Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 05-23 CCP Regular Session Public Copy AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION May 23, 2005 6:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Adjourn to Closed Session in All America Conference Room to Discuss Litigation with Attorney John Baker Regarding Lawsuit Against the Economic Development Authority: Concerned Citizens for Responsible Growth in Brooklyn Center, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority 2. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 3. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Miscellaneous 5. Adjourn City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Nies nd f3'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: May 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Concerned Citizens for Responsible Growth in Brooklyn Center, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority A closed meeting regarding litigation is set at the be- inning of the Study Session with the attorney representing the Economic Development Authority (EDA) in the lawsuit brought against the EDA regarding the hotel development adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center May 23, 2005 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. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. 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 Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. May 9, 2005 Study Session 2. May 9, 2005 Executive Session 3. May 9, 2005 Regular Session 4. May 9, 2005 Work Session 5. May 16, 2005 Board of Appeal and Equalization 6. May 16, 2005 Joint Work Session with Financial Commission b. Licenses C. Approval of Performance Guarantee Release for Arby's, 5444 Brooklyn Boulevard CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 23, 2005 8. Planning Commission Items a. CBR Development, LLC 1. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -008 Submitted by CBR Development, LLC. Request for Preliminary Plat Approval to Divide the Lot at 3955 69`' Avenue North into Eight Lots and an Outlot for a Townhouse Development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 12, 2005, meeting. -Requested Council Action: Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -008 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 Submitted by CBR Development, LLC. Request for Site and Building Plan Approval for an Eight Unit Townhouse Development on the Lot Currently Addressed 3955 69"' Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 12, 2005, meeting. -Requested Council Action: Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement Between the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County for Participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2006 -2008 -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Expressing Intent of the Brooklyn Center City Council with Respect to Funding for Watershed Commission Capital Improvements Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. C. Resolution Approving a Development Agreement/Business Subsidy Between the Economic Development Authority and Brooklyn Hotel Partners LLC -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. d. Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing on a Proposal for Financing Elderly Housing and Health Care Facilities with Tax Exempt Bonds and Authorizing Publication of a Notice of the Hearing Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 23, 2005 e. Resolution Approving Final Plat, METROPOLITAN TRANSIT ADDITION -Requested Council Action: Motion to adopt resolution. f. Establishment of a Locomotive Horn Quiet Zone 1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Providing for the Regulation of Railroad Locomotive Horns in the City 2. Resolution Authorizing Issuance of a Notice of Intent to Establish a Locomotive Horn Quiet Zone -Requested Council Action: Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and public hearing on July 25, 2005. Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 7a 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 MAY 9, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. ADJOURN TO CLOSED MEETING IN ALL AMERICA CONFERENCE ROOM AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WITH ATTORNEY MARK MANDERSCHEID TO DISCUSS LITIGATION: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. HMONG AMERICAN SHOPPING CENTER, LLC. ET AL. HENNEPIN COUNTY COURT FILE NO. CD -2743 A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adj ourn the Study Session to a closed meeting. Motion passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS No items were discussed. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM AS TIME PERMITS No items were discussed. MISCELLANEOUS No items were discussed. City Clerk Mayor 05/09/05 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EXECUTIVE SESSION MAY 9, 2005 ALL AMERICA CONFERENCE ROOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Executive Session and was called to order by President Myrna Kragness at 6:05 p.m. ROLL CALL President Myrna Kragness and Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present: City Manager Michael McCauley and Community Development Director Brad Hoffman. The EDA discussed litigation regarding Economic Development Authority v. Hmong- American Shopping Center, LLC. Et al. Hennepin County Court File No. CD -2743 with Mark Manderscheid, the attorney representing the EDA. ADJOURNMENT The Commission adjourned the Executive Session at 6:47 p.m. President 05/09/05 -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 REGULAR SESSION MAY 9, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Council met in Informal Open Forum at 6:48 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager /Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Will Dahn, 5733 Knox Avenue North, addressed the Council to discuss his concern regarding the number of vehicles being parked on residential properties. He requested that the Council consider amending City Ordinance Chapter 35, Sections 35 -310 and 35 -311, to limit the number of vehicles and not to exceed six vehicles in the R1 district and four vehicles in the R2 district. He asked that if no amendment is made that Chapter 35, Section 35 -711 be fully enforced. Mr. Dahn informed that he had prepared amendments that he would like to have incorporated to Chapter 35. Councilmember Carmody discussed that the Housing Commission has dealt with this issue and it has been a concern for many years; and suggested having the Housing Commission review the amendments that Mr. Dahn prepared. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she disagrees with limiting the number of vehicles on residential properties. Mayor Kragness asked that Mr. Dahn leave copies of his requested amendments. The Informal Open Forum adjourned at 6:59 p.m. 2. INVOCATION A moment of silence was observed. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:01 p.m. 05/09/05 -1- DRAFT I 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Director of Public Works /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Groundbreaking Event for School District No. 279's Adult Education Building on April 28, 2005; the Dedication of Baseball Fields in Brooklyn Center to Doug Darnell on April 30, 2005; and the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast on May 7, 2005. Mayor Kragness reported that she attended the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast on May 7, 2005. She informed that there are openings on the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission; and that she had received a letter from the Metropolitan Council with regards to their budget cuts and the delay on routes. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Niesen asked that Consent item 7e, Resolution Approving Second Contract Addendum for Driveway Apron Repair and Replacement, Improvement Project Nos. 2000 -0I, 02, and 03 and 2000 -19, Contract 2000 -13, Garden City Central Street, Storm Drainage, Utility Improvements, and Alley Reconstruction, be removed to Council Consideration. Councilmember O'Connor asked that Consent Items 7c, Resolution Establishing a Public Hearing Date of July 11, 2005, for Consideration of the City's Well Head Protection Plan, and 7d, Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No. 2004 -14, Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive Street, and Utility Improvements, be removed to Council Consideration. There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the amended agenda and consent agenda with the removal of Consent Items 7c, 7d, and 7e, to Council Consideration Items as 9g, 9h, and 9i. Motion passed unanimously. i 05/09/05 -2- DRAFT 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the April 25, 2005, Study and Regular Session minutes and the May 2, 2005, Board of Appeal and Equalization minutes. Councilmember Carmody abstained from the vote. Motion passed. 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL Louis Degidio, Inc. 21033 Heron Way, Lakeville Ron's Mechanical 12010 Old Brick Yard Road, Shakopee St. Paul Plumbing Heating 640 Grand Avenue, St. Paul MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Ford 2500 County Road 10 R.L. Brookdale Motors 6801 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL Renewal: 3 501 47 Avenue North (11 Units) Richard Grommes 3513 47 Avenue North (11 Units) Richard Grommes 6018 Admiral Lane (Single Family) Lutheran Social Service 501 Bellvue Lane (Single Family) Brett Hildreth 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue North (4 Units) Nhia Her Initial 3813 62 Avenue North (Single Family) John Maclin 1607 Irving Lane North (Single Family) Eugene Sesonga 5547 Lyndale Avenue North (Four Units) Brett Hildreth 5559 Lyndale Avenue North (Single Family) Brett Hildreth 5601 Lyndale Avenue North (Four Units) Brett Hildreth 5344 Twin Lake Blvd. East (Single Family) Takasi Sibuya SIGN HANGER Fish and Labeau Signs, Inc. 3320 Winpark Drive, Crystal Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2005, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S WELL HEAD PROTECTION PLAN 05/09/05 -3- DRAFT This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed as Council Consideration Item 9g. 7d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed as Council Consideration Item 9h. 7e. RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY APRON REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000 -01, 02, AND 03 AND 2000 -19, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION This item was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed as Council Consideration Item 9i. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 8a. PUBLIC HEARING ON 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 1. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 2. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS i City Manager Michael McCauley discussed this project was one petitioned by Cass Screw Machine and that the Council could proceed with the public hearings at this time. Both public hearings have completed the legal requirements for publication. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to re -open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. i 05/09/05 -4- DRAFT i RESOLUTION NO. 2005-72 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 48' AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-73 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR 48 AVENUE NORTH STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. UNITY PLACE PROJECT 1. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2005 (UNITY PLACE PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO Mr. McCauley discussed that Community Housing Development Corporation which owns Unity Place is proposing to refinance its existing debt and with that refinancing fund roughly $710,000 of capital improvements. The Unity Place bonds would not be an obligation of the City of Brooklyn Center and is a mechanism that allows them to reduce their overall cost of borrowing which then allows them to run the housing that they are running. Community Development Director Brad Hoffman noted that prior to Community Housing Development Corporation taking ownership of this complex it was a troubled complex and has now been operated and maintained in a fashion where it is a non -issue of housing. Councilmember O'Connor asked why they need to borrow $5.7 Million to do a $710,000 renovation. Mr. McCauley discussed they currently have outstanding debt and this would be similar to a home refinancing where their new interest will be at a lower rate. 05/09/05 -5- DRAFT Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City covered their last loan and if they are making proper payments on the current loan. Mr. McCauley responded that the City had covered their last loan and that they are making proper payments. She inquired how much they still owe and how many years are left on the loan. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes it is roughly $5 Million; and Councilmember Carmody suggested opening the public hearing to have the representative from Community Housing Development Corporation discuss this issue. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Janet Pope, Community Housing Development Corporation, addressed the Council and discussed that the current bonds would be due in 2020 and that they are going to amortize them over seventeen years. Ms. Pope discussed with the interest rate dropping they were able to lock with a lower interest rate and will be able to secure funds to do some rehabilitation and lower their annual debt payments to help secure the property for the long term. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the interest would have to be paid if they pay off the debt early. Ms. Pope discussed that there would be prepayment penalties; however, it is worth it for them to do this since they will be able to secure money for rehabilitation. Councilmember O'Connor asked if it would not be better to just borrow $710,000 to do the renovation and not redo the loan. Ms. Pope informed that they had analyzed that but since they are able to lower the annual debt payments with the refinance they are getting two benefits, the $710,000 to do the rehabilitation and lowering their annual debt payment. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City would have to pay if they default on the loan payment. Mr. McCauley discussed the City would not have to pay and that the bonds are not the City's obligation. If they default then the lender would look only to the Community Development Housing Corporation and the pledge of the property as security. The documents clearly indicate that the only obligation of the City is to pay whatever it is that comes from Unity Place in payments to the bond holders. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the reduction is in interest rates. Ms. Pope discussed that it is about .65 percent and is going from 5.9 percent to 5.25 percent. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she does not like the City getting involved when she believes this organization could take care of itself. Mayor Kragness discussed that the City has done this with other entities and this allows them to get better interest rates with no obligation to the City. 05/09/05 -6- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen asked if there is any administrative cost to the City. Mr. McCauley discussed they pay the City and that under the Federal Tax Policy it allows this type of low income housing access to tax exempt financing rates. She inquired if the City did not go this route and help them if they would be looking at a higher interest rate as a private entity. Mr. McCauley discussed they would be paying taxable interest rates which could easily be two points higher. Councilmember Lasman wished to point out that this improves the housing in that neighborhood with no financial obligation to the City and believes it is positive for the City. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -74 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2005 (UNITY PLACE PROJECT) AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING THERETO The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Councilmember Carmody discussed that before Community Housing Development Corporation took over Unity Place it was expensive to the City because of the crime rate and since then the crime rate has dropped dramatically. She believes this would be an excellent use for them and that it is wonderful that they are doing the rehabilitation. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 8c. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT Mr. McCauley discussed for sometime it has been a goal to put a hotel on the property adjacent to the Earle Brown Heritage Center which is located in the C 1 A district. When the City previously looked at this it was assumed that a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to deal with the issue of a hotel use in the C 1 A would be used since it was not a permitted use. The Planning Commission in reviewing this has recommended a different tact which would be to make hotel /motel types of uses an outright permitted use in the C 1 A district. A motion by Councilmember Niesen, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. 05/09/05 -7- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember O'Connor asked what the current zoning was for hotels and what else is allowed under that zone. Mr. McCauley discussed C2 and Planning Zoning Specialist Ron Warren added that C2 zoning district is a general commerce zoning district that allows a variety of retail, restaurants, commercial uses and all uses allowed in a C 1 zone, and a variety of special uses such as automobile dealerships, motor vehicle repair, gas stations, convenience food restaurants, etc. Councilmember O'Connor questioned what the purpose is of having C2 and CIA with one being service office and one being commercial. Mr. Warren discussed that generally the C 1 and the C 1 A districts are the same with respect to allowable uses. With the C 1 A allowing all uses in the C 1 district expect there is no height limit on structures located in the C 1 A district. The C 1 and C 1 A districts are considered a less intense commercial zoning district than a C2 district. The rationale behind the recommendation is related to height, bulk, and density of the buildings. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification regarding the area of the proposed hotel. Mr. Warren discussed that the C 1A area shown with the report shows all of the property that was zoned C 1 A in the City. She expressed that her concern was with blocking the sun and would not want to approve this if there would have been a lot of areas zoned where building a high -rise would potentially block people's sun rights. Mr. Warren discussed that on this particular site, the sun could be blocked whether it is an office building or a hotel because they are both going to have the potential of being over three stories. Councilmember O'Connor asked how the lawsuit was coming. Mr. McCauley informed that there is a hearing on Wednesday. If the Council wanted to be advised with respect to the litigation, the Council could request that the attorney representing the Economic Development Authority (EDA) in the litigation schedule a closed session to discuss that litigation for an update. Councilrriember Niesen discussed that she believes this hotel proposal was considered for approval by the Council as a PUD and that zoning at that point was not an issue. Councilmember Lasman discussed that in the materials it is noted that the EDA had aggressively pursued the development of a hotel on this property since the Smart Growth Study which was a number of years ago. ORDINANCE NO. 2005 -04 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE CIA SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT 05/09/05 -8- DRAFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM NNE 23 THROUGH JUNE 25, 2005 Mayor Kragness read the resolution declaring Earle Brown Days as a Civic Event from June 23 through June 25, 2005. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -75 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 23 THROUGH JUNE 25, 2005 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. PROCLAMATIONS DECLARING MAY 15-21,2005, TO BE POLICE WEEK AND PUBLIC WORKS WEEK Mayor Kragness read both proclamations declaring May 15 -21, 2005, to be Police Week and Public Works Week. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adopt both proclamations. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she does not believe there is a need to spend time putting proclamations together telling the citizens to become aware of what the staff does and believes that staff just needs to do the work and show residents that it is being done as efficiently as possible. She informed that she would be voting against these proclamations. Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9c. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 25, 2005, MEETING) Councilmember Niesen discussed the previous discussions regarding the letter received from the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Organization and the draft letter that was prepared in response to the watershed's proposal with regards to funding for capital improvement projects. 05/09/05 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen informed that one of the questions she asked at the last watershed meeting was if the intent of the proposal is to identify lakeshore and streamside owners and singling them out for special assessments. The answer she received was yes that was the intent. When she asked the Chair if he meant that would include lakeshore and streamside owners, his response was yes that was the intent. She informed that she had sent Mr. Matheson an e-mail and did get a response back confirming that and she wished to express that she does not feel as a taxpayer in Brooklyn Center that the Council should in anyway step forward before many cities have even responded to the watershed's proposal and say that the City agrees with that. Councilmember Niesen discussed the City Manager had identified in an e -mail that the City would not be inclined to special assess property owners. She believes that is a fair assessment; however, she does not feel that Brooklyn Center should step forward and say that they potentially could take seventy -five percent of an assessment. The watershed has no power or authority to tell a city how to tax their residents to pay for the portion that they would be billed for an improvement. The question then is why would they even suggest it if they have no power or authority. She expressed she would like to have more discussions if the Council is going to go that route and would like to have this message get to the watershed that the Council would agree to undertake an ad valorem tax across the watershed according to the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to see how it works out. Councilmember Niesen informed that she believes assessing a certain amount should be in writing so that everyone knows; or the Council needs to say thanks for suggesting the models of funding to recoup money from citizens; however, the City will be handling that at its own decision. Councilmember Carmody discussed that she believes the indication from Mr. Matheson was that no one placed an importance or credence with the special assessment because they all acknowledge that they did not have any right to do that. If the City does not approve the twenty-five percent as the watershed ad valorem tax, and then the funding proposal, the rest of it really does not matter and that is the hurdle they are trying to get over. The other alternative is a hundred percent and they can basically do that without cities approving it. She expressed she would like to see this option and believes it is fair for all the cities involved. Councilmember Carmody informed that she had stayed at the meeting a bit longer than Councilmember Niesen and wished to note the following for clarification. The watershed would be spending $1 Million per year on projects and the total maximum ad valorem tax that City taxpayers would have to pay as an ad valorem tax would be $32,276 per year under the current formula. She discussed that many cities had not responded to the watershed's proposal and that she had indicated that the City of Brooklyn Center had three Council Members who were in favor with conditions. 05/09/05 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen asked Mr. McCauley if he had any comments to add. Mr. McCauley discussed that he would like to comment on an issue that was not raised. The er household, versus per capita basis of a per household limit would raise would be about 1/3 the amount of money that the per capita would raise. When the City looked at the source of funds, it felt that it could sustain the per capita within some period of three to five years which would be enough money to get something substantial happening. The other part which has been mentioned to the Council, and the Council has not taken formal action, is a recommendation that the storm water utility be the source of City funding. The Council might wish to take a formal position on the source of funding. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would agree with making a formal action; however, she would argue strongly against accepting the premise that individual properties be recognized as benefiting and subject to billing. She believes that Mr. Matheson made it clear that the watershed had gone that direction and she disagrees. She would like to have the Council support the JPA and also make mention that the Council does not agree with the isolation of individual people as benefiting and having to shoulder twenty-five percent of the costs in anyway. She asked that in addition to what had already been drafted for a response to the watershed that verbiage be added that says the Council recognizes that cities are the ultimate decision makers on how their citizens will be billed and that the Council does not agree with the premise of identifying twenty -five percent of cost to individual lakeshore or streamside owners. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere wished to clarify that the watershed commission has not suggested that twenty -five percent be assessed against any individual property owners. The concept is that twenty -five percent would be charged to the city benefiting, not individual property owners. He further discussed the earlier process which was an attempt for cities that do not face these issues everyday to figure out what their options were in paying for capital projects if the watershed commission was going to go forward with constructing capital improvement projects. Councilmember Carmody questioned what the Council would need to do to move forward. Mr. McCauley suggested if the Council would like to direct him to make a draft proposal for the next meeting to address memorializing what Brooklyn Center intends to do so that it is clear that it is not intending to assess individual property owners and is planning to look at the source of funding with the existing storm water utility. Councilmember Niesen made a motion to direct the City Manager to write up a proposal to include verbiage that states Brooklyn Center's intent, seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember O'Connor asked that an amendment be made to that motion to add direction to the watershed that the City does not want to take on the cost of any sole source pollution and take over others responsibility to clean up Shingle Creek. 05/09/05 -11- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes that would be a separate issue and would like to revisit that issue. Councilmember O'Connor said she was fine with that; however, wanted to ask if this consideration was given to sole source pollution sites and how they are going to take care of their pollution. Mr. LeFevere informed that he was not at all meetings and at this time can not respond; however, he does believe that it is not the intention of the watershed or any watershed to take on responsibilities that private entities have under environmental rules that assign cleanup responsibility. Councilmember O'Connor rescinded her motion. Mr. McCauley reiterated that the motion on the table would be to direct staff to draft language for Council consideration at the next meeting with respect to the funding mechanism and the Council's position on not intending to specially assess any individual property owners. Motion passed unanimously. 9d. REPORT FROM PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION ON SEGWAY PERSONAL MOBILITY DEVICES Mr. McCauley discussed that the resident who had approached the Council regarding Segway devices was present and that the matter had been considered by the Park and Recreation Commission who reviewed the Statute. He discussed that the Statute is straight forward and clear with respect to the ability too Segway devices on paths, and in the absence of a trail or sidewalk on o perate g Y s P a street with a speed limit under 35 miles per hour; and that there is no age limitation on the e operation of a Segway. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she believes the Legislation was poorly written with no age limitation included and that there may be potential problems. 9e. RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PERSONNEL Mr. McCauley discussed that there has been an increase over the last few years in the requirements that the City faces with the emergency management training, equipment, and grants, etc. The City had managed to staff emergency management and the fire service with almost full -time hours but without a full -time position. Fire Chief Ron Boman has made requests in the last few budgets; however, those requests had not been included in the budget due to cuts in Local Government Aid (LGA). This issue is no longer being able to be put off since the person who was working almost full -time without benefits has left. Staff surveyed and found that the City is somewhat unique in not having a full -time support position. Staff is asking for Council approval changing what is almost a full -time part-time position into a full -time authorized position. Mr. Boman has reviewed his budget and for purposes of the 2005 Budget believes that he can make some reductions in otherwise planned spending to cover the cost of benefits for the remainder of the year; however, 2006 will be an issue with respect to the budget. 05/09/05 -12- DRAFT Councilmember Carmody asked for clarification regarding the administrative staff for the police and fire departments. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Fire Chief has only administrative staff person for the Fire Department and that the Police Department has more than just one for administrative staff. Councilmember Lasman outlined the position responsibilities since she sometimes get questions as to why the Council would approve positions and expressed that she would support the approval for this full -time position. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -76 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING 2005 BUDGET AUTHORIZATION FOR FIRE/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT PERSONNEL The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she does not feel she has enough information about this position. She inquired if the cities surveyed were volunteer fire departments and if the survey was conducted after the employee left. Mr. McCauley responded yes to both questions. She asked for clarification regarding why the survey was done. Mr. McCauley discussed that the survey was done after the recruitment and the Fire Chief lost some of his best candidates because the position did not have benefits for the part-time, almost full -time, position. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she believes it would be helpful to have amounts of money included and asked for the numbers for this position. Mr. McCauley discussed that the number is understated a bit because of the value of accrued time off if it is not used that might have to be paid off. The benefit portion would cost roughly $8,000 a year. The pay rate would be the same as what the employee was being paid and the number of hours budgeted would go up a few hours. Councilmember Niesen asked if the position had been considered for restructuring since no one has been in the position; and if the Police Department has been helping out with the workload. Mr. McCauley discussed that no one in the Police Department has been doing the work. The Fire Chief is trying to do some of the work himself and the employee who left has been helping him on evenings and weekends. Councilmember Niesen voted against the same. Motion passed. 9f. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSITIONAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING SERVICES 05/09/05 -13- DRAFT Mr. McCauley discussed staff is asking for approval of a plan for incentives that would provide compensation incentives for someone who would stay with the City until transiting to Hennepin County. It is anticipated that three people would be hired by Hennepin County who would stay working for the City until they transition to Hennepin County; and that the City will lose some current dispatchers. However, if the City is able to retain them as well as recruit temporary people with some additional compensation it will work to the City's benefit in providing dispatch services until the City converts to Hennepin County. The basic outline staff is looking at is the degree to which people would voluntarily choose not to use more than five days worth of leave for scheduling and thus reduce overtime. The City would also provide a payment of accrued sick leave on the same basis when voluntary retirements were solicited in 2003 to address LGA cuts. This would be treating people who would stay until the end in the same fashion that the City treated employees a couple years ago when the City paid sixty percent of sick leave rather than thirty-three and 1/3 percent of sick leave. For those people who would go to Hennepin County, the City would provide them with transitional health insurance coverage because there is going to be a gap before they are eligible for Hennepin County insurance. For the employees that would stay, not go to Hennepin County, and not be retrained by the City, they would find themselves unable to commit to when they are going to start anew job and the City would provide six weeks severance on top of the holiday pay, if they earned it, and three months worth of insurance assistance. For those employees hired after the City gets into this process, it would be a much lower benefit because of the training issue, etc. Mr. McCauley discussed if the City were to operate dispatch for only seven months in 2006 it would save roughly $175,000 in employment costs. If everyone that is working today stayed until dispatch services were done and no one took more than five days of holiday, the maximum cost would be approximately $42,500 verses $175,000 in savings. Councilmember Niesen asked if the dispatchers have seen this plan. Mr. McCauley informed they had seen the plan and that he had met with them the last two weeks. When he met with them two weeks ago he had a draft plan and then last week he met with them to finalize the plan that had an added holiday bonus which was a direct result in their identifying the staffing issue and wanting to have some monitory recognition if people forego taking leave to make it easier for everyone else. Councilmember Carmody questioned what requirements are needed for providing dispatching services. Mr. McCauley discussed that there are probably some educational minimums; however, on the job training could be used. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-77 Councilmember Niesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSITIONAL PLAN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHING SERVICES I 05/09/05 -14- DRAFT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9g. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2005, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S WELL HEAD PROTECTION PLAN Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification on the 60 day comment period prior to a public hearing. Mr. McCauley discussed that the neighboring communities would be the cities themselves that the City sends the notice to. Councilmember O'Connor asked about the map that was included with the materials. Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom discussed that the map is trying to illustrate capture zones which includes the nine municipal wells that the City operates to supply water to the water system. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the City has a shallow water table. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the geology throughout Minnesota varies and in Brooklyn Center there are different characteristics that allow surface water to infiltrate into the ground and reach the lower levels of the aquifer where the City draws it municipal water. The City has very sandy soils and allows water to percolate into the ground very rapidly. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the City's water is polluted. Mr. Blomstrom discussed this map does not indicate that the City's water is polluted. It just indicates that the City has a higher vulnerability in some areas than other areas and need to take more aggressive actions to protect the ground water in Brooklyn Center which is the purpose of the wellhead protection plan that is being formulated at this time. Councilmember O'Connor asked how expensive this plan will be to implement. Mr. Blomstrom discussed there are essentially goals and strategies and that is how the City manages land use and manages storm and surface water in Brooklyn Center. Those practices do not necessarily have a high front end cost like constructing structures; they are more of practices and policies that are implemented in the future. Councilmember O'Connor asked what is expected to come out of this plan. Mr. Blomstrom said it will give the City a tool to manage the land uses in the areas that have the higher vulnerable rate and also establishes goals for the City. One of the goals is to reach private wells within districts. There may be homes that were developed in the early 1950's that were never connected onto the water system or were originally on a private well. Once those homes connect to the water systems, the wells tend to be neglected, not used, and they are a direct conduit into the aquifer for Brooklyn Center. As the City moves ahead with this plan, the City may come up with a program to actually address capping those wells if they are not using them. 05/09/05 -15- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-78 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF JULY 11, 2005, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S WELL HEAD PROTECTION PLAN The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Niesen. Motion passed unanimously. 9h. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004 -14, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Councilmember O'Connor questioned why this item was on the Consent Agenda when the public hearing for the project had not taken place. Mr. McCauley discussed that the item was on the Consent Agenda and printed before being caught that the item should have been after the public hearing. The solution would have been to rescind the action if needed. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -79 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-14, SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE STREET, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 9i. RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY APRON REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000 -01, 02, AND 03 AND 2000 -19, CONTRACT 2000 -B, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION Councilmember Niesen asked if there were any issues like this before. Mr. McCauley discussed that the City had an issue like this in the southeast area where a batch of bad concrete was used. On a prospective basis, the City has increased the quality requirements on the concrete to try avoiding any type of repetition. He noted that the contractor has been very standup about meeting the obligations and working with staff on this issue. 05/09/05 -16- DRAFT Councilmember Niesen asked if all driveways will be redone and if the residents have been notified. Mr. McCauley discussed they will take out all the identified driveways needed and repair them. Mr. Blomstrom added that staff has not notified residents yet and was waiting to see if the Council would accept the addendum. RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -80 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING SECOND CONTRACT ADDENDUM FOR DRIVEWAY APRON REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2000-01,02, AND 03 AND 2000 -19, CONTRACT 2000 -13, GARDEN CITY CENTRAL STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:04 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 05/09/05 -17- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MAY 9, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 9:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager/Executive Director Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. DISCUSSION OF REFERENDUM ON BASEBALL STADIUM SALES TAX Councilmembers /Commissioners discussed whether or not the City should require a referendum on the $353 Million stadium sales tax. It was the consensus of the Council /Commission not to take a position on passing a resolution at this time. BROOKLYN CENTER BUSINESS ASSOCIATION: DISCUSSION OF RECENT MEMBERSHIP INQUIRIES Councilmembers /Commissioners discussed the Brooklyn Center Business Association (BCBA) membership inquiries. Councilmember /Commissioner Niesen expressed she would not be in favor of becoming a member of the BCBA. She believes the City has many sources for advertising and would like to use more technology for advertising. Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman expressed she believes that the BCBA puts a lot of effort and focus on businesses in Brooklyn Center and that she would be in favor of becoming a member of the BCBA. She believes the City could afford the $50 membership and that it would be good for the City to be listed as a member. Mayor/President Kragness expressed that she is supportive of a membership with the BCBA. 05/09/05 -1- DRAFT Councilmember /Commissioner Carmody expressed that she believes that the BCBA competes with the other chambers in the area and that the City should only belong to one Chamber. Councilmember /Commissioner O'Connor expressed that she would not support becoming a member of the BCBA. No action was directed with two members in favor and three members not in favor of becoming a member of the BCBA. i MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember /Commissioner O'Connor inquired about the recent sale of liquor from the City's liquor store to an employee of Coyote Grill. Mr. McCauley discussed the Law and informed that Assistant City Manager /Director of Operations Curt Boganey had educated staff as to what the Law was with selling liquor for commercial use. Councilmember /Commissioner Niesen informed that she was contacted about the recent firefighter's event that was held and discussed they were not able to hold the event at the Earle Brown Heritage Center because they would not be selling over $500. She expressed that she believes something like this should be negotiable. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember /Commissioner Carmody, seconded by Councilmember/ Commissioner Lasman to adjourn the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:57 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor/President i 05/09/05 -2- 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 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION MAY 16, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council reconvened as the Board of Appeal and Equalization and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Mary O'Connor. Councilmember Diane Niesen was absent and unexcused. Also present were City Manager Michael McCauley, City Assessor Nancy Wojcik, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Councilmember Diane Niesen arrived at 5:57 p.m. 2. APPEARANCES BY TAXPAYERS WITH APPOINTMENTS City Assessor Nancy Wojcik informed that she is making a recommendation for a reduction of the estimated market value for Brooklyn Peace Center, 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, from $922,100 to $689,000; and that Mr. Klinker had accepted that reduction; however was not present this evening. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to reduce the estimated market value to $689,000 for 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. Motion passed unanimously. Brett Hildreth addressed the Council regarding the properties at 6500 Willow Lane and 501 Bellvue Lane. Mr. Hildreth expressed that he would like to focus his discussion on 6500 Willow Lane and that there was one other property that he owns which he had a concern about with the estimated market value; however, he would not address that property this year. Mr. Hildreth expressed his frustration with the increase of approximately 21 percent and outlined factors that he believed should set the market value lower than what the City /County arrived at which included the school district issue; apartment/crime /drug issues; freeway issue; comparables in other cities; flood plain; rental income; and street reconstruction. Councilmember Niesen arrived at 5:57 p.m. 05/16/05 -1- 1 DRAFT Mr. Hildreth expressed that he believes his property at 6500 Willow Lane was overvalued at $326,400 and that an estimated market value of $285,000 to $295,000 would be more reasonable. Ms. Wojcik discussed that her recommendation would be to sustain the estimated market value for 6500 Willow Lane at $326,400 based on the comparables used and the interior appraisal done on the property. Council discussed the factors presented by Mr. Hildreth and land values before a motion was made by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to compromise and reduce the estimated market value for 6500 Willow Lane to $310,000; and to accept the recommendation of the Assessor, to reduce the estimated market value of the property at 501 Bellvue Lane to $339,600. Motion passed unanimously. Todd Paulson, 6408 Willow Lane, addressed the Council to discuss that his property was reviewed as requested by the Board at the last meeting and that he would like to ask the Council to exercise discretion to put a break on the increases. Ms. Wojcik informed that his property had not been reviewed since 1997 and that after the interior review she would recommend sustaining the estimated market value of $383,600. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember O'Connor to sustain the estimated market value of $383,600 for 6408 Willow Lane. Motion passed unanimously. Steven Cooper, 6632 West River Road, addressed the Council to continue discussing the court proceedings that had taken place with his property. He informed that the City Assessor's office had not contacted him about setting up a time to review his property and that he called their offices on Wednesday of last week. Ms. Wojcik discussed that Mr. Cooper was informed he was to have contacted their office and that it is not the responsibility of her office to contact him. She informed that she had contacted Kennedy and Graven regarding the court proceedings and it was indicated that the $97,000 in damages represents the total damage to the property including the value of the permanent easement, value of the temporary easement, and damages to remainder due to the permanent easement. Ms. Wojcik discussed that an appointment was made to review his home today and after review of his property it would be her recommendation to sustain the estimated market value of $459,800. A motion was made by Councilmember Niesen to reduce the estimated market value by $97,000. City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the $97,000 was for damages and does not determine the value of real estate on the property. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she would second the motion only for the sake of moving this issue forward; however, would vote against the motion. Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, and O'Connor voted against the same. Motion failed. 05/16/05 -2- DRAFT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to sustain the estimated market value of $459,800 for 6632 West River Road. Councihember Niesen voted against the same. Motion passed. 3. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the meeting at 6:37 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 05/16/05 -3- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT WORK SESSION WITH FINANCIAL COMMISSION MAY 16, 2005 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:42 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present: City Manager Michael McCauley, Assistant City Manager/Director of Operations Curt Boganey, Fiscal and Support Services Director Dan Jordet, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Others present were Financial Commission Chair Donn Escher and Commissioners Robert Anderson, Mark Nemec, Robert Paulson, Susan Shogren Smith, and Earl Simons. PRESENTATION BY AUDITOR OF 2004 AUDIT AND COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that the 2004 Audit and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is in draft format and that the final transfers and notes will be prepared for the June report to the Council. Dave Mol and Jeff Wilson from HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd. discussed the draft Audit Management Letter and outlined the following: Report summary elements, overview, and other matters Financial Statement Analysis Property Taxes Tax Increments General Fund Summary Working Capital Reserve Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District No. 2 TIF District No. 4 Debt Service Funds 05/16/05 -1- DRAFT Capital Reserve Emergency Fund Capital Improvement Fund Infrastructure Construction Fund Street Reconstruction Fund Technology Fund Enterprise Funds During their discussion the Council had the following questions: Councilmember Carmody questioned why three different funds had advanced funds for the Earle Brown TIF District. Mr. McCauley discussed that some of the funds were put together when the Earle Brown Heritage Center was put together and transfers were needed. Councilmember Carmody questioned what the personal services were for the Economic Development Authority. Mr. McCauley discussed that those services would be for the Community Development Director and Community Development Specialist. Mr. Mol added that "personal services" is standard language to describe personnel costs. Councilmember Carmody asked if municipalities that have liquor stores own or rent their buildings; and if they do or do not own the buildings does it affect the operating expenses. Mr. Mol discussed that some do and some do not. Mr. Mol also stated that debt service for an owned structure and lease payments might be fairly equal. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the golf course is paying off their debt. Mr. Mol informed that they are paying off their debt. It was noted that there are a few typographical errors and those errors will be amended for the June report. Councilmember Lasman questioned the Moody's Rating. Mr. McCauley discussed that the City had not issued bonds in 2005, but its rating was A -1 for the bonds issued last fall. She also asked if the City would be submitting its 2004 CAFR for a Certificate to the Government Accounts Standards Board. Fiscal and Support Services Director Dan Jordet advised it would not be submitted this year, but the format as followed. The City would save $400 in application fees and also save staff time as a result. 05/16/05 -2- DRAFT REVIEW OF PREVIOUS BUDGET PRIORITIZATION Mr. McCauley reviewed for the new members that since 2003 the primary focus for the City's budget has been dealing with the loss of Local Government Aid (LGA) and that in 2004 the process used with the Financial Commission looking at items as a whole for eliminating or reducing activities was started. If the Council and or Financial Commission would like to have something different done for this budget preparation comments could be addressed now so staff would have time to analyze and report back. REVIEW OF 2006 BUDGET DATES Mr. McCauley reviewed the following dates for future budget discussions and actions: August 15, 2005 Work Session to discuss the decision for the Preliminary Levy which will be adopted on September 12, 2005 September 12, 2005 City Council meeting for adoption of Preliminary General Fund Levy and Budget October 3, 2005 Work Session to discuss Enterprise Funds November 21, 2005 Work Session to discuss General Fund December 5, 2005 Truth in Taxation Hearing December 12, 2005 City Council meeting to adopt budget. OVERVIEW OF 2006 ISSUES Mr. McCauley discussed that the most significant influence on the General Fund continues to be the reduction in LGA and that at this time there are a lot of unknowns for the budget adoption in December. After losing $1.68 Million in LGA in 2004 with the ability to back only 60 percent of that lost aid and no levy for inflation, the City lost an additional $310,422 in LGA in 2005. He discussed that a three percent increase in real estate taxes generates approximately $300,000 or a 2.3 percent increase for the General Fund and that in 2005, the 1995 street bonds will be retired. The debt service levy in 2005 for the 1995 bonds is $73,000. For 2006 staff is projecting the cost of increased wages and insurance contributions at roughly $295,000 in the General Fund; however, it is unknown at this time whether the Legislature will increase employee and employer contributions to Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA). Council and Financial Commissioners discussed the issues the City will be facing in dealing with the 2006 budget. 05/16/05 -3- Councilmember Niesen asked if the Financial Commission could or would provide input on department salaries. She expressed she would like to have the Financial Commission review salaries and whether the City could save money by having Hennepin County take over Assessing. Mr. McCauley discussed that the Financial Commission has not been asked to review salaries. Financial Commission Chair Donn Escher discussed that he believes that would be a management issue and difficult with the number of Unions; however, if the Council directed them to take on this type of review they could do so: Mayor Kragness suggested that the Council discuss this request at a future Council Work Session. PRIORITIZATION/FOCUS FOR 2006 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT Mr. McCauley discussed that this meeting is to provide direction for developing the draft General Fund Budget so that the Council and Financial Commission priorities or issues can be addressed. If no different priorities are established staff will develop the draft budget assuming a three percent tax increase plus the amount of the 2005 bond levy for the August 15, 2005, budget Work Session. The Council will continue this discussion at its Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to adjourn the Work Session at 8:38 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 05/16/05 -4- City Council Agenda Item No. 7b City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, eputy City Clerk ('417 DATE: May 18, 2005 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on May 23, 2005, are as follows: AMUSEMENT DEVICES Brooklyn Center Community Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn enter Legion 6110 Brooks Boulevard yn g Brooklyn Davanni's Pizza 5937 Summit Drive Day's Inn 1501 Freeway Boulevard Family Dollar #4514 6223 Brooklyn Drive Family Dollar #5110 2105 57 Avenue North MTCO 6845 Shingle Creek Parkway MECHANICAL Conrad Mechanical Contractors 509 1 St Avenue NE, Minneapolis C O Carlson Air Cond. Co 34492 "d Street N, Minneapolis Joseph and Joseph Consulting 34 Imperial Drive E, West St. Paul Pale Kimball Company 550 Vandalia Street, St Paul Rickert Heating and A/C 10355 Quaker Lane, Maple Grove UHL Company Inc. 9065 Zachary Lane, Maple Grove United Heating and A/C 1295 Hackamore Road, Medina Wencl Services, Inc. 8148 Pillsbury Avenue, Bloomington RENTAL Renewal: 3701 47 Avenue North (12 Units) Drew Kabanuk 0 Calls for Service 3612 55 Avenue North (Single Family) Lutheran Social Service of MN 0 Calls for Service 1107 57 Avenue North (4 Units) Bob and Sally Robson 0 Calls for Service Maranatha Place, 5415 69 Avenue North (65 Units) Center Park Senior Apts., Inc. 4 Calls for Service 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Page 2 Licenses for Council Approval May 23, 2005 4210 Lakebreese Avenue North (4 Units) James and Bobbie Simons 1 Call for Service (Burglary) Initial: 5124 65 Avenue North (Single Family) Joseph Okrakene 0 Calls for Service 3101 67 Avenue North (Single Family) Xong Lee 0 Calls for Service 6315 Brooklyn Boulevard (Single Family) Regina Weah 0 Calls for Service 5440 Humboldt Avenue North (Two Family 1 -Side) Chad Kulzer 0 Calls for Service 5316 Russell Avenue North (Two Family 1 -Side) Daniel Hedlund 0 Calls for Service 5936 York Avenue North (Single Family) Stephen Phillips 0 Calls for Service I City Council Agenda Item No. 7c 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist (�(.(�Q� SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Release DATE: May 18, 2005 The following site performance guarantee being held by the city for completion of various site improvements should be recommended to the City Council for release: Arby's Restaurant (5444 Brooklyn Boulevard) Planning Commission Application No. 2003 -006 Amount of Guarantee $25,000 (Performance Bond) Obligor Franchise Associates, Inc. All of the site improvements and conditions for which a performance guarantee was posted have been installed and completed for this 2003 -2004 project. The project involved a special use permit and site and building plan approval for a 3,286 sq. ft., 80 seat restaurant at 5444 Brooklyn Boulevard (southeast corner of 55 Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard). An as built survey has been submitted to the Engineering Department showing utility locations and other engineering related items have been completed. Landscaping has been installed and has proved to be viable through the winter. It is recommended that the City Council authorize release of the $25,000 guarantee posted based on satisfactory completion of the site improvements for this project. City Council Agenda Item No. 8a MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning ecialist Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -008 Date: May 16, 2005 On the May 23, 2005 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -008 submitted by CBR Development, LLC requesting Preliminary Plat approval to divide the lot at 3955 Avenue North into eight lots and an outlot for a townhouse development. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -008 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, the Planning Commission minutes from the April 28 and May 12, 2005 meeting relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their April 28 and May 12, 2005 meetings and was recommended for approval. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Application Filed on 4 -07 -05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6 -06 -05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005 -008 Applicant: CBR Development, LLC Location: 3955 69th Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant, Thomas Rollings on behalf of CBR Development, LLC, is seeking preliminary plat approval to divide the lot located at 3955 69 Avenue North into eight lots and an outlot for development of an eight unit, potentially owner occupied, townhouse complex. Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 is a companion application requesting site and building plan approval for this eight unit townhouse complex. The property in question is zoned R -3 (Multiple Family Residence Townhouse /Garden Apartments) and is located on the south side of 69 Avenue North on the lot immediately west of the city water tower. It is surrounded on the east, south and west by other R -3 zoned property containing the city water tower (east), the Victoria Townhomes (south), and a non conforming single family home (west). To the north is 69 Avenue North with a large landscape median dividing the east and west bound lanes with R -1 zoned property on the opposite side of the street. Townhouses such as those being proposed for development are permitted uses in this R -3 zone. The existing lot is a metes and bounds description of a portion of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. This description includes a portion of the 69 Avenue North right of way (33 ft.) that will be formerly dedicated with the new plat. The resulting land area of the plat, minus the right of way, will be approximately 38,598 sq. ft. or .89 acre. The proposed plat will create eight lots in two blocks (Lots 1 -4, Block 1 and Lots 1 -4, Block 2) and Outlot A (the common area). Each of the owners of the individual lots will own an equal interest in the common area, which will be controlled by the homeowner's association documents, which will be filed as a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions with the final plat. These documents should be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. The eight townhouse lots to be created will be in two groups of four. The corner lots in the two blocks are 40 ft. by 44 ft. while the interior lots are 35 ft. by 44 ft. A 26 ft. wide drainage and utility easement, where utilities serving the units will be located, runs between Blocks 1 and 2. This will also serve as the drive lane for the two 4 -unit buildings. The property lines will separate the units along the common walls. Based on the applicant's proposal, a new drive way opening on 69 Avenue North at the center of the site will need to be constructed while the existing drive way will be abandoned. 4 -28 -05 Page 1 The density requirement for an R -3 use is 5,400 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit, or approximately eight units per acre. The applicant will be seeking a density credit per Section 35- 400, Subdivision lb of the zoning ordinance which allows the total square footage to be reduced by 500 sq. ft. for each required parking space located under the building. This is a part of the consideration of Application No. 2005 -009. The final plat can only be approved in the manner submitted if the density credit is granted under the above mentioned application. The Director of Public Work's /City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat as well as the drainage, grading and utility plans and will offer written comments for the Planning Commission's consideration. The size of the site is below the threshold for requiring Watershed Management Commission review. The Public Work's Director and I have reached the conclusion that we can only recommend approval of the preliminary plat and the accompanying site and building plan if a new access arrangement is provided. This would require the City Council to authorize a shared access drive along the south side of the water tower site to France Avenue North. This access would serve as access to the subject site as well as access to the other R -3 zoned properties to the west. This access drive would not be a public street or alley but would serve as a private drive for these properties. The cost of developing the access drive would be borne by the developer. The Public Work's Director also believes that utilities serving the sites should be in this area connecting to existing utilities in France Avenue North. No access to the site or adjacent R -3 sites would be gained from 69 Avenue North. Potentially four or five similar complexes as proposed under this application could be developed, each of which could have access to 69 Avenue. U -turns would be common on 69 Avenue North at France and at Halifax that would create unacceptable traffic hazards and safety concerns. Prohibiting access to these developments directly from 69 forcing access to France, would be a much more desirable situation. We have encouraged consolidation of lots for townhouse development but apparently this is not feasible at this time and the developer wishes to exercise his right to develop the property separately. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. RECOMMENDATION This Preliminary Plat approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the city ordinances. 3. Final plat approval is subject to the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 granting density credits per Section 35 -400, Subdivision lb to allow eight dwelling units within this plat. 4 -28 -05 Page 2 4. A Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions along with homeowner's association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 5. Final Plat approval is contingent on access arrangements and agreements allowing access from the site to France Avenue North and authorizing access through this site to the properties to the west. 4 -28 -05 Page 3 City of Brooklyn Center O ;Z7 A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: April 25, 2005 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works vo SUBJECT: v th Avenue North CBR Development ment 3955 69 p Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review Planning Commission Application 2005 -.008 and 2005 -009 Public Works Department staff reviewed the following preliminary documents submitted for review under Planning Commission Application 2005 -008 and 2005 -009 for property located at 3955 69 Avenue North. Certificate of Survey Topographic Survey dated March 1, 2005 Preliminary Plat dated April 8, 2005 Preliminary Utility Plan dated April 8, 2005 Preliminary Site and Storm Plan dated April 8, 2005 Preliminary Grading Plan dated April 8, 2005 The following comments and recommendations regarding the proposed preliminary plat and site plans are provided for your consideration. Preliminary Plat 1. The northern 33.07 feet of the plat area shall be dedicated to the public as street right -of- way for 69 Avenue North. 2. Public drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the entire portion of Outlot A. 3. The applicant will be required to enter into a Subdivision Agreement and an Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems with the City to provide for the construction and operation of shared utility infrastructure. 4. All right of way and easements necessary to provide street and utility service to the proposed site development or accommodate proposed relocation of existing public utilities within the site shall be dedicated to the public for public use with the final plat. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org 5. The Developer shall coordinate site development plans with Xcel Energy, Centerpoint Energy, Quest Communications and other private utility companies. Site Access and Traffic Issues Traffic access to the proposed development site is limited to a right -in and right -out access condition to eastbound 69 Avenue. The proposed development has the potential for generating a high number of U -turn movements at the intersection of France Avenue and 69 Avenue as well as the intersection of Halifax Avenue and 69 Avenue. The existing median at the intersection of Halifax Avenue and 69 Avenue is not configured to safely allow U -turn movements. Vehicle attempting to make a U -turn at Halifax Avenue currently block a westbound drive lane for 69 Avenue North. Based on these access issues, engineering staff recommends that the site plan be modified to include one of the following two options to address the limited access issue. 1. Provide site access from France Avenue through the southern portion of the adjacent water tower site and close the existing driveway access onto 69 Avenue North. This option would require the developer to acquire an access easement from the City to construct the private driveway across the water tower site. Staff further recommends that the developer enter into an agreement to allow future development to the west of the site to use the proposed driveway access across the southern portion of the property to access France Avenue. 2. Construct a left turn lane along westbound 69 Avenue approaching the intersection of Halifax Avenue at the developer's expense. This is the least desirable of the two options because it would not reduce the frequency of U -turn movements along 69 Avenue. Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer Service Water and sanitary sewer service is currently available along France Avenue south of 69 Avenue to serve the proposed development. The existing public sewer and water systems can provide adequate service for the proposed land use. 1. The utility plan shall be revised to include a note indicating that water and sewer services for the existing home within the plat must be disconnected at the mains prior to building demolition. Service disconnections shall be done in conformance with sewer and water service disconnection specifications available at the city engineering division office. 2. The water meter must be removed from the existing structure prior to building demolition. 3. The Utility Plan shall be amended to show connections to the public water and sanitary sewer system from France Avenue. 4. It is recommended that the applicant review the need for 8" diameter water main within the site to determine if 6" diameter main would be sufficient. 5. Utility service extensions must meet City of Brooklyn Center design standards. The location and method of connection to existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be subject to approval by the Supervisor of Public Utilities. 6. The proposed site plan shall be subject to the approval of the City Fire Chief and Building Official, including hydrant spacing requirements and any other requirements of the Fire Department. Storm Drainage The site plan submittal is incomplete with respect to addressing storm water management requirements for site development. The proposed site improvement would convert a substantial portion of the site to impervious surface. NPDES regulations require that land development projects incorporate construction and post construction storm water best management practices to control the rate and quality of storm water discharges. 1. The preliminary site plan documents did not include storm water design calculations or other supporting drainage information. The applicant shall provide a site storm water management plan, including drainage calculations and detailed design drawings for proposed storm water management facilities, to the Engineering Division for review prior to submitting the final plat for approval. 2. Post construction storm water best management practices shall be incorporated into the site plan to adequately address all storm water management requirements as established by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. These standards can be found at: httn:// www .shinelecreek.orv-/annendixb.Ddf 3. Erosion control measures shall be installed prior to starting site grading operations. The owner will be responsible for the prompt removal of all dirt and mud tracked onto public streets from the site during construction. 4. An NPDES construction site erosion control permit must be obtained from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. The above comments are provided based on the information provided 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 water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, gas and electric service and final grading as established by the city engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval and recording of the final plat. s� FA lie Evil GRIMES PL s �■t�t "W n ���1 1► sl Bib,�i�rl�1����l1 1 S 3 ii r ;r R u t t t n t x jrt t �u -r Wily g Certificate of Survey T Survey M Mfe N qs AIr f/, N r•r N e.e t mrw eN Nr I/s d Sr 51 AVE N. •„I r: N a.a f Nftw"'�. Q b.L1 /K am N EN N[ f/4 d 11. /fIt1.M e M,i� 1SO.a.7 NW 1/1 d ar. .M i. f/a R II I '_ND•� Sef.,1 e01.IJ Na7Y' y ass aezH aeaaT fl t NS le I ,p b Ir v N1N I 1 T AREA 1.00 ACRES •seam Mu •mod W I Y's rM .NS�r r .suN I 1 I I lase tL I I3 .Nils I iy f •NAIL Wi I1 n V U. ...Tv U• eeSOl N2H ea7/i I rns �I N7Se •eezN NZN •N].SC •N147 .seal I mes .sr.n I'I� Md-. •Male •Na,J •eel,]e .N,.N) f^- a J-7— A aMMv A14N 1 t l• Fi. roW FN -vY .N0.IS ass 4f RECEIVE[ teau I 04 I I r c,• In 5� 5 Nw tl tic A.t M r r v. Nr.ae wfw se.n -MA's A...b. ra SuKto7s MO,ir M .e:aa :,ft `M' 0TY OF BROOKLYN CE�J1cP Mst� Nrhrs 1r /M sl1 iwf d Np1f sryha 15e eY,fsrr IsAm w a M e fart../, Joan 40 N w Non seem &0 (s f) A4w Ors ►Inn 1 aapny NSwy.OM bw17 N+ In�wN MN Yn awYr iM N /IMF A-0 N Ld 3 MMfd Ns M sNSS N e MW s.�ur�d 96 N—Wo 0—N M.r1. srM/ fe er nr/ AW Ms.M Certificate of Survey ig 1i0 i W. y hen t 1Ma RaNeK: denotea. iron monument found w5 a a hat by X p denotes ir pipe set TopogrophiC Survey CBR Development f eii d an n a a ti enwd fOe iwd and marked as ahown:O on part of Lot 3, t= a d., leas N the TTo /If t d e fi s b t ,MVw= n B denotes Soil boring Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, oewn Dr B OI chl Br- jeu m No O denotes per4olallon teat hole 2/25/05 D.N.A. 1N =40' E.J.O. smtmleuars 1 -05 -0062 Hennepin County, Minnesota sees. a „s RECEIVED MAY 10 2005 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER N. Ike of the NE 1/4 of x BB curb B: gutter the NW I/4 of Set: Jf �Q N I r 700.641 j-HennpM County Monument at the NE eomw o/ the NE I/4 of Me NW I/} a/ Sec. J4, T. 119, R. 21 J107 I 1 5, TOTAL AREA 1.00 ACRE )7707 rendscpe i AREA LESS 69TH AVE ROW 0.89 ACRE Bencnr —ort r7ra Sr G DEMt RA apse M E 1° OUTtOI A o f JO I Jp AnM. rON�RO tM bee el P.P. Mo fQ47 o 10 I 4550 HU— U 17 01 tlmava 1929) 15E1f -0RAMACE d 45. 1 Pt, M, M9 5544e unuTr usENENr I I I 812 770 Bees 1797 I w I I aaaeuaaww umme+aouewrs.vea exarx nua: 1496 5F rB.ff 9 I 15 Q I i -�.Odf UNE. M I Y 1 LOr L/NE 7YP ;lz 1 I 1496 SF sis W I i s� 11NweNOLOrrw�aarN�aM� .u,�morrl9ew+ataVwureO. I sE/BACKS: I Z s' me sF MN7 s0• seed I I I I 44 AOE 20' LL I 1 52 I 25 44 °5 VICINITY MAP LOT TYPICAL SUED i l 4 4 l i s e ae I I 69M A E NWM AUD. 1 raw R 6.D I hi I E I PRa.RCr LOCenON— 3 y I 1 I 1 *b r0 L1L_____J J 1 1 �I 5Q24 65 38 I b nce 2 fe —a t ex/ N wen Se931IS'ly f.2#� MOW I I denotes tofu Er. woad Rof -wall I PF.Go- Er. Garoge I I J I 1 deno danotea tNphma ox 86E 78 v 1 BJO JO 1 a lrs hydrant asn tss 9a11wiw 0. 595 tr gv e R. L. Ei. Apt. Bld Legal OeeaNPtbn: fie Westedy Ma J4 feet of the Ed~y 30a68 feet of the NCHA 2419.74 test (as awned along the confer of F ce A—) of Let J AuE/tais Sub W- No 2A NannpM CopntJ{ MMneeote, aeo-oh q to the record plot thereof. SuRwMP's MOWS- 1) Me wmwnaMg R.LS and plats Mdbote that Me hoandory dhwnsrone ere to ee meowed along the /Mss and net at rfght -10- 2) Lego) De-Hpliae hr hoer H—&, County for ,!tends. M a tenslar of property Me Iegol d...*11en Me oert/Ifcab of Me should Be used aesaNm K. X ME OII�UNOFII MY I aM TM a 9WOM90N AR9 TIMT wM Yr (PROJECT N0: M.P.C. K.O.K IJ A p Y REa:otm PRWl1TONK uwxm, CiBR DEVELOPMENT ISHEET wroa T rc ABa w NE mA E a wNxeao A T� PRELIMINARY PLAT Q p5 0062 TOM ROLLINGS "M „,6 ""P°'°' BROOKLYN CENTER, MN N0. OF 4 SHEETS a 04(oeio5 MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning nd Zoning S ial st vl g g p Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 Date: May 16, 2005 On the May 23, 2005 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 submitted by CBR Development, LLC requesting Site and Building Plan approval for an eight unit townhouse development on the lot currently addressed 3955 Avenue North. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for P g Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 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 from its April 28 and May 12, 2005 meetings relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their April 28 and May 12, 2005 meetings and was recommended for approval. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Application Filed on 4 -07 -05 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 6 -06 -05 (60 Days) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 2005 -009 Applicant: CBR Development, LLC Location: 3955 69th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant, Thomas Rollings on behalf of CBR Development, LLC, is seeking site and building plan approval to construct eight townhomes on a .89 acre lot currently addressed as 3955 69 Avenue North. The site is the subject of a preliminary plat proposing the creation of eight townhouse lots and an outlot or common area under Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -008. The property in question is zoned R -3 (Multiple Family Residence Townhouse /Garden Apartments) and is located on the south side of 69 Avenue North on the lot immediately west of the city water tower. It is surrounded on the east, south and west by other R -3 zoned property containing a city water tower (east), The Victoria townhomes (south), and a non conforming single family house (west). To the north is 69 Avenue North with a large landscaped median dividing the east and west bound lanes of 69 with R -I (One Family Residence) property on the opposite side of the street. Townhomes such as those being proposed for development are permitted uses in this R -3 zoning district. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single family home and shed currently located on the site in preparation for the building of the eight townhomes. DENSITY The site in question is approximately 38,598 sq. ft. or .89 acre. At 5,400 sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit (the minimum land area requirement for an R -3 use), this eight unit proposal would require 43,200 sq. ft. of land. The applicant proposes to meet the zoning ordinance density requirements by utilizing the provision contained in Section 35 -400 Subdivision lb which allows the total minimum land area to be reduced by 500 sq. ft. for each required parking stall in or under a multiple residence. Two tuck under garages per dwelling unit are proposed which would allow the minimum land area for this development to be reduced by 8,000 sq. ft. requiring a total land area of 35,200 sq. ft. This proposal, therefore, would meet the zoning ordinance density requirements if the density credit mentioned above is approved. ACCESS/PARKING The applicant's proposed access to the site will be from 69 Avenue North at the center of the site. An existing driveway curb cut will be abandoned and a new one established. A concrete 4 -28 -05 Page 1 apron will be removed and boulevard grass, sidewalk and curb and gutter must be reestablished to Engineering Department specifications. A new drive way also meeting Engineering Department standards for curb and gutter, concrete apron and sidewalk will need to be provided. The proposed access is right in/right out only at the present time. The staff following much review, comment and input is very concerned regarding access to this site given the fact that other lots to the west of this site are also zoned R -3 and are subject to redevelopment as townhouses. It appears that a total of 32 townhomes could be built in this area, west of the water tower to the car dealership site further to the west. With only right in/right out access, U -turns at France Avenue and Halifax Avenue along 69 Avenue will become very common. This is an unacceptable traffic pattern given that number of dwelling units in this area. Currently five single family homes occupy these sites and that traffic level is tolerable. We are suggesting to the developer a reconfiguration of the access to the site, eliminating access on 69 Avenue North and establishing cross access to this site over the water tower property at its very south end. It would be our recommendation that a drive way through the water tower site eventually extend all the way to the west to serve the back portion of all of these lots as they are redeveloped to townhouses. We have not at this point had the opportunity to meet with the developer to express the staff concerns and potential for redesign of the site but will be doing so and, hopefully, will have a different access proposal for consideration by the Planning Commission. We feel strongly regarding this recommendation to the point that if this is not worked out, the staff would have difficulty making a favorable recommendation with respect to this development plan. The continuation of this report is based on the plans submitted by the applicant to date and comments reflect that specific plan not the modified plan we are hoping to have accomplished prior to the Planning Commission's consideration. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit, in this case eight parking spaces. The two 4 -unit buildings will face each other in the approximate center of the site. Building setbacks are 50 ft. measured from the front parking line for residences abutting on a major thoroughfare (69 Avenue North). The other building setbacks are 40 ft.. for the rear yard and 10 ft. for the side interior yards. The applicant's plan is to have all of the required parking (eight stalls) under the building as mentioned above. In addition, they will provide nine more parking spaces for guests, etc., three in front of the westerly building and six to the rear of the two buildings. Additional parking could be provided in front of the east building if needed. The drive way separating the two buildings is 26 ft. in width, which is wide enough for a drive lane and to access the garages, but it is not large enough to provide for parking outside the garages. Parking on the site should be adequate given the applicant's plan. Modifications to the site to accommodate a drive lane along the rear of the property connecting with the properties to the west and France Avenue to the east should be made. 4 -28 -05 Page 2 GRADING /DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has submitted a preliminary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan that is being reviewed by the Public Work's Director /City Engineer. He has given me some preliminary comments regarding the adequacy of these plans given the plan submitted. He is offering written comments with respect to this aspect of the plan as well as traffic concerns given the existing proposed plan. These comments will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. The Public Work's Director has commented that if an access to this site and sites to the west is accomplished through the water tower property, utilities could be run connecting to France Avenue rather than to tie into existing utilities on 69 Avenue North. The grading and drainage plan needs modification as well. If the proposed access plan is acceptable, it would also be our recommendation that no access to this site be granted from 69 Avenue North. B -612 curb and gutter is required around all parking and driving areas. The applicant proposes an approximate 26 ft. wide drainage and utility easement between the two rows of housing. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system used to evaluate such plans. This .89 acre site requires 90 landscape points. The applicant proposes to meet the landscaping requirements by providing five deciduous trees such as Sugar Maple and Marshall's Seedless Ashe, six coniferous trees (Black Hills Spruce), and 55 shrubs and perennials such as Red Twig Dogwood and Anthony Waterer Spirea. The two Sugar Maple would be located on either side of the entrance drive along 69 Avenue North and the three Marshall Seedless Ashe would be to the rear of the property. The Black Hills Spruce would be in clumps of three again on either side of the access drive in the front of the buildings. Shrubs would surround the buildings along the east and west sides as well as some shrubbery to the rear of the site. A matter that needs to be addressed is the requirement in Section 35 -410, Subdivision 6 of the zoning ordinance requiring a certain number of six inch diameter or larger trees on residential developments such as this. One such tree is required for the first six dwelling units (or portion thereof) and an additional tree for each seven dwelling units (or portion thereof) in excess of 6 units. This would mean that two six inch diameter trees would be required for this eight unit townhouse complex. Existing trees over six inches in diameter which can be saved could be counted towards meeting this requirement. The survey shows a 24 in. Maple and a 24 in. Oak tree on the site but it is not certain that either of these could be saved. The applicant should indicate their acknowledgement for meeting this requirement of the zoning ordinance. The landscape plan indicates sod around the perimeter of the buildings. An underground irrigation system is not required in an R -3 zoning district; however, one is strongly encouraged. 4 -28 -05 Page 3 BUILDING The applicant has provided building elevations and floor plans for the proposed townhomes. They are proposing vinyl siding and trim with asphalt shingles. Elevated decks are proposed to the rear of the units and a stairway and railing leading to the front doors are also proposed. TRASH/LIGHTING No central outside trash area is proposed. It is assumed that trash will be picked up individually at each of the townhome units. This should be confirmed. If a central trash area is to be provided, it should be appropriately screened from view. No lighting plan for exterior lighting has been submitted. It is assumed that individual units will have front and rear lighting that will be wall mounted. The applicant is platting the property so that each of the townhomes can be sold and the common area would be owned in common and maintained by members of the homeowner's association. As mentioned with the preliminary plat, homeowner's association documents will need to be prepared and approved by the City Attorney and filed with the title to the property. The proposed use is a permitted use requiring site and building plan approval only. No public hearing is required, therefore, no notices of the Planning Commission's consideration were sent with respect to this application. As mentioned previously, we have concerns regarding access to the site and will be meeting with the developer, hopefully, prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of this application. If the present access arrangement continues, the staff would not be inclined to recommend approval of this application. RECOMMENDATION If the access matters can be resolved, we would offer the following conditions for consideration: 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 of be determined based on cost estimates, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure the completion of site improvements. 4. The applicant shall submit an as built surgery of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 4 -28 -05 Page 4 5. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 7. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities and curb and gutter shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas. 9. The landscape plan shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to acknowledge at least two 6 -inch diameter shade trees. 10. Plan approval acknowledges sufficient density credits for under building parking to allow eight townhome units on a .89 acre site pursuant to Section 35 -400, Subdivision lb of the zoning ordinance. 11. The homeowner's association documents proposed for this townhome complex shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 4 -28 -05 Page 5 J arm rie son U NNW ■r�r i�rr rim ��I A yi MANOR X11/ milli r► ISO n IMES R3 PL W !'URAII tis l� itr 'air j,�-+' �►��tl���� s a OEM d z s A 4 'a t i l; 4 s a}Y i^ V s PIN I r' •avers. V W* t -.1 v- 20� TIM —A"i r3 9i 4 RECEIVED A!N GITY OF BROOKLYN GEEEANTEP RECEIVED MAY 10 2005 Ex.MN -San E.MN -Son y RM w8626J Mwe.3.8J fr /B" PVC R4n�B80.B8 x Mw8 J8� v N. floe of fhe Nf t/. of -er. BB curb h gutter ai� Ma NW 1/I el Sx J. 1 N RI =j SOn r4 I 3f A. BB Ex. CB HarnpM County Monument at Me dJTlER ro MA1L9l �Nf 1/1 e/ fhe NE 114 a/ Me RI 859.81 1/. e/ Sec. J., T, 119. R. 11 Rim.BBJ.81 EA1S11NG ex. BB curb &guff .-857f2 .cars r w JJ °7 w AREA 1.00 ACRES E,/ rone+aaP. area ft, of P.P. r 0 RI P we 8416. M E aBe.0 1 01 OtfftO',T A (N1114.0. 1929) RAINAGE 1 I I I N/B W/I Uii l1TY EASEMEPJ/;, I 1 L I I I 1 I I I a Wafw Taw., I I d a I I 25 SUED. a P. I I I coNNf°r ro fX97BJC tB' OP I 10 MIN 16 WET TAP I STUB 8' DIP IMI— +.�.sU 8' DM WM RimeBB.. J e' fnwBSS. SRB 8' PVC SAN xw�. 8' PVC SAN RNEn V_eSS, I I EC1, 18 ro EMSRNG MN —I NOTES: I i. ALL 8" D.I.P. WATERMA°J SHALL BE CLASS 91 U.. OTHERWISE NOTED. JC0.88 i I 2. ALL 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE Ex. woo. Ret -wall SOP 3S UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. SANITARY SERVICES SHALL BE 4' PVC SDR 26. �JL J° 4. WATER SERVES IC SHALL BE I' COPPER WITH I C OR P. ALL S HYDRANT LEADS SHALL BE 6' DIP CLASS 52. R.L.S. N0. 595 ex. Be cuNl I I I I 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL HYDRANT E h gvf fer I AVOID CONFLICT WITH OTHER UPUTIES. EXTENSIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO HYDRANT COST. 7. EASITING UTILITY INFORMATION PER RECORD PLANS 8. EXISTING SEWER AND WATER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE ABANDONED AT THE MAINLINE. 69TH AVE SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER CONDITION. oESLTTm reIAWN crnnfT TWIT THIS PLNi wAS Peiam ei «6 a GNbm w BuBLT SIIPBTA9oN o THfr ++W�' PROJECT NU Lxy M.P.0 K.O.N. I AM A °LILY R691518RD rmorEmwN.4 CBR DEVELOPMENT MA.G Grow ,HE uWS ,HE WRN�rA T TO I PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN I 2 -05 -0062 IN, I PIEL%!D ..r..LLL..��` TOM ROLLINGS BROOKLYN CENTER, MN ISHEET NO. 2 OF 4 SHEETS °A 04/OBI05 RECEIVED MAY 10 2005 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER f.MN -SPn Ex.MN -Ym Mn�B6 83 Rhn�880.88 Inr�81S BJ Er 18" P14^ Inv�844.JB N lMe a/ Me NE i14 a! 86 cub b avltm Me Nw 114 oI Soa Je r Ex.MN n 5 So B r f HPJ�417 f I —W.— n 3 E:e,MN_Ym d IX//fE7P TOM Jo0.68 NmnpM County Nmummf at e Me C, ca cornet th oe NE 1/4 e! the NBYT' —4-6 �Rlie 837.181 Nw 1/4 e/ Sx SI. T. I18. R. 21 l0 t' .n Ml m8BBJa 57ING 158.7 curb gutje/�" _ITL` >1cL( U RAMP, np. rear_ AREA 1.00 ACRES londaepe I 0 M/R +Pike M E o I E/ew8Be.47 f0 -.4V V TL V' R f,�, ®ki JC I 30 (NG. Y.B. 1929) 8 a j ry Ea r� I I 1 1 Ir� mil. WAX r 1 i I I Bazfu n eha II I 25 I i AUD SUBD. 1 P e Pe -I MAid E�A' Bl r I .J I J r1P MA1 VUSWO Syr 1G m Ex.MN- (stub) R�IY" I RMrw 4. J CB I y so wavy u•w Ex, Hood Ret -woll Coma 00.68 0. 595 .1. BB -`6 R. Ex. APf L. Bd¢ g w ttm S eI,MI1R[ 7= R f MMV >tm K e/ ¢O ,Cml[ M.u'. M.P.0 ®.C. MAWI M<Tq! U� 1 Mil �ggWggT W O1 TMT T wNMw IPMCJECT NR C. N.O.K. I W h 610.Y R(GISf01f, Pe0iF590fY1 ENGINEER [`r,_/Wt( -`_/7\ CBR DEVELOPMENT I SHEET z- os -oosz uwe„ THE IAWY or ,NC slAfe tx wR T I v e w K PRELIMINARY SITE STORM ortwm mn TOM ROLLINGS N�. M.P.C. C— ,.ob, ,n_..,.,�.,..,..,�. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN N0. 3 OF 4 SHEETS I oaoaos RECEIVED MAY 1 0 2005 Ul I Y Uh bKUUKLY N l;tW I tH Rk- San Er -86 rn Rhn�H626J RtmaH80.88 lnw843.H5 Ex 1a' PIT lnw844.38 v N. I;', o/ the HE 1/4 0/- �-ex. Bd curb h 9utfsr Ms NW //i aI Sec. 34 f N -St- I i REMOT EMa1NG APPROA JoB.ee Nennevm Cm,ty Monument at the n TV.. R. 21 J S 'Ex.MH -Son d/17ER IV MATCH fi Ex.CB NE came of Me NE I/4 p/ Me NW 1/4 RI-86164 RI-86164 �Riine839.e2 0/ ec. 4, r. M G ex. 86 curb h 9-0- ,`Ty E n /1 852 5tL ��86�7 8a�.49 •861.17 oC9 I\ JJ.OI< EAT6TM8 G B6J11 862.79 B TT eB2 NxWaeap 1 3 a.weee 2 E /O( LOr ry''4v xeaT.H 01. m ww4— (NOV.O1929) 86458 I'v �*l o O M7.31 2.J1 r 4 02 ee4.5t 861.52 I I -Y WA91tD 89Oc 4.5 iF i.a FF W' x 2 aeJ I I I ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Nbta r.er I m o •had k B6�.50 381 ,hro /s. c I,� I JfE g 2✓1 �M I ehed 864.59 I I SVVO• J.OJ AUD• 86199 PO J �nce I 1 S' MIN. LENGTH POST 9, r s�1 •B6J al\ .864.88 I 1 /I I rAT C MAX. SPACING I rGEOTEXTILE FABRIC B62.4S 1 5 I FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH. eeJ.9d DIRECTON OF ACKFlLL WITH TAMPED 862.86 B6 di i AOG' C0.N6TRUCHOtI FNRIANCE I RUNOFF FLOW NA I TURAL SOIL I RIm�861. J 6JaJ 64.J6 /nwBSf. 3 r�r� JJ� 862.87 r.YUIN I 'e S MIN Z Ex. wood Ret -woN 860.45 FF.Caw 4 O, 6e 8 >tiC vine I I SILT FENCE DETAIL •6s9.9s ��a6t91 IG I I SF —SF---SF- DENOTES SILT FENCE I 0 595 R.L.S. Ex. Ave. Bldg. -851.27 788mtlG1iGS5 B6B.19 1. N[ !ae•TMIe a1 NmeW YNG6eC1.M mMtAa we[ srow M I8 T. 1Me DQ/IR/GrG1 fINL C[1OWIK „IC W6r laC.11v1 K ILL Pf111N YMIIY 9Y6 toudlP W N1111( M R NLLT eavlllL MI NIY NA .•aL OAYMeQ MNOI YP1T� efaaAf fIN1 R R N/ om 1QA['N.M. m Ueo9t w �1T mVEmUFn ,Wp TiMT N+ w PROJECT NP. M.P.G X.a.N. AN A ELF tNSNEnI CBR DEVELOPMENT M HNO/x T11E 111E �TT� TOM ROLLINGS PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I 2 -05 -0062 )!LNlH M. aw Rs ,wo, BROOKLYN CENTER, MN SHEET NO. a OF a SHEETS I 04/08/05 REC MARKELL LABEREE N DESIGN GROUP MAY 1 1005 I.eeM aaug WSYwpGe lr1uprcpaeJ CITY OF BROOKLYN DENTE OfMAEtt' QIRB JOQ BB ml! +a✓7rv+brrwrwnmscA7s R s currTp ro11 ''ae�srlsa wlt[TBIECTWbwbodwmr d I PLA7r SCH EMPLE r nn larl�l 1 rru p=I 1 vALJ•C JJ074 JJ07 1 Dwnbry DYedO T o— r 1 7 �4C��� .4 .ID J0 Iw l l T.'.� 1 I r l 1 ary �y\ F 'dim NPIVr6PMIIb bb=rrwtl aWbmwrbwl iii �N U. fYYlpeaYY✓b•f -41 w'tlwrW 1pNpy, tpNSel atl ip"1=b. 3 MpY1rglW.bparAY!lbmey«•(J6fmAJ io. tbb dsmObAee W t +m.a+rnw A.alwacb= rae >abbErru�asr.lo.arwrr ,j p na« r L1 aaero•rbwwEp Eb yrwr«ba w I r Z g NYw M/YM.bJo/lwii•daltlunb Mrlawa/eMeMObea 4 S W Y 1 1 "t1 W /EJ` Q JaIYIII C LL. anlmEr ME 4E Mabp�/ew Mlb lYblb WW1 M.E�i O w t t Am1.MIby.EUlgpw WJb MwOb/ailr l001rmwopolbA Q W y r J MYNGwslwbfbY ..asWlye"reryrsrvr rraw.,r 0 -Jllr�� Av/blsdl'q,Tp bMrmEtl{�MdY•r•A Ws rdoKr EEyEe� N (r J r4s=wAbbowrwNe"WrbY1e MO'"eraaaverew«�drwar.eM W ri 1 10 p y 71q Wrdr.mldr6miMwMrowN6�l. Q U' lye MMrWYI«lrNAruMDq•b.vlgrFQaweYr leuaiM �V Ibf•s6. nla 1 EilAOgrmlibWMMrepvWWbr EntroP/aaKnOTiro /ca I bMYlMrrb/gdw149.✓✓.r "0°�9r.rwM�b.rar.�or. f� I.a Er •oe0 net -M JM.68 J 30 JO Site Plan re” FCBRDEVELOPMENT i• jr City ofBroo**n CenterLandscaoe Reall1rements Points Required: ML O- FamRyResfde"(0-2Aaes).90Points 4 •b endJrlanMa m Points Proposed: Axare•weeevb s P°<. 5- 2.5'Dfa.orAaW Deciduous Shade Trees =50 Points ww 90-6W. b C ni us trees 36 Points r vm E' 1"ebbrbld� wry me+berebObeY y To Proposed: 113.5 Points a•!.!e rr/ x rilr. CamrW /debelpy Wr A Two 6" or larger deciduous trees required for residential b°wv°bl development of this "s. Two 6" Marshairs Seedfass Ash are L 1 p rovided to meet this cement pro requirement �v RECUVE® 10 ID ID ED MAM�L ArK 07 2005, CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Front Elevation NOW" w•M1I Townhomem vy.�•ur vqy .rhl�TM" 3006000. A N. ap wo.ariw.s .0 oar �r eogyn hn1.r MN Side Elevation Side Elevation `J w.r� w•r-r a ED ED ED 11D 7.5fl Exterior Elevations Rear Elevation I A-3.1 :IlK HV RECEIVED i OF BROOKLYN CENTER 4 IL a d C7mY. UMt !Mt r l ir �u w rrw Na r r 1 hll.. Townhomn �y a.aw F saw• r-� m ry m aaaldfrn AnwN Lower Level Plan Bulldlnc A BuWidino 19 Rev. ra yr M4 -P A- Lkft I e e I 1 p L I II, I /JJ �IeeOr i u 1 A tirs MOM =Floor Plans wy v s >t.•a w• A2 y 0 K m Upper Level Plan Bulidtnc A Bullding B Rev. CJ -r is ik.... t p I a I dM�fee rt eewmn�`� Seep 1. x•d .e,'rn -ii, r ry too; fa i e' C o b 3£W7� 1,qg�; ti1r� Ae t rr<eetY<ya i:esrsx x•>+ .I a Rk n so I !_m a e w. Y I f AS u 9n i i i a_ I:. r MY<usilk ap 1 I. i I! L G'"✓ .I `A.yS C1TY OF gAOOKLYN CENWTE� zs 5 my iF b 2'•t i 0 i I 3 a u gym' E 3 Y I '5- ......::f �w' 5 ep_ i i m A A I mx t y i I 1 t i A 101A OUIX Aim. N. fW r 111 �1'b�- .a1F t%R o,r a a• kb'... i.5. iY ._i•A'._ M'`� Y NFAW" R N:r: 'v raz t§ic3! 9r A 1 r t er, e«vei' ins, Ur G am* r o ROOM FENt$N SGNEOtSi E c�vr ROOM FlNlq E SCHEOUIE xn, atwm 5 rz¢ n_m>w naaa a x$ I Kan I s ,Sawa na aucwi itts nccw aaae: i aea w ran aww LJ Y E'L� E •axu i -.x. ;5 amt r I �.i -r -E-- r +p i (r t j. 0T N CEN E n. H ii iaa 1<I ar a. s�«. a¢ w, 1 t �t u s t Y t� E BROOKLYN E T a J --Y'z 'a f a x r s f l x A ^j 3 a' F y 3 l: �"N:+at1 as e" f. U.d5+3 '1 [.�Jds> ,3:7JF� a�.iP F.. xpq>k� n nf1f.8 "tr .rM ?GtwV� W% -R.t 4h. 1 LI asN.4a r 1 4 y i TI SA ~fi Q t 1 t 1 x N +wRx,r x=.fa xA R�.a MY 61- Iwo i 4 �.E s t HE 4"ixxrl►3 i 1 V uoR u 1 ww ,a.'x.A+ R 45 sE .•tea s..r.r 0]i 5 J a s f'CE V iD F BROOKLYN CEf i Townhomm 3� Meg Arm.K e/euld "CMirM �Wt M W rr. w wrr. i 1rs Sul lding D Sectlone �y D i Ar K 07 2005 X3. PITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION APRIL 28, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Rachel Lund, Rex Newman, Dianne Reem, and Tim Roche were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioner Rahn was absent and unexcused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APRIL 14.2005 There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Boeck, to approve the minutes of the April 14, 2005 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Rex Newman abstained as he was not present at the meeting. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson 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 NOS. 2005 -008 2005 -009 CBR Development. LLC Chair Willson introduced Application Nos. 2005 -008 and 2005 -009, a request from CBR Development, LLC, for Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plan approval to divide the lot at 3955 69� Avenue North into eight lots and an outlot for an eight unit townhouse development on the lot currently addressed 3955 69 Avenue North. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposals. (See Planning Commission Information Sheets dated 4 -28 -05 for Application No. 2005 -008 and 2005 -009 and the City Engineer/Public Works Director's report dated 4- 25 -05, attached.) Mr. Warren pointed out to the Commission that he and the Director of Public Works met with the applicant after reviewing the plan submitted and they determined that access to the site from 69 Avenue North would not be acceptable and it would be necessary to alter the plans to show access to the site from France Avenue North. The applicant agreed with city staff to resubmit plans indicating the modifications to the site plan as suggested. There were various questions raised by the Commission regarding the application relating to access, density, utilities and possible plan modifications which Mr. Warren offered further explanation and clarification. 4 -28 -05 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION NO. 2005 -008 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -008, at 8:39 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. The applicant, Mr. Tom Rollings, 4550 Weston Lane N, Plymouth, introduced himself and addressed a question raised earlier regarding exterior lighting and underground irrigation. He stated that lighting will be located on the north side of the buildings as well as motion lights. He added that although not required, they would be installing an underground irrigation system for ease in maintenance on the site. He also acknowledged his responsibility for constructing and maintaining the access drive proposed to be located over the south portion of the city water tower site. Commissioner Roche asked if the developer had talked to the property owner directly to the west regarding this development. Mr. Rollings stated that he has not directly talked to them but a real estate person had and there wasn't much interest expressed by the property owner in selling at this time. Commissioner Roche also asked about consideration being given to changes in the landscaping plan to allow adequate buffer to the site to the west as well as to add to the landscaping along 69 Avenue North. He suggested adding White Pine to the plan along the west property line. Mr. Rollings responded that they would be willing to work with the city staff regarding what affect they would like regarding landscaping. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -008. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2005 -008, at 8:49 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Boeck stated he believes the application has merit and is an improvement to the area with the changes recommended by the staff, however, he feels it is difficult for the plans to be signed and approved as submitted. He suggested that the application be tabled until the plans can be amended and resubmitted to the Planning Commission for consideration to include the staff recommendations. Chair Willson stated that he agreed with Commissioner Boeck's comments. Mr. Warren explained that an easement on the water tower site would not be considered by the City Council until after the Planning Commission Applications were offered for their consideration. He added that the recommended access changes were not presented to the 4 -28 -05 Page 2 applicant by city staff until after the report was prepared, which did not allow the applicant much time to resubmit his plans prior to tonight's meeting. Mr. Rollings requested to address the Commission. He stated that the plans are being prepared to indicate the changes requested by staff. There was further discussion by the Commission regarding the disposition of the application. There was a general consensus among the Commission to table the application until new plans are submitted for review and consideration by the Planning Commission indicating the changes. ACTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NOS. 2005 -008 and 2005 -009 CBR DEVELOPMENT. LLC There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to table Application Nos. 2005 -008 and 2005 -009, submitted by CBR Development, LLC for Preliminary at approval and Site and Building Plan approval to divide the lot at 3955 69 pP g pp Avenue North into eight lots and an outlot for an eight unit townhouse development. g g p Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Newman, Reem and Roche. Voting against: Commissioner Lund The motion passed. The Planning Commission will reconsider the application at its May 12, 2005 meeting. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass 4 -28 -05 Page 3 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 MAY 12, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Rachel Lund, Rex Newman, Sean Rahn, Dianne Reem, and Tim Roche were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APRIL 28.2005 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. Commissioner Sean Rahn abstained as he was not present at the meeting. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson 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 NOS. 2005 -008 2005 -009 CBR Development. LLC Chair Willson introduced Application Nos. 2005 -008 and 2005 -009, a request from CBR Development, LLC, for Preliminary Plat and Site and Building Plan approval to divide the lot at 3955 69 Avenue North into eight lots and an outlot for an eight unit townhouse development on the lot currently addressed 3955 69 Avenue North. These applications were tabled at the April 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting pending the submission of modified plans which reflected a change to access to the site and the landscape plans. Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposals pointing out the modifications submitted and reviewed additional recommendations of approval. (See Planning Commission Information Sheets dated 4 -28 -05 for Application No. 2005 -008 and 2005 -009 and the City Engineer/Public Works Director's report dated 4- 25 -05, attached.) Mr. Warren explained that townhouse association documents would need to be developed as well as a cross access agreement between the city and the developer which would allow access to France Avenue North from the water tower property to include a private drive to the west for future development of additional townhomes. He added that the right in and right out access from 69 Avenue North has been removed from the revised plan and the utilities for the site will 4 -28 -05 Page 1 be coming in from France Avenue with the intent of extending down to the west for future development. Commissioner Reem inquired about outdoor lighting on the side of the buildings near the parking area. The applicant, Mr. Tom Rollings, responded that additional lighting near the parking area would be added to the plan. Mr. Warren suggested that it could be added as a condition of approval. There was a consensus among the Commission members to add a condition of approval regarding additional lighting on the site. There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche to remove the applications from the table and take them under consideration for approval. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. Commissioner Boeck inquired about adequate `guest' parking on the site to eliminate a turn around area on the site. Mr. Tom Rollings responded that there is guest parking at the south side of the site which will be marked as such and they feel there is adequate number of space considering the size of the site. Mr. Rollings responded to an inquiry by Commissioner Boeck that he understands all the recommended conditions of approval as previously outlined by Mr. Warren and that he agrees to abide by them and provide the necessary arrangements and agreements to allow access to the property to the west. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2005 -008 CBR DEVELOPMENT. LLC There was a motion by Commissioner Lund, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to recommend approval of Application No. 2005 -008, submitted by CBR Development, LLC for Preliminary Plat approval to divide the lot at 3955 69 Avenue North into eight lots and an outlot for an eight unit townhouse development subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the city ordinances. 3. Final plat approval is subject to the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2005 -009 granting density credits per Section 35 -400, Subdivision lb to allow eight dwelling units within this plat. 4. A Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions along with homeowner's association documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 4 -28 -05 Page 2 5. Final Plat approval is contingent on access arrangements and agreements allowing access from the site to France Avenue North and authorizing access through this site to the properties to the west. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Lund, Newman, Rahn. Reem and Roche. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its May 23, 2005 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. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2005 -009 CBR DEVELOPMENT. LLC There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to recommend approval of Application No. 2005 -009, submitted by CBR Development, LLC for Site and Building Plan approval to for an eight unit townhouse development subject to the following conditions: 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 of be determined based on cost estimates, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure the completion of site improvements. 4. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 5. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 7. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities and curb and gutter shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas. 4 -28 -05 Page 3 9. Plan approval acknowledges sufficient density credits for under building parking to allow eight townhome units on a.89 acre site pursuant to Section 35 -400, Subdivision lb of the zoning ordinance. 10. The homeowner's association documents proposed for this townhome complex shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. The applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 12. Access to the subject site from France Avenue North shall be provided over the city water tower site. An appropriate cross access agreement as approved by the City Attorney shall be executed and filed with the title to the properties. Said access agreement shall also extend over the subject property to provide access to the property to the west. 13. The plans shall be modified prior to the issuance of building permits to provide additional lighting for the parking area south of the buildings consistent with the requirements of Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Lund, Newman, Rahn, Reem and Roche. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its May 23, 2005 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 Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass 4 -28 -05 Page 4 City Council Agenda Item No. 9a Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2006 -2008 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 2005, and that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. Mav 23, 2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. I Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works Transit 417 North Fifth Street, Suite 320 612- 348 -9260, Phone Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -1362 612- 348 -9710, Fax 612- 596 -6985, TDD/TYY www.hennepin.us May 4, 2005 Mr. Michael McCauley City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Subject: Fiscal Year 2006 -2008 Joint Cooperation Agreement Dear Mr. McCauley: Accompanying for your review and execution is the Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement for FY 2006 2008. The agreement sets forth broad shared powers for carrying out housing and community development activities. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires this agreement in order for Hennepin County to qualify as an urban county and receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program entitlement funds. This document was approved by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on May 3, 2005 and awaits action by your city council. The agreement has not been changed from the grey -lined draft you received as an attachment to our February 24` letter. As a community participating in the Urban Hennepin County Program, your city would not be eligible in FY 2006 2008 to apply for grants under the small cities or state CDBG programs. Your community will automatically participate in the Hennepin County HOME Program and will not be eligible to receive HOME funds through the state or other consortiums. Please execute the city signature page of the agreement to indicate your intent to continue participation in the Urban County Program. A sample council resolution is enclosed. Return only an original copy of the city signature page with the city seal and a copy of the authorizing resolution. Please return these documents to this office as soon as possible and no later than June 30,2005. Materials should be sent to: Chuck Ballentine, Director Housing, Community Works and Transit 417 North Fifth Street, Suite 320 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 -1362 An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper Mr. Michael McCauley May 4, 2005 Page 2 Please contact Jim Ford at 612- 348 -6013 if you have any questions about the agreement or process. I look forward to continuing our cooperative efforts in addressing suburban Hennepin County housing and community development needs. Sincerely, Chuck Ballenti Director Enclosures: Joint Cooperation Agreement A050448 Sample Resolution cc: Mr. Tom Bublitz Contract No. A050448 JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A -2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59: WITNESSETH: COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and housing activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community Development Block Grant funds as an Urban County within the provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands that it: 1. May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations for fiscal years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and 2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County. I. DEFINITIONS The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them: A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.). B. "Activity" means a CDBG- funded activity eligible under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. Example: single family rehab activity. C. "Annual Program" means those combined activities submitted by cooperating units to COUNTY for CDBG funding as part of the Consolidated Plan. D. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part of the Community Development Block Grant Program. 1 E. "Cooperating Unit(s)" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, which is a party to each Agreement. F. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. G. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people. H. "Program" means the HUD Community Development Block Grant Program as defined under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. I. "Program Income" means gross income received by the recipient or a subrecipient directly generated from the use of CDBG. J. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570. K. "Urban County" means the entitlement jurisdiction within the provisions of the Act and includes the suburban Hennepin County municipalities which are signatories to this Agreement. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant and HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and from any program income generated from the expenditure of such funds. III. AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2005 and terminating no sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for the Fiscal Year 2008, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. The COUNTY may notify COOPERATING UNITS prior to the end of the Urban County qualification period that the Agreement will automatically be renewed unless it is terminated in writing by either party. Either the COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT may exercise the option to terminate the Agreement at the end of the Urban County qualification period. If the COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT fail to exercise that option, it will not have the opportunity to exercise that option until the end of a subsequent Urban County qualification period. The COUNTY will notify the COOPERATING UNIT in writing of its right to elect to be excluded by the date specified by HUD. This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any changes necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County Qualification Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled. Failure by either party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the Agreement following the expenditure of all CDBG funds allocated for use in the COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction. 2 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of the COUNTY as an Urban County under the Act. This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit, and in no event shall the Agreement be filed later than June 30, 2005. COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other applicable laws. IV. ACTIVITIES COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out, within the terms of this Agreement, certain activities eligible for funding under the Act. The COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate the COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part 91. COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agree as follows: A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with a COUNTY- established schedule, prepare and provide to the COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b), it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by the COUNTY. C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient requirements stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In such instances, a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY. D. COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all funds annually allocated to activities pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to expend the basic grant amount. 1. With each annual program COOPERATING UNITS shall submit to the COUNTY activity schedules for the completion and expenditure of funds within eighteen (18) months. COUNTY will institute monitoring measures and provide technical or other assistance to insure activities are proceeding on schedule. 3 2. Funds for activities not expended within eighteen (18) months may be recaptured at the discretion of the COUNTY and distributed by COUNTY as provided for in D. 4. Limited extensions to the expenditure deadlines in this section may be granted by COUNTY upon written request only where the authorized activity has been initiated and /or is subject to a binding contract which provides for the expenditure to be completed within a time period acceptable to COUNTY. 3. Amendments to an annual program by COOPERATING UNITS maybe approved by COUNTY up to fifteen (15) months after initial funding has been approved only when the new activity can be completed and funding expended within six (6) months of the amendment approval. Funds not expended within the six (6) month extension period may be recaptured and distributed by COUNTY as provided for in D.4. 4. All funds recaptured by COUNTY will be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis at the discretion of the COUNTY where total of such funds is $100,000 or greater. Amounts less than $100,000 shall be allocated by COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals. E. COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS shall expend all program income pursuant to this Agreement as provided below: 1. Program income from housing rehabilitation activities administered by the COUNTY will be incorporated into a pool at the discretion of the COUNTY. This provision is effective with the term of this Agreement commencing October 1, 2005. The pool will be administered by COUNTY and will be used for housing rehabilitation projects located throughout the entire Urban County. When possible, COUNTY will give priority to funding housing rehabilitation projects within the COOPERATING UNIT where the program income was generated. Funds expended in this manner would be secured by a Repayment Agreement/Mortgage running in favor of the COUNTY. Program income generated by certain COOPERATING UNITS that administer their own housing rehabilitation activities may be retained by the COOPERATING UNIT at its discretion, however such COOPERATING UNITS will be bound by the conditions of D.2., above. Only COOPERATING UNITS that were administering their own activities pursuant to the Joint Cooperation Agreement pertaining to the HUD fiscal years 2003 -2005 will be eligible to retain their program income. 2. COUNTY reserves the option to recapture program income generated by non housing rehabilitation activities if said funds have not been expended within twelve (12) months of being generated. These funds shall be transferred to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis administered by COUNTY or, where the total of such funds does not exceed $100,000, shall be reallocated by COUNTY to other existing activities consistent with timeliness requirements and Consolidated Plan goals. F. COOPERATING UNITS are encouraged to undertake joint activities involving the sharing of funding when such action furthers the goals of the Consolidated Plan and meets the expenditure goals. G. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the timely expenditure of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant is reduced by HUD according to its policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant amount to any COOPERATING UNIT that has not met its expenditure goal shall be reduced accordingly. H. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the community development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. 4 I. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all activities funded, in part or in full by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in implementing all programs and /or activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights, affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the COUNTY. J. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities. K. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established by COUNTY, in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. L. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD or COUNTY to be ineligible. M. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be designated by the COUNTY. N. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows: A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an annual basis, all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic grant amount under the Act. B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a request for funding. C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community development program and housing goals. D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local housing rehabilitation activities funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12 of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of COOPERATING UNIT activity. 5 E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer, for a possible fee, other activities funded pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration, develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY. V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as follows: A. COUNTY shall retain thirteen percent (13 of the annual basic grant amount for the administration of the program. Included in this administrative amount is funding for annual county -wide Fair Housing activities. B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C and the procedure stated in part D of this section utilizing data provided by HUD. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee of funding. C. Allocation of funding will be based upon a formula using data supplied by HUD that bears the same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between: 1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all COOPERATING UNITS. 2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all COOPERATING UNITS. 3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS. 4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of poverty shall be counted twice. D. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this Section in the following manner: 1. All COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of greater than three and one half percent (3.5 of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will receive funding allocations in accordance with the COUNTY formula allocations. 2. COOPERATING UNITS with aggregate formula percentages of three and one half percent (3.5 or less of the total using the procedure in part C. of this section will have their funds consolidated into a pool for award in a manner determined by COUNTY on a competitive request for proposal basis. Only the COUNTY and COOPERATING UNITS whose funding has been pooled will be eligible to compete for these funds. 6 E. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for any errors in the data furnished by HUD. F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion thereof, the amount not requested shall be made available to other participating communities, in a manner determined by COUNTY. VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become part of Urban Hennepin County. This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion of the re- qualification process for fiscal years 2006 -2008, that it is eligible to become a metropolitan city and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the basis of the COOPERATING UNIT's eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 8, 2005, the COOPERATING UNIT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three -year period of the COUNTY qualification. VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly- assisted housing. Assistant County Attorney VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on May 3, 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the COUNTY agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of its County Board And: Assistant/Deputy /County Administrator Attest: Deputy /Clerk of the County Board RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Assistant County Administrator Public Works APPROVED AS TO FORM Date: Assistant County Attorney Director, Housing, Community Works and Transit Department Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: Assistant County Attorney Date: B IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing body having duly approved this Agreement on 2005, and pursuant to such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A050448. CITY OF By: Its Mayor And: Its City Manager ATTEST: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter 9 City Council Agenda Item No. 9b Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING INTENT OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO FUNDING FOR WATERSHED COMMISSION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has proposed undertaking a capital improvement plan; and WHEREAS, funding mechanisms being discussed for the watershed management commission's proposed capital improvement plan would require individual cities to provide funding to the watershed management commission upon various formulae; and WHEREAS, the watershed management commission, in its draft proposal identified a number of sources that cities could consider in raising funds necessary to meet allocation of watershed management commission capital projects to individual cities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has previously indicated an interest in going forward with further exploration of the watershed management commission's conceptual plan to undertake major capital projects to improve water quality in the Shingle Creek watershed; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to specifically identify its anticipated source of funding for any allocation of cost by the watershed management commission to the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, one of the potential funding mechanisms identified by the watershed management commission that could be considered by individual cities was the use of special assessments against individual property owners; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center does not feel that it would be appropriate or practical to consider the use of special assessments against individual property owners when responding to funding allocations from the watershed management commission for major capital improvements having regional significance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that it hereby expresses its intent to use the storm water utility as the potential source of funding to meet allocations of cost that might be made against the City of Brooklyn Center for capital improvement projects that may be undertaken by the watershed management commission; and be it further resolved by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that it specifically does not intend to consider the use of special assessments against individual property owners for major capital project costs associated with watershed management commission projects. Mav 23.2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. Pagel of 3 Michael McCauley From: Diane Niesen Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:35 AM To: Michael McCauley Subject: RE: #10c: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding Proposal Mike, Please include this message in tonight's City Council packet. Thank you. To: Brooklyn Center Mayor and Council Members From: Council Member Niesen Date: April 25, 2005 Subject: Recent CIP Funding Proposal Letter from Shingle Creek Watershed Management Organization SCWMO) Mayor and fellow Council Members: attended the SCWMO monthly April meeting. Several items follow: 1. In response to my question, a SCWMO attendee stated that the intent of SCWMO's letter BC received did include a recommendation that cities' "special assess" lakefront and streamside properties as "benefiting properties" for water improvement costs. 2. In response to my question, the present Chair of SCWMO acknowledged that SCWMO had no rights in the area of shaoina cities' tax calculations for its residents. In response to my question as to why, then, if SCWMO had no such rights, that they included any recommendation for tax assessment formulae in their letter, no answer was received. It was just reiterated that SCWMO had no such rights or authority of taxation. 3. Several SCWMO Commissioners supported my position against various provisions of SCWMO's letter, including BC's, and expressed doubt that their taxpayers could afford to shoulder water improvement costs as proposed. 4. Given BC's City Manager's statement below (to Ms. Johnson), it follows that SCWMO not be given the impression that BC would be inclined to accept any suggestion for taxing its residents for water quality improvement efforts. This should be so stated in any BC- to -SCWMO correspondence regarding their new funding proposal for CIPs. 5. Given BC's City Manager statement below, that information should be in writing so that the recommendations will be so carried out as told to City Council, and not dependent on the opinions or interpretations of whomever is in office (City staff or Council). SCWMO stated at their April 2005 meeting that they have no authority nor interest in how cities would assess their citizenry for water improvement CIPs. Therefore, BC's correspondence to SCWMO could include something such as: "BC accepts SCWMO's acknowledgment stated at their April 2005 meeting that SCWMO has no authority in the area of formulating tax assessments for individual cities' taxpayers. Therefore, BC would proceed on its own to assess accepted CIP costs to its citizenry. It has been recommended and accepted by the BC City Council that any such assessments would involve a recovery of costs via BC's Stormwater Utility, the source of funds for any CIP projects. The $10 per household, per year, statement should also be clearly included, vs. per capita, which is per person. That way, any possible interpretation of a $10 costs per family member in any given household /other would be avoided, and therefore further promote fairness and transparency. 6. If the BC Council so interprets and agrees, it should be clearly stated that in no case will BC taxpayers 05/18/2005 Page 2 of 3 accept 75% of total CIP project costs. Respectfully yours, Council Member Diane Niesen From: Michael McCauley Sent: Mon 04/11/05 9:40 AM To: 'Uptown Lawn Snow' Cc: BC City Council Subject: RE: #10c: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding Proposal Dear Ms. Johnson, I do not believe that the City Council is inclined to specially assess lake shore property owners should the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission undertake a proposed capital improvement plan. If this goes forward, the Watershed Commission would pass along costs to impacted cities. It is up to the cities to determine the source of funds to pay each city's allocated share of the project costs. Staff has recommended to the City Council, should this go forward, that the Stormwater Utility be the source of funds for any projects. Michael McCauley Uptown Lawn Sent From: 1 t Monday, April 1 2005 8:59 AM ptownls @msn.com] To: Michael McCauley; Myrna Kragness; Kay Lasman; Kathleen Carmody; Mary O'Connor; twinlake @coollist.com Subject: #10c: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Funding Proposal Dear Council Members: My name is Kelly Johnson, my husband Todd Johnson and I live on Upper Twin Lake at 5225 E Twin Lake Blvd. We understand that you are considering how to fund future water improvement projects in our area. It is my understanding that under the proposal that you are considering there is a heavy emphasis on the property owners surrounding a water way to contribute to the funding of these water quality improvement projects. As a property owner I understand that we do benefit from water improvement projects, as well as our immediate community that uses the lakes through public access, increased property values, and many many health and environmental benefits that make our city attractive to future residents and commercial developers. It seems a fair way for all of us to be apart of the solution is to contribute to the clean up and implementations of ways to prevent current and future pollution of the lakes from storm water run off, phosphorus lawn fertilizers, and just plain garbage (I.e. cigarette butts, glass, wrappers, etc.) that washes by the tons into the lake and water ways from the streets after a storm. In short, I think that it is important that 1) a reasonable cap or maximum limit be put on the amount an individual home owner is responsible for as well as 2) a rule that all homeowners be notified of the impending additional tax. These are important issues that all in our city and surrounding communities can benefit from not just the homeowners who are on the lake. There are many ways to figure a maximum the fairest, seems to be a percentage of the tax assessed 05/18/2005 Page 3 of 3 property value. A reasonable percentage may be 0.5% to 0.75% of the value each year. I'm sorry I can't make it to the meeting, tonight. Thank you for listening to me, Kelly Johnson 5225 E Twin Lake Blvd Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 763- 592 -5296 05/18/2005 61 City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers ody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: April. 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Watershed Agenda Item The Council directed that the watershed capital improvement proposal be placed on the April 25, 2005, agenda. For your convenience the April 11, 2005, materials are included in the packet. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: April 7, 2005 Re: Revised Materials Regarding Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal Attached are the materials from the March 14' City Council meeting, the City of Plymouth's response to the Watershed, and a Revised Draft Letter to the Watershed and Draft Alternative. The Revised Draft Letter incorporates, in the underlined material, comments received from Council Member Lasman. These are the only comments received since the Council tabled the item for additional comments. The Revised Draft Letter to the Watershed is still set out in separate numbered statements to facilitate City Council review. The Council may select for inclusion, exclusion, or modification the various individual points. The Draft letter would support a program of major projects with some suggested limitations on expenditure levels, City input on projects, and a goal of insuring that projects are significant within the context of the Watershed. (This is as opposed to a project that is primarily related to only one City or is benefiting new development. The proposed clause 7 would restrict these projects to existing waterways etc. to avoid multi city funding of new stormwater facilities required for new developments.) The Draft Alternate takes the opposite view and would not support the Watershed Commission's proposal. 6301 Shingle Creel? Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569.3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityolbrooklyncenter.org i Page 1 of 1 Michael McCauley From: Kay Lasman Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:48 PM To: Michael McCauley As requested at the meeting, the only changes I would like to see in the draft letter to the watershed commission is a cap on the amount and a sunset or scheduled time for re- evaluation. Thanks. 04/07/2005 REVISED 4 -7 -2005 DRAFT LETTER TO WATERSHED The Brooklyn Center City Council supports the concept of undertaking significant capital projects that will benefit the Watershed as a whole. The proposed funding to support those capital projects is generally appropriate in concept. The funding mechanisms should be refined and reduced to specific formulae with readily applied definitions of benefiting and contributing cities. Consideration should be given to providing that: 1. Projects must be of significance beyond the boundaries of the City in which the project is located in the case of a project wholly contained within one city. 2. The funding levels are kept in the general amounts set forth in the Watershed proposal. 3. Cities be allowed to comment on proposed capital improvement plans 4. Capital Improvement Plans have a 5 year horizon and that preliminary capital improvement plans be developed with a 10 year horizon. 5. Any project added to the next iteration of a 5 year plan must have been identified in the previous year's 10 year preliminary capital improvement plan. 6. The City within which an improvement project is located shall be afforded the option of being responsible for the design and administration of the construction J ro`ect with P funding from the Watershed or requesting that the Watershed be responsible for the q g p design and administration of the project's construction. 7. Any project included in the plan must be located in and improving an existing waterway, creek, lake, wetland, or stormwater structure. S. There should be a can on the amount an individual citv would be reauired to oay. An examtile of a potential mechanism for canninu the fiscal burden on a citv could be:No plan should result in a City being required to provide funding for projects in any consecutive 5 year rolling period that exceeds a cumulative total of $10.00 per capita in such 5 year period without the concurrence of that City's City Council by Resolution 9. There should be a scheduled sunset or re- evaluation of the catiital nroiect nroaram and funding included in any broeram adopted. 10. The City a. Supports the proposed ad valorem tax for the Watershed's portion of the CIP costs Or b. Does not support the proposed ad valorem tax for the Watershed's portion of the CIP costs Draft Alternate The Brooklyn Center City Council does not support the proposed undertaking to have the Watershed impose an ad valorem tax and to assess the cost of capital projects against cities in the Watershed. The City prefers the current practice of requiring cooperative agreements among cities wishing to construct projects benefiting more than one city. City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members ody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCauley City Manager Date: March 24, 2005 Re: Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal Attached are the materials from the March 14"' City Council meeting, the City of Plymouth's response to the Watershed, and a Draft Letter to the Watershed and Draft Alternative. The Draft Letter to the Watershed is set out in separate numbered statements to facilitate City Council review. The Council may select for inclusion, exclusion, or modification the various individual points. The Draft letter would support a program of major projects with some suggested limitations on expenditure levels, City input on projects, and a goal of insuring that projects are significant within the context of the Watershed. (This is as opposed to a project that is primarily related to only one City or is benefiting new development. The proposed clause 7 would restrict these projects to existing waterways etc. to avoid multi -city funding of new stormwater facilities required for new developments.) The Draft Alternate takes the opposite view and would not support the Watershed Commission's proposal. 1 0 01 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community enter Phone y o e &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community To: Mayor Kragness and Council Members Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor From: Michael J. McCaul City Manager Date: March 10, 2005 Re: Watershed Management Commission Capital Improvement Proposal Attached is a request from the Watershed Management Commissions for comments on a proposed Capital Projects funding mechanism that involves the levying of an ad valorem tax on all properties in the Watershed to fund $125,000 per year in contribution to capital projects in the watershed. It also proposes assessing 25% of the annual project cost to the area directly benefiting and 50% to the contributing or benefiting areas. This would be a departure from past practice by the Watersheds. Currently, there is no levy for the Watershed and capital projects are undertaken only be negotiated agreement of the cities involved in a project. Cities under the current schematic have a greater degree of control over projects than in the proposed change. Benefits of the conceptual change would relate to the potential to undertake projects that impact several cities with funding from the watershed. Potential issues are the decreased local control. With the Watershed, the current structure results in a direct financial benefit to the consultants by virtue of increased Watershed activity. In the cities, there is no direct financial benefit to the engineers by virtue of projects undertaken. Council Member Carmody has been attending Watershed meetings and will likely have some thoughts at the work session on the pros and cons of the proposal. Mr. Blomstrom sees some merit in getting some projects that are now languishing for lack of multi -city consensus going forward, such as the Twin Lake wetland restoration. The general proposal may need to be tightened up on determining projects that should be funded through a watershed wide ad valorem tax and imposed contribution upon impacted cities. Some thoughts would include a formula requiring that 50% of the project drainage be outside the city where the project is proposed. The concern is to insure that projects undertaken are of significance beyond an individual city. 0 301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Communit y Center Phone TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Telephone (763) 553 -1144 Fax (763) 553 -9326 February 14, 2005 To Member Cities: The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions and their Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) have developed the attached proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy. It is submitted to you for your review and comment. Additional background material as well as a one page summary of Decision Items is provided for your use. The Commissions would appreciate your comments on the Decision Items as well as on whether you believe this is a workable approach by their April 14, 2005 meeting. The Implementation Plan and CIP sections of the Water Quality Plan are the last items to be worked out before the Commissions propose to adopt the Water Quality Plan through the Major Plan Amendment process. There will be additional opportunity for city review, comment, and refinement during that lengthy plan amendment process. Background The Commissions' joint Second Generation Watershed Management Plan included a general CIP that identified a few projects, but noted that more detail would be developed as part of the Water Quality Plan and from the series of TMDLs and Management Plans to be developed over the next several years. The draft Water Quality Plan includes an Implementation Plan of management activities and potential capital projects that have been identified in either lake management plans or the Shingle Creek Corridor Study now nearing completion. This initial Implementation Plan is expected to be updated on an ongoing basis as TMDLs and Management Plans are completed and approved. The Implementation Plan includes a variety of activities to be undertaken to achieve the water quality and other goals. These activities may be: 1. Non structural activities that may be new or extensions of existing activities the cities and Commission already undertakes, such as increased street sweeping or targeted education. 2. Small projects or activities that don't meet the thresholds usually considered for capital projects, such as aquatic plant management, shoreline restoration, or small erosion control projects. 3. Capital projects such as detention pond construction, installation of in -line treatment devices, or lake treatments. Over the past year or more the Commissions, TAC, and member cities have debated how to finance the projects and activities that will be identified in the Implementation Plans. Most of the attention has been paid to item #3 in the list above, as those will be the costliest activities. The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements: 1. A negotiated apportionment of cost. 2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget. 3. Certification of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed. BROOKLYN CENTER -BROOKLYN PARK •CHAMPLIN CRYSTAL- MAPLE GROVE MINNEAPOLIS- NEW HOPE OSSEO PLYMOUTH ROBBINSDALE J: \Shingle Creek \CIPAL cities req comment on draft CIP policy2.doc February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 2 of 7 The JPA further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods #1 or #2, then by 2/3 vote the Commission can decide to go forward using method #3. In the ongoing CIP funding discussions, some cities objected to method #2, given the budget and fiscal constraints that have been especially difficult in the past few years. Some cities objected to method #3, arguing that since most of their development occurred after the watershed rules took effect, their taxpayers had already paid for significant water quality improvements through higher land costs and special assessments and shouldn't have to pay for similar improvements in other cities. Some cities noted that each project is unique, and it may not be possible to develop a cost sharing strategy that can be applied to all projects as a uniform formula. The TAC met twice to discuss various cost sharing strategies and how they might be applied to three projects identified for inclusion in the Implementation Plan. An important consideration was linking capital projects funding and specific goals or benefits. Another important consideration was controlling the process so that the CIP did not become a "laundry list" of projects. Finally, it was important to provide some flexibility in the process to minimize the times a minor or major plan amendment would be required to amend the CIP. The committee considered four cost sharing strategies (see attached), and recommended its Option 4 strategy to the Commission. After reviewing all the options and the TAC recommendation, the Commission agreed that Option 4 seemed a reasonable compromise. Option 4 is based on the following principles: There is a benefit to the entire watershed from meeting water quality and management plan goals. For most projects there is a direct benefit to some area for example, lakeshore or streamside properties. For most projects there is an upstream area "causing" the need for improvements. For many projects there is a downstream area "benefiting" from improvements. Pronosed Cost Sharine Policv For any capital project, 100 percent funding from the ad valorem tax levy or from all cities based on the funding formula is and would continue to be an option to consider. However, the proposed Cost Sharing Policy would apportion the cost between the watershed as a whole, the area that receives direct benefit, and the contributing /indirect benefiting area. 1. For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission- adopted or approved TMDL or management plan: a. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the project. b. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method spread across all taxpayers within the watershed. c. The cities' share should be 75 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to the cities as follows, or in some other manner acceptable to them: i. The area directly benefiting from the project should be apportioned 25 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to cities based on, for example, proportion of lake or stream frontage. ii. Fifty percent of the cost of the project should be apportioned based on contributing/ benefiting area. The basis of this apportionment would likely be unique to each project. d. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for payment of their share, for example through special assessments, storm drainage utility, general tax levy, or watershed management tax district. February 4 2005 rY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 3 of 7 2. Capital Improvement Program policies: a. While statute requires the CIP to cover at least a 5 year period, until more TMDLs and Management plans are completed, the initial CIP should be limited to only those few projects that have been discussed for possible implementation over the period 2006 -2009. b. For the initial CIP, the Commission's share (the watershed -wide levy) should not exceed $250,000 annually. c. Since cities desire funding stability and maximum advance notice of potential expenditures, once a CIP is approved projects may only be added (or rescheduled) with approval from the affected cities. d. Prior to ordering a project, the Commission must receive consent from cities whose cost share would exceed that shown in the CIP. 3. Non capital, non- recurring activity policies: a. These are operating budget issues and should be considered in the Implementation plan and annual budget but not in the CIP. b. For non recurring projects or activities, repurpose the Construction /Grant Match funds that are now part of each annual budget to allow member cities to apply for matching funds for activities such as carp removal, shoreline restoration, aquatic plant management February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 4 of 7 These tables summarize the apportionment per city that would result from the proposed Cost Sharing Policy for three projects identified in the CIP. As these projects have not yet been designed, these are general cost estimates. Project: Wetland 639W estimated p&_$500,000 25% watershed; 25% direct lakeshor 5% )inirect Lakeshore (Ryan); 50% contributing watershed City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share Brooklyn Center $16,138 $97,225 Brooklyn Park I $31,275 I $100,800 Crystal $11,000 I $97,850 I Maple Grove I $21,988 Minneapolis I $8,513 I $4,750 New Hope I $8,960 I $29,925 Osseo I $1,688 I Plymouth I $18,688 Robbinsdale I $6,763 $44,450 TOTAL I $125,000 I $375,000 Project: Creek Restoration in Brooklyn Park estimated cost $500,000 25% watershed; 25% stream frontage; 50% contributing /benefiting area City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share Brooklyn Center I $16,138 I $33,750 I Brooklyn Park I $31,275 I $190,500 Crystal I $11,000 I $23,250 Maple Grove I $21,988 I $46,250 Minneapolis I $8,513 $15,000 New Hope I $8,960 I $19,000 Osseo I $1,688 I $2,250 Plymouth I $18,688 I $39,500 Robbinsdale I $6,763 I $5,500 TOTAL I $125,000 I $375,000 Project: Inline Treatment Devices, Crystal Lake estimated cost $400,000 25% watershed; 25% Lakeshore; 50 contributing area City 25% Proposed For 75% Proposed For Ad Valorem Collection City Share Brooklyn Center I $12,910 I I Brooklyn Park I $25,020 Crystal I $8,800 Maple Grove I $17,590 Minneapolis I $6,810 New Hope I $7,160 I Osseo $1,350 Plymouth $14,950 I Robbinsdale I $5,410 I $300,000 TOTAL I $100,000 I $300,000 I February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page 5 of 7 What are the Commissions proposing? That the Commissions' Implementation Plan and CIP set forth a Cost Sharing Policy for negotiating project cost sharing where, for water quality implementation projects identified in a TMDL or water resource management plan: The Commission should share 25 percent of the cost The remaining 75 percent of cost should be shared by benefiting cities based on the proposed Cost Sharing Policy. The Commissions' cost share should be funded through the ad valorem tax levy method That the Implementation Plan and CIP set forth for each proposed project the potential cost to each city based on the three means of financing projects: 100 percent ad valorem tax levy; 100 percent formula; and the Cost Sharing Policy. That the Implementation Plan require that prior to ordering a project consent be received from cities whose cost allocation under the negotiated option would exceed that shown in the Implementation Plan. How would a project under this proposal go forward? The Implementation Plan would identify the cost to each city for each project based on the three types of financing options set forth in the JPA, with the Negotiated Agreement option calculated according to the proposed Cost Sharing Policy. Prior to consideration of an individual project, the JPA requires the development of a feasibility report, an estimated cost, and the proposed allocation of costs. The proposed allocation may be based on the Cost Sharing Policy, or the cities involved may negotiate an alternate cost sharing method. A public hearing must be held allowing cities and other interested parties to comment on the project, its costs, and the proposed cost allocation. If a city's cost allocation would be in excess of the amount identified in the Implementation Plan, this new proposal would require consent from that city before a project could go forward. Does the Commission have the authority to fund projects this way? The existing Joint Powers Agreement authorizes three methods for financing capital improvements: 1. A negotiated apportionment of cost. 2. Apportionment of cost to the cities in the same proportion as the operating budget (often referred to as "the formula. 3. Certification of some or all of the cost to the county for an ad valorem tax levied on all taxable property in the watershed. The JPA further provides that if agreement is not reached to use methods #1 or #2, then by 2/3 vote the Commission can decide to go forward using method #3. How did the Commission develop this proposal? Past projects have been funded by negotiated agreement between benefiting cities. As Clean Water Act implementation turns to addressing nonpoint source pollution, there is increasing emphasis on improving water quality on a watershed basis. The TMDL and NPDES programs require local agencies, watershed organizations, and the state to partner on implementation plans that make progress toward water quality goals. As projects move from water quantity to water quality, it becomes more difficult to identify benefit, which for water quantity projects is usually defined based on contributing subwatershed, property removed from the floodplain, etc. Water quality needs and benefits don't necessarily follow from stormwater contribution. February 14, 2005 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Page G of 7 0 Some watershed organizations have found the most practical way to deal with this dilemma is to spread the cost of all capital projects across the entire watershed. In the Shingle Creek /West Mississippi TAC discussions, objections to that approach were raised, arguing that since in some cities most of their development occurred after the watershed rules took effect, those taxpayers had already paid for significant water quality improvements through higher land costs and special assessments and shouldn't have to pay for similar improvements in other cities. The proposed Cost Sharing Policy was developed to find a middle ground between watershed benefit and direct benefit. Decision Items For projects financed using the negotiated agreement method: The entire watershed should contribute a share to the cost of a capital improvement project that implements a water quality improvement identified in a TMDL or approved water resource management plan. That share should be 25 percent, with the balance apportioned to cities. That share should be funded usin g the ad valorem tax method A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on direct benefit, for example, share of lakeshore or share of stream reach. That share should be 25 percent. A share of the cost apportioned to the cities should be based on contributing area/downstream benefiting area. That share should be 50 percent. For the Implementation Plan /CIP: The Implementation Plan should identify what each city's cost share would be under the three funding options. The Implementation Plan should require that any upward departure from the city's share under the selected option requires consent of that city. Watershed Capital Project Cost Allocation Alternatives in the Joint Powers Agreement 100 ad valorem tax Negotiated agreement 100 formula across watershed across cities in across all cities "subdistrict responsible for JPA provides that if an improvement" May be varied by 2/3 vote if agreement is not reached to one or more members receive use another method, this disproportionate benefit method would be used Proposed Cost Sharing Policy 25% Commission Contribution 75% City Contribution 25% either ad valorem tax 25% direct 50% contributing across watershed or benefit area benefiting area assessment apportioned to all cities using formula lake upstream watershed shoreline downstream benefiting recognizes there is a stream reach watershed benefit to the entire other lateral watershed from meeting benefit water quality goals CITY OF PLYMOUT4 March 14, 2005 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mayor and City Council: I wanted to thank your city for participating in the meeting held at the Plymouth Creek Center in November to discuss future capital projects and funding scenarios relating to the Shingle Creek Watershed. The City of Plymouth is very appreciative of the subsequent efforts of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and the member cities in developing a proposed cost sharing policy. On March 8, 2005 the Plymouth City Council considered the Commission's proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Cost Sharing Policy. I am forwarding the City of Plymouth's comments on the policy to you so your city is aware of Plymouth's position as the proposed policy is considered. The City supports balancing watershed -wide benefit with more direct benefit which the policy seems to do. The only revision requested by Plymouth is to use contributing flow to determine the 50 proposed to be apportioned based on contributing area. The flow rate is a more direct measure of the contribution to the problem being addressed and provides incentive /reward for storm water management measures taken upstream such as limiting impervious surface and providing ponding. I hope this is of assistance in your City Council's deliberations. Sincerely, Ginny Black Plymouth City Council PLYMOUTH Adding Quality to Life 3400 PLYMOUTH- BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000 PRINTED DN RECYCLED PAPER www .d.pJymouth.mn.us 7 CITY OF PUMOUTR March 11, 2005 Mark Hanson, Chair Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Hanson: On March 8, 2005 the Plymouth City Council considered Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission's SCWMC) proposed Capital Improvement Program (C1P) Cost Sharing Policy. The City of Plymouth recognizes and appreciates that the SCWMC has gone to great effort to develop a CIP Cost Sharing Policy that is fair and equitable. The City also appreciates the opportunity to participate in the process and provide our input on the policy. The City supports balancing watershed -wide benefit with more direct benefit. The City believes this is a fairer method of paying for capital projects then one based solely on either property values as would the ad valorem tax, or based on a combination of area and tax capacity as the overall operating budget is funded. The proposed Cost Sharing Policy does better at balancing the benefits then other scenarios we have seen. We support the policy as proposed with one reservation. The City of Plymouth requests that contributing flow be used to determine the 50% of project funding that is proposed to be apportioned based on contributing area. We believe the flow rate is a more direct measure of the contribution to the problem being addressed by a project and provides incentive /reward for storm water management measures taken upstream such as limiting impervious surface and providing ponding. Again thank you for your efforts developing the Cost Sharing Policy and including the member cities in the process. We look forward to working with the SCWMC to improve the water resources of the watershed. Sincerely, Laurie Ahrens, City Manager PLYMOUTH Adding Quality to Life 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 -1482 TELEPHONE (763) 509 -5000 PR.IE4 Ok RECYCLED P1 EP www.c.plymouth.mn.us City Council Agenda Item No. 9c *I City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, Niesen, and O'Connor FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: May 4, 2005 SUBJECT: Northbrook/Hmong American Shopping Center At its February 14, 2005 meeting, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) indicated to the current owners of the Hmong American Shopping Center that the EDA would allow their group until the end of May to present additional information regarding a potential housing development. The EDA indicated that it was deferring any decision on an open competitive process to solicit redevelopment proposals for the Northbrook Shopping Center site until after the Hmong American Group would have the opportunity to work further on their proposal by the end of May. To update the EDA since this matter was last before it, the owners of the shopping center did in fact challenge the EDA's petition to acquire the property. The EDA has now incurred additional expense and use of significant staff time in successfully defending against this challenge. The District Court has approved the EDA's petition. We have given the tenants until July 1, rather than the original April 28, to relocate. The EDA's relocation consultant has been working with all of the tenants in a significant effort to assist them in relocating. At the present time, the owners of the property still have the ability to appeal the District Court's Ruling. Additionally, we have not been able to reach an agreement with respect to the acquisition price. Thus, a number of significant issues remain to be resolved. Those issues are whether or not the EDA will be involved with further court proceedings regarding the petition and the determination of the compensation to which the owners are entitled. With the special TIF Legislation still pending, this is a significant issue. It is significant because the total monies available to the EDA for redevelopment in TIF District No. 3 will be limited to monies expended by May 14 and the recent bond proceeds. The inability to finalize acquisition of the Hmong American Shopping Center prior to May 14 would result in only having bond proceeds available for the remaining acquisition costs if the special Legislation does not become law. [If the special Legislation became law, the EDA could also use TIF fund balance and revenues for these costs.] Staff will continue its previous recommendation that the EDA use a competitive process to solicit requests for proposals for redevelopment. The redevelopment proposal as it continues to be refined by the owners of the Hmong American Shopping Center may well be able to successfully compete in such an open process. The open process however maximizes the FDA's bargaining power. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityo.fbrookl-yncenter.org Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/BUSINESS SUBSIDY BETWEEN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS LLC A. WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "Authority has caused to be prepared a Development Agreement (the "Development Agreement between the Authority and Brooklyn Hotel Partners, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer in connection with a hotel development (the "Project to be constructed by the Developer within a tax increment financing district heretofore established by the Authority. B. WHEREAS, based on the representations and covenants made by the Developer in the Development Agreement, the Authority has agreed to give the Developer certain assistance, including tax increment assistance, to finance certain public redevelopment costs of the Project. C. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 1161995 (the 'Business Subsidy Law requires that certain types of assistance which constitute a "business subsidy" as defined in the Business Subsidy Law must be approved by the local elected governing body if the grantor is a local government agency. D. WHEREAS, the City Council also acts as the Authority and in such capacity has heretofore approved the Development Agreement, and the City has been advised that the tax increment assistance and other assistance to be provided to the Developer pursuant to the Development Agreement constitute a business subsidy and require the approval of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement in the form on file with the City Clerk, and hereby ratifies all prior actions heretofore taken by the Authority in connection with the Development Agreement and the Project and specifically approves and ratifies the business subsidy set forth in the Development Agreement. Mav 23.2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on the date therein indicated, which are on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to a Resolution Approving a Development Agreement. WITNESS my hand as such Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center this day of 2005. City Clerk e City Council Agenda Item No. 9d 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director DATE: May 18, 2005 SUBJECT: EverCare Senior Living Public Hearing The resolution before the City Council calls for a public hearing on June 13, 2005 for Council consideration of a joint powers agreement with the Cities of Apple Valley, Moorhead and Fargo. The agreement would authorize the City of Apple Valley to issue tax exempt housing revenue bonds on behalf of EverCare Senior Housing LLC for the acquisition of four (4) senior housing properties. The property that EverCare intends to acquire in Brooklyn Center is the Prairie Lodge at Earle Brown Farm 6001- 6021 Earle Brown Drive). The complex is a 104 unit assisted living senior project. As noted, the resolution before the Council only calls for a public hearing on June 13, 2005. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR FINANCING ELDERLY HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES WITH TAX EXEMPT BONDS AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING (a) WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152 to .1651, as amended, relating to municipal industrial development (the "Act gives municipalities and economic development authorities the power to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of promotion, attraction, encouragement and development of economically sound commerce, preserving and developing a tax base adequate to finance necessary public services, and encouraging employment opportunities for the citizens of the municipality; and (b) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City has received from EverCare Senior Living, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Borrower a proposal that the City assist in financing a project hereinafter described, through the issuance of tax exempt revenue bonds (the "Bonds and (c) The Borrower or a related entity proposes to acquire four (4) assisted living facilities, one of which consisting of 60 units is located 6001 -6021 Earl Brown Drive in the City and is known as Prairie Lodge at Earle Brown Farms. The other facilities are located in two other Minnesota municipalities and Fargo, North Dakota; and (d) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, and comparable North Dakota law, Borrower, the City and the three other municipalities will enter into a joint powers agreement authorizing the Apple Valley Economic Development Authority, in the City of Apple Valley, Minnesota, to issue revenue bonds to simultaneously finance acquisition of all of the facilities; and (e) WHEREAS, before proceeding with consideration of the request of the Borrower, it is necessary for the City to hold a public hearing on the proposal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. A public hearing on the proposal of the Borrower will be held at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing hereto attached. 2. The general nature of the proposal and an estimate of the principal amount of Bonds to be issued to finance the proposal are described in the attached form of Notice of Public Hearing. 3. Drafts of documents related to the Bonds are on file in the office of the Community Development Director. RESOLUTION NO. 4. The City staff is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing to be given one publication in the official newspaper of the City, not less than 15 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing, substantially in the form of the attached Notice of Public Hearing. Mav 23.2005 Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. RESOLUTION NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to calling for a public hearing on the EverCare Senior Living, LLC Project. WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this 24 day of May, 2005. City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR SENIOR HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center (the "City will meet at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, in the City, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard on Monday, June 13, 2005, to consider the proposal of EverCare Senior Living, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the 'Borrower that the City undertake to finance a project hereinafter described pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.152 -1651, by the issuance of one or more series of tax exempt revenue bonds (the "Bonds The Project consists of the acquisition of four (4) assisted living facilities located at (a) 14615 and 14625 Pennock Avenue, in the City of Apple Valley, Minnesota, known as Centennial House of Apple Valley, consisting of 60 units, (b) 6001 -6021 Earle Brown Drive, in the City known as Prairie Lodge at Earle Brown Farms, consisting of 104 units, (c) 502 and 512 Third Avenue South, in Moorhead, Minnesota known as The Evergreens of Moorhead, consisting of 33 units and (d) 1401 -1411 West Gateway Circle in Fargo, North Dakota, known as The Evergreens of Fargo, consisting of 66 units. The Project will be owned by the Borrower or a related entity and operated by a Ecumen Services, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, or a related entity. The maximum estimated principal amount of the Bonds to be issued by the Apple Valley Economic Development Authority "Apple Valley to finance the Project is approximately $22,000,000. The Bonds if and when issued will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of Apple Valley or the City except the Project and such obligations will not be a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of Apple Valley or the City but will be payable from sums to be paid by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement. A draft copy of the proposed housing program is available for public inspection beginning during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, in the office of the City Community Development Director, in the City Hall. At the time and place fixed for the Public Hearing, the City Council will give all persons who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. Written comments will be considered if submitted at the above City office on or before the date of the hearing. (By Order of the City Council) City Council Agenda Item No. 9e City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2005 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works `%A$ SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Final Plat, METROPOLITAN TRANSIT ADDITION On January 26, 2004, the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 2004- 002, Preliminary Plat for METROPOLITAN TRANSIT ADDITION, subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The proposed plat includes the consolidation of two parcels of land located in the northwest corner of Northway Drive and County Road 10 into a single lot for the development of the bus transit station that was recently constructed on the site. The Metropolitan Council is now seeking final plat approval from the City Council An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report has not been provided to the City Attorney at this time. Title work must be determined satisfactory by the City Attorney before the final plat is release to the property owner. It is recommended that the City Council approve the final plat, subject to the conditions as specified in the attached resolution. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway g a kway Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org R.T. DOC. NO. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT ADDITION C.R. DOC. NO. tv AA c On g 4 �•,iti i T R A C T A 2 41� 1� u aa'.15'37•E 236.89 /i t �a eye so Y A tF kF aCAE IN F6ST' LOT 1.. a o DENOTES MONUMENT SET O/2' X H' flX)N PPE'MAAKED R A C T t 8 i ,4�:.' !LS 6679) La pO DENOTES eoum PROPERTY emm V I l dd BEARBiGS SNOMN ARE ASSUMED aMaf Fatt t N om-�a�aF mm w MA 11YWT 1�kLL 2 a aaaaar■--' cC, g 9 8 9�j� N 1t LOT B 1 diva• I A�17'3y wa.Mlt •aaaao Mia a UTILM FA79fllf� �j,. r i- OMY 5 89 M W S 83'2629' c1 100.51- S 89 w 150.00 t R-82.6X7 st'• fi c S 47'34'3 M `��S 7S411; 09 M 0 =2'11'SS• -c'' 89.45 21M 14.63 L=35.72 R=930.93 :t i :t 11 is i i i'i -IM in 1'S is s t' l .1 I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: L RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT, METROPOLITAN TRANSIT ADDITION WHEREAS, the City Council on January 26, 2004 approved Planning Commission Application 2004 -002, Preliminary Plat for METROPOLITAN TRANSIT ADDITION, to divide and combine two parcels of land located near the intersection of Northway Drive and County Road 10; and WHEREAS, the proposed plat would create one newly configured lot to provide for the establishment of a bus transit station; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council Metro Transit Division has applied for Final Plat approval as required by City Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Final Plat for METROPOLITAN TRANSIT ADDITION is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Conditions as previously approved by the City of Brooklyn Center City Council and Planning Commission. 2. Any additional requirements for providing evidence of title satisfactory to the City Attorney. 3. Any additional requirements of the City Engineer. 4. Any additional provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 5. Any other conditions of Hennepin County as required. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. 9f City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2 TO: Michael McCauley, City Manager FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Ordinance and Resolution Regarding Establishment of a Locomotive Horn Quiet Zone Attached for consideration is an Ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances regarding the use of locomotive horns at highway -rail grade crossings. The proposed ordinance would establish a quiet zone spanning approximately 1300 feet in both directions of the Azelia Avenue railroad crossing. Kennedy Graven has provided the attached memorandum summarizing the status of quiet zone issues and the final rules from the Federal Railroad Administration. i Consistent with the City Charter, a first reading to establish a date for a second reading and public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance is requested for July 25, 2005. This public hearing date would allow the required 60 -day comment period to conclude before the Council would consider final approval of the proposed ordinance. A resolution authorizing issuance of a Notice of Intent to establish a locomotive horn quiet zone is also attached to this memorandum. Pursuant to City Council approval of the resolution, staff would send written notice to the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to initiate a 60 -day comment period. The official comment period would allow both organizations to submit comments to the City regarding the establishment of the above described quiet zone. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway y .Recreation and Community Center Phone &TDD Number. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 www.cityofbrooklyncenterorg *now 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 r (612) 337 -9300 telephone am (612) 337 -9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com CHARTERED MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Blomstom Director of Public Works, Brooklyn Center FROM: Michael T. Norton DATE: May 18, 2005 RE: Implementation of Azelia Avenue Railroad Quiet Zone You have asked us to advise you as to the next steps to be taken by the City to implement the Quiet Zone "QZ at Azelia Avenue DISCUSSION The Federal Railroad Administration's "FRA Final Rule relating to the establishment of a QZ will take effect as of June 24, 2005. After this date, new QZs may be established. It appears that the City, working with CP Rail, MnDOT, and its consultant SEH, has completed all applicable federal and state requirements regarding the relocation and construction of a new crossing at Azelia Avenue. It also appears that the new crossing will meet FRA regulations concerning the level of supplementary safety measures (SSMs) necessary to establish a QZ without formal application to the FRA. In my opinion, the City Council has the authority to establish a QZ at Azelia Avenue by Resolution, subject to the FRA's final promulgation of its train whistle rule on or after June 24. The Final Rule contains additional requirements that the City must follow before it may implement the QZ on or after June 24, 2005. The Final Rule requires the City to submit a Notice of Intent to establish the QZ consistent with the rules. SEH has prepared this Notice of Intent, which must be mailed to the required parties by certified mail subsequent to Council approval. The 60 -day comment period required by the Final Rule commences on the day after the mailing of the Notice of Intent and terminates when the City receives written comments, or written statements that the affected railroad and MnDOT do not have any comments on the Notice of Intent "no comment statements or if the 60 -day comment period has passed, and the date is on or after June 24, 2005. MTN- 262834v4 BR291 -228 The Final Rule also requires the City to provide a Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment, which provides the actual date upon which routine locomotive horn use at the Azelia Avenue crossing shall cease. This Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment must be mailed to the same entities as the Notice of Intent. The Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment "shall not be mailed less than 60 days after the date on which the Notice of Intent was mailed If the comment/statement of no comment from the affected parties is received prior to the expiration of the Notice of Intent 60 day period, the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment may be mailed sooner than the end of the 60- day period discussed above, but an additional minimum 21 day period after the date of mailing is required before the QZ is established. The actual date of QZ establishment thus will depend on the date the Notice of Intent is mailed, plus 60 days, minus the number of days elapsed in the 60 day period until the final comment/no comment statement is received, plus 21 days after the date of mailing of the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment. Stated differently, the maximum time period is 81 days from the day after the Notice of Intent is mailed, and the minimum time period is 21 days after the last comment/no comment statement is received, before the QZ is established. The required signs may then be placed at the crossing to be effective on the date of establishment. of the QZ pursuant to the Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment. I have also drafted a proposed ordinance (attached) which provides for a criminal penalty if a train horn or whistle is sounded in the QZ after it is established, except for an emergency situation. The timing for the implementation of the ordinance is also dependent on the actual date of establishment of the QZ. SUMMARY The City must mail a Notice of Intent to establish the QZ and provide for a 60 -day comment period. Once the 60 -day period has expired, or if the City has received the required comments or a no comment statement from each affected party, then a Notice of Quiet Zone Establishment may be mailed to the affected parties establishing the date 21 days after the date of mailing when a railroad must cease routine use of locomotive horns at the Azelia Avenue crossing. Signs may then be posted as required and the QZ becomes operational on the date chosen by the City for establishment of the QZ. i MTN- 262834v4 2 BR291 -228 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25 day of July, at 7 Y� p g Y Y> .m. or as p soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance providing for the regulation of railroad locomotive horns in the City. 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 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE HORNS IN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended by adding the following new section: Section 19 -2000 Train Whistles. 19 -2001. Finding and Pumose. The Council finds that the sounding of railroad locomotive horns at grade crossings has increased in recent vears. The increased use of railroad locomotive horns at grade crossings in and around residential neighborhoods has detracted from the ouiet eniovment of vropertv and from the peace and dignity of the Citv. The Citv also is concerned about the safetv of the public at railroad crossings if the negative impact of the use of train whistle and horns is mitigated by the creation of a "quiet zone." In order to protect the safetv. welfare. and convenience of the public, the Council finds it necessary to establish regulations pertaining to railroad locomotive horns. bells, or whistles. The Citv establishes this ordinance and intends that the ordinance be consistent with the applicable rules of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 222 and 229 as thev may be hereafter amended. relating to the establishment of ouiet zones. 19 -2002. The Citv. having met the rea_uirements of 49 CFR Part 222, has established the Azelia Avenue quiet zone (the "Quiet Zone") along the rail line crossing Azelia Avenue from milepost 5.49 to milepost 6.00. No railroad locomotive horn, bell, or whistle shall be sounded in or along the Quiet Zone at anv time, except to provide a warning to prevent imminent iniurv. death, or prop_ ertv damage in accordance with 49 CFR 6222.23. as such rule may be amended from time to time. or as otherwise permitted by the applicable FRA regulations. The sounding of anv railroad locomotive horn, bell, or whistle shall be prima facie evidence that it was sounded or blown with the permission of the railroad com pany. 19 -2002. Penaltv. Violation of the provisions of this Section is a misdemeanor. MTN- 262834v4 BR291 228 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after establishment of the Azelia Avenue Quiet Zone pursuant to the regulations of the FRA. Adopted this day of June, 2005. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted; underline indicates new matter). MTN- 262834v4 BR291 -228 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE OF INTENT TO ESTABLISH A LOCOMOTIVE HORN QUIET ZONE WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that adequate justification exists for the establishment of a Quiet Zone at the Azelia Avenue highway -rail grade crossing in compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration's Final Rule for the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rail Grade Crossings; and WHEREAS, it appears that recent improvements at the Azelia Avenue crossing will meet Federal Railroad Administration regulations concerning the level of supplementary safety measures necessary to establish a Quiet Zone; and WHEREAS, the proposed Quiet Zone would extend approximately one quarter of a mile along the railroad tracks as measured from the centerline of Azelia Avenue; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation in order to provide a 60 -day comment period regarding the proposed Quiet Zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to mail a Notice of Intent to the Canadian Pacific Railroad and the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation in accordance with said Final Rule to initiate a 60 -day comment period for the purposes of establishing a locomotive horn Quiet Zone at the Azelia Avenue highway -rail grade crossing. Date Mayor ATTEST: 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. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL \ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION May 23, 2005 Immediately Following Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. 2006 Budget: Continued discussion from joint meeting with Financial Commission 2. Miscellaneous 3. Adjourn