Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 04-11 CCM Regular Session 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 APRIL 11, 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 6:45 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. No one wished to address the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:53 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 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. 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 Hoffinan, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. 04/11/05 -1- 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember O'Connor reported that she attended the Housing Commission meeting and the League of Minnesota Cities Conference regarding Legislative issues. Councilmember Lasman reminded that the Police /Citizen Awards Ceremony would be on April 20, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in Constitution Hall; and informed that the Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast would be held on May 7, 2005, at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Councilmember Carmody reported that she attended the League of Minnesota Cities Conference and the Northwest Hennepin Regional Human Rights Coalition Sixth Annual Art Contest. Councilmember Niesen reminded that the first of three public meetings regarding the Opportunity Site would be held on April 13, 2005; and informed that the other meeting dates would be June 15, and May 11, 2005. Mayor Kragness discussed this would be the first opportunity for citizens to ask or make comments regarding the Opportunity Site and informed that the Council will hear the outcome of the public meetings in September. Mayor Kragness reported that she attended the Brooklyn Center Lion's Club 50'�' Anniversary Event and provided them with a Mayor's Proclamation. 7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Councilmember O'Connor questioned if the agenda could be approved with an amendment to have the March 28, 2005, Regular Session video tape reviewed for clarification to see if she had abstained from an item on that agenda. Councilmember Carmody said that the Deputy City Clerk had watched the tape and that she also remembers her abstaining on that agenda item. Councilmember O'Connor asked that the March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes be tabled until the April 25, 2005, meeting. Mayor Kragness said that if she did not want to take the word of two Council Members and the Deputy City Clerk, then the Council could table the minutes. An amended motion by Councilmember Lasman was made to amend the agenda to table the March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes, seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. i 04/11/05 -2- 7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the March 28, 2005, Study Session minutes. Motion passed unanimously. (The March 28, 2005, Regular Session minutes were tabled to April 25, 2005.) 7b. LICENSES There was a motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve the following list of licenses: MECHANICAL Aspen Air Inc. 308 SW 15 Street, Forest Lake Corporate Mechanical 5114 Hillsboro Avenue North, New Hope Hilliard Heating 13790 268`" Avenue, Zimmerman Knight Heating & Air 13535 89 Street NE, Otsego MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Metro Mitsubishi 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard Iten Chevrolet Company 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard Luther Brookdale Chrysler Jeep Dodge 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard Luther Brookdale Chrysler Jeep Dodge 6121 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL Renewal: 130072 nd Avenue North Marinela and Scott Selseth 3824 Burquest Lane Bradley Fritz 5715 Knox Avenue North Xiong Por Yang Initial: 6712 Beard Avenue North Morris Matthews 7013 Fremont Avenue North Mai Thao 6137 Lee Avenue North Benn Dossman IV 5207 East Twin Lake Blvd. David Ulhorn SIGN HANGER G & J Awning & Canvas Inc. 1260 1 O' Street North, Sauk Rapids Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005-09, LIFT STATION NOS. 7 AND 10 CONTROL CABINET REPLACEMENT AND WATER SYSTEM SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS 04/11/05 -3- RESOLUTION NO. 2005-60 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PROPOSAL AND AWARDING CONTRACT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2005 -09, LIFT STATION NOS. 7 AND 10 CONTROL CABINET REPLACEMENT AND WATER SYSTEM SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 87808R WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESOLUTION NO. 2005-61 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRAFFIC SIGNAL AGREEMENT NO. 87808R WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 7e. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STORM SEWER CLEANING AND REPAIRS ALONG SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -62 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STORM SEWER CLEANING AND REPAIRS ALONG SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AND SUMMIT DRIVE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 04/11/05 -4- 7.5 PRESENTATION — AUDREY HARRIS, NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL, REGARDING ANNUAL ART CONTEST Audrey Harris, representing the Northwest Hennepin Regional Human Rights Coalition Art Contest, addressed the Council to discuss the Sixth Annual Art Contest. The art contest was designed to be a way to introduce sixth, seventh, and eighth grade students to universal human rights issues by using artistic expression. The item for this year's contest was "Universal Human Rights — Are for Everyone ". She informed that the top winners could be found on the Minnesota Department of Human Rights Website and announced the following top three winners for this year's contest are: First Place Libby Norris, 7 Grade, St. Alphonsus Catholic School Second Place Kaitlyn Auer, 6 Grade, Rice Lake Elementary Third Place Robyn Wolfish, 8 Grade, Plymouth Middle School She discussed that the City of Brooklyn Center had supported this contest for the past six years by providing donations and overall support and participating in the Regional Human Rights Coalition efforts. Mayor Kragness thanked Ms. Harris for attending and providing some of the art work for display. 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 8a. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD): CVS STORE City Manager Michael McCauley discussed that this would be the public hearing for the previously approved matter with respect to the zoning application for the site plan and preliminary plat. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2005-03 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: 04/11/05 -5- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (NORTHWEST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 10 AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD): CVS STORE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification regarding the ordinance adoption. Mr. McCauley discussed that from an effective standpoint the application was approved and the 60 days had expired since the applicant requested the approval of their application, which included the zoning action and is in effect approved. Councilmember Niesen expressed that there would be no need to vote on this since voting yes or no would have no effect. Mr. McCauley discussed that voting yes or no would have no impact on whether or not CVS could go forward. If the vote passes with the extraordinary majority, then the records would indicate that as opposed to indicating that it did not receive the extraordinary majority but is deemed approved by virtue of Minnesota Statutes 15.99. Councilmembers O'Connor and Niesen voted against the same. The ordinance having been voted upon more than 60 days after the land use application, the ordinance is deemed approved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 15.99. Motion did not pass with a 2/3 vote. 9. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF A HOUSING REVENUE NOTE TO FINANCE A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA LAW, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING Mr. McCauley discussed this resolution would set May 9, 2005, for a public hearing to refund bonds that are currently outstanding on a 112 unit multifamily housing development and to finance renovations to the facility itself. This is a type of process that does not involve the full faith and credit of the City or make the City responsible for the bonds, but provides a reduced interest rate for this type of housing and service that it is providing to go forward using those lower rates. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-63 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING FINANCE PROGRAM AND THE ISSUANCE OF A HOUSING REVENUE NOTE TO FINANCE A ULTIFAMILY H T T MINNESOTA LAW M HOUSING PROJECT PURSUANT O SO , AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF THE HEARING 04/11/05 -6- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Carmody. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS YOUTH GOLF TOURNAMENT Mayor Kragness discussed this resolution expresses appreciation for the donation of $300 to be used to support the Earle Brown Days Youth Golf Tournament. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-64 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION FROM THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN DAYS YOUTH GOLF TOURNAMENT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Motion passed unanimously. 9c. STAFF REPORT REGARDING EARTH DAY AND GREAT SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED CLEANUP — PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 22, 2005, EARTH DAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER — PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 16-23,2005, TO BE THE GREAT SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED CLEANUP WEEK Mr. McCauley informed that Graydon Boeck, Watershed Commissioner, was present and if the Council had questions regarding Council Consideration Item 9i, Request of Watershed Commissions for Comment on Proposed Capital Improvement Program Cost Sharing Policy, the Council may wish to address that issue with Mr. Boeck at this time as well. Mr. Boeck addressed the Council and read the Proclamation Declaring the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup the week of April 16 -23, 2005. A motion by Councilmember Lasman to adopt the Proclamation Declaring April 16 -23, 2005, to be Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week. Councilmember O'Connor asked what is being done to protect and preserve the water resources. Councilmember Carmody discussed that the draft letter the Council would be discussing later on the agenda would be one example of trying to do some capital improvement projects that will facilitate making Shingle Creek cleaner. 04/11/05 -7- Councilmember O'Connor asked what the City could do to help preserve the waters and if the amount of salt on roadways could be reduced. Mr. Boeck discussed that the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission and the participating cities that are members of the Commission contribute money to maintain a program whereby the Commission will review all development within the watershed to see that it is in accordance with established rules and regulations and that the Commission continues to perform studies regarding the deformation and the contamination of the streams. Councilmember O'Connor asked what is being done when there is contamination in the streams. Mr. Boeck responded that they are attempting to clean them up to the extent that monies are available. The Commission continually requests and is granted various grants and monies from the State and Federal Governments where they can have projects and programs to provide for facilities that will prevent pollution of various water streams and lakes. Councilmember O'Connor asked if the City of Brooklyn Center could do more. Mr. Boeck discussed that the City of Brooklyn Center has an extensive program whereby they have contributed money and a portion of the funding to cleanup the lakes within the City limits. Councilmember Carmody seconded the Proclamation and discussed information regarding the kickoff event that will take place on April 23, 2005. Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2005, Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember O'Connor asked what programs and projects the City has to enhance the community's natural environment. Councilmember Carmody discussed that every time the City does a street improvement project or develops a project of a certain size, there is usually storm drainage added or the storm sewer system is updated. A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve the Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2005, Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. Councilmember O'Connor moved that an amendment to the motion adding to number two on the Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2005, Earth Day in Brooklyn Center, indicate that programs being undertaken would reduce the amount of salt that is put on the streets to reduce the amount of chloride that goes into the steams. She also moved that instead of putting insecticides and pesticides on the City's golf course that it be protected as the golf course has Shingle Creek going through it. Councilmember Niesen seconded the motion. Councilmember Carmody expressed she would not vote in favor of the amendment because there is a lot more that needs to be discussed specifically about salt. There is an issue of safety and she believes this would be a separate issue from just declaring Earth Day in Brooklyn Center. She informed that she would like to discuss those concerns raised during a street improvement project or during a work session so more information could be provided to the Council. 04/11/05 -8- Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would support the discussions and believes this should cause an item on a future work session agenda. Voting in favor: Councilmembers Niesen and O'Connor. Voting against: Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman. Motion failed. On the motions to adopt both proclamations, both proclamations passed unanimously. Mr. Boeck expressed that he appreciates the concern about the salt and discussed that balancing the salt against the health and welfare of the community is a difficult matter. He believes what the Commission is trying to do is urge all of the cities, counties, and the State Highway located in the watershed to be aware and collaborate with the Commission as far as funding is concerned; and collaborate with the Commission to somehow secure an alterative to salt for deicing the roadways. Councilmember O'Connor asked if there is too much chloride in Shingle Creek and what would be done to get rid of it. Mr. Boeck discussed that they are trying from their total maximum daily load studies; however, the salt and chlorides within the streams and rivers are causing the present condition to be above the tolerable situation. The Commission is trying hard to get agencies to reduce the amount of salt that is being used. Councilmember Carmody asked Mr. Boeck if the Capital Improvement Plan is suggested for five years and what he thought about having an end date on the improvements. She discussed that one of the factors of concern was that a tax would be added and then never removed. Mr. Boeck responded that he believes that would be something advisable and that visiting all of the various improvements would be wise. Councilmember Niesen asked if the Commission had a lot of ongoing discussions about the funding and who represented the financial discussions. Mr. Boeck discussed that they are limited and the source of funds are two separate sources. One being an assessment against the benefited city or the cities within the project. The other is funds from the County, State, Metropolitan Council, EPA, and any other source. He discussed that what it comes down to is asking if the City Council where a project is being constructed or developed is going to pay or fund that project directly or ask the County to provide the vehicle for funding through a tax. 9d. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT TO FINANCIAL COMMISSION Mayor Kragness requested ratification of appointing Samuel Tweah to the Financial Commission with term expiring December 31, 2005. She informed that she had spoken to the other two applicants and explained to them that with Mr. Tweah's background in finances and the need to get diversity on some of the Commissions would be her reasons for her appointment. 04/11/05 -9- A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to ratify Mayoral nomination of Samuel Tweah to the Financial Commission with term expiring December 31, 2005. Councilmember O'Connor discussed that Mr. Remiarz was from a district that had no representatives, applied a year ago, and seems to have knowledge of financing. Mayor Kragness responded there are other districts that have more than one representative and that Mr. Remiarz's knowledge of financing is in doing taxes. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to discuss the process that is to be followed for applicants since she believes the Council has a commitment to the neighborhoods. She wished to echo the comments that were made by Councilmember O'Connor and discuss the background of Mr. Remiarz who had applied several times. She expressed that she believes he has a passion and interest in City finances and that people who come and speak out are the most active people the City has even if they disagree or take on challenges in the City. She is concerned with the process that was followed for Mr. Tweah since he had received an application without even requesting one. Mayor Kragness discussed that she often invites people to apply for commissions because she feels a lot of people are shy about applying for commissions and when it comes to something like the Financial Commission it would be nice to have someone with a background in finances, not someone who just does taxes. She further discussed that as Mayor she is to appoint the appropriate persons to fill vacancies on commissions. Councilmember Niesen expressed that to be fair and equitable to all residents the application process should be followed and that she would rather see Mr. Remiarz appointed because he was representing an area that is not being represented and has been generally interested. Mayor Kragness informed Councilmember Niesen that if she wished to vote against ratification of Mr. Tweah she can do so and that at this time she is not considering Mr. Remiarz. Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman voted in favor. Councilmembers O'Connor and Niesen voted against the same. Motion passed. 9e. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR FEES FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES Mr. McCauley discussed that a number of permit fees had not been adjusted since 1999 or even longer. The fee increases from an annualized adjusted basis are rather modest. One ofthe issues that the Council raised in the Study Session was that the proposal would impact non - profit, charitable, and civic groups who were applying for administrative land use permits. They are currently charged $25 and the proposed fee schedule will be $50. There was some discussion or question as to whether or not that would have an impact on those non - profit uses. Councilmember Carmody asked if there would be any middle ground for those who obey the law and only need the permit for events they have every year. 04/11/05 -10- Councilmember Lasman asked if under the circumstances that Councilmember Carmody described, where they do have to be sought out, if that would be an appropriate charge for that situation. Mr. McCauley suggested that the Council may wish to delete the language in Section 10. Administrative Land Use Permit Fees, a. b. and f., in the proposed resolution. Then staff could discuss the issues that were raised and come back with a report on those three sections. Councilmember Carmody informed that would be fine with her. RESOLUTION NO. 2005-65 Councilmember Carmody introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption with the deletion of Section 10, Administrative Land Use Permit Fees, a. b. and f.: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR FEES FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Lasman. Councilmember Niesen inquired about electrical inspection fees. Mr. McCauley discussed that electrical inspection fees would be under the electrical code. Councilmember Niesen asked how raising the fees are approached. Mr. McCauley responded that the Community Development Department reviewed their fees which had not been reviewed for a number of years and recently participated in a number of surveys that have looked at fees throughout the Metropolitan Area. Based on their judgment they recommended updating the fees at these levels. She asked what the next cycle or plan would be for increasing fees in the future. Mr. McCauley discussed when the next iteration of the International Building Code is adopted, which he believes is next year; it will probably trigger another review. Motion passed unanimously. 9f. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE C1A SERVICE /OFFICE DISTRICT Mr. McCauley discussed that the C I A Service /Office District is a smaller subset of the commercial zoning area that has no height limitations and is generally in the area between the freeway and Bass Lake Road. This ordinance amendment would permit transient lodging which is basically hotels /motels as a permitted use. The City for sometime has seen that as not only a good idea, but actually one that staff has sought to actively pursue to enhance the Earle Brown Heritage Center and those types of developments. 04/11/05 -11- Councilmember Niesen asked if this ordinance amendment was related to the legal suit that had been filed. Mr. McCauley discussed this was in the works before that legal suit was initiated and staff was looking at it as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept. It appears in the Planning Commission's review that it recommends it should be an outright permitted use. With respect to the litigation, one of the many things involved would be made moot by this in the same fashion it would be mute by a PUD to do the same thing. Councilmember Niesen asked if part of it is alleging that this is against the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCauley responded that he is unaware if it includes that. It has a number of misstatements, one of which is that the City does not allow buildings over four stories, which is the C 1 District, but the C I A has no limits. Councilmember Niesen asked what else would be considered transient housing under this amendment. Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren discussed that this would also include transient lodging and associated uses that would be accessory to, or incidental to a hotel. In this case, one of the driving factors for this ordinance amendment was the proposal for the hotel water park on the vacant land which the Council had entered into a development agreement for. Mr. Warren outlined further the details of what could be considered as a hotel or motel including accessory uses such as restaurants, bar, nightclub, or in this current case, the possibility of water park. Councilmember Niesen questioned why this is not moving forward with a PUD. Mr. McCauley discussed that he believes this would be a cleaner way and makes sense since it is a limited area. Mr. Warren added that a PUD may still come forward but it would be a CIA underlying zone. Councilmember Niesen asked if something is zoned C 1 according to the City's ordinance and meets all the requirements, doesn't it have to be approved. Mr. Warren discussed there are a couple factors under zoning. A permitted use has no ability for disapproval if all requirements are met. With a special use certain conditions and standards have to be met and proven by the applicant before the Council can grant a special use permit. Looking at the physical characteristics of what is allowed in a zone or the buffer requirements, there are special requirements that are listed and it is stated that there is certain buffer requirements between zones. Mr. Warren further explained examples of PUDs and special use permits. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Carmody to approve first reading and set second reading and public hearing on May 9, 2005. Councilmember O'Connor expressed she is concerned about the lawsuit that has been filed against the City and does not believe this would be a wise thing for the Council to approve. Councilmember O'Connor questioned why the Council would have approved this hotel planning if the property was not zoned properly. Councilmember Carmody discussed that the hotel was going to be done as a PUD and the Council did not change the zoning at that time since things do happen along the development process. 04/11/05 -12- Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 9g. STAFF REPORT FOR FREMONT AVENUE AND LILAC DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2004-08 Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom outlined the three options for modifying Fremont Avenue near Lilac Drive which are as follows: Option 1 Terminate 62 Avenue North $70,500 Option 2 3 -Way Intersection with Stop Condition $59,900 Option 3 Private Driveway Connection $97,700 Mayor Kragness questioned if there was room behind the facility to run a road in that location. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it would be tight and impacts the green space making Option 3 a big drawback. Mr. Blomstrom informed that there is a big unknown with Option 1 because it would require some land acquisition from the adjacent property owner to form a cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac that is proposed ro d in the preliminary drawings was the minimum radius that would be needed to turn a p �' g snowplow around and to build that there was not enough existing right -of -way at this time to construct a cul -de -sac. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that if the Council wishes to further pursue any of these improvements the financial agreements need to be pinned down between the City and Lang Nelson as to how the costs would be split. After a decision is tentatively made he would recommend that staff conduct a public meeting with the neighborhood since there is some potential issues or concerns throughout the neighborhood. After the neighborhood meeting staff could summarize the comments received and g g g present them to the Council at which time the Council could approve or disapprove pursuing a public improvement project in that area. Mayor Kragness questioned if there would be a signage problem with Option 2. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it is a difficult intersection and there are some traffic issues with Option 2. Councilmember Carmody questioned what would happen after the curb and gutter is removed with Options 1 and 2. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that it is currently public right -of -way and he would recommend that the City hold that as public right -of -way for the time being. She inquired if there had been any discussions with the property owners. Mr. Blomstrom responded that there had not been any discussions with property owners. Mr. McCauley added that the question of cost would be one asked by property owners and that is why a meeting had not taken place yet. 04/11/05 -13- Councilmember Carmody questioned if when the Council had discussed this before if the financing option would have been a 50/50 percent split. Mayor Kra ess responded that she believes it w as P p p Y � p going to be determined on the timing of project. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the consideration of the project started in February 2004 and it became too late to do the construction last year. The Council requested that staff prepare a study over the winter to avoid consultant fees and make a report this year. Councilmember O'Connor asked for clarification regarding the financing. Mr. Blomstrom indicated the financing would need to be established by the Council and that staff is not recommending special assessments on this project. Mr. McCauley added that part of the reason special assessments are not being considered is that the staff does not see this realignment as providing a benefit to those homes in the area. Frank Lang, CEO and President of Lang Nelson, addressed the Council to express that life safety and the health of seniors are the concerns to be addressed not only by his residents but other residents in the area. Councilmember Lasman asked if traffic counts had been done to see what kind of an implication the acute angle intersection would have on the safety. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that there had been no traffic counts along 62 Avenue North. He believes that most of the traffic coming to or from the north building are going north on Lilac Drive until they get to Dupont Avenue and then traveling north/south on Dupont Avenue. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she thinks more of other types of traffic especially in a neighborhood like this and believes that the City needs to have intersections. She questioned why reconnection of Lilac Drive and making more of a green space to the east of the cul -de -sac and cutting off the Fremont Avenue was not considered. Mr. Blomstrom discussed they had studied a lot of options and that was one that was looked at; however, the edge of the right -of -way would extend through an existing parking lot and expands outside of the public right -of -way. Another issue with this option would be creating an acute intersection further down the road. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she believes Options 1 and 2 should be considered for the meeting with the property owners and let residents look at those options in order to get a more formal structure; however, she is leaning more towards Option 2. Mr. McCauley discussed there are two parts with Options 1 and 2. Option 1 is far more volatile and the cost range is not clearly delineated. The $70,500 represents an anticipated cost of construction and deconstruction. If the City were to acquire property from the homeowner on 62 Avenue North, the cost is unknown. Option 2, while it certainly has volatility, is far less volatile than Option 1. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she does think it is important to show the neighborhood some options to broaden the scope of discussions even though she does not believe that Option 1 would be favorable. 04/11/05 -14- Mayor Kragness questioned if there had been any recent discussions regarding the cost sharing with Lang Nelson. Mr. Blomstrom informed that there had been no recent discussions. Mr. Lang questioned how Option 2 went from approximately $30,000 to $59,800. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that the costs were estimated without the benefit of a field study and that was the reason they suggested before getting into a deep discussion of financing and making decisions conducting a feasibility study. There were a couple of things that had come up and one was one of the streets not being able to be salvaged and would need to be widened to the minimum street width for a two -way public street which added to the cost. Another issue was the removal of a utility pole, which was brought up as an unknown during the initial discussions. The utility pole will need to be removed and there is a substantial cost. The other issues are pavement markings, stop signs, and things that are proposed to mitigate for some of the traffic issues with the acute angle intersection. Councilmember Niesen asked Mr. Lang why he had expanded the parking lot at the senior housing complex. Mr. Lang discussed that they had placed an 8,000 square foot addition onto the building and expanded the parking lot in order to accommodate that addition since they were not able to provide underground parking. Councilmember Lasman expressed she favors Option 2 and believes that the project should be something both the City and Mr. Lang work together on for financing. Mr. Lang informed that Option 2 is the only viable position for them to be in and that he thinks Option 2 is a good one to be supported from both the residents' standpoint and neighborhood standpoint. In terms of economics and with the substantial difference in cost, he is blown away by the doubling of the cost estimate. Mr. Lang discussed the senior housing economics and informed that at the time discussions started he was willing to pay approximately $15,000, which was half; and that is what he is willing to pay today. Mayor Kragness expressed that the financial aspect is something that really needs to be considered and asked what year this project would be considered for improvements as part of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Mr. Blomstrom responded that it is beyond 2011 at this point and it is because a bit of the neighborhood already had curb and gutter and the streets are not as deteriorated as other streets. Councilmember Carmody discussed originally she was thinking that the project was going to be split 50/50 percent. She asked how the Council would feel about a comprise and suggested a 60/40 percent split with the City being 60 percent and Lang Nelson being 40 percent since the residents at the complex are residents of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to know what the neighbors feel about the project before making any financial decisions. 04/11/05 -15- Mayor Kragness informed that the last time the Council discussed this she received some calls from the neighbors and half of them were for the project and half of them not for the project. She thinks it is important that this road be constructed and if there could be some agreement on the financing of the project it would be beneficial to all. She asked Mr. Lang if he would be able to talk to his partners to see if they are able to come up with more than $15,000. Mr. Lang asked about the timeframe and plan; and Mayor Kragness asked what the plan would be to get this project completed this year. Mr. McCauley discussed an alternate was placed in the current bid documents for the street reconstruction project to seek the potential ability to do the work in 2005. If there is going to be a meaningful opportunity for the neighborhood, as well as have the ability to do it as an alternate should this go forward with the alternate, there needs to be something figured out in the next two weeks to start the process. Mr. Blomstrom added that the numbers provided are estimates and are subject to bids. He is hoping to be able to bid this project as part of this year's CIP to keep the costs as low as possible. Councilmember Carmody asked if the Council were to approve their part and Mr. Lang finds that they are able to fund their part, can the project move forward in the next two weeks. Mr. McCauley discussed that if the Council agrees and Mr. Lang notifies the City that they are able to fund their portion then staff would be able to begin scheduling the meeting to keep on track so that a decision could be made. Mayor Kragness expressed that she believes it is important to move this project forward this year. Mr. Lang indicated that he would let the Council know this week about their funding options. Councilmember Carmody made a motion to direct staff to work with Lang Nelson and come up with an agreement; develop a neighborhood meeting to present Options 1 and 2 to the residents; and use a 60/40 percent split, the City being 60 percent and Lang Nelson being 40 percent on the financing. Mr. McCauley discussed in order for this to align, Lang Nelson has to be in agreement with the Council and he believes that Lang Nelson is not considering Option 1, so as part of the neighborhood meeting discussions, Option 1 would only be to show the alternatives considered. Councilmember Lasman seconded the motion. Councilmember Niesen asked if there would be a ceiling limit. Mr. McCauley discussed at this time there are no firm dollar figures from both sides and will not be able to be considered until the bids are received. Motion passed unanimously. 9h. 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE Mr. McCauley recommended May 25, 2005, for a joint meeting with the Commission Chairs and amending the 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule to add May 25, 2005, 6:30 p.m., in the Council /Commission Conference Room. 04/11/05 -16- A motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to amend the 2005 City Council Meeting Schedule to add a joint meeting with the Commission Chairs on May 25, 2005, 6:30 p.m., in the Council /Commission Conference Room. Motion passed unanimously. 9i. REQUEST OF WATERSHED COMMISSIONS FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COST SHARING POLICY Mr. McCauley discussed the revised draft letter had been amended to incorporate the Council's comments received and asked if the first paragraph in the letter is acceptable. If so then each of the numbers one through ten could be addressed individually, unless the Council prefers the draft alternative that they do not support the proposal. Councilmember Niesen expressed that she would like to comment on the first paragraph and let the Council know where she stands on this issue. While she is in support of undertaking projects, someone has to pay for water quality improvements. The City is part of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) and taking care of the watershed as a whole. The people who benefit from clean water are all of those in the watershed. She does not support the idea of the City taking 75 percent on to their taxpayers. She is in support of an ad valorem tax levied on the entire watershed for capital improvements and identifying these improvements. She does not feel the proposed funding to support their capital projects is generally appropriate in concept because it identifies the possibility of benefiting properties that could be identified which she believes opens the door to saying that people who live on the lake, river, or Shingle Creek could be assessed and that it should all be shared. Councilmember Carmody asked Councilmember Niesen for clarification regarding funding. Councilmember Niesen asked City Attorney Charlie LeFevere to respond. Mr. LeFevere discussed that the watershed has two choices for funding projects. One is to send a bill to the County for ad valorem tax throughout the watershed, and the other is to send a bill to the cities under the JPA. Currently the formula under the JPA is 50 percent on the basis of the tax valuation within the watershed for each city and 50 percent on the basis of the area. He discussed that the watershed commission is considering moving into a new phase and getting involved in capital projects which is something it has not done before. Because it was new they wanted to get a consensus of the cities as to how these projects were going to be funded. That effort has resulted in a new suggestion which is the one that is being proposed. If they do not reach consensus among the cities, the watershed commission does not have the authority to go with the percent split unless the cities agree. Councilmember Carmody expressed that she does not believe the 100 percent ad valorem tax is the way to go since of the nine communities involved, only two have elected representatives who are on the commission that would be deciding on a 100 percent ad valorem tax. She would support the concept of undertaking capital projects that would benefit the watershed as a whole. 04/11/05 -17- Councilmember Niesen expressed she does not think that the City's taxpayers can afford to take 75 percent of the costs. She further discussed that the bodies of water in the City should be supported under the JPA and asked for clarification on assessments under the State Law, under Watershed Law, 103D901, Subdivision 4, where it talks about assessments may not be levied against property or corporations benefited under this chapter in excess of the amount of benefit received as set by the order or managers authorizing the construction or implementation of the project. Mr. LeFevere responded that section applies only to watershed districts and does not apply to watershed commissions. Mr. McCauley discussed the process that would be used in a court action under the Law. Councilmember Lasman discussed the problem of the history of why nothing has been done because of the current funding system. Looking back at the frustration of not being able to do something about the water quality, the opportunity is coming before the cities with someone with a plan and willing to help. She informed that she has faith in the experts that put this information before the cities and understands the direction and logic of the workmanship to get something done. Councilmember Niesen discussed the issue for her is that she is supportive of capital projects; however, it is the funding that she is concerned about. She believes the funding needs to be fair and understood for all those involved. She would be supportive of kicking into the overall JPA to support funding capital projects with some constraints per capita and that it is also understood that the City would not single out a business or property owner and special assess them. If that was the action taking place she would be supportive of going forward and getting projects moving ahead. Councilmember Lasman reminded that she had suggested a cap and sunset be included for the draft letter to the watershed commission. Mayor Kragness asked what will happen if the watershed commission gets negative responses from two or three of the cities and if the capital projects would go forward. Mr. McCauley responded that he has no idea what the watershed commission will do with the feedback. Councilmember Carmody informed that one of the meetings she attended discussed this and that the watershed commission was hoping to have 100 percent agreement because they felt that would be important. Councilmember Niesen asked what the City pays to the watershed commission now. Mr. McCauley responded that he believes approximately $48,000 and that the money comes from the storm water utility revenues. Councilmember Niesen discussed that she would like things stricken out in the language that would be provided back to the watershed commission. She would support saying that Brooklyn Center would look at doing projects in conjunction with other cities that abut these properties and all of the cities that contribute to the watershed. 04/11/05 -18- Mayor Kragness discussed that she believes everyone is agreeable that something needs to be done. Councilmember O'Connor expressed that she does not believe something needs to be done and would vote that the Council take no action and take responsibility to keep Shingle Creek clean in the City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Niesen informed that she would be willing to attend a meeting to get more information and willing to tell the watershed commission that she supports coming up with a list of capital improvement projects and funding them to the formula with the 50/50 percent. Councilmember Carmody informed that she will be attending the meeting this week and asked what she should bring back for discussion. Mayor Kragness asked for a motion. Councilmember Niesen expressed she strongly disagrees with some things that are included in the materials and that all she would like to send is the funding formulas to the watershed commission for discussion. She expressed that she would be willing to go with Councilmember Carmody to the meeting this week and provide input without providing the draft letter. Councilmember Lasman discussed that the Council previously determined that if they had comments they would like incorporated to the draft letter they were to get those comments to the City Manager and he would incorporate to the draft letter. She informed that she had done so and asked Councilmember Niesen why she did not submit any comments for incorporation. Councilmember Niesen discussed that with the large amount of text provided she would strike a lot and that if the Council wants to go forward she would like to go forward on what is a fair thing for funding. She needs to know what the City is willing to do for funding and expressed that she would go as far to say that she does not agree that it is okay to base something on benefiting properties. Mayor Kragness informed that she believes the Council is not getting anywhere and asked for a motion or suggested tabling this issue. Councilmember Niesen moved to table this issue until a report could be provided to the watershed commission. She informed that she would attend the meeting to make a report and address her concerns. Councilmember Carmody suggested she attend and comment that the majority of the Council approves this in theory; however the Council would like to discuss it further since not all members are on board. She believes if the majority of the Council would like to go forward, the watershed commission needs to know that. She is in favor and believes that if the City does not do this now, nothing will get done and tabling the issue is not going to address anything. 04/11/05 -19- Further discussion took place regarding funding. Mr. McCauley added that the storm water utility would be the anticipated source of funding for the capital contribution that would be attributed to the City. With the bonds that are coming off and have come off, the amounts of money that had been described in the materials previously indicated would seem to be able to be absorbed at least in the next five years from the money that will be freed up because of the bonds being paid off. This should not result in an increase in storm water utility charges or ad valorem charges if the City were to use that for those purposes. Councilmember Niesen asked that be in writing for the residents so that if something happens she does not want there to be any mistake in judgment. She expressed another concern she has is how they factor the contribution. Mr. Blomstrom discussed that right now they are looking at contributing watershed and that could be based on area, percentage of the drainage area that the city occupies, flow, etc. Those are the types of comments that the watershed commission is looking for feedback from the cities. Councilmember Niesen restated her motion to table the issue to the next meeting because of her desire to take time out of her schedule and attend the meeting on Thursday for her questions and to hear what else everyone has to say. Councilmember O'Connor seconded the motion. Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman voted against the same. Motion failed. Councilmember Carmody moved a motion that she attend the Commission meeting to express that a majority of the Council is in favor of looking at this funding mechanism; however, the Council has concerns and two Council Members are not in favor. Councilmember Lasman added the suggestion that Councilmember Niesen could go to the meeting with her concerns so that they are discussed. Councilmember Lasman seconded the motion. Councilmember Niesen asked for clarification on the motion. Councilmember Carmody said that her motion is that she or whomever would go to the Commission and convey to them that a majority of the Council is in favor of going forward with a funding type similar to this; however, there are questions and concerns and have two Council Members at this point in time that are not in favor. Councilmember Niesen questioned the draft letter that had been prepared. Councilmember Lasman asked if an amendment could be made to include the ten comments prepared because she would like to have the comments she provided of providing a cap and sunset brought forward. Councilmember Carmody said that was fine. Councilmembers Niesen and O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed. 10. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Councilmember Carmody, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the ty Council meeting at 10:07 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. V City Clerk Mayor i� 04/11/05 -20-