The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1973 PC Apps CITY. CT' 33POOKi IN CENTET? Planning Ccmmiss-4cn Anplicat 4-6n Application No.--73029 - Street Location of Property I 94 and Highway 152 Legal Description of P.7onex-1:y Lot 1, Block 1, Northgate, Except part taken for Interstate Highway No. 94 and State Highway No, 152 Oi-�,nerJ.C.N.J. Properties Address 8053 E. Bloomington Freewa�r r."elephone No. 884-7397 __ Homedale Builders Applicant. Norman Chazin Address 6950 Wayzata Blvd. 55426 Telephone No. 546-3385 Type of Request: x Re oning Subdivision Approval Variance _ site & Bldg. Plans Special Use Other pC':!"Iait Description an:a Reason for Request.. Rezone parce+ from R5 (Multi- residential) to C2 (Commerce) Fee $ 75.00 !' P.eceipt No. 38017 PP�ic ailt, ate PLANNING CO1-MISSICN RECCYirP" ,INDATION jDates of P . C. Considerations –� - �� 10 - Approved nenied �\) this ca ly of �t to the following conditions [A Cha irma - - – – - - – -- – – – - COUNCIL AC`T'?O- -- - . _ – – _ – – Dates of Council Cc^Lidaiations � CITY OF BROONL N CENTER Planning -Commission Application Application No. 73014 Street Location of Property 67th and Emerson Avenues North Legal Description of Property Lot 1, Block 2 Hi Crest Square and Lot 6, Block 1, Hi Crest Square OwnerC.L.P.Co./ Chelsea Address 4020 Shady Oak Road _ Telephone No. 935- 4118 _ Applicant Mork & Associates, Inc. Address 1011 Currie Avenue Telephone No. 377-56r,6 Type of Requests Rezoning Subdivision Approval Variance x Site & Bldg. Plans Special Use Other Permit Description and Reason for Requests Site and building plan approval for construction of two apartment buildings, totaling 48 units (Sec. 236 Federal Housing Act) . Fee $ 10.00 Receipt No. 37312 Applicant Date PLANNING COT•21AIISS ION RECOn114ENDATION Dates of P. C. Considerations Approved Denied this day of J y 19 / 3 :inject to the following conditions : C a irn� �n CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Con=sideration: `7- 9- PLANNING CO114ISSION INFOPIMATION SHEET Application No. 73014 Applicant: Mork and Associates Location: 67th and Emerson Avenues North Request: Approval of Site and Building Plans EA CKG ROUND The applicant has been actively processing this proposal at the Federal (and Metropolitan) level for over a year, seeking approval relative to the F.H.A. 11236" program. Attached are copies of various documents submitted by the applicant and Metropolitan Council in support of the project. The project was outlined for the City Manager on April 5, 1972. Upon -receipt of Federal approval earlier this year, the applicant requested building permits. He was informed of the review and approval requirements of the Ordinance, and preliminary review of the subject plans by the staff commenced in March, 1973. Initial examination determined that, contrary to statements in the Federal application, the project was not in complete conformance with R-5 zoning requirements . Deficiencies were noted; and the applicant submitted revised plans as well as an application for review and approval. The plans were subjected to further review and analysis . ANALYSIS AND REC0MMENDATTON Review of the "revised" plans indicates : 1. Circumstance, have changed notably since the applica- tion for F.H.A. assistance, e.g. , the City has authorization for an H.R.A; there is other F.H.A. "236" housing for low to moderate income persons under construction. 2. The density of the project (48 units on approximately 3 acres zoned R-5) is slightly deficient. This small deficiency is accentuated in that 15 of the units have 3 bedrooms, and the entire project is intended for family occupancy. The sites are dominated by the buildings and the parking lots; relatively little r M Plpnning Co cLAssion Information Sheet Application No. 73014 Page 2 effective on site open space is afforded for family leisure and children play activities. There is a potential population of up to 222 persons, including a possible 126 youngsters . 3. A comparison of the effective living area of the pro- posed units was made with other apartment projects (see attached) . 4. There is relatively little accessory storage space; there are no garages. Apartment units designed for family use generally require substantial storage space for toys, tricycles, bicycles, etc. , as well as space for miscellaneous property owned by families of 4 or more persons. 5. Landscaping is minimal. Eight trees of a minimum 6" diameter are provided - as required. There are two clusters of creeping juniper per site. A six foot redwood fence runs along the property line abutting the single family homes. There is some berming in- dicated near the streets . A portion of the green area for Building No. 1 is across two parking lots from the building. 6. Parking is minimal, and may be deficient for building No. 1, if appropriate fire lanes are provided . 7 . The Euilding inspector has noted several Code and ordinance deficiencies, including lack of a security - system, substandard floors and ceilings and lack of a wet standpipe fire extinguishing system (required for 3 storey or higher buildings) . The applicant has been informed of these points and, at this writing, has not responded. The reccmm cndation must be for denial given the substandard and mecli ocre quality of 'tae plans and concept. The applicant has had some contact with neighboring property owners; the inquiries from them indicates many will be present at the meeting. 1 CITY OF BROOKLYW CENTER Planning Commission Application Application No. 73036 Street Location of Property 62nd and Shingle Creek Parkway Legal Description of Property Part of Outlot F of existing Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Plat 1 ment Corp. Owner Brooklyn Center Develop/ ,rdaxQ�;s 6100 Summit Drive Telephone No. 561-7350 Applicant B.C.D.C. Address Same Telephone No. Type of Request: Rezoning x Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plans Special Use _ Other Permit Description and Reason for Request: Subdivision Ordinance Fee $ 2800 Receip No. 38330 Applican October 11, 1973 Date PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMETv)ATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: fit Approvefl Denied this �_ day of subject to the following conditions: Chairman �, A/ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Planning Commission Application Application No. 73035 Street Location of property South of 69th Ave. N. and north of Shingle Creek Parkway Legal Description of Property Tract A of existing Regisetered Land Survey No. 1348 Par Owner Brooklyn Center Industria;A/ddroos 6100S-�=it Drive Telephone Pao. 561-7350 Applicant Same Address Telephone Po. Type of Request: Rezoning x Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plans Special Use Other P ermit Description and Reason for Requests Subdivision Ordinance Fee $ 29.00 Recei t. No. 38331 ' Applil6afit October 11, 1973 Date PLANNING CMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration s Approve _ Denied this � day of subject to the f=ollow-ng conditions: lirman At CITY OF BROOKLYN CEN'T'ER Planning Commission Application Application No. 73040 Street Location of Property between Xerxes Ave. & Brooklyn Blvd. from 55th Avenue to 56th Avenue North Legal Description of Property _Part of R.L.S . No. 1209 Owner Dayton Development Addxoos 777 Nicollet Mall, Mpls . 55402 Telephone No. Applicant Same Address Telephone z;o. Type of Request: Rezoning x Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plans Special Use Other Permit Description and Reason for Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Fee $ 37.00 Receip'L- No. 38405 Applicant 73 Date PLANNING COM14ISSIOI1N RECOMMEIZINATION Dates of P.C. Considerations t�: � 1 _ ApprovP.�3 Denied this (�' day of �C-1C`_ . ~M7 � !T- 9 .� a subject to the f'ol.lewing conditions Ch rman JOHNSON & EA S T L U N D 1702 M I D W E S T PLAZA B U I L D I N G M I N N E A P O L I S GEORGE R.JOHNSON 55402 339-8931 WARREN E.EASTLUND 612 RALPH W. PETERSON DOUGLAS J. CARNEY MARK T. SOLSTAD HANS F. ZIMMERMANN August 7, 1975 Brooklyn Center City Council City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Minneapolis , Minnesota 55430 Re: Dedication of Private Streets Gentlemen : Please be advised that we represent the owners and tenants of certain property in Brooklyn Center adjacent to the Brookdale Shopping Center. The specific to which we have reference is the site upon which Farrell' s Ice Cream Parlor Restaurant is located. Adjacent to this there are two private_ streets and my clients own an undivided 42,542/336 , 308ths`of Tracts I and K, Registered Land Survey--N6-.----12G9, files of the Registrar of Titles , Hennepin County, Minnesota. t These were acquired from Dayton Development Company as part of the site on which the Farrell' s Restaurant is located. Inasmuch as these are private property, they have been assessed and taxed as such. At the present time these parcels are subject to a lawsuit challenging the taxes , but I believe that is in the process of being settled and disposed of. Inasmuch as these Tracts I and K are essentially streets and are being used by other businesses than Farrell' s, it is our view that these should be public streets and exempt from real estate taxes. I am authorized on behalf of my clients to offer the above described parcels of Tracts I and K to the Village of Brooklyn Center for public purposes, either as streets or alleys , whichever qualifies. This is conditioned upon the taxes being abated for past and current years. ` Brooklyn Center City Council August 7, 1975 Page 2 If the Village is willing to accept this conveyance on these terms , please advise the undersigned and we will prepare the necessary conveyances and have them executed. If there are any questions , please contact the undersigned. Thank you. Ve truly you , r E. st WEE/bg Cc: Mr. David Noland Caritas, Inc. 5901 Brooklyn Boulevard Suite 112 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Mr. Thomas D. Rowan 1769 Wellesley Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 i CITY C' B.1'e)01Ui,YNT CE;NT:BR p?.annir,_c Ccm i.s- -n Anplicat on Application No. 73002 _ Street Location of Property Southerly of I-94 at Lee and Noble Avenues Legal Doscr.iption of 'rropercy See Plan Owner Marvin Gordon Address 4375 Kingsview Lane, Hamel 55340 Telephone No. 545-5372 Applicant Same Address Same Telephone No. Type of Request: _ Rezoning Subdivision Approval Variance Site Bldg. Plans f X Special Use Other.. Permit Description anJ Reason for Req.ue.st: Special use permit to construct 12 single family attached dwellings at R-1 density. Request for special use as provided in Section 35-310 2. (g) Fee $ 25.00 Receipt No. 36810 & 36835 � �� .cl �-•� __ 'ppiicant February 22, 1973 Date PLANNING COT•L ISSION RFCOMMErIDATION Dates of Po C. Considerations S--73 Approved Den i e d this day of 19 �_, st ject to the following conditions: Cha i� an �. - - --- - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - -- - - - _- - ..- -ITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council y _`I - ') � _ __— I �r . • , � _. �� ., _. .. :: • i • W, �An �y vw —�v � n pDopen QV ocarivnwar m our analysis too pivot nVOODY. Vic application has Yvon syln�j�A� no vilik wwwo- OK a wpny� q! use in the ani lawip, nod waynno Unj An wAVUvely un-- -O 1V ed nor • �I ZOO Owaij �kn c MEMO TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager FROM: James R. Merila, Director of Public Works DATE: June 21, 1978 SUBJECT: Additional Information for Mayor Nyquist ' s Response to Vardon Gordon. During the past two years Blair Tremere and myself have communicated with Vardon Gordon numerous times by letter and telephone regarding the majority of points expressed in his letter to Mayor Nyquist. Attached is a chronology of our communications with Mr. Gordon and copies of correspondence to and from Mr. Gordon. The following comments are offered as clarification and background information in response to Mr. Gordon' s letter: 1) The City of Brooklyn Center is not buying the land, rather the land is being purchased by the Minnesota Department of Transportion for the construction of noise abatement structures. It is true that the noise abatement structures could have been built on existing Mn/DOT right-of-way. How- ever, the City of Brooklyn Center has attempted to persuade the Minnesota Department of Transportation to provide noise abatement by earthen mounds or mound/wall combinations rather than by walls alone wherever practical .. Therefore, since the narrow piece of remnant property from previous highway takings was vacant and has created problems to the community for development, the City Council requested Mn /DOT to acquire the land for the construction of noise abatement mounds. It is our understanding that Mn/DOT' s feasibility study indicates the cost of acquiring the property and the installation of the mound/wall noise abatement through this area is approximately equal to the construction of a high wall along the highway property through the area. 2) Mr. Gordon seems very much opposed to selling the land. However, County records indicate the property is owned by Mr. Marvin Gordon, a brother to Vardon Gordon. Prior `to requesting Mn,/DOT to purchase the Gordon property, the City received a signed statement from Mr. Marvin Gordon indicating his willingness to sell the property to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The attached letter w Gerald G. Splinter Page 2 June 21, 1978 dated January 15, 1977, from Mr. Marvin Gordon to myself confirms his willingness to sell the property to the City of State. 2 3) Mr. Vardon Gordon' s point relative to developing the area into a townhouse project has been responded to by Mr. Blair Tremere in his letter dated March 21, 1977 . The letter indicates that on two occasions in 1972 and 1973, applications by Mr. Marvin Gordon for rezoning the property to townhouse type dwellings was denied by the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission and City Council. 4) In response to Mr. Vardon Gordon ' s point that trees and shrubs should be utilized for the noise abatement, we have been informed by Mn/DOT representatives that research indicates trees and shrubs can not adequately provide noise abatement for the freeways. 5) The City has mowed the property under the weed control program since the property owner has not maintained the property. We do not know what happened to the spruce trees. °6) . The proposed construction will require changing the existing drainage patterns to a certain extent. Regrading and the installation of culverts under the mound area will be necessary in order to maintain good drainage from the abutting residential properties. Also attached for your information are letters to Mr. William Crawford, District Highway Engineer, relative to the City' s position on noise abatement projects in Brooklyn Center in general and the segment from T.H. 152 to Brooklyn Park in particular. Y CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNICATIONS Date Item I . October 25, 1976 First correspondence from Mr. Vardon Gordon relative to his objection for the noise abatement project. October 29, 1976 James Merila called Vardon Gordon relative to his letter in an attempt to explain the rational for acquiring the Gordon property for the noise abatement project. January 15, 1977 Letter from Marvin Gordon to James Merila indicating his ownership of the property. February 24, 1977 Letter from Mr. Vardon Gordon to Brooklyn Center Planning Commission relative to his opposition for the noise abatement project and desire to build townhouses on the property. March 21, 1977 Vetter from Blair Tremere, Director of Planning and Inspection, to Mr. Vardon Gordon responding to the Planning Commission's position to Mr. Gordon' s letter of February 24, 1977. March 30, 1977 Letter from Mr. Vardon Gordon to Blair Tremere responding to Mr. Tremere ' s letter dated March 21, 1977. March 30, 1977 Letter from Minnesota Department of Transportation to Mr. Vardon Gordon relative to the property acquisition. May 24, 1978 Letter from Mr. Vardon Gordon to Mayor Nyquist relative to acquisition of property for noise abatement project. _Ublic rc),u Ilyn center Gi�y _i411 near Director Ji eri la ur,�0 i t n litlYU it , b,- L D , the I-D-1--d C, `.e le hi ..h,.Tay de-,�_,.rtment to --u-- r t unde- Y r;,- ---ose of -venue h C Of -�1' ;-o the d 0 lks see t - �-1 7,C -1 tpou,i-h T rec t rl U I C- -sure U 0:ny r T .i s T,(,erc !-"re d 0.. a )urnose. c t my land be conI_L :D d vc -ou-nd barr]-Cr- Trees and ul�_e C e: d m ,,Tel I ',�-S :'o:0 �"'� CLb r C a" ce eetin� u rl I S Lt-,is 6ZL 7�JUC I I - il,,u-_! �ose, ��-s ;Tel_,I . __ �1,--�;ru -7 be en used for dy )lLmte�L T ',- :..ve (,:,IreL�_ j 'U __L of �� be:_,utJf 1 jandscar,,e- - -1 T,o s e tl,-iz very ul - r o 0 r'U y t e r d are troos on, - J i e I and ere - cs', -t -a c do not 1 ve o U- t it is 0,�,�V-I ous- e died. ee &.d t tT 'S. trees, U7 i--, s area e -.s seen DY th,e I L,na i s i,i e 11 Jer. -�he 1;Ti-_rlCL br r- %�; d u-,-- t Q -o c rf e c F,,ound -Oly trees r.-e U a very . �[,!_cnd to z.ove in I cl U In U Wowever,' do-,.re loped, f the landsca",'e* IV at she s e C t 1�i s la---d b t -,,,,Tish to t :r U.1 the Ors C U L,.' j is ,-I-,:l e:_��_t,,, d ab 1 e ilis U I- ---,e ir all U ' f it were been it L�s a- 111 t-r s 0,:i ; U old, so &,nd duI.:n,. E" ii -J-'rom ,-L i s -!i,::ht 0 r rf,,-ens oil it U&��, ��6y ja�,,,ve t u e U a'.:'cordin- to law, D�j s do not thini-, that , c -c.--p n in the tk- 111 ��,). e nc e -L-ht �o decide all other tu__11_' ,, ,t - -1 u cL alists to deciC�e such 4- C ,Ose of city -)lanners �,n,,d s,,,)G c i Avei-a,e l-,or,,e 014"ler_s L"r-3 u -pur% be affected by U c -I-n e �re cjty ma re(�,.j ly be seen in the ca-.,,,. 1�" SUCH h -,,-e zou-rd y , e authorities 0' 0_r -e d 1 L 11 t1le Construction t77 _,is My land �os e t h c r' y There is 110 e-cess jould be- .7o-y e_�cesslvc 0 1 U cos of, uildin�- such --- w,` de-,� U I-Ch j The e L,�,j 0 w _I�ecessary u:3ed _-6. Coo-olotely LLIl ou].C,,. Le �Lor t,.,-,is icason, 0, - I I i t CL^ land, here, v.-,hich c Out 100 t. o I (_ a 1 - j,,O.jjly used 1e ic a-' -,e,,-dy 1", s TI- il o- the is i�� tile 0�'ic�� CU_�7d 1__. L U, for t Of a nd L - 1y a f cij lee -M -- 0-� L I Y t-Y-=p 0 id be used, ,ere - ,%,Qu,,d -,rr�e f colls-tr-action t 0 U e L� __- v t �,ve Voted for tI,,e V 0 ol 11 the !�:eo-lple bo-�_derin, r i J ve t'_ or eve it nce 001i, re - Z', iO to buy "Ci 0. T ii.unber of C`r s c70""c �Vc nc r ac= -"or U 6:1 -0(C.r Z 0 �,art--'ent buY it G be used as 'n: V hway d e.. r tic Wr,_,11 to e the nl,,-, u . .-, ncl _�fte C. t t ,--,,-ey cr � __nir.�71 I I I U__ e - 1�?,` e t rei:i I d h at t I-,e GI :'11 n,,-- L, �L '_).L e7tY, 'Lihel"Al, 1117 .1- choice -. 1cce Of -OD �! u :, t -' 1----d is a very be is bAIt • 't-c - -- I L ea Oc-ted in V i c y c' i-,s n -_--d 1 T� I ' evo-ou liu cross th rs rc e r sound ruction. d i , 1 01 b u cons L -Y e 0 u ,.--,a could be used for ' . � �' it lam" �%�'�'��.� - • ¢ h t 44.r JLr• Y,4CO&IV COT Vwcozw I-1AJ G 4/c lt lx le U I'Al 676 0 OW OS eAz oil rCU� uuiy car, i7( / -2 .3 Y . Dear City Planninw Commission: I am most concerned about the status of the noise abatement wall planned for the land owned by !Marvin Gordon, near hi:-1.way I-494 and Crchard Park.' This land was tentatively purcased, by me, before the hi�;;hw�.y department decided to claim the lard to build a noise abatement wall, here. For some time, _lour, my brother has owned this land, but _�e has .-not been able to develop it. Several times he has attempted to rezone thi- land, for the purpose of building townhouses. `-"his property seems ideally suited to this purpose, since it is in a very com,aercial district, being vef-y close to :-)hopper' s City and many businesses and highways. Directly across from it, on the other side of the highway, are located apartment houses, Iten Chevolet, and Northern States Poorer. It is only logical that what is right, on one side of the highway, should be right on the other, also. Because the land is so close to the highway, . it has not been developed for homes. Yet, the land is in a plot large enough for many worthwhile purposes. It is over 138 feet wide and almost 1200 feet long. It is located right next to Orchard Park, and it has access to -two streets. The idea of taking such a large piece of land for an abatement wall seems very wasteful and unwise. This land is almost flat, sloping only about 5 feet over it ' s entire length. Therefore it would require much fill to build an earthen-mound type wall, here. It would also -be very unattractive, like a mud fence, and would cost much to maintain. The initial cost of X500,000 per mile seems very excessive, too, and I wonder if the public is getting . it's money' s worth. .However, something must be done with the land. Neither, me, nor my brother can continue paying taxes, on it, indefinitely, without some kind of return. My brother has owned the land, since before the highway was built, here. Ee has attempted to develop it, - many times, but the residents, nearby, have always stood in the way of it ' s development. I can well understand just how the neighbors feel about the lard. They have been using it as if it were their own, for many years---planting gardens, taking dirt, and dumping trash, on it. It is only natural that they should want to keep it. But-1 I do too. It is this kind of citizen planning that seems most responsible for our urban sprawl. The land should be developed. I .think that the City Planning Commission should do the planning, and not the citizens. I have a very perfect townhouse plan which I believe would make this plot a little garden of Eden. It is a cross-shaped building, floorplan, and it is intended to replace the cross on the highway---the death cross. I do not wish to move to California, like my brother, nor to drive 50 miles to work, each day, and end up being another highway statistic. Sincerely, _ CITY OF ��l r•' ,� 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY l�5' 1 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE (612) 561-5440 March 21 , 1977 Mr. Vardon Gordon 2309 54th Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55430 Re: Land south of I-94 east of Noble Avenue North Dear Mr. Gordon: This is in response to your letter of February 24, 1977 regarding the above property and your opinion concerning uses for it. First, you comment on the proposed use of the land for noise abatement purposes. Following extensive study and recommendation by the Planning Commission, the City Council on July 12, 1976 adopted Resolution No. 76-96 stating that the City Council deems the best use for the strip of land as construction of earth berms for noise abatement along the interstate highway, and resolved that the Minnesota Highway Deaprtment consider the acquisition of the strip of undeveloped land. We received a letter in August of 1976 from your brother, Marvin Gordon, agreeing to sell the property for noise abatement purposes. You also .comment as to other possible uses and question whether the City Planning Commission has had a role in that planning. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council which is elected at large by the citizens of the City. The Planning Commission on two occasions , in 1971 and in 1973, reviewed and held _ hearings on two separate applications submitted by your brother. Neither proposal comprehended development within the established R-1 (Single-family Residential ) zoning. One application was to rezone the property so that it could be used for higher denisty townhouse-garden apartments. This application, following extensive hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council , was denied on February 28, 1972. ' On June 18, 1973, following extensive hearings and consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council , Application No. 73002 submitted by your brother, was denied. That application proposed a Special Use Permit for- construction of townhouse-type dwellings. The Planning Commission has had extensive input as to the planning for this area, and most recently has recommended the acquisition of the property and use for noise abatement berming as noted in the above resolution: Mr. ,Vardon Gordon Page 2 March 21 , 1977 Your brother is in apparent agreement with this concept and thus, we would suggest that any plans or proposals you may have be directed to him. It is our opinion that the Planning Commission and the City Council have determined quite definitively what the appropriate use for this land should be, and such determination is within their legal charge. I hope this letter has helped clarify the matter for you. Thank you for your commhnts. Sincerely, Blair Tremere Planning Commission Secretary BT:mlg cc: Marvin Gordon 943 Dale Court San Marcos, California 92069 cc: File 73002 cc: James Merila 41� ' f _ i !W�T l J,1arch 30, 1977 -' �•i -1 • �C�! iJ:(ljUi1� . b• IrLfir �11ili�, �= Dea r Secretary S to Blair Tremere : lay. r' Concerning the property of IIarviW/Goxdc;�at the location of highway I-94 and Noble avenue, i ort1i-. --:` According to my recent letter, from you, the City Planning Commission has recommended that this land be taken for noise abatement call. I do not question the Uity Planning Commission' s authority to make this decision, thou-h I do question the sound r judgment , of it. I can yet see no valid justification for using this much land for such a purpose. - It is common knowledge that sound barrier walls are being; built, every day, on less than' a foot of land, width, as in the 2 by 4 studded walls of homes and apartments. This is all that should be required, if the land is properly planned-for trees and shrubs. These things, too , serve the same purpose, and are necessary to complete the landscape picture. Of course, if the city will not allow any other type of wall or construction, here, there is no point in even communicating. I was of the opinion that the Flannin� Commission considered the land of no apparent value to anyone. This is not so , I hope. The location and nature of the land gives it much intrinsic value, I'm 'sure: The reason the land has not been developed for private homes is primarily because of it ' s nearness to the highway. Yet, the. people living- next to it, in the community, appear to think that it must be this type of construction, or nothing. The truth is that they are not even willing: to share the wall with new neighbors. They want a very expensive noise abatement wall, at public expense , and they want the land with it. Since they have long been using the. land, as if it belon -ed to them, they naturally want it to continue. Each year many of them seem to plant gardens , take dirt, play baseball, and even dump trash, on it. For this reason, they would likely not even except R-1 housing, here, if they have a choice. , I believe in the democratic process, too , but I do know that too often. city planning suffers greatly from it. Citizens are not qualified authorities on land use , usually, though they seem to be making most of the planning decisions, at least where apartment housing is concerned. Such decisions are based too much on old prejudisms, rather than on the facts. The trend is toward the townhouse type of living, now, since housing has become so expensive, and it offers both privacy and economy. If a noise abatement wall is built., here , it is only lor,;ical that it be built on existing hirhwa land. It is the land adjacent �' y to it that it is seeking; to improve, for both home owners and would-be home owners. A sound barrier wall would make this land suitable to all types of building construction. I•',en can live without sound barrier walls, but without the land to build on, there may only be a mud hill where the grass wont even F-row. This can mean wet basements and dirty mud fenses, too, even to t .ose ti tiom the. Hiflr say Department has promised a paradise. Perhaps it can mean le;_�al cases, too, in it ' s radical change of the land ' s natural drainage pattern. But it does not mean 1 have to live in a cave in your something more city, if that is what these, primative sound barrier walls are designed for. Sincerely, ��N't�ESpT'l• ' Minnesota Department of Transportation �►`� c.= ��G District 5 TOF'r 2055 No. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, titinnesota 55422 (612)545-3761 March 30 , 1977 Mr . .Vardon Gordon 2309 - 54th Avenue '�,7orth Minneapolis, Aul ; 55430 In Reply Refer To: 315 S.P. 2786-57 (I-94) From noble Avenue to T.H. 152 In Brooklyn Center Noise Abatement Barriers Dear Mr. Gordon: Thant: you for your letter of March 7 , 1977 concerning the above r,_ r--„i a°.': _z.; of t_.he situation I referenced project. Auer u .c,arcL,.y believe that the best way to address your concerns is to briefly summarize the history of this proposed project- and then explain the Department ' s position. - This . projcct . is a part of the Department' s Noise Abatement Pro- gram - a program developed when the 1975 State Legislature passed a law which required the Department of Transportation (forn:crly Highway Department) to spend one percent of our annual gasoline tax revenue on noise abatement in the Metropolitan area, vhcre matching federal funds were available. This law also spec:.fied that the Interstate System should be done first. A "Needs In- ventory” study had been done and as a result of more than 400 field readings , a priority system v.,as developed whereby the resi- dential areas adjacQnt to an Interstate freeway were grouted into 28 logical construction projects , - with the noisiest areas givc.zz highest priority. In each project. area public meetings were to be held to determine whether local residents and the cities wanted noise abatement }carriers, and if they did - what type of barrier , i.e. , wood, concrete, earthen mour►di.ng , etc. Last summer , a series of public mcetinys were held in Brooklyn Center to determine if residents wanted bar. r ier.s along I-�4 b(=- tween the west City limits and Xerxc:: Avoilue. During the course of these meetings the Department cited input from the l:esi- dents zind i:hc City SUaf:f. ' As a of the public input, at these mect.ings the City asked the i; ��}z�rtrnont of `1'ran;)poi:t:ai ion to purcYiase the vacant land on ti le aouth side of I-94 between Noble An rgimt Opporfunifv F.rrrployer Mr . Vardon Gordon March 30 , 1977 Page .2 . Avenue and T.H. 152 s o that earthen mounding could be constructed. Aven ,� _ Because this request was consistent with Brooklyn Center ' s policy of using earthen mounding for noise abatement wherever possible the Department agreed to honor their request. However , since this proposed project involves right-of-way acquisition an oppor- tunity for public hearing will be offered and if a hearing is held, public. testim,ony will be taken concerning the project. I would suggest that you discuss your concerns with the City staff as the decision to construct earthen mounding rather than a solid barrier was made at- their request, and the law does require City approval before this project can be constructed . If. I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, w. M. CrC`twford District Engineer 4.. cc: ° merila Cit of Brooklyn Center Jame Y WMC:irk (CAR) Dear Mayor Dean Nyquist, For many years, now, I have been concerned with a parcel of land located at Noble and Lee avenues near highway g way I-494 and Orchard Park. Now the city has decided to take this land for the purpose of erecting li a noise abatement wall. I think this would be very foolish use of the land and cannot understand just how your planners or engineers have arrived at this decision. The land is very choice, in many respects. It is located well in relationship to important features as shopping centers school ark Civic Center, streets and highways. The land is > > park, � very suitable for building, being largely sandy soil with some 10%, or so, peat, in the lowland. Even this peat can be considered of value in the development of the land, if it is used as mixture in the establishment of the vegetation. The topography slopes very gradually, making it land that is easy to build on. The land must be considered valuable for more than a city dump ground for a noise abatement wall. The reason the land has not been developed is because of the oppositic of a few radical opponents of the townhouse. Several times a townhouse plan hasfbeen presented to the city planners, for proper zoning. But the plan was rejected mostly because a few of the neighbors just do not want anything, - at all, there. Rather they would prefer to have the land for k themselves, to be added to their bacyards. Now it appears that the city has decided to buy the land, for them, building also a noise abatement wall. I doubt if the city is justified in confiscating the land for this purpose, -if it is to pay a fair price for it. The cost of an average lot, in Brooklyn -Center, is perhaps around $7,000. The land, here, is a plat 139 ft. by 1147 ft. This could be divided into 14 lots the size of the neighboring lots. This would mean a total value of $98,000, if the land was properly developed. However, I am mostly interested in a townhouse development. The land is ideally suited to such as a group of three-4-unit townhouses. A townhouse development would mean fewer people, ,fewer cars and streets, and fewer houses than for residential. The cost . of owning your own home has risen to such a degree, that few can longer afford them. Townhouses offer more- economy and . almost as much privacy as the private home. Townhouse development means that more care and planning can be done in perfecting the landscape, since few home owners can afford to hire a gardener. Yet, several days a week are often spent gardening, if the property is to look like anything. It is not necessary to have a noise abatement wall, if the land is well landscaped,. Trees and shrubs can serve much the same purpose of the noise abatement wall, and do it better with art and beauty. A tree is not only, a shelter from thecind and rain, it is heat in winter and coolness in the suL;mer. Before the city decided to take this property for noise abatement, I had an-'_-agreement with my brother to develop this land. - Over a period of several. years, I planted about 64 Blue Spruce trees on the property. But the city. mowed the land a-nd the trees either died or disappeared. It is difficult to establish trees without being right there to water r. and care for them. This seems to be the highway department ' s problem, too, in establishing artistic tree and shrub plantings. For this reason, I fear that the public is going to be somewhat disappointed in their new ,noise abatement walls. Until the' land is properly landscaped, it will still look like nothing. Rather, the wall will destroy the existing landscape making it almost impossible to grow anything on, since the land is to be mounded to a 12 ft. height. Building the land up to this level will necessitate hauling in half of Texas---and half of our taxes, too, apparently., since the cost of the wall will be about $500,000 per mile. I can well understand this, if this is their manner of construction. But I think it is more destruction than construction, since it will completely destroy the present landscape, even changing the drainage pattern quite radically. This is considered illegal to everyone else, except the city's engineers. I had high hopes for this land, at Noble avenue. I would have built it into a garden paradise and given it some real nobility. The public may think they are getting a bit of paradise, with the noise abatement wall; but I think it may be closer to hell. It could end up sacrificing more than beauty for sound"abatement, being just an ugly mud" slide that even the pigs will not play on. At this cost of $500,000 per mile, there will be about $100,000 in wall construction on this property. You would thinly the land should be worth as much as the wall, since the wall is to be mostly composed of mounded earth. Being a taxpayer, too, I am also concerned about spending so much money on such a project. , Maybe it isn't worth it, if it cannot be done cheaper. I know that the federal government is paying for about ?Oi� of the cost, but this does not justify the sin., either. This noise abatement wall should have benefited this land, the most, had it been truly aimed at improving the area. It might have preserved this land like a Greek Goddess, for all the future generation. This is the age of conservation in land space, as well as energy and resource conservation. It does not take a whole lot to put a 1 ft. thick wall on. And there is such a thing as a sound- proofed wall made up of materials other than city trash, asphalt, dirt and concrete. Using this land so foolishly may mean that you may, one day, be forced to drive many miles into- the country for housing. It is intelligent to plan for more spacious living in buildings as the townhouse, rather than to spread residential homes all across the land in the common urbane sprawl. It is intelligent to try to minimize driving by locating .housing units near work, creating more safety from accidents as well as conservation in energy by gasoline economy. But it seems that few people come to realize these things until they get hit by an automobile or are too old to take care of their homes and gardens. I do not know just what kind of working arrangement the city engineers have with the city highway -and street contractors but I am .beginning to suspect that someone is ripping off more than just asphalt and concrete. I believe that they 'cannot justify much of the work that is being done, in this area, anymore than they can justify the taking of the land at Noble ave. Ily theory about it all is that the devil, himself, is getting a piece of the action, somewhere, and may be controlling it all, electronicly, as by ray devices and brainwave specialists in a new McCarthyism kind of puppetry. As Vice President Mondale said recently, "Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. " Perhaps the tail is _here in Brooklyn Center. :7/A . r ' 1 CITY - OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS (O N 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 • C ENTER TELEPHONE 561-5440 -` ' October 30, 1974 MINNEAPOLIS Mr. William R. Crawford, Dist. Engr. Minnesota State Highway Department . 2055 N. Lilac Drive Golden valley, Minnesota 55422 Reference: 315 S. P. 2786-01 & S.P. 2781-09 (I-94) Noise Abatement Dear Mr. Crawford: This letter is in response to a request from representati-ves of your office for reasons why the City of Brooklyn Center prefers noise abate- ment along the Freeway to be provided by earthen mounds rather than by walls. It is our opinion that earthen mounds provide a greater variety of aesthetic °and functional utilization- of land than do walls, for the following reasons: 1) A natural type of noise buffering is much more compatible to adja- cent residential and park lands than artificial and stark appearing walls. 2) The added land provides interesting space for landscaping and plant material; which can give further noise buffering qualities and visually pleasing vistas. 3) The abrupt protrusion of walls transmits to -invid•iduals on abutting properties a psychological feeling of being "boxed- in" . 4) Terrain undulation is added to the normal flat lands in the City of Brooklyn Center. 5) In park lands, the mounds can be utilized for amphitheater type .seating for viewing activities. We would like to take this opportunity to commend the Minnesota Highway Department for their fine cooperation in attempting. to lessen the impact of Freeways to the abutting properties. Mr. William R. Crawford -Minnesota Highway Department October 30, 1974 Page 2 Reference: 315 S.P. 2786-01 & 12781-9 (1-94) Noise Abatement If you have any further .questions regarding the above matter, please contact us. Sincerely, 9 1 James R. Merila f Director of Public tid6rks { CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JRM:rc August 13, 1976 Mr. William M. Crawford, District Engineer Minnesota State Highway Department 2055 No. Lilac Drive Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Re: Noise Abatement Project F.I. 94 from T.H. 152 to Brooklyn Park Dear Mr. Crawford: I would like to clarify an apparent misunderstanding of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 76-96, whereby the City requests the Minnesota State Highway Department to consider acquisition of the undeveloped property lying southerly of F.I. 94 between Noble Avenue North and , T.H. 152 for noise abatement purposes. Your letter of July 22, 1976 states, "the State cannot spend trunk highway funds to relieve the property owner of a development problem. " We certainly agree that it would be an improper use of trunk highway funds to acquire property on the basis of relieving property owners of development problems. In this case, the City's request is based on noise abatement being provided by earthen berms rathern than by walls in the subject area. In 1973 the City Council established the position that no abatement along the freeway be provided by earthen berms rather than by walls. The position was established upon the recommendation of the Freeway Citizen' s Advisory Committee for the F.I. 94 project between 53rd Avenue North and T. H. 15.2. The committee was appointed by Mayor Cohen of the City of Brooklyn Center. . Mr. Duane Brown, of your office, participated in numerous meetings with the committee during the establishment of the rcccmmend- ation. Mr. William Crawford Re: Noise Abatement Walls • Page 2 Subsequently, the earthen berm concept has been utilized where possible for the proposed noise abatemment structures along F. I. 94 from 53rd Avenue North 'to T. H. 152. On October 30, 1974, the attached letter was sent to you giving the City's reasons for preferring the earthen berm concept. At this time we are requesting a continuation of the same concept in the subject area westerly of T. H. 152. The requesting resolution is quite explicit that the acquisition of property be -for the purpose of constructing earthen berms for noise abatement along F. I. 94 rather than "to relieve the property owner of a development problem. " The reference made in the resolution relative to development problems was for the purpose of indicating the best use of the property could be for the construction of earthen berms for noise abatement. Reference to the development problems of the subject property could have been left out of the resolution and the request made for utilization of the earthen berms concept for noise abatement along this segment of freeway. However, it was felt the past history and current status of the subject property should be included in the resolution for providing background information. We recognize that the proposed noise abatement from T. H. 152 to the west has certain time restraints for construction. We have been informed by your representatives that right-of-way acquisition normally takes up to two years of time to accomplish. I think you would agree that under certain conditions, the normal time period can be reduced if the property owner is a willing seller. I am sure some of the hardship cases recently processed on the segment of F. I. 94 northerly of 53rd Avenue North, have been processed in a much shorter time than two years. To document the willingness of one of the property owners of the subject area being a willing seller, I am enclosing a copy of a letter to the Brooklyn Center City Council from -the property ovmer, Mr. Marvin Gordon, indicating his willingness to sell the subject property for an amount of $10,000.00. We hope the document would help expedite the right-of-way acquisition procedures. In lieu of the above clarification of Brooklyn Center Resolution No. 76-96 and the attached letter, we request the Minnesota Highway Department to direct the consultant to prepare an alternate for the noise abatement project showing the utilization of an earthen berm or combination berm and wall arrangement along the south side. of F.I. 94 between T.H. 152 and Noble Avenue North. The alternate would allow proceeding with the noise abatement project on schedule Mr. William Crawford Re: Noise Abatement Walls Page 3 and give additional time to get a more realistic evaluation of acquisition problems and delays encountered by utilizing the berm concept through the subject area. We appreciate the fine cooperation received from you and your staff in resolving previous mutual problems. We hope the same cooperation can be extended the above request. If you have any questions relative to the above, please feel free to call me at 561-5440. Sincerely yours, dames R. Merila, P. E. Director of Public Works JRM:ml CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Attachments