Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.24 CCM STUDY11/24/25 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 24, 2025 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor April Graves at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor April Graves, Councilmembers Teneshia Kagness, Dan Jerzak, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Laurie Ann Moore. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh, and City Attorney Siobhan Tolar. Mayor Graves moved and Councilmember Kragness seconded to continue a Closed Meeting discussion on December 15. Motion passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS CITY MANAGER MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION ITEMS Dr. Edwards noted that, due to the Thanksgiving holiday, there would be no weekly newsletter this week. Dr. Edwards also explained that there would be a change to the agenda item regarding the bond sale. He stated that he had a memo from Finance Director Angela regarding the bond sale that occurred that day. He read the City Council's policy section 2, 11, which addresses setting interest rates for special assessments against private property. The goal is not to unfairly burden the property owner, but to recover the cost of borrowing from outside sources. This would also recover the cost of administering the special assessments and protecting the City from the possibility of special assessment pre-payments that might impair the City’s ability to service both bonds. He noted that a few items under the Consent Agenda relate to bond sale interest. He said the rate is calculated by adding two percent of the interest rates on the most recent General obligation bonds issued by the City. The resolution sets the rates for 2026 special assessments at 6.6 percent on the Consent Agenda and is based on the previous bond with an interest rate of 4.6 percent. He said the City issued a General obligation bond today, November 24, 2025, with a net interest cost of 3.15 percent, which is lower than anticipated. He said the Staff are proposing, with the Council's approval, to modify the resolution to include the updated net interest costs, setting 11/24/25 -2- DRAFT the rate at 5.15 percent instead of 6.6 percent. This amendment would lower the interest paid by property owners in 2026 for special assessments. Mayor Graves asked if the Council would be required to amend the motion with the memo information that Dr. Edwards just provided. Dr. Edwards clarified that a motion would need to be made with proposed adjustments, authorizing the Staff to make changes. Councilmember Moore asked if this was based on the majority vote where the Council assessed $201,000 to property owners, or if this was something separate. Dr. Edwards said this is a separate issue, and every year, interest rates have to be established based on a formula that is two percent of the last bond, and this amendment to the resolution would lower the bond rate. Councilmember Moore asked about the interest rate under which the $201,000 was approved for citizens' taxes next year. Dr. Edwards asked if Councilmember Moore was referencing the bond sale or the utility rates. Councilmember Moore said she was referencing utility rates. Dr. Edwards said it depends on which utility rate she is referencing because they are not all the same. Councilmember Moore said that this is difficult to understand, and she is unsure whether residents will understand it either, so she wants some clarity. She asked if the assessments on the property taxes that were approved would be at 5.15 percent. Dr. Edwards explained that this resolution has nothing to do with the special assessments Councilmember Moore is referring to, and is in regard to the interest rates when the City issues bonds, and residents will pay less. Councilmember Moore said special assessments have been part of the conversation, too, so it is confusing. Mayor Graves said, hopefully, there will be a presentation on this item at a later date. Dr. Edwards said this resolution is on the Consent Agenda, so the only discussion that they will be having is regarding the rates, which have already been discussed. Councilmember Kragness thanked the Staff for being transparent and lowering the rate, which will cost taxpayers less. Councilmember Jerzak said, for clarity purposes, he wanted to give the example of street improvements needed in a neighborhood, and the City has to assess a resident's property after those improvements; there is always the option to prepay that assessed value and not incur any interest. He noted that the assessments for citations have nothing to do with this discussion, and this is about passing on the City's costs for borrowing money to fund projects such as street improvements in a neighborhood. Dr. Edwards confirmed that Councilmember Jerzak is correct with his example. Mayor Graves said the Consent Agenda item referenced in this discussion is item 6e. Resolution Establishing Interest Rate For 2026 Special Assessments. 11/24/25 -3- DRAFT CONCEPT REVIEW (PLANNING AND ZONING): 5840 LILAC DRIVE NORTH Dr. Edwards noted that the zoning application process has been heavily discussed in previous meetings, as well as concept reviews, and introduced City Planning Manager Ginny McIntosh to discuss the concept review. Ms. McIntosh noted the property up for discussion tonight is 5840 Lilac Drive North, and to the north of this property is Brooklyn Center Elementary, and to the south is the Lilacs Apartments, which is zoned R5. The subject property is also zoned R5, which is for multiple-family residence or high-density housing. The subject property has been in existence since 1954, and it previously served as a medical clinic and a variety of different church uses. The property was recently sold in August 2025. Ms. McIntosh explained some of the history of the subject property. She noted that Susan Obwaya (property owner) of Fortunate Homes LLC purchased the subject property in August 2025. The property owner met with City Staff prior to the purchase and indicated an interest in maintaining the church use, as well as converting the building to a DHS Recuperative Care facility registration, or a long-term care facility, such as Assisted Living, or potentially co-locating more than one use of the property. City Staff advised the property owner at that time what uses were permitted in the zoning district where the subject property is located, and as the existing church is considered "non- conforming," it would need to continue to operate as a church, or the use would no longer be permitted. Ms. McIntosh noted that in September 2025, City Staff were contacted by the RISE Collaborative Department, which said they were working as the property owner’s representative and had an interest in accommodating a 30 to 50-bed Transitional Care/DHS Recuperative Care facility. Further discussions with the property owner indicated her preference for establishing a Transitional Care Unit (TCU) with an integrated dialysis department or, as an alternative consideration, a DHS Recuperative Care facility or a mixed-use model. Ms. McIntosh continued that the most recent project information provided indicates the subject property would be used as a potential MDH Assisted Living, or similar facility, such as DHS Recuperative Care, with plans to take the existing building down to the foundation and construct a two-story facility with 21 separate living units, a common space, and a kitchenette located on each floor. The plans identify an outdoor amenity space with a pergola and patio facing Knox Avenue North, which is zoned as a single-family R1 District. Ms. McIntosh noted that the property owner was hoping to gain clearer direction from the City Council and a feel for what Brooklyn Center needs or wants for this type of facility, and if the Council would find her proposed use of the subject property acceptable before preparing a full architectural plan and navigating the Planning Commission process. Ms. McIntosh showed the Council the submitted high-level concept plans that reflect the 21-unit layout as a two-story building and the parking lot. She noted that the concept review process is an opportunity for the Council to review a development concept prior to a formal planning 11/24/25 -4- DRAFT commission proposal from an applicant and to provide comments, ask questions, and indicate whether or not the Council would generally be open to the project. She continued that concept reviews are non-binding but do provide insight to city staff and the applicant as to the city Council's level of interest in a project. She said that no matter the feedback provided by the Council, it is within the applicant's rights to submit a Planning Commission application and proceed with the process if they so choose. Ms. McIntosh noted that the subject property is located on 0.74 acres and sits on multiple street frontages, including Logan Avenue North, 59th Avenue North, and Knox Avenue North. The subject property is adjacent to the Lilac Apartments, which are zoned R1 and Highway 100. Ms. McIntosh said she would briefly summarize two potential uses that have been proposed for the subject property. The DHS Recuperative Care facility would provide support for people experiencing homelessness to prevent hospitalization or provide medical care and support services when they are unable to recover from a physical illness while living in a shelter or otherwise unhoused. The typical stay is up to 21 days in this type of facility; however, providers can request up to 60 days. This type of use typically supports basic nursing care, wound care, medication support, patient education, housing support, food, transportation, and access to other services like primary care and behavioral health. This type of facility would require 24-hour access to a bed, bathroom with a shower, sink, and toilet, and access to three meals per day, which may be delivered. This type of facility also requires access to cleaning services, a telephone, a secure place to store belongings, and one staff member at the facility at all times. Facility staff must also provide in-person wellness checks a minimum of once every 24 hours. Services provided at this type of facility must be supervised by an advanced practice provider such as a nurse practitioner, a clinical nurse specialist, a physician, or a physician assistant. She noted that Recuperative Care can take place in a variety of settings, including a homeless shelter, single room occupancy units, or other supportive housing like congregate care settings, but must meet zoning requirements. Ms. McIntosh explained the MDH Assisted Living facility requirements for the subject property, should the property owner choose to license the facility as such. She noted that numerous changes to Assisted Living facility license categories have taken place over the past few years. There are two main categories under MN Statutes 144G, one being Assisted Living, and the other being Assisted Living with Dementia Care. The facility must provide housing, meals, and a range of personal care services for older adults and people with disabilities, such as bathing, dressing, housekeeping, medication management, and transportation. Assisted Living facilities may be staffed by licensed health professionals or unlicensed personnel with proper training. The facility must employ an Assisted Living Director licensed by the Minnesota Board of Executives for Long Term Services and Support. Some Assisted Living facilities service DHS Customized Living service clients, which are funded by Elderly Waiver, Brain Injury Waiver, and Community Access for Disability Inclusion (CADI). As of November 18, 2025, 130 of Hennepin County's 978 Assisted Living facilities are located in Brooklyn Center. Due to recent changes in Assisted Living licensures, a facility with six or fewer occupants can be considered Assisted Living, and includes Maranatha, Sanctuary, and Acumen because they are all in one category now. 11/24/25 -5- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh noted that both uses would be considered "conditional uses" in the R5 zoning district and would need to meet all criteria under Section 35-7700 of the City code and receive site and building plan approvals through the Planning Commission application process. She said that in the City, "group homes" or "congregate care facilities" which include MDH Assisted Living and DHS Community residential settings, generate an average of 25.79 calls for emergency services versus 3.39 calls for non-facilities. Ms. McIntosh said that City Staff conducted a high-level review of the submitted plans, which are subject to change. She noted that City Staff will need to survey to verify building setbacks, as it appears the existing building may meet the minimum setback requirement of 35 feet for primary- secondary frontages. If the property does not meet the minimum setback requirement, City Staff will need to review it against non-conformity provisions. She said that the property owner should consider relocation of exterior amenity spaces depending on the size of the facility and proposed programming, as the amenity spaces face R1 single-family properties along Knox Avenue North. She stated that City Staff does not have enough information with respect to beds and staffing to determine parking needs. The existing property provides 18 parking spaces along Logan Avenue North and a designated drop-off along Knox Avenue North. She noted that the submitted plans show 16 parking spaces along Logan and the removal of the drop-off area. Ms. McIntosh said the property owner should take into consideration any needs for a designated delivery or drop-off area, as well as space for a medical van and emergency personnel, as parking space is limited and one- way. Ms. McIntosh stated that the existing parking lot at the subject property does not meet current requirements for surfacing, drainage, and curbing under Section 35-5507. She noted that, given the age of the site improvements, the property owner may need to meet certain minimum SWPPP requirements with the Watershed Commission. She noted that the proposed building materials would need to be revised to meet City requirements, and the property owner would need to provide full lighting and landscape plans. Ms. McIntosh explained that most planning and zoning concept reviews have a direct ask; however, the Property Owner is asking the Council for direction with respect to community needs for certain facility types licensed or registered with MDH and DHS. She noted that, despite limited information being provided, she would like to know if the Council has any concerns with respect to the proposed MDH Assisted Living licensure and DHS Recuperative Care facility registration that the Property Owner should take into consideration. She reminded the Council that both uses would need to meet all criteria for conditional uses, including ensuring use is not injurious to the use or other property in the vicinity or diminishing to property values in the neighborhood. The subject property must also provide adequate measures for ingress and egress windows, and parking to minimize congestion while addressing noise, hours of activity, and exterior lighting. She noted that with conditional uses, the Council cannot attempt to manage a business or go too far with conditioners placed on its use. She said in the case of Recuperative Care facilities, housing options may be presented, but a person staying in a Recuperative Care facility is not required to find new housing and can remain in the facility and choose to be discharged without housing. She asked if there are any aspects of the site layout, architecture, or form of the presented plan that are 11/24/25 -6- DRAFT concerning to the Council. She stated that there is representation of the Property Owner in the audience, if the Council wishes to address them directly. Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. McIntosh for the presentation and noted that the saturation of six or fewer group homes known as Assisted Living facilities has been a source of concern and complaints for residents. She asked why these facilities are not b eing spread out throughout Hennepin County and are focused in both Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. She said that over the last three years, Brooklyn Center has had the highest number of resident complaints about the health and welfare of people wandering the streets around these facilities, along with a very serious incident and the death of a member who lived in a facility north of the East Fire Station. She said she would not be in favor of this particular use of this property, especially with the additional concerns around the Police and Fire Department's access to the property. She continued that individuals who could stay for 30 to 60 days or even long-term, and there is a high saturation of these facilities in the City, which puts more strain on the Police Department. Councilmember Kragness thanked Ms. McIntosh for her presentation and stated that she wanted to be sure that the decision is not based on what the Council would like at that location, but what is allowed to be there due to zoning. Ms. McIntosh said that, based on her review, either facility would be considered a "conditional use" at the subject property. She noted that, from a zoning perspective, she said concerns about negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, traffic and noise concerns, hours of operation, and consistency with a comprehensive plan in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would all be aspects to consider and review. She noted that with Recuperative Care, the City could not require residents of the facility to acquire housing when discharged, as part of a conditional use permit, since that is not related to a zoning item. Councilmember Kragness stated that if it were decided that a facility would create a negative impact on the neighborhood, the Council would have to clearly articulate how it would negatively impact the neighborhood, not just state that the other residents do not want a facility there. Ms. McIntosh said the Planning Commission and the Council have to look at a facility holistically and determine what the potential negative impacts could be with fact-based data. Ms. McIntosh noted that if there is a history with Assisted Living and Congregate Care facilities being problematic in neighborhoods, then that would be something that could be brought forward to justify a decision. Councilmember Jerzak thanked Ms. McIntosh for her presentation and stated that at this point, he does not have enough information to decide regarding the property. He said he knows Ms. McIntosh would like the Council to tip one way or another, but he is skeptical, and Public Hearings would flush out what the neighborhood thinks, despite that not being reason enough to deny the subject property's use. He stated he would also like to hear from the Elementary school since it would be very close to the subject property. He noted that the Council would not have any legal reasons to deny the subject property’s use as either type of facility, but asked if it would fit in the neighborhood. He said that the needs of the subject property are not for the Council to decide, and the Property Owner has to determine the need based on their business plan. He said he is open, 11/24/25 -7- DRAFT but skeptical because Recuperative Care is a fairly new concept, and there is not a lot of data for the Council to look at. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson said she is not thrilled with the idea of either type of facility at the subject property due to the extreme number of emergency calls for emergency services at these types of facilities, with an average of 25.79 calls versus three calls for non-group homes. She said she is concerned about over-taxing the Police Department with another facility, which is already over-taxed. Mayor Graves said that Ms. McIntosh has now heard from the majority of the Council and will move on to the Regular Session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Graves adjourned the Study Session at 6:59 p.m.