Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 02-25 CCP Regular SessionA 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. 2. 3. 4. AGENDA CITY. COUNCIL STUDY SESSION February 25, 2008 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions Miscellaneous Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits Adjourn Public Copy CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center February 25, 2008 AGENDA 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. Jill Collins, St. Alphonsus Parish Council 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. Council Report 7. 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. February 11, 2008 Study Session 2. February 11, 2008 Regular Session 3. February 11, 2008 Work Session b. Licenses c. Site Performance Guarantee Reduction 1. 1701 James Circle (Hansen Brothers Fence) 8. Presentations Proclamations /Recognitions/Donations —None. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 9. Public Hearing —None. -2- February 25, 2008 10. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 Submitted by Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC. Request for Rezoning and Development Plan Approval through the PUD process of a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building at the old Howe Fertilizer site currently addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. —The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its February 14, 2008, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 Submitted by Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC •Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49th Avenue North) Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. 11. Council Consideration Items a. Charter Commission Recommendation Regarding Administrative Fines 1. An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding aNew Section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading of ordinance and set second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. b. Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property and Execution of a Quit Claim Deed for Certain Land in the City 1. An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property and Execution of a Quit Claim Deed for Certain Land in the City -Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading of ordinance and set second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. 2. Resolution Approving a Purchase Agreement for Parcel 01- 118 -21 -34 -0070 Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA c. An Ordinance Amending the Regulation of Inoperable and /or Junk Vehicles -Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading of ordinance and set second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. d. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -01, 02, 03 and 04, 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements (Maranatha Area) -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. e. Staff Recommendation to Delete Proposed Special Assessment for 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard from Special Assessment Levy Roll, Improvement Project No. 2008 -01 and 2008 -02 •Requested Council Action: Motion to accept staff recommendation. 12. Adjournment -3- February 25, 2008 City Council Agenda Item No. 7a The majority consensus of the City Council was to amend RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -20 to a scheduled Public Hearing date of March 24, 2008. Councilmember O'Connor clarified with Mr. Boganey that the Landscape Project is incorporated into the above projects. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 11d. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -21 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008 -05, XERXES AVENUE AND NORTHWAY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Boganey introduced the item and noted the change in the Public Hearing date to March 24, 'a 2008. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -21 Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2008 -05, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Improvements. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. lle. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -22 SUMMARIZING THE EVALUATION AND ADJUSTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY MANAGER a Mayor Willson recited the proposed resolution summarizing the evaluation and adjusting the salary of the City Manager. 1 There was discussion on performance standards included in the City Council's evaluation of the City C" Manager. Councilmember O'Connor requested that the performance standard she was unable to answer due to insufficient information be removed from the proposed resolution. ..It w u to As it is stated in the resolution, the majority of the members of the City Council rated the 47 performance standards. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -22 Summarizing the Evaluation and Adjusting the Salary of the City Manager. Councilmember O'Connor stated because she was not able to answer some of the evaluation questions, it is not true that the City Council evaluated all of the performance standards. Also, she does not know that the consensus of the members that did evaluate those performance standards was "meets expectations" or above. She will be voting no on this resolution. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. Mayor Willson expressed his appreciation for the hard work of Mr. Boganey and congratulated him on a job well done. Mr. Boganey thanked Council for the confidence and continued support. 02/11/08 -11- DRAFT 02/11/08 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 FEBRUARY 11,2008 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, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember O'Connor requested the following change to the January 28, 2008, Study Session Minutes: Page 2, paragraph 3: "...Councilmember Ryan requested that the Council he be provided..." Councilmember O'Connor requested the following change to the February 4, 2-008, Executive Session Minutes: "The City Council evaluated the performance of the City Manager for 2007." It was the majority consensus of the City Council to accept the above amendments to the January 28, 2008, Study Session minutes and the February 4, 2008, Executive Session minutes. Councilmember O'Connor requested the following change to the February 4, 2008, Special Session Minutes: 3. DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE EVALUATION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE IN 2007 FROM OCTOBER 2006 THROUGH JUNE 2007 It was the majority consensus of the City Council that the February 4, 2008, Executive Session Minutes be amended as follows: 3. DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE EVALUATION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE IN 2007 -1- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor questioned if a raise was considered for the City Manager at the same time that raises were considered for other non union employees in the City, which was approximately November of 2007. It was noted that a raise was not considered for the City Manager at this time. The City Manager did not receive a raise in 2008. Councilmember Yelich requested removal of Consent Agenda Item No. 7b from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Boganey requested the following additional worksession item: Update on 57 and Logan Avenues North Project. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Lasman asked if the City has received the Excellence in Financing Certificate for 2007. Mr. Jordet stated the City applied but did not receive the certificate. There was not a problem with the reporting of the funds; however, it was determined that the criteria of the certificate was not met because a budget to actual comparison was not included. The suggested modifications will be incorporated with the next application, and staff fully expects to receive the certification at that time. Councilmember Lasman stated there are a couple groups that are interested in promoting the Earle Brown Heritage Center and its importance to the City. It has been suggested that something could be done similar to the tour activities that were held ten years ago. She suggested the City partner with these efforts. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to schedule a future worksession discussion regarding this topic, with staff to provide information regarding the previous activities that were held. Councilmember Lasman stated she met with people from the Isaiah Group. The group was happy to hear about the foreclosure brochure and how full of information the brochure is. She suggested marketing the brochure through avenues like the City Newsletter. Mr. Boganey stated staff is concerned about the amount of foreclosures in the City, and anticipated foreclosures. Staff will be working with the Sun Post to see what type of assistance can be offered to get the word out to the public about what might be able to be done to prevent foreclosures. Councilmember O'Connor requested further discussion regarding consideration of the City Manager's raise for 2008. She stressed that according to the City Manager's contract his possible raise was to have been considered at the time it was considered for other non -union employees, which was not done. There was discussion regarding the timeline that was followed for the City Manager's review and consideration of a pay adjustment. Council requested Mr. Boganey's input regarding a 2008 pay adjustment. Mr. Boganey indicated he would be satisfied if the next pay adjustment for the City Manager were to be considered at the time the 2009 budget is approved. While the contract 02/11/08 -2- DRAFT This is an evaluation of the City Manager from October 2006 through June 2007. does allow for the City Council to consider a pay adjustment on January 1, 2008, he does not think it is essential at this time. However, he would like it considered at the time of the 2009 budget that there will have been 18 months between salary adjustments. There was additional discussion regarding the issue of considering a 2008 pay adjustment for the City Manager. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to schedule a worksession item to further discuss the issue of considering a 2008 pay adjustment for the City Manager. Staff will provide salary comparisons of city managers in surrounding communities. Mayor Willson commended Mr. Boganey on his job performance. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at 6:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Motion passed unanimously. 02/11/08 RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to reconvene the Study Session at 6:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS EBHC D -BARN LEASE PROPOSAL CITY MANAGER Mr. Glasoe provided a brief overview of the plan, financial considerations, and the proposed lease of the Earle Brown Heritage Center "D" Barn for a spa operation and conversion of portions of the "Inn on the Farm" to commercial lease space. Mr. Glasoe stated if there is support of the overall plan, staff will bring the subsequent leases to the EDA for consideration at a future meeting. There was discussion of the following issues in relation to the proposed plan and lease: historical significance of the property; incorporation of showcases for historical artifacts; possible assistance with build -out costs for portions of the project (no assistance for build -out costs associated with "D" Barn and spa); 3 -month window without lease cost for the "D" Barn to allow build -out for the operation; current tenants' interest in relocating on the site. Mr. Glasoe stated staff anticipates presenting the agreement and leases at a subsequent meeting. At that time they would proceed with the process of having the tenants move out at the end of their current lease term, with the space vacated effective January 1, 2009. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at 7:02 p.m. -3- DRAFT 4. ROLL CALL 02/11/08 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 FEBRUARY 11, 2008 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, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Director of Fiscal Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Mr. Rex Newman, 3107 61 Avenue North, addressed the Council and questioned if the City has a position on cooperation with school districts. He expressed concern with the possibility of losing a school in the City as a result of not doing anything. He suggested a future worksession discussion to discuss the topic and to find a means of cooperation with the school districts in the City. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:51 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION 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. Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, Director of Fiscal Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and -1- DRAFT Services Jim Glasoe, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Secretarial, Inc. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Ryan stated he had nothing to report. Councilmember Lasman reported on attending the Brooklyn Center 97 Birthday Party Award Night on February 2, 2008, and the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce Gala at the Earle Brown Heritage Center on February 1, 2008. Councilmember Yelich stated he had nothing to report. Councilmember O'Connor stated she had nothing to report. Mayor Willson reported on attending the Brooklyn Center 97 Birthday Party Award Night on February 2, 2008, and the North Hennepin Chamber of Commerce Gala on February 1, 2008. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with the removal of Item No. 7b from the Consent Agenda to Council Consideration Item No. 11f, with the following additional worksession item: Update on 57 and Logan Avenues North Project, and amendments to the Study Session minutes of January 28, 2008, the Executive Session minutes of February 4, 2008, and the Special Session minutes of February 4, 2008, and the following consent items were approved: 02/11/08 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. January 28, 2008 Study Session 2. January 28, 2008 Regular Session 3. January 28, 2008 Work Session 4. February 4, 2008 Special Session 5. February 4, 2008 Executive Session 7b. LICENSES This item was moved to Council Consideration Item No. 11 f. 8. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS /RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS —None. 9. PUBLIC HEARING 9a. PROPOSED USE OF 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS -2- DRAFT 02/11/08 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -15 APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2008 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS Mr. Boganey introduced the item and stated tonight is the scheduled public hearing for the proposed resolution. Mr. Bublitz introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Michael Vraa, representative of Home Line, addressed the Council and stated Home Line has requested Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the City of Brooklyn Center due to the volume of work they get from Brooklyn Center residents. Home Line has received assistance from 11 other groups, as low as $900 from Minnetonka. The funds are helpful to sustain the work Home Line does, and is helpful when applying for grants from foundations. The amount requested was $5,000, which he understands is not available. He would ask that this Council grant a lowered amount. Mr. Vraa stated Home Line has prevented over 200 evictions for Brooklyn Center families. The number one problem Brooklyn Center renters contact Home Line about are repairs, followed by evictions. Councilmember O'Connor asked if renters contact Home Line through a hotline number. Mr. Vraa responded affirmatively. He stated most renters do not have problems with the landlord; they need to solve a problem or need an answer from someone other than their landlord. Mr. Byron Laher, Executive Director of Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP), addressed the Council and stated last year in terms of meals on wheels CEAP served 123 residents of Brooklyn Center with over 14,400 meals delivered. CEAP provided chore service to just over 100 Brooklyn Center residents. CEAP appreciates the funding they have received from the City and hopes it will continue. Councilmember O'Connor asked if CEAP charges a fee when providing a chore service or delivering a meal. Mr. Laher replied there is no charge for meals on wheels; they ask for a donation, which is a requirement of the grant they receive from the federal government that partially pays for the service. If someone has the ability to pay and they do not, CEAP still provides them with the service. In terms of chore services, CEAP uses a combination of volunteers and people who charge for the service where they act as a referral to the homeowner. Almost all the services CEAP provides that are paid for are at the rate of $15 per hour and are completed in one hour or less. Mr. Laher explained volunteers provide about 80% of the actual hours of service provided by CEAP. In many cases if there is a positive relationship with the individual doing the paid service, the relationship is continued without involving CEAP. -3- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor requested further information regarding donations for meals provided by CEAP. Mr. Laher stated the individuals are informed of the cost of the meal, which is determined at just under $6.00, and a donation is requested. The anticipated collection per meal is just over $2.00. Ms. Kitty Engel, representative of Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly Program (HOME), addressed the Council and stated HOME is very grateful for the funding the City has provided in the past. HOME has been here for over ten years. Their function is to help keep up the housing stock for seniors. Services include painting and repairs, as well as other things. HOME has worked with the City on houses that have been cited. Councilmember O'Connor asked if HOME charges for their services. Ms. Engel replied HOME requests a contribution that is not mandatory. There is a sliding contribution scale for painting and maintenance that is based upon income. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -15 Approving Projected Use of Funds for 2008 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement With Hennepin County and any Third Party Agreements. Councilmember O'Connor stated her opposition to the proposed resolution. Councilmember Ryan stated his support of the proposed resolution. Mayor Willson concurred in support of the resolution. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9b. 2008 RESIDENTIAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS (MARANATHA AREA) Mr. Boganey introduced the item and stated tonight is the scheduled public hearing for 2008 residential area neighborhood improvements Maranatha Area). Mr. Blomstrom provided an overview of the 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Improvements (Maranatha Area), including the following information: Street Utility Improvement Program 2008 Residential Project Location Project Area Sanitary Sewer Improvements Lift Station No. 2 Force Main Water Main Improvements Street Drainage Improvements Preliminary Project Budget 02/11/08 -4- DRAFT Special Assessments Draft Levy Special Assessment Payment Options Special Assessment Rate Comparison Mr. Blomstrom requested Council to note the following in relation to the assessment roll: Health Partners Clinic: Due to lack of benefit based on access, staff has proposed a total assessment of $4,290.00. 6939 Brooklyn Blvd: Zoned C -1 but is used as single family. Consideration is needed of the current land use versus likely future use. Staff has proposed removing this property from the assessment roll and referring it back to staff. Staff would report back to Council at a later date. Properties located on CSAH 130 (69 Avenue): These properties all have frontage on City streets. Some of the homes have side loaded garages, but they have public access onto the City street. These properties are included on the assessment roll. There was discussion that the County will not assess properties on 69 Avenue for future projects. It was noted it may be a considerable period of time before the County proceeds with a reconstruction project on 69 Avenue. There was discussion regarding 69 Avenue in relation to the storm sewer reconstruction. Mr. Blomstrom explained the drainage system in 69 Avenue will not limit the drainage with this project. Councilmember Ryan asked if there have been similar projects completed without special storm sewer assessments being applied. Mr. Blomstrom stated the goal of the City is to be uniform about this approach. In the past to his recollection residential reconstruction projects have included storm drainage assessments. There have been times when storm drainage assessments were not proposed due to there being an adequate storm sewer system in place with curb and gutter. Councilmember O'Connor distributed a letter to each councilmember that had been submitted to the Council regarding the Health Partners property. She noted Health Partners is being charged the same assessment as a single family home, and that Mr. Blomstrom had pointed out that the property utilizes the access on Lee Avenue and was assessed when Lee Avenue was reconstructed. She requested information regarding whether the Health Partners property has a lot of runoff that goes to Noble Avenue and into the storm sewer. She also requested clarification that a normal residence is only assessed for one street, and Health Partners was assessed with the Lee Avenue project. Mr. Blomstrom explained the Health Partners property has an internal discharge for drainage in the parking lot. Regarding assessments only being charged for one street, this really applies to R -1, R -2 and R -3 properties. The proposed assessment for the Health Partners property is what is fair and reasonable and takes into consideration the benefit that can be shown. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Michael Swanson, 6843 Regent Avenue North, addressed the Council and stated he lives on the corner of 69 and Regent Avenues. Mr. Raymond expressed the following concerns to the Council: Bad condition of the sidewalk that was installed in front of his home, including icy conditions in the winter and high standing water in the spring. 02/11/08 -5- DRAFT Increased property taxes in addition to this proposed assessment while on a fixed social security income. He has been informed that the senior citizen assistance program requires that income must be lower than $13,000 annually in order to receive assistance: this amount is lower than the social security income he and his wife make. Mr. Blomstrom expressed his agreement regarding the condition of the sidewalk. He explained the sidewalk does not drain because of the elevation in comparison to the adjacent homes. 69 Avenue will need to be lowered when it is reconstructed, which will improve the drainage. The City plans to improve the drainage in some critical areas until there is a County reconstruction project on 69 Avenue. Mr. Blomstrom provided information regarding the assessment deferral program available to residents that are retired and meet certain income requirements. Mr. Swanson stressed his concern regarding the assessment and the ability for retired individuals to make the required payments. He stated they would have had to foreclose on their home if it was not for his two sons living at his house. Mr. Mike Coski, 6801 Regent Avenue North, addressed the Council and expressed the following concerns: Many people may be ultimately taxed out of their homes due to rising taxes every year in addition to school levies. There should be consideration that we are nearing a recession. Possibility of looking at better bids. Ms. Sharon Breck, 6843 Scott Avenue North, addressed the Council and asked how far onto private properties the drainage improvements will go. Mr. Blomstrom reviewed the planned drainage improvements. He explained the City will be replacing the service from the main in the street to the front property lines. The City cannot make replacements on private property. In some cases they will be taking down trees that are causing problems. Workers typically are required to check and see if there is root intrusion beyond the replacement. Property owners will be informed if this is the case, and it would be the responsibility of the homeowner to take care of the situation. Mr. Swanson addressed the Council again and stated his house is one of six that back onto 69 Avenue. He expressed concern with the possibility of being assessed again if there is a County reconstruction project on 69 Avenue. Mayor Willson, Mr. Blomstrom, and Mr. LeFevere stressed that the County does not levy assessments on residential properties. Mr. Boganey explained the current City policy of not assessing a corner property twice is a City Council policy. There is no guarantee that a future City Council will not change that policy, so a property abutting a County road is really not in any worse of a position. Should the County change its practice and start determining that it wishes to assess the cost of the project to the abutting property owners, it does not seem unreasonable that the City at that time could elect to cover that cost through the policy decision of a future City Council. He stated the odds are very small that Mr. Swanson would be assessed by the County, and are about the same odds that the City Council would change its policy and start assessing all corner properties twice. Mr. Swanson expressed concern regarding the streetlights not remaining on in his neighborhood where the crime rate is high. 02/11/08 -6- DRAFT Mr. Blomstrom explained the streetlights in this neighborhood are currently owned by Xcel Energy. The lights are going out because they are past their life expectancy and replacement will help the problem. The City will own the new lights that are put in and will have more control over how they are managed. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -16 ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2008 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, 2008 RESIDENTIAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (MARANATHA AREA) Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -16 Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Development of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -01, 02, 03, and 04, 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements (Maranatha Area). Motion adopted unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -17 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2008 -01 AND 2008 -02, 2008 RESIDENTIAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Michael Swanson, 6843 Regent Avenue North, addressed the Council and requested clarification that 80% of the funding for this project will come from utility bills. Mr. Blomstrom explained the 80% is broken up between utility bills and franchise fees. Mr. Swanson questioned how much utility bills will be increasing due to the improvements. Mr. Blomstrom explained these costs have been programmed out for 15 years. They have already been factored into how the utility rates have been determined and how the rates have been determined for the past 15 years. It is not uncommon in other communities to follow the same process. Mr. Boganey pointed out that while some cities choose to have a higher proportion of costs for this type of project picked up by utility rates and have lower assessment costs, some cities have a larger portion of the costs picked up by general taxes. The cost of the projects in each of the cities per square foot is likely similar, but it is a matter of how the Council decides to distribute the costs. There are many factors that go into all of these rates. He pointed out that Brooklyn Center has a relatively low residential assessment rate, and still has low utility rates when compared to other communities. 02/11/08 -7- DRAFT Mr. Mike Coski, 6801 Regent Avenue North, addressed the Council and questioned if the Council Members have concern about the economy and voting this project through in such tough times. He also questioned whether there should be a lower assessment for lower income individuals and what the basis is for determining who can receive assistance. Mr. LeFevere explained State law allows the City Council to provide some relief for senior citizens and people retired due to a disability. Mr. Coski requested that the Council Members explain how they can consider voting this through with the current economic situation. Mayor Willson stated this is the same assessment he paid last year in his neighborhood. He expressed his support for the project. Mr. Coski inquired about allowing more payment options to make the project more feasible for people. Mayor Willson indicated he is in favor of what has been presented to the Council tonight. Councilmember O'Connor stated her support for the project since it is a road project with utility pipes and sidewalks, and that she does not agree with other things the City does where they could cut taxes. Mr. Coski further expressed his concern regarding the cost of taxes and special assessments. Councilmember Lasman commented that property assessments do not pertain to tonight's agenda. She suggested Mr. Coski attend the Board of Equalization Hearing to express his concerns and receive an explanation and details. Mr. LeFevere stated the assessment is proposed to be paid over 10 years. It will not be certified to the County until this Fall and the first payment will not be due until 2009. He pointed out that the program has been going on for a long time and people are still paying for projects that were done 9 and 10 years ago. One of the reasons the assessments are spread out over 10 years is so that people have time to pay them, and hopefully there will be some good economic times in that period. Councilmember Yelich stated it would be unwise for the City to neglect the basic services and infrastructure involved with this project. The City Council has more discretion with the operational budget, at which time they can be more sensitive to the economic issues Mr. Coski addressed. Mr. Swanson questioned if this project will increase the property value and raise his taxes. Mr. LeFevere stated the property value may go up somewhat, but there should not be a jump in taxes merely because there is a new street. If the new street results in the whole neighborhood's property values going up over time the taxes may go up somewhat, but that is because the property values actually are going up. Across the City that tends to equal out. In reality it has a very small effect and takes a long time to be felt. Mr. Coski clarified his comments were towards a delay of the project in relation to how the economy is doing, not to discard updating the sewer system and street work. 02/11/08 x DRAFT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -17 Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -01 and 2008 -02, 2008. Residential Area Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, according to the staff recommendation as follows: remove 6939 Brooklyn Blvd from the assessment roll for further review by staff; a total assessment of $4,290 to the Health Partners property; and the properties located on CSAH 130 (69th Avenue) remaining on the assessment roll. Councilmember Lasman noted if the majority of the neighborhood were not to be in favor of the project and it. was to be bumped out of line, it would be bumped way out of line with the cost increasing each year. There was not that type of opposition expressed at the neighborhood meetings. Motion passed unanimously. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS —None. 11. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 1la. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -18 AUTHORIZING AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE 2007 FISCAL YEAR Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. He noted the contract has been amended to insert the dollar amount and a signature line for the signatures of the Mayor and City Manager. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -18 Authorizing Audit Services for the 2007 Fiscal Year. It was noted that the dollar amount of the contract is $38,725 and the audit is limited to the year 2007. It was also noted that this audit of the City's books will support the confidence in the financial management of the City. The firm was selected on the basis of competitive bids based on the criteria determined by the Financial Commission. This is a necessity and is something that is done by all cities. Motion passed unanimously. 11 b. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -19 CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. 02/11/08 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -19 Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs, Delinquent Weed Removal Costs, and Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts. There was discussion on the new billing system that was recently implemented. Mr. Blomstrom stated the new system is going well; there are some small details to address. Motion passed unanimously. 11c. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -20 ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2008 -05, 06, 07, AND 08, XERXES AVENUE AND NORTHWAY DRIVE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Mr. Blomstrom stated there are two actions being requested of Council tonight. One is to accept the feasibility report and the other is related to calling for a Public Hearing on the proposed project. Mr. Blomstrom provided a PowerPoint presentation on Improvement Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07, and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements, including the following information: Project Location Xerxes Avenue o South Segment o Central Segment o North Segment Utility Improvements Palmer Lake Drive 2008 Sidewalk Repairs Xerxes Bass Lake Road Streetscape Plan Preliminary Project Budget There was discussion on the proposed trail width in the project and the anticipated use of tax increment financing with the project. It was noted that 100% of the costs for the project will not be eligible for tax increment financing funds. Councilmember O'Connor stated this is an area where taxes could be lowered. The landscape project is not necessary for a project that is supposed to be for safety. She expressed a preference that the Landscape Project be separated from the approval of this project, as she does not want to vote against the Xerxes Avenue Project. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -20 Accepting Engineer's Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -05, 06, 07, and 08, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Street and Utility Improvements. There was discussion that a 4/5 vote is required to order the improvement project, and that Councilmembers Lasman and O'Connor will not be present at the Public Hearing on the proposed scheduled date of March 10, 2008. 02/11/08 -10- DRAFT The majority consensus of the City Council was to amend RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -20 to a scheduled Public Hearing date of March 24, 2008. Councilmember O'Connor clarified with Mr. Boganey that the Landscape Project is incorporated into the above projects. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 11d. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -21 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2008 -05, XERXES AVENUE AND NORTHWAY DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS Mr. Boganey introduced the item and noted the change in the Public Hearing date to March 24, 2008. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -21 Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2008 -05, Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive Improvements. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 11e. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -22 SUMMARIZING THE EVALUATION AND ADJUSTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY MANAGER Mayor Willson recited the proposed resolution summarizing the evaluation and adjusting the salary of the City Manager. There was discussion on performance standards included in the City Council's evaluation of the City Manager. Councilmember O'Connor requested that the performance standard she was unable to answer due to insufficient information be removed from the proposed resolution. It was noted that the rest of the Council Members rated all 47 performance standards. As it is stated in the resolution, the majority of the members of the City Council rated the 47 performance standards. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -22 Summarizing the Evaluation and Adjusting the Salary of the City Manager. Councilmember O'Connor stated because she was not able to answer some of the evaluation questions, it is not true that the City Council evaluated all of the performance standards. Also, she does not know that the consensus of the members that did evaluate those performance standards was "meets expectations" or above. She will be voting no on this resolution. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. Mayor Willson expressed his appreciation for the hard work of Mr. Boganey and congratulated him on a job well done. Mr. Boganey thanked Council for the confidence and continued support. 02/11/08 -11- DRAFT llf. LICENSES GASOLINE SERVICES STATION Boulevard Enterprises, Inc. dba Christy's Auto Service MECHANICAL Countryside Heating and Cooling RENTAL 5706 Camden Ave N 5746 Dupont Ave N 5420 Fremont Ave N 5344 James Ave N 3206 Lawrence Rd 5825 Pearson Dr 5300 Penn Ave N 7021 Utility Ave N Twin Lakes Manor 3305 -3433 53 Ave N 3200 64 Ave N 5834 Aldrich Ave N 5801 Dupont Ave N 7218 Grimes Ave N 4201 Lakeside Ave N #206 5556 Logan Ave N 6500 Willow La N 5300 Dupont Ave N 6511 H 12, Maple Plain Christian Restoration Services Jenny Soumountha Randall Craig Mann Ray Parker John Maclin Michael Gonzales Gregory Dumonceaux Geri Lynn Williams Twin. Lakes Properties, LLP Keith McConmell Paul Scully John and Joan Ford Shawn and Djuana Banks Germaine Pawelk Nick Morris Dragon Property Management SIGNHANGER Signs by RSG, Inc. 6080 Hwy 10, Ramsey Councilmember Yelich stated the rental licenses for approval include eight single family homes. One criterion for that licensing is compliance with Ordinance 12 -911. This ordinance in his view has been relatively ineffective compared to Ordinance 12 -913. There was discussion of the suggestion for a review of the ordinance and whether it is germane to the rental licenses before the Council for approval. Councilmember Yelich clarified his request is not to deny the rental licenses. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the above licenses. It was noted that what is germane is whether those applying for licenses have met the requirements of the existing ordinance, which is what Council is able to rule on. Motion passed unanimously. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded adjournment of the City 41) Council meeting at 9:32 p.m. 02/11/08 -12- DRAFT 02/11/08 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 FEBRUARY 11, 2008 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 9:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor /President Tim Willson and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Secretarial, Inc. EBHC D -BARN LEASE PROPOSAL CITY MANAGER The discussion continued on the EBHC D -Barn lease proposal. Councilmember Ryan requested that staff keep Council abreast of this project, and commented on the historical value at this location. Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the effects of a spa on the wood in the "D" Barn. Mr. Glasoe explained that the interior of the "D" Barn is primarily sheetrock, and that building plans would need to be approved by City building officials. Nothing would be done to compromise the structure of the building. There was discussion of the unique synergy of the proposed project. Mr. Boganey stated the developer seems to believe that a day spa is a significant element that will help differentiate this hotel from other hotels in the area. The financing agency for the project has also indicated that the day spa is an important element of the project. Mayor Willson, Councilmembers Ryan, Lasman, and Yelich expressed their support of the proposed project. Councilmember O'Connor expressed her preference that the commercial renters remain in the barn with the hotel to build its own spa in the new building. She stated money is being lost on the Inn. They should allow the Historical Society to purchase the Inn and allow people in the City to see the Earle Brown House, the Gazebo, and that entire area. The majority consensus of the Council was to direct staff to present the lease agreement for the D- Barn spa operation for Council consideration at a future meeting. -1- DRAFT The majority consensus of the City Council was that the HCHRA programs should continue to operate in the City of Brooklyn Center. HENNEPIN COUNTY HRA NOTICE COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNOR Mr. Boganey stated this topic has been placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember O'Connor. Unless the City objects, Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA) will be operating the listed housing programs in the City of Brooklyn Center. Council and staff reviewed the programs currently being administered by HCHRA in the City of Brooklyn Center. It was noted that in years past the previous city manager had explained the programs to Council, and that it would be much more expensive for the citizens to pay for these services on their own. It was noted that the Affordable Housing Incentive Fund Program and the Transit Oriented Development Program require a resolution of support from the City Council for specific proposals. Councilmember O'Connor noted the programs listed under HCHRA include the Lead Hazard Control Program, while the Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program that was approved for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding also addresses lead hazard control. It was noted that the Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program is required to adhere to lead based paint regulations, but is a different program than the Lead Hazard Control Program. It was also noted that the Lead Hazard Control Program relates to rental properties, while the Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Program relates to owner occupied housing. Councilmember O'Connor stated she would like to stop this, but it has to be done at the federal level, rather than at the City level. 02/11/08 57 AND LOGAN AVENUES NORTH PROJECT CITY MANAGER Mr. Bublitz introduced the item, discussed the history, and provided an update on the status of the 57 and Logan Avenues North Project. He stated there was a hot spot reading during the last investigation that was done in an attempt to better define the area of the drycleaner contaminant. This prompted an expansion of the investigation into other areas. Mr. Bublitz provided an overview of staff's meeting last week with the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). He stated the next step in the process would be to conduct sub -slab samplings on a voluntary basis in homes in the area of concern. The PCA encourages holding a public meeting, and to request volunteers for the samplings. The Minnesota Department of Health and the PCA will be present at the public meeting. The PCA has agreed to cost -share with the City for necessary remediation systems. It is estimated that approximately 20 homes will have a high enough reading to warrant a remediation system at a cost of approximately $2,000 each. The total is estimated at approximately $40,000. Mr. Boganey stated the notices regarding the public meeting will be specific regarding the conditions that have been found on the site. If people are aware there will be funds available for remediation there will be more of a likelihood that they will allow the testing to be done. Mr. Boganey indicated he had informed the PCA the City would likely be willing to contribute $20,000 towards necessary remediation systems. The PCA has indicated they would contribute necessary funds above the City's $20,000 commitment. He stated there seems to be agreement that once the voluntary remediation is completed the City is finished with the project and the PCA will issue the necessary assurances that would allow the City to market the 57 and Logan Avenues North property. -2- DRAFT Councilmember /Commissioner Ryan moved and Councilmember /Commissioner O'Connor seconded adjournment of the City Council /Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:29 p.m. 02/11/08 There was discussion of the following issues in relation to the 57 and Logan Avenues North Project: possible funding sources for remediation systems; real estate disclosure requirements; importance of the Health Department and the PCA being present at the public meeting to address residents' concerns; sensitivity to the affected residents by providing the best information possible on the problem and the solution. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT -3- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 7b TO: COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk DATE: February 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the following list of licenses at its February 25, 2008, 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 Commercial Plumbing Heating Ductworks Heating Air Home Depot Home Services GTS HVAC, Inc. Infinity Heating and Air RENTAL See attached report. 24428 Greenway Ave, Forest Lake 8140 Arthur St NE, Spring Lake Park 700 Prior Ave N, St. Paul 4018 Joyce Lane, Brooklyn Center 1017 Meadowood Dr, Brooklyn Park Property Address 5527 Humboldt Ave N 6331 Indiana Ave N 5743 June Ave N 4107 LakeBreeze Ave 5030 Lilac Dr N 6424 Orchard Ave N 5843 Fremont Ave N 1 4619 66th Ave N 5807 Drew Ave N 7215 Girard Ave N Repair /paint exterior soffit /fascia at front entry and at chimney area. Weather deferral good through May 31, 2008 Dwellin ype Single Fam Single Fam Single Fam Single Fam Single Fam Single Fam 1 Bldg 7 Units 'Single Fam 'Single Fam Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial Initial wrier Michael McAlpin Kou Vang Charlynn Waughtel Robb Yurch Adelaide Cassell Deana Fenning Renewal D J Properties LLC Renewal 'Michael Barlow Renewal 'Drew Kabanuk Single Fam Renewal Rebecca Thomley ails for Service None per 12 -911 ordinance None per 12 -911 ordinance None per 12 -911 ordinance None per 12 -911 ordinance None per 12 -911 ordinance None per 12 -911 ordinance 1- property damage per 12 -913 ordinance (.13 CFS per 12 -913 Ordinance) 'None per 12 -911 ordinance 'None per 12 -911 ordinance None per 12 -911 ordinance ilities` i paid Unpai kilities T axes OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK City Council Agenda Item No. 7c MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist i l DATE: February 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Reduction RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize reduction from $45,000 to $10,000 of the site performance guarantee posted for 1701 James Circle North. BACKGROUND: The following site performance guarantee being held by the City for completion of various site improvements should be recommended to the City Council for reduction: TJB Homes, Inc. (1701 James Circle North) Planning Commission Application No. 2006 -008 Amount of Guarantee $45,000 (Letter of Credit) Obligor Hansen Brothers Enterprises, LLC All of the site improvements and conditions for which a performance guarantee was posted have been installed for this 8,000 sq. ft., one story office building built by TJB Homes, Inc. for Hansen Brothers Fence at 1701 James Circle North. Grading, utility, curb and gutter, storm sewer, ponding and other Engineering Department items have been installed and the submission of an as -built survey has been satisfactorily completed. Landscaping for the project has been provided and was installed this fall. Review of the landscaping for viability has not yet been accomplished. Reduction of the financial guarantee to $10,000 is recommended with total release of the financial guarantee to be considered following review of the landscaping for viability in June 2008. BUDGET ISSUES: There are no budget issues. City Council Agenda Item No. l0a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist DATE: February 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 Recommendation: Background: Budget Issues: There are no budget issues. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions and considerations recommended in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -01. Attached for the City Council's consideration are: 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49 Avenue North) On the February 25, 2008 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -002 submitted by Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC requesting Rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development/ Industrial Park)and Development Plan Approval through the PUD process for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building at the old Howe Fertilizer site currently addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their February 14, 2008 meeting and was recommended for approval. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -01 and other supporting documents. Application Filed on 1 -17 -08 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 3 -17 -08 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2008 -001 Applicant: Real Estate Recycling (RER) Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Rezoning /Development Plan Approval PUD /I -1 The applicant, jenny Hanson, for RER Acquisitions, LLC is seeking rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development /Industrial Park) of the old Howe Fertilizer site addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North (to be readdressed to a yet to be determined new address) and development plan approval through the Planned. Unit Development (PUD) process for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial facility. BACKGROUND RER has a purchase agreement and intends to clear the site of the existing three buildings and undertake an extensive soils clean -up operation due to the impact of agricultural chemicals and petroleum associated with the prior use of this site. The site was formerly the home of Howe, Inc. which operated as a manufacturing and distribution facility for custom formulated agricultural fertilizers and insecticides, fungicides and herbicides from prior to 1940. A gas station also operated on a portion of the site from approximately 1945 to 1970. The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers at Howe, Inc. ceased in 1994, while use of the site for distribution of agricultural chemicals was continued. Demolition of the old metal buildings housing much of the operation occurred around 2001 leaving primarily buildings built following a 1979 fire on the property. Use of the site has been sporadic since the removal of the old buildings. There is a lot of history between Howe Inc. and the City of Brooklyn Center dealing with the fertilizer manufacturing operation and the rebuilding and use of the site following the above mentioned fire in 1979. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted for RER to form the basis of a comprehensive site corrective action plan dealing with the site soil and ground water clean -up that must be addressed in order for the commercial /industrial redevelopment of the property to occur. Such action will have to be accomplished in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture regulations relating to agricultural chemical clean -up and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements for clean -up also. RER plans to undertake the required clean -up and will coordinate this with the Department of Agriculture VIC (Voluntary Investigation and Clean -up) and PCA VIC. Once such a clean -up plan is approved, RER plans to build the 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial /warehouse facility mentioned above. It should be noted that RER has 2 -14 -08 Page 1 undertaken a number of these clean -up and redevelopment projects, most notably the clean -up and redevelopment of the old Joslyn Pole Yard located northwest of Hwy 100 and France Avenue in Brooklyn Center and also the Minneapolis Business Center located on 49th Avenue North, east of Brooklyn Boulevard in Minneapolis. They are seeking the PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development /Industrial Park) rezoning to accomplish the above industrial redevelopment. The site is currently zoned I -2 (General Industry) which allows a number of more intense permitted industrial uses than are allowed in the I -1 (Industrial Park) zoning district such as the manufacturing of textile mill products; coating, engraving and allied services; wholesale trade of motor vehicles; truck terminals; and outside storage of materials, work in process and inventory. The I -1 zone also allows a number of commercial /service office uses not associated with accessory industrial uses which can be considered more compatible with the neighboring residential uses in this area. One point that should be stressed and should be acknowledged as a condition if this PUD is approved, is that "adult uses" which are permitted in the I -1 zone would not be allowed in this Planned Unit Development in deference to the residential neighborhood. The I -1 zone is the only zone in the city where adult uses are allowed, but such uses at this location would not be appropriate. The applicant is also seeking the PUD designation to be allowed modifications to the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned property at a property line and at a street line respectively. Such abutment exists to the west and north of this site. They propose to reduce the buffer along a portion of the west side of the site to 50 ft. to provide a drive lane accessible from the back of the building to 49th Avenue North and a reduced buffer on the north side to 25 ft. also for a drive lane accessing vehicle parking on the north and east sides of the proposed building. They propose to offset these encroachments with screening, landscaping and berming as will be shown when reviewing the development plans. All vehicle parking and building locations will meet setback requirements. These modifications are proposed to make a more efficiently utilized site with a layout having a front facade that faces the higher traffic volume on Brooklyn Boulevard and ties into the Minneapolis Business Center east of Brooklyn Boulevard and to create a dock area and driving lane that they believe is effectively screened from the residences allowing proper circulation around the site. No other modification to the industrial district standards and uses are proposed. 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. Rules and regulations governing that district (in this case, I -1) 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 /or redevelopment problems. Regulations 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 encroachments into the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer area where the property abuts R -1 land at a 2 -14 -08 Page 2 property line and street line respectively. Their plan for offsetting this encroachment is to provide the buffer and setback for buildings and parking in these areas for the needed drive lanes and access to the site and provide heavily landscaped, bermed and screened areas to mitigate these encroachments. The proposed screening will effectively block lights from the building and vehicle traffic in a manner that they hope will ensure neighboring residences will not be disturbed. There is precedent for allowing drive lane encroachments into required buffer areas in the case of commercial redevelopment at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard which was undertaken a few years ago. In that case, a maintenance free fence and heavy landscaping were provided to offset or mitigate the closer proximity of driving lanes to the residential property backing up to the development. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which addressed Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined 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 along with written comments relating to the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). 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. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal: 2 -14 -08 Page 3 a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The applicant comments that polluted soils are currently uncapped, representing a significant risk to human health and the environment. The blighted buildings at the site are currently vacant bringing zero jobs and minimal tax base to the site. Redevelopment, they note, will remove the pollution, clean up the blighted site and bring jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. 2 -14 -08 Page 4 It is the staffs opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit if it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City and is also consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. It should balance the business needs of the community and the other needs of adjoining properties.. The use of the Planned Unit Development process makes it possible to attempt to balance the needs of the developer and the community. Addressing the clean -up of polluted soils that can pose a risk to health and the environment is an obvious public benefit as is eliminating blighted buildings and creating jobs on a site that is vastly underutilized. The proposal addresses the public needs and benefits in a way that makes it possible for the developer to do so in an economically feasible manner. The proposal they have is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which is basically silent as to the future development of this site or this area of the city. The property is currently zoned industrial and an industrial use is the anticipated long range use of this property as well as the abutting rail road property to the south and southwest of the site. Previous Comprehensive Plans and zoning ordinances addressed the phase out and the non conforming use aspects of the manufacturing of chemical fertilizer on this site. It seems that the proposal clearly addresses a public need or benefit. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that the proposed PUD will be comprised of a less intensive I -1 zoning classification rather than the current I -2 zoning designation. This use, they note, is consistent with uses across Brooklyn Boulevard at the Minneapolis Business Center and they believe it is also compatible with surrounding residential uses. We would comment that the proposal is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications from the standpoint that the proposed I- 1 underlying zone is less intensive than the existing zoning and the use can co -exist with abutting properties provided appropriate screening is maintained and other requirements of the district are maintained as well. We have commented about the inappropriateness of introducing adult uses which are allowed in the I -1 district. There is precedent in PUD's to exclude certain uses permitted by the underlying zoning that are determined to be inappropriate. This would be the case with adult uses and it is recommended that such uses be specifically excluded if the proposal is adopted. The applicant's proposal certainly is consistent with the uses east of Brooklyn Boulevard in the Minneapolis Business Center which, coincidentally, have been developed by the applicant. 2 -14 -08 Page 5 c. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant comments that the proposed zoning district will result in a less intensive use at the site. They point out that office /warehouse use is consistent with surrounding uses and will provide additional jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. They believe the addition of an attractive new building will clean up the blighted site and remove pollution. We would concur with the applicant's comments that the proposed I -1 underlying zone is a less intensive use for the site. Of note should be that outside storage of inventory, work in process or other materials would not be allowed in this PUD but could be allowed as permitted uses provided they are screened under the existing I -2 zone. The less intense nature of the industrial uses and commercial uses allowed in the underlying I -1 zone are seen as a good down zoning and use of the property. We have already commented on prohibiting adult uses as part of this PUD and such action is not without precedent in other Planned Unit Development Rezonings. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? The applicants note that on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard zoning classifications continue to be a mix of R -1 and I -2. They note, however, the recent development of the Minneapolis Business Center on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard has resulted in rezoning from I -2 to I -1. They believe their proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center resulting in a less intensive use and zoning change from I -2 to I -1. The down zoning of this property to an underlying PUD zone of I -1 can be considered an appropriate change. If screening can be appropriately provided to the residential areas, the intended use of this property for industrial purposes is an allowable use. Making the site consistent with the development to the east can be considered a positive for the City. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable in this case because this is not a City initiated rezoning proposal, but rather a developer initiated proposal. f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development ID restrictions for the proposed zoning district? The applicant notes that the proposal is for a Planned Unit Development with an underlying I -1 zoning classification. They point out that the development will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the PUD. 2 -14 -08 Page 6 g. We believe that the subject property will, for the most part, bear fully the development restrictions of this Planned Unit Development even with some deviations from the standard ordinance requirements. We believe it is important to establish an appropriate buffer between the single family residences to the west and this site as well as buffer and screening from the residents to the north. The proposed I -1 use seems to provide an appropriate development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Good screening and buffering should provide an acceptable relationship between these two areas. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicant again notes that the present zoning is I -2 which allows for heavy industrial uses. They note that given the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center on the opposite side of Brooklyn Boulevard and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, some I -2 permitted uses are unsuited for this area. We would concur with the applicant's comments with respect to this guideline. The development plans in general seem to provide a good layout and site plan for this area. Some of the allowable I -2 uses may be inappropriate for this area given the relatively close proximity to residential uses. Residential and industrial uses can co -exist given proper screening and development considerations. Some of the uses allowed in the I -2 zone such as outside storage, could be considered unsuited for this use because of the abutting residential. The proposed PUD /I -1 rezoning addresses many of these concerns. h. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? The applicant indicates that the redevelopment will not expand a zoning district but will upgrade the current I -2 to I -1. This rezoning will result in higher quality jobs and increase in tax base and a less intensive use of the site. In general we would concur with these comments and note that the proposal does appear to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should lead to a redevelopment that should be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. As mentioned previously, the proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area and can be considered in the best interests of the community noting particularly the clean -up of a polluted site and a relatively clean development. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant points out that polluted soils currently pose a risk to human health and environment. The site in its current condition is blighted and underutilized, producing minimal jobs and tax base. They point out the redevelopment will remove the blighted buildings, clean up the pollution and add high quality jobs and tax base to the site which results in merit beyond the interests of only the current owner. We also believe that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer. It will lead to a development that can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposal would provide a quality development that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, his proposal is for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial /warehouse building on the 5.03 acre site that formerly house Howe, Inc. a manufacturing and distribution site for fertilizer and agriculture chemicals. The applicant's proposal is to clear the site of the existing buildings, clean it to acceptable standards of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to commencing building of the facility. The site in question is located at the southwest quadrant of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and is bounded on the west by abutting R -1 zoned property, on the north by 49th Avenue with R -1 zoned property on the opposite site of the street; on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard and the City of Minneapolis with recent new industrial development on the opposite side of the street; on the south and southwest by I -2 zoned property owned by the Soo Line Railroad. Their plan is to build what they characterize as a modern and attractive building with significant landscaping 2 -14 -08 Page 7 and screening for the residential neighborhood. The architecture will be similar to that of the Minneapolis Business Center, located to the east. The site would have access to 49th Avenue and the building primarily face Brooklyn Boulevard, which in this location is an overpass over the Soo Line Railroad leading into the City of Minneapolis. A small portion of this site is located in the City of Minneapolis and is primarily slope and landscape from Brooklyn Boulevard or Osseo Road as it is known in Minneapolis. Contact has been made with the City of Minneapolis and written communication has indicated that they consider the City of Brooklyn Center as the responsible governmental unit for this redevelopment project and no approvals from the City of Minneapolis will be necessary. ACCESS /BUILDING SETBACKS /PARKING Access to the site will be from 49th Avenue North. The existing access to the site, which is considered to be too close to the intersection of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard (approximately 75 ft.) will be removed. This access is currently about 90 ft. in width at the property line /right of way line and about 40 ft. in width at its narrowest point. This access will be replaced with two accesses, the easterly one serving the north end of the building and the east side of the building and be used primarily for passenger vehicle access to the parking lots. This access will be approximately 180 ft. from the intersection of 49th and Brooklyn Boulevard and will be 24 ft. in width serving two way traffic. The westerly access will be 30 ft. in width and be approximately 290 ft. from the Brooklyn Boulevard /49th Avenue intersection and will serve as access primarily for trucks going to the loading area on the west side of the building. The building itself exceeds all setback requirements from property lines and from residentially zoned property. It is approximately 82 ft. from the 49th Avenue right of way line and 90 ft. from the Brooklyn Boulevard right of way line at the closest points. The building will be over 180 ft. from the residential property to the west at the closest point (currently the existing north building on the site is 140 ft. from the residential property to the west). It is the location of the driving lanes that encroach on the 100 ft. buffer from the west and the 50 ft. buffer on the north side of the property that the applicant is seeking modifications from the standards through this PUD proposal. The off street parking requirement for this 51,000 sq. ft. building based on a 20 percent office /80 percent industrial occupancy is 102 parking spaces. These 102 parking spaces are provided on the north and east side of the building primarily and 13 spaces along the west side out of the 100 ft. buffer area. (Parking requirement is one space for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area of office and one space for every 800 sq. ft. gross floor area industrial.) The applicant has also shown the ability to provide up to 150 parking spaces on the site which would allow up to 45 percent office, 55 percent industrial occupancy. This is accomplished by providing up to 48 additional spaces on the west side in areas which would not be needed for loading /unloading area with an increased office occupancy. The east and west parking areas will be connected by a 12 ft. single drive lane on the south side of the building. It should be noted that no vehicle parking spaces will encroach on the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer areas, only driving lanes. 2 -14 -08 Page 8 GRADING /DRAINAGE /UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage and utility plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Work's /City Engineer. Attached is a copy of his 2/11/08 memorandum relating to this application. His written comments are offered for the Planning Commission's consideration. r The utility plans call for the water main to be connected to water in 49th Avenue North and looped around the building with a 4 in. domestic service and 8 in. sprinkler service being provided. Sanitary sewer will be tied into existing sewer in 49th Avenue North. The applicant proposes to provide a dry storm water drainage pond on the west side of the site adjacent to the residentially zoned property. Much of this ponding area is in the buffer area required along the abutting property line. Drainage calculations have been provided to the City Engineer for analysis and this site will be required to receive approval from the Shingle Creek Water Management Commission. It appears that 4.46 acres of this 5.03 acre' site drains into the new storm water pond before being discharged into the storm sewer system. B -612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas and is indicated on the plan. Berming is proposed in the green strip along 49th Avenue North to provide additional screening from the residences on the north side of 49th. A 30 inch high retaining wall will be located on the building side of that green strip. Berming is also provided between the access drives and a retaining wall is also in this area. No erosion control plan has been submitted but erosion control measures will have to be installed prior to starting grading operations in accordance with best management practices. In addition, an NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before any work on this site can be undertaken. LANDSCAPING /SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission to evaluate such plans. As indicated previously, the site is 5.03 acres in area and requires 332 landscape points. They propose to meet the point requirement by saving some of the existing landscaping and providing additional landscaping. Their plan indicates that they will provide 30 shade trees (Imperial Honey Locust, Swamp White Oak and Noble Weeping Willow), 19 coniferous trees (Black Hills Spruce), 21 decorative trees (River Birch, Amur Maple), and 254 shrubs (Isanti Dogwood, Dwarf Winged Euonymus, Allegheny Service Berry, Glossy Black Chokeberry, Nanny Berry Viburnum, Arctic Willow, AW Spirea, Arcadia Juniper, Taunton Spreading Yew, Daylilies, Maynight Saldia and Feather Reed Grass). The Swamp White Oak will be located along the green strip between the east access and Brooklyn Boulevard, by the ponding area and at the southwest corner of the building. The 2 -14 -08 Page 9 Imperial Honey Locust will be in the green strip areas along Brooklyn Boulevard and in a planting area in the front (ease side) of the building. The two willows will be to the west of the retention pond. The Black Hills Spruce will be located primarily on the berm area between the two drive lanes for screening purposes and adjacent to the residential lot to the west and at the north end of the dry pond. Twelve Amur Maple decorative trees are located in four groups along the front of the building, while the River Birch are planned for the south side of the building and to the north of the dry storm water pond. Shrubs are used for foundation plantings and in planting beds along the Brooklyn Boulevard and 49th Avenue green strips and also around the dry storm pond. An existing 8 ft. high screen fence located along a part of the west property line with abutting residential property will continue. A new 8 ft. high cedar fence is proposed to extend from this fence to the drive lane then northerly along the drive lane to the north property line. Care should be taken at this entrance to assure proper visibility when accessing the street. The plan also calls for a 10 ft. high screen wall extending out from the building to screen the loading area. This should be a concrete wall matching the building exterior. The existing fence should be repaired /replaced as necessary. It is suggested that a maintenance free material rather than the cedar, be considered for the screen fence. The applicant has also provided cross sectional elevations indicating the berming, landscaping, and screening to be provided in areas encroaching into the normally required buffer. This seems to offset or mitigate this encroachment nicely. Underground irrigation is to be provided in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance in accordance with the requirements of city ordinances. BUILDING The applicant has submitted building elevations for their proposed building. As indicated previously, the design will be similar to the Minneapolis Business Center buildings located to the east of Brooklyn Boulevard. A natural color palette and punched out entry elements will be utilized. The exterior will be primarily smooth and raked finish concrete panels with built up synthetic stucco cornice and painted metal canopies. Anodized aluminum and glass entry doors will be provided as well. Tinted insulated glass will also be utilized. As indicated previously, a screen wall is to be provided for the loading area on the north side of the building. It is recommended that this be a masonry finish comparable to the exterior of the building. LIGHTING AND TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan indicating the proposed foot candles for lighting on the site. Section 35 -712 of the city's Zoning Ordinance requires that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflector or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than 3 foot candles measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property. A review of the foot candles proposed indicates that the 3 foot candle limitation is not exceeded along the property lines. Building mounted lights are proposed on all four sides of the building and a ground mounted flood light for the sign is indicated at the northeast corner of the sites. 2 -14 -08 Page 10 Care should be taken to shield the wall mounted lights so that no glare emanates from the property. Our main concern, as always, 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 indicated above. No trash enclosure area has been indicated on the plan and we assume that all trash will be stored inside the building for pick up. PROCEDURE As the Commission is aware, 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 January 17, 2008. Due to zoning requirements for notice and publication, the application needs to be submitted 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 March 17, 2008. Almost 30 days of the required 60 day time frame will have expired before the Planning Commission can hold its public hearing. This requirement makes it difficult for the City to hold the former Neighborhood Advisory Group meetings. The Neighborhood Advisory Groups because of lack of interest and also the time frame set out in State Statute have been discontinued. It should be noted that the applicant was encouraged to contact neighboring property owners and a list of notified property owners was provided prior to the public hearing. It is our understanding that contact had been made and we have encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors, particularly with respect to the screening proposals. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Sun /Post and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission, following the public hearing may wish to consider a draft resolution, which has been prepared for consideration. The draft resolution outlines various possible findings with respect to the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and minimum conditions related to the development plan approval. 2 -14 -08 Page 11 _L. 45111 AVE' irni-rin--nn LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http: /gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS /ims ?ServiceName =bc LOGISMap_OV &ClientVersio... 1/28/2008 Real Estate Recycling Former Howe Fertilizer Site Redevelopment Narrative Rezoning Evaluation and Review Background: The former Howe Fertilizer Site has historically operated as a manufacturing and distributing facility for custom formulated agricultural fertilizers and insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. A gas station also operated at the Site from 1945 -1970. Historical activities have resulted in soils impacted with agricultural chemicals and petroleum. Currently, the Site contains three vacant blighted buildings that have fallen into disrepair. Site soils are predominantly uncapped, representing a risk to human health and the environment. Development Plan: Real Estate Recycling "RER proposes to construct an attractive 50,000 square foot state -of -the -art Office/Warehouse facility at the Site. The building architecture and design will mimic that of the new Minneapolis Business Center, located to the east. A natural color palette and punched out entry elements will create a modern and attractive facade, and significant landscaping will compliment the building and provide screening for the neighboring residential. Current plans anticipate possible LEED certification, with green elements including a white roof to decrease the heat island effect, high glass to enhance natural light in the building, incorporation of native plant species in the landscaping, a stormwater retention pond, and the use of recycled and local materials in the construction. PUD Proposal: The proposed plan requests the creation of a PUD with an underlying I -1 zoning classification (the site is currently zoned I -2). This use will be less intensive than the previous heavy industrial uses, and will provide significant increase in tax base and jobs to the area. RER requests the creation of a PUD to achieve variances from the 100 foot setback on the West side of the Site, and the 50 foot setback on the North side of the Site. On the west side of the Site, a variance from the 100 foot required setback to a 50 foot setback is requested to separate the residential from a drive lane. The 50 foot setback will be heavily landscaped to achieve opaque screening, and will include a stormwater retention pond that incorporates native plant species. The next 50 feet will be used as a drive aisle only. Parking will remain setback at 100 feet. This West Variance will allow the construction of 125 foot truck dock, which is vital to the marketability of the building. On the north side of the site, a variance from the 50 foot required setback to a 25 foot setback is requested to separate the residential from a drive lane. Screening will be effectively addressed through the use of landscaping and berming. Locust trees planted along 49 avenue will also help integrate the building with the neighboring Minneapolis Business Center. The North Variance will allow parking stalls on this side of the building, vital to hit market minimums and ordinance requirements for parking. RER will incorporate heavy landscaping, ponding and berming to mitigate the proposed encroachments for the West and North Variances described above. The dock areas will be screened from the neighboring residences with attractive opaque landscaping and berming This screening will effectively block lights from the building and vehicle traffic, ensuring that neighboring residences will not be disturbed. All proposed parking will be within the current setback requirements. In addition to screening, RER will mitigate any truck traffic associated with the redevelopment. The monument sign on the northeast corner of the Site will direct truck traffic to the building. Additional signage will be installed at the northwest entrance to identify the residential neighborhoods on 48 street and prohibit truck traffic in the area. Any other site plan results in (1) a building significantly smaller, making the project not economically feasible; and/or (2) dock areas facing the residential to the north or Osseo Road to the east. The current proposed building size and layout accomplishes an attractive front facade that faces the higher traffic counts on Osseo Road, the front door to Brooklyn Center. This plan ties into the Minneapolis Business Center to the east, creates a dock area effectively screened from residential, and includes building floorplate depth that is supported by the market. Jurisdictional Issues: A very small portion of the Site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Minneapolis. Brooklyn Center staff has requested that RER request a maintenance easement or declaration that will ensure that this portion of the Site is maintained. RER is currently working with the staff at the City of Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center to secure a letter and/or agreement that will ensure this portion of the Site is maintained. Rezoning Guidelines: A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Polluted soils are currently uncapped, representing a significant risk to human health and the environment. The blighted buildings at the site are currently vacant, bringing 0 jobs and minimal tax base to the Site. Redevelopment will remove the pollution, clean-up the blighted site, and bring jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The proposed PUD will be comprised of a less intensive I -1 zoning classification, rather than the current I -2 designation. This use is consistent with the uses across Osseo Road at the Minneapolis Business Center, and is also compatible with surrounding residential uses. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The proposed zoning district will result in a less intensive use at the site (down zoning from I -2 to I -1). The office /warehouse use is consistent with surrounding uses, and will provide additional jobs and tax base to the neighborhood. The addition of an attractive new building will clean up the blighted site and remove the pollution. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? On the west side of Osseo Road, zoning classifications continue to be a mix of R -1 and I -2. However, the recent development of the Minneapolis Business Center on the east side of Osseo Road has resulted in rezoning from I -2 to I -1. The proposed plan is consistent with the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center, resulting in a less intensive use and zoning change from I -2 to I -1. E. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Not applicable. F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? A PUD is proposed with an underlying I -1 zoning classification. The development will adhere to the guidelines set forth in the PUD. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The present zoning district is I -2, which allows for heavy industrial uses. Given the redevelopment of the Minneapolis Business Center across the street and the surrounding residential neighborhoods, some I -2 permitted uses are unsuited for this area. H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) The best interests of the community? The redevelopment will not expand a zoning district, but will upgrade the current I -2 classification to I -1. This rezoning will result in higher quality jobs, an increase in tax base, and less intensive uses at the site. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The polluted soils currently pose a risk to human health and the environment. In addition, the site in its current condition is blighted and underutilized, producing minimal jobs and tax base. Redevelopment will remove the blighted buildings, clean up the pollution, and add high quality jobs and tax base to the Site, results which demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the current owner. City of Brooklyn Center Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purnose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77- 167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: A) Zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, B) Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning defined as a zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? E. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive planning; 2) The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3) The best interests of the community? I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 3) Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts: Permitted Uses: Applicable Regulations City of Brooklyn Center a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall, whenever reasonably practicable, specify underlying zoning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD- MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD- MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. 35 -47 City Ordinance City of Brooklyn Center c. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the POD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD- MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3. Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights -of -way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. c. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. 35 -48 City Ordinance City of Brooklyn Center d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property 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 ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision maybe subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City, except that these subdivisions and plans must be in conformance with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. Subdivision 5. Annlication and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: 35 -49 City Ordinance 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan, including temporary and permanent erosion control provisions; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. c. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: City of Brooklyn Center 35 -50 City Ordinance g. City of Brooklyn Center 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35 -230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. 35 -51 City Ordinance City of Brooklyn Center h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by Subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 35 -52 City Ordinance MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community SUBJECT: Preliminary Site Plan Review Planning Commission Applications 2008 -001 Minneapolis Business Center II Public Works Department staff reviewed the following preliminary documents submitted for review under Planning Commission Application 2008 -001 for the proposed office /warehouse development located at the intersection of 49 Avenue and Brooklyn Blvd (CSAH 152): 1. Site Plan Sheet C1.0 Site Survey, dated January 17, 2008 Sheet C1.1 Existing Site Conditions, dated November 15, 2007 Sheet C1.2 Preliminary Grading Plan, dated January 17, 2008 Sheet C2.1 Sanitary Sewer and Water Plan, dated January 17, 2008 Sheet C3.1 Storm Sewer Plan, dated January 17, 2008 Sheet C3.3 Drainage Design, dated January 17, 2008 Public Works staff recommends that the City Council include the following conditions of approval for Minneapolis Business Center II. A. Land described as Parcel 2 within the proposed development site is located outside of the boundaries of Brooklyn Center. This parcel is located within the City of Minneapolis. The applicant shall coordinate proposed development plans within Parcel 2 with the appropriate divisions at the City of Minneapolis. B. The site plan indicates removal of the existing site entrance and construction of two separate driveway entrances onto 49 Avenue North. Although the proposed access points will route site traffic further into the residential neighborhood, the layout will generally produce an improved configuration for the intersection at 49 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard. The applicant shall provide estimated traffic and truck counts for the site prior to final approval of the site plans. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org February 11, 2008 Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works 1 Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (763) 569 -3400 FAX (763) 569 -3434 Page 1 of 4 C. The applicant shall coordinate any work proposed within the right -of -way of Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) with Hennepin County. D. If necessary, the applicant shall relocate the existing street light and base located at the proposed westerly site entrance at the applicant's expense in accordance with City design standards. E. Parking spaces shall be dimensioned in accordance with City Ordinance Section 35 -702 describing minimum dimensions for surface parking 2. Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer Utility Service A. Domestic and fire services shall have separate exterior gate valves or PIVs to allow isolation of individual water service lines. Amend water and sewer plan accordingly. B. New gate valves shall be installed on both water service lines at the northerly property boundary. Amend water and sewer plan accordingly. C. Applicant shall obtain a street cut permit prior to installing water main within the right -of- way of 49 Avenue North. D. The water service connection to the existing water main within 49 Avenue shall be subject to review and approval by the Supervisor of Public Utilities. The applicant shall discuss the water service connection requirements with staff and amend the plans accordingly prior to approval of the final construction plans. E. Prior to demolition of the existing structure, water and sewer services shall be disconnected from the water distribution and wastewater collection systems in accordance with the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Disconnects. F. All water main and sanitary sewer utility extensions and relocations shall meet City of Brooklyn Center design standards. The location and method of connection to the existing water and sanitary sewer mains shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Supervisor of Public Utilities. G. Proposed hydrant locations are subject to approval by the City Fire Chief and Building Official. H. The applicant shall pay City and Metropolitan Council sanitary sewer connection charges and City water connection charges. I. The Applicant shall be responsible for coordinating site development plans and private utility relocations with Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications and other private utility companies. Page 2 of 4 J. The property owner shall enter into a standard agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center for maintenance and inspection of private water main, sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems located within the property boundary. This standard agreement authorizes the City to perform repairs to the above stated infrastructure in the event that the land owner fails to adequately maintain these private systems. 3. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control A. Site plans shall be revised to show the boundaries of the existing drainage easement located within the southeasterly portion of the property, Easement Document No. 5722931. B. The property owner shall dedicate the following easements to allow for maintenance of existing and proposed infrastructure within the site boundaries. Said easements shall be recorded with Hennepin County prior to issuance of a building permit for the site. A public drainage and utility easement (15 -feet wide) along the southern perimeter of Lot 1, Block 1, Howe Inc. 2 Addition A public drainage and utility easement over the perimeter of the proposed storm water pond A public drainage, utility and sidewalk easement located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 49 Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard (approx. 200 sq -ft) C. The grading plan shall be revised to show the emergency overflow route for the proposed storm water pond. The emergency overflow route shall have a maximum elevation of 857. D. The applicant shall provide further engineering details regarding the flap gate and connection manholes proposed along the storm pond outlet. These details shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Sheet C3.3 shall be amended to show the correct pipe sizes connecting to the control structure. E. Driveway entrance construction shall include installation of concrete driveway aprons and replacement of existing storm sewer catch basin castings as necessary. Amend plans accordingly. F. All soil and materials removed from the site shall be disposed of outside the limits of Brooklyn Center and in accordance with all local, state and federal requirements. G. The proposed retaining wall shall not exceed 30- inches in total height without further review and approval by the City Building Official. H. Grading limits shall remain within the property boundary unless formal arrangements have been made with adjacent property owners. Page 3 of 4 An Erosion Control plan shall be incorporated into the site plans prior to final plan approval and submittal to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. The erosion control plan shall indicate that measures shall be installed prior to starting site grading operations and that the owner /developer shall be responsible for the prompt removal of all dirt and mud tracked onto public streets from the site during construction. The plan shall also specify seed mix types and include seeding with emergent plant species around the perimeter of the pond. J. An NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. K. The applicant must obtain approval of a Storm Water Management Plan and Erosion Control Plan from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to initiating site construction. The applicant shall submit the application materials to the City. The City will forward the application to the Watershed Commission. The above comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Subsequent approval of the final site plans may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading and geometric design as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. Minneapolis City of Lakes Community Planning Economic Development Planning Division 350 South 5th Street Room 210 Minneapolis MN 55415 -1385 Office 612 673 -2597 Fax 612 673 -2728 TTY 612 673 -2157 January 18, 2008 Ron Warren City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Redevelopment of the former Howe Fertilizer Facility 4823 '/z Osseo Road, Minneapolis Dear Mr. Warren: Sincerel Hilary Dvorak, nior Planner City of Minneapolis www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us Affirmative Action Employer This letter is in regards to the property located at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (Parcel 1, 4.86 Acres, PID #10- 118 -21 -41 -0020) and 4823 '/2 Osseo Road, Minneapolis MN (Parcel 2, 0.2 Acres, PID 11- 118- 21 -32- 0002). As you know, Real Estate Recycling has proposed to redevelop the property with a new 50,000 square foot office /warehouse facility. You have requested confirmation from the City of Minneapolis that the City of Brooklyn Center is the responsible governmental unit for this redevelopment project. We understand that the building and parking will be located completely on Parcel #1, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Brooklyn Center. Parcel #2 will not be redeveloped, and will remain as greenspace. Both Parcels #1 and #2 will be maintained by Real Estate Recycling. Per our understanding of this redevelopment, we confirm that the City of Brooklyn Center is the responsible governmental unit for this redevelopment project, and no approvals from the City of Minneapolis will be necessary. MINNEAPOLIS BUSINESS CENTER II BROOKLYN CENTER, MN LOCATION MAP BROOKLYN CENTER. MN n mm mm tl WE SAC i. IMAM 1111 MINS ttt MINION IMO OM il at MUM ammo NNW ale FugHoOsning QUM 111.0.11A I 0/117100f U cimif MIMS ElM moms Err al RAU IVA OA NUM MOW EMMA MI ROLM MANI DRAINING INDEX :=TECENED Ut— M/IVal NIONUI/1111 MUM sm..= mamma 1137_7111D rIAWBB L tar a. macat a. WINN C1TY OF BR CS OOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLIS MENA= CENTER II mm 1101112■1111.11111 DOVER SHEET menorx )1,11,4,F -371:71 1(73 'H f els aw tmw w4.. "mr e.. low nwr G r..-r .4.$73 A2 fll w wL"wl w"d. lre IME M. n.w.. ••w pis al vans 1 ~ft* "S'tldO 0 IN33 NATWOUIf f All;) SAX NUM Lane R1pOi0AL i'LLLLa1M111171IM.1r Tr an mu,IW mO mrWCcn• eo 4 NN NI Nf alYOf -Imes Ca —o now Awe Nroa rm." Nowa .M Mn t•..44 rIYe Y••••'•• u "r•.w mu...ma n N mpg 2 m 0— /MAMMA W+gI4 --,1 woes. /I aeN. Fa''. 1'sr'". fi .n:x :OMEN= 019NION041311M00 BAN I� S M an Vw 1�ai V.= V• "4∎ at i.b R.wWX M XXN.MN1 WIN Y.IIw aMI N W w 1 Wl NY r q u 4:i 1.1. w`wrt .m RAV'ww M ••I. n .lw. Mll e" i a; :n" re. w mmw ,w,rW 'nI M 'WWNII 4WI W. MN IIN rw t �N• r VJYXw.nl4 11 V Q1W W [i- 4-:$7 pN lc tX U"- iWd�.INNNiV..- M4 4 nw•R. N� •�i1VW .y .l1 01'/wn11.I4.1 NY l rM .411V".•0g1VtIN190.yM1�p N`yIOMI�Iq��..X{.W�.�X �Y �yy� iiiwm� Y.MM� V WNNN Y1tIY,.•IM Ya M6 'ea 4X Ww. N4wN 'xmPN 4 +A W t•l1Ib +.T or 9.9 -Y I• Mr M t+ 71 Y•_f w1 V NIIeIX. A W.. tP w.. W l.el XN.i..R t p•.• n1 y YI•. iN..11Fm•.. �1j Mew y l w W felllryq. .wtlVwlwt• IJ 1i.! M. LI wY Wert lM MINI, li 711 rx w mXU41.,ly.wj I.wl X Y V N P MI� 4 W.1 •4 MII N A MI N.rX..mR! I rtXl. tR w X'..nw 7 NI N YN i•II >•w arNr r■ rm. r..d Aram raw '•P•4X �i••t Or.. 'rum Inc "1 law I WI 1 NOLL4I1i72101M031 lidd 19 11909 00 or OP O 08 Or a a °>1 a w Rlw .e won I .ra u�6°.IV.•...4.�.°.r'°!o'"C..w .�+%W 4f .X�....�+"••..f MM�MMI1 N .+•w ..•+n una ..Mara.. inn.+nw w NOLLYOIlLLH kari ...w••w+ln 4re..v..r Pr= ===11 wn •Ir1 rem .we S FIV S�d� 11 6w• vi 1 K• wi vsv trato.XnM�1 iw• i910N1N91190 ..l raw IL 10 SNOWCINCO 31s:MO MEW NM ,I{N7ANN NMI tl31t smarm 1i'IOdvaNNrl um V11119/3 /1N1N1 [eaTT raw wwawes �•A'T.7: CS VisigH r11wwxNnq VW 0 (311133 NA1) OQt O AJJ gMMiaga 01 Of 0 9l Of x+.^ -,:11! S A A CIa b •$`mil =f q� 11 !!\t!\ t,N•w, „m1 f d r, V TM r mec a m,` I ms s MK III��� •k -te At N'a0N9 fl 1 -2 a p.n. r �1 —j -IV e se mu x Host MI ,"i UMW 1. I a,Ie r ��V axK VW I +0191• r mg 1 r T care 0 rme 11- i cast t Naei 4010C a1aK .met 1 j f l o f r,N nNNC 'e roN I �,F Ir naNt•'+a►` Berl Iterta e WPM WNW nNa+ •1 S Now YMK 1 tr. 00s s_� fi �(aeC creN! rises e ruN ,r- eNr r ift WINK vsN it, IF,I® N•11 9 I 9259•'Rt,O I'CSB -'ANI Al 1/131.11H1 3 I \Jqy® OYNe -51NI Al 1 AVOW _zt'Ieg= I N I 1 PY51F'Nll NV an< new COOK 4 Pond PAWNED EMU WIDSCOM BOER UM I CUM FIRM -4-7- II:::::< 0 I I v) IMMO MEIMM MPH ASUIJiaS 0•-D TEMA VAL 49th Ave. North NEMEC h It (+CC MAW PECEMICEM Vie1.05[11 111 R.1001/1 1037111=4) lAWSCJet urrin 't 4 MAIM oi k la 1 I 1 lr air ME e LIMN WENCH J WE DATA awn I =1.1."=Janure I NM NEM I M MUM Ilth IMI LL I bid W. 0010 SKIREMOn% I 1.— ERIN NOM ISSIDAM I IMMIlam I Mow arms owe I we. Maim PAWN MEN Kamm 1111. I 15 1N UK MO I tr MOM I V.! OFF- S11103 IMO IBIUMEIMik EMIL FECIA000 MEM MEM I ell 1.■ c7:.4:12 tztt p =1 .1 gr OM 1.01.1 aim XI. :::Ho SS itto MAO. Went If ary0011 .001. g 1.• 1:1111, TruSrar 11tr.• Myagag r.v CHAPTER& tor 1.1 "PCLAINNPICATION N IMAM got •lo lug• i use tans I RIM *e war g1.1111311ing tr Minima Na. Ho 111110.nri maw umi WIAM110. Wert 1104111em ono Melon CHAPTER& CONEFIREMON 11 "INNEEINTO Ezra, I me !moon mat G-A) I, MY al I. MUNI Millf IMO INN SEMACE, =MAP" CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER l.a 6/17/5 PUNNUIfill 11111110 I ECONOMIES. II Pf1.11 ling Malt MINNEAPOLIS BUSINESS CENTER II INIONIDEN1 gar= ARLIHRESTURAL SITE PLAN r A1.11 SIfEdATA a�m �iue�ro�neeoa sffxvr I+a� �urrc (�yAtd�MCY� eu�nw w� I nrsu. 6O'�.Ye a�wea twwaoat ari i m u�ieu`u iu er aw wwrn x�ar�em M 4sih Ave. raorth r�P`r'v�e°xom I d r m...o I +o iio wm c�w[ '.�--,.^f ��nw �rm�a� rmnoons i r��; t� Y,j� S� i. J V eurm �M n�x�m �oa,r I r l i� enaq .��rtu.w I 1 ia �;..to° wm m w �..^ti3: �I I 1�1 Yd10NQd m a r.noa I m 4 S k 1 os-mm xuMO qalueonna uevs� I N I ��w 1vmo ia• mun �u 4 s. x �,-r_ rmr.� mmr. a ti ..r�i N P 1 .a. ..r... m:: ,s a 1 g ..'�Sl�C"`°'.�...�. ;�r+� o �w .�wtZ�S'::'�::. s 1 36°3 t P P' �:.5 Y� ��.rrii �..°1. b S I� 1'1 W ,_v-� �r' 1 i �Tr"fwri r'�'�ia °��v.�'�ar d W 4, e. ca, ��.u. ��.:�rr..�'o�'"�' Cw.�ir aiw.nn ,e L_ 'r'amw 1 OlW7Blr WElL 'VaNlIFl�TION PMPOBEU 01IIX i h 11� .uu IM y+9 U11091'NE AINBI J— tl� aclr tr a�� J I -�i, ro�� �r w irrnwnrt�+[sawssm��o�w y I I 1 orsov�a�m�o�n�ua�wo1arr�� utK-fl OlW�19ttCOFIfiRIlC11�117MP�11�11� j 1 orcmi me imouma �uu �+J I .yn�n. �.«��wan ...�u j 1 I aur I g I i 1� 4 �!6'3"�"U.F'°" 1 i I �r �umaa �owrtn 1 4 Pond "r,x°N'`fltaeRm�nrois o I i wr ano y m 7 a(�i q�° �owa j i e. ai� i rtmrn nao 4 f y xn e�n.u• I� 4 1' ��a� �i 'J ..rra.n 1� �t n. .nrurr L` 1 er_r �w�r��m�aa .ra w_r �.nnrr S i______ e°°ia 1� aawm000n f 3 r: r•�.vz r ;riin„ -�y .�_�_L.,�_.�..`. i I j MINNEAPOLIB �,e�� csnrr�a u ._____I_�?� i u �R�,.`+ 7, �:raF•'' AkL9iff6CfurilN. r r 91iEPUW s [HAaOpI-2 ^yq' p y n.r g •�lOIriM jd�e �I ��l i!aiC!V�Sr,..1 ifl°li`�J��t_7� �•o-v WfOtK YRYH i L Iowa nJ .m m AW17 1 VOW WX llk arm, 'gamma r.,o.1 1. IMO 7M ��di4filCSTLa "Jul U1aiW3 Ygally t ul VIM 0 OAT) t NA Hoot .do A f `G a 0 51 or t ECEN'---- 0 OPUS. MA CP•• sO th 0 so to (AY OF 'BROOKLYN CENTER fortn,7.. OM= rza rt MAUR= I ••76* Rec..1 tt,twudc LIWNEAPOLJB mews CENTER 1 low IINNWt MM SEWER WATEFI C2.11 JAN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTE:Th a OPUS. MS MN eftla RO11011 waver 167_7•11 MI. 17. 7A11 ma.= L awn 511110F CpwAiddidi Nom. bit EMI NIINNEAPOUB MENEM CENTER I Y11111.11%101. Mn MOW WORN SEWER FLAN C3.11 INWNI MG W f fau Kl I 12212.;"`" •,a• fl,¢¢ Kl 410MMIAi MM it Ma• Kl N 30 I) 6 6 E LW moves •NnN Oral 111i Nan k. IN n Waal nu K Slums Mat ite Si L it ;Mk M7 ¢a Si u at it m u Slat Mat'aY AA v. 174 nu w w as 6¢ NN¢l MO 1¢G M9NCO A•Siwi RECEIVED A I i `7;tSi l:n CITY tOF BROOKLYN CENTER E !�t2 n mn_N•un•"fwi, •••r N* MOM WAN. Al Y,. Real Estate Recycling DRANAOE comma C3.2 WM assn 017111 Malta IS aaa am OM." surd sznanalstapwall MUM," riss aar mina Ai si VA 4. -we fin alai RA. MOOED MO SULa WANE N 0 OPUS. eputintolik BONN SINgirt 30 15 0 30 60 FEET RECEIVED. CITY OF BROOKLYN GENTE!• ler W MOM .10.1111•11 StWO IYMI• PM MOM& 107_741 so ool. 17, /0711 I. sam ram Malt; ka'a& Fi germiT 60.10:71.12.51 =a m, NM AU MOJA Rent Estate Recycling MINNEAPOUI) MOEN CENTER 1 laialak moms DRANAOE DEMON C3.3 •••••.1,...v...••••••• kokO .7.14•11•11.,1,17”. 7,4..1, co 1.••••I fonevol•••■•...1.....111•11 7.‘.77,1;1•El.trt 1..•,:•144.••■ v. n.•rmster.,,...m...c war ..o1r ouosiol.k ■1.11,..,44 .".7 taltaiarYinvol Moo 11.0.)11144 Osiew.,...•••Ilow r,........14epv r•‘.. t•••••.oroc. or Slaolk.e. AI' ...7.;;■:. 1.344 I.: It AnViValtZsit •oott 5 V2Il=t1",lg Itart,..SuloallAnorl,1 •co v.,. :•14 J. As •o“.....• 'A 1••": 'T•••fi 7."' 110 ..e-Yao.••■• 1 3.= 't 11•■• "L limo., 41 IliaZroosule.: I"" nor. LW 17 CI• Ple 'Arn ,s1sw ^Av. 11,•••1 re lo no.14.6.•• k• ....Ivo... RECEWED COY OF BROokaN CEE 0 OPUS. E L MS, Yd. Fiar .100.4•••• MK 45.Ala MM. BRIM Ittal Ustato Itrevailo ISM UNNEAP EILMIkEI38 MIER I C3.41 4,44.t.ki:44- •V; I .44 16140 V.I:rahltql:;•1440,14744■101.. ...an 0..4 tiz!, Me.44, .4.4 KAT 4.4474,1%.11d4/.44.1,. :1:1• :s; foe e. .......414■4 ,14411441.11,4. SA4 2:117a 4 VIA U0'494.1,...4' 770 por phi 1■4,4*.,4,140. SIM 0.1443.!4■AtrAl 1,44 4. .4 4 4. S■5047 .4.■•;--'*4■14.11g4t7.21.11g. I u ...4.4111,.7 7 flEC E ;C: f` e OPUS. VOW% no. EIMAINN .11.•=1 OM* RAM.1•• OWN. ME AU IMMO R Real t St ate Itecyclin2 wawa CENTER as in 10111.111.0. pour-cat MANAGE 21 CITY Ot' FificYVi fi ,cALcuumoNs 7" C3.51 sx it Wiiii.ontillitliiii!ntletut/ 4 it fitigit 1 1111 li 1,t'IOttli ti I. it tiltitt.ff f2tf,•-atit i ttliirit tigggSgigt t 1111111/11 t t ttlit 1111 LIA ti c rn 11 t% .14 111 tea. I Jx \_�aom utc C i) (31 (i i i 4 mo vag, WOW ZeigAPOUS Boom COMM I t nW, m_ PUiN o nssiVIGH A1.3 wa• V xr-r ♦a iC r riomr.. J air-or e n nwr olaMNM 1 i 7 5wri t1TY OF BROOstl •ow $1/17,41101111WKO ramp! MINNEAPOLIS SUMS= CENTER U a ARCHRECTURAL FLOOR PLAN r A2.1 L 0 0 Alb/alin 111111M.11 ems onlre ens Irrej -05,---, 5/-111%m, ANISIN 14:1711 1111111111111p MN II k rak NONNI MAIM NO LW OM ong OHM 109.3•110ff 1111111111WillIMMEMIN ImmutimtraIMINE 11411i111111111FrallEngl rd. widow =AI Luz maws nu lam 0 0 0 WIT PVIIID me. nag OMNI YON OMNI NMI "Mal MIN WS& Nalrum T.T: RN m AO Mr' 11110M INNIMME immumum oknimuniillillWrilimmomourm phisimcm 111110111111111111111 iuiiiirniiiiiiiu Invomia Am' ‘mor-omo JODUN11.1.1e mu ENTAIEJ. 0 0 mew Nal MON 1111.070 NIAS real ore-s em• re tv Imula aur Ctrommo stro.mo WINN VW= YAM UM I At MN MI annum WC 4110 num me d•uz --Vs INCY iN#NAU MILO ADD-111NRIM II OWL EMT CVLIVIL 1_,-114•44- 9E-r, EVED MI 111 TV OF PZIOKO 117 NTER 00wArhlt4 Stem. otmos: 11/17/01 ISMIIIVRO MEIN "E17. F WER-11 1114rica rat 11111.M. MI NI: MOM It MINNEAPOLIS SUBINISS CENTER II 1110:11/1111111311111 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A3.1 WiJ MB 91lILallo.w eaan MMEMNIMMOIM mem II MIL= LL83NBt19 enoavNNIW 5]:Il� Jii;Tl 11 MIME GWIUIJV rAIMq MN MA 1.:91103 NATOMEO Al CBAE O d I gau•a• Zit a aY1ia� 102411171 a 3°eja Ue01•a 1•f0 e.. MOM 3M1Melr swan 711 s.AA MIA vane V A a t flit in 9.1WPI lVl91430 Nnrrxn -11 HVI®19i mall, at en tonne n 1v- �rn4et m b.qm:` wr .awr. a.>ot.°n.ae XVII AM NAPA at,- m neirthinw• ID 1.Ig1 �a w. MINI u M awae I I I I yyy�� I mean I I Aw leI i U• •CA r 1e• I- I a. I .®I M e co� M onq I me I ..n I I M.O t'I w In I a,A I I w..wl WNW I.a w rt et n A n en n tw t ai',iip n n rt .n n ri wx «,a wln 1.. h n'A n 3 'A...� n nnnn'' .l RMt!AAe• h.1 nA� F,i n n J n n j re-, n n n' Y I.� ea w n nnnnnnnrt k el in tkk w R w K w A n K www .!r_rt n w n n n n n. nin n n n_Int n ea n C en N 1 0: Ali N 1 R 4 w. w n n n n all n n t ei'n en q'w n!. A n An n s n rr•1 A A I to el n el R et A n rt n n n n l'" nnnnn n n R n R, en nh e tY xi° nA tea qn n w h a n n a• N /e.m,,i, it t A WA it it n et-n A ea N AII.. n n R A n .t A' n l n I al n, n •A n n A AI!l al n n n A! R R f A .kn n n .4 as .w w n at n n n nry: .1 M n .4 n A n-R I n n at n n nl k .r.. et n A n o n F,n •a AA A a n.•I.� w at .41 w r V,Vir A 11R e. w n w A n .iM R R .4 A 4 n7 At,-.‘ii nn n n c 1nnn.innnnK -knnnn n n nyrr• n p ait r t Kwnkn 4n t •y_,wnk nnillln n4:. IJ n n ,M-,Or -1 MIM• A wt .n en, t h A eo q 0n A.n it A A M n 4tn •1 ti n n k ne A ",t',,, n nt n l ,ana Aw W n n n n n A n n n n .j .4 n n nnnv A ,T'n wa117,_wrA.,., ATnn'n Rw a a..n.at. IIYld 3116 0M13g01LMd 4:/ ED In st R A w njk. rd w n ti e T n NAAS 1* .l R r -ne nn n n n n n A R A R '.n w_n n :c n .t _n n n n n R .•�4.• R n�w n n n A'Ian n n n et n±. n; A.. k;:a n'�i n AA n nnn•inS rtnnAn.n1 nnnn nnh A A n..R A n .nnn n.rIIVII n n n RnA K..R w X.h tin rtKn NRn•R Rwn (3w.w a i.alAl.... a t N.. .a.a wri .aww ai- A..A A MI .tilt.. ...n n'.awaaw.r..,w.w 9 all .1 n h ..A (n n;F A F narw.. j M k.:nRRw.�+t.n �nW •a t nnnn n A Are an nreA A n;h toK'n -n.n nnlnnnnn R wx x Anal N n w n w w nRk n RR K; Njn A n i n n,} n ge.an. a •r n n A.n. I w; n RA W- nt..nn it 1 nnw'�knn n rt!lnnwn nnnwU71 A A,a!t. I W n n n w n ul n u n I w Ut x A or n. i t I�ir°r nh nl n F nn n R F w n.nwnwM, Rnn nw Rw w wnwnww a. ti, h K ':.r w A A n a t •a w.w me ennt A 'a 6., n nnAR K 7,n77 n ten A'A et In, i :n 'A' 11 R n it it t n W Raw n n n n.: in its adoption: Member Roche .introduced the following resolution and moved PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -01 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008 -001 SUBMITTED BY REAL ESTATE RECYCLING ACQUISITIONS, LLC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC proposes rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD/I -1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of 49 Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and currently addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial/warehouse facility on that lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 14, 2008 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance and the City' s Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2008 -001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC. be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development 1 Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing drive lane encroachments into the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R -1 zoned property at a property line and a street line respectively. These modifications from the I -1 standards are justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that they are offset or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved site plan. 4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City' s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2008 -001 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. 4. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The buildings shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 2 Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance, 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly disconnected from city systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer prior to the demolition of existing buildings on the site. 12. Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits from the City Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications. 13. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 14. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 15. Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 16. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I -1 underlying zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development site. This site, however, may not be used as an adult establishment" as indicated in Section 35 -330, Subdivision la, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within this Planned Unit Development. 17. The owner 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 I -I underlying zoning district as well as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 3 18. The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this site in the City of Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2' Addition so that it shall not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shalt be filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 19. The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of building permits. 2 -14 -08 Date ATTEJT Secretary Chair The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lund and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall,Leino Lund, Roche and Young. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008 -001 SUBMITTED BY REAL ESTATE RECYCLING ACQUISITIONS, LLC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2008 -001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC proposes rezoning from I -2 (General. Industry) to PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of 49 Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and currently addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial /warehouse facility on that lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 14, 2008 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2008 -001 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008 -01 on February 14, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2008 -001 at its February 25, 2008 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance, the City' s Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission' s recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2008 -001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC. be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City' s Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land 1 in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing drive lane encroachments into the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R -1 zoned property at a property line and a street line respectively. These modifications from the I -1 standards are justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that they are offset or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved site plan. 4. The Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City' s Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. 6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City' s Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2008 -001 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. 4. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 2 6. The buildings shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly disconnected from city systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer prior to the demolition of existing buildings on the site. 12. Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits from the City Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications. 13. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 14. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 15. Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 16. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I -1 underlying zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development site. This site, however, may not be used as an adult establishment" as indicated in Section 35 -330, Subdivision la, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within this Planned Unit Development. 3 ATTEST: Date Mayor thereof: 17. The owner 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 I -1 underlying zoning district as well as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 18. The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this site in the City of Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2' Addition so that it shall not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shall be filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 19. The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and /or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of building permits. 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 and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 2008, 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 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain land (Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and 49 Avenue North) 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 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND 49 AVENUE NORTH) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner A. SECTION 35 -1210. GENERAL INDUSTRY DISTRICT (I -2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (I -2) General Industry District Zoning Classification: Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 1, Dale and Davies 1st Addition. That property within the following described boundary: Beginning at the intersection of France Avenue and the southerly right -of -way line of State Highway No. 100; thence northeasterly along said right -of -way line to its intersection with the south line of Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition; thence easterly along said south line to the southwest corner of Lot 5 of said Block 4; thence northerly along the west line of Lot 5 to a point on the west line of Lot 5 which is the intersection of a line drawn between the southwest corner of Lot 11, Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition and a point on the west line of Lot 4 of said Block 4 a distance of 180 feet from the center line of 49th Avenue; thence easterly along said constructed line to its end point on the west line of said Lot 4; thence northerly along said west line to 49th Avenue; thence easterly along 49th Avenue to its intersection with State Highway No. 152; thence southerly along State Highway No. 152 to the east City limits; thence southerly along the east Cit limits to the southwesterly line of the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie 1 Railroad right -of -way; thence northwesterly along said railroad right -of -way line to the northeast corner of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 1023; thence southerly along the east line of Tracts H and K, of R.L.S. No. 1023 to the south line of Tract K; thence westerly along said south line of Tract K, and the south line (and south line extended) of Registered Land Surveys No. 981 and 952, to its intersection with France Avenue; thence north along France Avenue to the point of beginning except for Lot 1. Block 1. Howe. Inc. 2nd Addition. Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 3. The following properties are designated as PUD/I -1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park): Lot 1. Block 1. Howe Inc. 2" Addition Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2008. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 2 Page 1 2 -14 -08 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 14, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Lund, Tim Roche, and Della Young were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission /Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioner Parks was absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 15 2007 There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Young, to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2007 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Lund abstained as she was not at the meeting. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Young, seconded by Commissioner Lund to adjourn the 2007 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Warren administered the Oath of Office to Rachel Lund, Timothy Roche and Kara Kuykendall. CALL TO ORDER: 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION The 2008 Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chair Rahn at 7:06 p.m. ROLL CALL 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION Acting Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Lund, Tim Roche, and Della Young were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission /Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioner Parks was absent and excused. ELECTION OF 2008 CHAIR AND CHAIR PRO TEM Acting Chair Rahn opened the floor for nominations. Commissioner Roche nominated Commissioner Rahn as Chair of the 2008 Planning Commission. Acting Chair Rahn called for further nominations three times. There being none, there was a motion by Commission Roche, seconded by Commissioner Lund to close nominations and elect Commissioner Rahn Chair of the 2008 Planning Commission. Commissioner Roche nominated Commissioner Lund as Chair Pro Tern and Commissioner Lund nominated. Commissioner Roche. Chair Rahn called for further nominations three times. There being none and following further discussion about the candidates, he called for a vote. On a show of hands for the position of Chair Pro Tern, Commissioner Roche received three votes and Commissioner Lund received two notes. Chair Rahn declared Commissioner Roche Chair Pro Tern of the 2008 Planning Commission. Commissioner Leino arrived at 7:09 p.m. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2008-001- REAL ESTATE RECYCLING IRERI ACOUISITIONS. LLC Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2008 -001, a request from Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC, for Rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development \Industrial Park) and Development Plan Approval through the PUD process of a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building at the old Howe Fertilizer site currently addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. RER intends to clear the site of the three existing buildings and conduct an extensive soils clean -up associated with the prior use of the site and then build the proposed 51,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 2 -14 -08 for Application No. 2008 -001, attached and the Director of Public Works memo dated 2- 11 -08, attached.) Chair Rahn asked for clarification on the required landscape points for the site. Mr. Warren responded that the plan exceeds the required landscape points. Commissioner Leino asked for clarification about the reference in the report to an adult use being disallowed and what specific uses are reviewed under a PUD application. Mr. Warren explained that adult uses which are allowed in the I -1 zone would not be allowed in this location and he further explained how a PUD is described under the city's zoning ordinance. Mr. Warren also stated that without the development of this site at this time, the contaminated site, would not be cleaned up at this time. He pointed out that the applicant specializes in the area of site clean -up and redevelopment. Commissioner Lund asked about over flow of the detention pond and also if any traffic counts had been done on the residential street. Mr. Warren responded that the Watershed Page 2 2 -14 -08 Commission would be reviewing plans for the detention pond on the site and the City Engineer in his review of traffic issues has requested traffic and truck counts in his report. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION NO. 2008 -001 There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2008 -001, at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. The applicant, Mr. Paul Hyde, of Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, 90 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, introduced himself to the Commission and encouraged their questions. Commissioner Young asked Mr. Hyde about possible leaching on the site. Mr. Hyde responded that they have done some preliminary digging on the site and are waiting for approval from the MPCA to progress further. He added that they have taken significant soil and groundwater samples and have not yet seen any contaminates in the water but they were evident in the soil. Mr. Hyde further stated that during their site assessment they make sure all the groundwater and soil are clean before they begin construction on the site. Commissioner Young asked how the applicant will be getting the site LEED certified. Mr. Hyde responded that when they construct the building shell they do not meet certification for LEED, however, that usually takes place after the tenant build out of the building. Commissioner Young asked if the site was evaluated to determine if the development could be done without the need for modifications requested under the PUD. Mr. Hyde responded that they had reviewed that and the layout submitted is the most efficient use of the site based on the size and shape of the Iand. Commissioner Roche asked about the process involved with the development across the street in Minneapolis. Mr. Hyde explained that the process involved with clean -up of a contaminated site prior to the site being redeveloped involves three regulatory bodies overseeing the clean -up of the site prior to groundbreaking; they are the MN Department of Agriculture AG VIC Program (ag chemicals), MN Pollution Control Agency VIC Program (hazardous substances), and the MN Pollution Control Agency VPIC Program (petroleum). Commissioner Lund asked how many new jobs might be created on this site. Mr. Hyde stated that they would anticipate 50 -100 new jobs created. Commissioner Lund also asked where the mechanical equipment would be located. Mr. Hyde responded that they will be located on the roof. Mr. Robert Wirth, 4901 Zenith Avenue, stated that there is an underground creek along 49th Avenue North with monitoring stations due to chemicals going into the groundwater. Mr. Hyde responded that he was aware of that and it will be addressed during clean -up. Page 3 2 -14 -08 Mr. Tim McLaughlin, 3129 49th Avenue North, asked about the fence behind his house, which has blown down several times. He stated that he had a survey and the fence doesn't follow the property line. Mr. Warren indicated that from the survey provided by the applicant the fence is on the old Howe property and if it is determined to be on Mr. McLaughlin's property, it will be moved. Mr. McLaughlin also stated that they are disappointed with the buffer being proposed along his property line and asked about the allowance of a 60 ft. setback from their property line when a 75 ft. setback is being proposed from Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Warren explained the proposed Driveway location as being a safety matter in regards to routing traffic away from Brooklyn Boulevard as cars enter and exit the site. Paula Lanhart, 3135 49th Avenue, stated that the fence along her back property line is very old and asked what the city's response would be if the existing fence came down? Mr. Warren explained that the fence she referred to at the back of her property is owned by the Soo Line Railroad and if it were to be destroyed, the city would contact them about their responsibility to repair or replace it. Mrs. Susan McLaughlin, 3129 49th Avenue, responded that they wanted it on the record that they are not happy with the building layout on the site and the driveway in and out. Commissioner Roche pointed out to the neighbors that the landscaping should be an improvement to the site. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2008 -00L CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Leino seconded by Commissioner Roche, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2008 -001, at 9:05 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application but did recommend the addition of a 19th Condition regarding assurances for the site clean -up plan.. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -001, There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Lund, to recommend to the City Council that it approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008- 01 regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Commission Application 2008 -001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling (RER) Acquisitions, LLC for Rezoning from I -2 (General Industry) to PUD /I -1 (Planned Unit Development \Industrial Park) and Development Plan Approval through the PUD process of a 51,000 sq. ft. office /industrial building at the old Howe Fertilizer site currently addressed 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. Page 4 2 -14 -08 Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Leino, Lund, Roche and Young. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its February 25, 2008 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m. Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Page 5 2 -14 -08 Chair February 22, 2008 Todd Blomstrom Ron Warren City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Todd and Ron: Breakdown of Trios Per Day RER Acquisitions LLC Re: Redevelopment Howe Fertilizer Site Projected Traffic Counts This letter responds to the City of Brooklyn Center's request for estimated traffic counts associated with the proposed redevelopment of the former Howe Fertilizer Site located at 4821 Xerxes Ave. N (the "Site The proposed development will consist of a total of 50,000 sf office warehouse building, with approximately 20 percent of the building used as office space and 80 percent as warehouse space. Access will be provided by two driveways on 49 Avenue N. The traffic count estimates included in this letter are based upon the Travel Demand Management Plan of April 13, 2006 developed by Wenck Associates. This plan was created for our Minneapolis Business Center development, which is located across Brooklyn Boulevard from the Site. We feel that the Wenck Report is a great source of data on traffic counts given our proposed redevelopment of the Site is the same use (office /warehouse building comprised of 20% office and 80% warehouse) as the Minneapolis Business Center. Trip estimates provide counts for traffic to and from the Site each day. The Wenck Associates Report developed trip generation estimates for the proposed land use based upon data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Given the expected use of the development as 20 percent office and 80 percent warehouse the number of trips to and from the proposed development of the former Howe Site per day is set forth below. 90 South 7 Street Suite 4500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 904 -1513 fax: (612) 904 -1590 Sincerely, Table 1: Typical Weekday Trips at the Proposed Development Breakdown of Daily Truck Traffic I Trips per Day OFFICE 22 WAREHOUSE 1 40 TOTAL 62 Net Chance in Traffic from Former Heavy Industrial Use Please contact me if you have any questions. The projections in Table 1 account for all car and truck trips to and from the new development each day. Thus, 22 office trips equates to 11 cars going to the new building and leaving the new building each day. 40 warehouse trips equates to 20 car or trucks going to and from the building each day. This count includes employee and visitor automobiles, and trucks, traveling to and from the development each day. Due to neighborhood concern regarding additional truck traffic on 49 Avenue N., a separate estimate has been developed for truck traffic. How many of the 20 vehicles going to and from the building each day are trucks? The 2006 Wenck Associates Report utilized two sources to develop the daily truck estimates. The first source is the tenant survey performed by Real Estate Recycling of the Caribou Coffee headquarters building in Brooklyn Center, a fully developed, very active building with above average truck traffic. The second source is the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2 Edition, containing summaries of published ITE truck trip generation studies that include office and/or warehouse components. Based upon these sources, the number of trucks the proposed development can expect is between 5 and 7 trucks per day. The Site was formerly used for manufacturing and distributing of agricultural chemicals. Given the heavy truck traffic associated with the former industrial use, we expect a net loss in total traffic for the proposed new office /warehouse development. City Council Agenda Item No. 11a i aa6eueH/.(zo aye o.ljue ;sissd 6uiunaiyDs ai313!n Aq P1USJd V a walsAs Alletiod anqeilsi.uppv EsuNsugels-3 ioj ssopoid Aluot.gnv 126O1 slq6llt461.H luouipuatilv JolieLD uogreiapisuoi epuo6V sabeluenpV asodind uoq1U1.4@0 punwbveg •@Du•u!pao 4o 4uaWaDao4ua sa62anoJs!p saplawos •ao4gIo n ao4 bu Caan ua44o aw14 !!2C 4o 1pa- J- uo!nDasoad 4o s4soa l2uo! !pp2 aanoD Iou op ualjo pasodw! sa!iI2uad sanss! quel,Jodwi ssal suop2lo!A, nu pue @pop aadoad„ jap suoD ua4o sa6pnt sarlied lie ao4 an!sual.u! @U.114 ssaJoad •sawn jo sadA4 !ip ul!m pa 42a111es wads (s qano3 uaaasAs 2uiwlan au4 ubnoaun passo oad i pue adA4 jo ssalpa26aa suoai2lo!n ll� 'AIIuasaad saeaA aldnop qs2d saisAs 4uaLuaDJOJua aA L2agslup.,upa 6ulgDa2asaa uaaq s2u A ij u �d Sad u� /aaa �u�aldand► a�u�s�nu old o� `es sasu o anon l�ua a u ml o ssa�o�d u� a��� u�2aa uar�a p �e6a auk u6noau� 1 u a dap a oa uap s k s 12UPiaa uaa s �s uaa� u °a u� ua a a pui aA C nnh d stis an0D 3 p a s/s t2 P,pn 1 S uaa ua .AoN s a u g o qua ►ld Me1 �a OnolkAl Ira l q �,lani� o ua I‘�,o u A a u k uawu %s ∎c aaa a� o zrua �ao uo� vials /6 u a�a►�P f system litat►on over fac Vlanagenlent er'�en and ns rnanag o peration s manta► ce_:_for.. op City d baan r c�,ec�. a c�,ions n°the cement a or nf�o� en s systems tons f �t Ce �,u c s, goolo thr ough H Central co d to Oty V Po returne fees Notes 1.00°/0 of f �n n a orn��l Stems Cemen not che court Sy money cou a nC1 c"al Enforcement 'Intended as oney Not r, but can save make' some COStS of Reco vers enforCement so nosaa paisnagxa p aDuaanssa luaLuaDao4ua imu0WaJDul 4anop 40 Inc) aDueudwoD anaiyDe 04 Alp Aq aau10 aapisuoD ualjo sa6pn['waisAs ui dn spua as2D �I suoLLalo!A apoD jo uopn osai Alawp aaoW pua sa42a ODuelldwoD panoaduuI swajsAs ieuiLuian Blinn gnop apeuosaaa puoAaq, snsaan Juapina 4o aDueaapuodaad„ si jooad Jo uapang suopeJadp 80 /S /Z (uuodwo 6uiapau) si•adde aoj payslge4sa (JOD!J4o 6uiaeaW) ■i Paseiquil }uawanionui uazi�i� '6uin�os waigoad 'sai pooyaogy6iau 6ui4eipaW •x3 (uouodwoD 6uiaeay) sonssi waigoad /anbiun aoj algeliene sosn pue suoi4nios anil aoj A4iDedej (iuouodwoD 6uiaeay) •ilc�nd y�i■n suoi�e(aa pue suoi�epiunwwoD aa�laq _104SO4 4uaivanuoD WON aaiapuoj /40 uia4s/ks Aieud ani42a1siuiwpe ue qsq2s Auoqn2 aye P!AOJd PIflOM a6upyD sill aa4apy0 A4D 6up quawpuawe aDupuipao ue 6U!AOJdd2 aapisuoD 6UijJ2J 4ST (nne� 0121S NW o� aeuwis) ssapoad uoqeowlou luawssassp ieiDads saainbali 4uawhed Aaelun {on aoj aDueMOile saainbab passasse 6uiaq Aliadoad ieyi }o lInsaa e se JO uo paaanDpo uoqeloin �I sauu pedun aoj ssapoad luauassasse telDads e usilgplsa uoil s apo oad anileuaalle JO uoi�do ue suiewaa uials�(s ieuivaiaD l N Ajapd iealnau Aq 6uiapay anilpalsiuiwpt/ ssaDoad anp sapinoad uaalsAs Alleuad anpea4siuivape ue Hpunop saziaoqine AilepiPDads aalieqj A saajaad 'aDueuipao Aq uaalsi(s siyl lioddns slsixa siseq 'A2U.I011p Alp 0l GUIpJODDV anoae 06e110D ')aed a)12 6uudS allinaso� apnpui sai saannod Aaolnlpls ono kaaeD Aipssapau se ao Aq P aaaa k ssaadxa aannod aneH sa!�!� �(aoInlelS uoa sailp AJoinlels Aq pasn Ai2WPd 'aDueuipao �8 uolelgw001e I unOW 'p uo auUIW Se gDns SO PD u�(��ooag nna.� p d �C ��ads �.ou aaMOd �I met alels Aq pald waaa 1 L g si sa ��iao��ne luaaauu! uia4aa3 anaH aa�.aau� ��noau� pau .lq aa1 2LP MJ a D JO sai�.�� aa� �I /y s puwIdw! wals/ks Alleuad ani }ealsiuiwpy pa4DnpuoD 6uiuiea4 leuaa4xa pup ipuaa4uI saanpapoad pue 'sassapoad sipnueua 's4uauanDop 6 4uauadoianaa walsAs Xileuad anieaisiuivapp JOJ 2a041aD 6unl.as padolanap apueuipap s6uipeaa n�uno� �(�i� �o �enoaddp snouaiupun saainba� 0 N N O COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning As sistant to the City Manager DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Relating to Administrative Fines; Adding a New Section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving first reading of an ordinance relating to administrative fines, adding a new section 12.13 to the Brooklyn Center City Charter, and scheduling second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. Background: On January 30, 2008, the City Charter Commission approved a proposed amendment to the City Charter, which would allow the City to adopt an administrative penalty and enforcement system. The proposed amendment would allow the City Council to establish an ordinance to develop procedures for imposing administrative penalties for violations of City Codes and for the collection of such penalties by the levy of special assessments in certain cases. The administrative penalty system would provide an alternative option for citizens and staff to use in certain cases, instead of the criminal enforcement system. The proposed Charter Amendment is attached. Need for Additional Corrective Tools Staff is in the process of reviewing current ordinances, enforcement tools and processes. With the increased concerns about neighborhood livability issues and property codes, the need for additional and creative corrective tools has increased. The majority of enforcement is achieved through the Hennepin County Criminal Court system, which is oversaturated with a variety of other crimes that may be considered by judges as more important, takes a significant amount of time to process through the system, increases the cost of service, and often results in citizen dissatisfaction due to the length of time required to achieve compliance. Uses An administrative penalty system would be used for neighborhood and property issues under the purview of the city. It would be another option to use, where appropriate, to gain compliance and address livability issues. The specific requirement and procedures for the administrative penalty and enforcement system would be determined by an ordinance, to be considered at a later date. Outline of Process for Establishing an Administrative Enforcement System Some statutory cities (without a Charter) have enacted ordinances establishing administrative penalty systems. However, since Brooklyn Center is a charter city, the City Attorney Page 1 of 9 recommends the Charter be changed to provide specific authority to the City Council to establish an administrative penalty system. This process is as follows: The Charter Commission recommends a Charter Amendment. The City Council approves unanimously the proposed Charter Amendment. An ordinance is developed setting the criteria for the administrative penalty system. The City Council approves the administrative penalty ordinance. Typical ordinance adoption requirements apply. Working documents, manuals, processes and procedures are established in parallel to the adopted ordinance. Internal and external training is conducted. The administrative penalty system is fully implemented. Budget Issues: An administrative penalty system will help improve enforcement system efficiencies, helping to reduce the cost of service. Initial setup of program will require staff time and upfront costs for materials. Attachments: Ordinance Attachment I: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 1 approval- November 28, 2007 Attachment II: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 2 approval- January 30, 2008 Page 2 of 9 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24 day of March, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance amending the City's Charter to authorize the City Council to establish a procedure, by ordinance, for imposing administrative penalties for violations of City Code and for the collection of such penalties by the levy of special assessments in certain cases. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons 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 RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE FINES; ADDING A NEW SECTION 12.13 TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Upon recommendation of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subd. 7, the City Charter of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by adding a new Section 12.13 relating to administrative fines. Section 2. Background: findings: authority. 2.01. The City of Brooklyn Center (City) is governed by home rule charter adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 (Act). 2.02. The Charter Commission of the City has proposed the adoption of an Amendment adding a New Section to Chapter 12 of the charter and recommended to the City Council that the New Section be adopted by City Council ordinance in the manner prescribed by Section 410.12, Subdivision 7, of the Act. The form of the Amendment is set out in Section 3.02. 2.03. A public hearing on the Amendment was held on March 24, 2008, by the City Council after two weeks' published notice containing the text of the Amendment as required by the Act. The notice contained a brief description of the nature and scope of the Amendment. All persons desiring to be heard with reference to the Amendment were heard at the public hearing. 2.04. The Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City and its inhabitants that the Amendment be adopted. Section 3. Adoption: effective date: filing. 3.01. The Amendment as proposed by the Charter Commission is adopted. Page 3 of 9 3.02. A new section 12.13 is added to the Brooklyn Center City Charter; the text of the Amendment is as follows: Section 12.13. FINES AND PENALTIES. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon ninety (90) days following its legal publication, except that if within sixty (60) days after publication a petition requesting a referendum on this ordinance, signed by the number of registered voters of the City required by Minnesota Statutes, section 410.12, subd. 7 is filed with the City Clerk, this ordinance will not be effective until approved by 51% of the voters voting on the question of its adoption at the special election called by the Council for that purpose. Section 5. On the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to file copies of the amendment with the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, the Hennepin County Recorder, and the City Clerk's office together with the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, section 410.11. Adopted this day of 2008. ATTEST: a. Subdivision 1. The Council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing an administrative penalty for any violation of the City Code or a City ordinance. The procedure shall provide that any party charged with an administrative penalty will receive notice of a violation and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral Harty. The procedure shall authorize the City to use the services of a third party hearing officer to decide whether an administrative penalty should be imposed. b. Subdivision 2. Upon n assage of an administrative penalty ordinance. the City Council may provide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a special assessment against property which was the subiect matter. or related to the subiect matter. of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity. proposed use. delivery of City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the penalty. The ordinance shall provide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary Payment of the Penalty. The ordinance shall also provide that notice and an 0000rtunity to be heard be given to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the Penalty is assessed. City Clerk Date of Publication Page 4 of 9 Mayor Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) Attachment I: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 1 approval- November 28, 2007 BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 2007 The Brooklyn Center Charter Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stan Leino at 7:00 PM. Roll Call: Secretary Gary Brown called roll; Gary Brown, Stan Leino, Bruce Lund, Mary Nierengarten, Eileen Oslund, Richard Phillips, Ed Nelson, Harold Middleton, Richard Theis, and Gail Ebert were present. Absent: None. Annroval of Minutes: The draft minutes of the October 24, 2007, meeting were reviewed. Lund made a motion, seconded by Phillips to approve the minutes as submitted. Passed unanimously 10 -0. Old Business Administrative Fines Charter Commission reviewed the proposed charter amendments by City staff regarding Fines and Penalties (Chapter 12). The following changes to the proposed new section 12.13 were offered by commission members: Motion by Brown, seconded by Middleton, to strike "which may be the city council" from the second sentence of Subdivision 1, passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Theis, seconded by Middleton, to change "person" to "party" in the same sentence, passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Lund, seconded by Middleton, to change "may" to "shall" in the third sentence, passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Theis, seconded by Nelson, to change "non -City employee" to "third party hearing officer" passed unanimously 10 -0. Motion by Nelson, seconded by Phillips, to add an introductory statement to Subdivision 2, "Upon passage of an administrative penalty ordinance," and to strike out completely the following from sentence one in subdivision 2 "which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity, proposed use, delivery of the City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the Page 6 of 9 penalty." as well as changing the remaining "may" and "must" to "shall" and strike the word "an" from the last sentence of Subdivision 2 passed unanimously 10 -0. Secretary Brown then read the following as changed by the commission and all commissioners agreed that these were the changes as voted upon. Section 12.13. Fines and Penalties. Subdivision 1. The Council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing an administrative penalty for any violation of the City Code or a City ordinance. The procedure must shall provide that any person party charged with an administrative penalty will receive notice of a violation and an opportunity to be heard by a neutral party, which may be the city council. The procedure may shall authorize the City to use the services of a non City employee third party hearing officer to decide whether an administrative penalty should be imposed. Subdivision 2. Upon nassaQe of an administrative penalty ordinance. Tthe City Council may shall provide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a special assessment against property which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of The ordinance must shall provide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the penalty. The ordinance must shall also provide that notice and an opportunity to be heard will be given to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the penalty is assessed. Attendance Anthony Mills contacted Chairman Leino to indicate he had received secretary Brown's letter regarding attendance and that he had moved out of the City of Brooklyn Center and thus Chair Leino declared the that Commissioner Mills seat be open. Motion by Brown seconded by Nelson to send Commissioner Richard Theis (on behalf of the Charter Commission) to the City's annual meeting of commissions and council members, passed unanimously 10 -0. Next meeting. January 23, 2008 (Annual Meeting). Adjournment Brown made a motion and seconded by Middleton, to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 PM. Motion passed unanimously 9 -0 (Commissioner Nierengarten had to leave early). Submitted for consideration, Gary E. Brown Secretary Page 7 of 9 Attachment II: Charter Commission Minutes, Subdivision 2 approval- January 30, 2008 Draft MINUTES OF January 30, 2008 BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING The Suspended Meeting of January 23 was called to order by Chairman Stan Leino at 7:00 PM Roll Call: Secretary Gary Brown called roll; Gary Brown, Stan Leino, Bruce Lund, Harold Middleton, Ed Nelson, Mary Nierengarten, Eileen Oslund, Richard Theis and Gail Ebert were present. Excused Absent: Richard Phillips Absent: None Also Present: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager, Council Member Mark Yelich Old Business Administrative Fines Charter Commission reviewed the proposed suggested changes by the city attorney to the charter amendments that were approved by the charter commission at their last meeting regarding Subdivision 2 of Fines and Penalties (Chapter 12) on January 23, 2008. However, there were insufficient charter members (7) and therefore the meeting was suspended until this evening. Secretary Brown read Subdivsion 2 as previously modified on January 23, 2008. A motion was made by Theis, seconded by Lund to modify Subdivision 2 as follows, in conformance with the city attorney's recommendations and the actions of the Charter commission at the last meeting. Section 12.13. Fines and Penalties. Subdivision 2. Upon passage of an administrative penalty ordinance, the City Council may provide by ordinance that unpaid administrative penalties be collected as a Page 8of9 special assessment against property which was the subject matter, or related to the subject matter, of the penalty or against the property which was the location of an activity, proposed use, delivery of City service, or other circumstances that resulted in the penalty. The ordinance shall provide that the City will first attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the penalty. The ordinance shall also provide that notice and opportunity to be heard be given to the property owner listed on the official tax records before the penalty is assessed. Passed unanimously (9 -0). A motion by Brown, seconded by Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 7:05. Passed unanimously (9 -0), Submitted for consideration, Gary E. Brown Secretary Page 9 of 9 Ci Council A enda Item No. llb tY g TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning,�Assistant to the City Manager DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Authorizing the Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Property and Execution of a Quit Claim Deed for Certain Land in the City, and a Resolution Approving Purchase Agreement Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving first reading of an ordinance authorizing the acquisition of tax forfeited property and execution of a Quit Claim Deed for certain land in the City, and a resolution approving a Purchase Agreement and directing staff to acquire property; and scheduling second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. Background: COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM City Assessing staff has been working with Hennepin County Tax Division the past year regarding a property where the back detached garage was located on a separate parcel from the house. Please refer to the attached map for site information. There appeared to be significant confusion about the parcels with the garage and house being separate parcels. Therefore, the parcel with the garage went into tax forfeiture and is now owned by Hennepin County. The estate of Mary Noll (House Parcel Owner at 5344 Colfax Ave N) has requested a pass -thru conveyance. All parties are in agreement to the pass thru conveyance, and feel this is the best method to resolve this situation with the following conditions: The parcels will be combined for tax purposes to prevent similar situations in the future. The House Parcel owner pays the assessed value determined by the County. Please refer to attached Cost Sheet. The House Parcel owner pay the City Attorney costs of $300.00. According to Hennepin County, pass -thru conveyances have been used by other cities in Hennepin County to resolve similar atypical property situations. Legal Description Hennepin County acquired through tax forfeiture a real property in the City legally described as: The North 42 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 155 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES (the "Subject Property"). PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0070 Page 1 of 10 A detached garage is located on the Subject Property, separate from the house parcel which is legally described as: The West 125 feet of the North 42 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES, except street "the "House Parcel PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0068 At the request of the House Parcel owner, the City wishes to facilitate the pass thru conveyance of the Subject Property from Hennepin County to the City to the owner of the House Parcel pursuant to the terms of the attached Purchase Agreement. The steps required to execute a pass thru conveyance are: City Council approve an Ordinance (first reading and second reading) authorizing the acquisition of tax forfeited property from Hennepin County and pass -thru sale to House Property owner. City Council pass a Resolution authorizing the Purchase Agreement and directing staff to make application to Hennepin County for the tax forfeited parcel. All parties sign the Purchase Agreement, contingent upon passage of the Purchase Agreement. Make the application to Hennepin County for the land acquisition. Upon acquisition from Hennepin County and 30 days after publication of the ordinance, close on the property. Budget Issues: There are no directly associated budget issues to consider. However, these types of atypical situations often result in expended city and county staff resources to follow up and manage associated issues, in addition to frustration and inconvenience to residents. Attachment: Attachment I- Property Map Attachment II- Hennepin County Cost Sheet Attachment III- Hennepin County Parcel Combine Form Ordinance Resolution Purchase Agreement Page 2 of 10 Attachment I- Property Map PIV; 0111321346004 5244 Colfax Ave N e, tyn Center, MIN 55430 City of Broo n Center Map for Illustration Purposes Only Garage /Tax Forfeited Property- smaller property outlined in yellow Page 3 of 10 flir BROOD CFA rER Attachment II- Hennepin County Cost Sheet nu, I-d9- 20r'3r7 1 n� From: Marilyn Bell Hennepin County Tax Parakod Lands Date: November 9. 2U07 Cali: 612 -59 -6569 PURCHASE COSTS: 01-110-21-34-0070 Assessed Value Special. Alter F arteitu re Assurance Fee (3%) Stale need Preparation Fee: f =oes: OM. xraaem State Deed Tax: j S 1.73 f ssn4 al pnl Tarr- McItam i IF FULL PAYMENT REQUIRED: Total: CERTIFIED FUNDS PAYABLE AT TIME OF APPLICATION MAKE PAYABLE TO: HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SUBJECT PARCEL: 22 Address Unassigned PID NUMBER: D7 118 -24 -34.0070 PKSPABEA F It: City of Brooklyn Center Fax 763.569 -3494 Calculated: 00-No r-07 Page 4 of 10 NER ;4 510000 $0.00 53,00 $25.00 551.00 $1.70 $1110.70I Attachment III- Hennepin County Parcel Combine Form DATE: Mr. Donald W. Deutsch, Property I.D. Supervisor Department of Property Tax and Public Records A -600 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Sir: I hereby make a request for a SEPARATE or COMBINED assessment on the following described land: f.D. No. ID. No. I.R. No. Remarks: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota For Tax Year ID. No I.C. No_ I.D. No. Signature of Fee Owner Signature of Fee Owner Telephone Number; Mall Tax Statement To: Page 5 of 10 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is. hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24th day of March, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance providing for the acquisition and pass through sale of certain land in the City. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF TAX FORFEITED PROPERTY AND EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR CERTAIN LAND IN THE CITY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: I. BACKGROUND 1.1. Hennepin County acquired through tax forfeiture a real property in the City legally described as: The North 42 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 155 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES (the "Subject Property"). PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0070 1.2. A detached garage is located on the Subject Property, separate from the house parcel which is legally described as: The West 125 feet of the North 42 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES, except street "the "House Parcel PID 01- 118 -21 -34 -0068 1.3. The City wishes to facilitate the pass thru conveyance of the Subject Property from Hennepin County to the City to the owner of the House Parcel on the condition that the owner of the House Parcel a) combine the two parcels for tax purposes; b) pay the assessed value of the Subject Property; c) provide title evidence for the House Parcel; and d) pay $300 to the City to cover attorney fees. II. ACQUISITON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY 2.1 The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to acquire the Subject Property from Hennepin County. Page 6 of 10 3.1. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute a quit claim deed to the Subject Property and take all steps necessary to effect the transfer thereof to the Owner of the House Parcel. 3.1. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2008. ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: III. SALE OF PROPERTY III. EFFECTIVE DATE Page 7 of 10 Mayor Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING Purchase Agreement for parcel 01- 118 -21 -34 -0070 WHEREAS, The City wishes to facilitate the pass thru conveyance of the Subject Property from Hennepin County to the City to the owner of the House Parcel pursuant to the terms of the attached Purchase Agreement; and ATTEST: WHEREAS, it is beneficial to the city to facilitate this conveyance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, approves the attached Purchase Agreement and directs the staff to seek the acquisition of the Subject Property from Hennepin County. Date 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. Page 8 of 10 PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1. PARTIES. This Purchase Agreement is made on 2008, by and between the CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 6310 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (Seller) and Stephen Noll as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary C. Knoll (Buyer). 2. OFFER/ACCEPTANCE. Buyer offers to purchase and Seller agrees to apply to Hennepin County for the purchase of and, upon receipt of the conveyance, to sell to Buyer real property located in the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as: The North 42 feet of the East 30 feet of the West 155 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, BELLVUE ACRES. (the "Property 3. PRICE AND TERMS. The price for the Property is the fair market or assessed value that the County charges the Seller for the acquisition "Purchase Price Buyer shall reimburse the Purchase Price to Seller by certified check on the Date of Closing which shall occur upon the acquisition by the City of the Property and following the effective date of the Ordinance allowing the sale. In addition, Buyer shall pay Seller the amount of $300 to cover attorney fees. 4. DEED. Upon performance by Buyer, Seller shall execute and deliver a Quit Claim Deed conveying title to the Property to Buyer. Buyer shall apply to Hennepin County to have the parcels combined for tax purposes. 5. REAL ESTATE AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Buyer acknowledges that the Property is a tax forfeited parcel and assumes responsibility for all the real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing. Seller represents that there are no special assessments pending as of the date of this agreement. If a special assessment becomes pending after the date of this agreement and before the Date of Closing, Buyer may, at Buyer's option: A. Assume payment of the pending special assessment without adjustment to the purchase agreement price of the property; or B. Require Seller to pay the pending special assessment and Buyer shall pay a commensurate increase in the purchase price of the Property, which increase shall be the same as the estimated amount of the assessment; or C. Declare this agreement null and void by notice to Seller, and earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer. The Buyer is responsible for real estate taxes due and payable in the year following the closing. 6. CONDITION OF PROPERTY. The Property is occupied by the Buyer. Buyer acknowledges that it has inspected or has had the opportunity to inspect the Property and agrees to accept the Property "AS IS." Seller makes no warranties as to the condition of the Property. Page 9 of 10 7. TITLE MATTERS. Buyer is aware that there is no Abstract of Title for the Property, and Seller is under no obligation to provide an Abstract of Title. Seller makes no representation as to the marketability of title to the Property. 8. WELL DISCLOSURE. The Seller certifies that it does not know of any wells located on the Property. 9. DISCLOSURE; INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM. Seller discloses that there is not an individual sewage treatment system on or serving the Purchase Property. 10. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE FOR ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS CONTRACT. 11. NOTICES. All notices required herein shall be in writing and delivered personally or mailed to the address shown at paragraph 1 above and, if mailed, are effective as of the date of mailing. 12. CONTINGENCY. This Purchase Agreement is contingent upon the adoption by the City Council of an effective Ordinance authorizing the sale of the Property. 13 CLOSING COSTS. Buyer shall pay the amount of State Deed Tax payable on the deed conveying the Property to Buyer and the conservation fee and the filing fees for the deed. 13. MINNESOTA LAW. This contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. In witness of the foregoing, the parties have executed this agreement on the year and date written above. Dated: Dated: By Dated: BUYER Page 10 of 10 SELLER CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By Its Mayor Its City Manager Personal Representative of the Estate of Mary Noll City Council Agenda Item No. llc t �f�... a-;- -s t ,a. i i. 11 s �y*. x d- .v �R "t P'� n .3� G i x. y y T'�; t 1�1 r �`r V.� �i CU F �c CU Q- r�' c� C� o, u O o v v r� r,� .v w O q� C� Agenda Background Highlights Proposed Ordinance Amendment Q&A 02/25/08 2 Background An analysis of residential property conditions, trends and regulations relating to the regulation of Junk Inoperable Vehicles completed October 2007. Increase in the number of junk /inoperable vehicles in neighborhoods Creating health /safety hazards- harborage for pests, chemical contamination, attractive nuisances to children, physical hazards, etc. Creating blight and general nuisances for the neighbors Definition of junk /inoperable vehicle allowed vehicles considered classic /pioneer to be stored in unlimited quantities Number of concerns about junk /inoperable vehicles from residents increasing Enforcement tools limited Examples of situation regarding various vehicle issues provided in report. Options brought to City Council in January 2008. 02/25/08 3 Proposed Ordinance Amendment High fights Clarification of definition of vehicles, and inoperable and junk vehicles Removal of exception for classic /pioneer vehicles in junk /inoperable vehicle definition All junk /inoperable vehicles treated equally 02/2 5/08 4 Proposed Ordinance Amendment High'ights cont... Established a city-facilitated abatement (removal) process under certain conditions Vehicles must meet junk /inoperable vehicle definition Exception for impounding improperly licensed vehicles up to 90 days, if only reason considered junk /inoperable. A notification process provided to include io -day written notification, delivery requirements, explanation of process Reference Minnesota State Law for vehicle impound procedures. 02/25/08 Proposed Ordinance Amendment High fights cont... Provides authority to establish an administrative fee- recover costs associated with abatement actions. Note: Costs of towing and storage are handled between towing contractor and property owner. Clarifies acceptable locations for storage of junk /inoperable vehicles 0 Vehicles located inside an enclosed building Vehicles stored as part of a lawfully operated business Vehicles stored at an appropriate city storage facility 02/25/08 Questions? Than You 7 DATE: February 25, 2008 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager Gary Eitel, Community Development Director SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending the Regulation of Inoperable and/or Junk Vehicles Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approving first reading of an ordinance amending the Regulation of Inoperable and/or Junk Vehicles, and scheduling second reading and Public Hearing for March 24, 2008. Background: Staff brought forward an analysis of conditions, trends and regulations relating to parking and storage of vehicles on residential property at the City Council Work Sessions on October 22, 2008 and January 28, 2008. In response to Council feedback, a proposed code amendment regarding inoperable and junk vehicles is being presented for consideration. It is anticipated that this code amendment regarding the regulation of inoperable and junk vehicles will primarily aid in addressing problem properties and situations where voluntary compliance cannot be obtained. It provides a more efficient method to achieve compliance and improve neighborhood conditions. It is an additional tool that can be used to achieve compliance and an alternative to the existing criminal court system. The following is a brief summary of the proposed changes: Clarification of the definition of vehicles, and inoperable and junk vehicle. Removal of the exception for classic /pioneer vehicles from the inoperable /junk vehicle definition. All inoperable and junk vehicles will be treated equally. Establishing a city facilitated abatement (removal) process for inoperable and junk vehicles under certain conditions and in accordance with prescribed standards as highlighted below: o Vehicles must meet the definition of inoperable /junk vehicle. o An exception for impounding vehicles improperly licensed for up to 90 days, if that is the only reason it is considered inoperable /junk by definition. o A notification process is provides to include a 10 -day written notification, notice delivery requirements, and an explanation of process. o An appeal procedure is provided through a hearing process. Reference of Minnesota State Law for vehicle impound procedures. Providing authority to establish an administrative fee to recover costs associated with abatement actions. Please note that the costs of towing and storage are handled between the towing company and property owner. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Attachment: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Page 2 of 6 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24 day of March, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance regulating inoperable and junk vehicles. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO INOPERABLE AND JUNK VEHICLES; AMENDING CITY CODE SECTIONS 19 -1301 THROUGH 19 -1307 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Brooklyn Center Code Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 are amended, and new Section 19- 1304.5 is added as follows: Section 19 -1301. INTENT AND CONSTRUCTION. The collection of unused and unusable motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories having become a common occurrence in the community, and such collection having become a source of danger to the physical and mental well being of children and adults within the community, and such collection having become a visual blight and source of concern and complaint by citizens of the community, this vehicle ordinance is enacted for the purpose of prohibiting the collection and maintaining of such motor vehicle bodies, parts, engines and related accessories. Nothing in Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 is intended to restrict the abatement of abandoned vehicles as regulated in City Code Section 19 -1001 or the towing of illegally narked vehicles under City Code. Section 27 -121. Section 19 -1302. DEFINITIONS. The following words and terms are defined as follows: a. PERSON: Person m ans aAny natural person, property owner. tenant. occupant. lessee. firm, association, partnership or corporation, and agent of any of the aforesaid, except duly licensed new and used car dealers, while engaged in the lawful operation of their business. b. IMPOUND. To take and hold a vehicle in legal custody. c. INOPERABLE OR JUNK VEHICLE: Vehicle mean aAny meter vehicle thatwhich is does not have a current vehicle fly licensed for operation within the State of Minnesota by the State of Minnesota; or not properly licensed by any other state for operation within that state, or thatwhich is not in operable condition; or that is placed on lacks. blocks or other supports; or that is partially dismantled; or thatwhich is used for sale of parts, or as a source of repair or replacement parts for other vehicles; or thatwhich h is kept for scrapping, dismantling, or salvage of any kind; or that is otherwise in a condition that renders it unlawful to operate on public streets in the State of Minnesota. Page 3 of 6 d. VEHICLE: Any vehicle, motor vehicle, semi trailer, or trailer as defined in M.S. 169.01. as it may be amended from time to time. including pioneer. classic collector and street rod vehicles, demolition vehicles, race cars or any machine or eauipment propelled by power other than human Dower. designed to travel along the ground by use of wheels, treads. runners or slides and transport Persons or property or pull machinery. It also includes, without limitation, automobile. truck, trailer, motorcycle and tractor. Section 19 -1303. PARKING AND STORAGE. With—the—exception of appropriately nNo person shall park, keep, place or store, or permit the parking or storage of an inoperable or junk vehicle on a public street, OF alley. or public property in the City for more than 6 hours or on any private lands or premises in the city for longer than 48 hours which he owns, occupies, or centrals with the following exceptions: a. unless the vehicle shall be is located within an enclosed building on such premises; or b. the vehicle is located on the Premises of a business enterprise operated in a lawful place and manner. when necessary to the operation of such business enterprise; or c. the vehicle is located in an appropriate storage place or depository maintained in a lawful place and manner by the city. ss ZS defined by vehicles are screened from public view by means of a six foot opaque fence. Section 19 -1304. STORAGE OF PARTS, ENGINES, AND RELATED ACCESSORIES. No person shall store or keep parts, engines and related accessories on a public street or alley or on any private lands or premises in the city which he owns, occupies, or controls, unless such parts, engines, and related accessories are kept or stored within an enclosed building in compliance with city codes. Section 19- 1304.5. ABATEMENT OF AN INOPERABLE OR JUNK VEHICLE. A vehicle found in violation of Section 19 -1303 is considered a public nuisance and may be impounded by the City Manager or the Manager's designated agent. Vehicles that are in violation of Section 19 -1303 only by reason of failure to be properly licensed will not be impounded until 90 days after expiration of the vehicle's license. a. Notice and hearing. Before impounding a junk vehicle or inoperable vehicle. the Manager or designated agent must give 10 days' written notice through service by mail, by posting a notice on the Property, or by personal delivery to the owner of, or Person in control of. the Property on which the vehicle is located. When the Property is occupied, service upon the occupant is deemed service upon the owner. Where the property is unoccupied or abandoned. service may be by mail to the last known owner of record of the property or by posting on the property. The notice must state: (11 A description of the vehicle; Page 4 of 6 (2) That the vehicle must be moved or properly stored or otherwise brought into compliance with Section 19 -1303 within 10 days of service of the notice: (3) That if the vehicle is not removed or properly stored or otherwise brought into compliance with Section 19 -1303 as ordered, the vehicle will be towed and impounded at an identified location; (4) That the vehicle may be reclaimed in accordance with the procedures contained in M.S. &168B.07 or disposed of in accordance with M.S. &168B.08: (5) That the property owner is responsible for any costs associated with the abatement. including any administrative fees; and (61 That the owner of the vehicle or the owner of or person in control of the property on which the vehicle is located may make a rearrest in writing for a hearing before the City Manager or the Manager's designated agent. b. Hearing, action. If a hearing is reauested during the 10 -day period. the City Manager or the Manager's designated agent must promptly schedule the hearing. and no further action on the towing and impoundment of the vehicle may be taken until the City Manager's decision is rendered. At the conclusion of the scheduled hearing, the City Manager or the Manager's designated agent may (1) cancel the notice to remove the vehicle: (2) modify the notice; or (3) affirm the notice to remove, specifying the date by which the vehicle must be removed. If the notice is modified or affirmed, the vehicle must be disposed of in accordance with the written order of the City Manager or the Manager's designated agent. c. Impounding procedures. The impounded vehicle will be surrendered to the owner by the towing contractor only upon payment of the reauired impound. towing and storage fees. Vehicle impounding will be conducted in accordance with M.S. Ch. 168B. governing the sale of abandoned motor vehicles. d. Assessment of administrative costs. The city costs of abatement shall be a lien against the real estate on which the nuisance existed and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by M.S. 429.101. All the provisions of M.S. 429.101 are incorporated by reference. Section 19 -1305. CONSTRUCTION AND APPLICATION. Nothing in this ordinance Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 shall be construed to permit any act prohibited by any other ordinance, statute, or rule of law. Section 19 -1306. SEPARABILITY. Should any section, subdivision, clause, or other provision of Sections 19 -1301 through 19 -1307 be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of Sections 19- 1301 through 19- 1307the ordinances as a whole nor of any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid. Section 19 -1307. PENALTY. Any person violating the provisions of Sections 19 -1301 through 19- 1307this ordinance, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a misdemeano days or both, together with the costs of prosecution. Page 5 of 6 Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2008. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Underlining indicates new matter; striking through indicates deleted material.) i City Council Agenda Item No. lld COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works, DATE: February 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -01, 02, 03, and 04, 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements (Maranatha Area) Recommendation: Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider approval of the attached resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement of construction bids for the 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements. Background: On February 11, 2008, the City Council conducted a series of two public hearings on the proposed 2008 Residential Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements. Following the public hearings, the City Council ordered the improvements and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications. Construction plans, specifications and contract documents have been prepared for the project. The overall scope of the project remains consistent with the improvements outlined in the feasibility study. Staff is prepared to begin the project bidding process upon authorization from the City Council. The bidding process would involve advertisement of the project in the City's official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin magazine. Sealed bids would be collected, opened on a scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff anticipates that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for consideration at the April 14, 2008 City Council meeting. Budget Issues: The total project cost is estimated to be $5,157,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on January 14, 2008. 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Project adoption: ATTEST: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2008 -01, 02, 03, AND 04, 2008 RESIDENTIAL AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS (MARANATHA AREA) WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council, by Resolution No. 2008 -16, ordered Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -01, 02, 03, and 04 and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements; and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications have been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -01, 02, 03 and 04 are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. February 25, 2008 Date 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. City Council Agenda Item No. Ile COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works DATE: February 19, 2008 SUBJECT: Motion to Accept Staff Recommendation to Delete Proposed Special Assessments for 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard from Special Assessment Levy Roll, Improvement Project 2008 -01 and 2008 -02 Recommendation: Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider a motion to delete the proposed special assessments for 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard from the Special Assessment Levy Roll for Improvement Project No. 2008 -01 and 2008 -02. Below is a brief staff report regarding this issue. Background: On February 11, 2008, the City Council approved a motion certifying special assessments for the 2008 Residential Area Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage Improvements (Maranatha Area) to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. The City Council motion included a staff recommendation to remove the property located at 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard from the adopted levy roll for further evaluation by City staff. The subject property has frontage onto Brooklyn Boulevard and a rear lot line adjacent to Lee Avenue. The property currently contains a single family residential home as shown on the attached figure. The draft special assessment levy roll for the project originally identified an R1 single family residential unit assessment for the property due to the potential for street access for the existing single family residential home onto the section of Lee Avenue scheduled for reconstruction. The property is currently zoned C -1 Service /Office Commercial, but is not a sufficient size to meet minimum lot dimension requirements for redevelopment as a commercial property. Future commercial redevelopment at this location would require the property to be combined with adjacent parcels. The City has historically limited access from commercial properties onto residential streets. Street access onto Lee Avenue from the subject property would typically be restricted or prohibited if the property were redeveloped into a commercial use. On February 15, 2008 City staff contacted Jacob Yanish, the owner of the subject property, to discuss the proposed special assessments and street access onto Lee Avenue. The owner indicated that, given a choice, he does not want public street access onto Lee Avenue if a new access would result in a special assessment for the property. The owner further acknowledged that a curb opening for the property would not be provided onto Lee Avenue in the near future if the property does not receive special assessments for the street and drainage improvements. 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard Based on the current lot configuration and zoning designation, staff recommends that the property at 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard be permanently removed from Special Assessment Levy Rolls for Improvement Project No. 2008 -01 (street improvements) and 2008 -02 (storm drainage improvements). This action can be taken by a formal City Council motion to delete the proposed special assessments associated with Improvement Project Nos. 2008 -01 and 2008 -02 for the property located at 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard. Budget Issues: The reduction in project revenue due to the removal of the subject property from the levy rolls is $4,290. The net funding reduction would not substantially change the overall funding plan for the project, which is currently estimated to be $5,157,000. 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard a 1 p I Mk tl P s y .::x.s, i�IR .P r '"+in f �4� r x �h e I t x n+� e�. ;Y F ����1�`s'�'�'� �,�y E �k�. k ,�x��t'! F I f s"! y� I I 1 s�" e ���47� f 1 4 "i.�' �''r--_- I �r ��rA�. 5•,�. F t z,1 "�°;f.8 s T'� �l i 'F �js�' e ���v 1 y ��:s `r r iL H F ,Y` i tl Y �P .'R j �l�l.-. s. ti, yR 1 M: t I r 9' r 7� M '1�' l t r .'�r�=.� .r� r s h' �t ,Rk�� 5. o r i r 7 T 1 r w .0 rv ..+w. If �}Ji �L� �ip I n Y -iC. �i� p� F I I F �4 4 w� �da� s 4 F W r f 'Y., r i. 3 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard PID 2711921330011 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION February 25, 2008 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. 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 February 25 2008 t March 10 2008 City Council Chambers 1. 2011 Brooklyn Center Celebration City Council 2. Utility Shutoff Policy Amendment 3. Sign Ordinance Flashing Lights Councilmember Lasman 4. Comprehensive Plan Update 5. Brooklyn Center Community Expo 6. 2008 Legislative Issues 7. City Manager Salary -2008 PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS 1. EBHC Water Tower Project 2. Rental Strategies Update 3. Automated Meter Reading Recommendation 4. General Building Maintenance Plan 5. Shingle Creek Waterway Plan Update 6. Franchise Fee Agreement Amendment 7. Property Foreclosure Strategies Overview March 24 2008 1. 2007 Annual Police Report and Crime Reduction Strategy 2. TIF Districts Update City Manager 3. 2009 Budget Planning Process 4. Maintenance Funding for Three Rivers Park District Trails 5. 2008 Council Retreat Follow Up 6. Brooklyn Bridge Engaging Youth Initiative 7. Gov QA Roll Out Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 or City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/EDA WORK SESSION DATE: February 21, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana SUBJECT: 2011 Brooklyn Center Celebration COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED The attached is presented in response to the Council direction. We have provided an outline and suggested way the City might proceed to begin planning for the 100 year celebration. These ideas are in large based upon the examples of other cities that have supported or sponsored similar celebrations. We look forward to your feedback and recommendations regarding these ideas and suggestions. BACKGROUND COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES G: \City Manager \WORKSESSION.MEM.FRM.doe 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 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Curt Boganey, City Manager Vickie Schleuning, Assistant to the City Manager February 25, 2008 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Brooklyn Center Centennial Celebration Event Recommendation: Staff is seeking direction from the Brooklyn Center City Council regarding the setup and organization of the Centennial Celebration Event. Background: The City of Brooklyn Center will be celebrating its 100 Birthday on February 14, 2011. Since this is a momentous occasion, planning and organization of these types of Celebrations often occurs over several years. Therefore, a draft of the Centennial Celebration Project Outline is included for your review and to facilitate discussion. This outline also includes a draft of the Mission and Committee Goals and Guiding Principles. It is anticipated that the first phase of the project, to establish a Centennial Celebration Committee, may begin as early as March 2008. This Committee will plan, organize and implement the Celebration Event. It is suggested that the Committee be comprised of various members that will represent the community. We believe it is important that the Committee broadly represent the community- ages, ethnicities, cultures, genders, neighborhoods, etc. Your input regarding the vision for the Celebration Event and the makeup of the Committee is needed. Budget Issues: The City has started budgeting $5,000 per year for the Centennial Celebration Event, beginning fiscal year 2008. If this funding rate continues, $15,000- $20,000 would be available for the Celebration. Depending on the scope and size of the Celebration, other fundraising activities may be required and are common for these types of Celebrations. Attachments: Draft Centennial Celebration Project Outline 410 DRAFT Centennial Project Outline February 25, 2008 City Centennial Celebration (February 14, 2011) Mission: It is the mission of the Centennial Celebration Committee to collaboratively share and celebrate the past 100 year history of Brooklyn Center, and to inspire continued greatness and distinction for the second century. Committee Goals and Guiding Principles: In support of the mission, members of the Centennial Celebration Steering Committee will: Coordinate the overall planning of Centennial activities Establish sub committees to carry out the work of the Centennial Committee Develop a budget and fundraising activities for Centennial events and activities Facilitate communication with the citizens, businesses, institutions and community organizations regarding Centennial events Encourage all citizens, businesses, institutions and community organizations to incorporate Centennial events into existing activities during the celebration period; Recognize citizens, businesses, organizations, and institutions that embody Centennial spirit and develop and incorporate Centennial events and activities Provide opportunities for the entire community to participate in and benefit from the programs and activities offered throughout the Centennial celebration; Provide recognition to the contributions of citizens, businesses, institutions and community organizations who develop Centennial events and activities Provide opportunities for the entire community to participate in and benefit from the programs and activities offered throughout the Centennial year Honor and recognize citizens, businesses, institutions and community organizations in the community that have supported and shaped the development of Brooklyn Center in its first century Coordinate with annual city celebration committee and other committees that manage city events. I.e. Earle Browne Days, National Night Out, etc. Centennial Project Outline: 1. Initiate Centennial Celebration Project Establish Committee (Tentative March 2008) Page 1 of 3 Potential Representatives Historical Society, Businesses, Residents, Faith Community, Schools, Community organizations, other Government Agencies (ex. Government Center, Library), At -Large o City Council Liaison o City Staff Representative Kickoff Letter to invite committee members (Tentatively end of March 2008) Establish meeting times Kickoff Meeting (Tentatively end of April2008) Appoint Chair Planning Refine Mission and Goals Determine Scope of Celebration Length (whole year, month, day, etc.) Determine Budget Establish Subcommittee(s) and Chair(s) Clear definition of scope, resources, responsibilities, and plans o Fundraising- Determine funding sources and methods of soliciting from potential contributors (residents, businesses, acquire sponsors, etc.) o Events- add new, expand current events, ideas, etc. o Marketing /Publicity- logo, advertising, website, merchandise, etc. 3. Implementation Operate Events- Project plan, Event Chair Thank you letters volunteers, sponsors, contributors, etc. 4. Assessment of Celebration and Events Follow up meeting Subcommittee reports Final analysis Celebrate Committee successes A Few Examples of Celebration Events and Activities Coloring contest Time capsule Book reading quilt theme (quilt book coloring contest), collaborative library, schools kids fest Develop historical timeline Historical Society Historical tour- EBHC, other Articles Newspaper photos of past Heritage celebration look at past barbershop quartet, steam engine, car show, silent movies, Victorian high two photograph exhibit Photo Album Plant 100 roses 100 trees for 100 years planting 1 tree celebration w /Arbor Day 100 Reasons Project Giving to our parks donations Named benches ($1,000), Arbor (20x40 $50,000) smaller ones available, paver bricks, etc. Est. costs, prefer low maintenance Host an event Your stories City Hall Open House Boys girls club annual auction dinner Wall mural painting —100 national artists Art on Square existing Community fair Sports and casino event 100 years of religion bells ring across city 60 faith communities celebrate Golf tournament Youth parade happy b -day, goody bag Mayor State of City Address Winterfest Auto show Centennial parade of lights —100 lighted floats Fireworks (est. $12,000- $15, 000) Page 3 of 3 Work Session Agenda Item No. 2 el City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/EDA WORK SESSION DATE: February 21, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City CounciI/EDA FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana SUBJECT: Utility Shut Off Policy COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Staff desires Council direction as it relates to recommended modifications to City Council Policy Section 2.30 sub.5.D.1. This policy currently states that payments are suspended for at least one month if water is shut off at the request of the owner. We have found that this policy is atypical and that it is becoming and increasing cost to the utility department as described in the attached memo. BACKGROUND COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES G: \City Manager \WORKSESSION.MEM.FRM.doe 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 vemorandum Date: 21 February 2008 To: Curt Boganey, City Manager From: Daniel Jordet, Director of Fiscal Support Services Re: Charges for Utility Service After Water Shut Off r Under the current City Council Policy (Code of Policies Section 2.30, sub.5.D.1) it is stated that City bills "for water, sanitary sewer and recycling services will be suspended during periods of at least one month while water is shut off." This raises potential problems for income generation from the water, sanitary sewer and recycling. The water and sanitary sewer services remain connected to the system during a shut off. Though the water is not available sanitary sewer is still connected to the property and continues to function. Both utility services continue to incur the basic costs for providing service readiness to all properties in Brooklyn Center. These costs are necessary to provide and maintain the water and sanitary sewer services regardless of consumption amounts. If water service is shut off to a property, the City continues to incur the base costs of operating the system. These base costs include staff wages and benefits, system repair and maintenance, insurance, and billing expenses as well as the capital replacement charges for the current reconstruction projects throughout the system. These costs are not reduced by lower consumption of water or lower use of sewer services. It would be appropriate to collect at least a minimum charge for having the system available to a property even if water is shut off. The current water minimum charge is 8.75 per quarter, equivalent to 2.92 per month. Staff recommends that this charge continue when water shut off occurs even though water is not used. This will contribute to the basic costs of having the water system available and properly operating. Likewise, the sewer system is available at all times, incurring the same costs for basic service availability. The quarterly charge for sewer is currently 62.60, equivalent to 20.87 per month for a residential property. Because this is a flat charge and not based on consumption, all sewer costs must be included in this rate. If the service is not being used there are some charges that are reduced for operations. Staff recommends that a lower "sewer access charge" amount be charged to properties when water is shut off to cover the costs incurred while the property is still connected to the system. The 2005 rate study done by PCE Engineers suggested, and staff concurs, that a residential sewer access charge of 9.00 per quarter, equivalent to 3.00 per month, would be an appropriate rate. Recycling charges continue to be incurred in full by the City when water is shut off. Recycling services continue to be provided to a property when the water is shut off. The quarterly charge of 7.57, equivalent to 2.52 per month per residence should be continued even if water service is shut off. All residential utility customers are charged a minimum bill, as established by the City's 2008 rates, of 96.35 per quarter, equivalent to 32.12 per month, if there is less than 7,000 gallons of water consumption per quarter (2,333 gallons per month). This includes accounts with no consumption. Under the suggested charges detailed above, the minimum quarterly bill for a service whose water access has been shut off would be 42.75, equivalent to 14.25 per month. This structure would provide funds to continue paying for costs of the water and sewer systems that continue when a service is shut off. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council Code of Policies be amended as detailed on the attached page and that rates for services that have been shut off be adopted within the overall utility rates schedule. Currently: Water Minimum Sewer Minimum Recycling Charge If the City charges nothing for services that are shut off for at least one month, the following revenue is lost: Lost Revenue: Water per quarter Sewer per quarter Recycling per quarter Total per quarter Total per year Proposed: Water Minimum Sewer Minimum Recycling Charge Marginal Revenue Water per quarter Sewer per quarter Recycling per quarter Total per quarter Total per year 8.75 per quarter 62.60 per quarter 7.57 per quarter number of services shut off 48 100 200 420.00 3,004.80 363.36 3,788.16 $15,152.64 8.75 per quarter 9.00 per quarter 7.57 per quarter 420.00 432.00 363.36 875.00 6,260.00 757.00 7,892.00 31, 568.00 875.00 900.00 757.00 1,750.00 $12,520.00 1,514.00 15,784.00 63,136.00 If the City insitiutes the minimum charges suggested in the memorandum, the following marginal revenues would be generated: number of services shut off 48 100 200 1,750.00 1,800.00 1,514.00 1,215.36 2,532.00 5,064.00 4,861.44 $10,128.00 20,256.00 SECTION II GENERAL POLICIES D. For a property owner making a request for the City to shut off water service: 1. The property owner must complete and sign a City form requesting and authorizing the shut -off or an equivalent letter. Billing for water, sanitary sewer, aftd recycling services storm drainage and street light service district will continue. while water is shut off. 2. Once service has been shut off at the owner's request, a restoration of service fee must be paid prior to service being turned on. The restoration of service fees will be established in the adopted rate schedule and will include a fee for restoration during normal business hours and a higher fee for restoration when workers must be called back on overtime. E. Cold Weather Rule for restoration during normal business adopted rate schedule and will include a fee for restoration during normal business hours and a higher fee for restoration when workers must be called back on overtime. The City of Brooklyn Center will not shut off water service between October 15 and April 15 if the shut off would affect the primary heat source of a customer. Customers must contact the utility billing staff and explain how the cold weather rule applies to them. Reference: City Council Resolution Nos. 2000 -55; 98 -180; 97 -86; 96 -212; 93 -13 City Council Code of Policies City of Brooklyn Center 04/09/07 Page 243 Work Session Agenda Item No. 3 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/EDA WORK SESSION DATE: February 21, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag0 SUBJECT: Flashing Signs COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Staff requires direction from the Council as to whether an amendment to our current code of ordinances should be prepared and if so what be the intent of the amendment. BACKGROUND The Council has directed that the staff provide background information regarding the City ordinance that regulates on premise "flashing signs" due to the fact that there seems to be a growth trend toward more message boards being built in the City. The attached memo provides the requested background information. Addition data will be provided at the meeting. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES 022508.flashing lights.worksession.doc 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 Memorandum TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Community Development Director DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: Work Session Discussion on the Sign Ordinance "Flashing Signs" Background Information Prior to Ordinance No. 2003 -7, the City's sign ordinance allowed electronic signs and message boards providing the message remained constant or static, otherwise they were considered a flashing sign, which is not allowed in the city. Section 34- 140 "Prohibited Signs" (4.) "Flashing signs, including indoor signs, which are visible from the public street Definition of Flashing Sign. "Any illuminated sign on which the artificial light or color is not maintained at a constant intensity or color when such sign is in use, except for their portion of a sign providing public information such as time, weather, date, temperature or similar information In June of 2003, the City Council was introduced to a signage issue that the Culver's Restaurant was experiencing with their single line message board. The issue occurred when the 'Flavor of the Week' exceeded the line capacity on their electronic message panel. The example provided was chocolate covered strawberry which required two lines to be displayed. Attached for you reference are copies of the following information which led to changes in the sign ordinance that allowed electronic signs to change their messages at a rate not to exceed two second intervals: June 3, 2003 staff memo which provided background information and recommendation that the ordinance be amended to allow changes to occur at 10 second intervals. June 9, 2003 The City Council minutes reflect a discussion with Culver's that their sign has the capability to revolve sign messages, while most Culver signs use scrolling messages. (Running messages are also not allowed.) June 18, 2003 staff memo which rationalized that a two second time frame would not create a flashing effect. July 28, 2003 City Council minutes and ordinance amendment which defined a dynamic message sign and included them as a permitted sign, providing their message remains constant for at least two seconds when the sign is in use. Section 34 -130. Prohibited Signs Section 34 -140. Permitted Signs Photographs of the Culver's Restaurant sign and the Hansen Brothers Fence sign: The Hansen Brothers Fence sign also incorporated a moving /rotating component which meets the current standards (i.e. less than 150 sq. ft. and the rotation speed doesn't exceed 4 rpm (revolution per minute). Photographs of the other electronic signs within the city will be available at the meeting: Message Panels Walgreen's and CVS Time and Temperature —GM Certified Used Vehicles Product Prices Holiday and Motel 6 Business Sign Atlantis Pool and Spa Recommendation I would suggest that the City Council discuss the following items. 1. Does the two second time internal between changing messages violate the intent of the sign ordinance as it relates to prohibiting flashing signs? 2. Should the ordinance be amended to define the maximum size and relationship to the principal sign of the electronic display /message panel (i.e. ratio to total area)? 3. Should the ordinance continue to allow rotating signs or motion signs as a permitted sign? Should the Council feel there is cause to consider revisions to the ordinance, I would recommend that the items be referred to the staff for review and development of recommendations for changes to the sign ordinance which meet its purpose and intent. MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: June 3, 2003 SUBJECT: Flashing Signs The owners of Culver's have requested the City consider some modification of our sign ordinance They have an electronic message board with a single message line informing people of the time of day, date, temperature and their flavor of the day. Their problem is that on occasion, the flavor of the day can be too long to display on the single line. For example, the flavor last week was chocolate covered strawberry. In order to display that information, the sign would read, "chocolate covered" then change to "strawberry Changing the sign in such a manner is a violation of City Ordinance 43 -130 (4). It would be considered a "flashing sign A flashing sign is defined as Any illuminated sign on which the artificial light or color is not maintained at a constant intensity or color when such sign is in use, except for that portion of a sign providing public information such as time, weather, date, temperature or similar information." The obvious concern, as noted in the "Statement of Purpose" is to limit distractions to motorists. At the time this was written it would seem that the ordinance was aimed at the rapid blinking sign with arrows and etc designed to overwhelm the motorists attention to driving. What the ordinance did not anticipate, nor could it, was the technological advances in signs. The new electronic signs can still do the flashing arrows and pictures that can be distracting but they also can provide infaullation in a short written format. The problem with our ordinance or its gray area is what constitutes flashing. If a sign changes every 10 minutes we would be hard pressed to defend that as a flashing sign. The ordinance does not have a time frame for determining what is a flashing sign. I believe the request from the Culver's owner is reasonable. If the only information provided on their sign was the date, weather, time etc, there would be no regulation as to the duration that information would have to remain before it was changed. In fact I have observed such signs change every 3 to 4 seconds and that is legal. It would be my- recommendations that the City consider amending the sign ordinance to allow a written information change on a sign every 10 seconds. The time frame allows continuity in the message and at the same time is not a visual barrage to the motorist. I believe that Chad Liston from Culver's will be present Monday evening to address the Council with his request. We should also note that MNDOT currently employs such signs to warn motorist of driving conditions. The section regarding firearms and dangerous weapons in the rental ordinance needs to be in conformity with the new Legislation. School District No. 279 will be assessing the risk in vacating an existing storm sewer easement at Garden City Elementary School; and there were no water problems associated with the vacating of an existing storm sewer easement at Garden City Elementary. DISCUSSION OF CITY SIGN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING FLASHING SIGNS City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the City received a request from Culver's asking for the City to consider modifications to the City's Sign Ordinance Mayor Kragness questioned if the sign currently operating at Culver's has the option of revolving messages. Chad Liston from Culver's informed the Council that the sign they currently have can revolve messages; however, most of the Culver's use scrolling messages. It was the consensus of the Council to have staff consider modifications to the City's Sign Ordinance. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Niesen questioned the process that would be used for the rental ordinance item since she believes not all of her questions have been answered. Mr. McCauley discussed that the current rental license holders and the Association for Rental Management (ARM) were notified of the proposed amendments to the rental ordinance and about the meeting this evening to provide public comment. The Council will open the meeting for public comment and make a decision on whether to introduce the proposed ordinance amendments as is or make a motion to modify the ordinance after the public comment process. Council further discussed the Shoreline Grant for Twin Lake Park. Mayor Kragness informed that she is not in favor due to the cutbacks for other parks and the budget issues the City is facing at this time. Councilmember Niesen asked if she could take action on getting a sign in the Council Chambers. She would like something indicating Brooklyn Center during live broadcasts. Mr. McCauley informed the Council that the City's Sign Shop is looking to see if they would be able to prepare a sign with silver letters to cover the wall behind the Council seats. Councilmember Niesen inquired about an e -mail regarding Firehouse Park. Mr. McCauley informed that Lieutenant Kevin Benner was going to have the park monitored to see if they can enforce curfew. 06/09/03 -2- MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: June 18, 2003 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance) At the June 9, 2003 Council work session, staff was directed to draft an amendment to the City's sign ordinance that would allow electronic message boards to change messages/images routinely. Under the current ordinance any change in the message is defined as a flashing sign and is prohibited. Specifically, the current ordinance does not define flashing vs. changing within a specific time frame. For example, an electronic message board that changed once per hour is technically a flashing sign and yet clearly not the intent of the ordinance For background, I have attached my memo to the Council for the meeting on the 9th of June. The ordinance as written permits a sign change, actually a cell change, every 2 seconds. Electronic message boards are made up with a series of cells that are illuminated. Thus you can create a message that travels across the board. My memo recommended every 10 seconds. Since that time, I have had the opportunity to observe various time frames for changing the cells on such message boards. The 2 second time frame is appropriate and most importantly does NOT create a flashing effect. I would recommend that this amendment be approved for a first reading. I believe that a representative from Culvers will be present. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 28 day of July, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 34 relating to sign regulations. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the Deputy City Clerk at 763 -569 -3308 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 34 -110 AND 34 -140 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO SIGN REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City Code Section 34 -110 amended by adding the following definition: Section 34 -110. DEFINITIONS. Sian. dynamic message. A dynamic messaaes sign, "DMS," also known as a changeable messaaes sign, variable messages sign or other similar name, is an electrical or electro mechanical sian on which a message may be placed which can be chanaed remotely or on site through hard wire or wireless communications. Section 2. City Code Section 34 -140, paragraph 1 is amended by adding new paragraph k as follows: Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS. 1. General reauirements and standards for permitted signs. k. A dynamic messaaes sian "DMS," is permitted only in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Districts. A DMS is also subject to the reauirements of Section 34 -140,. subdivision 3.A. of this ordinance. A DMS message must remain constant for at least two seconds when such sian is in use. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publications. Adopted this day of 2003. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Underline indicates new matter; brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Niesen to approve the contract between the City of Brooklyn Center, School District No. 279, and Hennepin County for the use of Brooklyn Center's county -owned election equipment by the School District. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 34 -110 AND 34 -140 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO SIGN REGULATIONS City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that this ordinance amendment would allow electronic message boards to change messages /images no more frequently then two seconds. Under the current ordinance any change in a message is defined as a flashing sign and is prohibited. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -07 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 34 -110 AND 34 -140 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO SIGN REGULATIONS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE SUBMITTED BY FAST CASH CHECK CASHING LLC TO OPERATE A CURRENCY EXCHANGE BUSINESS AT 6050 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE 6078, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION TO DENY ISSUANCE OF A CURRENCY EXCHANGE LICENSE TO FAST CASH CHECK CASHING LLC TO OPERATE A CURRENCY EXCHANGE BUSINESS AT 6060 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE 6078, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 07/28/03 -4- Section 34 -120. NONCONFORMING USES. Any sign legally existing on the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the requirements set forth in this ordinance shall become a nonconforming use. Nonconforming, permanent signs shall be allowed to continue but shall not be rebuilt, materially altered, or relocated without being brought into compliance with the requirements of this ordinance, except that any flashing portion shall be discontinued within 30 days after the effective date of this ordinance. Section 34 -130. PROHIBITED SIGNS. 1. Signs that, by reason of position, shape, or color would interfere with the proper function of a traffic sign or signal. 2. Signs within the public right -of -way or easement, except for government installed signs. 3. Signs that resemble any official marker erected by a governmental agency or that display such words as "Stop" or "Danger 4. Flashing signs including indoor signs which are visible from the public streets. 5. With the exception of searchlights which may be approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35 -800 of the City Ordinances, no rotating beam, beacon or flashing illumination shall be used in connection with any display. 6. Signs or sign structures that obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway or opening intended to provide ingress or egress for any building structure. With reference to commercial and industrial districts, signs painted on the inside glass portion of windows or doors are permitted. 7. Banners, pennants, streamers, balloons, stringers or similar attention attracting devices, unless approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35- 800 or unless authorized by Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2m or 2o of the City Ordinances. 8. Sign posters that are tacked or posted on trees, fences, utility poles or other such supports. 9. Portable signs, except as provided in Section 34 -140, Subdivision 2f unless approved in conjunction with an Administrative Permit as provided in Section 35 -800 of the City Ordinances. 10. Roof signs except as provided in Section 34 -140, Subdivision 3A(1). City of Brooklyn Center 34 03/24/07 11. Off Premises Advertising Signs except as otherwise permitted by Section 34 -140 and Section 35 -800 of the City Ordinances. Signs advertising a business no longer operating on the premises shall be deemed off premises advertising signs and must be abated in accordance with Section 34- 140.1j. 12. Signs painted directly on building walls. 13. All other signs not expressly permitted by this ordinance. 14. Signs painted on a commercial vehicle which is parked at a commercial premises in such a manner as to constitute a static display advertising a business, product or service to the traveling public and which is not making a pickup or delivery or being appropriately stored on the premises. Section 34 -140. PERMITTED SIGNS. 1. General Reauirements and Standards for Permitted Sims City of Brooklyn Center Where a sign is illuminated, the beam of light shall not shine directly upon any part of a residence or into the street. No projecting sign shall: project more than 96 inches out from the wall to which it is attached; extend above the roof line; exceed the area of a freestanding sign which might be permitted according to Table 34 -A of this ordinance. c. Any sign or sign structure which may be, or may hereafter become rotted, unsafe or unsightly shall be repaired or removed by the licensee, owner, or agent of the owner of the property upon which the sign stands upon written notice of City Manager or his agent. d. No part of any permanent freestanding sign shall be closer than 10 feet to the side lot line. e. No part of any sign shall project over or beyond the property line of the property upon which the sign is located. 34 03/24/07 g. J• City of Brooklyn Center Unless set back ten (10) or more feet from the street right -of -way line, the supporting column (s) of a freestanding sign exceeding 16 feet in area shall not materially impede vision between a height of two and one -half (2-1/2) and seven and one -half (7 -1 /2) feet above the centerline grade of the street. Freestanding signs located within the sight triangle defined in Section 35 -560 shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 10 feet above the centerline grade of the intersecting streets. Permitted freestanding signs located in C2, I -1 and I -2 districts may rotate subject to the following conditions: 1. If illuminated, the light source shall be interior and constant in intensity and color. 2. The speed of rotation shall not exceed 4 rpm. 3. The rotating portion of the sign shall not exceed 150 square feet of gross surface area. 4. The rotating portion of the sign shall not be less than 10 feet above centerline grade of the street. h. When electrical signs are installed, their installation shall be subject to the City's electrical code. Wall Signs on office buildings shall be of a uniform design compatible with the exterior appearance of the building. When the occupant of a building or parcel ceases to use the property and abandons the site or building space, all signery associated with the former occupant shall be removed. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to effect the removal of such signery and any support structure. If the owner of the property fails to remove all obsolete signery within 90 days after the former occupant vacates the premises, the City shall be entitled to have such signery removed, either by its own forces or by hire of a licensed sign contractor and the cost of such removal shall be assessed against the property. The owner of the property shall receive written notice of the City's intent to remove obsolete signery at least 30 days prior to the action. k. A dynamic messages sign "DMS," is permitted only in the C2, I -1 and I -2 Districts. A DMS is also subject to the requirements of Section 34 -140, subdivision 3.A. of this ordinance. A DMS message must remain constant for at least two seconds when such sign is in use. 34 03/24/07 n..,- j x ��k� ��F� y t f i I A w r a �s.. K: H r �r' a.. v� :�3, a t f' fs e z �s n a r ''R r p.� �.��r������� z 4 r �y �E ��y 1 t d z� s^ k n b� �S ti S- t S Y r�, ,w M# r+� n 3� �.,F `�2��+. z s Aa�,'�-5` '�^a �r z �,�`'i a a c�� ;ik '���r� �"z�'a t 7 :s i' a� x 'x r�"' "'k �,s`�r� ��e`��� 3 I, ,z�''� �.K� �.`�a s° �"e �e�'�==r� ,�a, z�.�> ka����� �s.� as ���x�,� r .:�s.� a.. di�9 �rk w:$ ��.k ..w �s d.;�. �o vs``�g .:^K�'� I n 4 �f m,"�Fa �•���`�w x�r ��r ��Aa' r �i�,`�A`''" I s., s u�" s h �x`�',; �,��4 f�� �c� I i, S t I �v e s v� v t- �t ar° x r, z s .s� u �k.�� �f�� s z s� �s 3•;b .:T` .e p '.s., '�f� �:�i �.,a ,,w v. 'S„s. �v,�=,�. "-Fr$Y' s€ d 't'�,: s r kT',='. .t��, '�k, u �a a� �Kt i Y r��` T �h�^�'� ��,k s .,�a:.. y ��"k^.;:,f s� r°� '�u .P�� x .�z:., ��I �t f� ,��u k a h ,�,a� 3t�� f a �^�.r'� I �a�� �,��-w� a u -w a r y i. N� '�at a,�,�,,s I 4��? �s�r" w s a �x`;� 4 x �nP�,�.� r t ,s ,y f c+� u: ,s r r� r� s �r,� 'f,� Y a�' .'�3���, t?-�:x�i �.,u a.� 5 s. k Wz, r s; R k V" N'�r �.L�: '�t k k} t�S at,z.� �..1� .ry?.� z g. ,..�.�..,,.4. 94sem 911110 Work Session Agenda Item No. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Community Development Director 4A`G- DATE: February 25, 2008 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update Council Action Required Discussion on proceeding with the preparation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update to fulfill the requirements of the Metropolitan Council' Systems Statement. Background Information: Metropolitan Land Planning Act State law requires that every local government within the seven county metropolitan area shall update their local comprehensive plans in conformance with metropolitan system plans and consistency with the Metropolitan Council polices and compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units. The last plan update occurred in 2000 with the adoption of the City's Comprehensive Plan 2020. The City has received its system statement and text of the 2030 Regional Development Framework in preparation for its next plan update, "Comprehensive Plan 2030 The System Statement recognizes the City of Brooklyn Center as a developed community and indicates that the planning focus of the city should focus on protecting natural resources, ensuring sufficient public infrastructure and developing transition strategies to increase density and encourage infill development. The system statement requires updates in the following elements of the current Comprehensive Plan. Conformation of the Metropolitan Council's 2030 projections for population, household and employment. Identification of transit facilities and park and ride lots within the transportation element. Current sanitary sewer maps and programs and policies to prevent inflow and infiltration from entering into the sanitary sewer system. Local watershed plan and implementation programs and policies consistent with Second Generation Plans of the Watershed Management Organizations. Water supply plan consistent with new Metro guidelines. Identification of regional trail corridors. Process of Retaining a Planning Consultant In May of 2007, A Request for Qualifications was put together by City Staff and distributed to following planning consultants: Loucks and Associates Bonestroo Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Olson Associates In June of 2007, Staff meetings were held with all of the consultants In July of 2007, Proposals were received from two of the consultants Loucks and Associates $65,500 ($5,000 allocated to Opportunity Site review) Olson and Associates $70,644 (and recommend market study $10,000 $18,000) During the months of August and September, 2007 the Community Development Department was in a process of reorganization. In October of 2007, the City retained Loucks and Associates to undertake the Opportunity Conceptual Development Plan to determine the viability and likelihood of successful implementation of the standards and guidelines called out in the Opportunity Site Report. This review was expanded to include the findings and recommendations of the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study prepared for the Opportunity Site and surrounding commercial area. On January 28, 2008 Dave Hagen, Loucks& Associates, presented their report on the Opportunity Site to the City Council. Council Policy Issues: The proposed project scope included in the Loucks proposal provides the following format for public participation: A community open house A public input survey Creation of a web site 3 to 5 planning workshops with City Officials and interested citizens. The plan update builds upon the elements of upon the current 2020 Comprehensive Plan: Executive Summary Community Profile Land Use and Redevelopment Plan Transportation Neighborhood and Housing Plan Parks and Open Space Public Facilities Water Resources Sewer Plan Surface Water Plan Water Supply Implementation And recognizes the additional studies, such as the Calthrope Smart Growth Study and Opportunity Site Reports and achievements by the City over the last 7 years. The 2008 Budget included $50,000 for comprehensive planning from the general fund. The additional $10,000 to cover the plan update can be funded though Tax Increment Financing and Utility Funds. We have had conversations with the consultant on the option of reducing the scope of services to match the budget. This option provided for a reduction in the public participation portion of the plan and could be pursued should that be the desire of the Council? el" City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/EDA WORK SESSION DATE: February 21, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage{ SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED We will present several options to the City Council regarding the process used for updating the City Comprehensive Plan. Each of these options will meet the statutory requirement but the costs and results vary significantly. Staff is seeking direction regarding the best option to pursue. BACKGROUND STAFF WILL PROVIDE A MEMO REGARDING THIS ITEM WITH THE FRIDAY UPDATE YOU RECEIVE FEBRUARY 22. 2008. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES G: \City Manager \WORKSESSION.MEM.FRM.doc 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 Work Session Agenda Item No. 5 or City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/EDA WORK SESSION DATE: February 21, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag SUBJECT: Community Expo April 2008 COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED No Council Action Required COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES G: \City Manager\ WORKSESSION.MEM.FRM.doe 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway y Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org BACKGROUND This item is provided as information only. The subject Open House is being planned by staff as way to inform the community about City and Community activities. The planning for this event is still in process. We wanted to make sure you were apprised of the plan, invite your attendance and consider any suggestions you might have. Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number (763) 569 -3400 FAX (763) 569 -3434 Please join us for the first City -wide Open House Community Expo on Saturday, April 12, 2008, from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm at the Brooklyn Center Community Center, located at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. This is a great opportunity to talk to city employees, learn about city government, and meet friends and neighbors. Event topics will include: Upcoming development Street maintenance projects Fire Prevention Emergency preparedness tips Crime prevention, the PERF study and key crime fighting initiatives Recreation programs and activities Community programs and opportunities And much more Community groups will be available to talk about hidden treasures in Brooklyn Center. Please joint us For Food. Punt and Qreat con yersatiorJl More details coming in the near future. If you or your organization would like to participate, please contact: Becky Boie at (763) 503 -3272 Work Session Agenda Item No. 6 or City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: February 21, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City ManageA SUBJECT: Legislative Issues 2008 COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Staff is seeking direction on legislative issues in 2008. We would like to know if there is specific State or Federal legislation that the Council wishes to take a formal position on. BACKGROUND This item is placed in the agenda to facilitate a discussion on significant legislative issues. You received in your recent weekly update a copy of the legislative policies from the AMM and the LMC (Please bring your copies with you). I have also enclosed with this memo legislative issues from the North Metro Mayors Association. I have also enclosed a draft of the legislation recommended last year related to TIF housing limits. I would suggest that Council members bring any other legislative issues to the meeting that they would like the Council to consider supporting. If the Council elects to take no action regarding official legislative polices of the North Metro Mayors Association, League of Minnesota Cities, or Metro Cities, it is assumed that Council delegates or representatives to these organizations should be free to vote their individual conscience in support or opposition to these proposed policies. If a majority of the Council opposes a specific legislative policy or position, from these organizations consensus direction may be given to the City representative to indicate City opposition or a formal action may be prepared for consideration by the City Council at a regular meeting. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES 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 Attendance Bill Barnhart, Barnhart Consulting Bob Benke, Community Resource Partnerships Elroy Cady, Modem Manufacturing Jim Ericson, Mounds View Tom Gamed, Mayor of Ramsey John Hall, Mayor of Osseo Jim Keinath, Circle Pines Jean Krause, CenterPoint Energy Nancy Lien- Berndt, Modem Manufacturing Kirk McDonald, New Hope Anne Norris, Crystal Becea Pryse, Ewald Consulting Tom Ryan, Mayor of Blaine Linda Seiferth, Wells Fargo Bank Joseph Strauss, NMMA Mark Uglem, Mayor of Champlin Hue Van Lien, Modem Manufacturing North Metro Mayors Association Board of Directors Meeting MEETING MINUTES February 13. 2008 Date Filed: David Bartholomay, Mayor of Circle Pines Joseph Boston, North Memorial Health Care Dan Erhart, Anoka County Mike Gamache, Mayor of Andover Susan Gillis, NMMA Scott Johnson, Xcel Energy Bruce Kimmel, Springsted Incorporated Steve Lampi, Mayor of Brooklyn Park Dave Looby, Visit Minneapolis North Mary Newman, Modem Manufacturing Martin Opem, Mayor of New Hope Doug Reeder, Brooklyn Park Linda Scheid, Minnesota State Senate Mark Steffenson, Mayor of Maple Grove Al Swintek, CenterPoint Energy Kurt Ulrich, Ramsey Greg Withers, Osseo 1) Welcome Introductions Board President Steffenson welcomed all and self introductions were made as there were several new people in attendance. Mayor Steffenson then introduced Mayor Lampi to do the honor of presenting this year's North Metro Business of the Year Award. Mayor Lampi made a brief presentation to Hue Van Lien, the President of Modem Manufacturing and Engineering, the winner of the 2007 North Metro Business of the Year. The company is recognized as being an outstanding example of both an ethical and well managed independently owned and operated business. For over fifty years the company has been providing precision machined components and assemblies for a very wide set of applications. Mr. Lien was awarded a plaque, after which time he made a brief speech thanking the Association for this honor. Pictures were then taken with the previous years' award recipients that were in attendance. The meeting then broke for the dinner meal to take place and was called to order by Mayor Steffenson at 6:35. 2) 2007 Legislative Planning LGA Reform Effort Mr. Strauss referred members to their packets for a handout entitled "Local Government Aide Recommendations NMMA has been heading up the LGA reform effort for the past 2 years as authorized by the Board. We have been working closely with Metro Cities, the Minnesota Association of Small Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, League of Minnesota Cities and others to develop recommendations for modifying the Local Government Aide (LGA) Program. The handout gives a thorough background of the program as well as the work that has taken place over the past two years. Over the past few weeks, NMMA and other LGA Work Group participants have analyzed a proposal put forward by the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities that would eliminate the North Metro Mayors Association Board of Directors Meetina February 13. 2008 Date Filed: existing allocation of funds set aside for Regional Center cities and move those funds to the main LGA distribution formula. The Regional Center allocation would be replaced by a statewide distribution that includes a job to population factor as a surrogate for overburdens related to heavy inflows of workers. After extensive review and discussion, the LGA Work Group participants concluded that, while issues remain, the "JOBS FACTOR" fix (JFF) represents our best chance to achieve a short term correction. There are a number of points agreed to that form the basis of each organizations' support during the 2008 Session and these are disclosed in the handout in full. NMMA notes this is not the "ideal" solution, this is a TEMPORARY fix, and would bring six of our member cities back on the formula. It would also resolve the volatility issue, and a study commission would be put in place and report back additional solutions after a two -year period. During the preceding meeting of the NMMA Operating Committee, Matt Fulton recommended a need for a Summit to address the question "How do we define municipal need This Summit would be a separate event the Work Group would work to organize in the future. Request for motion to authorize President Steffenson to sign off on the letter authorizing NMMA to work with all the other entities on this proposal and go forward on the effort to continue working on further reform. MOTION LAMPI, SECOND OPEM to approve authorizing President Steffenson to sign off on the letter authorizing NMMA to work with all the other entities on this proposal and go forward on the effort to continue working on further reform.. Motion Carried. Transportation Funding Mr. Strauss noted that the Association held a press conference in January to target the general public's attention to the various transportation projects in the North Metro area, and in particular, the completion of TH 610. The Federal funding of $30M for TH 610 may in jeopardy of being lost due to the lack of State matching funds. If this happens, it is unlikely that there will be any additional Federal dollars raised for this project. The press conference went very well and there have been several articles in the press written as a result. There will be new funding bills coming out of both the Senate and the House this session and it is expected the Governor will veto these bills. The larger question is if there are enough votes to over -ride his veto. The fact that these bills are being introduced early in the session may force Administration to sit down and discuss this at length. Member packets included a copy of HF 2800, a Transportation Finance Package, copy of Comments by Mayor Steffenson who testified at the House Transportation Finance Division earlier in the day, as well as a draft resolution requesting comprehensive road and transit funding which spells out in depth the transportation issues NMMA has been pursuing over the past several years. Member cities are highly encouraged to have their Councils adopt a similar resolution and forward these on to NMMA. Request for motion to formally adopt this resolution. MOTION BARTHOLOMAY, SECOND LAMPI to approve NMMA formally adopt the resolution requesting comprehensive road and transit funding. Motion Carried. Group Home Legislation The last NMMA staff had heard, last years' bill to empower cities to deal with concentration of group homes by limiting the location of sad facilities to no more than 1, 320 feet from any other such facility, has had some issues with Constitutional Language contained in the bill. Work is being done on language amendments and we will be watching for updates North Metro Mayors Association Board of Directors Meetina February 13. 2008 Date Filed: 3) 2008 Work Plan The NMMA 2008 Work Plan was distributed in the member packets no comments or suggestions were heard on the Work Plan. 4) Consent Agenda a) January, 2008 Financials Mr. Strauss noted all expenditures to date have been within budget and previously authorized. Request for motion to approve the January, 2008 Financials as presented. MOTION HALL, SECOND OPEM to approve the January, 2008 Financials as presented. Motion Carried. 5) Community Partner Program Update Mr. Strauss noted last year's monetary goal of $50,000 was almost reached, having fallen approx. $2,000 short. The 2008 budget shows a goal of $60,000 which will be a very real challenge. He noted the NMMA very much desires the business community be involved and very active in the Association activities. Their input is extremely desirable, most notably at the Legislature. Members are asked to contact staff if they have any suggestions for additional Community Partner candidates. 6) Other Business With no further business the NMMA Board of Directors was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. U: \NMMA\BOARD\MINUTES\2- 13- 08.doc Andover Anoka Blaine Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Circle Pines �on Rapids Crystal Dayton Lexington Maple Grove Minneapolis Mounds View New Brighton New Hope Oak Grove Osseo Ramsey Spring Lake Park T GC 1 't fl'2 '7 A fl NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION A RESOLUTION REQUESTING COMPREHENSIVE ROAD AND TRANSIT FUNDING WHEREAS, all Minnesota communities benefit from a sound, efficient and adequately funded transportation system that offers diverse modes of travel; and WHEREAS, the integrity of Minnesota's transportation infrastructure is dependent upon long -term planning and ongoing maintenance, both of which require dedicated and sustainable revenue sources; and WHEREAS, Minnesota leaders have not increased dedicated funding levels for roads, bridges and transit systems to keep pace with growing costs and changing needs; and WHEREAS, transportation analysts in consultation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) estimate Minnesota will have to invest an additional $1.5 billion per year in transportation infrastructure for the next ten years in order to meet identified needs on Minnesota's state highways and bridges, county roads, city streets, metro and rural transit systems and local bridges; and WHEREAS, Minnesota's transportation system is failing to meet the capacity needs necessary to sustain population growth and promote economic development; and WHEREAS, congestion, inefficient transportation systems and lack of transportation choices lead to greater dependence on foreign oil, increased environmental degradation, and economic disadvantages for Minnesota's businesses and residents; and WHEREAS, many rural roads are not built to modern safety standards and are not meeting the needs of industries that depend on the ability to transport heavy loads; and WHEREAS, local cost participation requirements for trunk highway and county projects are onerous and are contributing to strains on city budgets; and WHEREAS, transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvement costs significantly contribute to rising property taxes; and WHEREAS, insufficient state funding has delayed regionally significant road construction and reconstruction projects across Minnesota; and WHEREAS, current funding for roads, bridges and transit systems across all government levels in Minnesota is inadequate, and this under- investment diminishes quality of life for Minnesota residents and hinders Minnesota's progress as a national business, economic and civic leader. 1000 Westgate Drive, Suite #252, St. Paul, MN 55114 1'AY KC IN )Ofl 114 Z NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY BOARD OF DIRECORS OF THE NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION that this Association requests that the Minnesota Legislature pass a comprehensive and balanced transportation funding package that permanently increases dedicated funding for transportation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION that this Association requests that Governor Tim Pawlenty allow a comprehensive and balanced transportation funding package that permanently increases dedicated funding for transportation that is passed by the Legislature to become law; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION that this Association requests that a comprehensive and balanced transportation funding package be based upon multiple revenue sources, which may include but not be limited to general obligation and trunk highway bonds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION that this Association supports funding options including, but not limited to, the following: An increase in the gas tax; Indexing of the gas tax, provided there is a limit on how much the tax can be increased for inflation in a given arriount of time; Increases in vehicle registration taxes (a.k.a. license tab fees); Trunk highway bonding, provided the Legislature implements reasonable restrictions on the amount of debt service the state will incur and provided the Legislature appropriates funding to assist with local costs related to projects funded with trunk highway bonds; General obligation bonding for local roads and bridges, particularly for roads of regional significance and to assist with local cost participation requirements pertaining to trunk highway projects; Sales tax exemptions for state and local transportation construction projects; and New local funding tools, such as local option sales tax authority or authority to establish street improvement districts; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION that this Association defines a comprehensive and balanced transportation funding package as an initiative that permanently increases dedicated funding for state and local road and transit systems in Greater Minnesota and the Metropolitan Area. ADOPTED by THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION this day of 2008. Mayor Mark Steffenson, Board President Mayor Mike Gamache, Board Vice President Mayor, City of Maple Grove Mayor, City of Andover NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID RECOMMENDATIONS FEBRUARY 8, 2008 U:\NMMA\2008 Session \LGA \LGA Recs 2.08.08.doc 1 2008 LEGISLATIVE SESSION LGA PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND: The North Metro Mayors Association has been working closely with Metro Cities, the Minnesota Association of Small Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul and others to develop recommendations for modifying the Local Government Aid (LGA) program. Our short range goal has been to make interim changes that would bring many older and fully developed Metro Suburbs back onto the distribution formula. Our long range goal has been to develop a new formula that is simpler, more intuitive and policy based. The current LGA Formula was established in 2003. The 2003 revisions phased out `grandfather' provisions included in previous versions, replaced the 1992 `NEED' formula for large cities, included taconite aid for Range city calculations, limited annual increases and decreases in aids received, and, added a road accident factor as a surrogate for crime overburden. Shortly after enactment, the LGA program appropriation was reduced $122 Million (21%) as part of the solution to the State's budget deficit. A disproportionate share of the LGA cuts affected Metro Area cities (The 2003 changes have been described by knowledgeable Legislative Staff as "a disaster"). A full description of the history and current design of the LGA program and formula can be found on the State of Minnesota web site at httr:1 /www.house.lea. state .mn.us /hrd /issinfo/histloa.htm. The current distribution formula is deficient in several ways, including: Heavy reliance on population estimates and population decline Reliance on 2000 Census data no longer current, Use of traffic accident data that is subject to substantial non reporting inaccuracies, Heavy reliance on pre -1940 housing shares, a surrogate for infrastructure cost overburdens, and, Estimates of adjusted city tax capacity. Initial NMMA efforts in the 2008 Session resulted in a proposal that added a program component that distributed funds to cities based on the quantity of housing built in the post war era (1941 -1970) and the proportion of rental housing. These factors have been found to be significantly correlated with city spending needs in the Metro area. Due to the process and politics of the Session, the proposed `fix' was not incorporated in the Omnibus Tax Bill that was then vetoed by Governor Pawlenty. As a consequence of the veto, LGA program appropriations were not increased and cities throughout the state saw losses and increases of aids due to the volatility created by small changes in relative comparison of the factors for each city. Since the end of the 2007 Session, NMMA representatives have been participating in a Work Group organized by the LMC. We have researched and 2 evaluated numerous issues related to the current formula and to possible revisions or replacements. Included in the debate has been a revenue sharing proposal presented by the City of Fridley. While the Fridley proposal correctly documents flaws in the current formula, the Work Group consensus is that the revenue sharing concept will not be politically successful due to concerns that it reflects a "spend more, get more" calculation that was rejected in 1993 and it requires significant new funding that is not realistically likely to be available in the near future. CURRENT STATUS RECOMMENDATION: Over the past few weeks, NMMA and other LGA Work Group participants have analyzed a proposal put forward by the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities that would eliminate the existing allocation of funds set aside for Regional Center cities and move those funds to the main LGA distribution formula. The Regional Center allocation would be replaced by a statewide distribution that includes a job to population factor as a surrogate for overburdens related to heavy inflows of workers. After extensive review and discussion, the LGA Work Group participants concluded that, while issues remain, the "JOBS FACTOR" fix (JFF) represents our best chance to achieve a short term correction. In reaching this consensus, several points were agreed to that form the basis of each organizations support during the 2008 Session. These points, intended to provide better equity, stability and predictability over the next few years, include the following: a The JFF will be 'locked in' for four years, thus addressing the volatility problem, a $90 Million in additional LGA funds will be requested, representing the inflated value of the $70 million contained in the vetoed Omnibus Tax Bill, The distribution will be "Scaled" if appropriations do not reach the $90 Million, i.e. if only $50 million is appropriated, each city receiving aid would receive 5 /9ths of the original amount, An inflation factor, using the Implicit Price Deflator should be included, As previously agreed, the Taconite Tax offset factor should be removed, Work should begin immediately on a permanent reform of the LGA program with a deadline of January, 2010 set for delivery of recommendations to the Legislature, If significant deviations from the agreed to elements of the JFF evolve through the legislative process, all parties will return to the table to reconsider the issues raised. IMPLICATIONS FOR NMMA CITIES: NMMA representatives recommend that the Association endorse and support implementation of the JFF provisions for the following reasons: It is extremely unlikely that the NMMA would be successful in achieving implementation of our original proposal based on post 1940 housing and rental housing factors in the 2008 Session, Compared to existing LGA outcomes, o 5 of 10 Member Cities not now receiving LGA would get new funds, o 8 of 9 Member Cities now receiving LGA would receive increases funds. Volatility problems will be minimized, Achieving more participation raises the level of support for future increases, Consensus and agreement to work collaboratively during the Session maximizes possibilities of success in the face of anticipated budget deficits. Movement of the Regional Centers funds to the main formula deletes a removes an element in the formula that does not have a statistical basis and acknowledges the NMMA argument that Metro suburbs and Central Cities share common need factors, Commitment to pursue a permanent fix provides an opportunity to more adequately address a principle issue- how should "need" be measured? Attached to this memo is a spreadsheet showing the current and potential LGA distribution to NMMA cities. Collectively, a greater share of future LGA distributions will be directed to Metro area cities, thus starting to reverse the trending flow of funds to Greater Minnesota Cities. 4 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS: "JOB FACTOR FIX (JFF)" PLAN VS. CERT. 2008 LGA $70 Million CITY ANDOVER ANOKA BLAIN BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CHAMPLIN CIRCLE PINES COON RAPIDS CRYSTAL DAYTON LEXINGTON MAPLE GROVE MOUNDS VIEW NEW BRIGHTON NEW HOP OAK GROVE OSSEO RAMSE SPRING LAKE PARK NMMA SUBURB:. TOTAL MINNEAPOLIS NMMA TOT St. Paul CERTIFIED 2008 Vetoed Bill DRAFT JFF JFF LGA CERT. LGA Outcomes (a7 $70 M $70 MILLION 2008 947,030 I 1,092,573 1,567,455 620,425 1,113,243 450,000 1,742,380 424,872 ,144,380; 82,230,891 I 88,375,271 56,781,6441 J 200,000 695,906 I 1,286,614 I 193,389 I 450,000 f 981,683 2,015,064 2,030,808. 480,388 138,203 516,280 I' 200,000 818,107 1,752,037 638,794 1,265,224 1,265,224 364,235 I 364,235 193,389 531,683 288,428 23,343 C:\Documents and Settings\BBenke\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files \OLK2 JFF 2 08.xls 448,215 681,747 I 560,376 440,461 I 440,461 946,567 I 496,989 200,000 I 757,559 61,653 58,078 58,078 6,997,229;, 11,687,458 95,333,687 95,733,805 I 13,502,914 102,330,916 107,421,263. 19,045,992 67,390,881 10,609,237 2/13/2008 S.F. No. 2021, as introduced 85th Legislative Session (2007 -2008) 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to the city of Brooklyn Center; expanding the permitted uses of 1.3 increments of a tax increment financing district; amending Laws 1994, chapter 1.4 587, article 9, section 14, subdivisions 1, 2, 3. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.6 Section 1. Laws 1994, chapter 587, article 9, section 14, subdivision 1, is amended to 1.7 read: 1.8 Subdivision 1. Establishment. The city of Brooklyn Center may establish arr 1.9 a redevelopment tax increment financing district in which 15 percent of the revenues 1.10 generated from tax increment in any year is deposited in the housing and environmental 1.11 remediation development account of the authority and expended according to the tax 1.12 increment financing plan. 1.13 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. 1.14 Sec. 2. Laws 1994, chapter 587, article 9, section 14, subdivision 2, is amended to read: 1.15 Subd. 2. Eligible activities. The authority must identify in the plan the housing 1.16 activities that will be assisted by the housing and environmental remediation development 1.17 account. Housing activities may include rehabilitation, acquisition, construction, 1.18 demolition, and financing of new or existing single family or multifamily housing. 1.19 Housing and environmental remediation activities listed in the plan need not be located 1.20 within the district or project area but must be activities that meet the income requirements 1.21 of a 1 ualificd housing district under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.1399 ui 469.1761; 1.22 These housing and environmental remediation activities are an activity Sec. 2. 1 S.F. No. 2021, as introduced 85th Legislative Session (2007 -2008) 2.1 within the district for nurnoses of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 2.2 469.1763, subdivision 2, naragranh (al, only. 2.3 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. 2.4 Sec. 3. Laws 1994, chapter 587, article 9, section 14, subdivision 3, is amended to read: 2.5 Subd. 3. Housing account. Tax increment to be expended for housing and 2.6 environmental remediation activities under this section must be segregated by the 2.7 authority into a special account on its official books and records. The account may also 2.8 receive funds from other public and private sources. 2.9 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 3. 2 S.F. No. 2022, as introduced 85th Legislative Session (2007 -2008) 1. A bill for an act 1.2 relating to the city of Brooklyn Center; expanding the permitted uses of 1.3 increments of a tax increment financing district; amending Laws 1994, chapter 1.4 587, article 9, section 14, subdivision 2. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.6 Section 1. Laws 1994, chapter 587, article 9, section 14, subdivision 2, is amended to 1.7 read: 1.8 Subd. 2. Eligible activities. The authority must identify in the plan the housing 1.9 activities that will be assisted by the housing development account. Housing activities 1.10 may include rehabilitation, acquisition, construction, demolition, and financing of new or 1.11 existing single family or multifamily housing. Housing activities listed in the plan need 1.12 not be located within the district or project area but must be activities that meet the income 1.13 requirements under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.1399 .,r 1.14 469.1761, subdiv ;s;,,n 2. 1.15 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day followine final enactment. Section 1. 1 Work Session Agenda Item No. 7 or City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM COUNCIL/EDA WORK SESSION DATE: February 22, 2008 TO: Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana SUBJECT: City Manager Salary COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED I have attached the most current salary data for City Managers working in the 10 "comparable cities" used in establishing Council salaries per City Council Policy. I trust that this information will assist in you discussion regarding the 2008 City Manger Salary. BACKGROUND COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES G: \City Manager \WORKSESSION.MEM.FRM.doc 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 City City Manager /Administratio ompensation Comparison For Year 2008 to Total 2008 Annual Compensation Yrs. of Def. Extra Total Trans. Transportation Pop. Exp. Salary Comp. Comp. Comp. Allow. Allowance Current Total City Manager Experience Brooklyn Center 29,005 1/28 119,000 119,000 Fridley 26,603 20 32 120,749 10,832 785 (b) 132,366 3,898 136,264 Shoreview 26,093 14 24 126,609 126,609 4,500 131,109 Crystal 22,306 8 12 118,000 118,000 6,000 124,000 New Hope 20,904 1 101,920 101,920 101,920 previous 118,608 3,750 3,000 (b) 125,358 125,358 Golden Valley 20,355 6 25 123,479 7,874 (b) 131,353 6,144 137,497 White Bear Lake 24,723 24 33 113,200 6,240 5,274 (a) 124,714 3,900 128,614 Roseville 34,080 1/30 123,802 8,047 123,802 123,802 (in lieu of PERA) Richfield 34,496 3/0 121,181 3,500 6,347 (b) 131,028 5,400 136,428 (a)= Performance pay (b)= Insurance adjustment