LICENSE
104 E. 60Th St.
JEM Bowl, Inc.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE
Pyramid Petroleum Corp. 2605 County Road 10
9 -25 -78 -24-
i
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Knights of Columbus Auxillary 5307 Winchester Lane
(St. Alphonsus Flea Market)
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Del Air Conditioning, Inc. 9860 James Circle
Key Plumbing & Heating 9 63 6 - 85 th Ave No.
i
NONPERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
Frito Lay Company 9237 Penn Ave. So.
JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
PERISHABLE VENDING MACHINE LICENSE
JEM Bowl, Inc. 104 E. 60th St.
Earle Brown Bowl 6440 James Circle
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Rich M. Childers 6806 Regent Ave. No.
Lucille M. Irwin 5400,02 Russell Ave. No
Renewal:
Lloyd J. Waldusky Georgetown Park
Gale W. Pierce 5960 Brooklyn Blvd.
Keith L. Nordby 5964 Brooklyn Blvd.
Don R. McGillivray 5740 Dupont Ave. No.
Michael & Elizabeth Keiffer 5456 Emerson Ave, No.
Gary D. Anakkala 5412 - 1/2 Fremont No,
Donald L. Jensen 5547 Lynda Ave. No.
Kenneth W. Kunz 5601 Lyndale Ave. No.
Robert M. Zappa 7206,12 West River Rd.
Kenneth E. Patterson 3614 - 50th Ave. No.
Gary & Vickie Sodahl 610 - 53rd Ave. No.
Jack & Elizabeth Fahrenholz 620 - 53rd Ave. No.
Transfer:
Richard Weicht 5301 Dupont Ave. No.
Dennis Tollef son 5328,30 Queen Ave. No.
Eugene O. Klawitter 6725 West River Road
SIGN HANGER'S LICENSE
Cragg, Inc. 9636 - 85th Ave. No.
9 -25 -78 -25-
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,'Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, Lhotka,
and Scotto Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Mayor Nyquist and seconded by Councilmember Scott to adjourn the
meeting. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar,
Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none, The motion passed unanimously.
The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 11:50 p.m,
Clerk Mayor
9_25 -78 -26—
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
SPECIAL SESSION
SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met for a special budget meeting and was called
to order by Mayor Dean Nyquist at 7 :10 p.m,
ROLL CALL
Mayor Dean Nyquist, Councilmembers Tony Kuefler, and Celia Scott. Also present
were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director
of Public Works James Merila, and Administrative Assistant Mary Harty.
The City Manager stated the meeting was primarily for the purpose of reviewing the
proposed 1979 budget but prior to beginning the review. of the budget, the City
Manager asked the Council to consider a resolution appointing a member to the
Brooklyn Center Planning Area Citizen's Advisory Committee, which had been
deferred from the September 25, 1978 City Council meeting, The City Manager
noted Mr. Vernon Ausen had been contacted and agreed to serve on the Citizen
Advisory Committee.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -216
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoptions
RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBER TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING AREA
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted
in favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, and Celia Scott; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
The City Council recessed at 7:15 p.m in order to convene the scheduled HRA
meeting.
The City Council meeting was reconvened at 7 :45 p.m. following the conclusion
of the HRA meeting.
RESOLUTION NO, 78 -217
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE -THIRD MILL LEVY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING
THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 462.411 THROUGH
462.711, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE YEAR 1979
9-27-78 -1-
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, and Celia Scott; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -218
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATION FOR LANDSCAPING (CONTRACT 1978 -Q)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, and Celia Scott; and the following
voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly
passed and adopted,
The Engineering budget was reviewed. The City Manager noted the 1979 proposal
for the Engineering Department comprehends no additions of staff:- The capital
outlay portion of the budget provides for aerial mapping. The department 'intends
to obtain milars from Hennepin County of mapping of the City on a half section
format.
The Director of Public Works commented aerial photos would be taken of the
entire City. The photos would be purchased through Hennepin County through
joint purchasing and would be utilized by several departments within the City`
Engineering, Planning and Assessing. - The original of the aerial maps would
be purchased in order that copies and transparencies could be made from the
originals.
The Street Construction and Maintenance/Vehicle Maintenance budgets were
reviewed. The City Manager noted the 1979 proposal for this department compre-
hends no additions to the department's full time personnel. The City Manager
explained the Street Division will be returning to a seal coating program of
resealing every street on a five to seven year rotation. The Division had been
on an accelerated seal coating program but the catching up phase of the seal
coating program was completed. The City Manager noted the capital outlay
portion of the budget provides for the replacement of a front end loader which
deteriorated to such a point that overhauling the unit would be neither practical
nor economical.
In a response to questions from Councilmember Kuefler concerning the cost of
street maintenance materials, the Director of Public Works explained the cost
of street maintenance materials had increased considerably, some materials
increasing as much as 55 %. The Director of Public Works explained the cost
of salt had risen from $12 a ton to approximately $18 a ton.
In response to questions regarding personnel in this department, the City Manager
explained the difference in personnel requested and recommended in the 1979
proposed budget was due to CETA terminations. If CETA is refunded, the positions
will be restored.
9-27-78 -2
A brief discussion ensued concerning the organizational structure within the
City of Brooklyn Center which places both the Street Department and the Park
Department under the supervision of the Superintendent of Streets and Parks,
Mr. Hank Davis.
The Traffic Signals, Street Lighting, and the Weed Control budgets were reviewed.
The City Manager explained weed control was charged out as a special assessment
to property owners and comes back to the City as revenue. Additionally, an
administrative charge of $10 is levied for each special assessment for weed
eradication. Councilmember Kuefler suggested the City might wish to consider
raising that administrative fee to $25. The Director of Finance indicated the fee
may be set by Statutes.
The Health Regulation and Inspection budget was reviewed.
The Home Nursing budget was reviewed. The City Manager explained this budget
provides funds for home nursing and certain other services provided through contract
with the Suburban Health Nursing Services, Inc. The Director of Finance explained
the Suburban Health Nursing Services had not yet set their budget at the time of
this proposal. The Director of Finance explained it is anticipated the cost to
the City for set services will not exceed 40 per capita. That amount has been
proposed for 1979.
The Parka and Recreation budget was reviewed, The 1979 Parks and Recreation
budget proposal comprehends no additional personnel. In addition, the department
will lose a landscape technician position upon termination of the federally financed
CETA program. The 1979 proposal reflects the continuation. of the Dutch elm.,
disease control program. Additionally, the 1979 recreation proposal reflects a
continuation of recreation programs warranted by participation experience and
continues the emphasis on user charges to finance the program. One of the
capital outlay items recommended in the budget for the Park and Recreation Depart-
ment is a coin counter. The coin counter is being recommended to eliminate the
processing time which Park and Recreation staff spend counting and packaging
change. In the past, Park and Recreation personnel transported change to the
bank but this in itself is a costly arrangement because of the personnel time
needed to .transport the money. The purchase of a coin counter is more economical
in the long run.
Councilmember Scott asked for a clarification of the budget category for instructors.
The Director of Finance explained there were two types of instructors used in the
Park and Recreation Department. Instructors are categorized as hired under contract,
or hired and reflected as part of the City's personnel, under the control of the City.
The 1979 budget proposal comprehends all instructors hired under contract rather
than reflected as City employees.
1
In response to questions from the Council, the Director of Finance briefly explained
the new telephone system proposed and the savings which will be garnered from i
this new system.
9 -27 -78 -3=
Mayor Nyquist commented, in relationship to discussion on the Park and
Recreation budget, he had.received several complaints from citizens to the effect
that there was too much emphasis on outside teams and outside groups using
the facilities rather than local teams and local groups using the park and recre-
ational facilities. The City Manager indicated that criticism had been discussed
several times and it appears that many people living in surrounding communities
play on organized Brooklyn Center teams or participate in Brooklyn Center groups.
Additionally, criticisms of the use of baseball and softball diamonds, had been
assessed. This -issue was discussed at Park and Recreation Commission meetings
at which the public was invited to attend and express their views. Very little
response was received. Councilmember Kuefler indicated the Park and Recreation"
Commission has attempted and will continue to attempt to get a sense of the public
on this issue and will recommend a change if they feel it is needed. Presently
the Park and Recreation Commission does not feel a change in policy is needed.
The unallocated departmental expense budget was reviewed. The City Manager
noted this appropriation is intended to provide funds for expenses which cannot
be allocated directly to a City operating department. Included in the unallocated
f departmental expense is a provision for final wage and benefit adjustments for
personnel whose positions are comprehended in this budget and a contingency
appropriation. The City Charter provides for a contingency appropriation not to
exceed 3% of the total general fund appropriation for a respective year. The
contingency is analogous to a private business fund reserved for an unanticipated
need of significance. The City Manager further noted the unallocated departmental
expense budget is a new account for 1979. The cost of the City's insurance
has increased dramatically in the last several years and now these increases
will be reflected in the unallocated departmental expense budget. Other items
included in this budget are certain data processing costs, the training and
conference budget, and the cost for the purchase and installation of the new
telephone system for City Hallo The City Manager explained, in the past,
I certain items were reflected. in the City Manager's budget or the Council budget
when in fact, this was an inappropriate place to list the" money, artificially
inflating those budgets.
Councilmember Scott questioned whether or not matching funds for the senior
citizen's bus shelter could be taken from this budget. The City Manager explained
the shelter should have been built but there was a lawsuit over the bidding process.
The bidding. process was handled by the Metropolitan Transit Commission. The
City Manager indicated the City was prepared to undertake the project even if
funds are not available from the service clubs in Brooklyn Center for the amount
which Brooklyn Center must contribute to the building. That amount is 10% of
the total cost not to exceed $500.
In response to questions concerning the new telephone system proposed, the
City Manager explained there would bean approximate 40% savings of the annual
service expense once the new system was installed which would be a net savings i
of approximately. $15, 000 per year. .
i
Councilmember Lhotka arrived at 8:30 p.m.
9 -27 -78 -4-
5
The City Manager referred Council members to a memorandum which he had
prepared for them concerning questions raised at an earlier budget meeting. The
• City Manager inquired whether there were additional questions on the issues
raised in the memorandum,
Councilmember Kuefler spoke concerning the question of detached workers.
Councilmember Kuefler suggested the Council should consider making the detached
workers part of the police budget. The Police Department has the closest affiliation
and would be in the best position to make recommendations concerning the handling
of the Detached Worker Program.
The City Manager noted there could be a problem with placing the detached workers
within the Police Department budget because of a possible question as to whether
or not the de- tacked workers are "essential employees" as defined in the Public
Employees Labor Relations Act. Part of the criteria in determining whether or not
m an essential employee is t
he et. Councilmember bud
a articular employee ee is e s g
P P Y
Kuefler indicated he also was concerned with this and withdrew his original
suggestion.
Councilmember Kuefler asked for a clarification concerning the additional people
added in Public Utilities and Finance. Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether
or not additional personnel were needed in light of the fact that the Finance
Department was becoming increasingly computerized.
The Director of Finance explained, prior to computerization of the utility billing,
2 -1 f2 to 3 people were employed in the utility billing function. With the addition
of one person in the utility billing area, there are now two people. The Director
of Finance noted - additional services are being provided. The Chief's Accountant
position, as proposed, would include work in the utility billing area as well as
internal auditing.
Mayor Nyquist inquired whether or not the City Manager, after approximately one
year in the position, was in a position to evaluate whether or not there was excess
personnel in the City. The City Manager indicated it did not appear there was
excess personnel in the City.
In discussion of the aerial pumper ladder as proposed in the Fire Protection budget,
Councilmember Kuefler indicated he had spoken with Councilmember Fignar and
Councilmember Fignar favors the purchase of the aerial pumper ladder.
Councilmember Kuefler noted he favored the telescoping aerial ladder with the
prepiped deluge because this piece of equipment appears to be the soundest type
of aerial equipment.
In discussion of the budget for Legal Counsel, the Director of Finance recommended
increasing the legal counsel budget as per the suggested amount in the City Attorney's
. memorandum. The Director of Finance indicated it would be possible to include the
additional amount in the budget because of certain increased projected revenues
and the fact that an additional police officer was not being hired, which leaves
9 -27 -78 -5-
money which would have been used to send the new officer to recruit school.
The Council briefly discussed the summary of the proposed 1979 appropriations
by object classifications for all budgeted City funds.
The Council recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m. •
Councilmember Kuefler stated he would like to see taxes reduced to approximately
a 7°l increase over last year. Councilmember Kuefler noted he understood certain
parts of the budget had increased considerably and that those increases were
unavoidable such as workmen's compensation and pensions. He suggested possibly
reducing the amount proposed for the contingency fund if a large part of the '$85, 000
in the 1978 contingency fund would be carried over to 1979.. He noted he felt
departmental budgets were as lean as they could be.
Councilmember Scott noted she was satisfied with the budget as proposed.
The Director of Finance stated contingency needs are difficult to predict. In the
last three years the City of Brooklyn Center has been fortunate in not having to
dip into surplus funds. He further noted certain items are not budget after thoughts
but certain opportunities arise after the budget has been adopted which can be of
real benefit to the City if the City has the money to take advantage of those
opportunities. Additionally, departments are instructed not to build contingencies
into their own departmental budgets because the City does establish a City
contingency fund. The Director of Finance has carefully evaluated the spending
pa,ti:erns of the City departments and there is not a rush to spend funds at the
year end. •
Councilmember Kuefler also asked whether it would be appropriate to take the
insurance proceeds from the old LEAP building and put that money into the
general fund.
The City Manager noted it was his recommendation to put that insurance money
in the capital improvement funds so as not to artificially inflate the general fund for
one year.
Councilmember Lhotka noted he was satisfied with the budget as proposed.
Councilmember Kuefler indicated, after listening to comments by the City Manager
and the Director of Finance, he was convinced that the contingency fund should be
left as proposed. He added it was his desire to reduce the mill levy but he did
not have a recommendation as to where the reduction could be realized.
Councilmember Kuefler asked the Council whether or not they wished to address
the CEAP issue in the budgeting process.
Councilmember Lhotka indicated it was his feeling the award given at an earlier
Council meeting for $115,000 was the final award and the agreed upon award.
i
Councilmember Scott noted she did not feel the Council had "done right" by ,
LEAP. She stated the situation does not look good for CEAP because of the
possibility. of the need for a site and having to purchase the land for a site.
9-27-78 ; .-6-
Councilmember Scott asked whether the use of Community. Development funds
was being checked.
The City Manager noted staff was checking whether Community Development
funds could be used for CEAP but timing may be a problem.
Councilmember Scott also asked whether or not the. interest which accrued on
the $115, 000 before the money was actually given to CEAP could also be given
to CEAP. The Director of Finance noted that would be a policy decision
In further discussion, the Council concurred the proposed budget was acceptable.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -219
Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 1979 BUDGET
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -220 -
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A TAX LEVY FOR 1979 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon.vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and
the following voted against the same:: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -221
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO CANCEL LEVY PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Celia Scott, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -222
Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO CANCEL. LEVY PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR
9-27-78 -7-
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Tony Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Gene Lhotka, and Celia Scott; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember
Kuefler to adjourn the Special Session. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilmembers Kuefler, Lhotka, and Scott. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m,
Clerk Mayor
9-27-78 -8-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
FROM: Laurie Thompson, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: Performance Bonds Recommended for Release
DATE: October ll 1978
I ,
The following performance bonds are recommended for release. The projec'Its
these bonds support no longer exist, and any new approved site improvemehts
would be covered by a bond submitted by the current developer.
1. Release $7,000.00 submitted by Tire City, Inc. for the
property located at 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard
(Planning Commission Application No. 75042)
i
i
Ap
PP � C� zsc.- e-- .�...�
Director of P nd spection i
I�
I
I
I
I
-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
D A T A S H E E T
for
Public Hearing
ATE October 16, 1978
1. PROJECT: Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -4
On an easement from an existing water main 5' N of the City
2. LOCATION limits & 210' W of T.H. 152 w'ly & s'ly into Brooklyn Center
crossing T.H. 152,
3. DATE PETITION RECEIVED: July 20, 1978
4, ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $19;200,00
50 ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT RATE: Proration (See remarks below
6, ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 20 years
7. NUMBER OF PARCELS TO BE ASSESSED: 3
8. NUMBER OF PARCELS SIGNING PETITION: 3
9. PERCENT SIGNING PETITION: 100
10. PARCELS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 2
11.- PARCELS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES:—
12. BID DATE: October 11, 1978
13. PROBABLE COMPLETION DATE: November 30, 1978
REMARKS; Assessment to be distributed as agreed to by affected property
owners in the following manner:
1. T.H. 152 crossing & line on east 100% to 7240 Brooklyn
side of T.H. 152>; Blvd.
2. Westerly side of T.H. 152: UP% to 7240 Brooklyn Bd.
50 to prop. on west sic
3. The cost to properties on the west side of T.H. 152 is
distributed on a per acre basis, plus cost of services.
1000/0 50°� Total
Parcel 6400 $11,093 3931 $15,024
6223 (2.56 Ac . � 3:507 * 3, 669
6212 _ 1 Ac) 4
*Plus service cost of $245 X$19,300
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Mi.nnesota.55430
D A T A S H E E T
for
Public Hearing
DATE: < October 16, 1978
1. PROJECT: Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5
On an easement from an existing sanitary sewer manhole 15'
2. LOCATION: north of the City limits and approx. 204' west of T.H. 152,
westerly & southerly into Brooklyn Center crossing T.H. 152
3. DATE PETITION RECEIVED: July 20, 197`
4. ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $26,200.00
5: ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT RATE: Proration (See remarks below)
6. ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 20 years
7. NUMBER OF PARCELS TO BE ASSESSED: 3
$. NUMBER OF PARCELS SIGNING PETITION: 3
9. PERCENT SIGNING PETITION: 100°/
10. PARCELS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 2
11. PARCELS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES: 1
12. BID DATE =. October 11 1978
13. PROBABLE COMPLETION-DATE: November 30, -1978
REMARKS: Assessment to be distributed as agreed to by affected_ property
owners in the following manner:
1. T.H. 152 crossing & line on east 100% to 7240 Brooklyn
side of T.H. 152: Blvd.
2. Westerly side of T.H. 152: 50% to 7240 Brooklyn Bd.
50% to prop. on west si e.
3. The cost to p roperties on the west side of T.H. 152 is
distributed on a per acre basis, plus cost of services.
s 100•% 50•/ Total
Parcel 6400 $11,265 $7,271 $18,536
Parcel 6223(2.56A) 6,485 6,485
Parcel 6212(.31A) 786* 1.189
*Plus service cost of $403. $26,210-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'
Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301
Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, October 16, 1978, at 8:00 o'clock
p.m., central daylight time, for a public hearing on the proposed
improvements as follows
Estimated
Project No. Improvement Cost
1978 -4 Water main beginning 5 feet north of the
City limits of Brooklyn Center at an existing`
water main in Brooklyn Park approximately
210 feet west of the Brooklyn Boulevard
(T.H. 152) right -of -way; thence east along
the City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard; thence
southeasterly approximately 165 feet along
the southeast edge of said right -of -way;
thence across Brooklyn Boulevard to a point
approximately 55 feet south of the City
limits on the northeast right -of -way line
of Brooklyn Boulevard. $17,200.00
1978 -5 Sanitary sewer beginning 15 feet north of
the City limits of Brooklyn Center at an
existing sanitary sewer manhole approx-
imately 204 feet west of Brooklyn Boulevard
(T.H. 152) right -of -way; thence east along
the City limits to Brooklyn Boulevard; thence
southeasterly- approximately 160 feet along
the southeast edge of said right -of- way; thence
across Brooklyn Boulevard to point approx-
imately 44 feet south of the City limits on
the northeast right -of -way line of Brooklyn
Boulevard. $20,000.00
The general nature of the improvements is above set forth.
The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements consists of
the following:
ALL LOTS AND PARCELS ABUTTING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED
STREETS AND /OR TO BE BENEFITED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS.
The Council - proposes to proceed under, authority granted by
Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes,
Allen S. Lindman
City Clerk
Dated: September 25, 1978 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Published in the Brooklyn Center Post October 5 and October 12,'1978.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA RING FOR IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that the Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center,. Minnesota, will meet at the City Hall, 6301
Shingle Creek Parkway, on Monday, October 16 1978, at 8:00 o'clock
p.m., central daylight time, for a public hearing on the proposed
improvements as follows:
Estimated"
Project No. Improvement Cost
1978 -31 Trunk water main in- proposed Unity Avenue
North ( Outlot A, The Ponds) from 940 feet
north of the centerline of 69th Avenue
North northerly approximately 1,300 feet. $ 44,200.00
1978 -32 Storm sewer in proposed Unity Avenue North
from a point approximately 1,_270 feet north
of 69th Avenue North running northwesterly
approximately 130 feet in Unity; Avenue Circle;
thence northerly on an easement a distance
of approximately 150 feet.` $ 12,900.00
1978 -33 Street grading, base & Surfacing on proposed
Unity Avenue North ( Outlot A, The Ponds) from
900 feet north of the centerline of 69th
Avenue North northerly approximately
600 feet. $ 17,600.00
1978 -34 Curb & gutter on proposed Unity Avenue North
( Outlot A, The Ponds) from 900 feet north
of the centerline of 69th Avenue North
northerly approximately 600 feet. $ 13,000.00
1978 -35 Storm sewer along proposed Unity Avenue
North from the westerly extension of the
south line of Outlot F, The Ponds, northerly
approximately 400 feet. $ 26,500.00
1978 -36 Street grading, base & surfacing along pro-
posed Unity Avenue North from the westerly
extension of the south line of Outlot F,
The Ponds, northerly approximately 780 feet
to 73rd Avenue North. $ 24,100.00
Y Estimated
Project No. Improvement Cost
1978 -37 Curb & gutter along proposed Unity Avenue
North from the westerly extension of the
south line of Outlot F, The Ponds, northerly
approximately 780 feet to 73rd Avenue North. $ 15,500.00
The general nature of the improvements is above set forth.
The area proposed to be assessed for said improvements consists of
the following:
ALL LOTS AND PARCELS ABUTTING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED
STREETS AND /OR TO BE BENEFITED BY THE IMPROVEMENTS.
The Council proposes to proceed under authority granted by
Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes.
Alden S. Lindman
City, Clerk
Dated: September 25, 1978 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Published in the Brooklyn Center Post October 5, and October 12, 1978.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
D A T A S H E E T
for
Public Hearing
DATE October 16, 1978
1. PROJECT: Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -31
Proposed Unity Ave. from 940' north of the centerline of
2. LOCATION: 69th Ave -. No. northerly approximately 1300'.
3 DATE PETITION :RECEIVED: August 10 1978
4, ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING $67,000.00
$14.47 foot of frontage, $4.46/100 sq.
5. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT RATE ft. of area, plus cost of services
6, ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 20 years
7. NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE ASSESSED: 2845.31 assessable feet, • 790 78 sq. . ft
8. NUMBER OF UNITS SIGNING PETITION: All
9. PERCENT SIGNING PETITION: - 100°/
10, UNITS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 100'
11. UNITS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES: None
12. BID DATE: October 30, 1978
13 PROBABLE COMPLETION DATE: December 15, 1978
REMARKS:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway'
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
D A T A S H E E T
for
Public Hearing
DATE: October 16, 1978
1. PROJECT: Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -32
From Unity Ave. No. at a point approx. 1,450' north of 69th
2. LOCATION: running westerly 200' on an 'easement.
3. !DATE PETITION RECEIVED August 10, 1978
4. ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $14,400.00
5. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT RATE: $3,501,00/ Acre
6. ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 20 years.
7. NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE ASSESSED: 4.113 Acres
8. NUMBER OF UNITS SIGNING PETITION: 4.113 Acres
9. PER CENT SIGNING PETITION: 100•
10. UNITS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 4.113 Acres
11. UNITS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES: none
12. BID DATE: October 30, 1978
13. PROBABLE COMPLETION DATE: November 30, 1978
REMARKS:
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
DATA SHEET
FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: October 16, 1978
1. PROJECT: Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Project No. 1978 -33
Proposed Unity Ave. No. from 900' north of the centerline
2. LOCATION: of 69th 'Ave. No., northerly approx. 600 feet.
3. DATE PETITION RECEIVED: August 10, 1978
4 ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $18,3 0 0. 00 *
S. ASSESSMENT : _ To be ,covered bV developer bond
6. NUMBER OF UNITS SIGNING PETITION: All
7, PER CENT SIGNING PETITION: 100
$. UNITS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 100
9. UNITS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES: -0-
10. BID DATE: October 16,-1978
11. PROBABLE COMPLETION DATE: Gravel base by 'December 15, 1978, and
remainder by May 15, 1979
REMARKS: *Based on bids received October 16, 1978
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
DATA S H E E T
FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
;SATE: October 16, 1978
1, PROJECT: & Gutter IMrovement Project No, 1978 -34
Proposed Unity Ave. No. from 900' north of the centerline
2. LOCATION: of 69th Ave. No., northerly approx. 600'
r _
3. DATE PETITION RECEIVED: Aucrust 10, 1978
4. ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $15,000.00*
5. ASSESSMENT: To be covered by developer bond
6. NUMBER OF UNITS SIGNING PETITION All
7. PER CENT SIGNING PETITION: 100
a. UNITS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 100'
5. UNITS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES: -0-
10. BID DATE October 16,,:1978
11. PROBABLE. COMPLETION DATE: May 15, 1979
REMARKS: *Based on bids received October'16, 1978
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
D A T A S H E E T
for
Public Hearing
DATE: October 16, 1978
1. PROJECT. Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -35
Along proposed Unity Ave. No. from the westerly extension of
2. LOCATION.: the S line of OL F, The Ponds, northerly approx. 400'
3. DATE PETITION RECEIVED: August 10,_1978
4. ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $26,500.00
5. ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT RATE: ,$1,610.65 /Acre
6. ASSESSMENT PERIOD: _20 years
7. NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE ASSESSED: 16.453 Acres
8`. NUMBER OF UNITS SIGNING PETITION: 16.453 Acres-
9. PER CENT SIGNING PETITION: 100°/ ,
10. UNITS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 16.453 Acres
11. UNITS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES: None
12, BID DATE: _ October 30, 1978
13. PROBABLE COMPLETION DATE: November 30, 1978
REMARKS.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn center, Minnesota 55430
D A T A S H E E T
FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
HATE: October 16, 1978
1, PROJECT: Street Grading,,Base & Surfacing Project No. 1978.. -36
Along proposed Unity Ave. ''No. `from the westerly extension of
2. LOCATION south lime of OL. F, The Ponds, N'ly approx. 780' to 73r
Ave. No.
3. DATE PETITION RECEIVED. August 10, 1978
4. ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $24,100.00*
5. ASSESSMENT: To be covered by developer bond
6. NUMBER OF UNITS SIGNING PETITION All
7. PER CENT SIGNING> PETITION: 100'
8. UNITS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 100
"9. UNITS OWNED BY PRIVATE PARTIES: -0-
10. BID DATE: October 16, 1978
11. PROBABLE COMPLETION DATE: Gravel base by December 15, 1978 and
remainder by May 15, 1979.
REMARKS : ._ *Based on bids received October 16, 1978
I
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
630f Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
D A T A S H E E T
FOR
PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: October 16, 1978
I. PROJECT: Curb &`Gutter Project No. 1978 -37
Along proposed unity Ave. from the westerly extension, of the
2. LOCATION: south line of OL F, The Ponds, n'ly approx. 780' to 73rd Av
3e DATE PETITION RECEIVED: August 10, 1978
4e ESTIMATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: $37,200.00*
5. ASSESSMENT: To be covered bV developer bond
6. NUMBER OF UNITS SIGNING PETITION: All
7. PER CENT SIGNING PETITION: 100°1
8. UNITS OWNED BY DEVELOPER: 100
'9e UNITS OWNED: BY PRIVATE PARTIES: -0-
10. BID DATE: October 16, 1978
11. PROBABLE COMPLETION DATE: Mai 15, "1979
114NRKS: *Based on bids - received October 16, 1978
e
1� CITY OF
�� r - FORT LAUDERDALE
t" FLORIDA
P.O. DRAWER 14250 33302
E. CLAY SHAW, JR.
MAYOR
September 15, 1978
Dear Mayor:
I have been honored by the Laymen's National Bible Committee,
Inc. to be the Chairman of the Mayors' Committee for the 38th
Inter -Faith National Bible Week.
Our country and our laws were founded on the principles and
teachings of the Bible which have strengthened the moral and
legal systems of our government. Our personal lives are shaped
and edified by these scriptures.
As Chairman of the Mayors' Committee, ask you to Join with my
family and me in proclaiming November 19 - 26, 1978 as "Bible Week"
in your city.
Very tr y
E. Clay Sh , Jr
Mayor
M
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con -
sideration of proposed Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -4.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 1
RESOLUTION ORDERING WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1978 -4
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following, improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -4
Water main beginning 5 feet north of the City limits of
Brooklyn Center at an existing water main in Brooklyn
Park approximately 210 feet west of the Brooklyn Boulevard
(T.H. 152) right -of -way; thence east along the City limits
to Brooklyn Boulevard; thence southeasterly approximately
165 feet along the southeast edge of said right -of -way;
thence across Brooklyn Boulevard to a point approximately
55 feet south of the City limits on the northeast
right -of -way line of Brooklyn Boulevard.
The estimated cost is $19,200.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
C er
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con-
sideration of proposed Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5.'
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being; on
October 12, 1978 which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1978 -5
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project 110 . 1978 -5
Sanitary sewer beginning 15 feet north of the City limits
of Brooklyn Center at an existing sanitary sewer manhole
approximately 204 feet west of Brooklyn Boulevard (T.H. 152)
right -of- way; thence east along the City limits to Brooklyn
Boulevard; thence southeasterly approximately 160 feet
along the southeast edge of said right -of -way; thence
across Brooklyn Boulevard to a point approximately 44
feet south of the City limits on the northeast right -of
way line of Brooklyn Boulevard.
The estimated cost is $26,200.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Y
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con -
sideration of proposed Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -31.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found sans-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 1
RESOLUTION ORDERING WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NO. 1978 -31
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following- improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -3
Trunk water main in proposed Unity Avenue North
(Outlot A, The Ponds) from 940 feet north of the
centerline of 69th Avenue North northerly approx-
imately 1,300 feet.
The estimated cost is $67,000.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
/C
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con-
side-ration of proposed Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -32.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being, on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTIONi NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1978 -32
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -32
Storm sewer from Unity Avenue North at a point
approximately 1,450 feet north of 69th Avenue
North, running westerly 200 feet on an easement
The estimated cost is $14,400.00.
ate Mayor
ATTEST:
C er
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con -
sideration of proposed Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Project
No. 1978 -33.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 110.
RESOLUTION ORDERING STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -33
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -3
Street grading, base & surfacing on proposed Unity
Avenue North (Outlot A, The Ponds) from 900 feet
north of the centerline of 69th Avenue North northerly
it
approximately 600 feet.
The estimated cost is $17,600.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
- seconded by member and upon .vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
JG
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con-
sideration of proposed Curb & Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -34.
• , The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1978 -34.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -34
Curb & gutter on proposed Unity Avenue North
(Outlot A, The Ponds) from 900 feet north of
the centerline of 69th Avenue North northerly
` approximately 600 feet.
The estimated cost is $13,000.00.
M
Date Mavor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
• seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the ,following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con-
sideration of proposed Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -35.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file,
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTIONd NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1978 -35.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -35
Storm sewer along proposed Unity Avenue North from
the westerly extension of the south line of Outlot
F, The Ponds, northerly approximately 400 feet.
The estimated cost is $26,500.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
C er
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
• seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con -
sideration of proposed Street Grading, Base & Surfacing Improvement
!, Project No. 1978 -36.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being; on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After'hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 110.
RESOLUTION ORDERING STREET GRADING, BASE & SURFACING
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1978 -36
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the Citv and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -36
Street grading, base & surfacing along proposed Unity
Avenue North from the westerly extension of the south
line of Outlot F, The Ponds, northerly aplx oximately
780 feet to 73rd Avenue North.
The estimated cost is $24,100.00.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
M
The Mayor announced that the meeting was open for the con -
sideration of proposed Curb &Gutter Improvement Project No. 1978 -37.
The Clerk produced an affidavit of publication of notice of
hearing on the proposed improvement showing two weeks' publication
thereof in the official newspaper, the last publication being on
October 12, 1978, which affidavit was examined and found satis-
factory and ordered placed on file.
The Mayor then called upon all property owners present to
present arguments either for or against the proposed improvement.
After °hearing and considering all objections, and the property
owners appearing in favor of said improvement, member
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 110.
RESOLUTION ORDERING CURB & GUTTER IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 1978 -37
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that it is hereby determined that it is necessary
and for the best interests of the City and the owners of property
specially benefitted thereby, that the following improvement shall be
constructed:
Project No. 1978 -3
Curb & utter along proposed Unit Avenue North from
� g P Po y m o
the westerly extension of the south line of Outlot F,
The Ponds, northerly approximately 780 feet to 73rd
Avenue North.
The estimated cost is $35,500.00.
I
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by member and upon vote being taken
• thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
• RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING STORM SEWER PROJECT NO. 1978 -32
AND RESOLUTIONS NO. 78 -177 AND 78 -205
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1978, the Brooklyn Center City Council
adopted Resolution No. 78 -177 establishing and ordering preparation
of plans and specifications for Storm Sewer Improvement Project No.
1978 -32; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1978, the Brooklyn Center City Council
adopted Resolution No. 78 -205 providing for public hearing on said
Storm Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -32; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared final plans for said
improvement and with final design has deemed it advantageous to the
developer and the City to revise the location of the proposed storm
sewer; and
WHEREAS, the developer concurs with the proposed change in
location of said storm sewer; and
WHEREAS, the proposed storm sewer revision does not change the
area benefiting from said storm sewer project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center that that portion of Resolution Nos. 78 -177 and
78 -205 relative to the description of Storm Sewer Improvement Project
No. 1978 --32 is hereby amended to read as follows:
1978 -32 - Storm Sewer
From Unity Avenue North at a point approximately 1,450
feet north of 69th Avenue North, running westerly 200
feet on an easement.
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 PERTAINING TO MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT AGREEMENT NO. 59271 REGARDING IMPROVEMENT
OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS ON T.H. 152 AT 55TH AVENUE
NORTH AND 71ST AVENUE NORTH.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the City of Brooklyn Center enter into an agreement
with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, for the
following purposes, to wit:
To remove the existing signal and to install a new
traffic control signal with street lights on Trunk
Highway No. 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) at 55th Avenue
North and to revise the traffic control signals on
Trunk Highway No. 152 (Brooklyn Boulevard) at 71st
Avenue North in accordance with the terms and
conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No.
59271, a copy of which was before the Council, and
2. That the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized
to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the
City all of the contractual obligations contained therein; and
3. That $15,981.41 be appropriated from State Aid Construction
Account No. 2611 for the City of Brooklyn Center's share of said
Agreement No. 59271.
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 1 ``t
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
• RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
RELATIVE TO PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE TO BROOKLYN
CENTER PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
NORTHERLY OF SHINGLE CREEK.
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Park has indicated that the
City of Brooklyn Center property owners along Brooklyn Boulevard
northerly of Shingle Creek would be allowed to connect to Brooklyn
Park's utility lines located adjacent to the City limits approximately
210 feet west of Brooklyn Boulevard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Brooklyn
Center authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute an agreement
with the City of Brooklyn Park relative to providing utility service
to Brooklyn Center property owners along Brooklyn Boulevard northerly
of Shingle Creek.
Date Mayor
C 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.
a
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION. NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND APPROVING CONTRACT FORM
`(UTILITY CONTRACT 1978 -0)
WHEREAS, the City Clerk and the City Engineer have reported
that on October 11, 1978, at 11 :00 o'clock A.M., central daylight time,
they opened and tabulated bids received for Contract 1978 -0, consisting
of Water Main Improvement Project Nos. .1978 -4, 1978 -31, & 1978 -40A;
Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5; and Storm Sewer Improve-
ment Project Nos. 1978 -32 & 1978 -35, and that said bids were as follows:
Project Nos.
Project Nos. 1978 -31, 32,
Contractor 1978 -4 & 5 35 & 40A Total Bid
Deluxe Construction $36,326.30 $ 90,310.65 $ 126,636.95
Nodland & Associates 47,421.00 134,202.00 181,623.00
Erwin Montgomery 38,068.00 148,563`.50 186,631.50
and;
WHEREAS, on October 12, 1978, DeLuxe Construction, Inc. notified
the City that they can not accept the.contract because a $16,000.00
error relative to de- watering costs was made in their bid for said
contract; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the work sheets used by
DeLuxe Construction, Inc., for preparation of bid for said contract and
has verified that the said $16,000.00 error was made in said bid
preparation; and
WHEREAS, DeLuxe Construction, Inc. has agreed to accept a contract
for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -4 and Sanitary Sewer Improve-
ment,Project No. 1978 -5 and
WHEREAS, the Special Provisions of the General Conditions of said,
contract permits the City to delete any of the projects from the contract
and award the remaining projects to the.lowest' bidder for the projects
in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends and the City Manager concurs
that it is to the.'City's best interest to reject the bids received for
Water Main Improvement Project Nos. 1978 -31 and 40A, and Storm Sewer
Improvement Project No. 1978 -32 and 35, but to accept the low bid of
DeLuxe Construction, Inc. for Water Main Improvement Project No. 1978 -4
and Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project No. 1978 -5; and
"Rer;a ution No
WHEREAS, an agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and
Brooklyn Park relative to authorizing the connection of Water Main
Improvement Project No. 1978 -4 and Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project
No. 1978 -5 to the City of Brooklyn Park utility system is pending
execution by the City of Brooklyn Park,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The bids received for Water Main Improvement Project Nos.
1978 -31 & 4OA and Storm Sewer Improvement Project Nos.
1978 -32 & 35 of Contract 1978 -0 be rejected and said
projects be hereby deleted from Contract 197870.
2. The bid of DeLuxe Construction, Inc. for Water Main
Improvement Project No. 1978 -4 and ;Sanitary ,Sewer
7
Imp rovement Pro ject No. 1978 -5 in the amount of $36,326,30
p
as to furnishing all work, labor & material in connection
with the above mentioned improvement projects, according
to the plans and specifications therefor now on file in the
�
office of the City Clerk, is deemed to-be the lowest and
r best bid for said work by a responsible bidder, and said
bid is hereby accepted with the condition that if the
agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn
Park relative to said projects, pending execution by the
City of Brooklyn Park, is not executed by the City of
Brooklyn Park by November 10, 1978, the acceptance of said
bid is nullified.
3. To authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a
contract with said bidder after the above condition is -
satisfied.
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 DIRECTING READVERTISEMEN'I FOR BIDS FOR
SALT STORAGE BUILDING PROJECT NO. 1978 -43 (CONTRACT 1978 -R)
WHEREAS, on September 25, 1978, the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center adopted Resolution No. 78 -211 approving plans and
specifications for Salt Storage Building Project No. 1978 -43 and
directed advertisement for bids with the bid date set for Wednesday,
October 25, 1978, at 11 :00 a.m., central daylight time; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that additional
time be allowed to contractors for preparation of bids for said contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the City Clerk shall readvertise
for bids Salt Storage Building Project No. 1978 -43 in accordance
with Resolution No. 78 -211 with the new bid date set for Wednesday,
November 8, 1978, at 11 :00'a.m., central standard time.
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 n
Member introduced the following r esolution a nd
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 14, 000 SQUARE
FEET OF 1-1/2" FR STYROFOAM DELIVERED
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 14,000 square .feet 1-1/2" FR styrofoam and has determined that the
quotation of Insulation Sales Company in the amount of 39� /square foot
($5,460.00) for 14,000 square feet of 1 -1/2" FR styrofoam 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 14,000 square feet of 1 -1/2" FR styrofoam in the amount of
$5,460.00 from Insulation Sales 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 1 -1/2 " FR Styrofoam
_ (14,000 square feet) Delivered
Per Sq. Ft
Federal Lumber Company 404
Twin City Insulation 444
Insulation Sales Company 394
(37 -1/24 picked up)
(30 1 delivery)
(394 4 deliveries)
L
•
I
Member introduced - the following resolution and
• moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1978 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
TO ASSIGN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CAR TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, Section 7.09 of - the City Charter of 'the City of Brooklyn
Center provides for a contingency appropriation as a part of - the General Fund
Budget and further provides that the contingency appropriation may be trans
ferred to any other appropriation by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 1977 the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center adopted a budget for - the calendar year 1978; and
WHEREAS, 'the City Council did approve an appropriation of $150 per
month for use of personal auto by - the City Manager for - the year 1979; and
WHEREAS, there is an immediate need in the Police Department for one
additional squad car due to personnel changes:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council 'of Brooklyn
Center - to amend the 1978 General Fund Budget - to assign car number 46 - to - the
Police Department by - transferring $375 from - the Contingency Appropriation
(Account No. 01- 4995 - 000 -82) to the City Manager's Use of Personal Auto
Appropriation (Account No. 01- 4334 - 000 -13) .
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;
i
and the following voted against - the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Jim Lindsay, Chief of Police
DATE: October 11, 1978
SUBJECT: Request for Assignment of an Additional Police Vehicle
The Police Department has a need for an additional vehicle as a result of personnel
assignments within the department.
Effective October 1, 1978, Joel Downer was assigned the duties of Police Sergeant.
This brought the total number of sergeants to five. On October 8, 1978, Sgt. Weeks
was placed in charge of the investigative function of the department. These assignments
place three investigators,plus the Investigative Sergeant, on duty during the daytime.
The department has two vehicles assigned to the investigative function.
There were problems in the past with three investigators assigned to the same
shift, utilizing two vehicles. The problem has been compounded by adding a fourth
person to the investigative function. There is obviously periods of time when
investigators are restricted in their duties due to this vehicle situation.
It is requested that a City staff car be reassigned to the Police Department.
The addition of one car will provide the department the opportunity of a third
vehicle to the investigative function. The assignment would also allow the out -
fitting of the sergeant's vehicle with red lights to provide the department with
a total of six (6) marked vehicles. Currently, the sergeants vehicle is unmarked
so that it can be. used either by patrol or investigation as a fill -in when other
vehicles are out of service.
The recommendation for an additional police vehicle fully equipped has been
approved in the 1979 budget. Assignment of a vehicle at this time will lessen
the car assignment problem with the personnel changes stated above.
VS
I
i
AGENCY PULES APC 9
CHAPTER NINE: APC 9
APC 9 Control of Odors in the Ambient Air
(a) Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation
and enforcement of this regulation and the following words. and terms
wherever they occur in this regulation are defined as follows:
(1) Ambient air shall mean that portion of the atmosphere external to
buildings to which the general public has access.
(2) Odor concentration unit shall mean the number of standard cubic
feet of odor -free air needed to dilute each cubic foot of contaminated air
so that at least 50 percent of the odor concentration test panel does not
detect any odor in the diluted mixture.
(3) Odor emission rate shall mean the product of the number of
r standard cubic feet per minute of air or other gases emitted from a suspected
odor pollution source and the number of odor concentration units deter-
mined for that source.
• (4) Odor source shall be defined as to include but not be limited to
any stack, chimney, vent, window, opening, lagoon, basin, catch - basin, pond,
open tank, storage tank, storage pile, or any organic or inorganic discharge
- and /or application which emits odorous gas, gases or particulates.
(b) Odorous Air Pollution Prohibited. No person shall cause, permit or
allow emission into the ambient air of odorous air contaminants in excess
of the standards and parameters of section (c). Such excessive emissions are
air pollution in one or more of the ways enumerated in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 116.06, Subdivisions 2 and 3,
(c) Odor Emission Limits. Violation of APC 9 shall be any discharge
of air contaminants in excess of the following odor emission limits:
(1) Odor sources emitting from well- defined stacks 50 feet or more
above grade elevation and with adequate dispersion characteristics as deter-
mined by the Agency shall not emit odors in greater than 150 odor concen-
tration units.
(2) Odor sources of less than 50 feet elevation above grade or otherwise
failing to create good dispersion conditions as determined by the Agency
shall not emit more than 25 odor concentration units.
(3) No odor source shall have an odor emission rate in excess of
1,000,000 odor concentration units per minute.
(4) No odor source shall emit air contaminants into the ambient air
which cause odor outside the alleged polluter's property line in excess of
the following limitations:
(aa) One odor unit in areas zoned residential, recreational, institu-
tional, retail sales, hotel or educational.
(bb) Two odor units in areas zoned light industrial
(cc) Four odor units in areas zoned other than 'in subsections (aa)
and (bb) above.
(d) Odor Testing. Odor testing shall be conducted as follows:
(1) Odor tes s shall be conducted by the Agency or under Agency
supervision and advisement,
37
I
1
i
I
i
4
APC 9 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL
1
j (2) Odor test panel members shall be selected or approved by the
Agency.
(3) Ambient air samples containing the alleged odorous air pollution
obtained downwind and outside the property line of the alleged polluter,
and samples of the air contaminant from the odor source allegedly causing
the odorous air pollution shall be obtained.
(4) Procedures for obtaining such samples and presenting such 'samples
to the test panel for tests shall be accomplished according to American
Society for Testing Materials Method D- 1391 -57, or by other method ap-
proved by the Agency. The panel testing procedure shall be conducted by
the method described by D. M. Benforado, W. J. Rotella and D..L. 14orton,
Development of an Odor Panel for Evaluation of Odor Control Equip-
ment", Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 19,, Num-
ber 2, Pages 101 -105, February 1969; or by other method approved by the
Agency.
(5) All odor test panel members shall have a smell exposure to deter-
mine the odor concentration of the alleged air contaminant at the dor
source and in the ambient air sample, and shall be questioned as to whether
the air contaminant in the ambient air sample is contained in the ample
obtained from the odor source of the alleged discharger. All responses shall
be recorded under oath and notarized.
(e) Equipment Breakdown. No person shall operate any process, process
equipment, fuel - burning equipment or refuse = burning equipment when such
i process or equipment is out of repair and causing or permitting odorous air
pollution. Emissions violating this regulation as a direct result of upset, con -
ditions in, or breakdown of any process, process equipment, fuel - burning
equipment, or control equipment or related operating equipment beyond
the control of the person owning or operating such equipment, shall not be
deemed to be in violation of this regulation, provided that the owner or
operator advises the Agency of the circumstances within 24 hours of the
breakdown, and outlines a corrective program within 7 days of the break -
down. The Agency may permit operation on a temporary basis during the
period of such an emergency shutdown not to exceed 30 days from the
breakdown if such operation will not create an immediate serious public
health or safety hazard. No equipment as defined above shall be operated
which has an unreasonable breakdown frequency -as determined by the
Agency.
(f) Agri - business Exception. The odor of growing vegetation shall not
be considered odorous air pollution. The odor of domestic (organic) fertil-
izer, industrial (inorganic) fertilizer, and pesticides shall not be considered
odorous air pollution if such substances are used effectively according to
their intended purposes and application. The open storage (piling) of such
materials shall be accomplished in a nuisance -free manner and in compli-
ance with the regulations of federal, state and local government and their
regulatory agencies.
(g) Compliance with the provisions of this regulation shall not operate as
a defense to an action at law based upon a public and /or private nuisance
theory.
fluly 7,1969; amended September 14, 19711
38
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
City of Brooklyn Center
FROM: Thomas L. Heenan, Supervising Sanitarian
RE: FOSDICK BARBECUE RESTAURANT PROPOSAL
DATE: October 13, 1978
i
At your request we have researched the question as to whether
or not the proposed restaurant would produce objectionable
odors in the adjacent area.
The best answer we can get is that, depending on the method
and sauces used, it can be objectionable. There is a problem
around Rudolphs created, in part, by the "liquid smoke used
by the restaurant. It would be our recommendation for the
protection of the neighborhood that the following conditions
be required:
1. The owner /operator shall be required to operate in strict
conformity with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards
related to odors and air pollution.
2. The process used shall be reviewed by a competent air pol-
lution control engineering consultant and certified by him
as to conformity with the regulations.
3. The process shall be defined in writing (type of fuel,
equipment, and cooking sauces) with no changes permitted
without prior written approval.
TLH:ebh
October 9, 1978
Mr. Roger i; and Neighbors
5013 Dreg ,J north
Brooklyn Center, ,%,
Re: Developmont of northwest Corner of Drew and 50th Ave. North.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Recently I began to prepare and implement a plan for development of the above
referenced property. This property has remained vacant for some time and
I saw a potential for the site as an eating establishment. I have developed
the property within the restrictions of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. ,
I would like the opportunity to present my project to the immediate neighborhood.
This will be agood opportunity for the neighborhood to have their questions
answered and for me to develop ideas to make this establishment a benefit
to the neighborhood.
I have addressed this letter to Mr. Pyle, the neighbor to the North of this
property. I vould like to meet with Mr. Pyle and other concerned neighbors
at 7:00 P. M. on Tuesday October 10, 1978 at the site of this project to
present this project to the neighborhood.
Thank you for your interest, I'll bA looking forward to meeting with you..
Sincerely,
"Bill" Fosdick
and
rhiliip D. Johnson, Architect
FEATURES
— Barbecues briskets, hams, pork shoulders, ribs, sausages, chickens, turkeys, hamburgers, steaks, fish,
shrimp, . .
— Thermostatically - controlled.
-- Completely wood - burning — no expensive natural gas required.
Rotating meat racks (ferris wheel configuration) designed so that pit is self- basting.
— Less shrinkage.
— Safe and economical — cooks overnight, automatically, without an operator — saves labor— total energy
cost per load is under $3.00.
— Automatically vents smoke to the smokestack when the oven doors are opened.
— Firebox is separate from the cooking chamber — heat and smoke are ducted in — no hot metal surfaces
so there is no burned grease odor or taste - or fire danger.
— Cooks at low, thermostatically - controlled temperatures for long periods to achieve that delicious hickory
flavor and a moist finished product.
— Uniform product, day after day.
The taste appeal - of wood smoked beef, fowl, and pork is universal. The sales potential for
barbecue is unlimited.
SPECIFICATIONS
Standard Model
Weight....................... ..............................:
......................... .. ............................... ...........................3800 pounds
Dimensions ................................................... ............................... ....Depth 104'; width 57 "; height 76"
No. of racks. ....
Rack dimensions ........................... .......... ............................... ........................... ...........................16"
x 44"
Electrical
............................................... ............................... ...........................115 volts (217 watts)
S tack required* ........ ........... ...... ,.
.... ........................ .. .............................. .......................�`g diameter — 12' high
Capacity .............................. .........................
................... ............................350 lb. brisket or pork shoulder
(700 lb. with "double rack" model)
or 650 lb. hams
or 200 lb. ribs
(400 lb. with "double rack" model)
(600 lb. with "rib rack" model)
or 120 chicken halves
(240 with "double rack" model)
or 24 turkeys
*Must conform to local codes
3
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
October 5, 1978
1 Call to Order: 8 :00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3.- 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.
4. Brooklyn Properties 78058
Rezoning, from R1 (Single Family Residential) to
Cl (Service /Office), of the old slaughterhouse
property at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard.
5. Brookdale Ford 78060
Site and Building Plan approval for office addition,
service garage addition and body shop addition at
Brookdale Ford, 2500 County Road 10`
6. Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company 78061
Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan
Approval for a child care institution, (Montessori
School) on the R5 zoned property at 6501 Brooklyn
Boulevard.
7. Oasis Development Corporation 78062
Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan
Approval to remodel the existing Dayton's Gasoline
Station at Brookdale Shopping Center. y
8. Poppin Fresh Pies, Inc. 78063
Site and Building Plan approval to remodel and
expand the existing Poppin Fresh Pie Shop at 5601
Xerxes Avenue North.
9. Discussion Items:
a) Draft Ordinance Amendment Regarding 0utlots
b) Westbrook Mall Landscape Plan
:10. Other Business
11. Adjournment
i
4 _
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 78058
Applicant: Brooklyn Properties (Dean Nyquist, Medard Kaisershot, James
Speckman and L. David Henningson)
Location: 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard
Request: Rezoning
The applicant is requesting rezoning, from Rl (Single Family Residential) to Cl
(Service /Office), of an approximate 1 acre site at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. This
site is commonly referred to as the slaughterhouse property and is bounded on the
east by the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road; on the north by two single family
residential properties (5643 Brooklyn Boulevard and 5642 Northport Drive); on
the west by Northport Drive; and on the south by Cl properties including the two
sites being temporarily occupied by CEAP (5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard) and
the Library property at 5601 Brooklyn Boulevard. The west end of the subject
site (approximately 28' by 165) is part of the Library Terrace Addition contain -
ing the Library, but is zoned Rl. The applicant proposes to combine this with
the slaughterhouse property for the development of a law office. The applicant has
submitted a conceptual drawing fora three - story, 14,850 sq. ft. office building
indicating their proposed plans, should a rezoning be accomplished. This parcel
was considered for rezoning to Cl in 1976 under Application No 76053 (City
. Council minutes attached) when the Library site was rezoned. There was much
discussion at that time as to whether or not the slaughterhouse property should
be included in the rezoning. The record indicates the Council's feeling at that
time, that the slaughterhouse property should remain Rl, but that they would
consider a rezoning of the property at a future date if a specific proposal is
put forth. The record also indicates that the City Council felt the Planning
Commission should study this area along Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue
North and County Road 10, particularly vacant properties, for rezoning during
the Comprehensive Planning review process.
Attached is a copy of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines con -
tained in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances. A review of the Comprehensive
Plan relating to this area is important for determining the merits of this re-
zoning request. The plan, when referring to land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard,
acknowledges permitting a limited amount of Service /Office establishments at
appropriate locations. It goes on to state as a goal "to preserve existing single
family housing along 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." With respect to plan recommendations regarding the Southwest
Neighborhood, it states "maintain that part of the Southwest Neighborhood lying
north of 53rd Avenue in permanent single family residential use. The recent
construction of a frontage 'road along Brooklyn Boulevard will permit the existing
adjacent hones to continue as an integral part of the neighborhood. Commercial
development should definitely be prohibited along the east edge of the neighborhood."
There is a basic conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and this particular
request and the rezoning, if desirable, should be accompanied by an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan. It should also be pointed out again that there has been
direction given to study this area for possible rezoning in conjunction with the
present Comprehensive Planning process, and that this item has been referred to
the City's Planning Consultant for input. They have indicated that their study
of Brooklyn Boulevard and various recommendations will be completed by February
of 1979.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
10 -5 -78
t Application No. 78058
Page 2
Recommendation
It is established Commission olic to refer all rezoning and Comprehensive Plan
P Y 9
review matters to the appropriate Neighborhood Group which is, in this instance,
the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. The Commission should discuss the
merits of the proposal and the various planning concerns and then table the matter
for further review and input by the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group.
10 -5 -78
1
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by member Robert Jensen, and upon
• vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler,
- Bill Fignar, and Robert Jensen; and the following °voted
• against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
i
declared duly passed and adopted.
The City Manager introduced the next item of business, Planning Commission
that of Planning Commission Application No. 76053 Application No. 76053
submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center. He stated that (City of Brooklyn
the application pertains to the rezoning of the existing Center)
library site and other adjacent property. He explained
k that Hennepin County had originally planned to construct
a Regional Library and Service Center facility at the
existing library site but, at the urging of the City, the
County Board had decided to switch the location: of the
facility to a 10 acre site near Central Park in the Brooklyn
Center Industrial Park which has expansion capabilities.
He further explained that a condition of the bid for the
purchase of the Industrial Park site was that the seller,'
B.C.I.P., Inc., would acquire the present library site
and the adjacent County -owned land.
The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with
a review of Planning Commission Application No 76053
and the Planning Commission action at its October 14,
1976 and November 4, 1976 meetings He stated that the
application comprehends rezoning, from R-1 to C -1, all
or part of the property at 5601 -5637 Brooklyn` Boulevard.
He explained that the Planning Commission had initially
reviewed and tabled the application on October 14 and
referred the matter to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory t
Group for further review and comment, and had specifically
requested the consideration of two possible approaches:
I. Rezoning of the library site and additional land
needed for parking space only, as initially
submitted;
•
2i Rezoning of all of the property owned by the
s=` County and possibly additional property south of
'
57th Avenue North.
w .
E He stated that the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group
had met on November 2, 1976 and had recommended that
the County -owned land south of the south property line
at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard (extended to Northport Drive)
be rezoned from R -1 to C -1, and that the large parcel
currently addressed as 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard not be
rezoned. He further stated that the Planning Commission,
on November 4, 1976, had recommended approval of the
application consistent with the recommendation of the
Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group.
The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed
various slides and a transparency showing the location
I and configuration' of the subject library site and adjacent
County -owned property. A lengthy discussion ensued
relative to the slides and transparency, the specific
location of various parcels involved in the rezoning
1' application and the amount of land required for parking
purposes based on the potential use of the library building
as a medical or dental clinic. :
11 -22 -76 -4-
j
i
t
Public Hearing Mayor Cohen opened the meeting to notified property
owners and noted that the residents of 5637 and 5643
Northport Drive were in attendance.
The Mayor then recognized Mr. Harold Feuerhelm
representing B.C.I.P.', Inc. Mr. Feuerhelm stated that
it was B.C.I.P,'s hope that if all of the property was
under their control that it would be zoned the same. He
further stated that they had assumed that the library site
and the adjacent property would all be rezoned to C -1 .
He explained that B.C.I.P.'s bid on the property was on
the basis that the property was commercial, not residen-
tial, and that this proposed down zoning for a portion of
the property would be somewhat of a financial loss.'
Councilman Jensen inquired of Mr. Feuerhelm as to
B.C.I.P.'s plans for the property if it were zoned C -1 .
He responded that it is difficult to determine at this
time what would be proposed for the property, but that
B.C.I.P. would want to maximize its investment.
In response to an inquiry by Councilman Fignar the
Director of Planning and Inspection read from the
ordinance the permitted uses in the C -1 district and `
added that no special uses are permitted.
Mayor Cohen next recognized Mr. Ewer, 5637 Northport
Drive, who stated that all of his neighbors that he has
conversed with are against rezoning all of the property
to commercial. He further stated that he favors the
recommendation to rezone only the property - south of the
- slaughterhouse (currently addressed as 5637 Brooklyn
Boulevard), which contains the present library site and
enough land for parking requirements and that none of
the neighborhood property owners have objected to this
proposal. He explained that by keeping the 'slaughter-
- house property residential there would be an adequate
buffer between the commercial and neighboring residential
property.
Mayor Cohen asked if B.C.I.P.'s position regarding C -1
zoning for all of the property had been put forth at the
Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Feuerhelm responded
• that he thought it had.
The Mayor then inquired if there were further comments
from persons in attendance; there being none, the public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Cohen commented that he agrees with the recom-
mendation to rezone only the property south of-5637
Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that he was of the opinion
s - that if it is decided to modify this recommendation, it
_should be sent back to the Planning Commission and the
Neighborhood Advisory Group for further review and
t public hearing prior to Council deliberation.
ti. Councilman Jensen concurred with the Mayor's statement
and added that he understands the economic reasons for
B.C.I.P.'s desire to have all of the property zoned C-1,
but that at this time there are no concrete proposals for
the property other than the library site itself. He stated
that the property not recommended for C -1 zoning is
viable R -1 property and should remain as such unless
and until a bona fide proposal for C -1 use is submitted.
j -5- 11 -22 -76
t
t
Councilman Fignar disagreed with Councilman Jensen and
stated his opinion that the slaughterhouse property, other
than that portion which would face the park, is not viable
R -1 property. A brief discussion ensued relative to the
residential viability of the slaughterhouse *property.
Councilman Britts stated that he does not object to the
Planning Commission recommendation for rezoning and
that he appreciates the differing points of view expressed'
by B.C.I.P. and the neighboring property owners regarding
the zoning for the slaughterhouse property.
Councilman Kuefler commented that he too understands
the differing concerns but does not favor altering the
recommendation at this time.
Councilman Fignar expressed the opinion that all of the
County -owned property around the library site should be
rezoned C-1. He then commented as to the lack of
attendance of neighboring property owners at this evening's
'i Council meeting and stated that concerned persons` should
i ? make more of an effort to address the City_ Council on
matters such as this, rather than just assuming that the
City Council will automatically accept a recommendation
put before it by an Advisory Commission.
Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Action Approving
Jensen to approve Planning Commission Application No. Planning Commission
76053 initiated by the City, consistent with the recom- Application No. 76053
mendation of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group (City of Brooklyn
and the Planning Commission that the County -owned Center)
property south of the south line of parcel No. 3675, }
also known as 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, extended to
Northport Dive, be rezoned from R -1 to C -1.
Following the motion and second thereof further discussion
ensued with Councilman Britts inquiring if the portion of
the County -owned property north of the south line of
parcel No. 3675 could again be reviewed for rezoning ,
purposes at a later time.
The City Manager responded that rezoning could again be
considered, perhaps when a concrete proposal is developed
for the slaughterhouse property. Councilman Britts
inquired if such a rezoning for a relatively small parcel
of land would constitute "spot zoning".. The City Manager
responded that such an action would not necessarily
constitute "spot zoning" if a record exists that would
indicate that the City Council will consider rezoning of
the property if and when a specific proposal for a C -1 use
is submitted.
Following further discussion a vote bn the motion for
approval of Planning Commission Application No. 76053
was taken. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen,; Councilmen
Britts, Kuefler and Jensen. Voting against Councilman
Fignar. The motion passed.
Mayor Cohen commented on vacant properties located on
the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue
North and County Road 10. He stated the opinion that
the Planning Commission should review this area for
consideration of a possible recommendation to rezone the
entire area. The City Manager pointed out that the State
11 -22 -76 -6-
mandated local comprehensive planning process is
expected to begin some time in 1977, and suggested that
during that process it would be appropriate to study the
land use configuration.
1 Following further discussion it was the consensus of
the Council that there could be further review of the
j slaughterhouse property for possible rezoning if a
specific proposal is put forth.
Recess The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:10 p.m.
• j and resumed at 9:35 p.m.
RESOLUTION Member Robert Jensen introduced the following resolution
NO. 76 -162 and moved its adoption:
i
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE MIDWEST FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION A DEPOSITORY OF
CITY FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
M was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler,
Bill Fignar, and Robert Jensen; and the following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution
NO. 76 -163 and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE TWIN CITY FEDERAL
} SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION A DEPOSITORY OF
CITY FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
-was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler,
Bill Fignar, and Robert Jensen; and the following voted
t against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION Member Bill Fignar introduced the following resolution
NO. 76 -164 and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE HENNEPIN FEDERAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION A DEPOSITORY OF
CITY FUNDS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution
was duly seconded by member Tony Kuefler, and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
I + thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler,
Bill Fignar, and Robert Jensen; and the :following voted
against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
t RESOLUTION Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution
NO. 76 -165 and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 76056
-7- 11 -22 -76
y
Section 35-208. REZONING £VALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES.
1. Purpose .
The City Council finds - that effective maintenance of - the comprehensive
planning and land use classifications is .enhanced through uniform and equitable
evaluation of periodic proposed changes - to - this Zoning Ordinance; and for this
purpose, by the adoption of Resoiution No. 77-167, - the City Council has established
a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines.
2. Policy.
It is the policy of the City that; a) zoning classifications must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not
constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning which discriT''_i -notes in
favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plain ,
or to accepted planning principles. _
3. Procedure.
Each rezoning proposal will. be considered on its merits, measured
against - the above policy and against :these guidelines which may be weighed..
collectively or individually as deemed by - the City
4. GufdeLines. _
(a) is 'there a clear and ' public need, or benefit?
(b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with .
surrounding land use classifications?
10 Can all permitted uses. in the proposed zoning district be 3
contemplated for development of the subject property?
(d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification
changes in -the area since the subject property was zoned?
(e) In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there 'a "
11road public purpose evident?
(fj 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 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?
{k
4 i) Does - the proposal' demonstrate merit beyond the interests of-an
- `• �_ 0 2 r • t a
rA
c I
{ CIA
C 2
c==p
til
+ c r
1 4 v
TY
T w
•: �_t s� 1
C 2
ILL ,
4 1V NORTHPORT I J�
PARK
54 Tpf
t
s
1 i E
�° - .y I � '�ww : � .e, M• 2�._ :i b f ideal i�
t Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No: 78060
Applicant: Brookdale Ford
Location: 2500 County Road 10
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval for an approximate 25'
by 67' office addition, a 42' by 175' addition to the service garage on the north
side of the building and a 35' by 72' addition to the freestanding body shop
located on the east edge of the site.
The Commission on July 13, 1978 reviewed a revised master plan and landscape plan
for Brookdale Ford. At that time they had indicated that they would be seeking
I approval at a later -time for various additions to their site. Their plans are
being incorporated with the revised master plan and seem, at this time, to be in
order.
Approval would be subject to at least the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. The buildings are to be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing
systems to meet NFPA Standard No. 13.
3. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened
from view.
4. The property shall be replatted in accordance with Section 35 -540
of the City Ordinances.
5. The conceptual master plan shall be subject to further review with
future development.
10 -5 -78
iii r
R5
�® rr �r r • : • , i
` -w ive
111 11tr �..�
� 111.111111..
P EN
WATER TOWER
i
_m■�r ® �
t
,Application No. 78061
Page 2
This parcel is the only R5 parcel north of 65th Avenue and west of Brooklyn
Boulevard which has access onto two streets (65th Avenue North and Brooklyn
Boulevard). This parcel could conceivably be a key to some type of package develop-
ment to the north. Also in question is whether or not, the development would
have an adverse effect on the parcel immediately to the south which also contains
a single family dwelling of the approximate same age.
The applicant has supplied us with a copy of a restrictive covenant that effects
many of the properties in this general vicinity, (but not the property in question).
It points out that a package development is in all likelihood
P � impractical because
the covenant restricts- uses to single family residential uses unless approval is
given.by neighboring property owners to permit commercial development.
These matters rai a number of concerns that tie into the Comprehensive Planning
process that is already under way. The Planning Consultant has been informed about
this proposal and the various issues raised and intends to address this matter in
their review of Brooklyn Boulevard.
Recommendation
- -In light of these concerns, I would suggest the Commission discuss these matters
and provide direction with regard to determining that the proposed use is, or is
not, similar to other Cl uses, and whether it would be compatible in this R5
Zoning District. Also, notices regarding the special use permit have been sent
to neighboring property owners and their comments should also be solicited. I
would, in light of the lack of adequate plans, and because of the planniog,con
siderations raised, recommend tabling this matter for further in depth review.
10 -5 -78
!• ULCtl1(1 LVd 7[- ICU dCYl V.�.0 Ct�; .IU:L� - -
A special use permit 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 and 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 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 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 congestion
in the public streets.---
- (e) The special use shall, in all other respects., conform to the appli-
cable regulations -of the district in which it is located.
3. 0 , onditions and Restrictions
i The Planning Commission may. recommend and the City Council may - impose
such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction,`
maintenance 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
deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection therewith.
4. Resubmission
No application for a special use permit which has been denied by the City
Council shall be: resubmitted for a period of twelve (1 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 relies to gain, the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier
time.
S. - Revocation and T .tension of S pecial Use Permits .
When a special use - permit has been issued pursuant - to the provisions of
this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further acti -on by the Planning
Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or
successor commandos work upon the sul)ject property within one year of the
date the special u"sc permit i's granted, - or unless before' the expiration of the
one year period the applicant shall aptly for an extension thereof by filling out
and submitting ' to the Secretary of We Planning Commission a "Special Use
Permit application requestir_g such extension and payin an additional fee of
fil5.OQ.
w MOUND WATER CEMETERY
TOWER C 2 60TH
_7 E
I Am – — --1
T Q %
c - FREEWAY
PARK
lei I .
APPL r/ CA/
AVE Z N 1 * G6T AV �-
n
R5 >
W z Q
'� E N v
x X ( i .j
� � by
6'TH AVE
65 TH *YE w
BROOKLANE
PARK
GARDEN CITY
SCHOOL
64TH AVE N
j
- PARK \ Dft .
w y
E* �
cc 9�
63RD AVE M
FIRE
i
p STA.
7 J
Y i
t a2 Mp i Z 62 ND
AVE
N 4
V
R2.
wANG
I STAG
PARK �,
N
t C2 1
AVE
Is m
r
AV
S
L
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 78062
Applicant: Oasis Development Corporation
Location: 2605 County Road 10
Request: Special Use Permit, Site and Building Plan Approval
The applicant is proposing to remodel the existing Dayton's Gasoline Service
Station by removing the existing structure and replacing it with a more convenient
self- service operation containing three pump islands that can service up to 12
automobiles at one time. The concept comprehends a one person operation with. .an
attendant on duty primarily to oversee the site and accept payment for gasoline
purchased. The applicant is not proposing to use the site for other than dispensing
gasoline.
The applicant, Oasis Development Corporation of Los Angeles, California, has
entered into a lease agreement with Dayton's for remodeling the gasoline service
station facilities at Southdale, Brookdale, Ridgedale, Rosedale and Burnsville
Shopping Centers. We have met with a local representative of the applicant to
discuss their proposal and have made requests for a number of revisions. At the
time.of the preparation of the agenda, we have not received and reviewed the
revised plans which have been sent to California for consideration by the develop-
ment corporation.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. Because of this,
this application is on the agenda and the public hearing should be held. It is
hoped that the revised plans will meet the staff's concerns, if not, I would
recommend tabling the matter in directing further staff review prior to any
further consideration.
If plans are in order, at least the following conditions are recommended:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits. '
2. Drainage, grading,..util_ity and lanscaping plans are subject to
approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in
amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted
to assure completion of approved site improvements prior to the
issuance of. permits.
4. All outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The special use permit is issued to >the operator of the facility
and is nontransferable.
6. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations, including special licensing require-
ments, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
10 -5 -78
t
i�
oRSiS Petro eneroq corporRtion
August 29, 1978
Planning and Inspection-Department
City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
- Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
I
Gentlemen:
Please file the enclosed for site and building plan
approval on September 14, 1978.
It there are any questions, please contact:
Parker T. Anderson
Oasis Development Company
5995 Sepulveda Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90230
r
I
or call area code 213, 390 - 7688.'
Thank you.
C _
Very truly yours,
i
:I
John Braly
I
JB:pf
Enclosures �g j
u
CORPORATE OFFICES FUELS DIVISION
5995 SEPULVEDA BLVD. 640 GOLDEN CIRCLE DRIVE SUITE 210
F P.O -BOX 3216 • LOS ANGELES, CA. 90230 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705
(213) 390 -7688 • TLX 686 497 (714) 834 -1346 • TLX 681 478
0
t i
Dayton's
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Executive Offices ,
September 13, 1978
Oasis Development Corporation
5995 Sepulveda Blvd,
P. 0. Box 3216 i
Los Angeles, Ca. 90230
Attention: Parker T. Anderson
Dear Parker:
This letter is confirm our approval of your request as per
our lease agreement to pursue with the - cities the necessary i
planning and obtaining the necessary approvals and permits
required for the remodeling of the gasoline facilities located
at the Southdale, Brookdale, Ridgedale, Rosedale and Burnsville
shopping centers.
Sincerely,
O c t
' R. D. Christians
Group Manager
Non- Traditional Division
cc: Mr. Ro Burns
Mr. )wine Ssltau
r.
I
1
i
I
•
s
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 78063
Applicant: Poppin -Fresh Pies, Inc. (Victor L. Webber)
Location: 5601 Xerxes Avenue North `
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval for a vestibule addition
on the north side of the building and a dining room and toilet room addition to
the south end of the building (Poppin Fresh located at 5601 Xerxes Avenue
North. The plans comprehend total parking for 72 cars. The seating capacity
would be 129 seats with the addition, and the maximum number of employees during
any one shift would be 14. Thus, parking provided on the site would be adequate.
The proposal also envisions a reconfiguration of some parking spaces and moving
of trash facilities to a screened area closer to the building. Various landscaping
proposals are contemplated as well.
Approval of the application should be subject to at least the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and landscaping plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of permits.
3. A Performance Agreeement and supporting financial guarantee
(in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to assure the completion of approved site improvements
4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire ex-
tinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No 13.
e
10 -5 -78
111
j
R 5
Aky
cou
NTY ROAD 10
F F
WOU
SCHO
IORTHPORT
WATER TOWER
f
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
OCTOBER 5, 1978
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Theis, Pierce and Hawes. Also present were Director
of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and
Planning Aide Laurie Thompson.
AP PLICATION NO. 78058 (Brooklyn Properties)
Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of consideration was Application
No. 78058 submitted by Brooklyn Properties. The Secretary stated the applicant
requested rezoning from R1 (Single Family Residential) to Cl (Service /Office) of
the property located at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and explained that the application
included rezoning the "slaughterhouse property" and a strip of land approximately
28 ft. by 165 ft. located adjacent to and west of the slaughterhouse property,
which is contained in the Library Terrace Addition, and is part of the library
site. The Secretary explained that the property was bounded on the east by the
Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road, on the north by.two single family residential
properties, and on the south by Cl properties, including the two sites being
temporarily occupied by CEAP (5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard). The Secretary
also stated that the applicant proposed to combine the 28 ft. by 165 ft. strip
with the'slaughterhouse property and develop the property with a law office should
a rezoning be granted. He stated the applicant had submitted a conceptual drawing
for a three - story, 14,850 sq. ft. office building.
The Secretary explained that the subject property had been considered for rezoning
-to Cl under Application No. 76053 when the library site was rezoned. He stated
there had been discussion at that time as to whether or not the slaughterhouse
property should be included in the rezoning. He stated the record indicates the
Council's feeling at that time, which was that the slaughterhouse property should
remain Rl, but that a rezoning of the property could be considered at a future
date if a specific proposal was put forth. He continued that the records also
indicate that the City Council felt the Planning should study the area
along Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue North and County Road 10, particularly
any vacant property, for possible rezoning during the Comprehensive Planning review
process.
The Secretary emphasized that a review of the Comprehensive Plan relating to this
area was important for determining the merits of the rezoning request. He stated
that in reference to land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, the plan acknowledges
permitting a limited amount of Service /Office establishments at appropriate
locations. The Plan also states as a goal "to preserve existing single family
housing along Brooklyn Boulevard, at least for the near future, where it is an
integral pant of a single family residential neighborhood, and not segmented
therefrom other land uses, and especially where a frontage road exists or where
one can be installed." With respect to the Southwest Neighborhood, the Plan
recommends "maintain that part of the Southwest eighborhood lying north of 53rd
A t venue North in permanent single family residential use,
10 -5 -78 -1-
The recent construction of a frontage road along Brooklyn Boulevard will permit_
the existing adjacent homes to continue as an integral part of the neighborhood.
Commercial development should definitely be prohibited along the east edge of the
neighorhood."
The Secretary pointed out that there was a basic conflict between the Compre-
hensive Plan and the rezoning request. He explained that if the rezoning was
found to be desirable, it should be accompanied by an amendment to the Compre-
hensive Plan. He also pointed out that direction had been given to study this
area for possible rezoning in conjunction with the Comprehensive Planning process,
and that the item had been referred to the City's Planning Consultant. He stated
that the Consultant had indicated that the study of Brooklyn Boulevard and various
recommendations would be completed by February, 1979. He stated the Commission
should consider whether the area was a desirable single family area.
A discussion ensued relative to the County -owned property. The Secretary explained
that the two parcels containing single family houses which were being utilized by
j CEAP had been rezoned with the library site in order to provide parking to support
a service /office use on the library site at such time that the building be con-
verted to-private use. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl, the
Secretary stated that the two houses, as well as the library, were currently owned
by Hennepin County.
The Commission reviewed the preliminary conceptual drawings of the site. Chairman
Engdahl noted that it appeared that the property could be divided into four single
family residential lots under the current zoning. The Secretary explained that in
order to prevent commercial traffic from driving through the residential area north
of the site, it, was proposed to end Northport Drive in a cul -de -sac at the property.
In response to questions from Commissioner Hawes and Theis, the Secretary stated
that it was his understanding that the library site and the two parcels to the
north were to be included in the land transaction between Brooklyn Center Industrial
Park and Hennepin County. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the parking in-
dicated on the conceptual plan was adequate. The Secretary responded that the
plans were conceptual only, and that they had not been reviewed with respect to
parking. He explained that the parking required would be a function of the size
of the building.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing was scheduled and recognized Mr.
Jim Speckman who represented the applicant, and a conceptual rendering
of the site and the building. He stated it was the applicant's intention to
provide adequate landscaping on the site and to retain existing plantings and
the natural area as much as possible. He stated it was the applicant's feeling
that the office use would be a good buffer between the single family residential
to the north and the office use to the south. He stated the maximum hours would be
from apprximately 8;00 a.m. to 5;30 p.m., and that there would be no evening '
traffic. He speculated that the future use of the library could be a service use
which would be more intense than the use the applicant proposed. He stated the
applicant had met with the neighbors to discuss the proposal and would be prepared
to meet with the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group.
Chairman Ehgdahl recognized Mr. Dennis Ewer, 5637 Northport Drive Mr. Ewer stated
that he represented the views of two other neighbors who were unable to be present
at the meeting. He stated -that while he and his neighbors would prefer to retain f
the single family nature of the area, they anticipated that the property might go I
to a more intense use._ He stated that he and his neighbors had met with the
applicant over the summer and that, provided the cul -de -sac were installed at
currently Drive is
Northport Drive, they would not be opposed to this use of the property. He con-
tinued that Northport Y bein 9 used as a "drag strip", and that
IL P
installation of the cul -de -sac would protect the single family residential area
from park traffic as well as from the commercial traffic.
10 -5 -78 -2-
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. George Olson, 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Olson
explained that commercial uses had been proposed for this area in the past. He
stated that the traffic in the neighborhood was a problem, and that he did not
regard a two story office building as a good buffer. He stated he was opposed to
rezoning just the slaughterhouse property, and that if part of the strip between
53rd Avenue and County Road 10 were determined ' _to be good for commercial uses,
the entire strip should be zoned commercially.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Ziske, 5455 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mrs. Zi -ske
stated she lived at the corner of 55th and Brooklyn Boulevard. She stated that
there was a serious traffic problem at the intersection and that she did not feel
the area was a desirable residential area. She recommended that the entire area
between 53rd Avenue and County Road 10 be reviewed for rezoning to a Cl commercial
use. She stated she was opposed to "spot" commercial zoning. She also pointed
out that the houses along Brooklyn Boulevard had been built prior to the Brookdale
Shopping Center and the upgrading of Brooklyn Boulevard.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Modeen, 5545 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Modeen stated
he also represented his mother, who lived at 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Modeen
stated he was against spot zoning of the property, particularly because of the
traffic which would be generated by the use the applicant proposed. He stated
the entire area should be rezoned or the current zoning should be retained.
Chairman Engdahl recognized a part owner of 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard who stated he
i
had no objections to the rezoning application.
Chairman Engdahl again recognized Mr. Speckman. Mr. Speckman stated that through
his experience on the Planning Commission of another community, he had observed
that an office use such as the one proposed did not generate a great deal of
traffic. He stated that in addition to the staff automobiles, he would anticipate
only approximately 8 to 12 cars per day.
Chairman Engdahl again recognized Dennis Ewer, who stated he felt a law office
would generate more traffic than 12 cars per day. Mr. Speckman responded that the
business did not rely upon clients coming into the building, but that much of the
business was conducted over the telephone and in court.
Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the law firm would occupy the entire building.
.Mr. Speckman responded that it was the applicant's goal to establish the building
as a law center in approximately five years. He explained that in the meantime
part of the building would be rented to compatible tenants, such as an insurance
company.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
It was noted that no one else spoke relating to the application. Motion by
Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing.
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Engdahl explained to the audience and the applicant that it was the
policy of the Planning Commission to table all rezoning requests and refer them
to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. He stated
that the applicant and any interested neighbors were welcome to attend the South-
west Neighborhood Group meeting.
f 10 -5 -78 -3-
f
A discussion ensued. The Secretary commented the Commission should take the dis-
cussion of the neighboring property owners into account when reviewing the Compre-
hensive Plan recommendations for the area. He stated the Comprehensive Plan
speaks to maintaining the area as a viable residential area but that the discussion
with the neighbors indicated that people do not feel the area is a viable single
family residential area. He stated that from the discussion it also seemed im-
portant that a cul -de -sac installed on Northport Drive in order to breakup the
flow of traffic from Brooklyn Boulevard towards the residential area. He continued
that the issue was not an easy one. He explained that the Commission would con-
tinue to look for input from those who would be most affected by the rezoning,
including the residents of the area.
Commissioner Pierce commented that it was the Commission's responsibility to
determine highest and best land uses -for the area. He stated he thought that
because of the proximity of the regional shopping center that this particular area
was pressured for commercial rezoning. He stated he preferred to look at the area
as a whole rather than at individual properties on a piecemeal basis.
The City Engineer responded to the concerns ra.ised regarding traffic generation.
He stated that it was necessary to look at the types of traffic generation that
would be allowed by the zoning of the property, not just the specific proposal,
because it was possible that the use would change over the years. Commissioner
Pierce pointed out that an example of a use changing would be the Library use.
The Secretary emphasized that all uses which are permitted in the Cl zone must
be considered for this property under the rezoning proposal.
Commissioner Theis inquired as to how many trips per day would be generated by an
office use. The City Engineer responded that based upon a study completed by
BRW, Inc. three years ago regarding the Industrial Park office uses, fourteen
trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of building was generated, which would mean approximately
210 trips per day for the size building indicated by the applicant.
Commissioner Theis asked the City Engineer to compare the office trip generation
with a single family trip generation if the property were divided into four single
family lots. The City Engineer responded that a single family property generated
approximately 12 trips per day, which would mean 48 total trips per day as compared
to 200 trips per day for the office use.
TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78058 (Brooklyn Properties)
Following further discussion, there was a,motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by
Commissioner Pierce to table Application No. 78058 submitted by Brooklyn Properties
and to refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 78060 (Brookdale F ord
The next item of consideration was Application No. 78060 submitted.by Brookdale
Ford. The Secretary stated the applicant sought site and building plan approval
for various building additions to the property located at 2500 County Road 10.
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and stated that the applicant
proposed an approximate 25 ft._ by 47 ft. office addition, a.42 ft. by 175 ft.
addition to the service garage on the north side of the existing building, and'a
35 ft. by 72 ft. addition to the freestanding body shop located on the east edge
of the site. He explained that the Commission has reviewed a revised master plan
and landscape plan for Brookdale Ford on July 13, 1978. He stated that at that
time the applicant had indicated they would seek approval at a later date for
the various additions to their site. He stated the plans were being incorporated
with the revised master plan and seemed to be in order. He reviewed the recom-
mended conditions of approval.
10 -5 -78 -4-
The Commission reviewed the proposed site and building plans. The Secretary
pointed out that the triangular piece of property on the west side of the site which
would "square off" the site had not yet been purchased by the applicant and was
not a part of the site. He stated the master plan had been reviewed with the
understanding that that piece of property might be acquired by the applicant. He
also pointed out on the site plan the areas for which the building additions were
proposed.
The Secretary stated that the submitted plans had been compared with the plans which
were reviewed by the Commission last summer. He stated some revisions would be
necessary in order to reflect the changes recommended on the master plan, but that
the plans were basically in order.
The Secretary continued that if the triangular piece of property were purchased
and added to the site, the access to the site would probably be changed. He stated
that in view of this, the Commission had approved bituminous curb and gutter for
that area of the site.
A discussion ensued with regard to the site and building plans. Chairman Engdahl
inquired whether the parking proposed was the same on the master plan. The
Secretary responded that it was except that there was parking indicated for the
area where an existing underground propane tank was located. He stated that
parking over that area was permissible.
In response to questions from the Commissioners, the Secretary stated that the
exteriors of the additions were proposed to match the existing building. He
stated it was recommended that the "pier" treatment shown on the plans of the
exterior of the buildings should be uniformly applied and so shown on the plans.
Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the buildings were fire sprinklered. The
Building Official responded that they were. The Secretary stated that the existing
fire extinguishing system would be extended into the addition.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Scott Powell, who represented the applicant, and
who stated he had nothing further to add to the application.
The Secretary pointed out some discrepancies on the plan, including B -612. curb
and gutter around the concrete island. He also pointed out that the ordinance
requires that properties under common ownership in a common development be
replatted into a single parcel. He stated that the Brookdale Ford site consisted
of several parcels, and that replatting would be a condition of approval of the
application. The City Engineer explained that a Performance Bond had been
submitted in support of the original application, and that this would cover the
replatting requirement. He stated'that if the original approval did not comprehend
the replatting of the site that the applicant must submit a letter agreeing to
that condition which would be attached to the original performance agreement. He
also stated there was merit in delaying the replatting until the situation with
the property to the north and west was clarified.
The City Engineer also recommended that as a condition of approval the applicant
be required to enter into a maintenance and inspection agreement with the City.
He stated this was for the purpose of allowing the City access-onto the property
in order to inspect and repair water mains and lines. Commissioner Pierce in-
quired whether all site work was compreheneded by the previous application. The
City Engineer responded that it was,and that the applicant was in the process of
completing the work
10 -5 -76 -5-
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78060 (Brookdale Ford)
Following further discussion, there was a notion by Commissioner Hawes seconded'
by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78060 subject to
the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance.
of permits.
2. The buildings are to,be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing
systems to meet NFPA Standard No. 13.
3. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened
from.view.
4. The property shall be replatted in accordance with Section 35 -540
of the City Ordinances.
5. The conceputal master plan shall be subject to further review with
future development.
6. The applicant shall enter into an inspection and maintenance
agreement with the.City.
7. The exterior of the addition shall match the existing exterior
and the "pier" effect shown on the plans shall be uniformly
applied to the building, and so indicated on the plans.
8. The applicant shall submit written acknowledgement that the
performance bond shall be retained until the property is
replatted. ,
The motion passed unanimously.
A PPLICATION NO. 78061 (Robert-Fors/Andrew Gunn 0evelopment Company)
The next item of consideration was Application No. 78061 submitted by Robert'
Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company. The Secretary stated the applicant sought
a special use permit and site and building plan approval for a day care facility /
Montessori School on the R5 (Multiple Family Residential) property located at
6501 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and stated the applicant pro-
posed to build a 6,000 sq. ft. building on the subject property, for use as a
day care facility. He continued that the applicant felt that the proposed
building could, at a future date, be converted to a service /office type use if
the day care facility did not prove successful. He stated that the special use
permit was required with the application because a Cl (Service /Office) was being
contemplated in the R5,(Multple Family Residential) Zoning District. He stated
it would also be necessary to make a determination that the proposed day care
use is similar in nature to other permitted Cl uses, and that it is compatible
with the four critieria used for determining the compatibility of a Cl use in
the R5 Zoning District. He reviewed the compatibility criteria.
The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted a site plan, and a Proof
of Parking Plan which indicated 30 parking spaces could be provided should the
building be converted to an office use. He stated the applicant sought deferral
of some of this parking because there would not be a great parking need associated
with the day care facility.
e
10 -5 -78 -6
�He added that the proposed day care use must be Iicensed.by the State, Department of
Public Welfare. The Secretary stated that additional plans such as grading and
drainage plans, as well as floor plans and elevations had not yet 'been received.
He added that the applicant was aware that replatting of the property would be
required.
The Secretary explained that the application rais -ed a number of planning concerns
which should be addressed. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that
areas which are vacant or subject to future change to a higher land use in the
West Central Neighborhood be established as `planned development districts, to be
developed or redeveloped as a package development as opposed to lot by lot develop-
ment, and only if appropriate uses are proposed, The Secretary also explained
that the parcel is the only R5 zoned parcel north of 65th Avenue on the west side_
of Brooklyn Boulevard which has access onto two streets (65th Avenue North and
Brooklyn Boulevard). He explained that the parcel could conceivably be a key to
some type of package development to the north, and added that there was also a
question whether the development would have an adverse effect on the possibility
of developing the parcel immediately to the south which also contains a single
family dwelling of the approximate same age as the dwelling on the subject
property.
The Secretary'pointed out that many of the properties contained in the Northgate
Addition were subject to -a restrictive covenant. He'stated that while the property
in question was not a part of the Northgate Addition and was not subject to the'
covenant, many of the properties in the immiediate vicinity were. He stated the
applicant had supplied a copy of the restrictive covenant and an attorney's
opinion which points out that a package development is, in all likelihood,
impractical because the covenant restricts uses to single family.residential uses
unless approval, is given by neighboring property owners for commercial development.
The Secretary commented that the proposal raised a number of concerns that tied
into the Comprehensive Planning process already under way. He stated the Planning
Consultant had been informed about the proposal and the various issues raised, and
intends to address the matter in the review of Brooklyn Boulevard. He suggested
that the Commission discuss the application and provide direction with regard to
determining whether the proposed use is, or is not, similar to other Cl uses,
and whether it would be compatible in this R5 Zoning District.
r
A discussion ensued relative to the application. Commissioner Hawes inquired
whether there was any access to the large R5 parcel south of the Freeway from
Indiana Avenue North. The Secretary responded that it appeared access would be
available to that parcel from Indiana, but that it was an undesirable access
since it would funnel traffic through the single family residential area. The
City Engineer discussed the road configuration in the area.
In a brief discussion regarding the restrictive covenant on the neighboring
property, the Secretary pointed out the properties which were subject to the
covenant, and noted that the property under consideration and the property im-
mediately to the south were not effected. He also noted that it was important
to recognize that it was possible to lift covenants. -
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Robert Fors, who represented the applicant. Mr.
Fors provided the Commission with copies of the covenant and of the attorney's
opinion. He discussed the proposal and stated a single story brick building was
proposed to be located in the front part of the property. He stated there were
approximately 250 trees on the lot which would screen the activity from the
properties to the rear.' He stated a fenced play area'was proposed in the front
of the building along Brooklyn Boulevard.
10 -5 -78 -7-
The Commission reviewed the site plan. The Secretary stated that many access
alternatives had been discussed for the property, but that it was thought that:
the access from 65th Avenue North was the best alternative. He also stated
that the applicant did not propose any screening in addition to the trees located
on the property. Commission Theis inquired as to the type of tree. Mr. Fors
responded that the majority of the trees on the lot were Norway Pines. The
Secretary commented that the ordinance provides for screening as approved by the
City Council, and that fencing was not specifically_ required. In response.to,.a _
question from Chairman Engdahl, Mr. Fors stated that the children would be strictly
supervised at all times, and that they would not be playing outside of the fenced
area in the front,yard.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing was scheduled and recognized
Mr. Friedl, 4012 65th Avenue North, who stated his concern was with the con -
figuration of the property. He showed the Commission a photocopy of the County
Section Map which showed both his property and the applicant's property. He
stated he proposed a property exchange which would "square off both his lot
and the applicant's property. Chairman Engdahl, inquired whether he had discussed
the proposal with the applicant. He responded that he had and that the applicant
was agreeable. The Secretary stated that replatting of the property would be
required as a condition of approval and that the lot line alteration could be taken
care of at that time. The Commission briefly discussed the replat and the City
Engineer stated that it would appear that the proposed modifications would be
I
acceptable.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Richard Sturgis, 4013 -.65th Avenue North. Mr.
Sturgis stated he-was opposed to the application because of the traffic generation.
He stated that the traffic on 65th Avenue was very heavy and that even though a
15 mile per hour limit was posted on the S curve where 65th Avenue comes out to
Brooklyn Boulevard, it was not observed. He stated that he thought that access
onto the curve - was undesirable and dangerous. He pointed out that traffic from
an apartment complex and a dentist's office already had access onto 65th Avenue.
He stated his opinion that nothing could destroy a neighborhood more quickly than
traffic problems and reckless driving. He continued that the corner of his
property was deteriorated because of the traffic, and that several neighbors had
experienced property damage. He suggested that stop signs be installed at 65th
Avenue which would have the effect of sending traffic to 63rd Avenue. He stated
he felt a traffic light at_ the intersection would be undesirable, and that it
would cause an even greater increase in traffic.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Bill Williams, 4018 - 65th Avenue North. Mr.
Williams stated that while he had no objection to the school use, he did not like
the idea of its converting to an office use at a later date. He also stated that
he was not in favor of deferring the required parking because he felt that during
special activities_on the school property, it would be inevitable that there would
be parking on the single family properties. He stated than he too felt that
access onto 65th Avenue was dangerous because of the curve, and that he was not
in favor of -a traffic light at the intersection.
Chairman Engdahl stated that if the parking would prove to be inadequate as
installed, the applicant -would be required to install the remainder of the re -
quired parking.
10 -5 -78 8-
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Schwartz, 4006 - 65th Avenue North. Mrs. Schwartz
stated she agreed with the ,comments of the other neighbors regarding traffic and
the dangerous access onto 65th Avenue. She asked how many children would attend
the.school. Mr. Fors responded that the number of `children would be determined
by the State, and that he thought it would approximately 40 to 60 children. Mrs.
Schwartz commented that that would mean there could be 40 to 60 cars per day
dropping children off in the morning and picking children up at night.
Mr..Williams,inquired as to the hours of the school. Mr. Fors responded that the
children would start arriving at 6:30 a.m. and that all the children would be -
picked up by 6 :00 p.m. He added that there would be no traffic in the evenings
or on weekends. Mr. Sturgis pointed out that this wound mean that all the traffic
coming to and from the school would be during the peak traffic hours.
Chairman Engdahl inquired as to how many trips per day would be generated by a
multiple family use. The City Engineer responded it appeared that a 14 unit
apartment could be built on the site, and that at 6 to S trips per day per unit,
that would mean approximately 120 trips per day for the site. Chairman Engdahl
pointed out that the school use had a less intense traffic generation-than an
apartment use.
Mr. Fors suggested that perhaps some type of barrier such as a chain could be
installed across the driveway in order to prevent drive - through traffic when the
school was not in use.
Commissioner Theis inquired as to whether the owner of the property to the south
had been contacted Mr. Fors responded that that owner had been contacted and
was not favorable to selling the property at this time. In'response to a question
from Commissioner Pierce regarding the building size, Mr. .Fors stated that the_
6,000 sq. ft. size was designed; to meet the needs of the school and was not
specifically designed for the site:
CLOSE PUBLIC HE ARING
It was noted that no one else spoke relating to the application. Motion by Com-
missioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The
motion passed 'unanimously.
Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Hawes stated his concern was that the
parcel could be a key to a package development for the entire area. He stated
that development of this parcel independently of the other R5 zoned properties
would cause a need for additional curb cuts onto Brooklyn Soul.evard at -a later
date. He stated he felt that perhaps it would be desirable to require an'R5
type development for the area.
I
Commissioner Theis stated that he felt the R5 property to the north of the
subject parcel could be developed,in.the future independently of the subject
parcel. He stated his concern was with the - parcel to the south of the subject
property, which could possibly be cut off from future development. He stated
he would like to see the parcel to the south developed with the applicant's
property.
Commissioner Pierce stated he had no objection to the school use in the Cl zone
and felt it was a compatible use. He added that he was concerned with the traffic
generation of the proposed use and with the possible hazard of cars backing out
onto Brooklyn Boulevard from the property. He also stated he was concerned with
> -! the development of the parcel to the south. He felt it would perhaps be optimal
to combine the two parcels in order to allow for more flexible traffic flow.'
1:0 -5 -78 -9
Chairman Engdahl stated that traffic and safety considerations were his major
concerns, both for Brooklyn Boulevard and 65th Avenue.
The Secretary commented that the Commission should determine whether or not the
use is similar in nature to the permitted C1 uses so that the applicant could be
directed to prepare complete plans. He reviewed some of the Commission's concerns,
including the possibility of requiring the inclusion of the property to the south
in the proposal and the possibility of "holding - out" for a common development of
the areas as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Engdahl stated he felt the use was compatible with the permitted Cl uses
and with the uses permitted in the R5 zone. He polled the Commissioners.
Commissioner Theis stated he felt the proposal was compatible with the zone and
the area, but that he preferred to see a package development with the parcel to
the south. - Commissioner Hawes agreed that the use was compatible, but that he
was concerned with the necessity for additional curb cuts onto Brooklyn Boulevard.
Commissioner Pierce stated he felt the proposed use was compatible with permitted
Cl uses, but that he was concerned with the conversion of the school use to a
Service /Office use.
Chairman Engdahl explained to the applicant and to the audience that it was the
consensus of the Commission that the proposed school use was compatible in nature
to the permitted C1 uses, and that traffic consideration was a major concern. He
continued that tabling of the application would be recommended in order to allow
the applicant time 'to prepare complete plans and to meet with the neig,nborhood.
TABLE APPLICATION NO. 7 8061 .(Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to table Application
No. 78061 submitted by Robert Fors /Andrew Gunn Development Company in order to
allow the applicant time to prepare complete plans and to meet with the neighbor -
hood regarding neighborhood concerns. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Pierce suggested that the Commission review the restrictive covenants
with the affected property owners to determine whether or not those owners feel
the property should retain their R1 nature. The Secretary pointed out that if
it was the Commission's decision to act against the Comprehensive Plan recommend
ations for the area, the Comprehensive Plan should be revised. He stated this
should be done within the framework of the current Comprehensive Planning process.
The City Engineer stated that, in response to comments from the neighbors regarding
65th Avenue, it should be pointed out that 65th Avenue is designated as a collector
street, and functions to collect traffic to Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that
it was intended for heavier traffic than a normal single family residential street.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 10:20 and resumed at 10:50 P.M.
APPLICATION NO. 78062 (Oasis Development Corporation)
The next item of consideration was Application No. 78062 submitted by Oasis De-
velopment Corporation. The Secretary explained that the applicant sought a special
use permit and site and building plan-approval to remodel and operate the existing
Dayton Service Station located at 2605 County Road 10.
10 -5 -78 -10-
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and explained that the applicant
proposed to remove the existing structures and replace them with a more convenient
self - service operation containing three pump islands which could service up to 12
utomotiles at one time. He stated the concept comprehends a one person.operation
-=with an attendant on duty to oversee the site and accept payment for gasoline`
purchased. He stated the applicant did not propose to use the site for anything
-other than dispensing gasoline and the sale of oil and other service station re-
lated products and also cigarettes. He added that the applicant had submitted a
letter to the file explaining the operation.
The Secretary explained that the applicant had entered into a lease agreement with
Clayton's for remodeling the-gasoline service stations at Southdale, Brookdale,
Ridgedale, Rosedale and Burnsville Shopping Centers. He stated that one set of
revised plans had been received, but had not yet been certified by a Minnesota
registered architect and a certified engineer. He also reviewed the recommended
conditions of approval, adding that the drawings should be certified and that
additional plans" should be provided prior to the City Council review of the
.application.
The Commission reviewed the site and building plans. The Secretary described the
flow of automobile traffic through the gasoline dispensing area 'to the cashier,
and then to the service area. He also pointed out that the gasoline station
was part of the Dayton's site and that there was no property line between it and
the garden store. He explained that the only parking on the site would be em-
ployee parking, and that only one space was required since only one person would
operate and oversee the site.'
A discussion ensued relative to the configuration of the site plan. The Secretary
stated that it appeared it would be possible to stack approximately 20 to 24 cars
on the site without spilling onto the perimeter, road. In response-to questions
from Commissioner Pierce and Chairman Engdahl regarding the drainage, the City
Engineer stated that the property would drain into the existing storm sewer located
in the Brookdale parking lot. The Secretary also explained that the landscaping
treatment included 24 inch unipers and 5 ft. scotch pines.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Peter Fischer, who represented the applicant. In
response to questions from Chairman Engdahl, Mr. Fischer stated that all the site
lighting would be focused down so as not to extend beyond the property. He ex-
plained that the applicant would replace all asphalt on the property with concrete.
In response to questions from the Commissioners, he stated that the Oasis Develop -
ment Corporation porposed to open service stations in 30 locations in the next 18
months. He stated the corporation stressed landscaping, cleaniness, convenient
hours of operation, and low price. He also stated that only oil, gasoline, and
cigarettes would be sold on the site.
In further discussion, Commissioner Theis stated he was concerned with the turn-
off area on the east side for servicing vehicles. The= City.,Engineer explained
that the width of the stalls was no different from regular parking stall's. Also,
in further discussion regarding the site, it was the consensus of the Commission
that a sidewalk should be provided between the service area and the office area.
In response to <a question from Commissioner Pierce, the Building Official stated
that it was his understanding the building was a prefabricated building which
had received UBC approval, and that no fire sprinkler system was required. Mr.
Fischer pointed out that there would be fire extinguishers located on each island
and that breakers would be located on the rear wall of the office so that gasoline
could be cut off to any pump from the office in case of an emergency.
1'0 -5 -78 -11-
PUBLIC HEARING a
airman ng a l announced a public hearing had been scheduled. It was noted
that no one spoke relating to the application.
Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78062 Oasis Development Corporation
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded
by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78062 submitted
by Oasis Development Corporation subject to the following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior
to the issuance of permits. Plans .shall be certified by a
Minnesota registered architect and certified engineer and
additional plans shall be provided for City Council review_
2. Drainage, grading, utility and landscaping plans are
subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of permits.
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements
prior to the issuance of permits.
4. All outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The special use permit is issued to the operator of the
facility and is nontransferable.
6. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes,
ordinances and regulations, including special licensing
requirements, and violation thereof shall be grounds
revocation.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject
to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. A sidewalk shall be provided between the office area and
the service area.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 78063 (Poppin Fresh Pie, Inc.)
The next item of consideration was Application No. 78063 submitted by Poppin Fresh-
Pies, Inc. The Secretary stated the applicant sought site and building plan ap-
proval for an addition to the restaurant located at 5601 Xerxes Avenue North
The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and stated that the applicant
proposed to build a vestibule addition on the north side of the building, and
a dining room and lavatory addition on the south side of the building. He stated
the plans comprehended total parking for 73 cars. He explained the parking
would be adequate, since there would.be 129 seats and a maximum of 16 employees._
10 -5 -78 -12-
Iie explained that the proposal included a reconfiguration of some of the existing
parking spaces on the site in order to provide for more spaces, and moving the
trash disposal facility to a screened area close to the building. He continued
that a landscaping plan had been provided and that there was some discrepancy
between what was indicated on the plan as existing plantings, and what was actually
in place. He also reviewed the recommended conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission reviewed the site plans and a discussion ensued. The
Secretary pointed out the new location of the trash disposal facility, and the
area which the applicant proposed to modify to provide more parking.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Victor Webber,,who represented the applicant. In
response to questions from Chairman Engdahl, Mr. Webber stated that the dumpster
would be wheeled into the parking lot when the garbage trucks came to pick the
trash. He stated it was his understanding that the pick up was in the morning
:before the restaurant opened.
There was a brief discussion regarding the floor plans. The Secretary explained
that the applicant proposed to add a total of 25 seats over the original 104
seats approved in 1972. In response to questions from Commissioner Pierce, the
Building Official stated that there was a fire extinguishing system in the building
and that the underground irrigation system was in place.
A discussion followed regarding the landscaping. The Secretary explained that
the City held a $1,000.00 bond to cover the improvements approved under the
original application. He reviewed the originally approved site plan and pointed
out there were still 7 trees which had not been planted. He stated the Commission
` should review the proposed site plan in light of what was originally approved, and
that with approval of the new site plan the $1-,000.00 could be recommended for
release, and a new bond submitted to cover the site improvements proposed under
this application.
Chairman Engdahl noted that the proposed site plan did not include any plantings
for the north greenstrip as had been required on the original site plan. He
stated it was his opinion that there should be plantings in that area. Following
further discussion there was a consensus to require a minimum of 4 trees in the
north greenstrip of a compatible type to the existing locusts.
There was a brief discussion relative to the concrete curb delineation separating
the drive- through pick up window lane from the parking area. Commissioner Pierce
stated that the six inch concrete curb indicated on the plans would be an in-
adequate separation, and could be hazardous. The City Engineer commented that it
would be possible to provide some type of delineation other than curbing. Mr.
Webber pointed out that there was no delineation there at present.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78063 (Po in Fresh Pies, Inc.)
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by
Commissioner Pierce to recommend approval of Application No. 78063 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the.issuance
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and landscaping plans are subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of permits.
10 -5 -78 _ - 13-
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in
an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be sub-
mitted to assure the completion of approved site improvements.
4. The building hall be equipped g q Aped with automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13.
5. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include a minimum of
4 trees of a compatible type along the north greenstrip and to
accurately reflect the existing plantings on the site, and shall
be submitted prior to City Council review. Upon approval, it
shall override the previously approved plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS: Ordinance Amendment Relative to Outlots
The next item of consideration was a Draft Ordinance Amendment regarding the-
definition of Outlots. The Secretary explained the definition was essentially
the same as that reviewed by the Commission earlier, with the addition of the
clause "or a parcel of land designated as a private roadway in a townhouse
development plat. In a discussion regarding the draft definition, Commissioner
Theis inquired whether there were any other roadways designated as outlots which
were not contained in townhouse developments. The City Engineer responded that
there were, but that there was no problem with those roadways since they were
dedicated as public streets and could not be built upon. He explained that the
roadways in a townhouse development were privately owned and that the comprehension
of those roadways in the definition of outlots would prevent any future problems.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO OUTLOTS
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by
Commissioner Hawes to recommend approval of a draft Ordinance Amending Chapters
15 and 35 of the City Ordinances Relative to Outlots. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Chairman
10 -5 -78 -14-
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 15 and 35
OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO OUTLOTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 15 -103 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended, in part,
by the addition of the following:
(y) " Outlot" is a parcel of land included in a plat which is smalle
than the minimum size permitted and which is thereby declared
unbuildable until combined with additional land; or a parcel of
land which is included in a plat and which is more than double
the minimum size and which is thereby subject to future subdivision,
or a parcel of land designated as a private roadway in _a townhouse
development plat
Section 2. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended, in part,
by the addition of the following:
Outlot - Aparcel of land included in a plat which is smaller than
the minimum size permitted and which is thereby declared unbuildable
` until combined with additional land; or a parcel of land which is
included in a plat and which is m ore than double the minimum size
and which is thereby subject to future subdivision; or a parcel of
land designated as a private roadway in a townhouse development plat.
Secti 3. This ordinance shall become effective after--adoption-and-upon
thirty 30) days following its legal publication.
f
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES
RELATIVE TO CANOPIES AND CARPORTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 35 -310 (1) (b) (3) and Section 35 -311 (1) (b) (3) are
hereby amended - to read as follows:
(3) One accessory building or carport (either detached or attached - to
- the dwelling building) where the dwelling building ground coverage
area does not exceed 880 square feet; in the event - the ground
coverage area of 'the dwelling building exceeds 880 square feet,
two accessory - buildings or carports (either detached or attached
to the dwelling building)' will be permitted provided - that no one
accessory building or carpor shall exceed 75% of - the ground
coverage area of dwelling building or 1000 square feet, which-
ever is lesser; and provided that - the total area of both accessory
buildings or carports (either detached or attached to the dwelling
building) shall not exceed 100% of the ground coverage area of 'the
dwelling building, or 1100 square feet, whichever is lesser.
Section 2. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended, in
part, by the addition of the following:
_Canopy - an accessory roof -like structure, either attached to or
etac ed from a permitted building, open on all sides, other - than
where attached; which is located over and designed - to provide
temporary cover for entrances, exits, walkways, and approved off -
street vehicle service areas (such as gasoline stations, drive -in
establishments, and loading berths) .
Carport - an accessory roof -like s'truc'ture, either attached 'to or
e'tac ed from a permitted building, enclosed on not more - than two
sides, which is designed to provide cover for approved off - street vehicle
parking or vehicle storage space
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
ORDINANCE NO.
Adopted this day of 1978.
r
May r
ATTEST;
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter . )
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE
RELATIVE TO HEALTH AND SANITATION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . Chapter 8 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn
Center is hereby amended to read as follows:
i
Section 8- 100.26. Social or Service Agency shall mean [any organization
not organized for profit, and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the
benefit of any private shareholder or individual.] a Minnesota nonprofit corporation
substantially devoted to public service or public charity, established and regularly
operating within the City for a period of more than one year, the bulk of those
members and shareholders reside within the City.
Section 8- 108.01. Sources of Food- General. All food in all food establish-
ments shall be clean, wholesome, free from spoilage, adulteration, and misbranding
and shall be prepared, processed, handled, packaged, transported, and stored so
as to be protected from contamination and spoilage and shall be safe for human
consumption.
No home prepared food shall be kept or used in any food establishment,
except that home prepared foods other than readily perishable foods may be kept
or used in schools, [and] in houses of worship, and by Social or Service Agencies
at Itinerant Food Establishments. No more than three Itinerant Food Establishment
licenses authorizing the sale of home prepared foods shall be issued to a Social
or Service Agency in any calendar year. All food received or used in all food
establishments shall be from sources approved by the Health Authority.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and
upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
' A C,
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 15 AND 35 OF THE
CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO OUTLOTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 15 -103 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in
part by - the addition of - the following:
(y) "Outlot" is a parcel of land included in a plat which is
smaller than the minimum size permitted and which is •thereby
declared unbuildable until combined with additional land; or a
parcel of land which is included in a plat and which is more
than double the minimum size and which is thereby subject t
future subdivision; or a parcel of land designated as a private
roadway in a' development plat.
Section 2. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended
in part by -the addition of the following:
Outlot - A parcel of land included in a plat which is smaller than the
minimum size permitted and which is - thereby declared unbuildable
until combined with additional land; or a parcel of land which is
included in a plat and which is more than double - the minimum size
and which is thereby subject to future subdivision; or a parcel of
land designated as a private roadway in a townhouse development plat.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and
upon - thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter.)
1 ,3
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 15 AND 35 OF THE
CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO OUTLOTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1. Section 15 -103 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended in
part by - the addition of the following:
(y) "Outlot" is a parcel of land included in a plat which is
smaller than - the minimum size permitted and which is thereby
declared unbuildable until combined with additional land; or a
parcel of land which is included in a plat and which is more
than double the minimum size and which is thereby subject - t
future subdivision; or a parcel of land designated as a priv
roadway in a' townhouse development plat.
Section 2. Section 35 -900 of the City Ordinances is hereby amended
in part by ;the addition of the following:
Outlot - A parcel of land included in a lat which is smaller than the
minimum size permitted and which is thereby declared unbuildable
until combined with additional land; or a parcel of land which is
included in a plat and which is more than double the minimum size
and which is thereby subject to future subdivision; or a parcel of
land designated as a private roadway in a townhouse development plat.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and
upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST;
Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Underline indicates new matter . )
1 ' Ol
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING TURN- AROUND EASEMENTS EXISTING
ON LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, AND LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2
GREGOR'S ADDITION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The turn- around easements existing on Lots 2 and 3,
Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 Gregor's Addition, below described
are hereby vacated as - turn- around easements:
"The southerly 25 feet of Lot 3 and of - the easterly 15 feet of Lot 2
Block 1, Gregor's Addition, according to the plat of record thereof ,
files of - the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota
and
The northerly 25 feet of 1 and 2 and of - the easterly 15 feet of
Lot 1, Block 2, Gregor's Addition, according 'to - the plat of record
thereof, files of the Registrar of Titles County of Hennepin, State
of Minnesota.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and
thirty (30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 19
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
Published in the official newspaper
Effective date
(Underline indicates new matter.)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant
DATE. October 12, 1978
SUBJECT: Community Development /CEAP
At the last City Council meeting (9/25/78) , it was requested that the staff provide
information relative to the use of Community Development monies for the construc-
tion of a building to be used by LEAP. It had been noted at that Council meeting
that Brooklyn Park had allocated $80,000 of Community Development money for
the construction of a CEAP building.
Brooklyn Center may use Community Development money for such a project if it
can meet three (3) criteria First, Community Development money could be used
only in the construction of the CEAP building and related construction projects.
Under no circumstances could the City use Community Development monies to fund
LEAP itself. CEAP would be considered a public service which would have to meet
the requirements of a public service, and the Urban County does not qualify for
public service projects. qecond, it would be incumbent upon the City to demon -
strate that a majority of the recipients of CEAP services residing in Brooklyn Center
reside in two (2) particular census tracts. It is quite probable in the near future
that Brooklyn Center would have three (3) eligible census tracts that qualify. To
qualify, a census tract must have a majority -of the City's low and moderate income
residents. In Brooklyn Center at least 22% of the residents must have household
incomes of $15,520 or less. The Urban County is relatively optimistic that per -
centage will be reduced to 20% in the near future. Third in order to use Community
Development monies for the construction of a LEAP building, construction cannot
start prior to our receiving the funds for the project. We would anticipate funding
on or about August 3, 1979.
It should be understood that if the City uses Community Development funds to
construct a building for CEAP, it is implicit in the regulations that CEAP would
have to comply with the rules and regulations governing recipients of Community
Development funds. In essence, it would be the responsibility of the City of
Brooklyn Center to assure that CEAP was incompliance with the Civil Rights Acts,
Davis- Bacon, and all the other assurances associated with this federal program.
city of brookiyn park
October 3, 1978
s Mr. Jerry Splinter
O City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
5 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
T Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
H
A Dear Jerry:
V
E SUBJECT: CEAP /JOINT "•POWERS AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES
N
0 At the Committee -of- the -Whole meeting last evening, Mayor Krautkremer
B brought this subject up for discussion, as how we proceed has a
0 relationship with future budgeting and public hearings for Community
0 Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies. There was a consensus that if
the details could be worked out, that Brooklyn Park extend their Joint
N Powers Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center and the City of
Brooklyn Park would transfer via Hennepin County the allocation of
P CDBG monies allocated for CEAP to the City of Brooklyn Center for the
R same purpose.
K
M Pursuant to our telephone conversation, let me outline a number of
N
givens:
N
E 1. Brooklyn Park Resolution #1976 -200 authorized Joint Powers Agree-
0 ment City of Brooklyn Park and City of Brooklyn Center Providing
T for Emergency Services This was adopted October 12, 1976, and
A runs to October 12, 1979, unless extended or cancelled.
5
4 2. The City of Brooklyn Park held public hearings and established
4 recommendations for a one -year and three -year community develop -
3 ment plan when applying for fiscal year 1978 CDBG funds. An
T amount of $80,000 was allocated for a CEAP center if the Depart
ment of Housing and Urban Development gives Hennepin County an
E affirmative go- ahead with this project.
P
H
0 3. We understand that Brooklyn Center has applied for CDBG funds
E for 1979.
2 4. We have been informed by Larry Blacksted, Hennepin County CDBG
5 Planner, that we could, by amending our application, transfer
4 our $80,000 to the City of Brooklyn Center for the same purpose
5 namely, the CEAP center.
2
Mr. Jerry Splinter
City of Brooklyn Center
October 3, 1978
Page 2
5. It was our understanding that CEAP's requests have been for
an amount approximately $10,000 a year from each of our cities
for the provision of services noted in our Joint Powers Agree-
ment.
Therefore, from the foregoing, if the City of Brooklyn Center gives
concept approval of this proposition, then it would appear that our
City Attorneys would have-to get together and amend, by extending
our Joint Powers Agreement eight conditioned by- consumation
of the transfer of our $80,000 of CDBG funds to the City of Brooklyn
Center.
Sincerely,
x. M // 0144
R. M. Henneberger
City Manager'
RMH /mp
P.S. You owe us lunch... It is suggested that you find a convenient
time for your City Attorney and ours to "break bread" and
we'll join them and get this wrapped up.
CC: Curtis Pearson, City Attorney
MEMO
TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager
FROM: Allen S. Lindman City Clerk
SUBJECT: 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard
DATE: October 12, 1978
On August 24, 1978 quotations were received on - the purchase of the
old city hall property. Prior to - the receipt of - the quotes we had requested
appraisals of the property from professional real estate appraisers, and
also an appraisal from Mr. Koole, the City Assessor.
The appraisals ranged from $100,000 - $140,000 -to the highest appraisal
from Mr. Koole, which is $170,000.
Because the bids received were considerably lower than - the median
appraisal, 1 recommend that all bids be rejected and that - the property be
advertised for sale again.
7
PROPOSED SUPERVISORY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE AND FIRST
LINE SUPERVISORS
The Supervisory development program which is being proposed for use
by the City of Brooklyn Center is the creation of Dr. Carroll Stein.
Dr. Stein serves on the staff of Human Resource Consultants, Inc. His
basic contention is that the management problems confronting a street
foreman ol"
p ice sergeant, or a maintenance supervisor, are very similar.
The program is designed to address middle and first line supervisors
employed b the City f Brooklyn o n Center. It is hoped that supervisory
Y Y
Y p P Y
effectiveness and efficiency may be increased substantially through
this program -- and subsequently result in greater departmental effective-
ness in all City departments.
The program emphasis is on functional skill building as it is inter -
connected with roblem- solving and interpersonal relationships. The
P g
p p
will utilize the spaced interval method f teaching. T m ethod
program o to his
p g•
consists of a series of half -day sessions spaced over one or two week
intervals with eriodic reviews f r
p o previous sessions. This technique
is desirle , for it allows the participants to first absorb the
information; then provides.for on- the -job application of learned material;
and finally, allows for reinforcement through review and feedback.
Each participant will be required to formulate a list of priorites
of job- related problems. Seminar information is utilized to aid the
supervisor in establishing problem-solving objectives. Each supervisor
g p g J p
using the techniques of problem - solving will be monitored to ascertain
whether or not . these objectives are realized prior to the seminar's
conclusion.
The program will consist of one to two half -day sessions with the
l department heads to assess current organizational problem areas and
related supervisory development needs.. This is followed by seven half-
day sessions for supervisors. The total cost for the nine half -day
session seminar is $2,700, with approximately 18 supervisors attending
from the various operating departments of the City. These will include
the Street Department, Park and Recreation Department, Police Department,
Public Utilities Liquor Store Building q ding Department and
others.
MEMO TO G. G. Splinter, City Manager (6)'7
FROM Gene Hagel, Director of Parks and , Recre ti n
DATE October 10, 1978
SUBJECT Pool Tables
We are proposing that the four existing pool tables in the
Community Center be declared surplus and sealed bids be taken
for sale thereof.
We would then replace the pool tables with the coin — operated
type.
We project that this method will increase revenues up to
25 %, at the same time relieving clerical and supervisory
personnel from having to check. memberships cards, hold
drivers licenses, make c hange, check. out balls, and watch. time. limits.
Under this arrangement the city will receive 50% of gross receipts
and will have no responsibility for maintenance of tables, balls,
cues, etc.
• We would Like to have approval at the council meeting of October 16.
This will hopefully allow time for the tables to be sold and removed
before the Holiday Bazaar (scheduled for November 4). We would
then have the new tables brought in immediately following the Bazaar.
Licenses to be approved b t
e y he City Council on October 16, 1978
BINGO LICENSE
Willow Lane School P.T.A. 7020 Perry Ave. No.
i City Clerk
ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE
Brooklyn Center Mrs. Jaycees 5321 Penn Avenue North 7. 2.ct.d2J
(Haunted House) Sanitarian
MECHANICAL SYSTEM'S LICENSE
Airco Heating & Air Conditioning 4014 Central Ave. N.E. _o
Lyle's Refrigeration 5502 Douglas Drive W AK
Building Inspector �-
RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE
Initial:
Rudolph J. Olson 6505 Brooklyn Blvd.
Bill Howe & Thomas Howe 3129 - 49th Ave. No.
Renewal:
Keith L. Nordby '_ 6012 Brooklyn Blvd. (� r / ✓tom
Bertil G. Johnson 6107 Brooklyn Blvd.
Manferd Rasmussen &
John Christenson 7020 Brooklyn Blvd. - l•zJ��c -./
Fred R. Ledin 5843 Fremont Ave. No. �j Jti�
•
Transfer:
Village Properties Evergreen Park Apts. - a) u- J
Lyn River Corporation Lyn River Apts. (ydju;( Cf ,
Director of Planning
and Inspection
SIGNHANGER'S LICENSE
Macey Sign Company 451 Wilson St. N.E. G�'.�1�1�
Building Inspector
•