Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 03-23 CCP Regular SessionAGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 23, 2009 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Miscellaneous Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Adj ourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center March 23, 2009 AGENDA - AMENDED 1. Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. -provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation - 7 p.m. -Fr. Wil Lowery, St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting -The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4. Roll Call 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1. March 9, 2009 - Study Session 2. March 9, 2009 - Regular Session 3. March 9, 2009 - Work Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1, Improvement Project No. 2008-16, Contract 2008-J, Automated Meter Reading CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 23, 2009 7. Public Hearings a. Continuation of Public Hearing on Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts (5543 Dupont Avenue North property only) Requested Council Action: -Motion to open the Public Hearing. -Take public input. -Motion to close the Public Hearing. 1. Resolution Amending Levy No. 17345 and Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Requested Council Action: -Motion to adopt resolution. 8. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Removing Certified Assessments from March 9, 2009 Unpaid Utility Charges Assessment Roll Requested Council Action: -Motion to adopt resolution. b. An Ordinance Relating to Zoning and the Regulation of Adult Establishments: Amending Section 35-2182 to the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances Requested Council Action: -Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for April 27, 2009. 9. Council Report 10. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 6a • 0 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL • OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 9, 2009 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Yelich requested discussion on agenda items 8a and 8c, specifically in relation • to clarification on the continuation of the public hearings. Mr. Boganey explained agenda item 8a is a continued public hearing related to Xcel Energy's objection to the special assessment. Staff is recommending that agenda item 8c be opened and continued to April 13th due to the required timeframe associated with the public notice. Councilmember Roche requested discussion on the originally scheduled agenda item 10a. He questioned whether there is ever the opportunity to treat numerous properties owned by an individual property owner as a group. Mr. Boganey explained that each property is licensed individually. The ordinance requires that each license relates to the individual property. Councilmember Yelich requested discussion on agenda item 10b. He requested clarification regarding the meaning of hydraulic in the following statement included in the staff memorandum: "The purpose of this project is to substantially reduce the amount of phosphorous release from Wetland 639W by modifying the hydraulic characteristics and/or implementing active treatment methods." Mr. Lillehaug stated at this point he would recommend that Council keep in mind that the feasibility study is being performed to evaluate different options for the Wetland 639W Restoration, and to determine what the best option would be. There are many different options that could be implemented. He explained hydraulics refers to the conveyance of water. The above referenced statement would relate to looking at the water going in and out of the system and modifying that in some fashion. He indicated he will be sitting on the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Councilmember Ryan requested Mr. Lillehaug to provide him with information from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management TAC regarding the Wetland 639W Restoration Feasibility Study at his convenience. 03/09/09 -1- DRAFT Councilmember Roche requested that in the future maps be provided for reference in the • background information provided to Council. Councilmember Yelich requested discussion on the originally scheduled agenda item 10a, specifically in relation to the timeframe of the final inspection on the property. He noted the license renewal was submitted in August of 2008 and expired October 31, 2008, but the final inspection was not completed until January 14, 2009. Mr. Boganey explained generally speaking a timeframe this long would be due to multiple inspections. First inspections will occur within 30 days of the application, but the final inspection will depend upon how long it takes for the applicant to resolve any outstanding violations. It may have taken until January for staff to be satisfied that the work was satisfactorily completed, perhaps after a second or third inspection. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Ryan stated he has been informed by the Metro Cities Board that he did not receive an appointment to the Board at this time. The criteria for appointments to the Board rests on two things; 1) class of city; 2) maintaining a regional balance on the Board. He stated there will likely be additional opportunities on the Board in June and he was informed that he may be offered a position with the Board at that time. He thanked the Council for the support in pursuing membership on the Metro Cities Board. Mayor Willson stated he has requested that the Chair of the Brooklyn Center Centennial Celebration Committee step down and she has agreed to do so. A search is being conducted for • an individual to fill the position that will look globally, include people, and be open to initiatives. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS UPDATE ON 57TH AND LOGAN AVENUE ENVIRONMENT STUDY AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS Mr. Eitel provided an update on the 57th and Logan Avenue Environment Study and remedial actions associated with the former dry cleaning operation at the Northbrook Mall site. He stated as of last week none of the indoor air samples had exceeded the screening levels for PCE and TCE. However, as of today one site exceeds this indoor air sample screening level. He stated the MPCA is proceeding diligently in site remediation. The MPCA has exhausted its allotted funding on the current remedial actions and will be proceeding with a Super Fund listing to access the additional funds necessary to complete the neighborhood study and site clean-up. Mr. Eitel reviewed the schedule for the review and comment period associated with disbursement for Super Fund Sites. He recommended that the City Council continue to support the MPCA efforts on timely remediation and conclusion of the environmental study and advocate on the behalf of the neighborhood a timely resolution to the environmental issues relative to the former dry cleaning operation. There was discussion on the remedial actions being conducted by the MPCA and the `No Further Action' letter that will be provided to the City by the MPCA. It was noted that the MPCA should • be prepared to address the false report regarding TCE in the City's drinking water. 03/09/09 -2- DRAFT ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS - DISCUSSION ON THE OPT-OUT • OPTION PROVIDED WITHIN MINNESOTA STATUTE 617.242 Mr. Boganey introduced the item and discussed the history of the City ordinances and State Statute regulating adult entertainment establishments. He advised that the question before the Council is whether to opt-out of Minnesota Statute 617.242. If the City were to opt-out of the State Statute the. City ordinance would apply. He stated theoretically there are things that could be done to improve the City ordinance, but as a practical matter staff believes that the City's current ordinance is constitutional. It allows the uses, but is sufficiently restrictive and the establishments likely will not show up where the Council does not want them to be located. Mr. LeFevere provided an overview of the following in relation to regulation of adult entertainment establishments: ■ Regulatory Options ■ Current City Ordinances ■ Minnesota Statute 617.242 Mr. LeFevere advised that the City has gone through an effort to impose regulations to the extent that the City had the legal ability to impose regulations on this type of speech and activity without the risk of stepping over the line. He explained if this type of business were to establish itself and it was to be prohibited by an ordinance that is determined to be unconstitutional, there is the risk of the use being established and grandfathered in. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to close the Study Session at 6:43 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to reconvene the Study Session at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. The discussion continued on the opt-out option provided within Minnesota Statute 617.242. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councihnember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at 7:03 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • 03/09/09 -3- 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 REGULAR SESSION MARCH 9, 2009 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM • • The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Ms. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane N, addressed the City Council and thanked them for their support of the Brooklyn Center Reads Program. She announced a Cinco de Mayo event is scheduled for May 5, 2009. Ms. Sannes expressed the pleasure she has had to work with the citizens and community while serving as Chair of the Brooklyn Center Centennial Celebration Committee. She stated she was overwhelmed at the good will that came forward from Brooklyn Center citizens while serving on the committee. Mr. Alan Hancock, 5520 Fremont Avenue N, addressed the City Council and expressed his disappointment in the Mayor's decision to remove the Chair of the Brooklyn Center Centennial Celebration Committee. He stated he was excited about working on the committee and cannot think of anyone else who is more motivated and upbeat about Brooklyn Center, as well as outgoing and an organizer. He stated his hope that the Mayor would reconsider his decision and give a better explanation to the committee on Wednesday as to why the Chair is being removed. He stated he will be removing himself from the committee without Diane Sannes serving as Chair. Councihnember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION 03/09/09 -1- DRAFT • Mayor Willson requested a moment of silence and personal reflection as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING • The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:03 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carol Hamer, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 23, 2009 - Study Session 2. February 23, 2009 - Regular Session 3. February 23, 2009 - Work Session 6b. LICENSES MECHANICAL Cronstrom's Heating & A/C Fireside Hearth & Home Gorilla Heating & Air Northern Heating & Air Southtown Refrigeration Valley Quality Refrigeration Royalton Heating & Air St. Cloud Refrigeration • RENTAL INITIAL 4806 Twin Lake Ave 5209 Xerxes Ave N 341262 nd Ave N 03/09/09 6437 Goodrich Ave, St. Louis Park 2700 Fairview Ave, Roseville 7416 Aspen Cove S, Cottage Grove 9431 Alpine Dr NW, Ramsey 6325 Sandburg Road, Suite 800, Golden 6237 Penn Ave S, Richfield 4120 85 h Ave N, Brooklyn Park 604 Lincoln Ave NE, St. Cloud Doug Wahl Chad Johnson Shadlyn Cox -2- DRAFT • 5325 70"' Cir 5351 Irving Ave N 6924 Scott Ave N 3601 Woodbine La 6101 Xerxes Ave N Passed with Weather Deferral RENEWAL Evergreen Park Manor 7200-7224 Camden Ave N River Glen Apartments 407-607 70th Ave N 504-604 69t~' Ave N 6109-11-13 Beard Ave N 5245-47 Drew Ave N 5637-39 Girard Ave N Passed with Weather Deferral 5920 Ewing Ave N 2718 O'Henry Rd Passed with Weather Deferral SIGN • Nordquist Sign Co Spectrum Sign System Motion passed unanimously. 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-41 ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2009-13, CONTRACT 2009-G, 2009 STREET SEAL COATING 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-42 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF RACHEL LUND FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Willson recited Resolution No. 2009-42 expressing recognition and appreciation of Rachel Lund for her dedicated public service on the Planning Commission. Doug Wahl Doug Wahl Dennis DeBrobander Christina Kline Govan Singh Sean Bannerman Gary Brummer James & Bobbie Simons Sean Sander Earl & Evalyn Krueth Carl & Wendy Linder Wade Klick 312 West Lake Street, Minneapolis 2025 Gateway Circle, Suite 2, Centerville Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2009-42 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Rachel Lund for her Dedicated Public Service on the Planning Commission. 0 Motion passed unanimously. 03/09/09 -3- DRAFT • 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ALDRICH AREA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (XCEL ENERGY PROPERTY ONLY) Mr. Lillehaug provided background information regarding Xcel Energy's objection to the special assessment for Improvement Project Nos. 2009-01 & 02, Aldrich Area Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage Improvements. He stated the purpose of the proposed resolution, which is to amend Levy Nos. 17343 and 17344 and certifying special assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 2009-01 and 2009-02, Aldrich Area Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. There was discussion on the methodology and determination that the Xcel Energy property would be equivalent to seven buildable R-1 lots. It was noted that the Xcel Energy property is classified as R-1. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Chester Julin, 5815 Humboldt Avenue N, addressed the City Council and inquired why a • utility company is holding residential property that could be developed commercially. Mr. LeFevere explained that the property is zoned as R-1. This zoning classification includes certain semi-commercial uses, one of which is power lines. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-43 AMENDING LEVY NOS. 17343 AND 17344 AND CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2009-01 AND 2009-02, ALDRICH AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2009-43 Amending Levy Nos. 17343 and 17344 and Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 2009-01 and 2009-02, Aldrich Area Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS 03/09/09 -4- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated the purpose of the proposed special assessments for delinquent public utility service accounts. He explained that all of the delinquent public utility service account owners have been notified of this public hearing, which is to provide the individuals an opportunity to come forward before the City Council to express if there is any reason why their particular delinquent account should not be assessed. Mr. Boganey provided information on payment options available for the special assessments. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Tom Reed, 8897 105th Avenue, Coon Rapids, addressed the City Council and stated he is present to speak regarding the property located at 5543 Dupont Ave N. He stated he has not lived at this house since February of last year; the water was shut off, and they turned the keys back over to the bank in March of last year. The house is up for sale and should have gone through foreclosure. Mayor Willson explained if there are mitigating circumstances the property can be pulled from the resolution with staff directed to research the status of the property. Ms. Ahavel Scherz, addressed the City Council and stated she is present on behalf of the property she owns at 5649 Brooklyn Boulevard. She stated she received a fax from the previous • holder of the contract for deed on the property saying she must be present for this hearing today in regards to unpaid fees. She stated she was never notified of any of the notices or warnings. She spoke to a couple staff members and they said there were notices sent out when City workers went out to remove diseased trees. It was noted that Ms. Scherz' property falls under the following public hearing, agenda item 8c. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. It was noted that the public hearing on the property located at 5543 Dupont Avenue should be continued if the Council will be requesting staff to research the status of the property. The motion to close the public hearing was withdrawn. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing for all properties with the exception of 5543 Dupont Avenue N, and to continue the Public Hearing for said property to the next City Council meeting with a report from staff. Motion passed unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-44 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE • HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 03/09/09 -5- DRAFT • Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2009-44 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, with the removal of 5543 Dupont Avenue N, for continuance to the next City Council meeting. Motion passed unanimously. Sc. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT ABATEMENT COSTS Mr. Boganey stated the purpose of the public hearing on proposed special assessments for diseased tree removal costs, delinquent weed removal costs, and delinquent abatement costs. He advised on staff's recommendation that the City Council open the subject public hearings and continue the public hearing until April 13, 2009 to meet state statute requirements on public notification. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. • Ms. Michelle Nelson, 5926 Camden Avenue N, addressed the City Council and stated she received a notice in September letting them know they needed to take care of their grass. They took care of the grass and trees by October 1St. The City states that on October 2nd they sent people out to take care of it, but it had already been done. She received a bill in the mail later in October. She called the City the next day and informed them of her confusion about receiving the bill since they took care of the work personally. Ms. Nelson stated she works two to three jobs most of the time and she takes care of her responsibilities. She feels this was a very unfair assessment because the City did not do the work. Her daughter has been home on short term disability and would have been home when they said they were there to. do the work, and she did not see anyone. Ms. Mila Balais, 6419 Kyle Avenue N, addressed the City Council and stated she received notice for an assessment for noxious weed removal, but she did not own the property at that time. Mr. James Berry stated the sellers were to pay all costs against the property. He called the City to see if there was anything against the property before that closing date and there was nothing; now Ms. Balais has received this letter. He stated it was a foreclosed property and they cut the grass and cleaned it all up themselves the first few days they were there. He and his wife co- signed for the home for Ms. Balais whose hours have been cut down to eight hours per week, and they are making the mortgage payments for her. There was discussion on whether there is an ability to identify the date of the abatement on the . notification letters. Mr. Boganey explained this would take quite a bit of staff time to include on each notice; it could be done, but it would be expensive. The notification letters include a contact 03/09/09 -6- DRAFT • phone number and that information is available in the office. He noted that for 99% of the cases the individuals who receive the notices of this hearing are the individuals who receive the notices about the cutting that needs to be done; they are given advance notice before the City cuts the grass and another notice after the grass is cut. For 95% to 99% there is no issue about the date; this type of situation is a rare case. This information will be presented to Council on the properties that are referred to staff. Mr. Greg Waataja, 6007 Dupont Avenue N, addressed the City Council and stated he purchased this house in August. Since that time he has done a lot of grass and tree removal work. He never received anything from the City saying he needed to get this done and now he is being assessed money. His certified letter is the first he heard about this. Ms. Ahavel Scherz addressed the City Council and stated she is present on behalf of the property she owns at 5649 Brooklyn Boulevard. She did not receive any notices for whatever action has taken place; if she had received them she would have attempted to take care of it. She pays someone to upkeep the property and was told by neighbors that someone of that appearance was there. The fax transmittal she has received regarding this public hearing shows that she did not receive any previous notification. Ms. Scherz stated as for the tree, prior to the City going out there to remove the diseased tree she contacted North Star Tree Care about how much it would cost to bring down the tree and take care of the weeds. The project was sc?ieduled and she was then hospitalized, and following her hospitalization found that the tree had been taken out. The cost she was quoted to remove ten trees was a lot less than what the City is charging her to • remove one tree. She stated she did not just abandon the property; she does her best to come down, and if she is unable to do so herself she sends someone else out. She does not believe she should be assessed the costs. Mr. Boganey verified with Ms. Scherz that the notification she received regarding tonight's public hearing was addressed to the previous contract-for-deed buyer and that she did not receive any notifications during the year directly from the City regarding any of these issues. Mr. Tom Reed, 8897 105th Avenue, Coon Rapids, addressed the City Council and stated he is present to speak regarding the property located at 5543 Dupont Ave N. He stated he was assessed for weeds. He cut the lawn a couple of times and the third time he received the notification letter. He stated he was assessed $219 just to cut the grass. Mr. LeFevere verified with Mr. Reed that he turned the keys for the subject property over to the bank the first week of March 2008. Mr. Reed stated that the weed removal was done in September of 2008 and the utilities were assessed right after that. He has not heard anything from his bank but he knows that the house was up for sheriff's sale. Mr. Chester Julin, 5815 Humboldt Avenue N, addressed the City Council and stated they were assessed a charge for cutting grass on the property on July 12, 2009. At that time Wells Fargo owned the property; they purchased it on July 21St . Mr. Joel Hanson, 5949 Xerxes Avenue N, addressed the City Council and stated he is an investor and the property is currently rental property. He stated there are a couple of issues with this. 03/09/09 -7- DRAFT First, he received notice on the 26 h that the City had done some work at the property. On the 29th his property manager sent a fax requesting an extension due to illness and received no response. On November 13th she paid by check and received no further notification until receiving notice to attend this meeting. As of February 28th the check had not cleared. Mr. Hanson stated the -notification letter states that it was observed by City staff that the properly needed weed cutting. He questioned if it is the job of City staff to patrol his property. Mayor Willson stated there is code enforcement staff that looks at the properties in the City. They will often knock on the door of the property and discuss why they are there and what their opinion is of violations. Mr. Hanson stated his property manager informed him that there had been someone at the property cutting the grass on the date it is stated that the work was done. The City people said they were there to pull the weeds but left because the person there said they were going to cut them.- He questioned why he is being charged for weed pulling that was not done. He stated they have been told by prospective tenants that this properly is the nicest place they have looked at. He stated when he rented to people of a certain race they did not seem to have problems and when he rents to other races they seem to run into staff looking at their property and scrutinizing more closely. Mr. Boganey noted that Mr. Hanson likely received a notice about this public hearing because the check that was submitted to the City has not been deposited. He indicated staff will check the records to see if the City has received the check. Ms. Jo Roberts, business owner of Link Associates located at 5400 France Avenue N, addressed the City Council and stated Brooklyn Center is a soft spot for her, which is why she established their business here. She was raised here and shares the concerns for the people. Her business works with investors. She shares the opinion about banks and mortgage companies not doing their jobs fully and efficiently. She stated she would like to know if there is something her business can do to help in this area. She is used to working with a lot of different people from the community. She is willing to put a program together or tag on to. a program. She stated her company offers a lot of services for free. They have volunteers that do things like grass cutting and they can help with some of the costs. They want to give back to the community. It was suggested that Ms. Roberts' company may be able to partner with volunteer organizations that are engaged in some of these services. Mr. Boganey indicated staff will likely contact Ms. Roberts shortly regarding the services of her company. Mr. Paul Baird, 5308 Lilac Drive N, addressed the City Council and stated he owns four other rental properties in the suburbs of Minneapolis in addition to this rental property. He received a citation on noxious grass/weeds. He stated they have kept up the property very well and have spent $15,000 to $20,000 on the property in the past 1 %2 years. As a property owner/investor, they have been trying to keep the doors open in this area and keep it up the best they know how to do. Mr. Baird stated his position that there should be a liaison to conduct due diligence and contact someone about this type of situation. When he received the notice on this property it was towards the end of the timeframe, he scrambled the crew they had to get there, they did it 03/09/09 -8- DRAFT themselves, and he still received a fine. He stated there should be some other method of due diligence before hitting properties with $145 for cutting the lawn. He did not hear anything from his tenant on this. The yard is never overgrown or a public nuisance. Mr. Boganey suggested if the Council determines to request staff to conduct further review on any of the properties that have been represented tonight, that property owners with further documented substantiation for their case call the phone number listed on their notification letter and arrange to drop the information off at City Hall at their earliest convenience. Mr. LeFevere suggested property owners that do not live at the property address that was assessed provide staff with the current phone number, email address and contact information. Providing this information to staff prior to leaving the meeting tonight would help facilitate the process. Ms. Nelson, 5926 Camden Avenue N, reiterated her concerns regarding the assessment on her property. She stated she did not take a picture of her property after she cut it and does not know that she can provide proof that she did the work. Mr. Baird, 5308 Lilac Drive N, reiterated his concerns and stated his position that the City should look into properties to see if there is a background on complaints. If the property owners - - will be in a judgment situation it is the City's responsibility to consider mitigating circumstances. • Mr. LeFevere stated some of the comments that have been made tonight suggest there may be misunderstandings about this process. Diseased tree removal and long grass is defined in City Code as a nuisance situation, which it is the responsibility of the landowner to take care of. Property owners that do not take care of this can be charged criminally; that is not what is happening tonight, this is only addressing a special charge to abate the nuisance when the landowner or landowner representative fails to do it. If the City taxpayer incurs the expense for cutting the grass this is the process that is gone through. It would not be legal for the City to try to recover fines and penalties; it is simply to recover costs that the City has incurred. Mr. LeFevere commented there have been property owners that have stated they completed the work themselves. It should be noted that if the work is not completed by the deadline and there is a re- inspection, there is a fixed charge for going to the property. Even though the lawn has been cut there still may be a charge that the City incurred. Ms. Nelson, 5926 Camden Avenue N, questioned if the notification received on the work to be done refers to ten business days or ten calendar days. She stated the notice was received by her after September 22nd and the property was supposedly cut on October 2nd according to the City. Mr. LeFevere replied unless the letter states business days it would generally refer to calendar days. Ms. Nelson stated when dealing with most businesses or cities they go by business days. This may be something to be considered on the revision of the notification letter going forward. She stated she had the work done before the ten business days were up. • 03/09/09 -9- DRAFT • • • Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to continue the Public Hearing to April 13, 2009. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boganey indicated that a report will be provided on each of the properties that were represented tonight. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO HOUSING COMMISSION Mayor Willson announced the Mayoral appointment of James Richards to the Housing Commission with a term expiring December 31, 2011. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to ratify the Mayoral appointment of James Richards to the Housing Commission with a term expiring December 31, 2011. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-45 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION FOR THE WETLAND 639W RESTORATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Mr. Lillehaug provided a brief overview of the proposed Wetland 639W Restoration Feasibility Study and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2009-45 Approving and Authorizing Execution of Cost Sharing Agreement with the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission for the Wetland 639W Restoration Feasibility Study. Motion passed unanimously. 10c. RESOLUTION NO. 2009-46 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2009-01, -02, -03, AND -04, ALDRICH AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. 03/09/09 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2009-46 Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2009-01, -02, -03, and -04, Aldrich Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements. Councilmember Yelich stated his support of the subject improvement projects due to the high priority of maintaining the City's infrastructure. He noted the issue was raised of whether it is appropriate to impose financial burdens on residents in terms of assessments at this time. He stated his position that not moving forward with this project would be unfair to residents assessed for existing and previous projects, as well as future projects. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Yelich reported on his attendance at the following events: ■ Reading to students at Evergreen Elementary in celebration of Read Across America and Dr. Suess' birthday. - ■ March 3`d Brooklyn Center Reads Event at Brookdale Mall. Councilmember Lasman reported on her attendance at the February 28, 2009, City • Council/Department Head Goal Setting Retreat. Councilmember Roche reported on the following: ■ His attendance reading to students at Evergreen Elementary in celebration of Read Across America and Dr. Suess' birthday. ■ His attendance at the February 28, 2009, City Council/Department Head Goal Setting Retreat. ■ He has a copy of the highlights of the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan that is available for reference to staff and Council. ■ He began garbage pickup at Evergreen Park. Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following events: ■ February 28, 2009, City Council/Department Head Goal Setting Retreat. ■ March 3, 2009, Brooklyn Center Reads Event at Brookdale Mall. Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following events: ■ February 25, 2009, Centennial Celebration Committee Meeting. ■ February 27, 2009, reading to students at Evergreen Elementary. ■ February 28, 2009, City Council/Department Head Goal Setting Retreat. ■ A discussion with Commissioner Opat on the impact of legislation and LGA on the City of Brooklyn Center. • 03/09/09 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Lasman portrayed a piece of art depicting different currency bills that was presented by the Riverwood Neighborhood Association to commemorate the City's 98th birthday. She stated it will be hung with pride at City Hall. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • • 03/09/09 -12- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MARCH 9, 2009 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 9:18 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners Kay Lasman, Tom Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities and Recreational Services Jim Glasoe, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. - - - ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS - DISCUSSION ON THE OPT-OUT • OPTION PROVIDED WITHIN NIINNESOTA STATUTE 617.242 Discussion continued on the opt-out option provided within Minnesota Statute 617.242 relating to adult entertainment establishments. Mr. LeFevere provided an overview of the following in relation to regulation of adult entertainment establishments: ■ Regulatory Options ■ Current City Ordinances ■ Minnesota Statute 617.242 Mr. LeFevere advised on the recommendation that there are risks associated with not opting out of Minnesota Statute 617.242 in relation to possible legal challenges by adult establishments attempting to locate in the City. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to amend the current City ordinances to opt out of Minnesota Statute 617.242. COMMUNITY SURVEY - PRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON DRAFTING THE FINAL REPORT Mr. Boganey introduced the item and stated that the City Council briefly reviewed the results of is the community survey at the February 28th City Council Retreat. Dr. William Morris and Mr. 03/09/09 -1- DRAFT Peter Leatherman are present tonight to provide a presentation on the survey and answer questions of the City Council. Dr. William Morris, Decision Resources, Ltd., provided a presentation on the results of the Community Survey conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd. Dr. Morris answered questions of the City Council on the survey and discussed the following results of the survey with the Council: ■ City government and City staff are viewed very positively o Terrific job on communicating The City is getting hit by three major concerns of the residents ■ Rising crime - spurred on by shootings and Brookdale ■ Redevelopment - spurred on by Brookdale ■ Property taxes Possible areas for impact ■ Neighborhood watch ■ Recommendation for communication to residents regarding any efforts being made with respect to redevelopment. The City is in a strong position in terms of the respect people have for city government. • WATERSHED MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENT Mr. Boganey stated the Council is being asked to evaluate and provide comments pertaining to a proposed major plan amendment to the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission's Second Generation Watershed Management Plan. Mr. Lillehaug explained that the purpose of the major plan amendment is to revise the Capital Improvement Program to add an additional potential Shingle Creek Restoration Project in Brooklyn Park in response to a visioning project for Shingle Creek between Regent and Noble Avenues being completed by Hennepin Community Works and the Cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. It would be -beneficial to have the plan amendment completed for grant opportunities that may arise. With the proposed revision, the capital levy in 2010 is estimated to be $508,000, slightly exceeding the $500,000 maximum annual levy guideline. Mr. Lillehaug reviewed the proposed major plan amendment to the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission's Second Generation Watershed Management Plan and answered questions of the City Council. Mr. Lillehaug requested Council consideration of the following issues in order to provide staff direction: ■ Does the City Council support the major plan amendment? ■ Does the City Council support exceeding the maximum annual levy guideline for 2010? 0 There was discussion on the following in relation to the proposed major plan amendment: ■ The capital levy for 2010 exceeding the maximum annual levy guideline 03/09/09 -2- DRAFT • Visioning process for the Shingle Creek Restoration Project The majority consensus of the City Council was support of the Major Plan Amendment as outlined in Appendix G of the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission's Second Generation Watershed Management Plan. While the City Council does not necessarily favor exceeding the maximum annual levy guideline for 2010, the expectation is that the Commission will be seeking grant funds to cover the additional costs associated with the Major Plan Amendment. 2009 STRATEGIC PLAN AND BUDGET REVISION UPDATE Mr..Boganey suggested rescheduling this item to the next City Council Work Session due to time constraints. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to reschedule the 2009 Strategic Plan and Budget Revision Update to the first item on the March 23, 2009 City Council Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:56 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • 03/09/09 -3- DRAFT Item No. 6b City CouncilNgenda • 0 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: March 16, 2009 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following list of licenses at its March 23, 2009, meeting. Background: The following businesses/persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business/person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. • MECHANICAL Associated Mechanical Contractors BrooklynAire Htg & Cooling D L Johnson Htg & A/C Fore Mechanical Home Energy Center Infinity Heating & A/C Jerry Dahl Htg and Air Joel Smith Heating & A/C LBP Mechanical Inc Professional Mechanical Services Solid Refrigeration 1257 Marschall Rd, Shakpoee 8205 Groveland Rd, Mounds View 19620 Jackson St NE, East Bethel 3102 103rd Lane, Blaine 2415 Annapolis Ln, Plymouth 1017 Meadowwood DR, Brooklyn Park 1933 164th Lane NE, Ham Lake 4920 173rd Ave, Ham Lake 315 Royalston Ave N, Minneapolis 6176 Mill Run Road, Monticello 1125 American Blvd E, Bloomington RENTAL See attached report. 0 Rental Licenses for Council Approval on March 23, 2009 Inspector Clerk Clerk Clerk Police Utilities Assessing Bess i ng Dwelling Renewal Unpaid Unpaid npaid Property Address Type or Initial Owner Calls for Service Utilities Taxes 'axes 4110 Lakebreeze Ave 1 Bldg 4 Units Initial Daniel Mazzuco None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK Passed with Weather Deferral 3328 49th Ave N Single Family Initial Sherman Kho None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 5212 70th Ave N Single Family Initial Roland Bell None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 5012 71st Ave N Single Family Initial Jared Lundgren None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 6943 Drew Ave N Single Family Initial Jared Lundgren None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 7025 Drew Ave N Single Family Initial Ryan Ray Yardley None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK Passed with Weather Deferral 6728 Grimes Ave N Single Family Initial Charles Jing Bright None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 6807 Humboldt Ave N C303 Single Family Initial William and Elsa Lind None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 5310 Knox Ave N Single Family Initial Doug Wahl None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 7033 Unity Ave N Single Family Initial Matthew Vetter None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK Brookhaven Apartments 1-property damage, 3-disturbing peace, 1- 3 Bldgs 54 Units Renewal Hyder Jaweed theft (.09 calls for service per unit per 12-913 OK OK 3907, 3909, 301165th Ave N OK Ordinance) 5601 Lyndale Ave N 1 Bldg 4 Units Renewal Dragon Property Management None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 3012-18 51st Ave N Two Family (2) Renewal Steven and Debra Elhardt None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 5408 Girard Ave N Two Family (2) Renewal Gardner Properties III None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 4213 62nd Ave N Single Family Renewal Brannon Ciora None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 3313 63rd Ave N Single Family Renewal Yuan Paul Xiong None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 2807 66th Ave N Single Family Renewal Nicole Franklin None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 5559 Lyndale Ave N Single Family Renewal Dragon Property Management None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 7217 Unity Ave N Single Family Renewal Edwina Willie None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK 5936 York Ave N Single Family Renewal Stephen Phillips None per 12-911 Ordinance OK OK OK Council Agenda Item No. 6c City 0 0 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager c FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works 56 DATE: March 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1, Improvement No. 2008-16, Contract 2008-J, Automated Meter Reading Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $17,454.24 for Improvement No. 2008-16, Automated Meter Reading (AMR). Background: On October 6, 2008, the City Council awarded a contract to Northern Waterworks, Inc. of Blaine, Minnesota to furnish and install approximately 9,000 water meters in the City. The project is anticipated to be completed by the original contract completion date of October 30, 2009. The • following Change Order No. 1 items represent unanticipated items that are recommended to amend the contract to complete the project. 1. Commercial Meters Standardization -1 %s°' Size. Three different models of the older 1'/z" commercial meters have been encountered during the AMR project. Staff further evaluated the change out of these meters and determined that it would be beneficial to standardize these variable meter types to a single standard elliptical flange-type meter at this time. This change would reduce inventories of the different meters and meter parts in the future and reduce long term costs. Estimated Quantity: 110 Meters. Estimated Additional Cost: $13,728.00 2. Below Ground Water Meters - City Staff determined that below ground meter applications should be the Neptune Pit model meter. Examples of the below ground meters are irrigation meters in townhome complexes and other areas. The Pit-type meter is typically used in installations such as manholes and other -areas where exposed to wet environmental conditions. The Pit-type meter has extra water proof gaskets and seals for the meter, transmitter and register that provide for a more durable meter and longer life expectancy. Estimated Quantity: 33 Meters. Estimated Additional Cost: $3,726.24 Budget Issues: The attached resolution authorizes Change Order No. 1 for the project. The original contract amount was $2,322,573.25. Change Order No. 1 increases the contract amount to $2,340,027.49. The total amount of Change Order No. 1 ($17,454.24) represents less than one (1) percent of the original contract amount and is within the project's budgeted contingency amount ($100,000.00). Improvement Project 2008-16 Change Order No. 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008-16, CONTRACT 2008-J, AUTOMATED METER READING • WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Northern Waterworks of Blaine, Minnesota was instructed to complete additional work as itemized on Change Order No. 1 for Contract 2008-16; and WHEREAS, said additional work was not included in the original Contract, but was deemed necessary to properly complete the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $17,454.24 for Contract 08-J is hereby approved. The revised contract amount is as follows: Original Contract Amount Change Order No. 1 $ 2,322,573.25 $ 17,454.24 Revised Contract Amount March 23, 2009 Date ATTEST: Mayor City 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. $ 2,340,027.49 0 City Council Agenda Item No. 7a • • • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works %i--- DATE: March 23, 2009 SUBJECT: Continuation of Public Hearing for Delinquent Public Utility Service Account - 5543 Dupont Avenue North. Resolution Amending Levy Roll No. 17345 and Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council continue the adjourned public hearing for 5543 Dupont Avenue North and consider approval of the attached resolution amending and certifying special assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. is Background: A public hearing was held on March 9, 2009 to consider certification of proposed special assessments. The Council called for this hearing at its February 9, 2009 meeting. The City Council approved the resolution; however, one of the property owners objected to the special assessment for his property. The public hearing for the proposed special assessments was adjourned by the Council for that affected property owner only - the remaining special assessments levied for all other properties were approved. The March 9, 2009 council meeting memorandum is attached for additional background information pertaining to the project and special assessments. If the property owner continues to object to the special assessment should the Council certify the special assessment, the property owner may chose to appeal the Council's decision. An appeal by the property owner is required to be filed with district court. The City Attorney will advise the Council of options for handling the dispute and potential litigation issues should the need arise. Budget Issues: The amended levy roll for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts currently includes 780 entries and totals $275,079.02 based on updated information provided by the Fiscal & Support Services Department on March 16, 2009. • Council Resolution for Delinquent Public Utilities City of Broekiyn Center • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING LEVY ROLL NO. 17345 AND CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts were certified by the City Council on March 9, 2009, with the exception of one property; and WHEREAS, it was the majority consensus of the City Council to remove 5543 Dupont Avenue North from the assessment roll so further review could take place; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and City Ordinances, Sections 4-105 and 4-201 authorize certification of such delinquent accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent public utility accounts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Such proposed assessment for 5543 Dupont Avenue North is hereby added to Special Assessment Levy Roll 17345 as approved under resolution No. 2009-44. 2. The special assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2010, in one annual installment with interest thereon at six (6.0) percent per annum, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from May 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before April 30, 2009. After April 30, 2009, he or she may pay the total assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from May 1, 2009, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close-of-business November 25, 2009 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. • ' RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. March 23. 2009 Date ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was drily 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. • 3 City of Brooklyn Center City Council Agenda Item Memorandum TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Fiscal & Support Services DATE: 11 March 2009 SUBJECT: Unpaid Utility Assessment to Tom Reed, 5543 Dupont Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the proposed assessment of $ 296.22 in unpaid utilities for the property located at 5543 Dupont Ave N be adopted by the City Council. Background: On Monday, 9 March 2009 a public hearing was held prior to the adoption of proposed assessments against various properties for unpaid utility bills. Tom • Reed, currently residing at 897 105t" Avenue, Coon Rapids, appeared and disputed his responsibility for the bill being assessed to the property at 5543 Dupont Ave N. He stated that he had walked away from the property and given the keys to the bank. When asked by the Mayor who technically owned the house he stated that he didn't know but thought TCF Bank did. Both the Utility Billing Department and the Assessor's Office looked into the matter and both found that all records indicate that Mr. Reed is still the owner of the property. The property has not appeared on a Sherriff's Sale roster and is still in Mr. Reed's possession according to the Hennepin County Land Records website. In addition, unpaid utilities were assessed to this same property last fall with the same ownership information. Regardless of the ownership issue, the amount should be assessed to the property so that it can be collected at the point of a future sale. The amount will appear as a lien against the property and be collected and remitted to the City upon closing of a property sale. Financial Impact: The total amount due from this bill is $ 296.22, including all penalties and • certification fee. The opportunity cost of collecting the account through property taxes instead of direct payment is about $ 4.50 per year at current interest rates. • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve L.illehaug, Director of Public Works 0$- DATE: March 3, 2009 SUBJECT: Public Hearings on Proposed Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and approve the resolution certifying special assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts. Background: A public hearing is scheduled on March 9, 2009 to consider certification of proposed special . assessments. The Council called for this hearing at its February 9, 2009 meeting. All affected property owners have been notified by mail of the date of the public hearing and the amount of the proposed special assessments. Public Hearing Procedure The City Council typically conducts the public hearing. The attached resolution certifying the assessments to the Hennepin County tax rolls is provided for consideration upon closing of the public hearing. If a property owner files an appeal with the Clerk prior to the public hearing, or should any person appear at the hearing and object to an assessment, staff recommends that the Council refer any substantive objections to staff for a report back to the council at a continued hearing. An example might be an issue whereby staff would need to research the history of a particular complaint, and assemble documentation. The council should consider removing the objection related assessment from the proposed levy roll and adopting the remaining proposed assessments. If an appeal for a specific property is actually filed with district court, staff and the City Attorney will advise the council of options for handling the dispute and potential litigation issues. Payment Options Available to Property Owners Once an assessment roll is adopted by the Council, the owner of each property has the following • payment options: Council Resolution for Delinquent Public Utilities City of Brooklyn Center 1. Pay the entire amount of the special assessment, without interest, between March 10 and April 30, 2009. 2. From May 1 through November 25, 2009, the property owner may pay the total assessment, with interest calculated from May 1, 2009 to the date of payment. 3. If payments are made with property taxes, the first payment will be due with taxes in 2010. The total principle will be payable in annual installments for the period stated on the levy roll. Interest of 6.0 percent is accrued on the unpaid balance. Partial prepayments (such as paying half now and certifying the balance) are not allowed under the City's current assessment policy. Budget Issues: The levy roll for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts currently includes over 841 entries and totals $279,921.38 based on information provided by the Fiscal & Support Services Department on March 3, 2009. A revised levy roll for delinquent public utility service accounts will be provided to the City Council prior to the public Hearing on March 9, 2009. is • Council Resolution for Delinquent Public Utilities City of Brooklyn Center City Council Agenda Item No. 8a • 0 City of Brooklyn Center City Council Agenda Item Memorandum TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Fiscal & Support Services DATE: 18 March 2009 SUB7ECT: Rescinding Assessments for Unpaid Utilities Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution rescinding certain assessments for unpaid utility bills certified on 9 March 2009. Background: There are a number of properties served by City utilities that are not located within the city limits. Several properties along 53rd Avenue in Minneapolis receive service from Brooklyn Center as well as properties along 73rd Avenue in Brooklyn Park. Normally, these accounts are identified and excluded from the final list of assessments to be certified by the absence of a property identification numbers. This number isn't in Brooklyn Center's database because the properties are not in Brooklyn Center's taxing jurisdiction. Because the file was altered for mapping purposes before the final list was prepared, the blank property identification numbers were pulled from the Hennepin County files and included in the final list. With no blank property identification numbers in the final file, no properties were removed from the final resolution. Utility staff discovered the error when balancing the resolution to the accounts for final transfer and removed the properties from the final transfer. In order to finish correcting the error, the City Council is asked to adopt a resolution removing those properties from the earlier certifying resolution. Utility billing staff will then work with Brooklyn Park and Minneapolis to collect these accounts. Financial Impact: The total change in the assessment roll is $ 4, 842.36 making the final certified assessment roll $ 260,945.46. its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REMOVING CERTIFIED ASSESSMENTS FROM MARCH 9, 2009 UNPAID UTILITY CHARGES ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a resolution certifying assessments for unpaid municipal utilities on 9 March 2009; and WHEREAS, that list of assessments included 10 properties which cannot be assessed by the City of Brooklyn Center because even though they receive municipal utility service from the City of Brooklyn Center they lie outside the city's taxing jurisdiction. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following properties and amounts are removed from the assessment roll of 9 March 2009: 2311 53`d Avenue North 92.60 Resident 2317 53`d Avenue North 1,820.45 Bashri Moghul 332 73`d Avenue North 651.61 Huey Vang • 632 73`d Avenue North 215.45 Kevin Belille 336 73`d Avenue North 465.88 Huey Vang 32073 rd Avenue North 436.73 Judy Kyker 7305 Dupont Avenue North 156.02 Deanna Wilson 914 73`d Avenue North 107.69 Terry Wagner 7301 Aldrich Avenue North 321.50 Mitchell Hanson 2124 73`d Avenue North 575.43 Patricia Stephenson March 23. 2009 Date ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 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. uncil Age1da Item 'No, 8b city Co • ~~i 0 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL ITEM DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development is P SUBJECT: An Ordinance Relating to Zoning and the Regulation of Adult Establishments: Amending Section 35-2182 to the Brooklyn Center Code of Ordinances COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: It is recommended that the City Council proceed with the first reading and setting of the second reading and public hearing for April 27, 2009 for an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Code Regarding Adult Establishments. BACKGROUND: In 2006 the State Legislature adopted Minn. Stat. 617.242 which defined and regulated "adult establishments (businesses with live performances). This statute provided requirements which prohibited the location of a new adult business from locating within 50 miles from an existing adult business, set limits on the days and hours of operation, and prohibits uses from operating within 500 feet of a residential property or within 2800 feet of a school or place of worship. The statute applies to all cities that do not have ordinances that address all of the State's regulations on adult establishments and does provide the option. of opting out of this state statute. A federal district court has found that the statute's requirements relating to notice, distance, and hours of operation would likely violate the First Amendment. The City Attorney is recommending that the City amend its ordinance, exercising its right to Opt-Out of the State Statute based on the serious questions that have been raised about the constitutionality of the Statute. Attached for your reference is a copy of the staff memo discussed at the March 9, 2009 City Council Work Session. COUNCIL BUDGET ISSUES: There are no budget issues associated with the adoption of this ordinance. 0 • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 2009, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35-2182 of the City Ordinances Regarding Zoning and the Regulation of Adult Establishments. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35-2182 OF TEE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ZONING AND THE REGULATION OF ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS TILE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 35-2182 of the Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is amended to add the following new paragraph 4: 4. Minnesota Statutes Section 617.242 shall not aunty in the Citv. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 2009. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 1 MEMORANDUM - CITY COUNCIIJEDA WORD SESSION DATE: March 4, 2009 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Adult Entertainment Establishments - Discussion on the Opt-Out Option Provided within Minnesota Statute 617.2142. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED: Provide direction to staff whether to opt out of Minnesota State Law or continue to monitor the situation regarding Adult Entertainment Establishments. BACKGROUND: June 23, 2008 City Council Work Session - ADULT ENTERTAIlVMENT ESTABLISHMENTS This issue was brought to the Council about one year ago when the state law was passed At that time it was determined to wait and see if there are any legal challenges and to report the current status to the Council in one year. Mr. Boganey stated the City has several options in terms of whether to do anything at this time. There are certain elements of the state law that cover regulations that city ordinances do not deal with. In those particular cases, if the City does not opt out, state law would apply; if they determine to opt out, the City could adopt its own standards. Mr. Boganey requested discussion from the Council on whether this is an issue the City wants to deal with at this time. It was noted that this issue is an example of where the City should be proactive. It was suggested that a comparison be conducted of the City's ordinance with ordinances of other communities. There was discussion on the possibility of an interpretation that adult use entertainment establishments are being prohibited if limits on proximity are too restrictive. An analysis on Subdivision 3 was requested. Mr. Boganey noted that currently state regulations apply where the City does not have regulations. He suggested a review of the current City Ordinance and the State Statute, determining whether to incorporate City regulations where the state has assumed responsibility. This may help in deciding whether to opt out of the State Statute. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to present Council with comparative information and options regarding regulations on adult use establishments. Staff has contacted cities adjoining Brooklyn Center and has discovered that this issue has not been or is necessarily planned to be discussed in the foreseeable future. A recent contact with the League of Minnesota Cities Research Division did not provide any additional information other than that previously provided by the City of Minneapolis and the City of Lakeville regarding decisions to opt-out. However, contacts to the Cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth indicated that they were considering the opt-out option at a future date. As part of the review the attached memorandum was prepared by the City Attorney in which she comments on the fallowing" • Regulating Options • City's Current Ordinances • State Law • Conclusion/recommendation Attached is a copy of the June 23, 2008 staff memo; 2007 Minnesota Statute, and city codes relating to Adult Establishments. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES: Should the City defer consideration until such time as the State Legislature examines the constitutionality of their state wide regulations relating to Adult Entertainment Establishments? Should the City proceed with an ordinance to opt-out of the State Statute based on the concerns raised on the constitutionality of the Statute? t • Mary D. Tiegen 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Miimeapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9277 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax mtie§ M0kennedy-gmven.com htto://www.kenne&-eraven.com MEMORANDUM • To: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist Gary Eitel, Community Development Director From: Mary D. Tietjen, Attorney Date: October 23, 2008 Re: Regulation of Adult Entertainment Establishments You asked that I prepare a brief summary of the City's options for regulation of adult businesses. In particular, you have asked about the effect of the current state statute and whether the City should "opt out" of that statute. I. Reaulatorv ODtions. Cities may regulate adult uses through zoning ordinances, licensing ordinances, and through prohibitions against public nudity. Some cities opt for only zoning, while others use a combination of both zoning and licensing. Zoning ordinances either disperse adult uses or concentrate them in a particular area. Ordinances that disperse adult uses typically apply a "buffer distance" that separates adult businesses from more sensitive uses, such as residential areas, churches, school, public parks, etc. Courts have upheld these types of zoning regulations as long as the separation or buffer requirement leaves a reasonable amount of area for an adult business to locate in the City. What is reasonable will vary from city to city and will depend, in part, on the nature and make-up of the community. Cities may also regulate adult uses by licensing them.. Licensing requires caution because courts view it as a "prior restraint on free speech." Therefore, a licensing ordinance must be carefully drafted to provide narrow and objective standards that limit the discretion of the city. It must also contain certain procedural safeguards. Licensing ordinances typically contain provisions that require applicants to disclose certain information such as name, age, criminal history and allow for background checks. Many ordinances also disqualify applicants who have been convicted of certain sex crimes. Courts have upheld these types of ordinances. Cities may also prohibit public nudity. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld city ordinances i requiring dancers in adult establishments to, wear minimal clothing during performances. Cities can also prohibit liquor in establishments where there is totally nude dancing. 341748v2 MDT BR291-4 • r 2. Citv's Current Ordinance., The City's current ordinance regulates adult uses through zoning and provides some additional restrictions for performances at "adult cabarets." Under City Code section 35-330, adult establishments are permitted uses in the I-1 Industrial Park Zoning District. Section 35-2182 provides the findings for the City's adult use regulations and defines the applicable terms. Section 19-1900 defines "adult cabaret" and requires that certain conditions be met (age of dancers, distance that dancers must maintain from patrons, no tips, etc.) Section 19-1703 prohibits nudity in public places. 3. State Law. In 2006, the State Legislature adopted Minn. Stat. § 617.242. The statute defines and regulates "adult establishments" (businesses with live performances). It does not regulate other uses, such as adult theaters or adult bookstores. The statute requires written notice to a city before a business may open and allows a city to hold public hearings on the proposed adult establishment. The statute disqualifies persons convicted of certain sex crimes from operating a business. Also, under the statute, a city is not required to provide a location for an adult business if another adult business already exists within 50 miles of the city. Finally, the statute limits the days and hours of operation of adult uses and prohibits such uses from operating within certain distances of residential property, schools, places of worship and other adult businesses. Several of these requirements are problematic in light of the First Amendment protection adult uses receive. A federal district court found that the statute's requirements - relating to notice, distance, and hours of operation would likely violate the First Amendment. Although the constitutionality of the statute has been called into question, it is still on the books. The statute applies in all cities that do not have ordinances regulating adult establishments. For those cities that do have ordinances, the statute will apply in areas. that the ordinance doesn't cover. Subdivision 7 of the statute allows cities to "opt out" of the statute, meaning a city can adopt an ordinance providing that the statute does not apply within the city. Several cities have adopted provisions in their ordinances opting out of the state statute. 4. Conclusion. My recommendation is that the City amend its ordinances to opt out of the state statute. Serious questions have been raised about the constitutionality of the statute. Also, based on my experience in this area and defending cities in challenges by adult business owners, much of the statute is not consistent with existing law. The City already has the ability to" regulate adult establishments and may do so in a way that does not violate the First Amendment, yet takes into account the specific needs and characteristics of the City. Public nudity is currently prohibited under the City's nuisance ordinance. The Council could consider additional licensing regulations for adult establishments, but should consider the additional administrative oversight and monitoring that licensing would require. Licensing is not required, of course, but is simply another alternative if the Council wishes to pursue additional regulatory control in this area. 34174M MDT DR291-4 2 • MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 23, 2008 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist SUBJECT: Status of Minnesota Law regarding Adult Entertainment COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Provide direction to staff whether to update current ordinance, Opt Out of Minnesota State Law, or continue to monitor the situation regarding Adult Entertainment Establishments. BACKGROUND In 2006, Minnesota State Laws were passed in regards to Adult Use Entertainment establishments, specifically Minnesota Statutes S 617.242. This statute section is provided in Attachment L This statute was challenged in federal district court and the judge issued an injunction preventing the city of Duluth from acting under this law because he felt it would most likely be found unconstitutional. At this time, no efforts to amend Minnesota Statute or resolve the constitutionality issues associated with the adult use state law have been identified. The MN Statute applies to cities throughout the state as follows: 1) If a city has no ordinance regulating adult business this law applies 2) A city ordinance can be more restrictive or an ordinance can say the state law does not apply 3) Even if a city has an ordinance regulating some adult uses the state law applies to any adult uses not regulated by the city ordinance. Therefore, the League of Minnesota. Cities is recommending that cities consider adopting regulations regarding adult use establishment. Cities that already have adequate regulations for adult use facilities may wish to consider adopting language opting out of -the State Law. Example "opt out' language from the City of Lakeville is provided in Attachment III. The City of Brooklyn Center Zoning Code 35-2182 regulates the Zoning district for locating an adult establishment. Adult establishments are permitted in the Industrial Park (14) District. However, the city codes do not address other areas specified by MN State Law including limits on days and hours bf operation, proximity to other adult entertainment establishments residential areas certain educational facilities and religious institutions; and restrictions on backgrounds of ownership or management. (Provided in Attachment In. Because of this language, there is a possibility that the state law would apply and create legal challenges.. The City Attorney's Office would need to be consulted in implementing any decision since issues involving adult entertainment uses are legally complex. COUNCIL, POLICY ISSUES • How does the City Council want to respond to the state-wide initiative regarding adult uses? • Should the City Council consider opting out of the Miumota State law? • is the current ordinance and regulations sufficient to protect the public health, safety and welfare? • 2 • Attachment I Minnesota Statute 617.242 2007 Minnesota Statutes 617.242 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS. Subdivision 1. Definitions. For purposes of this section: (1) "adult entertainment establishment" means a business that is open only to adults and that presents live performances that are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the depiction of sexual conduct or nudity, (2) "sexual conduct" has the meaning given in section 617.241; and (3) nudity has the meaning given in section 617.292, subdivision 3. Subd. 2. Notice to local government unit. A person must not operate an adult entertainment establishment at a location where this type of establishment was not previously located unless, at least 60 days before submitting a permit application for operation of the establishment or, if a permit is not required, at least 60 days before beginning operation of the establishment, the person gives written notice by certified mail to the chief clerical officer of the statutory or home rule charter city in which it will be located of the date on which the person intends to begin operation of the establishment. If the adult entertainment establishment is proposed to be located outside the boundaries of a statutory or home rule charter city the notice must be given to the clerk of the town board and the county auditor of the county in which the establishment is proposed to be located. Upon receipt of the notice, the officer must acknowledge receipt of the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the person, and notify the governing body or town board of the receipt of the notice. The governing body or town board may conduct hearings on the proposed operation of the adult entertainment establishment and must give written notice by ordinary mail to the operator of the establishment of any hearings. Subd. 3. Zoning; adult entertainment establishments. If an adult entertainment establishment is located within 50 miles of a statutory or home rule charter city or town, the governing body of the city or the town board is not required to provide by zoning or otherwise for a location within the city or town limits in which an adult entertainment establishment may be located. If an adult entertainment establishment is located within 50 miles of the boundaries of a county, the county board is not required to provide by zoning or otherwise for a location within the county limits in which an adult entertainment establishment may be located. Subd. 4. Proximity. An adult entertainment establishment may not operate in the same building as, or within 1,500 feet from, another adult entertainment establishment; within 500 feet of residential property, regardless of how the property is zoned; or within 2,800 feet of a public or private elementary or secondary school or a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship. Distances are measured between the closest property lines. Subd. 5. Hours and days of operation. An adult entertainment establishment located in a statutory or home rule city, town, or county that does not regulate hours of operation may not be open for business before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. on i Monday through Saturday and may not be open for business on a Sunday or legal 3 • holiday. Subd. 6. Restrictions on ownership or management by persons convicted of certain crimes. A person who has been convicted of one of the following offenses may not operate or manage an adult business establishment for three years after discharge of the sentence for the offense, or a similar offense in another state or jurisdiction: (1) prostitution under section 609.321; 609.324; or 609.3242; (2) criminal sexual conduct under sections 609.342 to 609.3451; -(3) solicitation of children under section 609.352; (4) indecent exposure under section 617.23; (5) distribution or exhibition of obscene materials and performances under section 617.241; (6) use of a minor in a sexual performance under section 617.246; or (7) possession of pornographic work involving minors under section 617.247. Subd. 7. Local regulation allowed. If a county, town, or statutory or home rule charter city does not enact an ordinance or regulation governing adult entertainment establishments, this section applies in the county, town, or city. A county, town, or city may adopt an ordinance or regulation that is consistent with this section, that supersedes or is in whole or in part more restrictive than this section, or that provides that-this section-does not. apply- in the county, town,.or city, and the county., town, or city ordinance applies. If a county, town, or city adopts an ordinance that only regulates a portion or facet of the operation of an adult entertainment establishment, this section applies to the remainder of the operation that is not regulated by the county, town, or city ordinance, unless the ordinance provides otherwise. History: 2006 c 240 s 2 i 4 Attachment II- Brooklyn Center City Code Section 35-2182. ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS. 1. Findings and Pumose Studies conducted by the Minnesota Attorney General, the. American Planning Association, and cities such as St. Paul., Minnesota; Indianapolis, Indiana; Hopkins, Minnesota; Ramsey, Minnesota; Minnetonka, Minnesota; Rochester, Minnesota; Phoenix, Arizona; Los Angeles, California; and Seattle, Washington have studied the impacts that adult establishments have in those communities. These studies have concluded that adult establishments have adverse impacts * on the surrounding neighborhoods. These impacts include increased crime rates, lower property values, increased transiency, neighborhood blight, and potential health risks. Based on these studies and findings, the City Council concludes: a. Adult establishments have adverse secondary impacts of the types set forth above. _._b. The..adv-erse .impacts caused by adult.e-stablisbmMW tend to diminish if adult establishments are governed by geographic, licensing, and health requirements. C. It is not the. intent of the City Council to prohibit adult establishments' from having a reasonable opportunity to locate in the . city. d. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, allows the City to adopt regulations to promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. e. The public health, safety, morals. and general welfare will be promoted by the City adopting regulations governing adult establishments. 2. Definitions For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given them., a. "Adult Establishment" means a business where sexually-oriented materials are sold, bartered, distributed, leased, or furnished and which meet any of the following criteria: 1) a business where sexually oriented materials are provided for use, consumption, enjoyment, or entertainment on the business premises; ' 2) a business that is distinguished or characterized by an • emphasis on the description or display of specified sexual activities; 5 3) a business that is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the description or display of specified anatomical areas; 4) an adult cabaret as defined in Section 19-1900, Subdivision 5) a business providing sexually oriented materials only for off-site use, consumption, enjoyment or entertainment if the portion of the business used for such purpose exceeds 25%. of the retail floor area of the business or. 500 square feet, whichever is less. b. "Sexually oriented materials" means visual, printed or aural materials, objects or devices that are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the, depiction or description of specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities. C. "Specified Anatomical Areas" means: 1) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic regions, buttocks, anuses, or female breasts below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and 2) Human male genitals in a discernable turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered- . d. "Specified Sexual Activities" means: , 1) Actual or simulated: sexual intercourse;, oral copulation; anal intercourse; oral-anal copulation; bestiality, direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals; flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship; the use of excretory functions in the context of a sexual relationship; anilingus; Buggery; coprophagy; coprophilia; cunnilingus; fellatio; necrophilia; pederasty; pedophilia; piquerism; sapphism; or zooerastia; . 2) Clearly depicted human genitals in the state of sexual stimulation, arousal, or tumescence; 3) Use of human or" animal ejaculation, s(5domy, oral copulation, coitus, or masturbation; 4) Fondling or touching of nude human genitals, pubic regions, buttocks, or female breasts; 5) Situations involving a person or persons, any of whom are nude, who are clad in undergarments or in sexually revealing costumes and engaged in the flagellation, torture, fettering, binding, or other .physical restraint of any person; 6) Erotic or lewd touching, fondling, or other sexually oriented contact with an animal by a human being; or 7) Human excretion, urination, menstruation, or vaginal or anal irrigation. 3. Adult establishments may be located only as allowed by Section 35-330 of this code. 6 Attachment III- Example Opt Out Language PUBLIC NOTICE ORDINANCE NO. 820 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 10 AND TITLE 11, CHAP'T'ER 34 OF THE LAKEVILLE CITY CODE CONCERNING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND USES - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1 'T'itle 3-10-1 of the Lakeville City Code is amended by adding subparagraph . C to read: C. Minn. Stat, Section 617.242 shall not apply. SECTION 2. Title 11-34-3 of the Lakeville City Code is amended by adding subparagraph E to read: E. Minn. Stat. Section 617.242 shall not apply. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this 5th day of March, 2007,by the City Council of the City of Lakeville, Minnesota. CITY OF LAKEVILLE BY: Holly Dahl, Mayor ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk 3/10/07 t 7 .work session Agenda • 0 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION March 23, 2009 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Discussion on Revising the Conditions of the Luther Company LLLP, PUD Approval (Deferring the Recording of the PUD Agreement)-City Manager 2. 2009 Strategic Plan and Budget Limitation Policy 3. Appointment of Historical Commission Liaison-Councilmember Roche 4. Participation and Hosting Spring Senior Forum -Councilmemb er Roche 5. Update - Mn/DOT Long Range Plans for TH 252-City Manager 6. Water Conservation Rate Requirements-City Manager 7. Three Rivers Park District Plan-City Manager 8. Bass Lake Road Improvements Update-City Manager 9. 2009 Budget Revision Update-City Manager Pending List for Future Work Sessions 1. TIF Districts Update - City Manager 2. 2011 Brooklyn Center Celebration - Status Report 3. Banner Installation Policy 4. Centerpointe Apartments Update 5. Legislative Updates da item N - Work Session ,,gen • 0 • MEMORANDUM - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Discussion on Revising the Conditions of the Luther Company, LLLP, PUD Approval (Deferring the Recording of the PUD Agreement) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion with Representatives from the Luther Auto Group on Issues Relating to Property Ownership and Scheduling of their Commercial PUD for Luther Chevrolet Dealership and the Pontiac, GMC, Buick Dealership BACKGROUND: On July 28, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-80 "A Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2008-03 Submitted by Luther Company, LLLP. . This PUD application provided for the redevelopment and expansion of the existing Chevrolet site (formerly Iten Chev) and the remodeling and expansion of the existing building (formerly Iten Leasing) for a new Buick, Pontiac, GMC dealership. The use of a planned unit development provided the applicant with flexibility of common access and use over multiple parcels of land without replatting of the property, a waiver of the 40 ft. rear yard setback requirement for 430168th Avenue (proposed GMC, Buick, Pontiac building), allowed a green strip encroachments for parking along I-94 in lieu of other interior landscaping, and allowed green strip encroachments for 6 display pads with pergolas or decorative railing features along Brooklyn Boulevard, 68th Avenue and I-94. Condition #13 of the Resolution requires that the applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the C-2 underlying zoning district as well as other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. The applicant has indicated the willingness to execute the PUD agreement and to post financial guarantees for the improvements; however, not having complete ownership of the total property, they cannot proceed with the recording and filing of the agreement at this time. Attached is a letter from the City Attorney which addresses the ownership issues and the potential problem areas in the event the PUD agreement is not recorded and copies staff memorandum, site and landscape plans and council resolution relating to the PUD approval. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES: Does the overall value of the Luther PUD improvements and the financial commitments by the Luther Company LLLP provide sufficient assurances to defer the recording of the PUD agreement until such time as the Luther Company LLLP has completed ownership of all properties within the PUD? 0 0 0 CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9215 Email: clefevere@kennedy-graven.com March 17, 2009 Mr. Gary Eitel Director of Community Development City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2113 Re: Luther Companies PUD Dear Gary: The Luther Company, LLP ("Luther") has requested that the City Council amend its July 28, 2008 approval of the PUD for Luther's property on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. BACKGROUND Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 35-355, subdivision 4(d) provides that: All properties to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to assure compliance with the approved Development Plan and Site Plan. One of the conditions of approval of the Luther PUD was that the applicant enter into a PUD Agreement with the City that would be filed with the title to the property and that would assure compliance with the Development Plans for the PUD. The City has always required that the owners of all property within a PUD sign a declaration of covenants that runs with the land and binds all future owners to assure that the development and use of the land will be consistent with the approved PUD Plan. The property covered by this PUD is owned by two parties. One is Luther, which owns the so- called Porter Cable site in the northwest corner of the PUD area (the "Luther Parcel"). The other is Automotive Sales and Service, Inc., which owns the remainder of the property in the PUD (the "Automotive Parcel"). Luther is a tenant under a 10-year lease on the Automotive Parcel and has an option to purchase that site at the end of the lease term. Luther has made substantial investments in the Automotive 348779v1 CLL BR291-296 Gary Eitel March 17, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Parcel, including an option payment of $600,000, and will continue to make improvements during the lease term. The value of these improvements will be lost to Luther if it does not purchase the property from Automotive. Therefore, Luther has substantial economic incentives to complete the purchase of the Automotive Parcel upon completion of the lease term. Luther advises the City that Automotive has declined to sign the declaration. Therefore, Luther has requested an amendment to the City Council's resolution of approval to allow Luther to continue with the PUD development without execution of the PUD declaration by Automotive. CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST The problem that arises if the City proceeds without execution of the declaration by Automotive, is that Automotive may, at some future time, take the Automotive Parcel back (if the lease is terminated, for example, or Luther does not exercise its option at the end of the lease term), and claim that Automotive is not bound by the PUD declaration. In many cases, a PUD plan will only work effectively if the entire property is developed and used in accordance with the integrated PUD plan. If the City Council wishes to require that this PUD not proceed without the signature of Automotive, it may deny Luther's request. However, unless Automotive changes its position and executes the declaration, denial would mean that the property upgrades proposed by Luther may not occur. In light of this fact, the Council may wish to consider Luther's request after evaluating the risks and benefits of allowing Luther to proceed without execution of the PUD declaration by Automotive. The likelihood that Luther will not acquire the Automotive Parcel is reduced by several factors. First, Luther has a substantial investment in the Automotive Parcel, and that investment will increase as the property is upgraded by Luther. Those investments will be lost if Luther does not acquire the Automotive Parcel. Second, Luther will be executing a declaration of access and parking easements over the Luther Parcel for the benefit of the Automotive Parcel, and will lose the value of the Luther Parcel if it does not acquire the Automotive Parcel. If Luther loses its interest in the Automotive Parcel and it is reacquired by Automotive, the likelihood that the City will suffer significant harm is substantially reduced by the following factors: 1. The reason this proposed development requires a PUD is that it does not comply with two requirements of the Code for C-2 districts. The first is that the PUD plan includes an addition to a building that will not meet the setback requirements from the property line between the Luther Parcel and the Automotive Parcel. This issue can be addressed by requiring that the building addition not be constructed until after Luther (or some other party) comes into ownership of both parcels and 0 they are platted as one lot. Luther has agreed to this condition. The second way in which the proposed development does not comply with C-2 provisions of the Code is that several display areas around the perimeter of the 348779v1 CLLBR291-296 Gary Eitel March 17, 2009 • Page 3 of 3 property have green space of less than the required 15 feet. If the parking lot is reconfigured and the landscaping is installed in accordance with the PUD development plan, and if Automotive reacquires the property and operates it as developed, it will meet all requirements of the Code except for this green space requirement. This is essentially the only risk that the City Council would take by allowing the PUD to proceed without Automotive's signature on the declaration. All other requirements of the Code for C-2 Districts are met. 2. If Automotive reacquires the Automotive Parcel, it would have the benefit of the use of the Luther Parcel for access and parking in accordance with the PUD development plan. Therefore, the property could be developed and operated by Automotive in accordance with the City's expectations of the PUD. 3. If Automotive reacquires the Automotive Parcel, it can meet the requirements of the PUD by executing a declaration. This would allow Automotive to continue to use the property in accordance with the approved PUD plan, which would be a conforming use in compliance with the City's Zoning Code. If Automotive reacquired the property and was not willing to sign a declaration, it would be nonconforming and the City could refuse to issue building permits or other land use approvals until Automotive came into compliance with the Code. 0 If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:gak • 3487790 CLL BR291-296 • Application Filed on 6-19-08 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 8-18-08 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2008-003 Applicant: The Luther Company, LLLP Location: 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard,430168th Avenue North and 4315 68th Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development RezoninglDevelopment Plan Approval - PUDIC-2 The applicant, The Luther Company Limited. Partnership, is requesting rezoning from C-2 (Commence) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and development plan approval of three contiguous lots located on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 1-94 and 68`x' Avenue North addressed as 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4301 and 4315 68" Avenue North. The purpose of the proposal is for the redevelopment and expansion of the existing Chevrolet site (formerly Iten Chev) and the remodeling and.expansion of an existing building (formerly Iten Leasing) for a new Buick, Pontiac, GMC (BPG) dealership. These properties are all currently zoned C-2 and are bounded on the north by 68th Avenue; on the east by east by Brooklyn Boulevard; on the south by I-94; and on the west by the former Osseo Brooklyn School Bus Garage (owned by Luther) and Atlantis Pools. This proposal represents the first step in a major redevelopment by the Luther Company, for both i sides of Brooklyn Boulevard between 1.94 and 69d` Avenue. See companion Planning Commission Application Nos. 2008-004 (Preliminary Plat) and 2008-005 (Planned Unit Development). BACKGROUND The Luther Company has acquired all of the land or the automobile dealership businesses in this area and is now prepared to do a major redevelopment which will include two new dealership buildings on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard (Honda and Toyota) and the expansion and redevelopment of the existing Chevrolet dealership to accommodate an expanded Chevrolet dealership and a new Buick, Pontiac, GMC (BPG) dealership on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between the freeway and 68d' Avenue North (note the existing Honda dealership at the northwest comer of Brooklyn Boulevard and 6e Avenue will be redeveloped at a future date by the Luther Company). Their plan indicates first expanding the existing Chevrolet operation to accommodate their acquisitions of the Iten Chevrolet business and the Walser Chevrolet (Plymouth) business. Luther has an agreement to acquire the Iten property at a future date but has acquired their business only, so separate ownership of the land and business will continue for some time. They plan at this time to expand and remodel the old Iten Leasing building (430168' Avenue North) and consolidate the former Porter Cable property (4315 68 Avenue North) after that building is demolished to accommodate the new BPG business. BPG will be relocated from its current location at 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard and that building will then be demolished to make way for 7.17_08 Page 1 a new Honda dealership on the expanded site along the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard. Another new automobile dealership building (Toyota City) will be constructed on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard on a reconfigured site that at one time had primarily housed Ryan Oldsmobile (6700 Brooklyn Boulevard). On two previous occasions (October 2005 and August 2006) the Luther Company had sought and received PUD rezoning and development plan approval for a two phased eyansion and redevelopment of the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I-94 and 69 Avenue. The then proposed expansion and redevelopment was for the Brookdale Dodge operation which currently houses Buick, Pontiac, GMC (6800 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4215 Ob Avenue North). The second phase was the demolition of the old Ryan Olds building (6700 Brooklyn Boulevard) with atemporary car storage facility and a future new automobile dealership. Luther accomplished parts of this plan when the building at 4215 69`h Avenue North was demolished as was the old Ryan Olds Building and the storage facility was established. Other opportunities availed themselves to Luther and they have settled on the current plan represented by Planning Commission Application Nos. 2008-003, 004 and 005. The finalization of the Planned Unit Development proposals will be needed to accomplish their redevelop plans (see the June 19, 2008 Letter of Application and PUD justification from Linda McGinty, Director or Real Estate and Development on behalf of the Luther Company, attached). The applicant is seeking the PUD/C-2 rezoning to accomplish the above mentioned redevelopment of the west side under Planning Commission Application No. 2008-003. The PUD is needed to allow for the flexibility of common access and use over multiple parcels of land without the replatting of the property. As mentioned above, the Luther Company owns the property at 4315 68`h Avenue North (the former Porter Cable property) and has acquired the Chevrolet dealership business from Iten Chevrolet (formerly operated out of 430168' Avenue North and 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard). The ownership of the Iten property is still Iten Chevrolet with Luther having an agreement to acquire the property in the future. City ordinances require that property under common ownership and common use be combined through platting or registered land survey into a single parcel. They propose common use but ownership of all the property will not be conveyed to Luther until sometime in the future. A PUD rezoning and redevelopment plan approval will be necessary to accommodate the plans proposed by Luther. When ownership of the property is obtained, Luther will be required to replat the property to conform with city ordinances. In the meantime, they can function with appropriately approved and executed agreements that for all practical purposes negate property line divisions. They also need to proceed under a Planned Unit Development to waive the 40 ft. rear yard setback requirement for 430168' Avenue North and to allow green strip encroachments for parkin along I-94 and display pads with pergolas or railing features alon Brooklyn Boulevard, 68 Avenue and I-94. The rear yard setback requirement for 430168 Avenue North would disappear if the property were replatted into a single lot which would then be considered a comer lot with no rear yard setback at all. This is how it will function and under the Planned Unit Development is an acceptable situation. . 7-17-0$ Page 2 • As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district (C-2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the - City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment problems and issues. Regulations and uses governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the applicant will be seeking modifications to allow the waiving of the rear yard setback for the PBG building as well as various encroachments on the 15 ft. green strips along 68 h Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard and the 1-94 right of way. Also, potential waivers from the platting requirements that should require the-multiple parcels to be combined into a single parcel of land. Their plan for offsetting these aspects of the plan include the fact that with replatting a single lot would be created which would be a corner lot, not requiring any rear yard setback for buildings. As the plans will indicate, the encroachments allowed into the 15 ft. green strip requirements appear to be offset by the decorative nature of the display pads with pergolas or railings highlighting these features. With respect to parking encroachment along the I-94 right of way, the lack of a 15 ft. green strip will hardly be noticeable given the amount of excess right of way, a fence in this area and the elevation of the on ramp from Brooklyn Boulevard to 1-94. • The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlines in Section 35-210 of the zoning ordinance as well as being consistent with the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal and has made some general comments relative to how they believe their proposal has a positive impact and can be considered consistent with the policy and review guidelines. As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute "spot zoning", which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for rezoning review. As noted previously, the Luther Company has submitted previously two proposals for Planned Unit Developments in this area which have been considered and approved by the City Council based on a review and evaluation of the Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. We do not believe it is necessary to go point by point through this • 7-17-08 Page 3 • evaluation process again as we believe this proposal to be consistent with th e past Planned Unit Development requests and is consistent with the Policy and Review Guidelines. The current zoning of the property is C-2 (Commerce) which allows automobile dealerships as special uses in this zoning district. Special Use Permits have been granted for both the east and west sides of Brooklyn Boulevard in this area for automobile dealerships and automobile dealerships involving service and repair, retail sales and associated parking and-storage of new and used motor vehicles have been a use of the property for well over 40 years. Expansion and redevelopment of these types of uses certainly appears to be appropriate given the nature of the zoning districts in this area. The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges commercial retail uses in this area and the proposed redevelopment by Luther can be considered to be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. The guidelines generally ask if there is a clear and public need or benefit; is the proposed rezoning zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications; can all permitted uses in the district be contemplated for development; will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed district; is the proposal in the best interest of the community; and does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel. The applicant notes that their proposal will be a complete overhaul and addition to the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard and will contain various upgrades to the property which they believe will allow for a safer, logical flow of traffic on the site and bring it into compliance with current city and code requirements. We would concur that the proposal does indeed meet the Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines in that it is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit • Development section of the zoning ordinance. The proposal allows for the utilization of land in a manner that is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those that are permitted on surrounding property. It is considered a reasonable use of the property and it will conform with ordinance requirements except for the appropriate waivers to the various requirements as outlined in the development plan. It can be considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan and it appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and that development can be considered an asset to the community and further can be considered to be in the best interest of the City. SrM AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing under this PUD application to expand the Chevrolet dealership at well as to modify the building at 43016' Avenue North to accommodate a new BPG showroom and service center. All barriers between these sites will be removed and there will be a free flow of traffic between the two buildings and parking will be such to accommodate each of the buildings needs as well as common access throughout the site. The site will be completely upgraded to include new paving, curb and gutter, site utilities, lighting, landscaping, and removal of overhead utility lines where possible. Once the BPG facility has been relocated from its current location at 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard, the second phase or the east side Planned Unit Development will proceed. ACCESS/PARKING There will be three access points to this consolidated site. One along Brooklyn Boulevard will be • 7-17-08 Page 4 relocated approximately 50 ft to the north. The applicant has reviewed this plan with Hennepin County, the road authority. The proposal is acceptable to Hennepin County and they note that the greater distance from the 1-94 ramp is a benefit and they also believe the closing of the existing access on 68m Avenue near Brooklyn Boulevard will enhance traffic operations in the area. There will be two access points along 68 b Avenue, an existing access just westerly of the -existing building anda shared access with the Atlantis Pool site at the westerly portion of the property. As mentioned, an existing access close the intersection of 68h Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard will be closed which is considered an improvement to the existing situation. Access and circulation throughout the site will not be hindered by physical barriers. The site will act as a single site as if it were platted that way. Appropriate cross access agreements will be necessary to allow for the free flow of traffic that is planned Parking for the site is based on a combination of parking formulas. The retail parking formula of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft of gross floor area for the retail portions of the building; the office parking formula of one space for every 200 sq. ft. gross floor area for the officelservice portions of the building; one space for every service bay and one space for every service bay employee for the service garage areas; one space for every 800 sq. ft. gross floor area for strictly storage areas; and two parking spaces for service vehicles for each of the two buildings. Required parking for the BPG site based on these formulas is 88 parking stalls, a total of 123 parking spaces is provided on what is considered the site for the BPG operation which includes the old Iten Leasing building and the Porter Cable site. The parking requirement for the Chevrolet building which includes display, service, and service bays is 398 stalls, a total of 636 parking spaces are provided on the Chevrolet site. A significant amount of display parking will be available above and beyond the required parking for both the BPG operation and the Chevrolet operation. As mentioned previously, the applicant is requesting modification to the City Ordinances to be allowed to provide decorative display areas at certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard, 68b Avenue North and one along the I-94 right of way. In addition, they are requesting to be allowed to park closer to the 1=94 right of way than the 15 ft. typically required.. This would establish an approximate 5 ft. green strip where none currently exists. This appears to be appropriate given the distance between the property line and the I-94 ramp and the. elevation in this area. The display areas as shown on the plans are decorative display pads containing in some cases 'a pergola and fence area and in others a fenced or railing area for display purposes. The display with railings would be on either side of the entrance off Brooklyn Boulevard and either side of the entrance off 68"' Avenue and a similar display area would be along 1-94. The display pad with pergola and fencing would be at the southwest comer of Brooklyn Boulevard and 68d' Avenue North. Given the attractiveness of these display areas and the fact that new 15 ft. green strips are being established along Brooklyn Boulevard and in a larger landscape area at the southeast corner of the site, the applicant's plans appear to be appropriate and should be considered acceptable. Continuation of these display areas should be dependent on proper maintenance and should only be allowed to be modified or eliminated with the concurrence of the City of Brooklyn Center. 7-17-08 Page 5 GRADING/) RAINAGFJUTIIITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans, which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. His comments relative to these items are attached for the Commission's review. The Porter Cable building at 4315 68`fi Avenue North will be demolished and a note on the demolition plan indicates that existing sanitary sewer and water lines will be capped at the property line. In situations such as this where buildings are being removed, normally service lines are disconnected at the main. It is anticipated that this will be a recommendation of the City Engineer in this case as well. The preliminary grading and drainage plan indicates B-412 curb and gutter throughout the site. The ordinance requires B-612 curb and gutter or an approved alternate by the City Engineer. When reviewing past Planned Unit Developments for the Luther proposals, the City Engineer had indicated that the B-412 curb and gutter might be acceptable in certain areas where no water would be conveyed. It is not anticipated that the City Engineer would approve the B-412 curb and gutter (which is a 4 inch high curb and 12 inch gutter) throughout the entire site as is being proposed. Approval of the curb and gutter plan is subject to approval by the City Engineer. The existing buildings are currently served by sewer and water and an evaluation of the drainage plan is being undertaken by the City Engineer as well. A bio infiltration facility is planned to the west of the BPG facility. The drainage and water run-off plans are subject to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval. It should be pointed out that all parking and storage of vehicles must be on improved hard surface areas of bituminous or - concrete. No vehicle parking or storage may be in landscaped areas other than the approved display areas and improved surfaces in areas must be provided. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Commission to evaluate such plans. They have divided the site into two lots which they label as Lot D which is 2.15 acres in area and is the BPG site essentially. The other lot is labeled as Lot C and is 8.55 acres in area and is essentially the Chevrolet site. The BPG site requires 172 landscape points and the applicants propose to provide 245 points with a variety of shade trees, coniferous trees, decorative trees and shrubs. Five of the shade trees will be found along the 68& Avenue North green strip and are Red Mound Linden. An additional Red Mount Linden and two Cut Leave Weeping Birch will be found by the Bio Infiltration facility. Five Austrian Pine and two Prairie Fire Crabapple will also be found in the green strip area along 6e Avenue. Six coniferous trees including five Colorado Spruce and one Austrian Pine will be around the Bio Infiltration facility. Shrubs such as Dwarf Arctic Blue Willow, Isanti Dogwood and Yellow Twig Dogwood will be in this rain garden area. Foundation shrubs including Russian Cypress, Niagara Yew, and Blue Chip Juniper are included and Cardinal Red Dogwood, Dwarf European Cranberry Bush and Neon Flash Spirea are included around the perimeter of the display areas. Nineteen Redmond Linden are to be found around the green strips along 68 b, Brooklyn Boulevard and in an island planting area west of the Chevrolet building. Thirty-seven Austrian Pine and Colorado Spruce are provided primarily in the western portion of the Chevrolet site in 7-17-08 Page 6 • green strips and in the planting area west of the building. An island planting area containing Austrian Pine, Colorado Spruce as well as shrubs are in a planting area to the south of the building between the building and I-94. The landscape plan exceeds the point system for both of these lots and is considered acceptable. BUII.IDNG The applicant has submitted building elevations and floor plans for the proposed building additions. The Chevrolet building will be primarily 4 ft. precast panels and EFIS reveals along the four sides of the building. Storefront windows will be provided along the east elevation (Brooklyn Boulevard) and the easterly portion of the south elevation and the northeast corner of the building where a building addition is being made. Service doors will be provided along the Brooklyn Boulevard portion of the site as well as at the west end of the building. The BPG building will be of similar building material with the east elevation facing Brooklyn Boulevard being considered the front of the building. The north elevation and west elevation will contain storefront windows as well. Service doors will be found on the east and west elevations for the service write up area and service doors for service bays will be located along the south wall of the building as well. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating proposed foot candles for lighting on the site that appear to be consistent with Section 35-712 of the city ordinances. Twenty four foot • high light poles are provided around the entire site and in island areas and curb protected areas throughout the two sites. City ordinances require that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Our main concern is that all lighting be shielded and directed on the site to avoid glare to abutting properties and abutting street right of way and that it be consistent with the standards that are noted above. The site will be well lit and the applicant will be responsible to avoid glare off the site. A trash enclosure is provided in the center of the site, apparently to provide for both buildings. No details are provided; however, the structure should be a masonry unit with sides high enough to screen any trash containers from view and should include solid opaque gates to completely screen the trash containers on the site. PROCEDURE State Statutes require the City to respond to zoning applications within a 60 day time limit from the day a properly submitted application has been filed with the City. This application was filed on June 19, 2008 and City Council action should be taken by August 18, 2008. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application needs to be submitted approximately four weeks prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing. The clock, however, begins on the date the application is accepted. Therefore, the zoning decision must be made by the City Council no later than August 18, 2008. • 7-17-08 Page 7 • :w ro. V.... ..~nn.a_.... BA p>Qa aRaoauxac, cc. ' ..fie. a.>n~., .e.nt. em w.n,®•.n...... wn ~ a °.n.a... . nw Brooklyn Center - _ " ,a ..°oe +nW+ Dealerrkip6 6ors, NUt ~ORTn - • - ~ we: wn rnw 6rwWp,ab.6W LuMer Brookdnie Ckerrolet Luth~ Pontine G MC w, - - - - - - / D ,...a..• .e Ynn.,n. .e ..w Brookd Botck O, It v -BUICK r • f i I ,_I • •r PONTIAC F I I 'i -ap GMC tli~ \ '°N n~ .,.n I ly~• ° I 20,188 S.F. o~ \ ♦ b $ n .se,we..w° nw. .e." n • Ys w .°ro w.au r.Y.I FOOTPRINT ,E p \ er :n_ 'It a a .-I 1 . Yw. - I 'R6' •..w, rn..wi'w. ,•YU,.e ~(D = 8 s O q Y. .nT -i_- ~ eE l l 1 4K :C CHEVROLET \ \ I E 59877 S.F. FOOTPRINT \ CITY 5UDMITTAL `b ~ _ y JUNE 19. 2006 $ -Zi : E $ Kxv Imo; . \ • E .i - i xn.c 1r i~ • ,1 ~1''`~`~ \ my • F O e M f n' WYE PLaN • NORTH I C-20 ~ -2D1 CCII e.ra.ywala 0 30 so evrt,"'ti:r ua ~ww~.a.wn eooz •ea amnr -iviLawane wa ~lnwa Awl PWA.-OMMMI" E~ a 09 • arq "m 0 =.L* wron I I I I I -J.4 _ n!b ov No i i- .0. Lo r 1 y ~ 4 ~ ar w • 4Y ;s. ~Y a..... ~ ~31~`: Jl . yr' All ~.J 4 ,i4 +..IrwY w.wur 'ys • E~ m -C 01 loooiP oo0.t ov ss'e n. 70-1 rl 8 10 R (9 ~1/9LZ ~ •row~ros Id. 101 ~ _ . one WINOcl -k carne , ! • io A{MRN l.'1#l1Y M1H } •r . ! i L I-E M - E-1 1771 w ....w.1 ~ti • mama mmamui' _ lIMYI - Yau .w> • WaN, Yml HHH tiuMU., ---..W -r -..Y - W OOL-l iccs_.-._- OBI ao a PMN%,& '86,""M o -Mcplaaw. ~*wuo w HOW d" Nm vwa~ + ~ SMw-vllffl . i .21' oom,at aNn( ut l .?Ur ' wauwans ONIaWdAVMWU O ~n Hart e.....,. _ • ,HI 111 1 ~i~~~ 1~ill f1111L1~ {',~{'},{1{' Tf(T ~~If ltil awwao TlinT TIfiTfTiI1LFWo :JTfItIITtTf(i~fIIIITTT(11TA LIT •-a.-+ ; -11 llffizni~ v:. 1i 4 " ---w _ . amwr cuac,a~w ~ MU NlNPbxn _ . 0 - rw wrwww • 1 i~ a ~ a I, \ v rv rJ i J 4 4 { / ~ ~n ~ ~J . i i • To: The City of Brooklyn Center City Council From: Linda McGinty, Luther Automotive Group Date: March 18, 2009 Re: Update of Brooklyn Boulevard West Side Projects The Luther Automotive Group submitted a request for and was granted a PUD for development of three contiguous lots located on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I-694 and 68th Avenue North in July, 2008. The project consisted of a remodel and expansion of Brookdale Chevrolet, remodel of the smaller building at 4701 68th Avenue for the new location of Brookdale Buick, Pontiac, GMC and redevelopment of the entire site which included a significant upgrade to lighting, burying utilities, new pavement, landscaping, moving a curb cut and eliminating a curb cut; decorative display pads at entrances, curb and gutter and runoff control. We originally planned to begin this project last fall, but it was delayed because of the - economic uncertainty. Despite the continued uncertain economy, The Luther Automotive Group is planning to move forward with the approved project, but with some minor . adjustments. The remodel of the smaller building for Brookdale Buick, Pontiac, GMC is currently underway and is slated to be finished by June 30, 2009. The Chevrolet building remodel has been scaled back somewhat in scope-an earlier planned showroom expansion was eliminated to keep costs in line. The remodel will still result in a new exterior building front, showroom remodel, exterior upgrades and carwash addition. We plan to begin this remodel around April 15 with a completion planned for early August, 2009. Original cost estimates for the extensive site work outlined in the PUD Development have proven to be overly optimistic. The real costs have forced The Luther Automotive Group to reevaluate this aspect of the project. Working with the guidance of the Brooklyn Center City Staff, the site work is now planned to be completed in two phases. The first phase, scheduled to begin May, 2009, will consist of all work east of a line drawn north to south from the second entrance off 68th Avenue. As contemplated by the Development Agreement with The City of Brooklyn Center, we intend to complete the second phase within 2 years after the first phase. The Luther Automotive Group is grateful to the City of Brooklyn Center for its patience and flexibility in connection with this project, especially in light of these uncertain economic times. 0 Z Work Session Agenda Item 1%4o. • 0 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: March 19, 2009 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage&/'23 SUBJECT: 2009 Strategic Plan and Budget Limitation Policy COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Staff is seeking council consensus regarding the revised Strategic Plan Outcome Statements and the Budget Limitation Policy as a follow up to the retreat held on Saturday February 28th 2009. BACKGROUND The Staff and City Council met on Saturday February 28th in a team building and planning retreat. During the retreat there were several exercises completed. One exercise • was the development of a draft set of Strategic Goal Outcome (Key Result Area) Statements and the other was the development of a Budget Limitations Policy. I have reviewed and revised the draft SGO statements so that the form for each statement is more consistent and I have eliminated action steps and strategies from the Outcome Statements. Action steps and strategies will be developed by staff later in the strategic planning process. I have also provided a draft of the Budget Limitation Policy which was created at the end of the retreat just to confirm that there is Council consensus on the limitations that were listed on the chart. It seems that because there was a lack of time there was very little opportunity for Council discussion or consensus confirmation on the budget policy. The purpose of this work session item is simply to confirm Council consensus. I have enclosed a copy of the budgeting for outcomes process so that we can review and discuss next steps in this process. Since the City Council has established a Financial Commission with fairly general advisory authority related to fiscal policies, the Council may elect to include the Financial Commission any point in the process deemed appropriate by the City Council. 0 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (763) 569-3400 FAX (763) 569-3434 • COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES Do the draft policies enclosed, accurately reflect Council policy direction? What should the role of the Financial Commission be as Budgeting for Outcomes process moves forward? • 0 032309.2009strategicplan.wrk.mem.doc 2009 Ongoing Goals 9 GOAL 1 To continue to provide quality services with limited resources Goal Desired Outcome 1. The quality of service delivered by the City will consistently meet or exceed customer expectations 2. Services delivery will meet or exceed appropriate input and output benchmarks measures 3. Processes for service delivery will be improved on an going basis GOAL 2 To ensure.the City's Financial Stability Goal Desired Outcome 1. The City Al bond rating will be maintained or improved 2. The City will maintain fiscally prudent reserves 3. The City's funds will be properly secured and protected against loss 4. The City administration will provide meaningful short, intermediate and long term fiscal planning GOAL 3 To move towards maintaining or lowering the level of the City's property taxes Goal Desired Outcome 1. Except in extraordinary circumstances the property tax levy will not increase faster than the rate of inflation 2. The City will expand the proportion of the industrial and commercial tax base to relieve the residential property tax burden 3. The inflation adjusted property taxes paid by the median family household will be stabilized or reduced over time • 2009 Ongoing Goals • GOAL 4 To streamline (where possible) and strive for increased effectiveness in providing services Goal Desired Outcome 1. The City will seek to improve the cost effectiveness of service delivery on an ongoing basis GOAL 5 To ensure the city's influence at the legislature Goal Desired Outcome 1. State and Federal legislators will be kept informed regarding City needs that may be affected by legislation 2. We will maintain positive ongoing relationships with State and - Federal legislators 0 3. Lobbyist will be employed on behalf of the City when appropriate GOAL 6 To improve the City's image with citizens and outside of the City's b orders Goal Desired Outcome 1. Citizens and others throughout the State will recognize Brooklyn Center as a safe, quality, attractive community in which to live work or play 0 2009 Ongoing Goals • GOAL 7 To ensure the City's drinking water is high quality and that the City's storm water is properly managed Goal Desired Outcome 1. The City- s drinking water will meet or exceed safe drinking water standards of the State of Minnesota 2. Storm water runoff will be managed in an efficient and environmentally sensitive manner • 4 2009 Strategic Goals GOAL 1 Ensure a safe and secure community Goal Desired Outcomes 1. The threat and fear of crime among citizens and others will be reduced 2. The threat and fear of property or life loss from fire, among citizens and property owners will be reduced 3. The threat and fear among citizens and others of life loss or personal injury due to accidents, man-made or natural disaster will be minimized 4. The threat of property damage, personal injury • or life loss along our travel ways will be minimized 5. Citizens will feel and be safe in all public areas 9 2009 Strategic Goals GOAL -2 Aggressively proceed with implementation of the City's redevelopment plans Goal Desired Outcomes 1. Private redevelopment will be expanded and improved 2. Redevelopment of the "Opportunity Site" will commence 3. Redevelopment of all EDA owned properties will proceed expeditiously 4. Citizens will benefit from the identification and marketing of potential redevelopment sites in the City. . 5. Citizens will benefit from the optimal redevelopment of the Brookdale Mall area for the community 6. Citizens and visitors to Brooklyn Center will benefit from the enhanced value and aesthetic appeal of right of way and common areas of the City • 2009 Strategic Goals Goal 3 Stabilize and Improve Residential Neighborhoods Goal Desired Outcomes 1. Citizens-will benefit from life cycle housing opportunities and a diverse stock of housing types and styles 2. The housing stock will be well maintained, healthy, safe, and attractive 3. Owners and occupants of housing in residential neighborhoods will comply with City codes and regulations which will be adequate to assure a safe well maintained and attractive community • 4. Owner occupied housing will increase as a percentage of total housing 5. The problems associated with foreclosed residential properties will be dramatically reduced or eliminated 6. There will be attractive and desired amenities within all neighborhoods 7. Citizens will identify with and have pride in their neighborhood 8. Residential property values will improve 0 2009 Strategic Goals • GOAL 4 Positively address the community's demographic makeup and increasing --cultural diversity Goal Desired Outcomes 1. All demographic groups will be represented and participate in civic, governmental, community organizations and activities 2. Youth will be adequately served by recreation and education programs and activities 3. Underserved populations will be served by and • participate in programs/activities available to the community at large 4. The social, health and housing needs of the aging population will be met 5. The social, health care and housing concerns of low and moderate Income persons will be met • 2009 Strategic Goals 10 GOAL 5 Continue to maintain and upgrade City Infrastructure Goal Desired Outcomes 1. Citizens will benefit from the annual update and implementation of the City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2. Citizens will benefit from an ongoing or accelerated neighborhood reconstruction program as outlined in the CIP 3. Travelers and citizens will benefit from improvements on regional roadways completed in a • timely manner 4. Citizens will benefit from a reduced tax burden for infrastructure projects due to the use of alternative funding sources for these projects 5. Citizens will benefit from the expedited completion of needed infrastructure projects 6. The traveling public will benefit from multi-modal transportation options fostered and provided by the City 7. Citizens -will benefit from the expansion and improvement of needed technology infrastructure as viable options become available 0 2009 Strategic Goals GOAL 6 Respond to increased public awareness - and interest in environmental sustainability and green community Issues Goal Desired Outcomes 1. Citizen and City government recycling will improve 2. Citizen and the City government energy conservation will improve 3. Citizens and the City government will use alternative energy sources when viable 4. The purchasing power of the City will support the goals of an environmentally sustainable environment 5. Appreciation of the environment will be enhanced and expanded 6. Harmful emissions into the air, water and soil will be reduced 7. Development and redevelopment in the City will be sensitive to the environment impact 0 Strategic Planning Process Outline 1. City Mission jointly developed a. City Council Approved 2. Values Statement Jointly Developed a. City Council Approved 3. Strategic Goals a. Established and approved by City Council b. Prioritized by City Council 4. Desired Outcomes - • a. Established and approved by City Council b. Prioritized by City Council 5. Desired Outcome Success Indicators a. Staff developed/prepared b. Council reviewed/revised c. Council approved 6. Department and Program Mission a. Staff developed b. City Manager approved 0 i 7. Program Strategies/Tactics/Performance Measures a. Staff developed b. City Manager approved 8. Budget Proposals a. Staff developed b. City Manager recommended c. Financial Commission Reviewed d. City Council Approved 9. Performance Reports a. Reviewed by staff-ongoing b. Reviewed by City Manager-monthly 10. Desired Outcome Reports 11. Reviewed by City Council-quarterly 0 strategic planning process outline.docx 0 0 Work Session Agenda Item NO• 3 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: March 19, 2009 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: Councilmember Roche Prepared by: Curt Boganey, City Mane* SUBJECT: Appointment of Council Liaison to Historical Commission COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED The council is asked to determine its' response to the suggestion that the City appoint a liaison to the Historical Commission. - BACKGROUND January 26'h 2009, resident Dianne Sannes of 7006 Willow Lane N addressed the City Council during open forum. During her address she suggested that the City Council • appoint a liaison to the Brooklyn Center Historical Society COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES Is the establishment of a Liaison with the Brooklyn Historical Society important/necessary to promote the goals and interests of the City? 0 03.23.09.historical commission.doc 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3434 FAX (763) 569-3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org 0 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 26, 2009 CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal & Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, -Assistant to the City Manager Vickie Schleuning, and Carol -Hamer, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Ms. Desra Olheiser, 6930 Newton Avenue N, addressed the City Council and stated her concerns regarding the $500 conversion fee for a rental dwelling license in the City. She stated she purchased a house in Brooklyn Center about five years ago that was built in 1952. She bought the house as a fixer-upper and completely renovated the house. It was not a good time and the house sat on the market for six months so she decided to hire a rental management company to find a renter for the house. When she came to the City for a rental dwelling license she found out there is a $500 conversion fee. She found a good renter and has been able to pay the mortgage and keep the house from foreclosure. Ms. Olheiser stated she is asking to be refunded the $500 charge that was added for 2009. While she understands that they do not want a city full of rental dwellings, they also do not want a city full of foreclosures, which was the other option. Mayor Willson encouraged Ms Olheiser to route information in writing to the City Manager. He indicated at some time the issue may come back to the Council in a work session. Ms. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane N, addressed the City Council regarding the following: Support of rain gardens in the Aldrich Area Neighborhood street improvements: She stated as a citizen with a rain garden she would like to extend her support to rain gardens in this plan. • 2009 Spring Senior Forum: She stated the last two years the City of Brooklyn Center has not been represented at the forum. She would like to request that the City be represented with a table in 2009 and consider holding the event in Brooklyn Center in 2010. -1- 01/26/09 . "Oh the Places You'll Go" Reading Program to be held on Tuesday, March 3, 2009, from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Brookdale Food Court. Students and residents are invited to attend in Dr. Seuss attire. She requested City staff to determine if "Brooklyn Center Reads" banners can be posted on the new light poles on the east side of Xerxes. ■ Brooklyn Historical Society: Another Civil War book will be coming out. She suggested that the City Council appoint a liaison to the Brooklyn Historical Society. Ms. Pat Snodgrass, President of the Brooklyn Historical Society, addressed the City Council and stated that the Brooklyn Historical Society would like to partner with the City of Brooklyn Center to tie the opening of the Embassy Suites Hotel in March with the Earle Brown Heritage Center. She stated the Brooklyn Historical Society is happy to lease space at the Heritage Center. She expressed concern that the Historical Society is currently paying $800 for 600 square feet and has been informed by Judith Bergeland that the space may be rented for $10 per square foot. Ms. Snodgrass stated the Brooklyn Historical Society has an opportunity to identify and brand the City and they are unaware of other parties interested in leasing office space on the farm. She pointed out the opportunity with locating the early settler melodeon in the lobby of the Embassy Suites to generate interest in the Earle Brown Farm, as well as the Historical Society. This would help to generate a way for the Brooklyn Historical Society to earn money and to redefine the City away from Brookdale and towards the crown jewel of the Earle Brown Farm. Ms. Snodgrass requested that the City Council consider appointing a liaison to serve on the Brooklyn Historical Society. Mr. Boganey requested clarification on whether Ms. Bergeland had asked that the historical items be moved from their current location to a different location at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Ms. Snodgrass replied that one room has been dedicated to the Historical Society. However, Ms. Bergeland has said that the items will eventually need to be moved out and that there is no place for them. Ms. Snodgrass stated the room currently being used can only be accessed if someone with a key is available to unlock the room for the Historical Society. Mr. Boganey stated staff will follow up with Ms. Bergeland. The hope was that all of the items original to the farm could be kept on the site and still available to the public for viewing. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION The Invocation was offered. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:00 p.m. 01/26/09 -2- • vVork Session 0 Agenda Item N°• 4 City of Brooklyn Center ST A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: March 20, 2009 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: Councilmember Roche Prepared by: Curt Boganey, City M54/1> SUBJECT: Senior Forum Hosting and Participation COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED The council is asked to determine its' response to the suggestion that the City participate in and host the Senior Forum. BACKGROUND January 26'h 2009, resident Dianne Sannes of 7006 Willow Lane N addressed the City i Council during open forum. During her address she suggested that the City Participate in the 2009 Spring Senior Forum and that we consider hosting the event in 2010. Councilmember Roche indicated that he would invite a representative to the Council meeting to provide background information and further details. In preparation for the meeting staff provided a chronology of events related to this issue that I was not aware of. I have attached staffs memo in this regard. Based on the memo it appears that Brooklyn Center will have a table and will be represented at the forum this year. The memo also explains why the event has not been hosted by Brooklyn Center. in recent years. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES Should the City pursue hosting the Senior Forum at the EBHC? 03.23.09.senior forum.doc 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3494 www.cityo fbrooklyncenter. org Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (763) 569-3400 FAX (763) 569-3434 0 Memorandum To: Curt Boganey, City Manager From: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Date: 3/19/2009 Re: Participation; Hosting Senior Forum In reviewing the City Council Work Session agenda for March 23, 2009, 1 noted an item related to "Participation and Hosting of Spring Senior Forum." I think it is worth noting that we have been working with a Brooklyn Center resident via E-Citizen on the same issues for the past many months. In spring 2008, we were contacted via E-citizen with a question asking "Who is the person on the NWHHSC Senior Council from Brooklyn Center. Is this person appointed by City Council? Can Brooklyn Center have a booth at the 2009 NWHHSC Senior Spring Forum Event." We responded that "The Brooklyn Center representative on the Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council- Senior Leadership Committee is Audrey Williams. The Committee meets once a month to discuss topics of specific interest to our senior population. The staff liaison at Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council is Anita Perkins. She can be reached by phone at (763) 503-2520, or email at • anita<@nwhhsc.org. As this is a relatively new responsibility for Anita, she was not sure how the Committee representatives were appointed. She did indicate that there would be no problem with Brooklyn Center having a table at next year's spring forum. The request would just need to be made through our representative. She asked that you contact her directly, so that she could provide further information." In late January, we were contacted again requesting the same information and asking if Brooklyn Center could host the event in 2010. We indicated that we would follow up with Northwest Hennepin Human Services on this issue. At that time, I asked Program Supervisor Kathy Flesher to follow up with NWHHSC. In February, we were contacted by a resident who indicated that she had been referred to us and was interested in working on the committee working on the Senior Forum. We put her in contact with NWHHSC staff and, as of March 3, she has joined the committee and has been actively involved. In fact, we know she has been over at NWHHSC at least once assisting Myrna Kragness with the forum. Also, Brooklyn Center has reserved a table at this year's forum and will be participating. Hosting: As a bit of history, Brooklyn Center participated in, and hosted the Senor Forum for a number of years until it out grew our facilities. The current space needs for the event include; Area for 45+ vendors 0 Area for refreshments (continental breakfast) 0 Area for Keynote and speakers for 200 + participants Area for refreshments (continental breakfast) Area for Keynote and speakers for 200 + participants Brooklyn Park will again host the event this year. With their Armory and Community Activities Center, they have facilities large enough to accommodate this event. Although they are-ru-nning into a similar scenario as, they do not have two separate areas for vendors and refreshments. These are planned in the same room. While we would potentially have the space to host the event at the Earle Brown heritage Center, the room rental costs and food and beverage minimums would make it cost prohibitive. My apologies for the length of this update, but I wanted to give you a full dimension of our work on this issue. As always, please let me know if you have and questions, or require additional information. • 0 ,VV orU~ SeSSlon Agenda Item -No. 5 • 0 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION ITEM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works DATE: March 17, 2009 SUBJECT: TH 252 Update Council Action Required: The following information provides an update pertaining to transportation planning measures to the TH 252 corridor in Brooklyn Center. No action is required. Background: City staff recently met with Mn/DOT staff and discussed the following planning and construction activities and initiatives pertaining to the TH 252 corridor. 1. Short-term a. Corridor Evaluation - Mn/DOT and the cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center initiated and performed a corridor study throughout 2007 and 2008. Generally, based on reprioritization of Mn/DOT's focus towards preservation • projects (TH 252 improvements would be classified as "expansion") and to the fact that non-programmed projects were slowed down, the study was not completed. Currently, a work plan does not exist to finalize the study and report. Although the traffic study was not fully completed and a final analysis of summary and findings was not formalized, several issues were identified along the corridor that warrant both short-term and long-term strategies, which are further addressed below. b. Median Cable Guard - Cable guard was installed in the median along TH 252 in several locations where appropriate for safety purposes in 2008 and will be completed in 2009. c. Signal Timing - Mn/DOT revised and optimized the signal timing along the TH 252 corridor in 2008. Upon completion, Mn/DOT performed an extensive operations review evaluating the effectiveness of the timing optimization in December 2008. Overall, Mn/DOT reports that network performance measures and operations improved while side-street traffic was penalized. Travel time and delay decreased significantly by nearly 6.5 minutes during the PM peak period and eliminated almost all delay (94%) in the northbound direction. Additionally, the reduction in congestion and improved corridor progression should reduce the frequency of several types of crashes that are experienced and common along TH 252 (e.g. northbound rear-end collisions at 66th Avenue). d. 6-lane Section in Brooklyn Park - Mn/DOT and the City of Brooklyn Park • have a joint project (Cooperative Agreement) programmed in 2010 to upgrade a portion of TH 252 near 85th Avenue to a six-lane section to address the adjacent intersections' poor operations and delays. Cit , of Brookl>>n Center/ TH 252 Update e. 66`h Avenue Intersection - In Brooklyn Center, the intersection at 66th Avenue • exists with high delays and poor operations. It is ranked number 12 on Mn/DOT's top 200 intersection safety issues list. This intersection is experiencing a larger number of accidents and the crash rate is higher than typically experienced at similar intersections. Mn/DOT has been preliminarily evaluating different options pertaining to potential intersection improvements to address these issues. Lower-cost, short-term intersection improvement strategies are currently being evaluated to better match the timing of the potential long-term, corridor expansion improvements. f. Pedestrian Crossing -There is no short-term planning for a pedestrian bridge across TH 252 in Brooklyn Center. A pedestrian bridge would be a considerable undertaking for the City alone, and typical conditions or warrants for a standalone pedestrian bridge are lacking. Generally, there are adjacent signalized intersections that adequately accommodate pedestrian crossings. Pursuing a pedestrian bridge across TH 252 would be very significant and pricey. It is a wide corridor which doesn't lend very well to constructing a cost effective pedestrian bridge (which generally are never cost effective with viable alternatives). A pedestrian bridge in this location would most likely score very low and be a poor candidate for competitive funding. If there was a regional trail connection to be made along the river, it would be more competitive. However, there is currently no regional trail planned through the Riverwood neighborhood. For the long term, it would be most cost effective to accommodate pedestrian crossings with combination vehicle/pedestrian • bridges during a future TH 252 expan sion project. 2. Long-term a. TII252 Expansion (Freeway Upgrade) - For the long tern, Mn/DOT recommends upgrading the entire TH 252 corridor (from I-694 to TH 610) to freeway standards and improving 66th Avenue in the planning and design of a new I-94/I-694/TH 252 interchange. Mn/DOT is currently updating their Statewide Transportation Plan (STP) to better coincide with new planning strategies as well as implications of the transportation funding bill. Generally, this new plan uses key strategies that focuses on safety and preservation, which reflect a lessening of focus on lower priority expansion projects. Mn/DOT's 2009-2023 STP is anticipated to be finalized in 2009 and is not anticipated to include a programmed date for the ultimate TH 252 expansion. b. TH 610 Expansion - The first phase of the TH 610 project submitted for funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the current federal stimulus bill, consists of the new section of TH 610 from TH 81 to TH 169. The second Phase would consist of completing the remaining portion of TH 610 from TH 81 to I-94. A current time frame for the second phase is unknown at this time. Council Policy Issues: Does the City Council support the short-term TH 252 planning strategies of Mn/DOT? • Does the City Council support the long-term TH 252 planning strategies of Mn/DOT? CitY of Brooklyn Center/ TH 252 Update W ork Session Agenda Item No. +6 • 0 • • • Memorandum Date: 18 March 2009 3 To: Curt Boganey, City Manager From: Daniel Jordet, Director of Fiscal & Support Services Re: Water Conservation Rate Structure The 2008 Minnesota Legislature changed Minnesota Statutes 103G.291 to include a requirement for conservation water rate structures. This means a rate structure that encourages conservation of use of potable water from public water supplies serving more than 1,000 people. Such a rate structure can make use of stepped rates increasing the charge per unit of water as--water use increases, seasonal rates, time of use rates, excessive _ use rates or individualized goal rates. The criteria to be satisfied is encouraging water utility customers to conserve on use of water by charging greater amounts for greater use of water than a "norm" limit established by the utility. There are also indications of what are not considered conservation rates in a document distributed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This includes flat rates and minimum water volume rates, both of which are principals in the current Brooklyn Center water rates. In 2005 the City contracted with Progressive Consulting Engineers to do a study of water and sewer rate changes. While the study report does not include any information on conservation based rates, it gives staff the basic data necessary to develop such rates. The Public Works Department and Finance Department will work together to develop these conservation based rates for City Council consideration. No additional consultant costs will be incurred. The rates must be adopted and in use by 1 January 2010. This deadline will be met by incorporating the conservation rate structure into the 2010 utility budget preparation process. This will result in the required rates being adopted in November 2009 for implementation as of 1 January 2010, in compliance with the statute. A copy of the DNR public information sheet on water conservation rates is attached. 0 Conservation Rates Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291, was amended in 2008 to include a requirement for public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people to adopt a water rate structure that encourages conservation: Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.291, subd. 4. Conservation rate structure required. (a) For the purposes of this section, "conservation rate structure" means a rate structure that encourages conservation and may include increasing block rates, seasonal rates, time of use rates, individualized goal rates, or excess use rates. The rate structure must consider each residential unit as an individual user in multiple-family dwellings. (b) To encourage conservation, a public water supplier serving more than 1,000 people in the metropolitan area, as defined in section 473.121, subdivision 2, shall use a conservation rate structure by January 1, 2010. All remaining public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people shall use a conservation rate structure by January 1, 2013. (c) A public water supplier without the proper measuring equipment to track the amount of water used by its users, as of the effective date of this act, is exempt from this subdivision and the conservation rate structure requirement under subdivision 3, paragraph (c). In addition, Minnesota Statues, section 103G.291, was further amended to read: Subd. 3. Water supply plans; demand reduction. (c) Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people must employ water use demand reduction measures. includine a conservation rate structure. as defined in subdivision 4. naraeraoh (a). unless exempted under subdivision 4. naraeranh (c). before requesting approval from the commissioner of health under section 144.383, paragraph (a), to construct a public water supply well or requesting an increase in the authorized volume of appropriation. Demand reduction measures must include evaluation of conservation rate structures and a public education program that may include a toilet and showerhead retrofit program. Public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 residents will need to adopt a conservation rate structure before requesting well construction approval for a public water supply well or before requesting an increase in permitted volume for their water appropriation permit. Examples of Conservation Rates: Below are examples of rate structures that encourage conservation. Many variations and combinations of these examples are possible. NOTE: Rate structures often include a service charge (base rate) and a volume based charge. Service charges may cover fixed costs (capital improvements) and the volume charge is often for operation and maintenance costs. Volume charges usually use units of 1,000 gallons or 100 cubic feet (748 gallons). lncreasina Block Rates: Cost per unit increases as water use increases within specified "blocks" or volumes. The increase in cost between each block should be significant enough (25% or more and 50% between the last two steps) to encourage conservation. Example: 0-6,000 gallons = $2.50/1000 gallons. 6,000-12,000 gallons = $3.1511000 gallons. 12,000-24,000 gallons = $4.00/1000 gallons. Above 24,000 gallons = $6.00/1000 gallons. Seasonal Rates: The rate per unit increases in the summer to encourage the efficient use of water during peak demand periods caused by outdoor water uses. Seasonal rates can take the form of a surcharge added to the normal rate or a separate fee schedule for winter and summer periods. Example: Surcharge method - $1.00/1000 gallons is added on top of the regular fee schedule for all water use between May 1 and October 1. Page 1 Conservation Rates • Page 2 Time of Use Rates: Water rates are higher at times of the day when water use demands are high. This rate requires specialized meters that can monitor water use during specified segments of time, for instance, every 15 minutes. Example: Water rates are reduced by $0.75 for customers that agree not to use water for certain purposes or over a set volume of water during certain times of the day or periods of high water demands. Individualized Goal Rate (Water Budeet Rate): A rate with tailored allocations developed for each customer. The rates increase as the allocation is used or exceeded by the customer. The allocation is generally based upon winter or January use. Example: A family of four used 6,200 gallons in January. Summer use is higher than January use so a factor is applied to determine a summer allocation (1.5 x 6,200 gallons = 9,300 gallons). 0-6,000 gallons = $2.50/1000 gallons. 6,000-9,300 gallons = $2.75/1000 gallons. 9,300-18,600 gallons = $4.00/1000 gallons. .(Allocation is exceeded.) Above 18,600 gallons = $6.00/1000 gallons. Excess Use Rates: Cost per unit increases greatly above an established level in order to trigger a strong price signal that discourages excessive use. This rate is similar to an increasing block rate but with much higher charges for the larger volume blocks. Example: 0-6,000 gallons = $2.50/1000 gallons - 6,000-12,000 gallons = $3.15/1000 gallons 12,000-24,000 gallons = $5.0011000 gallons (Excessive Use Rate) Above 24,000 gallons=$7.50/1000 gallons (Excessive Use Rate) Multiple-Family Dwellings: Total water use in a multiple-family dwelling, which has only one water meter for the entire dwelling, may exceed that of a single-family dwelling. The statute does not require individual water meters for each residential unit within a multiple-family dwelling; however, the required conservation rate at which the multiple-family dwelling's water use is billed must consider the number of residential units within that multiple-family dwelling. Example: A four-plex uses a total of 18,000 gallons per month or approximately 4,500 gallons per residential unit. Water use for each residential unit falls within the first block (0-6,000 gallons) of the above Excess Use Rate example. A rate of $2.50/1000 gallons would apply up to a total use of 24,000 gallons for the multiple-family dwelling. Thereafter, the rate increases according to the rate schedule, always considering each residential unit as an individual user. Non-conservation rate examples: Declining (Decreasine) Block Rates: The cost per unit of water (cubic foot or gallon) decreases as the water use increases beyond the basic block. This rate structure provides no incentive to conserve because the cost of water per unit decreases with increased use. Flat Rates: A set fee allows the use of an indefinite amount of water. This rate structure is used where water is unmetered and provides no incentive to conserve water because cost is unrelated to volume used. Uniform Rates: The cost per unit is the same regardless of the volume used. This rate structure is considered conservation neutral. Service Charize (Base Rate) that includes a Minimum Water Volume: The inclusion of a minimum volume . of water in the service charge (base rate) discourages conservation especially if the minimum volume exceeds average customer usage. Conservation Rates 10-13-08.pdf item N ° • 7 Work Session Agenda • 0 MEMORANDUM - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: March 17, 2009 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Discussion on a Draft Cooperative Trailway Agreement with Three Rivers Park District that Addresses the Conversion of Certain Community Trails to Regional Trails COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Provide direction to staff regarding the possible conversion of a portion of the community trail system to the Three River District's Regional Trail System. BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of a draft Cooperative Trailway Agreement which would facilitate the conversion of the following community trails from the City of Brooklyn Center to the Park District's Regional Trail System: - Twin Lakes Trail Connection to Shingle Creek Parkway - Shingle Creek Trail which crosses the City, Planning and future improvement of a Twin Lakes Trail Extension to the Mississippi River Regional Park. The draft agreement includes the following: The plan converts the maintenance and capital expenses/ responsibilities of 29,549 feet 5.5 miles of community trails from the City of Brooklyn Center to the Three River Parks District. It changes the planning and future development of a future trail connection within the 57th Ave. corridor (approx. 8,727'/1.65 miles from a City cost to a Park District cost. It changes the development responsibilities of the trail construction along Bass Lake Road (2nd and 3rd phases of the Bass Lake Road) project from the City to the Park District It changes the reconstruction/replacement of the Shingle Creek Trail from the City to the Park District (southern portion part of 2008 CIP) It provides for trail signage and way - finding as a responsibility of the Park District. - The City continues to be responsible for winter maintenance - The City as an Active Partner in the Cooperative Planning of future trail improvements, including having the responsibility for obtaining all new or realigned trail easements. - The City's continued role in policing of activities within our parks and streets with a cooperative program with the Park District on the use of the regional trailways. The City Attorney has commented on an alternative means of using the easement document to serve as a permit and license to the Park District to construct, operate and maintain a trail within the easement area. The District has indicated a willingness to consider this option in areas where the City does not hold fee title to the land. Attached for your reference are copies of the City Attorney's letter dated February 17, 2009 and the draft Grant of Permanent Non-Exclusive Easements which illustrates the location of the existing trail improvements on aerial photographs. PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION COMMENTS Attached is a copy of the January 20, 2009 Commission minutes which indentifies concerns on the use of a permanent easement, the duration of the agreement, and the relinquishing of City control on trail design and construction. Exhibits: Regional Trailway Map (illustration of the 3 corridors), City Map with the Regional Corridor Comp Plan Issues Map. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES: Is it in the Community's interest to convey the maintenance, operation and capital expense of the Shingle Creek Trail Corridor, the Twin lakes Corridor and the future extension of the Twin lakes Corridor to the Mississippi River Corridor Trail to the Three River Park District? Are the design, construction and maintenance standards of the Three River parks District Trail System equal to or better than the City's trail standards? Is it in the City's interest to enter into an agreement which requires a permanent continuous and contiguous trail corridor which crosses the city and connects to regional trail corridors? Should this matter be referred back to the Park and Recreation Commission for a final report and recommendation? CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT TRAILWAY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Three Rivers Park District ("Park District") is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota authorized by statute to acquire, establish, operate and maintain a regional trail system; and WHEREAS, Park District promulgates master plans for the development of park facilities including the regional trail systems; and WHEREAS, the Park District's master plans are submitted to the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission for approval; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center ("City") has requested that Park District assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of an existing city trail corridor along Shingle Creek that will be designated as the Shingle Creek Regional Trail located within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has requested that Park District assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of an existing city trail. corridor from Twin Lake Beach Park to Brooklyn Boulevard that will be designated as the Twin Lakes Regional Trail located within the City; and WHEREAS, the City has requested that Park District assume responsibility for the construction, operation and maintenance of an extension of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail from Brooklyn Boulevard east to the Mississippi along a route to be determined jointly by the City and the Park District; and WHEREAS, the City owns the land where the existing trails are located, and owns lands suitable for development of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail extension; and WHEREAS; the Park District and City desire to cooperate to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain a regional trail network located in the City. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and Park District agree as follows: 1 1. Land Acauisition. A. Shingle Creek Trail Easement City shall convey to Park District a permanent non-exclusive Easement for trail purposes in the form of the Public Trailway Easement attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter "Shingle Creek Trail Easement"). Said Shingle Creek Trail Easement shall provide a continuous and contiguous corridor for the existing trail to be designated as the Shingle Creek Regional Trail. Said Shingle Creek Trail Easement shall be conveyed to Park District upon execution of this Agreement. In the event City cannot convey a Shingle Creek Trail Easement which provides a continuous and contiguous corridor for the existing trail, City shall acquire such rights to additional lands as may be necessary. Park District shall not be obligated to proceed with any obligation under this Agreement until City has conveyed to Park District Easements sufficient to create a continuous and contiguous regional trail corridor. If City cannot acquire and convey a Shingle Creek Trail Easement to Park District which provide a continuous and contiguous trail corridor within eighteen (18) months following execution of this Agreement, the Agreement shall be terminated and neither the City nor Park District shall have any obligation hereunder, except that Park District shall return unrecorded Easements to City and take such other measures as may be necessary to-;cancel the Easements. B. Twin Lakes Trail Easement City shall convey to Park District a permanent non-exclusive Easement for trail purposes in the form of the Public Trailway Easement attached hereto as Exhibit B (hereinafter "Twin Lakes Trail Easement"). Said Twin Lakes Trail Easement shall provide a continuous and contiguous corridor for the existing trail to be designated as the Twin Lakes Regional Trail. Said Twin Lakes Trail Easement shall be conveyed to Park District upon execution of this Agreement'. In the event 'City cannot convey a Twin Lakes Trail Easement which provides a continuous and contiguous corridor for the existing trail, City shall acquire such rights to additional lands as may be necessary. Park District shall not be obligated to proceed with any obligation under this Agreement until City has conveyed to Park District Easements sufficient to create a continuous and contiguous regional trail corridor. If City cannot acquire and convey a Twin Lakes Trail Easement to Park District which provide a continuous and contiguous trail corridor within eighteen (18) months following execution of this Agreement, the Agreement shall be terminated and neither the City nor Park District shall have any obligation hereunder, except that Park District shall return unrecorded Easements to City and take such other measures as may be necessary to cancel the Easements. C. Twin Lakes TrailExtension Easement A second Easement for the extension of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail will be required upon agreement by City and Park District upon establishment of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail extension (hereinafter "Trail Extension Easement"). Said Trail Extension Easement shall provide a continuous and contiguous corridor for the Twin Lakes Regional Trail extension from Brooklyn Boulevard east to existing trail along the Mississippi River and shall be conveyed to Park District upon amendment of this Agreement. Said Trail Extension Easement shall not be recorded by Park District until completion of the regional trail extension construction. If this Agreement is terminated, and the regional trail extension is not constructed, Park District shall return the unrecorded Trail Extension Easement to City and take such other measures as may be necessary to cancel the Trail Extension Easement. 2 In the event City cannot convey a Trail Extension Easement which provides a continuous and contiguous corridor for a trail, City shall acquire such rights to additional lands as may be necessary to complete the trail corridor. Park District shall not be obligated to proceed with any obligation under this Agreement relating to the Twin Lakes Regional Trail extension until City has conveyed to Park District the Trail Extension Easement sufficient to create a continuous and contiguous trail corridor. 2. financing. Following conveyance of the Shingle Creek Trail Easement and Twin Lakes Trail Easement i n accordance with paragraphs 1 (A) and 1(B) of this Agreement, Park District shall be responsible for trail operations, maintenance, reconstruction and capital expenses as deemed necessary by Park District. Furthermore, in accordance with paragraph 1(C), the Park District shall commence planning and design for the Twin Lakes Regional Trail extension at Park District expense. No design or construction work shall commence until the Twin Lakes Regional Trail extension project is funded in Park District's Capital Improvement Program approved by the Park District's Board of Commissioners. 3. Cost Participation. Upon execution of this Agreement, Park District agrees to be responsible for all future operations, maintenance, reconstruction, and capital expenses of existing trails described in the Shingle Creek Trail Easement and the Twin Lakes Trail Easement. Upon amendment to this agreement with the Trail Extension Easement, Park District agrees to be responsible for all design, construction and future operations, maintenance and reconstruction of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail extension as described in the Trail Extension Easement. In recognition of the significant costs associated assumed by the Park District for future operations, maintenance, reconstruction, and capital expenses, City agrees to convey all easements, existing physical trails and trail bridges owned by City to Park District at a cost of one ($1) dollar to Park District. 4. Design of Trail. The Park. District and Cfty shall confer and agree upon trail design responsibility prior to beginning a regional trail project. A. Future redesign of existing trails 4AI. Redesign by Park District. Future redesign, if needed, of the existing trails to be named the Shingle Creek Regional Trail and the Twin Lakes Regional Trail, and their related trail structures, shall be the responsibility of Park District. Park District may, in its sole discretion, contract with consultants to provide trail redesign services, including, but not limited to design development, contract document preparation, bidding documents, construction, administration, and project closeout. Park District shall submit all redesign construction plans to City for review and comment, provided, however, that Park District shall be solely responsible for development and approval of the design. The cost of design services provided by Park District or consultants selected by Park District shall be the responsibility of Park District. 3 4AII. Design by City. In the alternative, City may seek Park District approval to redesign the trail and trail related structures. If such a request is approved by Park District, in its sole discretion, City may contract with consultants for trail redesign services and shall be eligible for reimbursement for such services upon prior approval of Park District. Approved redesign costs will be reimbursed by Park District within thirty (30) days following presentation of verified invoices by City. B. Design of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail Extension 4113I. Design by Park District. Design of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail shall be in accordance with standards adopted by Park District. Park District may, in its sole discretion, contract with consultants to provide trail design services, including, but not limited to design development, contract documentation preparation, bidding documents, construction administration and project closeout. Park District shall submit final construction plans to City for review and comment, provided however, that Park District shall be solely responsible for development and approval of the design. The cost of design services provided by Park District or consultants selected by Park District shall be the responsibility of Park District. 4113II. Design by City. In the alternative, City may seek Park District approval to design the trail and trail related structures. If such a request is approved by Park District, in its sole discretion, City may contract with consultants for design services and shall be eligible for reimbursement for such services upon prior approval of Park District. Approved design costs will be reimbursed by Park District within thirty (30) days following presentation of verified invoices by city. 5. Construction of Trail. The Park District and City shall confer and agree upon trail construction responsibility prior to beginning a regional trail project. A. Reconstruction of existing trails The Shingle Creek Regional Trail and the existing segment of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail will be maintained in accordance with Park District's Pavement Management Program. That program will schedule appropriate reconstruction for individual segments of existing trails. Trail reconstruction projects are funded through Park District's Capital Improvement Program as approved by the Park District's Board of Commissioners. All costs of reconstruction shall 'be the responsibility of Park District. Park District will not reimburse City for indirect costs incurred by City including, but not limited to, staff costs, costs of consultants and advisors, legal fees, filing fees, permit fees, or any other similar expense. B. Construct of Twin Lakes Regional Trail Extension 5113I. Construction by Park District. Prior to issuance of Notice to Proceed to City pursuant to paragraph 5(BI) of the Agreement, Park District may, in its sole discretion, notify City that Park District shall construct the trail. Construction by Park District shall commence after (1) City conveyance to Park District of the Twin Lakes Trail 4 Extension Easement creating a continuous and contiguous trail corridor, (2) Park District approval of plans and specifications for construction of the trail, and (3) funding of the project in Park District's Capital Improvement Program as approved by the Park District's Board of Commissioners. All costs of trail construction by Park District shall be the responsibility of Park District. Park District shall not reimburse City for indirect costs incurred by City including, but not limited to, staff costs, costs of consultants and advisors, legal fees, filing fees, permit fees, or any other similar expense. If the Park District is constructing the trail pursuant to Paragraph 5(BI), Park District shall be responsible for construction supervision. Park District shall provide notice to City of the commencement of construction. City may observe construction and may consult with Park District regarding construction issues. Park District shall inform the City of final construction and shall schedule inspection by both agencies prior to close of the construction contract. Upon correction of any concerns identified in the inspections, Park District shall notify City in writing indicating completion of the project. Upon completion, Park District shall record the Easement and assume Park District responsibillities under this Agreement. 5113II. Construction by City. City shall be responsible for construction of the trail in accordance with construction plans and specifications developed pursuant to paragraph 4B of this Agreement. Construction shall commence when Park District issues a Notice to Proceed to City. The Notice to Proceed will issue following (1) conveyance to Park District of the Twin Lakes Trail Extension Easement, creating a continuous and contiguous trail corridor, (2) Park District approval of plans and specifications for construction of the trail, and (3) funding of the project in Park District's Capital Improvement Program as approved by the Park District's Board of Commissioners. If Park District does not issue a Notice to Proceed within thirty-six (36) months following submission of the request by City, the City may request Park District to return theunrecorded Twin Lakes Trail Extension Easement to City and take such other measures as may be necessary to cancel the Easement. Park District shall reimburse City for all direct costs of construction paid or owed to the contractor engaged by City to build the trail. Park District will not reimburse City for indirect costs incurred by City including, but not limited to, staff costs, costs of consultants and advisors, legal fees, filing fees, permit fees, or any other expense, which does not represent direct construction costs or approved design costs as defined in paragraph 4B of this Agreement. Park District shall reimburse City within thirty (30) days following receipt of City's verified statement of direct construction costs. If the City is constructing the trail pursuant to Paragraph 5(BII), City shall be responsible for construction supervision. City shall provide notice to Park District of the commencement of construction. Park District may observe construction and may consult with City regarding construction issues. City shall inform the Park District of final construction and shall schedule inspection by both agencies prior to close of the construction contract. Upon correction of any concerns identified in the inspections, City shall notify Park District in writing indicating completion of the project. Upon 5 completion, Park District shall record the Easement and assume Park District responsibilities under this Agreement. 6. Permits and Assessments. City shall grant all City approvals, City permits, and other official City permissions necessary to maintain, reconstruct and construct regional trails. In consideration of the Park District's performance under this Agreement including its maintenance obligations, City hereby agrees that the lands included in the Easement shall not be subject to assessment by the City. 7. Trail Uses and Purposes. All regional trails within City boundaries shall be open to the general public, and shall be used exclusively for pedestrian uses including, but not limited to, walking, jogging, skating and bicycle uses. Motorized and equestrian uses shall be prohibited, except that motorized vehicles used by the City or Park District for maintenance or law enforcement activities shall be permitted. 8. Winter Use. As of the date of this Agreement, Park District policy is to close the trail(s) to the public in winter and to perform no maintenance on the trail. Park District reserves the right to open trail for winter use in its sole discretion.; If Park District closes the trail(s) for winter use, City will be provided with a Park District Winter Use Permit to operate the trail during the winter period. Such permit will require City, among other things, to assume responsibility for trail maintenance and operation and to assume responsibility for liabilities associated with winter use. 9. Maintenance of Trail. Park District will be responsible for renovation, replacement, repair, maintenance, and upkeep of the trail(s) except as provided in paragraph 8. Park District shall be solely responsible for establishing maintenance standards for the trail. 10. Signage. Park District shall be responsible for providing signage for the trail(s). Signage will indicate that the trail is a regional trail of Park District. City may provide additional signage, provided however, that Park District shall approve such additional signage, and that City shall be responsible for providing and maintaining such additional signage. When the regional trail crosses a city roadway, City shall be responsible for providing and maintaining roadway crossing treatments such as pedestrian striping, road signs and/or other treatments as prescribed by the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD), or as appropriate. 11. Utilities. City shall at all times "retain the right to maintain, repair or replace any utilities and related facilities in, on, or under said trail(s) and install such utilities and related facilities provided, that if any such activities by the City shall or may damage or limit the use of the trail, the City will give the Park District ten (10) days prior written notice of the same (except in cases of emergency), and in any event the City will upon completion of such activities so affecting the trail or any portion thereof, restore the trail as near as possible to its condition existing before such maintenance, repair, replacement or other activities of the City. City and Park District recognize that prior notice is needed to develop temporary trail detour routes and temporary signage. City and Park District will cooperatively determine and implement a temporary detour route when feasible. 6 City will not require Park District to pay for utility relocation or burying of utility lines for construction or reconstruction of regional trails. 12. Law Enforcement. Through mutual cooperation, both the Park District and the City will patrol and police the trail in such manner and by such persons as the Park District and City shall deem necessary, and may enforce all rules and ordinances of the Park District and City except as provided herein. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Park District shall have the right to enforce its rules, regulations and ordinances with respect to the trail. City shall not promulgate any ordinance, rule or regulation which contravenes any ordinance, rule or regulation of Park District with respect to the trail or which contravenes this Agreement. 13. Indemnification. The City and the Park District each shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the other from any loss, liability, cost, damage and claim arising from any act or omission on the part of its officers, employees, agents, contractor or representatives in connection with the use, occupancy, development, operation, maintenance and repair of the trail, including any attorney fees and expenses incurred in defending any such claim. Nothing herein shall change or otherwise affect the liability limits established under Minn. Stat. § 466, as amended. The liability limitations established in Minn. Stat. § 466 shall apply to undertakings pursuant to this Agreement, and no individual or entity may seek to increase recovery beyond the statutory amounts set forth in Minn. Stat. § 466 by attempting to aggregate the statutory amounts applicable to the Park District or the City. 14. Successor and Assiqns. The Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that neither the City nor the Park District shall have the right of assign it rights, obligations and interests in or under this Agreement to any other party without the prior written consent of the other party hereto. 15. Amendment. Modification or Waiver. No amendment, modification or waiver of any condition, provision or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing and signed by the party or parties to be bound, or its duly authorized representative. Any waiver by either party shall be effective only with respect to the subject matter thereof and the particular occurrence described therein, and shall not affect the rights of either party with respect to any similar or dissimilar occurrences in the future. 16. Savina Provision. If any provision of the Agreement shall be found invalid or unenforceable with respect to any entity or in any jurisdiction, remaining provision of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and such provisions found to be unlawful or unenforceable shall not be affected as to their enforcement or lawfulness as to any other entity or in any other jurisdiction, and to such extent the terms and provisions of this Agreement are intended to be severable. 17. Notices. 7 Any notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed given on the first business day following the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail (registered or certified) postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to the Park District: Superintendent Three Rivers Park District 3000 Xenium Lane North Plymouth, MN 55441 If to the City: City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Park District have entered into this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its Mayor By: Its City Manager THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT By: Its Chair - Board of Commissioners By: _ Its Superintendent H:\city plan n ing\brooklyn center\PArk District )yOrSion of agreement\12 22 08 BC trailway cooperative agreement - Park District Draft.doc 9 DRAFT 10/13/08 GRANT OF PERMANENT NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS The City of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", in consideration of One and no/100 Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto Three Rivers Park District, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee", its successors and assigns, forever, permanent non-exclusive easements for recreational trail purposes over, across, on, and through land situated within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, as described on the attached Exhibits A-1 and A-2. Recreational trail purposes shall include but are not limited to pedestrian use, cross-country skiing, bicycling and other non-motorized uses. RECOGNIZING that said easements provided by the Grantee do not convey ownership of lands within the easement area to the Grantor. INCLUDING the right of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, servants and assigns, to enter upon the easement premises and such adjacent city land as may reasonably be required, at all reasonable times to operate the recreational trail, to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair and maintain said recreational trail over, across, on and through the easement premises, together wit the right to grade, level, fill, pave, and excavate the easement premises. Grantor and Grantee map employ motor vehicles on the recreational trail for maintenance and law enforcement purposes, and further motorized uses shall be permitted where the trail corridor traverses public streets and right-of-ways. PROVIDED however that Grantee shall operate and maintain said recreational trail and will make all capital investments to develop the trail in accordance with trail designs of the Grantee. PROVIDED that the Grantee is not required to plow or maintain the trails in winter but will permit the Grantor the option of maintaining the premises during the winter season. The above named Grantor, for itself, its successors and its assigns, does covenant with the Grantee, its successors and assigns that, except where noted in the Exhibits, it is well seized in fee title of the above described easement premises, that it has the sole right to grant and convey the easement to the Grantee, that there are no unrecorded interests in the easement premises, and that it will indemnify and hold the Grantee harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor hereto has signed this agreement this day of , 2008 SIGNATURE PIECE HERE... )KAt- I 10,13,C EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South The subject trail is an existing recreational trail within the City of Brooklyn Center, county of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, the location of which are shown on maps and described below. The trail easement shall be sixteen (16) feet in width, measured from the centerline of the existing trail, without regard to the width of the existing trail surface, and shall be continuous from its commencement point to its point of termination. Segment SC-1: Brooklyn Park border to 69th Ave N Commencing at the North municipal boundary of the City of Brooklyn Center in the northeastern corner of West Palmer Park, the bituminous trail lies west of Palmer Lake, east of Palmer Lake Dr. W. and east of the existing park play fields. South of the play fields the trail is located east of, and proceeds parallel to, Palmer Lake Dr W and then proceeds north of, and parallel to, 69th Ave. N.. The trail crosses Shingle Creek on an existing City-owned bridge. The bridge will be conveyed to Park District upon approval of this Agreement. Approximately 150 feet to the east of the bridge, the trail proceeds south and crosses 69th Ave N at grade. 2 )KAF I EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South 3 Segment SC-2: 69th Ave N to Freeway Boulevard Commencing at said point last described above, the trail proceeds south along the eastern side of Shingle Creek. The trail passes under Shingle Creek Parkway, and then under Freeway Boulevard. DRAFT 10/13/08 EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South Segment SC-3: Freeway Boulevard and the Interstate 94 Bridge Commencing at the Freeway Boulevard underpass, the trail proceeds south along the east side of Shingle Creek through land owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) (to be confirmed). The trail then crosses the Interstate 94 Pedestrian Bridge, and proceeds to the southern terminus of said bridge. The Bridge is owned by MNDOT (to be confirmed) and is designated as Bridge # XXXX. Agreement for use of the MNDOT land and bridge for trail purposes is covered under a separate agreement with MNDOT. (Need to draft separate agreement for MNDOT property & bridge?) r "Rib. -Pa. 4 DRAFT 10/13/0~ EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South Segment SC-4: Central Park: Interstate 94 Bridge to Shingle Creek Parkway Commencing at the southern terminus of the Interstate 94 Pedestrian Bridge, the trail proceeds to the south through Central Park, staying east of the existing play fields. The trail crosses an existing City-owned bridge located approximately 200 feet north-northwest of the library. The bridge will be conveyed to Park District upon approval of this Agreement. The trail then parallels the eastern side of Shingle Creek and proceeds south to the point where the trail turns due east to reach contact with the western side of Shingle Creek Parkway. DRAFT 10/13 EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South Segment SC-5: Shingle Creek Parkway to County Road 10 Commencing at the point last described above, the trail proceeds south along the western side of Shingle Creek Parkway to the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10. 6 DRAF"""I EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South Segment SC-6: County Road 10 to Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge Commencing at the point last described above, the trail proceeds south/southeast to the northern terminus of the Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge. The current trail alignment follows the north side of the Brookdale Center Road to the northern terminus of the Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge. Redevelopment of this area may result in a modified trail alignment in the future. {rrprrt~ ~G 7 EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South Segment SC-7: Highway 100 Bridge Commencing at the northern terminus of the Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge, the trail proceeds to the southern terminus of said bridge. The Bridge is owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) (to be confirmed) and is designated as Bridge # XXXX. Agreement for use of the bridge for trail purposes is covered under a separate agreement with MNDOT. (Need to draft separate agreement for bridge?) Y1Q~ r ti P f LQ 8 DRAFT EXHIBIT A-1 Shingle Creek Regional Trail Easement: North to South 9 Segment SC-8: Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge to Minneapolis Border Commencing at the southern terminus of the Highway 100 Pedestrian Bridge, the trail proceeds south along the western border of Lions Park and then east along the southern border of the park until the point at which the trail enters the City of Minneapolis. EXHIBIT A-2 Twin Lakes Regional Trail Easement (West to East) The subject trail is an existing recreational trail within the City of Brooklyn Center, county of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, the location of which are shown on maps and described below. The trail easement shall be sixteen (16) feet in width except where noted below, measured from the centerline of the existing trail, without regard to the width of the existing trail surface, and shall be continuous from its commencement point to its point of termination. Segment TL-1: Lakeside City Park Commencing at the southern boundary of Twin Lake Park, the bituminous trail proceeds north/northeast to the parking lot of the park. r ~ 10 11310 EXHIBIT A-2 Twin Lakes Regional Trail Easement (West to East) Segment TL-2: Twin Lakes Ave. N. (signed only - on-road trail) From the Twin Lake Park parking lot north to the existing bituminous trail on the north side of Lake Breeze Ave. N., there will not be a physical trail. Trail users will be directed between the two points using street markings and signs along Twin Lakes Ave. N.. The on- street portion of the trail does not require an easement under this Agreement. I I 11 EXHIBIT A-2 Twin Lakes Regional Trail Easement (West to East) Segment TL-3: Lake Breeze Ave. N. to France Ave. N. Commencing from the intersection of Twin Lakes Ave. N. and Lake Breeze Ave. N., the trail proceeds east on the northern side of Lake Breeze Ave using the existing bituminous trail. The trail proceeds north along the eastern side of Azelia Ave. N. and the southern side of 50th Ave. N. to the intersection with France Ave. N.. 12 DRAFT 10/13/08 EXHIBIT A-2 Twin Lakes Regional Trail Easement (West to East) Segment TL-4: France Ave N to Brooklyn Blvd Commencing at the point last described above, the trail proceeds north on the west side of France Ave. N., to 53rd Ave. N.. The trail proceeds east on the south side of 53rd Ave. N. until the road turns to the north, at which point the trail continues to follow the road on the east side of the road until the intersection of 55th Ave. N.. 13 [)RAF I EXHIBIT A-2 Twin Lakes Regional Trail Easement (West to East) Segment TL-5: Brooklyn Blvd. to County Road 10 along Xerxes Ave. N. Commencing at the point last described above, the trail crosses Brooklyn Blvd. and Xerxes Ave. N. along the north side of 55th Ave N.. The trail proceeds north along the east side of Xerxes Ave. N. to the intersection of Xerxes and County Road 10. 14 I)KlAt- I EXHIBIT A-2 Twin Lakes Regional Trail Easement (West to East) Segment TL-6: Xerxes Ave. N. to Shingle Creek Pkwy. along CR 10 (Alignment TBD) The alignment of the Twin Lakes Trail from Xerxes east to the Mississippi River will be determined through joint planning efforts between City and Park District. 15 Upon determination of the final alignment, this Agreement will be amended to reflect the trail easement required to complete a contiguous trail from the terminus of Segment TL-5 east to the Mississippi River. )KAr I lo,i: EXHIBIT A-2 Twin Lakes Regional Trail Easement (West to East) Segment TL-7: Shingle Creek Pkwy to Mississippi River (Alignment TBD) The alignment of the Twin Lakes Trail from Xerxes east to the Mississippi River will be determined through joint planning efforts between City and Park District. Upon determination of the final alignment, this Agreement will be amended to reflect the trail easement required to complete a contiguous trail from the terminus of Segment TL-5 east to the Mississippi River. 16 Ke n n ed y 11 I • C H A R T E R E D February -17, 2009 Offices in 470 t 5 Bank Plaza 200 Sourh Sixth Street Minneapolis Minneaplis; MN 55402 Saint Paul (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax St; CIOUd http:I/wWw.kennedy-graven. coni Affirlnarive Action. Equal Opportunity F,mph,yer C HARLEs L. I..) :k F. VERF Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337- 215 Email: clefevere:wkennedv.gl-aven.collI Jeff Brauchle, Legal. 6ounsel Three Rivers Park District, 3000 .Xenium Lane North Pbmiouth, MN 55441 Re: Trail Agreement Between Three ~vers Park District and Brooklyn Center Dear Jeff. Last week we discussed the question of how to manage transfer of rights to construct trails in public rights-of-way where the City has the right, as the road authority, to construct and maintain trails but does not have a conveyable interest in real property. It seems to me that there are a couple of ways of handling this issue. One is by referring to the agreement as a joint powers agreement under which the City and the Park District are jointly constructing and operating a trail within these right-of-way areas. Several years ago, I sent you a letter with a proposed form of contract along those lines. A copy of that letter and form of agreement I suggested is attached.. I do not know what happened to the discussions or negotiations on the trail after I sent my letter in July of 2003. A second possible way of addressing this issue would be to leave the agreement as it is, with the City giving easements to the Park District, but acknowledging that the easements, in certain cases, did not convey an interest in real property. This might take the form of a separate paragraph providing something like the following: Certain of the Easements lie within platted rights-of.--way where the City does not have an interest in real property but does have the legal authority to construct, maintain and operate sidewalks, trails, and other such public ways. In such cases, the Easements do not convey an interest in real property but, pursuant to this agreement, shall serve as a permit and license to the Park District to construct, operate and maintain a trail within the Easement areas. In the event the City's right to so maintain a trail within these segments of the Easement area is lost by vacation, condemnation, revocation of license or permit, or otherwise, the City will acquire such additional rights, titles and interests as are needed to assure a continuous and contiguous trail. corridor through the Easement areas. If the loss of such right to maintain a trail within right-of-way areas occurs, after 347249vi G'LLBIU91-253 Jeff Brauchle February 17, 2009 Page 2 construction of the trail, the City shall acquire such additional :right, title or interest and reconstruct the trail, if necessary, at City expense. The City represents that it currently has the legal right and authority to construct and maintain the trail within such platted rights-of-way. There may be issues related to the easement agreement other than the. City's lacy of an interest in real estate its platted rights-of-way, and we will have to address those as well. However, l thought it might be helpful to advance the resolution of this somewhat more technical issue if possible.. Please let know if you have any comments or suggestions related to this issue. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:peb Enclosures cc: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works (wlencs.) 3472490 CU. BR291-253 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 20, 2009 COMMUNITY ROOM #221, COMMUNITY CENTER CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sorenson, Commissioners Ebert, Peterson, Russell and Shinnick were present. Commissioners Lee and Starling were absent and excused. Also present was City Council liaison Mark Yelich and Community Activities, Recreation and Services Director Jim Glasoe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By consensus, the agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 21, 2008 There was a motion by Commissioner Shinnick, seconded by Commissioner Peterson to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2008 Park & Recreation Commission as presented. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilmember Yelich reported that he had just been at the Central Park West ice rink and noted the ice was in excellent condition. Councilmember Yelich also noted a picture in last weeks Sun Post newspaper of citizens using the rink. Councilmember Yelich noted that there would be challenges ahead for the City and for the nation as a whole. Councilmember Yelich shared the following from recent from recent City Council meetings and city events: • The City currently has 300+ foreclosed homes. • Rental housing standards will be important as we move forward. • The Governor had un-allotted $540,000 in Local Government Aid payments to the city for the last half of 2008. Budget decisions would need to be made to deal with that reduction and the anticipated reductions for 2009 and beyond. • He had the opportunity to portray Earle Brown at the Holly Sunday event in December and noted the strong attendance. • Construction on the new FBI building is still slated for 2009. • Macy's is closing their Brookdale location and, while not surprising, provides an opportunity for mall ownership to reposition the property for future growth. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Sorenson opened nominations for Commission Chair. Commissioner Shinnick nominated Commissioner Sorenson. Commissioner Peterson seconded the nomination. Commissioner Shinnick moved the nominations be closed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Peterson and unanimously passed. Chair Sorenson named Tom Shinnick as Vice-Chair. SHINGLE CREEK DAYLIGHTING CARS Director Glasoe introduced Director of Business and Development, Gary Eitel. Mr. Eitel provided the Commission with an overview of the Shingle Creek Daylighting study. Mr. Eitel described the separate `reaches" of the study and the proposed improvements for each reach. Mr. Eitel noted that, although there was no designated funding source, the City Council had adopted the study framework as a development guide for redevelopment of the opportunity site. There was discussion by the Commissioners on the need to coordinate the creek work with the anticipated trail reconstruction, or other park improvements. THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT, DRAFT COOPERATIVE TRAIL AGREEMENT CARS Director Glasoe reported that he, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel and representatives of the Public Works Department had met again with Three Rivers staff regarding a cooperative agreement related to the operation and maintenance of the trail sections Three Rivers has listed on their regional trail system. Mr. Eitel presented the draft cooperative trailway agreement. Mr. Eitel reviewed the respective rights and responsibilities as outlined in the agreement, including the potential monetary benefits for the City. CARS director Glasoe noted that one change from past discussions was that the Park District was now looking for a "nonexclusive easement," as opposed to the fee title easement they had been asking for previously.. Chair Sorenson indicated he was strongly opposed to any type of "permanent" easement, and also felt the agreement provided the Park District with too much control over the design and construction of the trails. The Commission discussed these points and the consensus was that we try to define a specific time frame for the agreement and ask for further definition on the design/construction control. After additional discussion, the consensus of the Commission was to provide feedback to Three Rivers Park District that sought clarification on the form of the easement, duration of the agreement and further clarification on trail design and construction control. Mr. Eitel noted that he would provide the feedback to Three Rivers staff, and bring this issue back at a future meeting. 2009 AGENDA ITEMS CARS Director Glasoe indicated that, as always, staff would continue to identify and place on the meetings agendas, items that need to be considered by the Commission. Mr. Glasoe added that he wanted to open up the agendas for items the Commissioners would like to discuss. Mr. Glasoe asked that Commissioners forward agenda items throughout the year. EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS CARS Director Glasoe reported that a letter had been sent to residents near the park noting that the Park & Recreation Commission had been made aware of their concerns and would be working on potential solutions that they would present to the residents at a meeting at Evergreen Park planned for April 2009. BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANC FOR YOUTH- UPDATE Chair Sorenson asked that this item be deferred to the February meeting SET NEXT MEETING DATE By consensus, the next meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was set for February 17, 20098 at 7:00 p.m. in Community Room #221 of the Brooklyn Center Community Center. MEETING ADJOURNED Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ebert, to adjourn the meeting at 8:42p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Standard Trailway Cooperative Agreement Brooklyn Center Regional Trails Covered in the Agreement Trails in Aareement Shingle Creek Twin Lakes Twin Lakes extension (Route TBD) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PARKS AND SCHOOLS (763) 569-3900 I Arboretum 13 Evergreen School 25 Northport School 61"& Major Avenue 7020 Dupont Avenue 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard 2 Belhne Park 14 Firehouse Park 26 Odyssey- Charter School 55`~'& Aldrich Avenue 65`, & Bryant Avenue 6201 Noble Avenue 3 Bob Cahlander Park 15 Freeway Park 27 Orchard Lane Park 65' & Brooklyn Boulevard 67" & Beard Avenue 65"' & Orchard Lane 4 Brooklyn Center High School 16 Garden City- Park 28 Palmer Lake Mature Area 6500 Huraboldt Avenue 65`a & Brookhn Boulevard 69`sAvenue between 5 Centerbrook Golf Course 17 Garden City School East & West Palmer Parks 5500 N Lilac Drive 3501 65`r Avenue 29 Palmer Lake School 6 Central Park 18 Grandtiew• Park 7300 W Pahner Lake Drive 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 60" & Hunboldt Avenue 30 Riverdale Park 7 Central Park Rest 19 Happy Hallow Park Dallas & Riverdale Road 63rd & Brooklyn Drive 50"h & Abbott Avenue 31 St. Mphonsus School 8 City Hall 20 Kylawn Park 71"& Halifax Avenue 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 61" & Kyle Avenue 32 Twin Lake Park 9 Community Center 21 Lions Park 58`s & Major Avenue 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55`~ & Russell Avenue 33 R'angstad Park 10 Earle Brown School 22 Marlin Park 61" & France Avenue 1500 59*Avenue Marlin Drive & Indiana Avenue 34 Rest Palmer Park 11 East Palmer Park 23 N Mississippi Regional Park 72°" & W Pahuer Lake Drive 71"& Oliver Avenue 57th & Lyndale (entrance) 35 R'illow Lane Early Childhood 12 Evergreen Park 24 Northport Park 7020 Perry Avenue 72nd & Bryant Avenue 55'- & Sailor Lane 36 Willow Lane Park 69`s & Orchard Avenue Three Rivers Park District / Citv of Brooklvn Center Preliminary Regional Trail Map City of Brooklyn Center Public Works - Enyneering Division January 13, 2009 Bituminous Trails Concrete Sidewalks Other Sidewalks and Trails Right-of-Way Conflict L-L Kd Trailway within Easement Proposed Future Trail Construction (Location to be determined) N 1 M" nay TRAIL POTENTIAL ONINEC ON HUM 4p7 rjgUARE ' BROOKLYN BLVD- HyyY,25 g _ CORRIDOR HUMBOCDT AVE' CORRIDOR IES s \ c7rt, ~XIST,NC'TRA14 OPPOR UNIT Msstss+ 1;,94 CORRIDOR COR OR r A. RI a CIVIC ~ I tsw P $3 R CENTER B~.K 't s BROOKLYN'B4V0• << UNITES OPPORT: OPPORTUNITY j' ION ~POTENTIALTRAIL 0 0 4k 0 SITE ~ i ~ ri 0 !1 $ NORTHBROOK dill REDEVELOPMENT 0, POTENTIAL ~r • 1_94 6 BROOKDA4E!~ _ aV, g CORRIDOR y.e v _ ~ ~yeN \ I•+jNiY BD CORDRIDOR ~Citij 01 ~YOOKj,- "centey j'Iaxlnin$ Issues Le$end schools Parks J1L I,,r Veme0t Areas city Center ~,soo feet a 1,600 800 0 / co, nl r i_/~ Tank Comembonsft' Plan - _~.r • Work 9 Agenda Ses~lon Item NO'* g • MEMORANDUM -COUNCIL WORK SESSION ITEM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager R FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works ~1~- DATE: March-18 2009 SUBJECT: Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail Project Update Council Action Required: The following information provides an update pertaining to the Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail project. No action is required. Background: In February 2008, a comprehensive streetscape study was prepared for Xerxes Avenue and Bass Lake Road in an effort to create a framework and implement a plan that would enhance the public areas, infrastructure and overall aesthetics of the street corridor to support the current and future redevelopment of the area. This framework was used to plan and implement the streetscape and transportation improvements for the 2008 Xerxes Avenue Reconstruction Project that was completed fall 2008. • The second phase and remaining portion of the public improvements addressed in the study pertain to Bass Lake Road from Brooklyn Boulevard to Highway 100. Currently, a specific funding source has not been fully identified and committed to. However, the City is continuing to pursue multiple funding opportunities and partnerships in an effort to proceed with this project as follows: Funding Options 1. Transit for Livable Communities- In February 2008, the City applied for a grant application under the Bike/Walk Twin Cities Spring 2008 Solicitation under the "livable streets" category. The specific project area for this solicitation was Bass Lake Road from Xerxes Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway and included off-road trails and streetscaping for that segment. Transit for Livable Communities (TLC), who administers this grant program, did not select and award the Brooklyn Center project grant money directly. However, the project remains on a "short list" of potential candidates that could be awarded a grant with the remaining money in that program. City staff is continuing to work with TLC staff to address other enhancements and alternatives that they felt were lacking in the City's original proposal. 2. Hennepin County - City staff has met with Hennepin County staff and are continuing discussions to partner with funding and plan development. 3. Three Rivers Park District - City staff is continuing to pursue partnering options with the Three Rivers Park District. These potential opportunities include development of a regional trail and completing this "missing link" through this corridor. The District has indicated their interest in developing, constructing and maintaining a regional trail in this location as part of the their overall regional trail system. City of Brooklyn Center I Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail Update 4. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) - Under the current ARRA, the federal economic stimulus bill, the city submitted a funding application for this project in the amount of a $2.5 million grant. Under the ARRA, qualifying projects are submitted through Mn/DOT using the existing Statewide Transportation Program (STP) as a basis for funding selection. Originally, four Brooklyn Center projects were submitted under this solicitation, which has recently been revised and now only includes the Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail project. The other three projects will be'resubmitted to Mn/DOT as enhancement projects later this - - - month when a new solicitation is anticipated to commence. 5. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District 3 - Currently, TIF 3 has a budget balance of just over $3 million. Components of the Bass Lake Road project that could potentially qualify and be funded by a portion of the TIF 3 financing include elements that serve a functional purpose including regional trails, lighting, certain boulevard/screening- type of landscaping, and elements pertaining to storm water mitigation (e.g. biofiltration / infiltration basins). Items that do not qualify include purely aesthetic and decorative elements. TIF cannot be the sole source of funding to complete this project but could be a significant contributor where and if needed. The typical development stages of a project generally consist of including the project in the capital improvement plan with an identified funding source, preparing plans and specifications, and constructing the project. With the current special economical funding opportunities available and requirements to qualify for them, it may be beneficial for the city to deviate from the typical project planning/approval scenario. The ARRA funding sources . currently being considered call for "shovel ready" projects. In an effort to meet this requirement pertaining to the Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail Project, it is necessary to proceed with plans and specifications so we have this project "on the shelf' to meet the "shovel ready" requirement. Council Policy Issues: Does the City Council support pursuing the project funding strategies for the project? Does the City Council support proceeding with the development of plans and specifications for the project? • City of Brooklyn Center Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail Update Items No. 9 work Session Agenda 0 0 *I ow City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: March 19, 2009 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag04 SUBJECT: 2009 Budget Revisions COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED No action is requested at this time. This will be a presentation for information only. BACKGROUND We are anticipating that the State Legislature will significantly reduce Local Government Aid to Cities in 2009 and 2010. Using the retreat policy direction of the City Council staff has been-identifying budget adjustments that will help balance -the General Fund budget in 2009 and 2010. Monday, I will provide a brief overview of the process we are following and how we plan to present 2009 balanced budget alternatives at the next • Council work session. In the interim staff continues to manage and control cost to the greatest extent feasible. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES Is the information presented consistent with the established budget goals and policies of the City Council? 0 032309.budget revisions.doc 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3434 FAX (763) 569-3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org