Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024.05.13 CCM WORKSESSION5/13/24 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORKSESSION MAY 13 , 2024 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Worksession called to order by Mayor April Graves at 6:18 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves and Councilmembers Marquita Butler and Dan Jerzak. Councilmembers Kris Lawrence-Anderson and Teneshia Kragness were absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Jesse Anderson, Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Jason Hill. COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Councilmember Jerzak noted on page four of the April 22, 2024 Work Session there was a minor change required. He emailed the City Clerk the details for the edit. Mayor Graves pointed out the Councilmembers were meant to send in their scores for the potential Commissioners, but they have not all been submitted. The discussion will be held once all of the scores are sent to her. One name was omitted from the scoring. Assistant City Manager/City Clerk Barb Suciu explained she saw the same issue and resent the correction. CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS City Manager Reggie Edwards did not have any items to address. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS DISCUSS AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12 AND CHAPTER 19 (FENCES, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, FIREWOOD, MAILBOXES, AND COMMERCIAL ADDRESSING)) Dr. Edwards introduced the item and invited Community Development Director Jesse Anderson to continue the Staff presentation. Mr. Anderson explained the presentation is primarily on Chapter 12, the Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance, and Chapter 19, the Public Nuisance and 4/22/24 -2- DRAFT Petty Offenses Ordinance. Mr. Anderson stated the proposed changes for Chapter 12 include mailbox requirements for license rental properties. Inspection Staff has received complaints about multi-family properties not replacing mailboxes which leads to mail delivery being held at the post office. There are currently no requirements for mailboxes. Federal and State regulations dictate the size, location, and type of mailbox but do not require properties to have a mailbox. The proposal would be for the City to require that all rental properties are required to provide a mailbox that meets Federal and State requirements for their tenants. The ordinance would be inserted into Chapter 12 – Building Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. Mr. Anderson noted the City does not have an ordinance that specifies a size for the addressing of a commercial or retail building. Residential buildings have requirements outlined in the Building Code and in the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). The staff has looked into the building code and the building code is silent on the matter. Due to the inability of staff to identify retail and commercial properties and a lack of uniformity, staff would like to propose that the City adopt an ordinance that specifies the minimum size for addressing a commercial or retail building. Many of the commercial and industrial buildings already meet the proposed requirement, it would be more targeted towards the retail businesses that would be impacted by an ordinance change. The proposed changes would only impact retail and commercial properties and inserted into Chapter 12. One-story commercial buildings would require the address to be 12 inches, 18 inches for two stories, and 24 inches for three-story buildings and taller. Mr. Anderson added that commercial vehicle storage in a residential district is enforced in both Chapter 19 Public Nuisance and Petty Offenses and Chapter 35 Unified Development. Since the adoption of the Unified Development Code in 2023, the definitions of commercial vehicles do not match. The purpose of bringing this forward is to ensure that both definitions would be identical and allow for smaller commercial vehicles to be stored in a residential district. Mr. Anderson pointed out that currently, Chapter 19-103.12 identifies a commercial vehicle as a vehicle that is “…a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 pounds…” The proposed language would read as follows, “Commercial vehicles will be defined as a vehicle length greater than 22 feet, a height greater than 10 feet (measured from grade), or a gross vehicle weight more than 20,000 pounds.” Mr. Anderson stated the newly adopted definition in chapter 35-5512.c only allows vehicles identified as class 1-4 by Minnesota’s Department of Transportation. The proposed language would allow small box trucks, step vans, and cube vans to be parked/stored in an R1 and R2 district. The language would continue to prohibit the storage of construction equipment, farm vehicles, dump trucks, construction trailers, backhoes, front-end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, farm trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, and truck tractors. Mr. Anderson showed examples of vehicles that would be allowed under the proposed ordinance. He also showed images of commercial vehicles that would not be allowed. 4/22/24 -3- DRAFT Mr. Anderson added the City does not have any language/regulation on firewood storage. Inspection staff is encountering an increase in the desire to store firewood in the R1 and R2 districts. The ordinance we have under Chapter 5 Fire Prevention restricts what can be burned but does not address the storage of firewood. The proposed language would give inspection staff clear direction on how to enforce firewood storage. The new ordinance would be inserted into Chapter 19 Public Nuisance and Petty Offenses. Mr. Anderson stated firewood storage must be stored 8” off the ground using a non-rotting base, storage on the property is solely for the use on the premise and not for resale, firewood must be cut or split and stored in a neat, secure stack, shall not be stored taller than five feet in height and no wider than four feet wide and a length not to exceed eight feet long, and firewood must be stored in the rear yard, five feet away from the rear and side property line. Mr. Anderson noted in a previous discussion with the City Council, it was asked that Staff bring back an overview of the residential fence requirements for further discussion. In the previous zoning ordinance, there were very few fence requirements in residential districts. Some of these requirements defaulted to the MN Building Codes and property maintenance standards. The fence requirements in a residential district were the height is limited to seven feet tall, the fence in the front yard must be no taller than 4ft tall or allowed in the Clear View Triangle, the fence can be installed up to the property line without setback requirement, and the fence must be maintained and in good repair. Mr. Anderson explained the current zoning code added a few more restrictions. Some of the additions to residential fence requirements are requiring a building permit with a site plan of the location of the fence and a permit fee of $25.00, the height limited to six feet, the finished side of the fence, must face the adjacent property or public right of way, the fence must be constructed of wood, metal, bricks, masonry, or other similar material, and no more than two different materials can be used. Mayor Graves agreed rental properties should be required to have mailboxes. Councilmembers Butler and Jerzak noted their agreement. Mayor Graves asked how the recommendations were chosen in terms of the specific numbers. Mr. Anderson stated the address height seemed to be a good size for proper visibility. Mayor Graves stated it is important for people to see the names of the businesses. Councilmember Butler stated she supports the Staff recommendation regarding address requirements. Councilmember Jerzak asked how many buildings are not in compliance and if the City has the Staff available to contact business owners. He noted some folks who lease properties may have opposing requirements in their lease. Mr. Anderson stated he doesn’t have numbers regarding those in violation. The process would be reactive rather than proactive for enforcement. Mayor Graves pointed out it is helpful to have a Councilmember who is familiar with code 4/22/24 -4- DRAFT enforcement. Mayor Graves stated the firewood storage requirements seem overzealous. She asked how many complaints the Staff has received. Mr. Anderson explained it is currently difficult for Staff to respond to complaints regarding piled-up brush or other firewood as it stands. Mayor Graves noted there are already restrictions regarding plywood or other materials being stored outside. She stated she doesn’t support the proposed change. Councilmember Jerzak asked why Staff is recommending no side yard storage for firewood. Also, the raised storage can promote critters living underneath the storage. While he understood the purpose of the recommendation, Councilmember Jerzak explained he didn’t support the proposal. The requirement for neat storage is unclear. Councilmember Butler stated the proposed changes would be difficult to regulate. Mr. Anderson stated the side yard recommendation was to keep the firewood out of view. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to decline the Staff recommendation regarding firewood regulations. Mayor Graves noted her support of the changes to the commercial vehicle ordinance. Councilmember Butler stated the image of the large box truck shown on the slide of allowed trucks seems too large. Mr. Anderson stated he felt the same way when he saw the truck. Staff found and measured trucks they found in the City. The truck in question is at the top of the length and height requirement. He noted there could be a limit on the number of that type of truck allowed for each property. Councilmember Jerzak explained he has concerns about the definition. As it stands, folks can get a 22-foot bus and apply for a State recreational license. Another issue is the requirement that nothing be stored on top of vehicles. Certain trucks have ladders or other tools stored on their trucks. It would be unreasonable for local entrepreneurs to unload all of their equipment each night. A cube truck isn’t allowed for construction, but a similar trailer can be used for other purposes. The distinction would be difficult to enforce. The intent is reasonable overall. Mayor Graves concluded some changes need to be made to the proposed ordinance changes regarding commercial vehicles. Mr. Anderson asked if the Council has suggested changes for the fence ordinance on top of what was changed with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Councilmember Butler stated she supported the Staff’s recommendations. 4/22/24 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Jerzak added it would be impossible to inventory the existing fences to know which ones are grandfathered in. Also, there is an issue limiting the number of fence materials because it could be cost-prohibitive. The requirement of color uniformity is difficult as well. Some wood may fade or need replacing. Defining “good repair” can deteriorate to petty applications. They are looking for a solution to something that isn’t a problem. Mayor Graves stated if there isn’t a huge concern from the community regarding fences, additional restrictions could be unhelpful. She shared a personal experience of multiple fencing materials. Mayor Graves added the finishing of the fencing could be a safety issue as one side allows for climbing. PROJECT UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION FOR POTENTIAL REZONING OF 1297 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING (FORMER SEARS) Dr. Edwards introduced the item and invited Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh to continue the presentation. Ms. McIntosh noted although the Sears Department Store and Sears Auto Center closed their doors in 2018, it was not until late 2020 that the Property Owner initiated a formal process to solicit offers from private parties to acquire or enter into a joint venture agreement on the approximately 15-acre property. It was during this time that a market analysis was conducted by the Property Owner in partnership with local brokers to determine a feasible re-use for the Subject Property, and a Request for Proposals (RFP) was circulated in late 2020. Ultimately, Scannell Properties, Inc. and their proposal of a speculative light industrial redevelopment on the Subject Property was selected and they entered into an option agreement with the Property Owner to forward the project. Ms. McIntosh explained the City Council held a number of concept reviews in 2021 with Scannell Properties, Inc., and as part of those discussions requested a greater mix of uses, a site layout, and a design that would add value to the adjacent Shingle Creek Crossing shopping center, and an overall high finish level on the buildings, with four-sided architecture and focus on enhancing the Highway 100 frontage. Ms. McIntosh stated in August 2021, the City Council authorized an application to the Metropolitan Council’s Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) for funding to assist with the environmental remediation of the property and despite not receiving funding in the first round, TBRA funding was eventually awarded to the City of Brooklyn Center in the amount of $863,400 in January 2023. An application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) was also awarded in the amount of $163,000 for assistance in preparing a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), a Phase II ESA, a Response Action Plan (RAP), and associated consulting and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency fees. She showed images of the proposed buildings. Ms. McIntosh stated in August 2022, City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 2022-004 (City Council Resolution No. 2022-76), which was an application request submitted by developer Scannell Properties, Inc. on behalf of Property Owner Transformco for a re-plat, re- 4/22/24 -6- DRAFT zoning, and establishment of a Planned Unit Development, and recommended approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for a speculative, approximately 230,000-square foot light industrial/business park complex at 1297 Shingle Creek Crossing. Ms. McIntosh explained later that month, the City Council approved an ordinance amendment to formally re-zone the Subject Property, as PUDs required a formal rezoning under the City’s preceding zoning code. The new Unified Development Ordinance and zoning provisions, effective as of January 2023, now consider PUDs as Conditional Use Permits (CUPs). A resolution approving a Planned Unit Development Agreement was also approved by the City Council. Ms. McIntosh pointed out that in those following months, City Staff worked between Scannell Properties, Inc. and neighboring property owner Gatlin Development Company to sort through certain easement parking that was required on the Shingle Creek Crossing property to make the minimum parking for the property and light industrial development work. Ms. McIntosh noted in December 2022, City Staff was contacted by applicant Scannell Properties, Inc. with a request for consideration of tax increment financing (TIF) as the applicant relayed that construction costs and interest rate increases had made the project financially infeasible. This was despite over $1 million in grant funding being committed to forwarding the property’s redevelopment. Ms. McIntosh stated following another lull in communication with Scannell Properties, Inc. a City Council work session was held in July 2023 on the request for TIF and the Applicant’s initial request for up to $4 million in a pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) TIF which assumed a 26-year Redevelopment TIF District. It was in those discussions that City municipal financial consultant, Ehlers, indicated that the project was likely to only generate $3 million in present value assuming a 26-year District and that following a review of the Applicant’s proforma, the project would likely be feasible at $2 to $2.3 million in total assistance and a 12 to 15-year District. It was later determined after the Council meeting and after new assumptions were provided that any District would likely be less than 10 years. Ms. McIntosh explained during the same Council meeting, that City Staff formally requested and received approval to ratify the plat approved by City Council in August 2022. This request was made as Section 35-8107 (Final Plat) stipulates that “if the final plat is approved by the City Council, the subdivider shall record it with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 1 year after the date of approval; otherwise, the approval of the combined preliminary and final plat shall be considered void.” Ms. McIntosh stated since July 2023, City staff has had minimal contact with Scannell Properties, Inc. and they never moved forward with the TIF request. Despite a Planned Unit Development Agreement being approved by the City Council, the Applicant never executed the agreement. Given the lack of communication and discussions on potentially requesting a major amendment to the approved site and building plan for the Subject Property and lot line adjustments with the neighboring Property Owner, City staff did not formally proceed with the request to re-guide the 4/22/24 -7- DRAFT Subject Property under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, so the Subject Property, as of today, is still future guided as “Transit Oriented Development.” Ms. McIntosh pointed out that in March 2024, City staff was contacted by another developer who indicated interest in taking over the project and informed staff that Scannell Properties, Inc. no longer held the option agreement with Property Owner Transformco on the property. The city received no communication from Scannell Properties; however, the Property Owner and their broker, Jones Lang Lasalle (JLL) confirmed the situation and that they were looking to re-list the property and were hoping for a quick sale. Ms. McIntosh stated when the project was approved in August 2022, it was in advance of the City’s adoption of the new Unified Development Ordinance, which became effective in 2023. As such, the Subject Property was re-zoned to Planned Unit Development/Business Mixed-Use (PUD/MX- B) to reflect the new zoning district. The Subject Property had been previously zoned Planned Unit Development/Commerce (PUD/C2) District as the former Sears site is the last piece of Brookdale Mall and as the site had a number of nonconformities given the redevelopment of the surrounding property to what is now Shingle Creek Crossing retail center. Ms. McIntosh explained since the Scannell project received approval under the preceding code, City Staff reviewed its provisions for Planned Unit Developments with the City Attorney and under the preceding zoning code and determined the following under Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development), “If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property.” Ms. McIntosh showed a table with the potential districts and uses. She explained if the City were to follow the future land use designation identified in the City of Brooklyn Center’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and not the PUD it currently exists, the property would have been re-zoned to Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) District. Ms. McIntosh noted this particular district is a new zoning district as of January 2023 and is intended to, “support opportunities for dense, transit-supportive and transit-oriented development.” This district, “intends to promote sustainable urban places that include places to live, work, shop, and recreate, reduce reliance on automobiles, and encourage the use of public transit. The district intends to foster job creation and economic growth in near-proximity to transit, and provides citizens with new housing and lifestyle choices with a high level of amenities and spaces for social interaction.”Whereas the MX-B district is focused more on manufacturing, office, and other commercial uses. Ms. McIntosh added the approved PUD doesn’t allow for outside storage. However, the MX-B does allow for outdoor storage. Ms. McIntosh stated the previous code allows the Council to proactively rezone the property. If 4/22/24 -8- DRAFT so, the Staff is recommending the area be zoned as TOD. Alternatively, the City Council can wait to see what happens with future interest in the property. Mayor Graves agreed TOD would be appropriate zoning for the area. It allows more flexibility and options. Councilmember Butler noted her agreement with Mayor Graves. Leaders need to push back on developers to hold out for what is best for the City. Councilmember Jerzak asked if there was a date the funds would expire or if they would remain with the property despite a new developer. Ms. McIntosh stated there is a three-year window for the TBRA. The staff has already discussed how to continue accessing the funds. Councilmember Jerzak asked if there was a sense of urgency to rezone the site. If a developer were to come forward and be interested in an alternative zoning, they may have to rezone it again. Ms. McIntosh stated the owner is trying to offload the property as quickly as possible. They have been marketing it as a mixed-use or industrial space. Now is the time for the Council to rezone if they would like to pivot to restore the site to its original guidance. Councilmember Jerzak asked if the site would still require cooperation with Gatlin regarding parking. Also, pollution mitigation is likely to cost more than the funds acquired. It is important to disclose that to potential buyers. Ms. McIntosh confirmed Staff has informed potential buyers regarding all pollutants. Mayor Graves asked if the TRBA could be applied for again. Ms. McIntosh stated the funding was to the City rather than the developer. It appears they can reapply if needed. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Butler moved and Councilmember Jerzak seconded to close the Worksession at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously.