Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 05-29 CCP Regular Session xY Revised XX AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION TUESDAY, May 29, 2012 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2. Miscellaneous a. Communication and Liaison with Charter Commission- Mayor Willson b. Inclusiveness and Diversity—Mayor Willson 3. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Adj ourn i CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center May 29, 2012 (TUESDAY) 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. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4. Roll Call 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1. May 7, 2012—Continued Board of Appeal and Equalization 2. May 14,2012—Study Session 3. May 14,2012—Regular Session 4. May 14, 2012—Work Session b. Licenses C. Application and Permit for Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Submitted by Our Lady of Fatima & St. Francis High Schools Alumni Association for an Event to be Held at MEC, 5801 John Martin Drive, on July 7, 2012 d. Application and Permit for Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Submitted by The . Church of St. Alphonsus, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, for an Event to be Held July 21-22, 2012 e. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- May 29,2012 £ Resolution Adopting a Policy on Write Off of Utility Amounts Owed Upon Dismissal or Discharge of Bankruptcy g. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Write Off Uncollectible Accounts Receivable and Returned Checks h. Resolution Amending the 2012 Internal Service Fund Budget i. Approval of Site Performance Guarantee Release for 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard (Luther Auto) j. Approval/Adoption of Recommendation of Use of Centennial Park West for Community Garden 7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations None. 8. Public Hearings None. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2012-004 Submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center. Request for an Amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan by Changing a"PS-Public and Semi-Public" and "MF- Multi-Family (High Density)" Land Use Designation to "MF-Mixed Enhanced (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" for the Property Located at 5401-5415 69th Avenue North (Maranatha Homes Care Center property). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 17, 2012, meeting. 1. Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval of a Proposed Land Use Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan from "PS-Public & Semi- Public" and "MF-Multi-Family Residence" to a New "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" Designation, Relative to Land Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, addressed as 5401-5415 69th Avenue North and Authorizing the Formal Submittal of Said Amendment to the Metropolitan Council (Maranatha Care Center Properties — 5401-5415 69th Avenue North) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. i CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- May 29,2012 b. Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. Request for Rezoning of Property Located at 5401-5415 69th Avenue North, from Rl (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to New PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 17, 2012,meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2012-003 - Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for the Rezoning of Land Located at 5401-5415 — 69th Avenue North from Rl (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development — Mixed Multiple Family Residence) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 2. Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, at 5401-5415 69th Avenue North. Requested Council Action: —Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for June 25, 2012. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5812 Camden Avenue North Requested Council Action: —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing.- -Receive testimony from applicant. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action on rental license application and mitigation plan. b. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5049 Ewing Avenue North Requested Council Action: —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing. —Receive testimony from applicant. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action oil rental license application and mitigation plan. 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment Curt Boganey Yom: Tim Willson .,ent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:37 PM To: Curt Boganey Subject: FW:Inclusiveness& Diversity Curt An item for our study session May 28th please from the Mayor -tw Mayor Tim Willson Brooklyn Center 763-569-3450 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/ Start by doing what's necessary, Then do what's possible, You'll discover you are doing, What you previously thought was Impossible. I Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this e-mail prom: Steve Landis [landis.steve @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 7:57 PM To:Tim Willson Subject: Inclusiveness& Diversity Mayor Wilson, Golden Valley has now joined a growing list of cities in Minnesota, including Duluth, Saint Paul, Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Edina, and Falcon Heights, which have joined to defeat the constitutional amendment which would limit the freedoms of Minnesotans and ban marriage for same-sex couples in Minnesota. Although I have discussed this matter with a number of City Council members, my feeling is they are ambivalent when it comes to a committed stance specific to this issue. At our recent joint meeting between City Council members and Advisory Commissions some effort was extended to point out proposed revisions to our city's Mission Statement, City Values Statement and Strategic Goals, each of which were aimed at inclusiveness and diversity. It is not enough to state what we believe by sending a symbolic message; we cannot simply"talk the talk". Mayor, I believe we must"walk the walk" and truly show we are a diverse and accepting community. If necessary I would be happy to address the City Council publicly in an effort to champion our entry into a growing list of bodies (both government and religious) which are coming out against this hateful, divisive and entirely unnecessary constitutional amendment. I will however be a bit bold by suggesting this might be something better left to you and the )uncil to drive internally in the absence of any need for public discussion. 1 I Very kindly yours, Steve Landis (612 280-0622 land is.Steve@ email.com<mailto:landis.steve @gmail.com> 2 City Council Agenda Item No. 6a 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 7, 2012 CITY HALL—COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met as the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization and the meeting was called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, City Assessor Nancy Wojcik, and Deputy City Clerk Maria Rosenbaum. Mayor Willson discussed that if owners are not satisfied with the outcome of the Local Board of Appeal and Equalization they may appeal to the County Board of Appeal and Equalization. The County Board of Appeal and Equalization will be held beginning June 18, 2012. Owners must call in advance to register no later than May 23, 2012. The number to call to register at the County Board is 612-348-7050. 2. ASSESSOR'S REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS City Assessor Nancy Wojcik summarized the history of the following appeals and presented staff recommendations for each property included with the packet. Kurt Graham, 6913 Oliver Avenue N. Reduce the 2012 estimated market value of$150,900 to $139,200 for taxes payable in 2013. Mr. Graham and his representative Brian Manthey addressed the Board to discuss Mr. Manthey's appraisal and comparable sales. Mr. Graham also discussed and updated the Board on his co- owner situation. Councilmeinber Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to reduce the 2012 estimated market value of $150,900 to $139,200 for taxes payable in 2013. Motion passed unanimously. 05/07/12 -1- DRAFT Monte Hanson, 3715 50t1i Avenue N. Sustain the 2012 estimated market value of$850,000 for taxes payable in 2013. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to sustain the 2012 estimated market value of$850,000 for taxes payable in 2013. Motion passed unanimously. Michael Haase, 3607 501" Avenue N. Reduce the 2012 estimated market value of$260,000 to $230,000 for taxes payable in 2013. The Assessor's reconciliation of the sales comparable and income approach indicates a value of$230,000. Mr. Haase addressed the Board to reiterate that he believes the value of this property should be what he paid for it. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to reduce the 2012 estimated market value of $260,000 to $230,000 for taxes payable in 2013. Motion passed unanimously. Chet Yancey on behalf of Regal Cinemas Inc., 6420 Camden Avenue. Sustain the total 2012 estimated market value of$11,825,400 ($10,336,000 and $1,489,400) for taxes payable in 2013 and recommends County Board or Minnesota Tax Court. City Assessor Wojcik informed that she had received a 120 page appraisal on Friday from Regal Cinemas on another building and that the owner states the requested reduction of value the owner initially wanted may be too low after review. She believes that this property needs additional review and should be forwarded to the County Board for review. Councilmember.Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to sustain 2012 estimated market value of$11,825,400 (parcels $10,336,000 and $1,489,400) for taxes payable in 2013. Motion passed unanimously. Lee Sarin on behalf of Som LLC, 5810 Xerxes Avenue N. Reduce the 2012 estimated market value of$1,370,000 to $1,254,000 for taxes payable in 2013. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to reduce the 2012 estimated market value of$1,370,000 to $1,254,000 for taxes payable in 2013. Motion passed unanimously. Chris Kennelly on behalf of AmericaInn, 2050 Freeway Boulevard. Reduce the 2012 estimated market value of$1,805,000 to $1,500,000 for taxes payable in 2013. 05/07/12 -2- DRAFT i Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to reduce 2012 estimated market value for this property to $1,805,000 to $1,500,000 for taxes payable in 2013 based on the adjusted income approach by the cost of required improvements needed to this property. 3. ADJOURN Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/07/12 -3- DRAFT i 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 14, 2012 CITY HALL— COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Finance Director Dan Jordet, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities Jim Glasoe, Fire Chief Lee Gatlin, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Kleven requested discussion on Item 6c, Amend City Council Meeting Schedule to Set Date and Time of Joint City Council/Financial Commission Work Sessions Regarding 2013-2014 Budget, in particular a meeting that is scheduled the same night as the August 6 National Night Out Kickoff. City Manager Curt Boganey presented a revised schedule that would remove the August 6 meeting and combine the discussion with the July 30 meeting. Councilmember M szkowski stated she hates to miss the general fund and property Y tax levy discussion but will not be able to attend the August 20, 2012, meeting. Councilmember Ryan indicated he will be on vacation July 4 to July 9, 2012. This will not interfere with budget Work Sessions,but he will be unable to attend the July 9, 2012, Council meeting. Councilmember Lasman requested the following change to the Work Session minutes of April 23, 2012: Page 1, last sentence Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman stated support to proceed with a feasibility study based on available funding and because this intersection is ranked #3 in the State for annual crash costs; however, the corridor plan will need to provide adequate exits to the eastern. side(River-wood neighbor-hood)-of yjsft Brooklyn Center." It was the majority consensus of the City Council to accept the change to the April 23, 2012 Work Session minutes. 05/14/12 -1- DRAFT I Mr. Boganey referenced handouts relating to Item 8b, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter, Sections 4.01 and 4.02. He explained this item had previously been tabled and since the Charter Commission has made its preference known, staff recommends it be removed from the table. Mr. Boganey indicated the City Attorney has advised the City Council could take further action, if desired, and insert a Clerk's note in Section 4.02 to add clarity. The City Council indicated support to include a Clerk's note since it would provide clarity and avoid confusion. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council had initiated this Charter amendment, scheduled the hearing, and continued the hearing to allow Charter Commission comment. The Charter Commission ultimately commented that an ordinance did not need to be adopted or the j Charter changed. With that in mind, the City Council cannot amend the Charter to include that language unless it is put on as a referendum. Mr. Boganey advised of actions the City Council can consider. Mr. Boganey addressed Item 8a, Charter Commission Recommendation Regarding Amendment to City Charter Chapter 9 Relating to Eminent Domain. He indicated staff received information from the Charter Commission Secretary on Friday with strikeout/highlighted new language changes based on their last meeting as follows: "The City has a 60 90 day period from the initiation (by resolution) of the City Council of eminent domain to dismiss proceedings unless an extension is stipulated and agreed to by parties of interest." The Charter Commission felt these new changes addressed concerns raised by the City Council and City Attorney. Mr. Boganey explained that as of today, the City has copies of the Charter Commission meeting minutes from May 10, 2012, but it is not clear whether the new language is being submitted as a substitute for the language under consideration. Mr. Boganey advised the City Council of the options available for consideration. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Kleven asked if the six schools receiving the Safe Routes to School federal grants are located in the Brooklyn Center School District. Mr. Boganey explained the six schools have not yet been specifically identified but are not limited to any specific school district. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS BANKRUPTCY WRITE-OFF POLICY Mr. Boganey stated this item relates to options and limitations in how the City can respond to unpaid utilities under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcies and staff s recommendation to deal with these situations in a more uniform and equitable fashion. Finance Director Dan Jordet presented the staff-created decision tree flowchart and describe how each scenario would be resolved whether the bankruptcy filing had been dismissed or discharged. He indicated there is currently $7,000 of unpaid utilities on properties in Chapter 7, about $3,000 attributable to properties under the same ownership and about $4,000 attributable 05/14/12 -2- DRAFT to properties under new ownership since the bankruptcy was filed. Mr. Jordet reviewed the options under Chapter 13 bankruptcies, where collections occur through the trustee for the bankruptcy. In the case where all distributions are made and the utility bill remains unpaid in full, the City has the option to assess the remaining amount against the property or write it off. Mr. Jordet presented four options for policy implementation when a bankruptcy filing has been dismissed or discharged and ownership of the property has changed or has remained unchanged during the bankruptcy process. He recommended Options 1, 3, and 4. The City Council discussed the four options. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to support Option 1, to not assess unpaid utilities if the property had changed ownership during the banla-uptcy process because there was no opportunity for a new owner to know of the delinquency. In that scenario, the City Council supported writing off the unpaid amount against the current fiscal period. It was noted that with this option, a new resident will not "get off on the wrong foot" with the City in being presented a bill they knew nothing about. In addition, staff resources would not be consumed in trying to collect the outstanding debt. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to also support Options 3 and 4 to either place the remaining balance back on the owner's account or assess against the property in cases where ownership remains the same during the bankruptcy proceedings. It was noted these options allow the City to recoup the debt from the same property owner. Mr. Boganey indicated staff will draft a policy for consideration by the City Council at'the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/14/12 -3- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 14, 2012 CITY HALL— COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities Jim Glasoe, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Fire Chief Lee Gatlin, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. He noted the rules do not preclude public television from filming and they are present tonight. Ray Christensen, 6803 Toledo Avenue N., stated his concern with the Maranatha Homes project, which he believed was too large for the property. He stated the proposed height would create shade on his property and kill his garden as well as gardens of other residents. Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, thanked the City Council for attending EarthFest and the Engineering Department for its assistance on an Eagle Scout project. She announced Hennepin County has awarded two $1,500 community garden grants in Brooklyn Center, all 12 Metro Transit bus shelters have been adopted by organizations and businesses, and the Memorial Day ceremony will honor Civil War Veterans from the Brooklyns. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Councilmember Ryan requested a moment of silence and personal reflection as the Invocation. 05/14/12 -1- DRAFT 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:00 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning. and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the Work Session minutes of April 23, 2012, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 23, 2012—Study Session 2. April 23 2012—Regular Session 3. April 23, 2012—Work Session 4. April 30, 2012—Board of Appeal and Equalization 6b. LICENSES FIREWORKS —TEMPORARY STAND TNT Fireworks 3245 County Road 10 GARBAGE COLLECTION VEHICLE Curbside Waste 5232 Hanson Court N., Crystal MECHANICAL Air Rite Heating &A/C 15731 Hallmark Path, Apple Valley Aaztec Heating 9741 Humboldt Avenue N, Bloomington Crown Mechanical 1670 S. Robert Street, West St. Paul Flare Heating &A/C 9303 Plymouth Ave. N., Golden Valley Heating & Cooling Design, Inc. 10830 Able Street NE, Blaine Horwitz, Inc. 4401 Quebec Avenue N., New Hope LBP Mechanical, Inc. 315 Royalston Avenue N., Minneapolis Metro Plumbing &Heating, Inc. 545 8th Avenue N., St. Joseph 05/14/12 -2- DRAFT I I Minnesota Master Plumbing 24128 E. Typo Drive NE, Stacy Seasonal Heating and Air Conditioning 8565 801h Street N., Stillwater Sharp Heating&Air 7221 University Avenue NE, Fridley Tim's Quality Plumbing 523 Central Avenue, Osseo MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP Brookdale Honda 6801 Brooklyn Boulevard Brookdale Metro Mitsubishi 7235 Brooklyn Boulevard Luther Brookdale Buick GMC 43016 8th Avenue N. Luther Brookdale Chevrolet 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE III—one-year license) 6730 Perry Avenue N. Thinh Nguyen INITIAL (TYPE II—two-year license) 400765 1h Avenue N. David Bourne 5332 Knox Avenue N. Ira Kovalsky 4207 Lakeside Avenue N. #337 Adrian Jimenez 4201 Winchester Lane Theresa Burns/Eric Poehler RENEWAL (TYPE III—one-year license) 1425 551h Avenue N. Passed w/Weather Deferral Trung Duong 6777 Humboldt Avenue N. Andrey Ryvlin 2701 O'Henry Road Passed w/Weather Deferral Sherman Kho 6907 Quail Avenue N. Tony& Carmen Holder RENEWAL (TYPE II—two-year license) 7240 West River Road Nedzad Ceric 1706 71"Avenue N. Passed w/Weather Deferral Patricia Sandeen 5742 Fremont Avenue N. Bruce Goldberg RENEWAL (TYPE I— three-year license) 5328-30 Queen Avenue N. Chad and Amy Bucher 3807 61St Avenue N. Toshie Metzger 5313 62nd Avenue N. Doua Yang 5419 Humboldt Avenue N. Cecilia Pineda 4734 Twin Lake Avenue Elizabeth Becht 5842 Washburn Avenue N. Passed w/Weather Deferral Daniel Pryde SIGNHANGER Taurus Sign 17900 280th Street, Shafer 05/14/12 -3- DRAFT 6c. AMEND CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE TO SET DATE AND TIME OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL/FINANCIAL COMMISSION WORK SESSIONS REGARDING 2013-2014 BUDGET 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-65 SUPPORTING AN APPLICATOIN BY AEON FOR TWIN CITIES COMMUNITY LAND BANK (TCCLB) ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL RESPONSE FUNDS (VIEW POINTE AT SHINGLE CREED 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-66 PROVIDING A NINE MONTH EXTENSION TO THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF THE EVERGREEN VILLAS FINAL PLAT 6f. APPROVAL OF WRITE OFF OF NSF CHECKS 6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-67 TO PARTNER WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND OTHER CITIES IN THE COUNTY TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT ACTIVE LIVING STRATEGIES Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Kleven arrived at 7:04 p.m. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MAY 28, 2012, AS MOUND CEMETERY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SESQUICENTENNIAL DAY Mayor Willson read the proclamation in full. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve PROCLAMATION Declaring May 28, 2012, as Mound Cemetery of Brooklyn Center Sesquicentennial Day. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Willson presented the proclamation to a representative of Mound Cemetery. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER CHAPTER 9 RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed Charter amendment to include State Statute language relating to use of eminent 05/14/12 -4- DRAFT I I, domain and place specific limitations on the use of eminent domain. The Charter Commission recommends adding the definition of"Public Use" or"Public Purpose" and a sentence to Section 9.03, Payment of Award, indicating: "If the award is not paid, the court, on motion of the owner of the land, shall vacate the award and dismiss the proceedings against the land." The Charter Commission also recommends adding a sentence to Section 9.04, City May Dismiss Proceedings, indicating: "The City has a 60 day period from the initiation by the City Council of eminent domain to dismiss proceedings unless an extension is stipulated and agreed to by parties." Mr. Boganey advised that subsequent to this language being published, the Charter Commission met to discuss the concerns expressed by the City Council and considered new language changing the 60-day period to 90-days and additional language indicating: "The City has a 60 90 day period from the initiation (by resolution) of the City Council of eminent domain to dismiss proceedings unless an extension is stipulated and agreed to by parties of interest." However, this new language has not yet been presented as a substitute by the Charter Commission. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Eric Pone, 4747 Twin Lake Avenue N., Vice Chair of the Charter Commission, indicated the proposed language is in response to events that have occurred, many of which have lead to legislative action. Mr. Pone presented the move from 60 to 90 days as a compromise to provide an adequate timeframe for the City Council to discuss, make its decision, and provide speed of action. It was not meant to replace discussion within the City Council or remove its power, but to augment and provide a simplified and defined process. Mr. Pone stated the second change requires action by resolution, rather than initiation. The third change requires parties of interest to agree with an extension, which removes the potential for someone to get involved who does not have an interest in the action. Mr. Pone stated the Charter Commission hopes this is a level of compromise. He advised there has been some Charter Commission discussion towards a ballot measure because it feels this is extremely important, it will make the Council's "lives" easier, and protect the landowners of Brooklyn Center. Mark Yelich, 6018 Beard Avenue N., Charter Commissioner, commented on the purpose of eminent domain and modification made by the State Legislature due to misuse. He stated the Charter Commission favors incorporating those changes into the Charter to protect residents against Legislatures that may change State Statute. The added language also gives Brooklyn Center property owners additional recourse should the City not react as required by State Statute. Mr. Yelich stated in the interest of protecting Brooklyn Center property owners against potentially disruptive action, the City needs to do its homework prior to proceeding with eminent domain. He thinks residents would be supportive and encouraged the City Council to be supportive as well and vote to approve the changes recommended. Robert Marvin, 4711 Twin Lake Avenue N., Charter Commissioner, echoed comments by Messrs. Pone and Yelich. He indicated the Charter Commission is pretty much unanimous in supporting the Charter changes. 05/14/12 -5- DRAFT I I Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 1. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER REGARDING EMINENT DOMAIN City Attorney LeFevere addressed the three language amendments under consideration and advised that while revising from a 60 day period to a 90 day period is an improvement and conforms to the quick take provision in State Statute, it does not change the effect on what the City can or cannot do on a condemnation if not a quick take action. If beyond 90 days, the City would not have the option to abandon condemnation actions due to change in circumstances, such as the property is no longer needed for a roadway, or the condemnation award is too high and the City decides to not proceed. In those cases where not a quick take, the City would not have the ability to back out and would be required to proceed unless all parties affected agree to an extension. Mr. LeFevere noted the second amendment to initiate by resolution is an improvement so it is known when the 90 days starts to nun. He stated the intent of the third amendment to add "parties of interest" may be to protect the individual land owner; however, it may enable other parties involved in the action that frustrates the intent of the Charter Commission. Mr. LeFevere stated he is not sure of the intent of this change but assumes it means all parties to the legal action of the condemnation that are named in the proceeding. Mr. Boganey noted there could be parties of interest who are not aligned with the interest of the landowner. As a result of those interests, the 90-day timeframe could be missed even though the landowner may be willing to grant an extension. Mr. LeFevere confirmed that could occur and override the interest of the landowner. The City Council discussed the proposed Charter amendment and asked questions of City Attorney LeFevere relating to impacts resulting from including a timeframe in the Charter. Mr, LeFevere advised that under the proposed amendment, the City can no longer abandon the process after 90 days and has to acquire the property, even if the award is more expensive than expected or it is no longer in the public interest to proceed. Currently, if the City Council decides to not proceed, it is required to pay the landowner's costs and attorney fees. It was noted that properties requiring environmental remediation often involve extended periods of time to resolve issues with all governmental agencies. The City Council stated its appreciation to the Charter Commission for its consideration and acknowledged that the Legislature has already restricted the use of eminent domain for a worthy public purpose (acquiring right-of-way for streets/utilities) and it can no longer be used for economic development. The City Council indicated that while it was reluctant to consider the use of eminent domain, reservations were expressed with considering a timeframe because it would "tie the City's hands" and not be the most conservative action for the City. 05/14/12 -6- DRAFT City Attorney LeFevere explained the first Charter language came to the City Council without previous dialogue and because the Charter Commission did not withdraw the amendment, the City was forced to publish notice in the paper and hold a Public Hearing. The new language had been received on May 11, 2012, in the form of the Charter Commission's meeting minutes but not presented in a formal manner. Mr. LeFevere advised the City Council can take action on the original amendment as the Public Hearing has been held and also has the opportunity to provide comment on the new language that has not yet been formally presented to the City Council. Mr. Boganey indicated the City Council has 30 days from tonight to act on the original proposal and sufficient time to place the language on referendum. Following discussion, the City Council agreed the current Charter language was suitable, protected the City, and it was uncomfortable adding time constraint language to the Charter. In addition, the proposed language mirrors State Statute but should a future Legislative action change the law, the Charter language would remain and may be more restrictive than State law. The Council noted State law governs eminent domain, provisions already exist to protect the interests of the landowner, and it was unsure what the proposed Charter amendment would "fix" since no abuses have come forward. The City Council asked the Charter Commissioners to bring back Councilmember's comments on the new language and see if they are comfortable changing the language to not include the 90 day time period, which would assure the City's and citizen's best interests are considered. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Kleven seconded to table consideration of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter Regarding Eminent Domain, to provide the Charter Commission an opportunity to have dialog and make a formal proposal. Mayor Willson offered a friendly amendment to table to the June 11, 2012, Council meeting. Councilmembers Lasman and Kleven accepted the friendly amendment. Motion passed unanimously. 8b. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER SECTIONS 4.01 AND 4.02 City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment. He referenced the Charter Commission recommendation that an ordinance amendment is not necessary. Mr. Boganey advised of the City Council's options and alternate to insert a clarifying note after the first sentence of Charter Section 4.02 indicating: "[City Clerk's Note: Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.065, Subd. 1 provides that a municipal primary for the purpose of nominating elective officers may be held in any city on the second Tuesday in August of any year in which a municipal general election is to be held for the purpose of electing officers.]. 05/14/12 -7- DRAFT i Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to remove the item from the table. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to continue the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Eric Pone, 4747 Twin Lake Avenue N., Vice Chair of the Charter Commission, stated if it is the will of the City Council, he would appreciate bringing the proposed amendment back to the Charter Commission for additional consideration. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. The City Council acknowledged it had initiated the amendment under consideration; however, should the Charter Commission wish to re-examine this language and/or other provisions, it is free to bring forward another proposal. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to deny Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter, Sections 4.01 and 4.02, and to approve inserting a clarifying note after the first sentence of Charter Section 4.02 indicating: "[City Clerk's Note: Minnesota Statutes, Section 205.065, Subd. 1 provides that a municipal primary for the purpose of nominating elective officers may be held in any city on the second Tuesday in August of any year in which a municipal general election is to be held for the purpose of electing officers.]. Motion passed unanimously. 8e. ORDINANCE NO. 2012-02 AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE MOST SOUTHERLY SECTION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, SITUATED BETWEEN AZELIA AVENUE NORTH TO THE WEST, LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NORTH TO THE NORTH, AND HIGHWAY 100 TO THE EAST AND SOUTH (ADDRESSED AS 4001 LAKEBREEZE AVENUE NORTH) Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti introduced the item and reviewed past consideration to rezone 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to open the Public Hearing. 05/14/12 -8- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. Paul Kiecker, 4701 Azelia Avenue N., described his concerns with the proposed project including potential impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood and wildlife. In response to the concerns expressed by Mr. Kiecker, Mr. Benetti explained that a C2 zoning allows a full gamut and wide variety of retail uses. However, the proposed PUD would result in limited retail, office, and industrial uses, the ability to limit the type of activity or use, prohibit outdoor storage or adult uses, and to provide higher buffer and screening standards. In addition, there will be no traffic/truck access to Azelia Avenue. Mr. Benetti advised that a rezoning to C- 2/1-1, under PUD, is more restrictive than the current zoning from a planning perspective. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2012-02 Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Generally Located in the Most Southerly Section of the City of Brooklyn Center, Situated Between Azelia Avenue North to the West, Lakebreeze Avenue North to the North, and Highway 100 to the East and South (Addressed as 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North) Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2012-002 SUBMITTED BY PAUL HYDE, REAL ESTATE RECYCLING Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-002 submitted by Paul Hyde, Real Estate Recycling, requesting Planned Unit Development (PUD), Development/Site Building Plan approval for a proposed new 90,000 sq. ft. office/manufacturing/warehouse facility in conjunction with the new France Avenue Business Center 4-PUD to be located at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue North. Mr. Benetti advised the Planning Commission recommended approval at its April 26, 2012 meeting. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-68 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION AND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-002, SUBMITTED BY PAUL HYDE FOR DEVELOPMENT/SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012-68 Regarding the Recommended Disposition and Approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-002, submitted by Paul Hyde for Development/Site and Building Plan Approval. 05/14/12 -9- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 4216 LAKEBREEZE AVENUE Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning advised that 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue North was inspected and 37 property code violations (9.25/unit) were cited and ultimately corrected. There have been zero validated police incidents/nuisance calls within the last 12 months. This property qualifies for a Type IV six- month provisional rental license based on the number of property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection. The property owner is also required to submit a mitigation plan and report monthly on the progress of that plan. Ms. Schleuning reviewed actions taken in regard to this rental license application and indicated Staff has reviewed that mitigation plan and held discussion with the property owner and recommends approval based on meeting standards in the mitigation plan. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Ita Ekah, owner of 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue N., stated he has rectified the repairs in question, followed the Crime Prevention Officer's suggestions, and attended ARM meetings. He stated he will attend the June 5, 2012, Crime Prevention Program and has submitted a typed mitigation plan, as required. Mayor Willson stated he appreciates that Mr. Ekah is taking this seriously and working closely with staff. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue North, with the requirement that the mitigation plan must be strictly adhered to before a renewal rental license would be considered. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6319 PERRY AVENUE NORTH Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning 05/14/12 -10- DRAFT i advised that 6319 Perry Avenue North was inspected and 15 property code violations were cited and ultimately corrected. There have been zero validated police incidents/nuisance calls within the last 12 months. This property qualifies for a Type IV six-month provisional rental license based on the number of property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection. The property owner is also required to submit a mitigation plan and report monthly on the progress of that' plan. Ms. Schleuning reviewed actions taken in regard to this rental license application and indicated Staff has reviewed that mitigation plan and held discussion with the property owner and recommends approval based on meeting standards in the mitigation plan. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to open the hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address the Council. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for 6319 Perry Avenue North, with the requirement that the mitigation plan must be strictly adhered to before a renewal rental license would be considered. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Lasman reported on her attendance at the following: • April 26, 2012,Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council meeting • April 30, 2012, Board of Appeal &Equalization • May 5, 2012, Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast • May 7, 2012, Continued Board of Appeal &Equalization Councilmember Lasman announced the May 18, 2012, Brooklyn Center Crime Prevention golf fundraiser event and congratulated Woodland Elementary School on being one of five schools in Minnesota that had received the School of Excellence Award. Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following: • April 24, 2012, Brooklyn Center Rotary luncheon • April 26, 2012, Metro Cities annual meeting • April 30, 2012, Board of Appeal &Equalization • May 1, 2012, Official Dedication and Ribbon Cutting of FBI Regional Headquarters • May 7, 2012, Continued Board of Appeal & Equalization • May 2, 2012, Joint Meeting of the Housing Commission and Park and Recreation Commission 05/14/12 -11- DRAFT • May 5, 2012, 341h annual Brooklyn Center Community Prayer Breakfast Councilmember Ryan announced the May 17, 2012, neighborhood meeting at Evergreen Park, starting at 6 p.m. Councilmember Kleven reported on her attendance at the following: • April 24, 2012, Rotary luncheon • April 26, 2012, Brooklyn Center Business luncheon • April 26, 2012, Community event during which the Commissioner of Education spoke • April 30, 2012, NIMS meeting • April 30, 2012, Board of Appeal &Equalization • May 1, 2012, Ribbon Cutting at FBI Headquarters • May 1, 2012, Minneapolis Northwest Convention&Visitors Bureau Open House • May 2, 2012, Joint meeting of the Housing Commission and Park and Recreation Commission • May 3, 2012, Robbinsdale Area Schools Volunteer Appreciation Breakfast • May 5, 2012, Prayer Breakfast • May 5, 2012, Lioness Fund Raiser luncheon • May 7, 2012, Continued Board of Appeal & Equalization • May 9, 2012, FBI Speech on the Enron Case • May 10, 2012, ARM meeting Councilmember Myszkowski reported on her attendance at the following: • April 30, 2012,National Incident Management (NIMS) training • April 30, 2012, Board of Appeal &Equalization • May 1, 2012, FBI Ribbon Cutting Ceremony • May 1, 2012, CEAP Volunteer luncheon • May 2, 2012, Joint meeting of the Housing Commission and Park and Recreation Commission • May 3, 2012, Breakfast meeting with the nonprofit in the process of purchasing Viewpoint at Shingle Creek • May 5, 2012, Brooklyn Center Prayer Breakfast • May 7, 2012, Continued Board of Appeal & Equalization Councilmember Myszkowski announced the Northwest Hennepin Family Services Center had been awarded the"Best in Real Estate"recognition. Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following: • April 30, 2012, Board of Appeal and Equalization • May 1, 2012, FBI Ground Breaking Ceremony • May 1, 2012, Minneapolis Northwest Open House • May 3, 2012, Robbinsdale Area Schools Volunteer Appreciation Breakfast • May 5, 2012, Brooklyn Center Community Prayer Breakfast • May 7, 2012, Continued Board of Appeal & Equalization 05/14/12 -12- DRAFT it Mayor Willson announced the Vera Institute of Justice has recognized the efforts of the City's Police Department in working with immigrants and invited an officer, expenses paid, to attend its national peer review meeting. Police Community Liaison Monique Drier will be attending this meeting as well as participating in a Podcast discussion of the work done in Brooklyn Center. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:18 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/14/12 -13- 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 14, 2012 CITY HALL— COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 9:19 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners Carol Kleven, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Director of Community Activities Jim Glasoe, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building & Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. REPORT FROM PARKS AND HOUSING COMMISSIONS REGARDING COMMUNITY GARDENS City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item and referenced the joint report summarizing input from the Housing Commission and Park and Recreation Commission relating to the proposed community garden at Happy Hollow Park. Rather than acting on a recommendation at this stage, Mr. Boganey recommended the City Council/EDA direct staff to meet with the Housing Commission and Park and Recreation Commission to discuss the alternative of placing the community garden in Centennial Park. It was noted the Park and Recreation Commission had prioritized three potential locations: Crystal Airport property, Centennial Park, and Happy Hollow Park. The Park and Recreation Commission had decided to bypass Centennial Park because of concerns with potential flooding conditions; however, the Public Works Department has mitigated that issue. He noted Centennial Park has adequate parking, available City water, bathroom facilities, no competing recreational activities, sufficient land for future growth, and it is a destination park as opposed to a neighborhood park. The City Council/EDA discussed the merits of placing a community garden in Centennial Park, noting it may be less controversial than Happy Hollow Park. Strong support was voiced to assure this pilot program started this growing season. With regard to interior garden fencing, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel explained the Commissions' motion indicated it would not be allowed; however, the intent is to control interior fencing through guidelines to assure the site appears pleasing throughout the year. 05/14/12 -1- DRAFT The City Council/EDA indicated if the community garden program is successful, it can consider whether to expanded the program to Happy Hollow Park and include a partnership with Malmborg's Nursery. It was suggested that neighbors in a three-block proximity of Happy Hollow Park receive first opportunity and then use a first come/first served priority. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to concur with staff's recommendation to receive additional input from the Housing Commission and Park and Recreation Commission. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/14/12 -2- DRAFT I City Council Agenda Item No. 6b j COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2012 I TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager �I FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses at its May 29, 2012. Background: The following businesses/persons have, applied for City licenses as noted. Each business/person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. AMUSEMENT DEVICES American Amusement Arcades 2590 Freeway Boulevard 6440 James Circle North 5937 Summit Drive Metro Coin of Minnesota, Inc. 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway MECHANICAL Alta Heating&Plumbing 19260 Mushtown Road,Prior Lake Modern Heating& Air 2318 First Street NE,Minneapolis RENTAL See attached report. SIGN HANGER Install This 4835 Lyndale Avenue N,Minneapolis Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler Route, St.Paul Leroy Signs 6325 Welcome Avenue N,Brooklyn Park Nordquist Sign 945 Pierce Butler Route, St.Paul Taurus Sign 1790028 oth Street, Shafer Mission:Enslfring all attractive,clean,saj ,inchisive cotnuntinity that enhances the pality of l f, for all people and preserves the public trust i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Rental License Category Criteria Policy—Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type I—3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+units! 0-0.75 Type II—2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3±units Greater than 0,75 but not more than 1.5 Type III— 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV—6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+units Greater than 3 License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units`' 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive conununity that enhances the qualith of life. for all people and preserves the public trust Rental Licenses for Council Approval-on May' %9 2012 Property Final Previous Dwelling Renewal Code License Police License License Property Address Type or Initial Owner Violations Type CFS* Type** Type*** 1 Bldg 5 7250 West River Rd 4 Units Initial Jean Borgen 1.25/Unit II N/A II 6813 Humboldt Ave N B101 Single Family Initial Raymond Charest 3 II N/A II 2907 O'Henry Rd Single Family Initial Sarah Vogt 3 II N/A II 6807 Quail Ave N Single Family Initial Paul Pham 0 II N/A II 4501 Winchester Ln Single Family Initial Sandeep Dani 0 II N/A II 2 Bldg 22 3 6915 Humboldt Ave N 50 Units Renewal Hillaway investments LLC .44/Unit I .06/Unit I N/T 6700 Orchard Ln N Marvin Garden Twhms 9 Bldg 37 5 Passed w/Weather Deferral 52 Units Renewal Redevco Marvin Garden LTD .71/Unit I .10/Unit I N/T 5639 Humboldt Ave N ISingle Family Renewal Matthew Resong 0 1 0 1 11 *CFS=Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only(Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.) ** Final License Type ***Initial licenses will not show a previous license type; N/T indicates No Type since it was under the previous 2-year rental license program All properties are current on utilities and property taxes Type I=3 year Type II=2 year Type III=1 year City Council Agenda Item No. 6c i I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Application and Permit for Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Submitted by Our Lady of Fatima& St. Francis High Schools Alumni Association Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the application and permit for temporary on-sale liquor license submitted by Our Lady of Fatima & St. Francis High Schools Alumni Association, for an event to be held at MEC (Miracle Empowerment Center), 5801 John Martin Drive, on July 7, 2012. Background: On April 19, 2012, Isaac Russell, representing Our Lady of Fatima & St. Francis Alumni Education Foundation, submitted an application and permit for temporary on-sale liquor license for an event to be held July 7, 2012. The applicant has satisfied the City's requirements, submitted the $25 fee for each day of the license, along with a certificate of coverage for liquor liability insurance, and has existed as a nonprofit, charitable organization for at least three years. After Council review, the application and permit will be forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division for approval. City Ordinance Section 11-107 (6) Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. This license may be issued only upon receiving the approval from the Commissioner of Public Safety. The license may be issued only in connection with a social event within the city that is sponsored by a club or charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organization that has existed for at least three years or to a brewer who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year. The license may authorize the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the Premises for not more than three consecutive days, and the City shall issue no more than twelve days' worth of temporary licenses to any one organization or for any one location within a 12-month period. The temporary license may authorize the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on Premises other than Premises the licensee owns or permanently occupies. The temporary license may provide that the licensee may contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License issued by any municipality. i Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission:Insuring an attractive,clean,sitfe,inclusive community that enhances the qualitj,of life for all people and preserves the public trust 1 of vU @NYC s' y�f,�r III Minnesota Department of Public Safety t3' ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION • . tai:°,:�,< sy otp 444 Cedar Street Suite 222,St.Paul MN 55101-5133' \,9}F01Fz MINN�y —� (651)201-7507 Fax(651)297-5259 TTY(651)282-6555 . W W W.DPS.STATE.MN.US APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE TYPE OR PRINT INFORMATION NAME OF ORGA I TI �7 1 ins AT ORGANIZED TAX EXEMPT NUMBER La U t > tii STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE NAME OF PER7—ul MAKING APPLICATION Q BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE � (� L� -?63! 58'1 116 ( ) (-7 1,5-76-2 DATES LIQUOR WILL BE SOLD -7/'7// CLUB OF O ARITABLE O RELIGIOUS OTHE NONPROFIT ) ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS °r • n ..� 2"6 4 tA. Law rv_1 cL 9L a I t Po lF 3367/1 ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S N ME s IIS&ADDRESS At 10- 14 It ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ).a) ADDRESSjJ�/( ' ti ircA /z s err o �1 ,�,� ►�, ^-�,�- I i� 1�`i � Ini s Location license will be usad. If an oi4tdoor area,describe Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor service? If so,give the name and address of the liquor licensee providing the service. Will the applicant carry liquor liability insurance? If so,please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL&GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT CITY/COUNTY DATE APPROVED CITY FEE AMOUNT LICENSE DATES DATE FEE PAID SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OFFICIAL APPROVED DIRECTOR ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT NOTE:Submit this form to the city or county 30 days prior to event. Forward application signed by city and/or county to the address above. If the application is approved the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division will return this application to be used as the License for the event PS-09079(12/09) i M City Council Agenda Item No. 6d a f COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: May 16, 2012 SUBJECT: Application and Permit for Temporary On-Sale Liquor License Submitted by The Church of St. Alphonsus, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, for an Event to be Held July 21-22, 2012 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the application and permit for temporary on-sale liquor license submitted by The Church of St. Alphonsus, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, for an event to be held July 21-22, 2012. Background: The Church of St. Alphonsus, 7025 Halifax Avenue North, has submitted an application and permit for temporary on-sale liquor license for an event to be held July 21-22, 2012. The applicant has satisfied the City's requirements, submitted the $25 fee for each day of the license, along with a certificate of coverage for liquor liability insurance, and has existed as a religious organization for at least three years. After Council review, the application and permit will be forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division for approval. City Ordinance Section 11-107 (6) Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. This license may be issued only upon receiving the approval from the Commissioner of Public Safety. The license may be issued only in connection with a social event within the city that is sponsored by a club or charitable, religious, or other nonprofit organization that has existed for at least three years or to a brewer who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year. The license may authorize the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the Premises for not more than three consecutive days, and the City shall issue no more than twelve days' worth of temporary licenses to any one organization or for any one location within a 12-month period. The temporary license may authorize the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed on Premises other than Premises the licensee owns or permanently occupies. The temporary license may provide that the licensee may contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License issued by any municipality. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inch{sive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust FUN FEST 2012 Minnesota Department of Public Saj�EEY ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT DIVISION 444 Cedar Street Suite 222,St.Paul MN 55101-5133 UWF M I" (651)201-7507 Fax(651)297-5259 TTY(651)282-6555 WWW.DPS.STATE.MN.US APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A I TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE TYPE OR PRINT INFORMATION NAME OF ORGANIZATION DATE ORGANIZED TAX EXEMPT NUMBER ST ALPHONSUS CHURCH 1959 ES 32045 STREET ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE 7025 HALIFAX AVE N ROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 NAME OF PERSON MAKING APPLICATION BUSINESS PHONE HOME PHONE MICHRIF KARLSON (763) 503-3389 DATES LIQUOR WILL BE SOLD JULY 21/22 2012 TYPE OF ORGANIZATION CLUB CHARITABLE �rELIGIOt OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS FIB. PETER CONNOLLY, C.SS.R. 7025 HALIFAX AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS ORGANIZATION OFFICER'S NAME ADDRESS Location license will be used. If an outdoor area,describe School/Church parking IDtS Will the applicant contract for intoxicating liquor service? If so,give the name and address of the liquor licensee providing the service. Will the applicant-carry liquor liability insurance? If so,please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America $500,000 each occurrence APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL&GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT CITY COUNTY DATE APPROVED CITY FEE AMOUNT d4 LICENSE DATES DA E FEE PAID MA4 SIGNATURE CITY CLERK OR COUNTY OF'FICIAL APPROVED DIRECTOR ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT NOTE:Submit this form to the city or county 30 days prior to event. Forward application signed by city and/or county to the address above. If the application is approved the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division will return this application to he used as the License for the event PS-09079(12/09) City Council Agenda Item No. 6e i r i I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning,rAssistant City Manager/Director of Building& Community Standards SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council declare a public nuisance and order the removal of diseased trees for certain properties as listed in the resolution. Background: The attached resolution represents the official Council action required to expedite removal of diseased trees that were recently marked by the city tree inspector. The City of Brooklyn Center has maintained a policy of removing and properly disposing of diseased trees in order to prevent tree diseases from spreading throughout the community. The removal of diseased trees is defined in City Ordinance Chapter 20-301to 20-306. Although the City has historically focused on Dutch Elm disease, other transmissible diseases and infestations are addressed as well. Property owners are given the opportunity to remove the diseased tree on their own or enter an agreement to allow the city to remove the diseased tree. Where an agreement with the property owner is executed, a minimal administrative charge of$50 is applied to the costs associated with the tree removal. After a diseased tree is declared a public nuisance by the City Council, another Compliance Notice will be provided to the property owner allowing additional time, at least five days, for voluntary correction, again providing an option for an agreement with the City. If the property owner does not correct the violation or enter into an agreement,the City will remove the diseased tree. An administrative abatement service charge will be charged based on the cost of the abatement,with a minimum charge of$150. Budget Issues: The City's share of the cost of removal for diseased trees within the public right-of-way and on City property is included in the 2012 budget under the Public Works Forestry operating budget. The cost of removal for diseased trees located on private property is the responsibility of the respective property owner, and if unpaid, is specially assessed to the property. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and presewes the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Council Goals: Strategic: 8. We will encourage citywide environmental sustainability efforts. Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources. I! Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES AT CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS,Brooklyn Center City Code Section 20-301 declares any diseased tree a public nuisance and provides for abatement by the City if not corrected by the property owner; and WHEREAS, removal of diseased trees and abatement of the public nuisances is necessary to prevent the spread of tree diseases and to protect the environmental quality and desirability of neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, a Notice to Abate Nuisance and a Diseased Tree Removal Agreement has been issued to the owners of certain properties in the City of Brooklyn Center giving the owners twenty(20)days to remove diseased trees on the owners' property; and WHEREAS,the City can expedite the removal of these diseased trees by declaring them a public nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota,that: 1. The diseased tree at the following address is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Property Owner Property Address Tree Ty e and No. Park Ave Homes,LLC 6337 Bryant Ave N Elm-5 (Diseased Tree) 2. After twenty(20) days from the date of the initial notice,the property owner(s)will receive a second written notice providing five (5)business days in which to contest the determination of the City Council by requesting, in writing, a hearing. Said request shall be filed with the City Clerk. 3. After five(5) days,if the property owner fails to request a hearing,the tree(s)shall be removed by the City. The cost of abatement shall be recorded and become the personal responsibility of the owner of record. If unpaid,the costs shall be specially assessed to the property in accordance with city codes and Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. RESOLUTION NO. Date Tim Willson,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 i City Council Agenda ItemNo. 6f i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: 21 May 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Assessment v. Write Off for Bankruptcy Amounts Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution establishing a policy for handling utility amounts owed by a customer following bankruptcy. Background: During any given year the City will receive up to a dozen notices of bankruptcy filings by utility customers whose accounts are unpaid. During the period of the bankruptcy proceedings the City is prohibited from taking any action to collect the unpaid amounts. In these cases, the City removes the amounts from the customer's account and places them in a bankruptcy holding account. However, following either a dismissal of the proceedings or a discharge of the filing the City may proceed to collect the unpaid amount due from the property owner. Following a dismissal, the amount is put back on the customer's account and collection proceeds according to City policy. In the case of a discharge the unpaid utility charges may be assessed as a lien against the property at that time. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Assessment after a discharge is not an issue if the customer who incurred the charge is the same person as the property owner. If the customer is still the owner of the property then he, she, or they will be charged through the assessment of the amount against the real property he, she or they own. Although they may object to such actions, case law holds that the City has the right to collect these utility charges as a secured lien against the property. However, if the customer who incurred the charge has sold or lost the property to foreclosure at the time the bankruptcy is discharged complications arise. At the time a property is sold to a new owner any outstanding unpaid bills or potential bills are disclosed to the buyer's title search firm. An amount can then be withheld from the proceeds of the sale to pay the outstanding bills and close the account. If a title search firm does not discover or withhold payment for outstanding utilities, the new owner has cause to hold the title search company responsible for the charges. However, a bankruptcy receivable is not included in such disclosures. Therefore, any assessment of the unpaid charges following discharge of a bankruptcy against the property will fall entirely on the new owner without recourse to the title search firm. The City's authority to assess the unpaid amounts against a new owner has been upheld in a district court decision. The City then has a couple of options for dealing with unpaid utility charges following a discharge of bankruptcy AND change of ownership in a property: Mission:Ensuring an attractive, clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quafit>>of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • The City may assess the unpaid amounts, including interest and service charges against the property for collection on the property taxes for the ensuing year without regard to the change in ownership. • The City may write off the unpaid amount incurred by the former owner as uncollectible against the current revenues of the various utility funds On occasion, a property changes ownership while a bankruptcy is in the court system. Again, the City may not disclose the amount held in the bankruptcy receivable account to a title search company. If the bankruptcy is dismissed after a change in ownership occurs there are three possible ways to deal with the amount due: • In the case of a foreclosure acquisition by a bank or title company, the discharged amount due may simply be put back on the new owner's account without prior knowledge of the amount due. • In the case of a new resident or other owner from a free market sale the amount due from the bankruptcy discharge may be assessed against the property. • In either case, the amount may be written off against current utility revenues. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Chapter 13 collections occur through the trustee for the bankruptcy. The City is paid directly by the trustee. In the case that a Chapter 13 distribution pays the bill in full the matter is closed. In the case where a Chapter 13 trustee makes all distributions and the bill is still not paid in full the City may asses the remaining amount against the property when the current owner of the property is the same or the property ownership has changed. In these cases the policy decision is to either assess the unpaid amount or write it off against current revenues. Policy Issues: In the case of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy: • Is a dismissed amount; o Placed on the account of a new owner in the case of a foreclosure holding? o Assessed against the property in the case of a new owner? o Written off against current revenues if ownership has changed during bankruptcy process? • Is a discharged amount: o Placed on the account of a new owner in the case of a foreclosure holding? o Assessed against the property in the case of a new owner? o Written off against current revenues if ownership has changed during bankruptcy process? In the case of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy: o Is the uncollected amount assessed against a new owner? o Is the uncollected amount written off against current revenues? Mission:Ensuring an attractive, clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Options for policy implementation: 1. When a bankruptcy filing has been dismissed or discharged and ownership of the property has changed during the bankruptcy process any remaining amount owed to the City shall be written off against the current fiscal period. • This would allow the most efficient administration of the situation with insignificant loss to the utility. Three year total amounts (2009 — 2011) are approximately $ 6,000 in total over the five utilities. 2. When a bankruptcy filing has been dismissed or discharged and ownership of the property has changed during the bankruptcy process any remaining amount owed to the City shall be assessed against the property for collection through the property tax system using established procedures for assessment of unpaid utility bills. • While the amounts due would be collected under this process, the amounts collected as a result of the process of collecting utilities through assessment and the potential ill will caused by requiring payment of a previously unknown bill may not be as valuable as using the first policy option. 3. When a bankruptcy filing has been dismissed and the owner of the property remains the person(s) who filed the bankruptcy proceeding any remaining amount due will be placed back on the owner's account. • In this situation the bankruptcy process is declared null and the person who incurred the unpaid utility bill could rightly placed back on notice that the amount is due and payable. If non-payment persists the unpaid amount may be assessed to collect payment, as is done for other unpaid utility amounts outside the bankruptcy process. 4. When a bankruptcy filing has been discharged and the owner of the property remains the person(s)' who filed the bankruptcy proceeding any remaining amount due shall be assessed against the property for collection through the property tax system using established procedures for assessment of unpaid utility bills. • In the case of discharge, there has been a ruling of status in the bankruptcy court and assessment would be the only way to collect. The issue under discussion could be resolved by adopting options 1, 3 and 4 or options 2, 3 and 4. Council Goals: Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources 2. We will ensure the financial stability of the City Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life V for all people and preserves the public bust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY ON WRITE OFF OF UTILITY AMOUNTS OWED UPON DISMISSAL OR DISCHARGE OF BANKRUPTCY WHEREAS, a customer may occasionally declare bankruptcy while owing money on their utility account; and WHEREAS, the City may not attempt to collect on that amount due during the proceedings of the bankruptcy court; and WHEREAS, upon resolution of a customer bankruptcy filing there are various and sundry options available to the City in clearing the amount owed from the City's ledgers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following policy be established in Section 2.30 of the Policy for Public Utility Account Collections under number 6. As follows: 6. Bankruptcy A. When a bankruptcy filing has been dismissed or discharged and ownership of the property has changed during the bankruptcy process any remaining amount owed to the City shall be written off against the current fiscal period. B. When a bankruptcy filing has been dismissed and the owner of the property remains the person(s)who filed the bankruptcy proceeding any remaining amount due will be placed back on the owner's account. C. When a bankruptcy filing has been discharged and the owner of the property remains the person(s)who filed the bankruptcy proceeding any remaining amount due shall be assessed against the property for collection through the property tax system using established procedures for assessment of unpaid utility bills. May 29, 2012 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. 6g i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: 21 May 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager �J FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Uncollectible Accounts Receivab e Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Finance Department to write off Uncollectible accounts. Background: The accounts on the attached resolution have been overdue for a number of years. The likelihood of collecting any money on them, even through private collection agency processes, is very small. Two of the unpaid amounts are charges for false alarms in excess of four. One is for damage to a street sign cause when trying to avoid an accident. Financial Impact: Accounts receivable in the General Fund will be reduced by $ 346.75. Council Goals: Ongoing: 2. We will ensure the financial stability of the City Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE OFF UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND RETURNED CHECKS WHEREAS, the City Manager has identified the following accounts receivable as unlikely to be collected; and WHEREAS, all reasonable efforts have been made to collect on these receivables. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the City Manager is hereby authorized to write off the following accounts receivable and returned checks from the City of Brooklyn Center's accounts: I Accounts Receivable. Name Amount Purpose A 1 Marketplace &Deli 100.00 False Alarms Blockbuster 50.00 False Alarms Jimmie Ray Frazier, Jr 196.75 Damaged Street Sign Total $ 346.75 May 29, 2012 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 City Council Agenda Item No. 6h i i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: 21 May 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Financdendment SUBJECT: Equipment Replacement Budget Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution modifying the Central Garage Fund budget to include purchase of a skid steer loader. Background: In preparing for equipment purchases for 2012 the Central Garage staff developed an idea that would result in costs savings and more utility from equipment. It would involve the planned replacement of the International patching dump truck (#21) and the early sale of the oil distributor truck (#35), the Caterpillar dozer (#55) and the New Holland tractor (#215). Combining the proceeds of these four disposals with the reserve cash accumulated in the garage fund would provide about$ 230,000 for the new vehicle purchases. Purchases would include a replacement patch truck with an oil distributor unit integrated and a skid steer loader replacing the dozer/tractor vehicles with one unit with greater utility. Expected costs for these two purchases would be about $ 178,000. This would leave marginal savings of about $ 52,000 which could be returned to the Central Garage's equipment replacement allocation In addition, the plan would provide lower operating and maintenance costs using the two vehicles rather than four, as currently configured. Annual savings estimated by Central Garage staff are about$ 9,500 per year. The attached memorandum gives the details of the plan. In order to enact the plan, the 2012 budget for the Central Garage should be revised upward by $ 15,000 to cover the marginal net cost for the unbudgeted replacement of the dozer and tractor with the skid steer loader. Budget Issues: Additional vehicle replacement costs of$ 15,000. Council Goals: Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources 3. We will move toward maintaining or lowering the level of the City's property taxes Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i 47rr'of' IIRII(lTi7.,�'h` MEMORANDUM C;F1VtIlt DATE: May 10, 2012 TO:Steve Lillehaug—Director of Public Works/City Engineer FROM:John Harlow—Deputy Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Equipment Utilization Recommendations-2012 As part of the annual Central Garage budget process,equipment is reviewed regarding replacement cost, life cycle and utilization.The 2012 review has revealed several equipment units that are under- utilized; #55—crawler dozer, no use in 2011, not scheduled for future replacement,trade value$20,000; #215—utility tractor, 13 hours in 2011,scheduled for replacement in 2019,trade value$10,000,these units could be eliminated from the current fleet inventory. It is proposed that the equipment units' current trade value could be leveraged to purchase other equipment by combining the functionality of four current equipment units, eliminating two underutilized units,and purchasing two new equipment units that would more efficiently perform tasks currently accomplished with four. A key result in the reduction of equipment units from four to two would be the positive financial effect on the Central Garage Replacement Fund, departmental budgets, and'the Central Garage Equipment Reserve Fund; consolidation of equipment reduces present and future annual costs for replacement, overhead, insurance, maintenance and fuel. The attached spreadsheet shows the current cost for four units;#21—hotbox patch truck,#35—oil distributor/tack truck, #55—crawler dozer,#215—utility tractor, and the resulting cost for two proposed replacement units;#21- patch truck/tack oil truck combination, scheduled for 2012,#55 - skid steer loader, new replacement for tractor. The net result depicted on the spreadsheet shows an estimated annual savings in the following categories: • Central Garage Equipment Replacement Funding-$777.00 • Insurance and Overhead-$2,431 • Fuel-$1,654 • Maintenance Labor and Parts-$4,607 • TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAVINGS-$9,469 If the proposed consolidation and new equipment purchases are approved,the result of combined trade values and excess accumulated Replacement Funds will net an approximate excess balance of$53,647, which will be returned to the Central Garage Equipment Reserve Fund. The return of these funds to the Equipment Reserve Fund is of substantial significance,since future projected equipment purchases are extremely underfunded.A prime example is the scheduled replacement of two major pieces of fire equipment in 2017—they have a current replacement balance of$414,145 and the projected replacement cost is$801,000. Please review this proposal for consolidation of under-utilized equipment with the City Manager for disposition; I will proceed accordingly with the remainder of 2012 equipment purchases when I receive your reply. CENTRAL GARAGE FUNDING ANALYSIS-BUDGET 2012 I PW Est. 2012 2012 2011 for 2012 Estimated Balance New 2012 ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL Acq _Replace_ I Purchase Est'd Trade to be Fixed Monthly OVERHEAD REPLACEMENT ANNUAL MAKE/MODEL DEPT CITY# Date Year Price Life Value Funded Cost Repl.Cost COST COST COST International Patch Truck Street 21 2012 20241 130,712 144 10,000 137,290.00 953.40 . 953.40 1,444.44 11,440.80 12,885.24 Oil Distributor Truck Street 35 1998 94,000 1,208.40 1,208.40 Caterpillar Dozer Street 55 1997 94,308 - 1,222.68 - 1,22_2.68 New Holland Tractor Parks 215 2004 2019' 27,000 180 5,000 6,370.15 66.36 66.36 994.68 796.32 1,791.00 17,107.32 Proposed Equipment Patch Truck Street 21 2012 20241 135,000 144 20,000 132,121.00 917.51 917.51 1,444.44 11,010.12 12,454.56 Skid Steer Street 55 2012 20271 42,972 . 180 8,000 41,889.00 232.72 232.72 1 1,083.36 2,792.64 3,876.00 -- 16,330.56 CG Funding Est Annual Savings $ 776.76 REPLACEMENT FUND BALANCE 04/30/2012 Ins.OH Chg 21 $ 94,188.00 j Annual Savings $ 2,431.08 35 $ 87,141.00 Annual Fuel Est 55 $ - Savings $ 1,654.00 215 $ 17,867.00 Annual Maint Est Savings-Labor& Accumulated Funds $ 2,450.00 Parts $ 4,607.00 $201,646.00 Purchase Cost $(177,972.00) j Annual Saving Total $ 9,468.84 Trade value $ 30,000.00 Est Return to Equip Rese $ 53,674.00 i it I CAPITAL OUTLAY The following equipment and rolling stock items are scheduled replacement in 2012: City# Dept Description Net Cost #0019 Parks Bucket Truck w/Aerial $118,000 #0021 Streets Patch Truck $125,000 #0072 _ Streets Trackless Sidewalk Plow $115,000 #0088 Streets Dump Truck $153,000 #0208 Parks 1/2 Ton Pick Up $ 16,500 #0209 Parks Tractor w/Loader $ 35,500 " aster Mower 20 000 #0259 Parks 72 Groundsm $ , #0300 Police Unmarked Investigation $ 19,500 #0310 Police 1/2 Ton Pick Up $ 25,000 #0336 Police Marked Squad $ 30,500 #0337 Police Marked Squad $ 30,500 #0338 Police Marked Squad $ 30,500 #0383 Police Unmarked Investigation $ 19,500 Total C.G. Capital Outlay Requests for 2012 $753,500 i i I Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2012 INTERNAL SERVICE FUND BUDGET WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an expenditure budget of$ 1,931,296 for the Central Garage Fund for the 2012 fiscal year on 12 December 2011; and WHEREAS, long term savings for replacement of equipment maintained by the fund have been proposed by staff,requiring modification of the schedule of purchases in the Fund in 2012; and WHEREAS, said savings will be both in replacement dollars and in operations costs for these vehicles. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the appropriations for the Internal Service Funds be amended as follows: Appropriations and Other Uses Internal Service Funds: Central Garage Fund (w/o depreciation) $ 1,946,296 May 29, 2012 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. 6i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager ` FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist's T HROUGH Gar Eitel� Director of Business a n d Development SUBJECT: Site Performance Guarantee Release — Luther Company LLLP — 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard(Luther Brookdale Chevrolet) -Planning Application No. 2008-003 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the release of the Site Performance Guarantee posted by Luther Company LLLP, for those improvements made under the 2008 Luther Brookdale Chevrolet dealership Planned Unit Development, located at 6701 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4301 and 4315 —68th Avenue North. Background: On July 28, 2008, the City Council approved a new Planned Unit Development application, which included the Development/Site and Building Plan for the redevelopment of the former Iten Chevrolet dealership properties on the subject site. Planning Application No. 2008-003 was approved based on certain conditions and requirements, one of which related to the posting of a financial guarantee: 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure the completion of all site improvements. On May 8, 2009, Mr. David Luther, on behalf of Luther Companies, entered into a Performance Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center and filed with the City evidence of a $925,000.00 bond to be held as a guarantee for completing certain site improvements. This bond was issued to the benefit of the City by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, with an automatic annual renewal provision. All site improvements, including landscaping, utilities, city agreements and the as-built survey have been completed or accepted by the City Engineer/Public Works Department and Building &Development Department. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 4. We will improve the city's image. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust AUTOMOTIVIL:_7 GROUP Lut Mlotors Management Corporation July 12, 2011 Mr. Tim Benetti Planning and Zoning Specialist City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Tim, The Luther Company,LLLC respectfully requests the release of the Performance Bond for its completion of the Brookdale Buick GMC and Brookdale Chevrolet projects. The Brookdale Chevrolet project was the last phase and was completed July, 2010. Please let me know if you need additional information. Sincere —01 Linda McGinty Director of Real Estate and Development 3701 Alabama Avenue South I St.LOLIiS Park,MN 55416 1 Tel 952.253.8800 1 Fax 952.253.8900 1 LutherALItO.corn SUBDIVISION TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA PERFORMANCE Hartford, Connecticut 06183 BOND Bond Number 104899659 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that we The Luther Company , LLLPas Principal, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, a company formed under the laws of the State of Connecticut, and authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of Brooklyn Center as Obligee, in the penal sum of Nine Hundred Twenty Five Thousand ($925,000) DOLLARS, lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, the Principal has entered into an agreement with the Obligee that requires the Principal to make certain improvements to the land as more particularly set forth in: Site Improvements at 6701 Brooklyn Blvd, 4301 &4315 68th Avenue N. (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract") NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if the said Principal shall construct, or have constructed, the improvements described in the Contract and shall save the Obligee harmless from any loss, cost or damage by reason of its failure to complete said work, then this obligation shall be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force and effect. This obligation is subject to the following conditions: 1. This bond runs to the benefit of the named Obligee only, and no other person shall have any rights under this bond. 2. This bond is not a forfeiture obligation, and in no event shall the surety's liability exceed the reasonable cost of completing the improvements described in the Contract not completed by the Principal, or the sum of this bond, whichever is less. Signed, sealed and dated this 29th day of April, 2009. The Luther Co ppany, LLLP Principal i ey. Travelers Casualty and Surety any of America By: 7 Todd A. Kels tto ey-in-Fact it LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF Minnesota COUNTY OF Hennpein On this 29th day of April, 2009 before me personally appeared tome known, who being by me duly sworn, that he/she is the U4Ge-P+e&ie t-fie ` - The Luther Company LLLP, the Limited Liability Company described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he/she signed his/her name thereto by order of the Board of Governors of said Limited Liability Company. Notary Public (4 tary Seal) ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CORPORATE SURETY STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this 29th day of April, 2009 before me appeared Todd A. Kelsey to be known, who being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the aforesaid Attorney-in-Fact of the Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, a corporation; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by the aforesaid officer, by authority of its Board of directors; and the aforesaid officer acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public, ( otary Seal) KATHLEEN SORENSON :+ Notary Public-Minnesota �'+.16"' -My Commission Expires Jan 31,2010 WARNING:THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUTTHE RED BORDER POWER OF ATTORNEY TRAVL RS J Farmington Casualty Company St.Paul Guardian Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company St.Paul Mercury Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters,Inc. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Seaboard Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America St.Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company I Attorney-In Fact No. 219953 Certificate No. 0®2 3 5 5 3 21 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:That Seaboard Surety Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York,that St.Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company,St.Paul Guardian Insurance Company and St.Paul Mercury Insurance Company are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota,that Farmington Casualty Company,Travelers Casualty and Surety Company,and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America are corporations duly organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut,that United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Maryland,that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Iowa,and that Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters,Inc.is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin(herein collectively called the"Companies"),and that the Companies do hereby make,constitute and appoint Janet D.Buerg,Laurent R.Laventure,Kathleen Sorenson,Todd A.Kelsey,and Amy M.Burns of the City of Bloomington State of Minnesota their true and lawful Attorneys)-in-Fact, each in their separate capacity if more than one is named above,to sign,execute,seal and acknowledge any and all bonds,recognizances,conditional undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof on behalf of the Companies in their business of guaranteeing the fidelity of persons,guaranteeing the performance of contracts and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings required or permitted in any actions or proceedings allowed by law. 2nd IN WITWS WHEREOF,the Comy8W have caused this instrument to be signed and their corporate seals to be hereto affixed,this ay day of Farmington Casualty Company St.Paul Guardian Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company St.Paul Mercury Insurance Company Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters,Inc. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company Seaboard Surety Company Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America St.Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company �+•yOpp;l� I. ��Y`c� p CY' lk �' ar .. o a FT..: y =VJ.............?y�:, Q SG d r 4�0 G� ', O5 Cl '`� WCWI y PL €y Z jrC00.PORA>F m' i+u:'G00.PORgrF y 9� R EORATEO° I Z 19 s 2,o �1977 9192 7 a t _ wiRTFOao, t a uutr N q qy� y ir7 1951 a SEAL•ios SSAL 3° CoNN. o° T.5 CoN4• )g N 7896 � N O !� ,5 * a.2s� c.°,' a•T........:'D�f �v:•.. :`aaI 's y� ��,. y� >• /d T /� �OFh£ttV� swucE� ti.;s`xK�.: ':.,5,.;..,i'•`� 61 ��+ `.+rv� ail AtN3c�- State of Connecticut By: City of Hartford ss. Georg Thompson, enior ice President On this the 2nd day of May 2008 before me personally appeared George W.Thompson,who acknowledged himself to be the Senior Vice President of Farmington Casualty Company, Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company,Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Underwriters,Inc., Seaboard Surety Company,St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Guardian Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company,Travelers Casualty and Surety Company,Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America,and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company,and that he, as such,being authorized so to do,executed the foregoing instrument for the purposes therein contained by signing on behalf of the corporations by himself as a duly authorized officer. In Witness Whereof,I hereunto set my hand and official seal. �J ty Commission expires the 30th day of June,2011. L�G �} Marie C.Tetreault,Notary Public 58440-5-07 Printed in U.S.A. WARNING:THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS INVALID WITHOUT THE RED BORDER Performance.Agreement City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 FILE NO. 2008-003 This Agreement is entered into by Luther Company,CLLP hereinafter called the Developer and the City of Brooklyn Center, a Municipal Corporation,under the laws of the State of Minnesota,hereafter called the City. THE WORK I The Developer has received approval of its Development Plans by the City Council of the City (pursuant to City Ordinances),subject to the execution of this Performance Agreement,pursuant to the City Council approval of July 28, 2008 and in accordance with said Development Plans all of which are made a part hereof by reference. In consideration of such approval,the Developer,its successors and assigns,does covenant and agree to perform the work as set forth in the Development Plans,in the aforesaid Approval, and as hereinafter set forth,upon the real estate to be described as follows: 6701 Brooklyn Blvd and 4301 and 4315 68th Ave N,Also known as the Luther Westside Planned Unit Development Proposal. The Work will consist of the improvements described in the Development Plans,in the aforesaid Approval(to include any approved subsequent amendments)and will be in compliance with all applicable Statutes, codes and Ordinances of the City. The cost of the improvements is estimated to be $1,813,913:,,k S Ge ri bPe( oyi v 4,iM Gas-- h--timc#e -k { --k rr,A-nce COMPLETION DA The undersigned Developer agrees that the said Work will be completed in its entirety on or before April 1,2011, and no extension of time will be valid unless the same will be approved in writing by the City Manager. Said extension of time will be valid whether approved by the City Manager before or after the completion date and failure of the City to extend the time for completion or to exercise other remedies hereunder will in no way work a forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder,nor will any extension of time actually granted by the City Manager work any forfeiture of the City's rights hereunder. It will be the duty of the Developer to notify the City of completion of the Work at least 10 days prior to the Completion Date and to call for final inspection by employees of the City. MAINTENANCE The Performance Agreement,in its entirety,will remain in full force and effect for a period of one year after actual completion of the Work to determine that the useful life of all Work performed hereunder meets the average standard for the particular industry,profession, or material used in the performance of the Work. Any work not meeting such standard will not be deemed complete hereunder. Notice of the date of Actual Completion will be given to the Developer by the Director of Business and Development of the City. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE The developer agrees to furnish the City with a Financial Guarantee in the form of a cash escrow, a bond issued by an approved corporate surety licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota and executed by the Developer as principal, or other Financial Guarantee as approved by the City Manager of the.City, in the amount of$925,000. Such Financial Guarantee will continue in full force and effect until the City Council will have by motion approved and accepted all of the Work undertaken to be done,and will thereby have released the Surety and/or Developer from any further liability;provided however,that the City Council may by motion reduce the amount of the Financial Guarantee upon partial completion of the work, as certified by the City Manager. Such Financial Guarantee will be conditioned upon the full and faithful performance of all elements of this Agreement and upon compliance with all applicable Statutes,codes, and Ordinances of the City,and will further be subject to the following provisions which will be deemed to be incorporated in such Financial Guarantee and made a part thereof. A letter of credit given as a financial guarantee may be drawn upon for the full amount of the letter immediately upon notice by the issuing bank that the letter of credit will not be renewed. NOTICE The City will be required to give prior notice to the corporate surety and the Developer of any default hereunder hpfore p_rocee ng_,t_,enforce,such Financial Guarantee or before the City undertakes any work for which the City will e sennb rs d through the Financial Guarantee. Within ten(10)days after such notice to the sure in wtitin of its intention to enforce an rights it might have under this tYt r 1 g Y Performari. e A'gteemon-.Or a y Performance Bond by stating in writing the manner in which the default will be cured'and`fhb' rile- t—Ii-Vifich'suth default will be cured,said time not to exceed sixty(60)days unless approved by the City. PC Performance Agreement Page 1 Revised 1-09 i JAN.22,2005 12:46PM CITY BROOKLYN CENTER NO.644 R.4i5 C y of Brooklyn Center ; 6301 Shingle Creed ParWay Brooklyn Center;AW 55430 763-569-3300 , COST ESTIMATE FOR PERMEXAMCME AQ EAME� NT i For the purpose of establishing a brand amount to guarantee site improvements approved under ! Planning Commission No. , eS=n ,please complete the following Checklist of improvements as they pertain to the project in questlou, Uxr less otherwise requested,tho ! Improvements listed are those to`be made an thp—s te, not on public right-of-way. ,6-r r 4 Woe of ImDrovement link CASA Grading /,-5 r Lan.dscaphig(Trees Drubs) .i=lk, 94( Sodding ` ; yt LC Seeding Underground Irrigation Curb&gutter W=) r. L = '014. (10 410 tt�xn Sewer Catch Basins , � , - `'fir C;1. Sidewalks 2A. T5D `tea Handicspped Ramps J- -DIA01.11e- -5 Fencing ,, Rooftop Screening M Trash Enclosure f Erosion Control 0 1-7 L � -Z �Y Other as Specified Total The cost estimate provided is subject to verification by to Olt y Managor prior to determination of a bond. Bond amioucts as a percentage of a verified colt estimate will'vary depending on the size and nature of the project, _.___..._ . ..._ _ _. . _... . Coot rwim o for?crfoYrAgme Aweemenr waged 3.01 City Council Agenda Item N-o. 6j i i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager �+ FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business & Development and Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation, and Services SUBJECT: Use of Centennial Park West for Community Gardens Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of recommendation by the Housing Commission and Park & Recreation Commission for the use of Centennial Park West for the 2012 Community Garden Program. Background: At the May 14, 2012 City Council Work Session, the City Council considered the following advantages in revisiting the West Centennial Community Park as the proposed site for the 2012 Community Garden Program: • More parking • Readily available city water • Readily available bathroom facilities • No competing recreational uses • Significant land for growth, if justified by demand • It is designated as a Destination Park serving the entire community versus a Neighborhood Park. There was discussion on the proposed location of the garden plots on higher ground near the hockey rink; the recent improvements within Shingle Creels; the potential for other mitigated measures within this portion of the park; and staff's opinion that the advantages of the Centennial Park site significantly outweighed any concerns regarding the potential of flooding. The consensus of the City Council was to request the Park & Recreation Commission and Housing Commission to reconsider the alternative of the West Centennial Park for the 2012 Community Garden Program. Attached for your reference is a copy of the staff memorandums included for this work session item. On May 15, 2012, the Park & Recreation Commission and Housing Commission visited the West Centennial Park area identified for garden plots and met in a joint session to further discuss the following items: 0 the merits and advantages of this site vs. the option of 12 garden plots at the Happy Hollow Park, juissioll:Elsurillla an attractive,dealt,safe,Mchlsive con117111111ty that enhances the gaalio,of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • the Commission's desire to schedule a neighborhood informational meeting for public input, • revisions to the draft Community Garden Contract Agreement, and • the use of the Earle Brown Farm fence theme for the perimeter fencing of the garden area. • the expansion of the identified garden area from a 15 plots (100'x75') to 18 plots (120'x75'). The consensus of the both Commissions was to schedule a Special Meeting for Tuesday, May 22°d to hold a neighborhood informational meeting at the proposed garden site within the West Centennial Community Park and to develop a recommendation for City Council consideration at their May 29th meeting. Notices of this informational meeting were mailed to residential property owners which adjoined this portion of the community park and adjacent owners on the west side of Brooklyn Drive. On May 22, 2012, the Park and Recreation Commission and Housing Commission met at the Centennial Park site. There were no residents which attended the meeting. Also, Jim Glasoe, C.A.R.S. Director indicated that the City had not received any feedback from the residents. As a result,the Commissions convened their Special Meeting at the park and unanimously passed a motion recommending that the City Council establish 18 community garden plots in Centennial West Park, according to the previously identified parameters. Attached to this memo is a copy of a revised Community Garden Contract Agreement which reflects the adjustments to the program guidelines as addressed at the May 15th Joint Meeting. The deadline dates have been left open to provide staff with the sufficient flexibility in scheduling and administering the first year application process of the Community Garden Program. The Commissions also passed a second motion rescinding their previous recommendation regarding Happy Hollow Park and indicated they would monitor use at that park for the remainder of 2012. Budget Issues: The proposed rental fees from these eighteen garden plots will cover the out of pocket costs to the City for the water usage and the initial costs for plumbing materials to extend a water supply line from the City's hydrant to the garden plots. The labor and equipment necessary for initial soil preparation will be provided by the Public Work's Department. The garden program will be administered by the C.A.R.S. Department. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive communio,that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trast a r, � �. 6265 Ip I6 d 4 7.. ,6/261 s'�3 6264 - �- '- CENTENNIAL PARK - WEST (63rd & Brooklyn Drive) 24V' r3 l. s ,r . 1 } 1,244 A 666..:==w-ff �S° + �- r j� •Al Hockey ` �. szao 1� ( r Rink �,' �'� •� r `> is z�'F� •v a. . 4 52316,.. POTENTIAL GARDEN AREA rb( Rx rx XB_R n„� 0 40 80 160 240 320 xLYN Feet TER i City o Brooklyn Center f Broo Y Community Garden Contract Agreement The City of Brooklyn Center agrees to prepare the garden plot for planting, stake out the plot, identify the plots by number, and make water accessible to gardener. If a cancellation is requested in writing-prior to a fill refund will be granted. Please review the following program guidelines. 1. Priority will be given to Brooklyn Center Residents. 2. One plot per household unless extra plots are available after 3. Garden plots are assigned to one person and are not transferrable. Others may garden the plot, but the responsibility for maintenance of the site is assigned to the person that applied for the plot. 4. Fees must be paid at the time of application. Cost is $50.00. 5. No refunds will be given after 6. The plot must be tended by If you are planting later, you are still responsible for keeping the plot free from weeds and harvesting through the end of the season. 7. Renter agrees to: • Have something planted by and keep plot maintained the entire season. • Notify the City if they must abandon their plot. • Keep weeds to a minimum. • Maintain garden within the borders of their plot—no vines encroaching to other plots. • Use only approved certified organic fertilizers that do not affect other plots (no herbicides or pesticides)to keep insects,pests and diseases under control. • Have plot cleaned and cleared by October 31. • Place organic waste in the compost piles in areas identified by the City. 8. If the garden plot is not being maintained,the gardener will be given ten days to correct the situation or the plot may be re-assigned. 9. A 3 ft. chicken wire fence may be in place to protect crops from rabbits and other critters. 10. Plantings must not shade other gardener's plots. 11. Pets are not allowed. 12. Children must be supervised. 13. Motorized vehicles must only use the designated parking area. 14. No amplified music or excessive noise is allowed. The Gardener agrees to assume all liability and to indemnify and compensate the City for any injury or damage to person, property or employees by or arising in connection with the use of the premises. The Gardener further agrees to defend, indemnity and hold harmless the City against all actions,claims,damages,or demands,which may be brought or made either against the City's interest in the premises by reason of anything done by the Gardener,in the exercise of purported exercise of the rights and privileges herein granted. The City may terminate a Gardener's use of City property under this Agreement immediately upon violation of any of the terms of this Agreement in connection with the use of the garden plots. The City of Brooklyn Center assumes no liability for accidents or injury to participants or others either on or adjacent to the garden area. The City of Brooklyn Center assumes no responsibility for acts of vandalism,theft,or loss of crops or property due to flooding. By signing this agreement,I agree to abide by these conditions established for Community Gardens including complying with all federal,state and local laws and regulations. Name(Please Print) Signature Date i I City of Brooklyn Center Community Garden Application 2012 Season May 29 through October 18, 201-2- Name: Address: City: State Zip Home Phone: Other Phone Email: Plot Number: 1St Choice 2nd---Choice_= 3rd Choice Yes; I am interested-in renting a second_plot if one becomes available. (Cost is = per plot.) Rental Fee Per Plo_-is , — (Cash or check only) Return completed application form, payment and signed contract to: City of Brooklyn Center Community Garden Program 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 763-569-3300 www.Cityofbrooklyncenter.org City Use Only: Date Received Payment Received Plot Number Assigned 2nd Plot Number Assigned MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSI®N DATE: Thursday, May 10,2012 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag . SUBJECT: Community Gardens-Happy Hollow j Recommendation: I It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding establishing a community garden program Background: Attached to this memo is a joint report from the Housing and Parks Commissions regarding a proposed community garden at Happy Hollow Park. I met with the staff regarding this recommendation and discussed the pros and cons in great detail. Based upon my review, I am asking the City Council to consider allowing staff to meet with each of the Commissions at their regular Tuesday meeting to consider the alternative of placing the Community Garden in Centennial Park, which was the second best alternative location selected by the Parks Commission, ahead of the Happy Hollows site. It appears that Happy Hollows was selected over Centennial largely due to concerns about"flooding"in the area. I After reviewing the current situation, it is our opinion that the Centennial site is superior to Happy Hollow in virtually every way including the following; • More parking • Readily available City water • Readily available bathroom facilities • No competing recreational uses • Significant land for growth if justified by demand • It is designated as a Destination Park serving the entire community versus a Neighborhood Park intended to primarily serve the local neighborhood We believe these advantages far outweigh any concerns regarding potential flooding which we believe can be mitigated. If the Council concurs we believe that we can proceed expeditiously so that at least 12 plots can be ready this year to test and tweak the program for expansion in 2013. Policy Issues: c Is the community best served by implementing community gardens as recommended at Happy Hollow Park or a Centennial Park Alternative? I 11-issimr:Ensilling fill aunledve,detut,sgjC,,inchalve Coninnuritf drill enhance the quulily of life for rill people and preserves the publle trust i I i MEMORANDUM - COUNCIIL WORK SESSION Council Goals: Strategic: We will increase the engagement of all segments of the community We will encourage citywide environmental sustainability efforts 05.14,12.mem.community.garden I } i i i Mission:Ellsill-Ing till attractive,dean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserres the public trust i i I 1 ' I 1 i MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL NCIL SESSION DATE: May 14, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel,Director of Business& Development and Jim Glasoe,Director of Community Activities, Recreation, and Service SUBJECT: Housing Commission and Park & Recreation Commission Recommendation on the Use of Happy Hollow Neighborhood Park for Community Gardening. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding proceeding with the Housing Commission's and Park & Recreation Commission's recommendation to establish twelve garden plots at the Happy Hollow Neighborhood Park for the 2012 Gardening Season. Background: On March 20, 2012 the Housing Commission and Park&Recreation Commission discussed and reached a consensus on the following items related to proceeding with a Community Garden Program for 2012: - Requesting City Council direction on scheduling a neighborhood informational meeting to receive public input on the potential development of a 14 garden plot site within the central portion of Happy Hollow Park, adjacent to Malmborg's Greenhouse. - Pending Council'acceptance, a tentative date for this informational meeting was set for April 17th (the next regular meeting of both the Housing and Park & Rec Commissions) - The development of a program budget which included the following components: 1. A garden plot rental fee of$50 per season(total revenue of$700) 2. Program administration through CARS and initial site preparation by Public Works. 3. Role of the Housing Commission and Park & Recreation Commission to provide operational assistance, guidance, and to continue to seek opportunities to expand the Community Garden Program. 4. Use of th e program guidelines, g ardenin g olicies, and application format p previously accepted by the City Council. 5. Water supply to be provided from the private well at Malmborg's Greenhouse. 6. Preparation of an operational budget to include sanitation facilities (May- October, waste containers and weekly pickup and material costs for perimeter fencing). A program schedule that would facilitate City Council approval in April which would allow gardening to start by mid-May. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive connnnnitp that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i i i MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL W SESSI®N At the March 26th City Council Work Session, the City Council provided direction to the Housing Commission and Park & Recreation Commission regarding proceeding with a Community Garden Program for 2012, establishing an annual $50 rental fee per garden plot, and the holding of a neighborhood informational meeting on the use of a portion of the Happy Hollow Neighborhood Park for community gardening. On April 17, 2012, a neighborhood informational meeting was held at the Happy Hollow Park. In attendance were the following: - Housing Commissioners Kathie Amdahl, Peggy Lynn, Judy Thorbus, Ephrain Olani, and Chair Kris Lawrence—Anderson. - Park Commissioners Gail Ebert, Muriel Lee, Roger Peterson, John Russell, Thomas Shinnick, Dan Startling, and Chair Bud Sorenson. - City Council Members Carol Kleven, Park & Rec Commission Liaison; Lin Myszkowski, Housing Commission Liaison; Dan Ryan; and Kay Lasman - Staff Liaisons Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation & Services and Gary Eitel, Director of Business &Development. The meeting was held on the 140'x45' portion of this 5.44 acre park that had been identified as a candidate site for fourteen 20'x20' 9 arden plots. There were approximately 16 residents present and Van Cooley, Manager of Malmborg's Nursery, which adjoins the proposed community garden site. The following issues were raised at this neighborhood information meeting: - traffic issues associated with access from Brooklyn Boulevard; - neighborhood safety concerns associated with the additional traffic to the park; - driving and parking on the part trail connecting Zenith and Abbott Ave; - insufficient parking lot which results in on street parking within the neighborhood; - issues associated with debris and trash, which currently requires neighbors to clean up the park; - issues related to not having Biff's—Satellite sanitation facilities at the park; - potential conflicts and/or incompatible use with other park activities,(soccer play, kite flying, airplane flying, exercising of their dogs); - potential that the gardens may become an attractive nuisance and/or invitation for other sources of trouble; - why this neighborhood park and not somewhere else; - why destroy the natural beauty of this park; - safety concerns for children using the park; - concerns about inviting strangers into the neighborhood park and other unknowns by introducing community gardening; - concerns related to the renting of parkland that would provide someone an exclusive right for the use of public property. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive communitil that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION On May 2, 2012, a Special Meeting of the Housing Commission and Park & Rec Commission was held to review the information received from the neighborhood meeting. Present at this ' meeting were Park and Recreation Commission Chair Sorenson and Commissioners Ebert, Peterson, Russell and Shinnick; Housing Commission Chair Kris Lawrence-Anderson and Commissioners Amdahl, Lynn, Thorbus, and Olani; Council Members Carol Kleven, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. The Commissioners discussed each of the neighborhood concerns/issues using the following process: - defming and seeking an understanding of the issue/concern; - distinguishing the relativity and relationship of the issue/concern to the current park usage and scope of the proposed gardening activity; - considering potential actions or procedural measures that would mitigate the concerns/issues, and - a polling of the Commissioners on whether the issue/concern was significant enough to warrant the disqualification of this site as a potential community garden site. Housing Commission Chair, Kris Lawrence Anderson,read the following statement from the American Community Gardening Association,regarding the benefits of community gardening: "Community gardening improves people's quality of life by providing a catalyst for neighborhood and community development, stimulating social interaction, encouraging self- reliance, beautifying neighborhoods,producing nutritious food, reducing family food budgets, conserving resources and creating opportunities for recreation, exercise, therapy and education." There was further discussion on the previous review of park sites for community gardening opportunities: the attempt to enter into a cooperative agreement with the City of Brooklyn Park at the Crystal Airport garden sites; a review of gardening activities at other Cities; and revisions of the City's guidelines that would include the following: - requiring identification,proof of residency in the city, - prioritizing applications from within the neighborhood, - refining the installation of perimeter fencing, - refining the gardening policies relating to vertical elements for vine growth and interior fencing; - providing guidelines/suggestions to prospective gardeners on parking; - an initial reduction of the number of garden plots to allow a monitoring of the park use; - the preparation of a parking schematic that illustrates twelve parking stalls(seven within the parking lot and five on street parallel parking stalls adjacent to the park property). Park&Recreation Commissioner Peterson made a motion, seconded by Housing Commissioner Amdahl to recommend to the City Council that a"Community Gardens" site be established at Happy Hollow Park with the following provisions: Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION 1. That the proposed garden site be reduced from fourteen to twelve (20'x20') garden plots. 2. That a four foot high, aesthetically pleasing fence is placed surrounding the perimeter of the garden. 3. That no interior fencing is allowed. 4. That the garden plots be made available only to City of Brooklyn Center residents,with preference given to residents in the Happy Hollow neighborhood. The motion passed unanimously. Budget Issues: The proposed rental fees for the twelve garden plots will cover the out of pocket costs to the City for the costs of sanitation, garbage/debris pickup, and incidental plumbing material to complete the connection to the Malmborg's water supply. The labor and equipment necessary for initial soil preparation will be provided by the Public Work's Department. The garden program will be administered by the C.A.R.S. Department. The capital investment of the perimeter fencing will be funded through a combination of the following sources; a grant, opportunities for Civic donations & partnerships, and/or an advancement of funds from the EDA. Policy Issues: Attached for your reference is the Community Garden Contract Agreement that has been accepted by the City Council at the April 26, 2010 Work Session. The staff is seeking direction regarding the following provisions of the recommendation: 1. Amending the guidelines , relating to the prioritizing of applications from the neighborhood and the restriction of interior fencing. 2. The prioritizing of Public Works Department labor, equipment, and other resources to prepare the garden plot sites for a late May planting. 3. The long term financial commitment to cover the capital investment for the four foot high aesthetically pleasing fence. Council Goals: Strategic: 5. We will value and benefit from the community's demographic makeup and cultural diversity 8. We will encourage citywide environmental sustainability efforts Mission:Ensuring an attractive,elemt,safe,inclusive con[nuu:ii� that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust I I City of Brooklyn Center Community Garden Contract Agreement The City of Brooklyn Center agrees to prepare the garden plot for planting, stake out the plot, identify the plots by number, and make water accessible to gardener. If a cancellation is requested in writing prior to May 1, 2010, a refund will be granted(excluding cancellation fee). Please review the following program guidelines. I 1. Priority will be given to Brooklyn Center Residents and prior year renters. 2. Non-residents will have last priority after resident extra plots are rented. 3. Renters will be on-a first-come, first-served basis depending on availability. j 4. One plot per household unless extra plots are available after May 1. 5. Garden plots are assigned to one person and are not transferrable. Others may garden the plat;but the responsibility for maintenance of the site is assigned to the person that applied for the plot. ! , 6. Fees must be paid at the time of application. Cost is 7. No refunds will be given after May 1. (A$5 cancellation fee applies prior to May 1) 8. The plot must be tended by May 15th. If you are planting later,you are still responsible for keeping the plot free from weeds and harvesting through the end of the season.. +. 9. Renter agrees to: ® Have something planted by June 10 and keep plot maintained the entire season. ® Notify the City if they must abandon their plot. a Keep weeds to a minimum. ® Maintain garden within the borders of their plot—no vines encroaching to other plots. ® Use only approved certified organic fertilizers that do not affect other plots(no herbicides or pesticides)to keep insects,pests and diseases under control. Have plot cleaned and cleared by October 31. ® Place organic waste in the compost piles in areas identified by the City. 10. If the garden plot is not being maintained,the gardener will be given ten days to correct the situation or the plot may be re-assigned. 11. A 3 ft. chicken wire fence may be in place to protect crops from rabbits and other critters. f 12. Plantings must not shade other gardener's plots. 13. Pets are not allowed. , 14. Children must be supervised. 15. Motorized vehicles must only use the designated parking area. 16. No amplified music or excessive noise is allowed. The Gardener agrees to assume all liability and to indemnify and compensate the City for any injury or damage to person, property or employees by or arising in connection with the use of the premises. The Gardener further agrees to defend, indemnity and hold harmless the City against all actions,claims,damages,or demands,which may be brought or made either j against the City's interest in the premises by reason of anything done by the Gardener,in the exercise of purported exercise of the rights and privileges herein granted. The City may terminate a Gardener's use of City property under this_Agreement immediately upon violation of any of the terms of this Agreement in connection with the use of the garden plots. The City of Brooklyn Center assumes no liability for accidents or injury to participants or others either on or adjacent to the garden area. The City of Brooklyn Center assumes no responsibility for acts of vandalism or loss of crops_or property due to theft. o ,By signing this agreement,I agree to abide by these conditions established for Community Gardens including complying with all federal,state and local laws and regulations. Name(Plea'se Print) Signature• Date • a 1 r 1a_i1r f 40ill `r. I :wr, _ - r? y��i I, 1. r 0F ❑0. . „� r � {� 'S ra •� nil Potential Garden � : _ �; ., Plots(20� , • a 4 *i r @� Ye\a [fix r a 1 d �n'9•l,�n';7~ox" ��fa�`i� i ri .� C,�„ �-, ,ti ,' I sx . �aLL,:. ���r ,I I•, ^Yf t tixC 1.r,�• � f° y � I �r lr � �,T 4MS Liu, p f 4 n �I �rr 4 ( d i• �i� ! �}� yl ti " 'I,- i JJ _F ' 1 .SN �� u i �� ..i'a',�, - ti•i. ,I ,�,G1 �� F.. ,lT, ���,..�al fir �. I�. �,�..,� r ✓ � ��,x', w� �� �.17, ( 1 r I �'- z 1 I,`� � °" 1 �' r ^��• �t ) I'1 ! ' a C_ I I t*��,r I l "� p •<� ,y l '�fr' .. - h: �1 —('" ,��i"•r'�I t I� tir '"��j� f.���{c.� �� �j` A�TyF t_ 1��77r ... p1i•,• u� y�y i��]..�-'. .,. '�' ..n"'_ v.. Ne�;fit ;rYY "�^"i` `'. 1 2 ,,..� - tiI� i �.c i\ :; t•1i,�T�'...r ..i.i�. I �..ti1 i 5� 1, ^)' �'Nv. dw Ys '''� ,P �•�� f I .� ( t' r'�� I I �l a r+ � � x, r, „�#. � , /r+� �y�. .. ,I�t � r'a•� � ,. 1 �� ,r�o.. �. ",x ,f =Park Boundary Line City of HAPPY HOLLOW PARK BROOKLYN Feet =on-Street Parking Spaces CENTER 0 20 40 80 120 160 6266 fi'! rN '' / C E NT E 0 N I AL PARK ® WEST ! 1261 a, . k t '� ��, r+ / 6264 y ( 3rd & Brooklyn Drive) �f `Jr ( C'�.r• 626"', F 9p S - W R _ O • v off,. �'��� ±i'+�` �`^ -- 1 � ``j. • mho � f 6 2 `/ IT { _ 62 6244 y' I I Hockey 7 - s2ao Rink a. i C 6254; \ _ ALN � i Sl- f 1 �• �( -7 POTENTIAL GARDEN , -ti�- EXPANSION AREA ?k'` A. M. C it • t I �w L ? �- � �•1 . � i���� j�;� fr�F,.,t¢t� r s^ `- •tip �_ _` 1 .z. w35 }tdJrs* 1. -nw., I ii-•+�-/ "^S. � � .�s� _ Ae� � i/�. �{s1 Ham! - �1' J' '�' � _ + 1 City of 0 40 80 160 240 320 BROOKLYN CENTER Feet .� a.� '• ..! 'x$. ! 6266 .! __ . 6264 CENTENNIAL PARK - WEST 3v y 63rd & Brooklyn Drive —07 .x O f ,v �r r 11 �. 6244 8240 .,y 8231 6254 • it ',�;y 4 +'. � r _ l.. i 0 40 80 160 240 320 BROOKLYN Feet CENTER J VE VT I b. S ST Z ;► ti 91 1: 01 LT v ,OZZ TT a ZTr W 9 a0L t Fes. 3 �� � ► t lam` ��' � �'�.. F� _ �"�`� µ�d � ��� r a • y�'�� ���� ��* , �ry� � �1 y r. r �^�' � S. 4 � •:. �' } �� �$�� y !! v #' .. ;4�iffyy ��•+��� t} "�. ♦a�* � .; {�, }!� �` '_ _ �, �„� , ,.� _ - r t. �' - ,i zd�Y �' ,ps, 1. i L t #�� ��, e '' • •.� fir, v s �r°� w� Y � to ll .. �.. .wry-. N+L Er A• t 4� r , L " •r f Aw F" M.. - 1 F -.. ,�4,:. +dl �'d .• a.;:. j.,'�1" -._,.+ a °" "' ' i:: 4� +F ��Y �f}� :'"�5�� ' �`� . e K r' �. x - ,�.,..; �' ::` �.._: .,.� r �� ,r, ��� � � b ��. � �: �_ �� . �$ -. „ .. ' � ��� .. .� .. ,, 1. .' z .+ ",�,. 4tl, • �.#< �'��,. •. , s 7 v :;+ 07 71 r t ► � a. v -' - _ s 4x , 5 , Y� t . ♦Y .:` r 4. r , f Y 4t r 1 Y ` p � r �t j, r a tr v { , o • a • t s+ City Council Agenda Item No. 9a May 29, 2012 We have been taxpayers in this neighborhood for 47 years and have had to accept the zoning and other laws established by the city. Now a more powerful and more affluent corporation comes in and wants to make their own laws and boundaries. It is up to the city council to sort out and find (maybe tell the residents) how this change would benefit the neighborhood. I don't disagree that these plans could be a benefit to the community if it was placed on the proper properties, but why try to cram so much onto such a small postage stamp of land and disrupt the lives of 50 to 100 adjacent neighbors. The property at 5401-69th Av. N. cannot accommodate all of the wonderful changes that are desired.There simply is not enough acreage to FIT that many people and that many buildings,provide ample parking and green space and provide the privacy that should be allowed the adjacent properties. Those considerations should go along with this endeavor. It simply does not FIT. It cannot FIT into the zoning recommendations that are now in place. To rezone this property at the whim of Presbyterian Properties,so they can make it FIT their dreams, at the expense of adjacent property owners and taxpayers should not happen.The neighbors and the city would love to see Maranatha update their outdated buildings; but please leave the area zoned R-1 now AS R-1. Leave the area now designated as a separation zone from the residential properties adjacent to the proposed buildings in effect.There are other properties in Brooklyn Center that would be a much more appropriate site for their dreams. My understanding is that the PUD application and rezoning plans for the Maranatha property on 6 9th Av N was accepted by the City of Brooklyn Center in its"incomplete"form and action was taken by the planning advisory committee. Mr. Lilihaug's letter should have brought the incomplete version of the application to the attention of anyone with access to the application. However,the Planning Advisory Committee continued and was able to analize and evaluate this PUD in its incomplete form and continued with the application. It was eventually sent back to be completed. I understand the application has been changed several times since then. I would hope that Mr Lillihaug and the City Attorney review this PUD evaluation. After the many changes, if this application meets required regulations, it should be brought back to the Planning Advisory Committee and begin the process from the beginning. This should include re-evaluation and DISSCUSSION (open forum).These timely discussions should include all residents impacted by any changes. I am extremely disappointed that NONE OF Maranatha's neighbors were informed of the plans in the planning stages of this project. Apparently the City of Brooklyn Center council members,planning committee members, and the Maranatha owners knew of the plans and the desire to change the zoning long ago. They excluded any negative responses from neighboring properties by not informing them (us)of any plans. Apparently at that time, as now, they did not care what we think. We were notified about seven days before the application was ready for the planning committee. I feel that the possibility of a 3 (or more) story building should not be built on this property and specifically not as close to the surrounding neighborhood as their wonderful plans want it. Please vote against changing the zones that now exist. i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist � ! THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and DevelopmentM SUBJECT: Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval of a Proposed Land Use Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF- Multi-Family Residence" to a New "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" Designation, Relative to Land Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, addressed as 5401-5415 — 69th Avenue North and Authorizing the Formal Submittal of Said Amendment to the Metropolitan Council (Maranatha Care Center Properties — 5401/5415 —69th Avenue North) Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution granting preliminary approval of a Land Use Amendment to the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, from "PS-Public & Semi— Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to a new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi- Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)", and authorizing the formal submission of an amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Background: This item is presented under Planning Application No. 2012-004, with the City of Brooklyn Center as the Applicant. The subject site is the location of the Maranatha Care Center campus, located at 5401 & 5415 - 691h Avenue North. At the April 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Staff presented said application, which initially comprehended a land use change on the easterly parcel owned b Maranatha, Yp Y from "PS-Public & Semi—Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)". This application was presented along with a separate request by Maranatha owners of a new Planned Unit Development (rezoning and development plan) on the entire campus site. This item, including the PUD request, was tabled to allow Maranatha to work out site issues with the surrounding residential neighbors and refine the development plan. At the May 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, this application was modified by staff and presented to the Commission to reconsider a land use amendment from "PS-Public & Semi— Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to a new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi- Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation. This item was received by the Planning Commission, whereby an amended planning report was given, the Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and presen,es the public trust i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM original public hearing from April 12, 2012 was reopened, and public comments received and noted for the record. Planning staff presented a list of updated findings, goals and objectives from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which lends support to the acceptance and approval of this propose_ d land use amendment. These findings are noted as follows: 1) The proposed land use amendment will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this northwest neighborhood area; 2) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area in an established residential sector; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating land use; and stimulates new investment in the neighborhood and community. 3) The proposed land use amendment will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting statements: a) helps to increase employment opportunities, rental occupancy and tax base; b) provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. c) the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. 4) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district,which provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. 5) The proposed land use. amendment meets the following Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods. b. Improve the appearance of the city to enhance quality of life, property values and civic pride. C. Improve the image of the City through branding and coordinated theme development in public areas. 6) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Land Use and Redevelopment Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Gradually reduce & eliminate incompatible relationships among land uses(such as industry vs. housing). b. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and residential, to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating Mission.Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM land uses and stimulate new investment. i. Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans ii. Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. C. Enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place. i. Help increase retail sales,rental occupancy and tax base. ii. Promote the redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized or vacant sites into uses that address needs in the marketplace, and that provide a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. iii. Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. d. Use the zoning ordinance to provide for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. 7) The proposed land use amendment meets the following principles as indicated under the.City's support of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Programs of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. A balanced housing supply with housing available for people at all income levels. b. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale,rental and location of housing within the community. C. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. d. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. e. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. f. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. 8) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Housing Goals and Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted commercial, industrial and residential areas to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. i. Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans. ii. Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive coinrnunity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. b. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet the needs and demands of its current and future population. i. Accommodate changing family and household structure by providing a suitable mix of housing types. ii. Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction of higher-value housing in lower income areas. iii. Continue to rehabilitate multifamily housing in targeted areas. These findings are memorialized in the attached resolution. This land use amendment will facilitate the proposed rezoning (separate request) by the owners of Maranatha, from RI One Family Residence and R6 Multiple Family Residence to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Multiple Family Residence). Concurrent with this land use amendment request, is the authorization to City Planning Staff to send this land use amendment application to the Met Council, as per the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Should the Met Council accept this land use amendment, city staff will bring the PUD rezoning item to the City Council for final consideration at the June 25, 2012 meeting. Attached for your review are the minutes from the April 12th and May 17th Planning Commission meetings; along with the planning staff reports for both meetings. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,cleats,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust PROGRESSION OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT CHANGE ON THE MARANATHA SITE (EXCERPTED AREA from the 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP) I Ecixii,'T-aF T'1a1i1 r,l hinrrc U". CURRENT/EXISTING i ; Single Family SF LAND USE r ' Two or Three Family TF t,> • _ Tar,nhan:c(Medium Density) T I I p, V:' .' ' it,�`.•r#� ` ' Multi Family(Nigh Gensiq'( LiP .�.a OfficelSsrvite Ausiness QS ( r`i a I hy••L Fetail 9nsiness R 13 h:du;lrial I Railroad er Utility Rt! Public acid Sarni-PuLlit PS :i J r�jl i April 12, 2012 Amend the easterly parcel of PS-Public/Semi-Public to - MF-Multi-Family May 17, 2012 Amend entire Maranatha Site from PS and MF to new Q "MF-MIXED ENHANCED" i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM "PS-PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC" AND "MF-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE" TO A NEW "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (MULTI-FAMILY MIXED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH ENHANCED SETBACKS)" DESIGNATION RELATIVE TO LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, ADDRESSED AS 5401-5415 — 69th AVENUE NORTH AND AUTHORIZING THE FORMAL SUBMITTAL OF SAID AMENDMENT TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-01, a resolution recommending that the Brooklyn Center City Council adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2010, the City Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 2010-65, a resolution adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center originally initiated a proposed land use amendment to this 2030 Comprehensive Plan, by changing the current land use designation of certain lands located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, addressed as 5401-5415—69th Avenue North (Subject Site), from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential"; and WHEREAS, Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. (Maranatha), is proposing a redevelopment plan on the subject site, which contains an obsolete 97-bed skilled care nursing home facility, to be replaced with a new 38-unit senior independent living apartment facility,which requires rezoning, site and building plan and platting to complete; and WHEREAS, the current zoning of the Subject Site of RI(One Family Residence) district and its underlying land use identified as "PS-Public and Semi-Public" and in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, would impede the redevelopment of this site as planned by Maranatha under such zoning and land use category; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the land use amendment request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating and determining the land use amendment as contained in the April 12, 2012 planning staff report and the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and after initial consideration of this matter tabled this item to the May 17, 2012 meeting; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, upon conceptual development plan revisions of a proposed planned unit development by the Owners of the subject site,the City of Brooklyn Center amended this land use amendment request in order to change the current and overall land use designation of the Subject Site from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to a new overall land use of"MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)"; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2012, the Planning Commission reconsidered the revised land use amendment, whereby an updated planning staff report was presented, the guidelines for evaluating and determining the land use amendment as contained in the April 12, 2012 planning staff report and the updated May 17, 2012 report were received, along with updated findings from the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, an additional public hearing was granted, public testimony was received, and the request was duly considered in light of all testimony received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did thereby recommend to the City Council that the land use amendment to change the current land use designation on the Subject Site of"PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)"designation be approved based upon the following findings: 1) The proposed land use amendment will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this northwest neighborhood area; 2) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area in an established residential sector; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating land use; and stimulates new investment in the neighborhood and community. 3) The proposed land use amendment will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting statements: a) helps to increase employment opportunities, rental occupancy and tax base; b) provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. c) the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. 4) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district, which provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. i RESOLUTION NO. i 5) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods. b. Improve the appearance of the city to enhance quality of life, property values and civic pride. C. Improve the image of the City through branding and coordinated theme development in public areas. 6) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Land Use and Redevelopment Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Gradually reduce & eliminate incompatible relationships among land uses (such as industry vs. housing). b. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and residential, to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. i. Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans ii. Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. C. Enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place. i. Help increase retail sales,rental occupancy and tax base. ii. Promote the redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized or vacant sites into uses that address needs in the marketplace, and that provide a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. iii. Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. d. Use the zoning ordinance to provide for a more flexible mix of land uses and to.encourage good design. 7) The proposed land use amendment meets the following principles as indicated under the City's support of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Programs of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. A balanced housing supply with housing available for people at all income levels. b. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. C. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. d. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. i RESOLUTION NO. e. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. f. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. 8) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Housing Goals and Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted commercial, industrial and residential areas to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. i. Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans. ii. Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. b. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet the needs and demands of its current and future population. i. Accommodate changing family and household structure by providing a suitable mix of housing types. ii. Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction of higher-value housing in lower income areas. iii. Continue to rehabilitate multifamily housing in targeted areas. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did further recommend to the City Council that the land use amendment to change the current land use designation on the Subject Site of"PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi- Family (High Density) Residential" to new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation, be approved based on certain conditions noted herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center that the proposed land use amendment to change the current land use designation on the Subject Site of "PS-Public & Semi-Public' and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" to new"MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation, is acceptable based on the findings noted herein, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from "PS-Public & Semi-Public' and "MF-Multi-Family (High RESOLUTION NO. Density) Residential" to new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation. 2. The land use shall be become valid only if the City Council accepts the planned (separate) rezoning of the overall site from Rl (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to the proposed new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development Mixed — High Density Residential) District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center that the land use amendment noted herein is granted preliminary approval and City Staff is directed to submit to the Metropolitan Council the application for formal review. May 27,2012 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 Commissioner Kuykendall introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM "PS-PUBLIC & SEMI-PUBLIC" AND MF- MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE" TO "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (MULTI- FAMILY MIXED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH ENHANCED SETBACKS)" RELATIVE TO LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY,ADDRESSED AS 5401-5415—69" AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-01, a resolution recommending that the Brooklyn Center City Council adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2010, the City Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 2010-65,a resolution adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center originally initiated a proposed land use amendment to this 2030 Comprehensive Plan, by changing the current land use designation of certain lands located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, addressed as 5401-5415 —69`"Avenue North (Subject Site), from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential"; and WHEREAS, Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. (Maranatha), is proposing a redevelopment plan on the subject site,which contains an obsolete 97-bed skilled care nursing home facility, to be replaced with a new 38-unit senior independent living apartment facility,which requires rezoning,site and building plan and platting to complete; and WHEREAS, the current zoning of the Subject Site of RI One Family Residence district and its underlying land use identified as "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, would impede the redevelopment of this site as planned by Maranatha under such zoning and land use category; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the land use amendment request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating and determining the land use amendment as contained in the April 12, 2012 planning staff report and the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and after initial consideration of this matter tabled this item to the May 17, 2012 meeting; and i i PC RESOLUTION NO.2012-05 WHEREAS, upon conceptual development plan revisions of a proposed planned unit development by the Owners of the subject site,the City of Brooklyn Center amended this land use amendment request in order to change the current and overall land use designation of the j Subject Site from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to a new overall land use of"MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)"; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2012, the Planning Commission reconsidered the revised land use amendment, whereby an updated planning staff report was presented, the guidelines for evaluating and determining the land use amendment as contained in the April 12, 2012 planning staff report and the updated May 17, 2012 report were received, along with updated findings from the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, an additional public hearing was granted, public testimony was received, and the request was duly considered in light of all testimony received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the land use amendment to change the current land use designation on the Subject Site of "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation, be approved based upon the following findings: I 1) The proposed land use amendment will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this northwest neighborhood area; 2) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area in an established residential sector; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating land use; and stimulates new investment in the neighborhood and community. 3) The proposed land use amendment will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting statements: a) helps to increase employment opportunities, rental occupancy and tax base; b) provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. c) the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. 4) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district,which provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and i PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05 to encourage good design. 5) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods. b. Improve the appearance of the city to enhance quality of life, property values and civic pride. C. Improve the image of the City through branding and coordinated theme development in public areas. 6) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Land Use and Redevelopment Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Gradually reduce & eliminate incompatible relationships among land uses (such as industry vs. housing). b. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and residential, to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. i. Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans ii. Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. C. Enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place. i. Help increase retail sales,rental occupancy and tax base. ii. Promote the redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized or vacant sites into uses that address needs in the marketplace, and that provide a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. iii. Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. d. Use the zoning ordinance to provide for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. 7) The proposed land use amendment meets the following principles as indicated under the City's support of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Programs of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. A balanced housing supply with housing available for people at all income levels. b. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale,rental and location of housing within the community. C. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. d. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, PC RESOLUTION NO.2012-05 including ownership and rental housing. e. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. f. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. 8) The proposed land use amendment meets the following Housing Goals and Objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: a. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted commercial, industrial and residential areas to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. i. Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans. ii. Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. b. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet the needs and demands of its current and future population. i. Accommodate changing family and household structure by providing a suitable mix of housing types. ii. Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction of higher-value housing in lower income areas. iii. Continue to rehabilitate multifamily housing in targeted areas. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the land use amendment to change the current land use designation of "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" to new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation, be approved based upon the following conditions: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" to new "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation. 2. The land use shall be become valid only if the City Council accepts the planned (separate) rezoning of the overall site from RI (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to the proposed new i PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05 PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development Mixed — High Density Residential)District. i i May 17,2012 Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion�r the adoption of the foregoing resolution was dully seconded by Member Schonning and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Morgan, Leino, Burfeind, Kuykendall and Schonning, and the following voted against the same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared duty passed and adopted. I i BROOtiL3N CENTER Planning Commission Report Application Filed on 03/15/12 Meeting Date: May 17, 2012 City Council action should be (APPENDED REPORT) taken by 05/14/12(60 Days) REVIEW EXTENDED to 07/13/12 Application No. 2012-003 &2012-004 Applicant: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. Location: 5401& 5415—69th Avenue North Request: Rezoning to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Multiple Family Residence) and Development/Site Plan Approval -&- Request for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from "PS-Public and Semi-Public" land use to "MF-Multi-Family(High Density)" INTRODUCTION Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., is requesting rezoning from RI (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development- Mixed-Multiple Family Residence) district. Along with this zoning request is the consideration of a related Development/Site Plan of a new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility. This PUD is planned for the redevelopment to the exiting Maranatha Nursing Home and Senior Apartments campus, located at 5401& 5415 - 69th Avenue North. In conjunction with this Application, the City of Brooklyn Center is undertaking an amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update by changing the subject site's land use designation from "PS-Public and Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)". This change will help facilitate a separate request for rezoning of the subject site by PHS/Maranatha. The previous Planning Reports (Information Sheets) for the PUD and Land Use Amendments are attached to this report for your continued consideration, and should be referenced for any previous analysis, findings, and/or conditions. CONTINUATION of ANALYSIS As the Commission is aware, both of these items were tabled at the April 12, 2012 meeting, in order to give Maranatha representatives an opportunity to meet with the residential neighbors and discuss or determine a future plan of the proposed Phase II of this PUD plan. This Phase II would replace the old nursing home facility once it is demolished and all nursing care clients are safely in the new facility. On May 3, 2012 Maranatha conducted another open house at their care facility campus, which was intended to provide a design"charrette"with the neighbors. The following day, Deb Zarbok emailed city staff the attached proposed Phase II (concept) site plan. The Plan still maintains the PC 05/17/12 Page 1 of 4 XCB,ROLYTVU 97 bed skilled nursing facility in the same location, and readjusts the original submitted Phase II layout (April 12th submittals) of a 38-unit 4-story to a 38-unit, 2.5 story independent senior housing facility. The Developer was encouraged to maintain as much a setback from the east property line as possible. Staff suggested that a 100-foot setback be attempted, even though a 48-50 setback would be required (setback must equal twice the height of the building). Maranatha has shown that a majority of the new building would meet this 100-ft. setback. The Plan also shows the southerly portion of the building footprint impacting or affecting the proposed pond area. We assume that this pond (and other drainage facilities) would need to be adjusted or redesigned to accommodate such improvements. The plan illustrates 104 parking spaces, with 44 additional spaces under a "proof-of-parking" arrangement. It is anticipated that at least 38 parking spaces will be provided under the proposed 2.5 story independent living facility, providing up to 186 spaces (assuming all spaces shown installed). PHS has met with City Staff on a number of occasions and is attempting to provide a set of updated Plans on this site, including site and building plans, grading and drainage plans, landscaping plans and others. Also, the preliminary plat needed to be adjusted accordingly. Other supporting documents are also being finalized, including a traffic report and parking study for this PUD site. At our meeting with PHS on Friday, May 11th, the City was instructed that a new Development/Site Plan was still being worked on, which is included as part of this updated packet), and the parking study was just received by them and required their-own review and consideration before they shared it with the City. The City was also pleased to know that PHS has shifted the Phase II portion of the site to meet a 100-foot setback standard, and will also comply with a requested 25-foot clear zone buffer as part of this updated plan. The 100-foot buffer would be absent of any building additions, but the fire/access road and any parking areas (both surface and future proof-of-parking" would be permitted. The 25 foot buffer would forever be left as a"green-space" area, with grass or rain gardens as allowable improvements. The City also suggested as part of a condition of PHS' commitment to leaving this 100-foot buffer relatively alone or absent of any development that the 100-ft. separation area be left in the RI Residence One zoning district, whereby the remaining developable areas would be rezoned to the originally requested PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Multiple Family Residence). The proposed Phase II area continues to illustrate a 38-unit, 2.5 story senior apartment center. The half story would allow for the partial underground installation of resident parking (possibly 38 or more) and the building would not exceed 2 stores above for the 38, single-room senior independent residential units. City Staff suggested that in order to allow or provide for this future Phase II, the City would need to ensure the site layout and all civil engineering items, PC 05/17/12 Page 2 of 4 i C" BROOK 3 V CI LATER improvements and site impacts created by such a development (such as on-site storm-water drainage, treatment, parking, etc.) could be attained or maintained on the site. Due to the late submittal of this updated Development Plan, the City suggested (and the Applicant agreed) to postpone the final review and consideration of this Development/Site and Building Plan until the May 31St Planing Commission Meeting. CONCLUSIONS In order to maintain a schedule and keep this Application within the review periods provided under State Statutes, and if the Planning Commission wished to do so, the rezoning element of this PUD application can move forward or a recommendation formulated for City Council's consideration. This rezoning request should now include a recommendation to keep an Rl segment, or PUD-Mixed RI/R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-One Family Residence and Multiple Family Residence) district, which provides for the R1 buffer strip and the remaining area to be developed under the mixed R5/R6 zoning. The findings which support this rezoning were noted in the April 12, 2012 planning report, and in the attached Resolution No. 2012-06. The Land Use Amendment should also be revised to include the Rl element into the proposed land use change; therefore, amended from "PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" and SF-Single Family. The findings which support this amendment were noted in the April 12, 2012 planning report, and in the attached Resolution No. 2012-05. Finally, the Development/Site and Building Plan review and consideration under this PUD Application must be tabled or postponed to the May 31, 2011 meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS I. Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve a land use amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, specifically that the subject site described herein, is amended from "PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF- Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" and "SF-Single Family" land use designation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" and "SF-Single Family" land use designation. 2. The land use shall be become valid only if the City Council accepts the separate rezoning of the overall site from RI One Family Residence and R6 Multiple Family Residence to PUD-Mixed Rl/R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed of One Family Residence and Multiple Family Residence). PC 05/17/12 Page 3 of 4 i X Nfti L 3 N TEX II. Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to rezone the subject site from RI-One Family Residence and R6-Multiple Family Residence to a new PUD-Mixed Rl/R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed of One Family Residence and Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district,based on the following findings: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" designation. 2. The rezoning shall become valid only if the City Council adopts the proposed land use amendment change (under separate consideration), and accepts and approves the final development/site and building plans for this Planned Unit Development. 3. All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 04/06/12) and all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the City Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled. 4. Execution of a PUD development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 5. The Final Development and Site and Building Plan shall be tabled and approved separately by the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. I PC 05/17/12 Page 4 of 4 RROOKL 3'N CCt�'TER Planning Commission Information Sheet Meeting Date: April 12,2012 Application No. 2012-004 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: 5401 —69th Avenue North Request: Request for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from"PS-Public and Semi- Public" land use to "MF-Multi-Family(High Density)" INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center is proposing an amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update by changing an "PS-Public and Semi-Public" land use designation to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" for the property located at 5401 — 69th Avenue North (Maranatha Homes Care Center property). This change will help facilitate a separate request for rezoning of the subject site by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., the owners of the subject site. Should the Planning Commission provide a favorable recommendation and City Council accepts the amendment, Staff will request authorization to submit an official application of said amendment to the Metropolitan Council, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. This report will provide background information, an analysis, and suggested recommendations to this land use amendment request. This item is being presented under a public hearing, with proper notice published in the local newspaper and mailed to the surrounding (350+ feet) property owners. BACKGROUND The Maranatha Nursing Care Center is located at 5401 —69th Avenue N. and is located in the Rl One Family Residence district. The nursing facility was originally built in 1959 and expanded in 1994. It is believed that this use was approved as a special use under the Rl district regulations at that time, under the provision of Sect. 35-310, Sect. 2.g. to-wit "Other, non-commercial uses required for the public welfare in an RI district as determined by the City Council". The Maranatha Senior Apartments are located immediately to the west at 5415 - 69th Avenue N. and is located in the R6 Multiple Family Residence district. The senior apartment development site was created by the filing of a new plat (Maranatha Addition) and rezoning from Rl (One Family)to R6 (Multiple Family Residence) in 1987. The existing 4-story, 65 unit apartment was completed in 1988. The nursing care (RI) parcel is 3.78 acres in size, and the senior apartment (R6) parcel is 3.28 acres in size. The combined area of these sites is 7.06 acres. These two centers are owned and operated jointly by Maranatha Inc., but are considered independent facilities on separate parcels. PC 04-12-12 Page 1 of 8 3 rYRZ 3 N tlTLR The subject site is surrounded by R3—Multiple Family Residence to the north, known as The Ponds/Mallard Creek Townhome development; R1-One Family Residence to the northeast, east and south; and a large, multi-family apartment complex to the west, which is actually located in the City of Brooklyn Park. AAA. X7 1, TF L f _rIS1Z 1P.1E rl E i T] YrLLC ti i 1 a a- T 1JU T[ Iri S r I lam. r m - 1 1 f�ruTM AVEN� }:Y z 1 a I I I °—�= I I I L�7 c•'�I� ' bl III AYE II M C1 EM 02 R2 IIL��I �I1 1 --h— C1IR7 �PUD/G1A �R3 !/� OTTM AVER - N { _ - ._._._ \\\ C1IR5IR4-PUD/C2 R4 I_� \\-- _ _ C1A r PUD/l1 RS I} N \ C2 PUD/R7 R6 11 ®PUDIR3 R7 I Ivy 5'_ I I. r ' I I Ie,Ir� I Irrl I f +H I_� I � R �� �-�j-�-�j-' -�--I- - Ixx I�12 -PUDh11XED I ,H � 1 ' ' ' 8� I I I ' I li�l�aln�II Irx c'J'" =01 R1 r„ C �„t r I I III -TIT I I# I I The proposed land use change presented by the City will assist the landowner's separate request for rezoning these two parcels into a new overall PUD-Mixed R5/R6 — Multiple Family Residence district. This new PUD will provide the ability for Maranatha to continue to operate a nursing care facility on the site, with the original (existing) special use to effectively remain in place. Whereupon completion of this nursing care addition, Maranatha will proceed to Phase II of this redevelopment project, which consists of adding 29-38 new senior assisted/independent living units in place of the old 1959 era nursing home center, soon to be demolished. LAND USE & ZONING HISTORY The combined subject property was originally zoned RI from 1961 to 1987 (per earliest recoverable zoning map records). As also noted previously, the subject site was replatted into two separate lots under the Maranatha Addition, with the westerly parcel (Lot 2) rezoned in 1987 from R1 to R6 Multiple Family Residence District. The easterly parcel (Lot 1) remains under the RI zoning district. In November 1966, the City adopted its first comprehensive plan. The land use plan map identified the city's 20-year planned land use designations from 1965 to 1985. The subject site PC 04-12-12 Page 2 of 8 C%b n/ /f71001+LY"N C,U,* T R was identified under this firture land use plan as "Other Public Facilities" and identified with an "NH" notation, representing a nursing home. LAND USE COMMUNITY FACILITIES RE5IDENCE I` i I � ._ c ksOG53t ELE✓&liwvv 5'JfO�: NH' I 1 LL COMMERCE Ch 7i 4 � I � I��_� I_ —��zcleRSE>/ICFOiiICE Me.H F -——I "i ') - INDUSTRY P - c ICTE nL P.1F.t GC SCiF CMi+EE Z GE'.�lE2Y - PUBLIC FACILITIES 4g1Iy 1 1 Al.CPfll 1— O0-R Ra1 PL?uCIfA<TIRE �- 7�FT7-•�Ti'r I I 'V l 11 �i��• ..�....�� .cam_.. F _=�1.. .. - - -_J- In 1982, the City updated and adopted the 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Under this plan, the subject site was identified under the existing land use map as "Semi-Public". i II i F P,esiden[ial t\on-R_sidenUat 5U\GLE FAIAILV DETACHED �CO`AMERCIAL II 1DLISiRL4L DUPLE%ES FUELIC ar.1 Y_Y.004 F.IULTI'F?I.11!V �Sc\il-FUZLIG }_ _J Fi+AG U:J OrEfl SFarE • d•���--ate.._ _ ��y�v_� _ __ __ UTILITIES VNGEVELGPED 1 a 1 I PC 04-12-12 . Page 3 of 8 fitr o! I3ROOti LTN Cl_n'TER In 1998, the City again adopted its 2020 Comprehensive Plan update, and under that plan, the subject site was revised to the High Density Residential" on the westerly parcel and "Public & Semi-Public" on the easterly parcel. .F-1 JIIIIIi I~�� 4 LEGEND: 0 Single-Family P,esidentiol Office/Service Business T:-o-family P.esidenlial Parks and Open Space C�u F-7 1liedium Density Residential Industrial till 4= 0 High Density Residential © Public and Semi Public r. r� O P,etail Business 0 Undeveloped i ll T laie/Creek �IiIIIII,�,-iltl Ili_ I ii�ltl ii lilli�� Finally, in 2010, the City adopted its 2030 Comprehensive Plan update, which reaffirmed the previous comprehensive plan's designation of the subject site with MF-Multi-Family (High Density) and PS-Public & Semi-Public land uses. t t _ �tiziit,�Lse ntn U //�� Rrn�.�Us�- �'Y� S� Sin91c Famil! SF T.vo or Three Family TF T—hame(Medium Density) TH Multi Family(High Density) MF Off-(service Business as i Retail Business RB p i Industrial I Railroad or uti'll, RU ' F.bh and Semi-Public PS Schools Parks.Recreation,or Open PRO PC 04-12-12 Page 4 of 8 i B,ROUJCL3 Y C'C�`TLR The MF-Multi-Family land use category defines these uses as: "Residential purposes, including apartments and condominiums", while the PS Public/Semi-Public land uses defines these uses as "primarily religious,governmental, social or healthcare facilities(excluding clinics)." ANALYSIS The following analysis will be based on revising the existing Public /Semi-Public land use with an overall MF Multi-Family land use category. This change would facilitate the requested rezoning of this site under a new mixed PUD of the site. Zoning Ordinance requires that all individually zoned properties or areas of zoning throughout the city must comply with the underlying land use plan within the City's Comprehensive Plan. This mixed zoning of R5 and R6 (under an approved PUD plan) will allow the ability to keep the nursing care facility on the site with the existing special use permit remaining in places; and allow for the redevelopment of the former nursing home site to be redeveloped with new, senior independent housing. If the Planning Commission and City Council accept this land use amendment, the subject site will be presented under future (and separate) consideration of a rezoning from R6 Multiple Family and Rl One Family Residential, to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Multiple Family Residence) district. i The analysis contained in this report does not include any findings or supporting statement related to this proposed PUD rezoning. This analysis will only provide justification and reasoning to support this comprehensive plan land use amendment. The City Code does not provide a set of criteria or means of determining a land use amendment of this nature; therefore, Planning Staff is electing to utilize those criteria listed under the City's "Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines" contained in Section 35-208 (revised for the purposes of this analysis section)to determine the merits of this land use change. a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit [for this land use amendment]? It is staff's opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit as it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City. The redevelopment and planned improvements on the site will help remove an outdated and obsolete nursing care facility and provide a new, state of the art nursing home care facility. The site will also provide an excellent opportunity to providing additional housing options for retired or independent seniors in the community. The redevelopment will provide an increase to the tax base in the community and may provide additional full-time employment opportunities. b. Is the proposed land use amendment consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? It is staff's belief that the proposed land use amendment would be consistent, as the existing uses (nursing care homes and senior housing elements) will remain even with the new planned site improvements. The development site is subject to added setbacks and buffering requirements under this mixed R5/R6 zoning, particularly from the adjacent PC 04-12-12 Page 5 of 8 Cilrnf BROOI+L FN CENTER single-family residential uses to the east and south. These increased setbacks, screening and landscaping measures will reduce the impacts to the residential areas. c. Can all proposed uses in the proposed land use amendment area be contemplated for development of the subject property? Under a future planned unit development, the City will identify and provide under a planned unit development agreement those approved uses and control the amount of density allowed under the overall PUD site. By changing this land use to the Multi- Family and allowing a new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 zoning, the City can designate specific or allowable uses and specify special requirements as necessary. i d. Have there been substantial physical or land use changes in this area since the subject property was improved? It does not appear this site or the surrounding areas have seen any substantial physical land use or zoning changes in the last 50+years. The most obvious change is the former golf course property to the north now converted into the Mallard Creek Townhome Association, which developed in the late 1970's. For the most part, the underlying land use has kept pace with the higher density allowances provided for under the existing R6 zoning district. e. In the case of City initiated land use amendment proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The land use amendment will provide an opportunity to redevelop a site that has become functionally obsolete and in need of physical upgrades. The broad public purpose to initiating this land use amendment was created due to the personal desire of the senior housing/nursing centers to expand and redevelop this site with newer and upgraded nursing care center, and provide an opportunity for more housing opportunities for the regions seniors. f. Will the land use amendment result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or; 3. The best interest of the community? The overall (combined)uses of this development site has served as a form of multi- family residential for a number of years. The 97-bed nursing home facility essentially serves as a senior housing facility with around-the clock medical services, while the nearby 64-unit senior assisted living apartment provides independent housing needs for seniors. The replacement of the multi-family land use on the Public/Semi-Public area of this site, along with the expected PUD-Mixed R5/R/6 Zone, does not significantly increase or creates a negative expansion of the multi-family land use and/or zoning of this existing multi-residential site. It is staff's belief that this land use amendment is in the best interest of the community,as it provides a real and possible immediate opportunity to redevelop an underutilized site. PC 04-12-12 Page 6 of 8 X C IiL}Y 'TER The amendment is supported by the goals and objectives of the city's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff further believes this amendment appears to have merit beyond just the particular interests of the Applicant/Developer and should lead to a redevelopment that should be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. Does the land use amendment proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of g P P Y an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Staff believes that the land use amendment has merit beyond just the particular interests of the City and/or the developer(s), in that it provides an ideal opportunity for a planned unit development which provides for additional senior housing needs and health care services. This amendment will assist in the redevelopment and transformation of this site that can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The amendment would provide a an opportunity for quality development that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the community. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes this recommendation and requested amendment can be supported based on the following objectives and goals listed in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan(which are also memorialized in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-004: A. The proposed land use amendment will improve the appearance of the city and enhance p p Pp Y the quality of life,property values and civic pride in this northwest neighborhood area; I B. The proposed land use amendment will reduce the geographic over-concentration of particular types of land development when that pattern has become a negative influence on the community. C. The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area for the community's commercial and industrial sectors; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating land use; and stimulates new investment in the neighborhood and community. D. The proposed land use amendment will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting statements: i. helps to increase employment opportunities,possible retail sales, rental occupancy and tax base; ii. provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. iii. the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and PC 04-12-12 Page 7 of 8 X snooxLrN CBNTFR diversity of uses. E. The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. With these suggested finding, Staff therefore recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve a land use amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, specifically that the subject site described herein, is amended from"PS- Public/Semi-Public"to "MF-Multi-Family(High Density)Residential"land use designation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from PS-Public/Semi-Public"to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)Residential" designation. 2. The land use shall be become valid only if the City Council accepts the planned (separate)rezoning of the overall site from RI One Family Residence and R6 Multiple Family Residence to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 Multiple Family Residence district. I PC 04-12-12 Page 8 of 8 Land Use Amendment b y the Cit y Brooklyn of Center 5401 & 5415 - 69th Avenue North (Maranatha Care Center Properties) Planning Application No. 2012-04 City Council Meeting May 29, 2012 Introduction Subject site — two parcels owned by Maranatha Homes, located at 5401 & 5415 — 69th Avenue North . Original Request: amend the 2030 Comp Plan by changing land use of 'BPS-Public and Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" Amended Request: to change the entire site from PS-Public & Semi-Public and MF-Multi-Family (High Density) to new MF- MIXED ENHANCED (Multi- Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks) Land Use Amendment would facilitate rezoning of the subject site to new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development- Mixed Multiple Family Residence) Maranatha Maranatha Senior Nursing- 9 Care Apartments in the R6 { - , � Center located in Multiple Family the R Residence district. Z One Family *� , Residence zone rt •• Nursing Center Apartment site was _ built in 1959, ,xe:e created by Maranatha . ® expanded in 1994. Addition - rezoning from R1 to R6 (Multiple Family) in 1g87 x Nursing Home ��" = 5401 was approved as a special use under the R1 district -A P, regulations, by Sect. 35-310, Sect. The existing 4-story, z. as "Other g ' 65 unit apartment was sT non-commercial completed in 1988. uses requiredef µ, * ± the public welfare in an Rs district as determined by the City Council„ _ �. ..rib _• Current Zoning C' 'lsr�;k ,y _ II �' C, parcel is 3.78 acres in ``' iLTUEN c, size, the senior c �HOC apartment (R6) ti R5 parcel Is 3.28 acres in — —!— size (Total 7.o6 acres) HOR1Z'ONT�ZON �� �_�-� a oTH AVE N R5 rn � 7QTH VE N C 2 � Z�' R3—Multiple Family -- -7— > `''a'c'v LLO:"'L��.NE PARK Q �� Residence to the — �. north, known as The `2 Ponds/Mallard Creek PU I o R6 6aTHAVE Cz Townhome M_ development o m c� D— ZE _.. _-.. Rl Z—j—rn ``�\r RZ to the northeast, —}—ZZ�---i— Z I t r east and south; ZI u+ I _( Z— L� N I —r-- + Z— D 1=2 large, multi-family Iy �— — �— _� C2 apartment complex �6TTHAVEh —�— --j— —z Z to the west, which is W -Z 1-2 I I - V AVE N 67TH AVE IN, located in the City of - Brooklyn Park. -" INTERSTATE 94 -- MiUi El 11 TT .. 701 4 I K .9 tad �h ❖ The subject site NH was identified as { - � "Other Public Facilities" with an "NH" notation, LAND USE COMMUNITY FACILITIES representing k RESIDENCE y aINDERGAR "Nursing SINGLE FAMILY ES HEMENTARY SCHOOL Nursing Home DETACHED PES FAROCHIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL rf ? .MULTIPLE FAMILY HS HIGH SCHOOL TOWNHOUSE/GARDEN APARTMENT MS MUNICIPAL SUKEMNG 11/1 STOREY WALKUP FS PRE STATION LOW A4D HIGH RISE L L SRARY M COMMERCE w WATERWORKS NH NURSING HO RETARSERVICEOFRCE ME -... .. - .., •.• .. Cn CHURCH INDUSTRY P PARK INDUSTRIAL PARK GC GOLF COURSE GENERAL C CEMETERY IN PUBLIC FACILITIES M MARINA PARK,FECREATION AND OPEN SPACE UP PRIVATE UTILITY I, I OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA Cc ---+--771 s _ i °M :L980 - 2000 Plan •'• Subject site revised to a - -- - - new Semi-Public designation. 2000 — 2020 Plan i � �r \ii ii is �� i� s� ii � • - - • • MEWS- so It Bit s nlis I i i�i��ii�sa► Citij of PROlRU Brwkllj n Center SF -0 RB � F►8tlYe2-2 ® RB SF '-c MF Land Use Plan OSIRB eel . F y� .,,, RB R Laixtir:�Uxe LC'$C'1'ld I'uturelJae RS '_�,� Singh Family SF OSlRB — I Twe or Threa Family TF I—t, e I etllvm Oen 6) TH RB Mvitl Family(High M-lity) MF OSIRS orr«.se,,-B.ar,e>s os Os THlMFIOSIRBIPS( - Ret➢a BV61ne9a RB I ,... y ` . YI InduafneR I ' I OSlRB--t" Railrwd-Uldly RU osrRe -- .r...i( pvDhC and SemliPublK PS I 'SF SFlTF/TH/MF Sr;ht>nlx $ III a RB 2 SF R�evtLOM—T Upper Twn Lake .0"0 ..,, THIMF/OS/RB/PS Oar "b"1� #, Note: , Planned land use for 2030 is the same as existi euaee T«n land use except where parcels are outlined and labeled with Planned Designations. Ryan lake MF-Multi Family II (High D- M a boa am Pei t Ave Example of an MF-MIXED ENHANCED land use designation with enhanced setbacks.... I T Zoo-ft. buffer & setback TOTAL PROOF OF PARKING (87 STALLS) z5-ft. green space • ❖ Enhanced setbacks would be determined and approved under a PUD or similar agreement Comp Plan Amendment Evaluation Is there a clear and public need or benefit [for this land use amendment]? Is the proposed land use amendment consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? Can all proposed uses in the proposed land use amendment area be contemplated for development of the subject property? ❖ Have there been substantial physical or land use changes in this area since the subject property was amended? •:• In the case of City initiated land use amendment proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present land use category with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? ❖ Will the land use amendment result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: i. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? •'• Does the land use amendment proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? i • • COMP Community Assessment and Visions . . . 1. What do you consider to be the best features, characteristics, aspects of Brooklyn Center that should be preserved and enhanced? • Small town atmosphere with strong sense of neighborhood • Well-built housing, some in need of reinvestment/rehabilitation • Commercial and employment opportunity sites — capitalize Issues needing to be addressed • Multiple-family housing — rehabilitate, redevelop • Senior housing — support for and options to independent living 3. What is your vision of the ideal for Brooklyn Center in the year 203O? • Sense of Community — comfortable, family-friendly, strong sense of community, empowered, low crime, cohesive, engage diversity, safe • Housing — increase move-up, owner-occupied, senior-accessible, new rental Land Use, Redevelopment And Physical Image Strategy. . . GOALS s. Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods. 3 . Improve the appearance of the city to enhance quality of life, property values and civic pride . 4. Improve the image of the City through branding and coordinated theme development in public areas. Land Use & Redevelopment Objectives 1. Gradually reduce & eliminate incompatible relationships among land uses (such as industry vs. housing). 2. Reduce the geographic over-concentration of particular types of land development when that pattern has become a negative influence on the community. 3. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and residential, to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. • Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans • Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. 5. Enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place. • Help increase retail sales, rental occupancy and tax base. • Promote the redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized or vacant sites into uses that address needs in the marketplace, and that provide a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. • Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. 6. Use the zoning ordinance to provide for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. Housing Plan General Statement . . . HOUSING FOR EMPTY- NESTERS AND SENIORS There is a lack of housing designed for individuals and couples beyond middle age who are looking for low maintenance alternatives to their single-family detached home. The lack of housing supply to address this housing need is probably causing people to move out of the community. The housing needs of seniors looking to move out of independent living situations and into housing that includes a degree of supervision and support was brought up as a housing issue. Housing- Principles As part the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Program, the City declared its support for the following principles: 1. A balanced housing supply with housing available for people at all income levels. 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and location of housing within the community. 3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. 4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. 6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment. Housin 9 • i Ob ' ectives s. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted commercial, industrial and residential areas to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment. • Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans • Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors, 2. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet the needs and demands of its current and future population. • Accommodate changing family and household structure by providing a suitable mix of housing types. • Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction of higher- value housing in lower income areas. • Continue to rehabilitate multifamily housing in targeted areas. Staff Findings 1) The proposed land use amendment will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this northwest neighborhood area; 2) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area in an established residential sector; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating land use; and stimulates new investment in the neighborhood and community. 3) The proposed land use amendment will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting statements: a) helps to increase employment opportunities, rental occupancy and tax base, b) provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. c) the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. 4) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district, which provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. Anticipated Land Use Requests Replat the two lots into one large platted lot Rezone the entire site from R1-Once Family Residence and R6- Multiple Family Residence to a new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Multiple Family Residence) Site and Building Plan consideration of the 97-bed skilled nursing care facility (Phase 1) and future 38-unit senior independent living center (Phase II) All items scheduled to be presented to City Council for final consideration at the June 25, 2012 meeting Requested Action i.) City Council adopt the Resolution granting preliminary approval of a proposed land use amendment to the zo3OComprehensive Plan, from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF Multi-Family (High Density)" to new "MF-Mixed Enhanced" (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks) land use designation, subject to the following conditions noted in said resolution; and 2) City Council authorize City Staff to prepare and submit the Formal Comprehensive Land Use Amendment Application to the Metropolitan Council for consideration. QUESTIONS . City Council Agenda Item No. 9b i i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager �/�� FROM: Tim Benetti, Plarming and Zoning Speciali Y THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2012-003 - Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for the Rezoning of Land Located at 5401 & 5415 — 69th Avenue North from R1 (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development—Mixed Multiple Family Residence) AND An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, at 5401-5415 69t" Avenue North. - Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for June 25, 2012 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this planning application item, adopt the Resolution regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for the rezoning of land located at 5401 & 5415 — 69th Avenue North from R1 (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development—Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district. Subsequent to this action, it is recommended the Council consider the first reading of the attached Ordinance Amendment and schedule a public hearing and 2°d Reading of said Ordinance for the June 25, 2012 meeting. Background: On April 12, 2012 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. for rezoning of property located at 5401-5415 69t" Avenue North, from R1 and R6 to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 district. The application was tabled to the May 17, 2012 meeting, whereby an amended planning report was given, the original public hearing from April 12, 2012 meeting was reopened, and public comments received and noted for the record. Mission:rnsuring all attractive,clean,safe,inclllsive conununioJ that enhances the qualitP of life for rill people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM The Planning Commission considered the rezoning portion of this new PUD only, and delayed action on the final development/site and building plan until the May 31, 2012 meeting. At the June 25, 2012, public hearing date, the City Council will provide final consideration of this PUD rezoning and the related final development/site and building plans. Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-06, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of the rezoning. Excerpts from the May 17, 2012 Commission meeting minutes, as related to this consideration of this matter, are also attached. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans. 4. We will improve the city's image. i Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive con ununiry that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC., TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401-5415 — 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM Rl (ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE) AND R6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) TO A NEW PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE)DISTRICT WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. (Maranatha) proposes a rezoning from R1 (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district, for properties generally located in the northwest quadrant of the City and addressed as 5401 and 5415 - 69th Avenue North (Subject Site); and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the Subject Site to facilitate the planned and future redevelopment of the site with a proposed three-story, 97 bed skilled nursing care facility and a future 38 unit senior independent living apartment facility on said properties; and WHEREAS, the current zoning of Rl (One Family Residence) district and underlying land use "PS-Public and Semi-Public" as identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan would impede the redevelopment of this site as planned by Maranatha under such zoning and land use category; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is considering under separate application a land use amendment to the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan in order to change the current land use designation from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to a new overall land use of "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)"; and WHEREAS, subject to a successful outcome of this land use amendment action,the City may further recommend Maranatha be allowed to have a new planned unit development under this proposed new zoning district of PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development — Mixed Multiple Family Residence) on the Subject Site, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on April 12, 2012, whereby a planning report was presented and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received, and the action item was tabled; and it RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, on May 17, 2012,the Planning Commission reconsidered the rezoning request, whereby an updated planning staff report was presented; the guidelines for evaluating rezoning contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance were presented, along with the provisions and standards of the R5 (Multiple Family Residence) district contained in Section 35-314, along with the provisions and standards of the R6 (Multiple Family Residence) district contained in Section 35-314, and the provisions and standards of the Planned Unit Development district contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and a public hearing was re- opened, public testimony was received, and the request was duly considered in light of all testimony received; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2012, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did thereby recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The planned rezoning is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2. The proposed rezoning appears to demonstrate a clear and public need or benefit to the community and regional area, as it will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this neighborhood area; 3. The rezoning and its related development proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and should provide a positive effect on the community; subject to the site plan issues being fully resolved by the City and Applicants; 4. The rezoning will facilitate the redevelopment plan of this site, which will be compatible with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and underlying land use plan. 5. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications; 6. The proposed rezoning will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area for the community's senior residential and health care sectors; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating nursing home facility; and will stimulate new investment in the neighborhood and community. 7. The proposed rezoning will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting i i RESOLUTION NO. statements: a) helps to increase employment opportunities, rental occupancy and tax base; b) provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. C) the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. d) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. 8. The rezoning, which will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of this site, will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; 9. The rezoning and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards, in particular the incorporation of buffer requirements where more intensive residential uses abut single- family residential zoned properties; 10. The rezoning and land use amendment proposal would be considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 11. The rezoning appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; 12. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezoning's as contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did ftu-ther recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2012-003, which comprehends the rezoning of the subject site be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations memorialized herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center, that Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., which comprehends the rezoning for properties generally RESOLUTION NO. th located in the northwest quadrant of the City and addressed as 5401 and 5415 - 69 Avenue North, from RI (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD- MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from "PS-Public and Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)"to a new overall land use of"MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi- Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation. 2. The rezoning shall become valid only if the City Council adopts the proposed land use amendment change (under separate consideration), and accepts and approves the final development/site and building plans for this Planned Unit Development, 3. All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 04/06/12) and all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the City Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled. 4. Execution of a PUD development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 5. The Final Development and Site and Building Plan shall be tabled and approved separately by the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. May 29, 2012 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 OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25 day of June, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain land, generally located in the northwest quadrant section of the City of Brooklyn Center, located at 5401 and 5415—69th Avenue North. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at(763) 569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT SECTION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, T 11OCATED AT 5401 AND 5415 —69TH AVENUE NORTH. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35-1150. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R6). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R6) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: Lott,-Bloc k 1, T rota A do Section 35-1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 9. The following_properties are designated as PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) District: Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Maranatha Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1 i i i Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Note: (84,ikleeut text indicates matter to be deleted, while underline indicates new matter.) I 2 e Commissioner Burfeind introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-06 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC., TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401-5415 — 691H AVENUE NORTH FROM RI (ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE) AND R6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) T A E PUD-MIXED R R6 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED O NEW 5/ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE)DISTRICT WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. (Maranatha) proposes a rezoning from RI (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district, for properties generally located in the northwest quadrant of the City and addressed as 5401 and 5415 - 69t" Avenue North (Subject Site); and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the Subject Site to facilitate the planned and future redevelopment of the site with a proposed three-story, 97 bed skilled nursing care facility and a future 38-unit senior independent living apartment facility on said properties; and WHEREAS, the current zoning of RI (One Family Residence) district and underlying land use "PS-Public & Semi-Public" as identified in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan would impede the redevelopment of this site as planned by Maranatha under such zoning and land use category; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is considering under separate application a land use amendment to the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan in order to change the current land use designation from "PS-Public & Semi-Public' and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to a new overall land use of "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)"; and WHEREAS, subject to a successful outcome of this land use amendment action,the City may further recommend Maranatha be allowed to have a new planned unit development under this proposed new zoning district of PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development — Mixed Multiple Family Residence) on the Subject Site, and WHEREAS, .the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on April 12, 2012, whereby a planning report was presented and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received, and the action item was tabled; and PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-06 WHEREAS, on May 17, 2012,the Planning Commission reconsidered the rezoning request, whereby an updated planning staff report was presented; the guidelines for evaluating rezoning contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance were presented, along with the provisions and standards of the R5 (Multiple Family Residence) district contained in Section 35-314, along with the provisions and standards of the R6 (Multiple Family Residence) district contained in Section 35-314, and the provisions and standards of the Planned Unit Development district contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and a public hearing was re- opened, public testimony was received, and the request was duly considered in light of all testimony received. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The planned rezoning is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2. The proposed rezoning appears to demonstrate a clear and public need or benefit to the community and regional area, as it will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this neighborhood area; 3. The rezoning and its related development proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and should provide a positive effect on the community; subject to the site plan issues being fully resolved by the City and Applicants; 4. The rezoning will facilitate the redevelopment.plan of this site, which will be compatible with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and underlying land use plan. 5. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications; 6. The proposed rezoning will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area for the community's senior residential and health care sectors; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating nursing home facility; and will stimulate new investment in the neighborhood and community. 7. The proposed rezoning will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting i i PC RESOLUTION NO, 2012-06 I statements: a) helps to increase employment opportunities, rental occupancy and tax base; b) provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. C) the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. d) The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. 8. The rezoning, which will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of this site, will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; 9. The rezoning and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards, in particular the incorporation of buffer requirements where more intensive residential uses abut single- family residential zoned properties; 10. The rezoning and land use amendment proposal would be considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 11. The rezoning appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; 12. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezoning's as contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2012-003, which comprehends the rezoning of the subject site from RI (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district, be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from "PS-Public & Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-06 Density)" to a new overall land use of"MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi- Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation. 2. The rezoning shall become valid only if the City Council adopts the proposed land use amendment change (under separate consideration), and accepts and approves the final development/site and building plans for this Planned Unit Development. 3. All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 04/06/12) and all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the City Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled. 4. Execution of a PUD development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 5. The Development/Site and Building Plan of this PUD is hereby tabled and shall be approved separately by the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. May 17, 2012 Date Chair ATTEST: �f� c Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Kuykendall and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Leino, Morgan, Schonning, Kuykendall and Burfeind. and the following voted against the same: None. Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i 3 rBROOKIYN 4rof IER Planning Commission Report Application Filed on 03/15/12 Meeting Date: May 17,2012 City Council action should be (APPENDED REPORT) taken by 05/14/12(60 Days) REVIEW EXTENDED to 07/13/12 I Application No 2 12-0 &2012-0 p p . 0 03 04 Applicant: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. Location: 5401& 5415-6 91h Avenue North Request: Rezoning to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Multiple Family Residence) and Development/Site Plan Approval -&- Request for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from "PS-Public and Semi-Public"land use to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" INTRODUCTION Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., is requesting rezoning from Rl (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development- Mixed-Multiple Family Residence) district. Along with this zoning request is the consideration of a related Development/Site Plan of a new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility. This PUD is planned for the redevelopment to the exiting Maranatha Nursing Home and Senior Apartments campus, located at 5401& 5415 - 691h Avenue North. In conjunction with this Application, the City of Brooklyn Center is undertaking an amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update by changing the subject site's land use designation from "PS-Public and Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)". This change will help facilitate a separate request for rezoning of the subject site by PHS/Maranatha. The previous Planning Reports (Information Sheets)for the PUD and Land Use Amendments are attached to this report for your continued consideration, and should be referenced for any previous analysis,findings, and/or conditions. CONTINUATION of ANALYSIS As the.Commission is aware, both of these items were tabled at the April 12, 2012 meeting, in order to give Maranatha representatives an opportunity to meet with the residential neighbors and discuss or determine a future plan of the proposed Phase II of this PUD plan. This Phase II would replace the old nursing home facility once it is demolished and all nursing care clients are safely in the new facility. On May 3, 2012 Maranatha conducted another open house at their care facility campus, which was intended to provide a design"charrette"with the neighbors. The following day, Deb Zarbok emailed city staff the attached proposed Phase II (concept) site plan. The Plan still maintains the PC 05/17/12 Page 1 of 4 i Ci/vnt It/l00KI,YN CGNYER 97 bed skilled nursing facility in the same location, and readjusts the original submitted Phase II layout (April 12th submittals) of a 38-unit 4-story to a 38-unit, 2.5 story independent senior housing facility. The Developer was encouraged to maintain as much a setback from the east property line as possible. Staff suggested that a 100-foot setback be attempted, even though a 48-50 setback would be required (setback must equal twice the height of the building). Maranatha has shown that a majority of the new building would meet this 100-ft. setback. The Plan also shows the southerly portion of the building footprint impacting or affecting the proposed pond area. We assume that this pond (and other drainage facilities) would need to be adjusted or redesigned to accommodate such improvements. The plan illustrates 104 parking spaces, with 44 additional spaces under a "proof-of-parking" arrangement. It is anticipated that at least 38 parking spaces will be provided under the proposed 2.5 story independent living facility, providing up to 186 spaces (assuming all spaces shown installed). PHS has met with City Staff on a number of occasions and is attempting to provide a set of updated Plans on this site, including site and building plans, grading and drainage plans, landscaping plans and others. Also, the preliminary plat needed to be adjusted accordingly. Other supporting documents are also being finalized, including a traffic report and parking study for this PUD site. At our meeting with PHS on Friday, May 11th, the City was instructed that a new Development/Site Plan was still being worked on, which is included as part of this updated packet), and the parking study was just received by them and required their own review and consideration before they shared it with the City. The City was also pleased to know that PHS has shifted the Phase II portion of the site to meet a 100-foot setback standard, and will also comply with a requested 25-foot clear zone buffer as part of this updated plan. The 100-foot buffer would be absent of any building additions, but the fire/access road and any parking areas (both surface and future proof-of-parking" would be permitted. The 25 foot buffer would forever be left as a"green-space" area,with grass or rain gardens as allowable improvements. The City also,suggested as part of a condition of PHS' commitment to leaving this 100-foot buffer relatively alone or absent of any development that the 100-ft. separation area be left in the RI Residence One zoning district, whereby the remaining developable areas would be rezoned to the originally requested PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-Multiple Family Residence The proposed Phase II area continues to illustrate a 38-unit, 2.5 story senior apartment center. The half story would allow for the partial underground installation of resident parking (possibly 38 or more) and the building would not exceed 2 stores above for the 38, single-room senior independent residential units. City Staff suggested that in order to allow or provide for this future Phase II, the City would need to ensure the site layout and all civil engineering items, PC 05/17/12 Page 2 of 4 i ciq•u! BI?OOKI,YN C NTER improvements and site impacts created b such a development such as on-site storm-water P P Y P ( drainage, treatment, parking,-etc.) could be attained or maintained on the site. Due to the late submittal of this updated Development Plan, the City suggested (and the Applicant agreed) to postpone the final review and consideration of this Development/Site and Building Plan until the May 31St Planing Commission Meeting. I CONCLUSIONS In order to maintain a schedule and keep this Application within the review periods provided under State Statutes, and if the Planning Commission wished to do so, the rezoning element of this PUD application can move forward or a recommendation formulated for City. Council's consideration. This rezoning request should now include a recommendation to keep an RI segment, or PUD-Mixed R1/R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed-One Family Residence and Multiple Family Residence) district, which provides for the Rl buffer strip and the remaining area'to be developed under the mixed R5/R6 zoning. The findings which support this rezoning were noted in the April 12, 2012 planning report, and in the attached Resolution No. 2012-06. The Land Use Amendment should also be revised to include the RI element into.the proposed land use change; therefore, amended from "PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" and SF-Single Family. The findings which support this amendment were noted in the April 12,2012 planning report,and in the attached Resolution No.2012-05. Finally, the Development/Site and Building Plan review and consideration under this PUD Application must be tabled or postponed to the May 31,2011 meeting. RECOMMENDATIONS I. Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve a land use amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, specifically that the subject site described herein, is amended from "PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF- Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" and "SF-Single Family" land use designation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" and "SF-Single Family"land use designation. 2. The land use shall be become valid only if the City Council accepts the separate rezoning of the overall site from RI One Family Residence and R6 Multiple Family Residence to PUD-Mixed R1/R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed of One Family Residence and Multiple Family Residence). PC 05/17/12 Page 3 of 4 i X ftrof OKIYN TER II. Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to rezone the subject site from Rl-One Family Residence and R6-Multiple Family Residence to a new PUD-Mixed RI/R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed of One Family Residence and Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district,based on the followin g findings: s: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from PS-Public/Semi-Public" to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density) Residential" designation. 2. The rezoning shall become valid only if the City Council adopts the proposed land use amendment change (under separate consideration), and accepts and approves the final development/site and building plans for this Planned Unit Development. 3. All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 04/06/12) and all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the City Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled. 4. Execution of a PUD development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 5. The Final Development and Site and Building Plan shall be tabled and approved separately by the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. PC 05/17/12 Page 4 of 4 - 9TH AV NORTH -- I Y ZI Izl _ -- OIO j ____ ..__ ___S7 PARKING � IOI (� _-,I --- .STALLS ED ml LL I_-- O 10- a -- - -- r F 10 -- -- i---I I v �I EXISTING 64 UNIT a- -� - -- --� vl ASSISTED LIVING TO REMAIN l FWJ El I. Ir TOTAL PROFOF PARKING J (37 STALLS) Y r I FUTURE I !� 21/2 STORY – I-- 38 UNIT INDEPENDENT -J I -- FACILITY I i- 23 PARK ING NEW 97 BED I I STALLS SKILLED r-- 1 NURSING j FACILITY-TCU/ -- LTCIMC PROPOSED -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 liyl � I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I L------ FIRE LANE 7 �— ------ ------------- FUTURE INDEPENDENT OPTION C Maranatha Skilied9 Care BROOKLYN CENTER,MINNESOTA 5-3-2012 1 COMM#72535-09066 P1 gH sb te ian mos s'L,r wic Vs i 3 Ci' BROOKLYN CGNTLR i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Filed on 3-15-12 Meeting Date: April 12,2012 City Council action should be taken by 5-14-12 (60 Days) Application No. 2012-003 Applicant: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. Location: 5401&5415—69th Avenue North Request: _Rezoning to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Multiple Family Residence)and Development/Site Plan approvals INTRODUCTION Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., is requesting rezoning from Rl (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development- Mixed-Multiple Family Residence) district. Along with this zoning request is the consideration of a related Development/Site Plan of a new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility. Tills PUD is planned for the redeveiopmenc to the exiting Maranatha Nursing Home and Senior Apartments campus, located at 5401& 5415 - 69th Avenue North. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha-numeric designation of the underlying zoning district; or in this case the R5 and R6 respectively. These underlying zoning districts provide the regulations governing uses and structures within the new PUD. The rules and regulations governing these districts would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment ent is ues Regulations goveming uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans.\The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 of the city's zoning ordinance,which addresses Planned Unit Developments (copy attached). This report will provide background information, an analysis, and suggested recommendations to this rezoning and development/site plan request. This item is being presented under a public . hearing,with proper notice published in the local newspaper and mailed to the surrounding(350- feet)property owners. BACKGROUND The Maranatha campus consists of two separate lots. The nursing home parcel (addressed as 5401 — 69th Ave.) is 3.78 acres in size and is situated in the Rl district. The existing 64-unit senior assisted living facility (5415 — 69th Ave.) is 3.28 acres in size and situated in the R6 district. The combined area of these sites is 7.06 acres. These two centers are owned and operated jointly by PHS. PC 04-12-12 Page 1 of 14 XiBROOKLYN VTSR I The nursing home facility was built in 1959 and expanded in 1994. It is understood that this nursing home use was approved as a special use under the RI district regulations at that time, under provisions set-forth in Sect. 35-310, Sect. 2.g. to-wit "Other, non-commercial uses required for the public welfare in an RI district as determined by the City Council". The senior assisted living apartments were created in 1987 by the filing of a new plat (Maranatha Addition) and rezoning from Rl (One Family) to R6 (Multiple Family Residence). The four-story, 65 unit apartment was completed in 1988. The subject site is surrounded by R3 Multiple Family Residence to the north, known as The Ponds/Mallard Creek Townhome development; Rl-One Family Residence to the northeast, east and south; and a large, multi-family apartment complex to the west, which is actually located in the City of Brooklyn Park. (( r,.L 4 /ITi. 11111111111_ _,. 77��W �u��; I •• � rte'_ I' �m I-'�C 47 MCI '_�.':"�-� 02 R2 -f.' (^ y J i t" - i Cl/R1 „>i'� PUD/CIA R3 Ci/R5 1R4 PUD/C2 P.4 ' 'CIA PUD 111 R5 �! C2 Q PUD/R1 R6 �X,... =11 PUD/R3 M R7 \` M 12 PUDMIXED - - - - `i._ =01 R1 NI IIIIIIIIt!.h!IIII Jill IiII TIU t .11- II1111�. 1II II ill The current land use designation of this site is under the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan is MF- Multi-Family Residence and PS—Public/Semi-Public. Related to this PUD application, but completely independent, is the separate land use amendment being processed by the City of Brooklyn Center and on behalf of PHS/Maranatha. The proposed land use amendment is to change the PS-Public Semi/Public portion of the property to MF-Multi-Family. If the Planning Commission and City.Council accept this land use amendment, the requested change of zoning to PUD-Mixed R5/R6.would be consistent with this new underlying land use category. This new PUD will provide the ability for Maranatha to continue to operate a nursing care facility on the site, with the original (existing)'special use to effectively remain in place. Whereupon completion of this nursing care addition, Maranatha will proceed to Phase II of this redevelopment project, which consists of adding 29-38 new senior assisted/independent living units in place of the old 1959 era nursing home center,which would be demolished once the new 97-bed unit facility is constructed. PC 04-12-12 Page 2 of 14 i XBR q'n KLY'VTN Also not considered under this PUD. application is the replatting of these two properties. As evident on the aerial map (attached), the shared lot line between Lots 1 and 2 appears to cross over the connection point between the senior apartment building and the nursing home facility. Under Phase I of this PUD plan, PHS will enlarge this connector and complete the new 97-bed nursing care building to the south of the apartments, but primarily contained within Lot 2. Since the existing senior apartments, new nursing care center, and future independent living building will be operated and connected together as one large, multi-use facility, PHS has agreed to re- combine the two lots into a single unified parcel once again by means of a new plat. This plat will be considered (under separate public hearing) in the near future. A condition to this action will be made part of the PUD agreement between PHS and the City. Zoning Sect. 35-314—R5 Multiple family Residence allows for multiple family residential uses up to 2.5 to 3 stories in height, with a minimum 2,700 sf or land area per unit. Section 35-315 — R6 Multiple.Family Residence allows for multiple family dwellings up to 4 to 5 stories in height, with a minimum of 2,200 sf. of land per unit. These standards will be addressed later in this report as they pertain to the amount of density to be allowed under this PUD plan. REZONING ANALYSIS The mixed zoning offered under this application is to provide for the continuation of the mixed use nature of these two facilities on this campus. The continuation of the nursing home facility is affected by a current State of Minnesota moratorium on such uses; however, PHS is allowed to make this change or proceed with this redevelopment plan under an exception granted by the State. The original special use permit (to allow nursing homes in the Rl zone) was granted on the site when it consisted only of one single parcel. That changed when in 1987 the site was split into two lots under the Maranatha Addition, and the west lot was rezoned from Rl to R6 to provide for the 64-unit senior apartment center. The new PUD Mixed R5/R6 district will allow for the continuation of these senior apartments, along with the relocation of the nursing care facilities to the new 3-story building. The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the zoning ordinance as well as being consistent with the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208. The Policy and Review Guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. The applicant has submitted a written narrative describing their proposal along with written comments relating to Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines (attached). As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposal based on the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review.Guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance. The policy states that rezoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute "spot zoning", which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principals. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines, which have been established for PC 04-12-12 Page 3 of 14 X'j Lf'N V2 R rezoning review. The following is a review of the rezoning guidelines contained in the zoning ordinance as we believe they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal:. a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? It is staff's opinion that this redevelopment proposal can be seen as meeting a clear and public need or benefit as it is consistent with the redevelopment criteria established by the City and also consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The redevelopment and planned improvements on the site will help remove an outdated and obsolete nursing care facility and provide a new, state of the art nursing home care facility. The site will also provide an excellent opportunity to providing additional housing options for retired or independent seniors in the community. The redevelopment will provide an increase to the tax base in the community and may provide additional full-time employment opportunities. Staff believes this development proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and should provide a positive effect on the community. The uses proposed by PHS in their narrative and the development/site plans are certainly are consistent with what is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. The combination of the two parcels under a unified (new) Planned Unit Development designation rather than using the standard zoning, provides the flexibility the Applicants' seek in continuing this nursing care/senior housing center, and gives the City the ability to regulate, add (if needed) and ensure proper development measures are met, such as screening, landscaping and buffering standards. Overall, this redevelopment plan is compatible with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and underlying land use plan. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications? It is staff's belief that the proposed zoning would be consistent, as the existing uses (nursing care homes and senior housing elements) will remain even with the new planned site improvements. The site's existing uses will remain and unchanged as for the-number of nursing beds to serve their clientele. The development site is subject to added setbacks and buffering requirements under this mixed R5/R6 zoning,particularly from the adjacent single- family residential uses to the east and south. These increased setbacks, screening and landscaping measures will reduce the impacts to the residential areas. c. Can all proposed uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Under this proposed planned unit development and its related development/site plan,the City will identify and provide under a future PUD agreement only those uses allowed or approved for this site; identify and provide for needed standards or requirements as the development dictates or as the Planning Commission and City Council require; and ultimately control the amount of density allowed under the overall PUD site. By changing and appending to this property's existing zoning with a Mixed Multi-Family (R5/R6) and allowing a new PUD- Mixed R5/R6 zoning, the City can designate specific or allowable uses and specify special PC 04-12-12 Page 4 of 14 i X o"f RLyN'TER i requirements as necessary. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area since the subject property was zoned? It does not appear this site or the surrounding areas have seen any substantial physical land use or zoning changes in the last 50+ years. The most obvious change is the former golf course property to the north now converted into the Mallard Creek Townhome Association, which developed in the late 1970's. For the most part, the underlying land use has kept pace with the higher density allowances provided for under the existing R6 zoning district. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criterion is not applicable in this case because it is not a City initiated rezoning proposal,but rather a developer initiated proposal. L Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? We believe that, the proposal will bear fully the development restrictions for this Planned Unit Development without any deviations or modifications from the standard ordinance requirements. The property line abutments will have sufficient buffer, setback and screening as called for in the ordinance. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration,topography or location? As noted previously, the two existing residential zoning districts (RI and R6) have provided an ideal opportunity for both the senior apartments and nursing home facilities to operate successfully throughout the last 50+ years, without any reported problems or negative impacts upon the surrounding neighborhoods. The new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 would allow the continuation of these uses at this site, and offers another ideal opportunity to the Developers to provide additional senior housing component (and numbers) to the community. The overall density allowances afforded to this site under the R5/R6 districts will be adhered to, and all parking needs, buffering and landscaping will be provided for in this development plan and future agreements. The Developers have made careful decisions in building designs and siting which should allow the expanded nursing home use to fit in nicely with the site, and still allows for the replacement of the old nursing home area with needed senior, independent living units. For all intents and purposes, it seems appropriate to move ahead with the planned unit development proposal at hand. h. Will the rezoning result in an expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or; 3. The best interest of the community? The existing RI/R6 zoning complies with the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and the new PC 04-12-12 Page 5 of 14 XBRO��•„� %V TER PUD-Mixed R5/R6 should comply with the current 2030 Plan once the plan amendment takes effect. Staff can only safely assume that the Met Council will accept this land use change, as it will provide for additional housing needs and it meets the true spirit and intent of our Comprehensive Plans as far as the redevelopment goals and policies established by said Plan. It appears that the proposal has merit beyond just the particular interests of the developer and should be a development that can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. As far as new developable land or similar high-density residential opportunity sites in Brooklyn Center, there is little or none available. All progress and development in the future will basically•be as expansion and redevelopment such as proposed by this applicant. The proposed 3-story nursing care facility, in proximity to the 4-story senior apartment complex, along with the future 3 or 4 story independent living center to the east, is an appropriate mix of uses generally envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan. Brooklyn Center's population, like that of many first ring suburbs, is aging and there is a need for this type of senior or assisted living housing. Staff believes that a senior and nursing care facility typically provides for a specific populace or age demographic in our community and the metro-wide area,and remains in the best interests of the community to permit such expansion and redevelopment of this site as proposed. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Staff believes that the new zoning has merit beyond just the particular interests of the City and/or the developer(s), in that it provides an ideal opportunity for a planned unit development which provides for additional senior housing needs and health care services. This new PUD-Mixed zoning will assist in the redevelopment and transformation of this site that can be consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The zoning would provide a an opportunity for quality development that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and be considered in the general best interests of the community. The final consideration under this rezoning portion is the allowance of density to be given on this site. Density is calculated based on the following ratios: Land Area District/Use SF/Unit) Density R5 (See Sec. 35-410) 2,700/unit 19.8 units/acre* R6 (See Sec. 35-410) 2,200/unit 16.13 units/acre* Nursing Care Homes 50 beds/acre *calculated at 43,560 sf.(1 acre)divided by 2,700 sf.or 2,200 sf.,respectively The total site is 7.06 acres in size. The 97-bed nursing care requires 1.94 acres of area(97/50 = 1.94). The remaining 5.12 acres is left to accommodate the existing senior assisted living and future independent living centers,which is calculated as follows: ® R5: 5.12 ac.x 16.13 units/ac. = 83 allowable units o R6: 5.12 ac.x 19.8 units/ac. = 102 allowable units PC 04-12-12 Page 6 of 14 i i City of I I3ROO-LY'N CENTER Deducting out the existing 64 units leaves 19 to 3 8 available units for the Phase II portion of this PUD site. The Planning Commission will need to determine whether or not to allow or grant the Applicants the higher density allotment afforded under the R6 zoning district versus the lower R5 district density standards. Although the Applicants indicated 29-38 units,this may be a reflection of the unknown building height of this proposed independent living center. By holding Maranatha to the higher R6 density standards, the site may need to comply with the 4-5 stories in height standard set forth under Zoning Code Section 35-315. i DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SITE &BUILDING PLAN REVIEW Phase I this PUD plan calls for the construction of a three-story, 97-bed, 84-unit skilled nursing care facility. These units consists of 71 private/single client rooms (an increase of 30 over the existing 40 private rooms) and 13 double client rooms. The first floor dimension of the building measures 118-ft. by 286-ft., for an approximate footprint of 33,748 sq. ft. The upper two floors are dimensioned as 117-ft. by 256-ft. or 29,952 sq. ft. each. These floors are identified by the types of care to be provided in each unit (i.e. transitional; long-term; memory care, etc.) and identify the common areas such as kitchen and dining areas; living/congregation areas; conference rooms; exam rooms; activity and therapy rooms; utility rooms; and offices. A small basement area for staff, storage and laundry is also provided. As evident on the current survey plan and aerial photo mapping of the subject site, the existing site contains 97 parking spaces, plus 12 additional spaces in the detached garage structure to the rear. The new nursing care facility will replace and be constructed over the existing 54 stall parking lot located to the south of the assisted living apartments. The detached garage structure will be removed as part of this improvement. The surface parking located to the north of the nursing care buildings consists of 34 spaces and only 9 spaces on the north side of the senior apartments. Plans call for the installation of 81 parking stalls to the north of the site, with 26 stalls to the west of the new nursing care center. PHS indicated up to 65 employees on the largest shift would be using this site on a daily basis. These parking areas will need to accommodate these employees, along with residents and visitors to the site. ❖ BUILDING The building elevations and floor plans for the proposed building addition are attached to this report. The first floor square footage is 31,592 sf.; 2nd-floor is 24,693 sf.; 3rd floor is 24,614 sf; and the basement is 8,720 sf, or total GFA of 89,619 sf. The building's exterior will be comparable on each of the three buildings on the site, with decorative face brick on the lower elements and entries; rock-faced CMU wainscoting or banding along the lower window levels; vertical fiber cement board and battens around the doorway entries and end corridor window PC 04-12-12 Page 7 of 14 i I XBRO iLl'N TER banks; vinyl horizontal siding along the first two levels; and vinyl shake-style siding on the upper floor. The building will be topped off with pre-finished metal fascia's and typical, earth- tone colored asphalt shingles. The building's floors will be divided into different levels of nursing or resident assistance, such as transitional, long-term care and memory care. All three floors have nice-sized dining and living room areas, and other congregate or common areas such as-exercise and therapy rooms, spas, and various activity rooms. The first floor is planned to have a "Community/Chapel" room, along with a kitchen and small deli. Assuming the kitchen and deli will only serve the on- site residents, staff and visitors, and not necessarily the general public, Staff does not have any objections to these uses. The chapel however, may require acknowledgment and tacit approval under the PUD, as "chapels, churches, temples and synagogues" are considered a special use in the Rl, R2 and R5 residential districts. Staff assumes this chapel would be available to the residents and their visitors only and not necessarily open to the general public. The chapel space appears small enough not to cause concerns to Staff, or create any need for increased parking needs on the site. The Applicant's architects indicated the building height as 45-feet from grade to roof peak. The mean height (mid-point between peak to bottom of roof/soffit line) is 38.5 feet. The Zoning Ordinance is silent on how to determine or measure the height of buildings,nor maximum height (in measured feet) of buildings in the R5 or R6 districts; however, multiple family (residential) buildings are limited to 2.5 to 3 stories in the R5 and 4 to 5 stories in the R6 district. A common dimension for story height is 12-13 feet, with a typical or standard pitched roof space consisting of approximately 6-9 feet. Many communities recognize the mean height of a building as the measured(max.)height of buildings. Under the R5 and R6 zoning district, new residential buildings must comply with the following standards: Land Area Width Front Rear Side Corner District (SF/Unit)(1) (Feet) . (2) (5)(6) (3)(5) (2) R5(See Sec.35-410) 2,700/unit 100 35(4) 40(4) 15(4) 25(4). R6(See Sec.35-410) 2,200/unit 100 50(4) 40(4) 20(4) 50(4) 4. When a building of 2-1/2 stories or more in an R5,R6,R7,C1A or C2 zone abuts an RI or R2 zone,the setback of this building from the Rl or R2 property shall be no less than twice the height of the building. The setbacks indicted on the site plan reveals the new nursing care building would be setback 76'-10" from the side yard, and 64'-8" from the rear. The rear line abuts an Rl zone, and therefore the setback standard of"twice the height of the building" comes into play. Adhering to these standards, the 45-ft. overall height would require a 90-foot rear yard setback, while the 38.5-ft. would require a 77-ft. setback. The PUD site plan also identifies the future 4-story, 38 unit independent living facility, which would replace the old nursing home buildings once they are demolished. This residential PC 04-12-12 Page 8 of 14 C;q ar BROOKLYN CENTER I building is identified as the Phase II of this PUD and is slated to be constructed within 3-5 years. The narrative identifies this building as a "29-38 unit" apartment, on account of the unknown allowed density the City will provide under this PUD. Under the R5, the density allotment would only permit 19 new units. A concession to be considered under this PUD plan is to allow the higher density afforded under the R6 zoning, but hold the building to the R5 standard of 3 stories (instead of the 4-5 stories under R6). This lower building height would hopefully lessen the impact upon the RI neighborhood to the east, and lessen the setback encroachment in this area. These standards can easily be provided for under the proposed PUD Plan and agreements Under the PUD process, a reduction of setbacks may be considered, if certain provisions or conditions are offered into the plans, such as buffering or screening measures, which may help reduce the massiveness of the buildings into this encroachment area, and those measures that may alleviate any negative impacts upon the neighboring single-family residential district. The plans call for some landscaping and screening along the south edge, which will be addressed in the"Landscape/Screening"section of this report. ACCESSMARK-1'-1MG The subject site is accessed from 69th Avenue North by means of two separate driveways. The westerly drive lines up with Unity Avenue to the north, and immediately splits off into two directions once you enter the site. The westerly drive leads to the rear parking, loading and garage areas, while the easterly leads to a smaller parking and drive-aisle area along the north side of the senior apartments, and eventually runs over to the covered entry to the nursing home. The easterly drive does not line up with any cross streets, and provides secondary access to the parking area for the nursing care facility and loading area. These access points are scheduled to remain in place, with the westerly drive continuing to split into two directions, but instead of continuing southerly along the front part of the apartment building, the easterly leg continues along a drive parallel with 69th Avenue to serve as mini- frontage road or drive-aisle to the expanded parking lot. The westerly leg continues as it did before along he west edge of the existing and new buildings, and serves as the entry into the new 26 stall parking lot. The parking is reduces on the south area and expanded on the north area,to accommodate 107 total parking stalls. ' The old configuration had 97 open stall spaces and 12 garage spaces (note: the Applicant did indicate that most of these garage units were used for personal or Maranatha storage and not used for any vehicle parking). Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 35-704 [MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED], the following spaces are required for each type of use: 1. Residence a. Two spaces per dwelling unit 4. Miscellaneous b. Rest homes, nursing homes, sanitariums, and homes for the aged and for children: One space for every four beds plus one space for every two PC 04-12-12 Page 9 of 14 Ciq BROOtiLi'N CL'NTER I employees and one space for each staff doctor. Holding PHS/Maranatha to these standards, and based on the existing and new buildings proposed,the site would need to accommodate the following number of parking spaces: ® 64-units(Senior Apts.): 64 x'2= 128 stalls ® 97 beds (nursing home): [1 per 4 beds = 24 stalls] + [1 per 2 emp. @65 = 33 stalls],or 57 stalls . ® COMBINED USES: 128 +57= 185 required parking spaces In 1987, when the 64-unit senior apartment building was approved on Lot 2 (originally approved as 65-units), the Staff Report indicated 130 spaces would be needed (65 @ 2 spaces); however, the approved site plan allowed for only 95 spaces, with up to 35 spaces to be held in a proof—of-. parking arrangement. The Staff report from the 1987 application indicated: "Staff sees-no problem with a deferral of 35 spaces in as -much as the project is geared toward elderly residents. A proof-of-parking covenant, however, will need to be filed with the plat at the County." This agreement was actually provided for under separate Declaration of Covenants Agreement between Maranatha and the City, which is held on file with the City. Interestingly,the 1987 file is unclear on why the site remains deficient on parking, especially the south parking area, nor building permit records which indicate an approved reduction was allowed. Nevertheless, under the PUD review process, a reduction in parking may be granted, subject to the Applicant demonstrating a real need for reducing said numbers or providing suitable alternatives. The narrative submitted by PHS indicates that once Phase II is completed, parking needs will be satisfied with a combination of surface parking and below grade parking under the new 29-38 unit independent living facility. A statement or argument Staff commonly receives is that residential care centers such as these, which cater to a certain demographic group (i.e. elderly, memory care, assisted living), do not require a lot of resident or client parking needs, since most of these individuals no longer drive or require the use of personal vehicles. A similar statement or argument was made when the City approved the Prairie Lodge Assisted Living Center, located at 6001 Earle Brown Drive in 1992, whereas the City approved 59 stalls for 45-units(up to 90 residents). While Staff does not subscribe to this argument, nor any evidence to support or corroborate this statement been submitted, and without making hasty statements that could be mistaken as discriminatory or derogatory upon a certain populace, we are unable to make any recommendation on this reduced level of parking based on this perception. For the sake of this report, and with the personal understanding that this Maranatha Center serves primarily elderly or those requiring special nursing care needs, it may be safe to assume that not many of these residents drive or have a need for personal vehicles. Accepting this statement, it again may be argued that a reasonable reduction in parking is warranted, such as 0.75 or 1 per senior unit,but PC 04-12-12 Page 10 of 14 XEABROOKLYN TE,z maintaining the 1 per 4 beds and employee ratios intact for the nursing care. Based on this formula,parking could be recalculated as follows: ® 64 x 0.75 spaces/unit=48 stalls ® 97 beds (nursing home): [1 per 4 beds =24 stalls] + [1 per 2 emp. @ 65 = 33 stalls], or 57 stalls . ® COMBINED USES: 48+57= 105 required parking spaces The Planning Commission should consider this reduced parking plan as an important element of this site/development plan within this PUD. If you feel this amount of parking provided for under this plan is adequate,then you may favorably recommend. If however,you feel the site is or remains deficient of parking needs, you may request the Applicants submit a revised plan that best meets the overall needs of the residents, staff and visitors to this site. ❖ GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has provided preliminary grading, drainage,utility and erosion control plans which are being reviewed by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. His written comments will be attached for the Commission's review. Sanitary sewer and water main are located within the 69th Avenue right of way, and should accommodate this new addition. An existing drainage easement for ponding purposes will need to be vacated as part of the PUD and future platting of this property. Sanitary sewer utility connections between the mains and the buildings would-be from the north of the building,while water will be brought in from the west edge of the site. The applicant proposes to provide four ponding areas, located at the four corners of the development site. Storm water would be conveyed to these facilities before being discharged into the storm sewer system. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer is reviewing the plan and the Commission's attention is directed to his comments. B-612 curb and gutter is to be provided around all driving and parking areas in accordance with city ordinances. LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan as part of this PUD. All new landscape plans must comply with the City's "Landscape Point System"policy, which is evaluated and determined by the LPS worksheet. This 7.06 acre site requires a total of 559.5 landscape points. The current plan submitted by Pope/Louck's Associates illustrates only 12 new deciduous; 1.7 new coniferous; and 4 decorative/ornamental trees, along with 165 shrubs. The preliminary point total awarded to these new plantings is 310.5 pts. The plans indicate the removal of approximately 54 trees on the site, but the saving of 7 deciduous, 10 coniferous, and 4 ornamentals. The points tally on these trees to be saved equals 136 points. Adding these points into the new planning points equates to 446.5 total points, which is 113 points short of the PC 04-12-12 Page 11 of 14 XBRIi 'N'TLIZ minimum required plantings. The landscape plan appears to have some problems and does match-up with the proposed grading and drainage plans for this PUD site. The coniferous trees on the south side of the building are being placed in a ponding area, and the shade/deciduous trees on the far west edge along the new parking lot area are proposed in the existing (and to remain) drainage ditch. It is also not clear if the remaining trees on the south edge of the site and identified on the Demolition and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C1.0) will be removed to accommodate the new coniferous plantings and screening proposed under this plan. There also appears to be large, open areas absent of plantings, such as the southeast quadrant, easterly edge, and along 69t' Avenue North, and Staff is unable to explain in this report the failure to provide plantings in these important areas. The basis of landscaping is to provide a dense, natural and environmental friendly screening, especially the neighboring single family residences to the south and east of this site. The PUD process may permit reduction of required setbacks (as we detailed in the previous "Building" section of this report),but typically the development and/or Developer must provide suitable and acceptable buffers or screening measures (such as landscaping, fencing, berming or a combination of all)to lessen these impacts upon the adjacent properties. City Code Section 35- 410 (Special Requirements in R3-R7 Districts), Subpart 8 states: Nursing Homes shall provide one six inch diameter tree (long-lived hardwood species only) per 14 beds. At 97 beds, this equates to 7 six-inch trees. However, Staff noted that existing trees saved on the site may be credited towards this requirement. Again, it is not known or identified on these plans what hardwood species trees would be saved or accounted for to meet this requirement. Staff also informed the Applicants that if this requirement could not be met, that a suitable alternative or slightly smaller diameter tree could be offered in the plan. Apparently that was never indicated or provided for Staff review. The Applicants were made aware of these landscaping and screening concerns in previous pre- development review meetings with City Staff, and we are not satisfied this landscape plan properly addresses these concerns or provides adequate screening measures this PUD demands. The Planning Commission should make a determination as to the adequacy of the screening plan and provide. recommendations on this plan at the public hearing. It*should be noted that composite type fences have been provided in other Planned Unit Developments. •:� LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has not submitted a lighting plan for this site. All new lighting would need to meet or exceed those requirements established under Section 35-712 of the city ordinances. City ordinance require that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or down-cast shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. Illumination is not permitted at an intensity level greater than 3 foot candles measured at property lines abutting residentially zoned property'. A submittal and review of a photometric plan indicating all new and existing lighting PC 04-12-12 Page 12 of 14 i 3 rBRohtyTN i must be submitted.prior to any issuance of building permits. There appears to be a new trash compactor/enclosure area located between the existing senior apartments and new nursing care buildings on this site. The plans are absent of any details and we would require these to be submitted as part of any review prior to final site plan and or building permit approvals. The enclosures should be constructed of materials similar to or those that closely match the exterior of the buildings. RECOMMENDATION For all intents and purposes, the rezoning element of this combined PUD application (rezoning and site plan) can be given a favorable recommendation by City Staff, since we believe the rezoning portion meets the criterion used to evaluate such change, and the proposed concept plan associated with this PUD would be an acceptable means of achieving what the Applicants seek in the redevelopment of this site. It is however, the findings by Staff that the Site and Building Plan element to this PUD is in need of some modifications and requires additional information to fully complete a review and provide supportable findings, and therefore should be tabled. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the zoning change of this site from Rl- One Family Residence and R6-Multiple Family Residence to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district,based on the following findings (which are also memorialized in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-005: A. The proposed rezoning appears to demonstrate a clear and public need or benefit to the community and regional area, as it will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life,property values and civic pride in this neighborhood area; B. The rezoning and its related development proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and should provide a positive effect on the community; subject to the site plan issues being fully resolved by the City and Applicants; C. The rezoning will facilitate the redevelopment plan of this site, which will be compatible with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and underlying land use plan. D. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications; E. The proposed rezoning will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area for the.community's senior residential and health care sectors; eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating nursing home facility; and will stimulate new investment in the neighborhood and community. F. The proposed rezoning will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and PC 04-12-12 Page 13 of 14 i Cr/yn! B110 0h LYN CENTER status in the regional market place by the following supporting statements: i. helps to increase employment opportunities,rental occupancy and tax base; ii. provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. iii. the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. iv. The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. With these recommended findings, Staff recommends•the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to authorize the change of zoning of the subject site from Rl-One Family Residence and R6-Multiple Family Residence to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from PS-Public/Semi-Public"to "MF-Multi-Family(High Density)Residential"designation. 2. The rezoning shall become valid only if the City Council adopts the proposed land use amendment change (under separate consideration), and accepts and approves the final development/site and building plans for this Planned Unit Development. 3. All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 04/06/12) and v all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the City Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled. 4. Execution of a PUD development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 5. The Final Development and Site and Building Plan shall be tabled and approved separately by the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. PC 04-12-12 Page 14 of 14 i Innovations in �•' Senior Living CoimntalihCs -_a••- 7 �1 HOUSING SENIOR T1 'T N F. March 15, 2012 Mr. Gary Eitel Director of Business and Development City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Re: Maranatha Care Center Redevelopment Rezoning and PUD Submittal-March 15, 2012 Dear Mr. Eitel, Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS) is seeking approval from the City of Brooklyn Center forthe redevelopment of the current 97 bed Maranatha Care Center located at 5401.691h Avenue N., Brooklyn Center, MN. PHS has been awarded an Exception to the Nursing Home Moratorium from the Minnesota Department of Health to redevelop the current facility. Currently the Maranatha site consist of a 97 bed Care Center and a 64 unit Assisted Living Building situated on two parcels, Lot 1&Lot 2, Block 1 of Maranatha Addition. PHS is in the process of obtaining a preliminary plat combining the two parcels and applying for Rezoning and a PUD to best accommodate the uses and structures of the project. The project will be developed in different phases allowing for the current Care Center to remain in place while the new Care Center is constructed. Phase I of the project will consist of the 97 bed Care Center and will be constructed in phases as follows: o I(a)—Expand parking on the north side of the site along 69th Avenue m I(b)—Demolish existing garages in the south parking lot Q IN—Construct new 97 bed Care Center I(d)—Demolish existing Care Center I(e)—Construct new entrance into the Care Center off of the north parking lot In addition to the construction of the new Care'Center we are proposing a future Phase II consisting of 29—38 units of Independent Living apartments. With the addition of Independent Apartments the Maranatha site will provide a full continuum of care for the senior residents of Brooklyn Center. Phase II is anticipated to be constructed within 3—5 years. The expansion of the north parking lot along 69th Avenue along with the new parking stalls on the west side of the site will replace the existing south parking lot and will create 107 total parking stalls. This is an increase of 10 stalls from the current 97 stalls. When Phase II is constructed parking needs will be satisfied with a combination of additional surface parking and below grade parking under the building. i 2845 North Hamiine Ave. •>Suite 100 Roseville,Minnesotii 5511.3 : wwtt--.seniorpartners.com (651)631-6300 : Fax (651)631-6301 &M-891-9126 As Phase I is a Redevelopment of the current facility and maintaining the same services, number of units and staff,traffic flows and patterns will remain the same. A Landscape Architect has been commissioned by POPE Architects and is in the process of working with the Architect and Civil Engineer to develop a Landscape Plan. i The following are responses to guideline questions outlined in the Rezoning Application: A. There is a clear public need to replace the current 50+year old facility as it is functionally and conditionally obsolete. The new PUD would allow for a new up-to-date Care Center serving the older adults of Brooklyn Center.Twenty nine (29) - thirty eight(38) units of Independent Housing in a future phase are also planned for in the PUD allowing for a full continuum of older adult housing and care in one setting. B. The current and proposed zoning is consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classification. C. All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development of the subject property. D. There have not been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the property was zoned. E. The redevelopment of Marantha Care Center fits within the city-initiated rezoning proposals as it revitalizes a current site and maintains 97 beds of existing Senior Care within Brooklyn Center along with a proposed future phase of 29-38 units of Independent Senior housing. F. Rezoned parcel will fully bear the ordinance development restrictions under the approved PUD. G. The subject property is currently suited for the present zoning district. H. The approved Zoning/PUD will allow for the flexibility of multiple types of senior housing within one parcel creating a full continuum of care setting for Brooklyn Center senior residents. I. The redevelopment of Maranatha Care Center is in the interest of older adult population of Brooklyn Center. The new facility will provide an up-to-date living environment along with the latest technology, nursing and physical therapy and spiritual care. PHS looks forward to the opportunity of revitalizing an aging care center and serving the older adults of Brooklyn Center. The development of the new facility will provide 71 private rooms (an increase of 30 over the exiting 40 private-rooms)and 13 double rooms. The Resident rooms will be enhanced with private bathrooms including showers and also include a kitchenette with a fridge and sink. In addition to the enhanced resident rooms, community spaces will be added including a Chapel/Community Room, Deli, Large Activity Room, and enlarged PT/OT areas. All of these enhancements will improve the ADA Compliancy, Nurse Call System and Technology of what currently exists within the Maranatha facility. Thank you for your consideration and partnership in this exciting project. Sincerely, Deb Zarbok/Project Developer Senior Housing Partners/Presbyterian Homes Cc: Tim Benetti/Planning and Zoning Specialist Greg Woollums/POPE Architects i 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 REGULAR SESSION MAY 17,2012 ROLL CALL Chair Rahn, Commissioners Scott Burfeind, Kara Kuykendall, Stan Leino, Carlos Morgan and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmember Carol Kleven, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development, Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Michael Parks was absent and excused. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—APRIL 26 2012 There was a motion.by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Burfeind,to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2012 meeting as submitted. Chair Rahn abstained since he was not at the meeting. The motion passed. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2012-004 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2012-004, a proposed amendment to the City of Brooklyn Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update changing a "PS-Public and Semi-Public" land use designation to "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" for the property located at 5401 — 69th Avenue North (Maranatha Homes Care Center property. This application was tabled at the April 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-17-12 for Application No. 2012-004.) Mr. Benetti described the history of the property and how the zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments evolved over the years since the facility was constructed in 1959. He also explained to the Commission how the application should be evaluated based on the city's Rezoning and Evaluation Guidelines and Land Use and Redevelopment Objectives. He further explained Housing Goals and Objectives which should be used in evaluating the Land Use Amendments. Mr. Benetti stated that the city's recommendation is to create a new MF-Mixed "Enhanced" (Multi Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks) zoning district/land use category. By creating this land use category and determining that the site must maintain the 5-17-12 Page 1 I i enhanced land use setbacks, the developer cannot do anything in the areas that the city calls out as enhanced. The PUD approval would lock the desired setbacks on the site. PUBLIC HEARING—APPLICATION NO. 2012-004 There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Schonning,to reopen the public hearing on Application No. 2012-004, at 7:19 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. John Mehrkens with Maranatha, stated that they met with the neighborhood at an open house and met with staff several times in the last few weeks. He added that they concur with the staff's recommendation and they have resubmitted drawings for review by staff to indicate the changes proposed. Randy Christianson, 7001 Regent Ave N, stated he is still opposed to this plan and his biggest concern is the fit of the building on the site. He stated that he feels they will go back to the old plan and build a taller building. He added that he feels there is not enough parking on the site and the building will take away the view and eliminate daylight and sunshine from the neighboring properties. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she feels he is speaking on behalf of the neighbors and she wanted to know if Mr. Christianson feels the proposed plan is worse than what is there now. Mr. Christianson responded that the change will dramatically affect the neighborhood and there will be more traffic around the neighborhood. Commissioner Kuykendall stated what the city is trying to do is fulfill the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and assist a good business partner in the city with a building that will be aesthetically appealing. She added that they will make sure there is adequate parking and the approved plan is followed. She also stated that they need to weigh the pros and cons and how this development affects the community as a whole. Mr. Christianson responded that this is a small neighborhood within the community and while some things are good for a neighborhood, that doesn't mean they are a good fit. He added that the senior apartment addition to the site in 1987 was not a good fit to the neighborhood and added more rentals to the area. Chair Rahn again asked Mr. Christianson if he feels what exists is better than what is being proposed. Mr. Christianson stated that the other neighbors are not here because they feel that the Commission does not care what the neighbors think and will approve this no matter what. Commissioner Kuykendall asked if he would prefer that the facility be removed and it be replaced with single family homes? Mr. Christianson stated that single family homes would be a better fit. Chair Rahn stated that this facility is more than a business; it is home to many people. 5-17-12 Page 2 i Ray Christianson, 6803 Toledo Ave, stated that he has lived there for 47 years and Maranatha guaranteed that the R-1 would stay R-1 forever. He stated he feels what they want to do will not fit on that property and they should put it somewhere else. He added that maybe if they would have updated their property, and taken better care of it over the years,they would not have to tear the business down. Tom Schultz, 6831 Toledo Ave N, stated that he understands that Maranatha has property rights and he understands there has been a dramatic change in the plans submitted. He feels that they are putting the cart before the horse and the zoning should not take place until the site plan is approved. Mr. Randy Christianson, stated his big concern is if they go ahead with the land use is there a way to turn it back? Mr. Benetti stated that the land use amendment is conditioned so that it only becomes valid if the PUD is approved by the City Council. Further, PUD rezoning must comply with the underlying land use and final approval must come from the City Council and the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Christianson asked if they could also apply for an amendment to the PUD. Mr. Benetti replied that an amendment can be made to an approved PUD, however, the PUD sets in stone a development concept and if an applicant wants to change a plan, they must reapply for an amendment to the previously approved PUD and go through the approval process once again. Carlos Morgan arrived at 7:24 p.m. Andrea Kronbeck, 6825 Toledo Ave N, stated she spends a lot of time outside and doesn't want to be outside looking at a tall building with the sun being blocked. She also stated that this isn't a small town feel and someone was out surveying her property and they said they were making sure water wouldn't get onto her yard. She stated she is concerned how construction will affect her property. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2012-004. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Leino stated that he is struggling with the comments made by the residents, however, the applicant is attempting to make a better place for its residents and he appreciates that. He added that the City can advance a goal in the Comprehensive Plan by approving this application but he might not seem totally in favor if his own property abutted this site. Commissioner Burfeind stated that they have had five weeks to think about this and he still remembers a question asked at the last public hearing regarding how the City benefits from this. He further described a recent visit to a new senior facility and was amazed at how the building was an improvement to the area and the community as well as the quality of life for its residents. 5-17-12 Page 3 i Commissioner Burfeind stated that it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to make sure this is done and done right. He stated he also understands how the neighbors feel but if he lived next to the building he would be in favor of it because the people that live there are residents of the city of Brooklyn Center. Commissioner Schonning stated that his mother worked in a critical care unit of a nursing home and he spent many hours in a nursing home as a child. He added that he is thrilled that Presbyterian Homes is willing to do something with the facility to improve the lives of the residents in the nursing home because what is there now is obsolete and very outdated. Chair Rahn stated the use of the land has been established since it was built in 1959 and to be consistent with the recommendations of staff, he is in favor of the Enhanced Mixed Use since it deals with some of the challenges where the property abuts R-1 properties. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-05 RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM "PS-PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC" TO "MF-MIXED ENHANCED" (MULTI- FAMILY MIXED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH ENHANCED SETBACKS) RELATIVE TO LAND GENEP.ALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTH�IEST OTJADF.PNT OF THE CITY ADDRESSED AS 5401 —5415 69TH AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-05. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Kuykendall, Leino, Morgan and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its May 29, 2012 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. APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOMES, INC. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2012-003, a proposed rezoning of property located at 5401-5415 69th Avenue North, from R6 Multiple Family Residence and R1 One Family Residence to new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Multiple Family Residence), along with a proposed site and building development plan for a new four story, 97 bed nursing care center (Phase I) and a future development plan (Phase II) of a 38 unit senior independent living facility. This application was tabled at the April 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-17-12 for Application No. 2012-003.) Mr. Benetti stated that the Development/Site and Building Plan review and consideration under this PUD Application must be tabled or postponed to the May 31, 2011 meeting. 5-17-12 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING—APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Burfeind,to reopen the public hearing on Application No. 2012-003, at 8:07 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. Randy Christianson, 7001 Regent Ave N, stated that he would like to review the revised plan closer and he feels that the underground parking is not truly underground. He also feels that the tallest part of the building is closer to his parent's home than on the previous plan. He feels that rezoning a section at a time creates a bunker effect for the neighbors. He stated that his parents are seniors and they live in their home so that is senior housing. He questions if the City needs anymore senior housing and he would like to see some statistics on the need for these types of facilities. He stated that the second building constructed in 1987 was built as senior housing and is now assisted living. He asked what dictates what these buildings will become when there is no longer a need for senior housing. He also feels that more people bring their elderly parents home and not to these communities. Tom Schultz, 683!Toledo Ave N, asked for clarification on the location of the parking areas since it appears that on the new plan there are parking places and the road next to the single family homes. He feels that the location of this area encroaches into the 100 ft. setback and the green zone and will create noise for the neighbors. He also feels that a 2 1/2 story building is actually taller than that with a high pitched roof. Chair Rahn asked for clarification on the parking requirements. Mr. Benetti explained that the original 64 unit building required two parking spaces per unit which required 120 spaces on the site. They were not able to meet 120 spaces, which required them to provide a proof of parking to the city. However, the site does not require a lot of parking since the site was for older people who typically don't drive much. Mr. Christianson asked if the rezoning changes if the site plan is not approved. Mr. Benetti stated if rezoning moves forward, it is based on an approved redevelopment plan. If the plan is determined inappropriate, the City Council can send it back to Maranatha for resubmittal and the PUD and rezoning are tied together. Mr. Christianson stated he feels that the parking on the plan is not adequate. Commissioner Burfeind stated that he agrees that the proposed parking needs to be looked at further. Mr. Eitel stated that the city's ordinances regulate parking requirements on the site. However, a proof of parking can be provided to verify that there is existing adequate parking on the site. Commissioner Leino stated that he understands that a traffic analysis will be provided with the site plan review and that will provide an opportunity to look at the parking further. 5-17-12 Page 5 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner Burfeind , to close the public hearing on Application No. 2012-003. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-06 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME INC. TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401- 5415 — 69TH AVENUE NORTH FROM RI (ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE) AND R6 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) TO A NEW PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-MIXED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE) DISTRICT There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall; to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-06. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Kuykendall, Leino, Morgan and Schorning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its May 29, 2012 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. APPLICATION NO. 2012-007 MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOMES INC. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2012-007, consideration of a proposed Preliminary Plat of Maranatha 2nd Addition, for property located at 5401-5415 691h Avenue North to replat two existing lots into one large single lot for a senior apartment and nursing care campus. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-17-12 for Application No. 2012-007.) Mr. Benetti stated that a public hearing has been scheduled and notices sent to surrounding property owners, however, due to delays in staff receiving plans with adequate time for review staff is recommending that the application be tabled until May 31, 2012. PUBLIC HEARING—APPLICATION NO. 2012-007 There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall,to open the public hearing on Application No. 2012-007, at 8:32 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. TABLE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Schonning,to table the public hearing on Application No. 2012-007. The motion passed unanimously. 5-17-12 Page 6 i i The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. ACTION TO RECOMMEND TABLING OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO 2012-007 SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOMES, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Schonning,to table Planning Commission Application No. 2012-007. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Kuykendall, Leino Morgan, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission will continue the public hearing for Planning Commission Application No. 2012-007 at their May 31, 2012 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 2012-006 LOREN VAN DER SLIK/GA TLIN DEVELOPMENT Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2012-006, a request for preliminary plat and site and building plan approval related to the former Brookdale Mall Food Court building, now part of the new Shingle Creek Crossing PUD, located at 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-17-12 for Application No. 2012-006.) Mr. Benetti explained that upon further review and consideration, Gatlin Development Company has requested Planning Commission Application No. 2012-006 be withdrawn. He added that the applicant intends to resubmit a new Shingle Creek Crossing PUD amendment request along with an updated Site and Building Plan for the old Food Court Building, and an updated Preliminary Plat for certain lots inside this PUD project site. These items will potentially be reviewed at the June 28, 2012 meeting. ACTION TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-006 SUBMITTED BY LOREN VAN DER SLIK FOR GATLIN DEVELOPMENT FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL There was a motion by Commissioner Leino, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to accept the withdrawal of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-006. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Kuykendall, Leino, Morgan and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM There were no discussion items. 5-17-12 Page 7 OTHE R BUSINESS SHINGLE K CROSSING UPDATE 1N S—S ING E CREE Mr. Eitel provided an update of the Shingle Creek Crossing development including showing some aerials of the site that show the near completion of Wal-Mart. He also demonstrated the proposed revisions to the site including the locations of various retail buildings and restaurants There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Leino,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed bv: Rebecca Crass II 5-17-12 Page 8 Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home Inc . (Presbyterian Homes) 5401 & 5415 - 69tH Avenue N . Planned Unit Development Application No. zo12- 003 City Council Meeting May 29, 2012 Introduction Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., - requesting rezoning from R1 (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development of Mixed-Multiple Family Residence) district. Consideration of Development/Site Plan of new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility — Phase Consideration of a future, 38-unit senior residential housing component to replace the old nursing home facility — Phase II Request to consider ONLY the rezoning element of this proposed PUD Site/Aerial Map i cm Tm tt H � 4 a,x �m J u i Rl � ��_ • � � Yf��?J i''�.i iy , - t • 4 ter, I r 1 t x ■ Aiii MARANATHA HOMES PROJECT SITE Feet RAVHMI.IN rr H!x .Sg r to - am- rRC M ltD. 1�` r — t The Maranatha campus k = w. consists of two lots. ,, •n " °° - - ' The nursing home parcel (5401 — 69th Ave.) is 3.78 acres in size and is situated in the R1 district. • The existing 64-unit senior assisted living facility (5415 — 69th Ave.) is 3.28 acres in size and RI R6 situated in the R6 district. m 68TH AV -M Zoning- Issues The new PUD- Mixed R5/R6 zoning would allow the development of this site with a new 97-bed skilled nursing care facility, and future i development of a yet to be determined senior residential housing component i Need to determine the appropriate zoning to accommodate proposed uses under this new PUD i Guidelines a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? e. In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning, 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, or 3) the best interests of the community? i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Density Calculations Land Area Density R5 (See Sec. • ; 2,7oo/unit 19.8 units/acre* • - : Sec. 2,2oo/unit 16.13 units/acre* • - 5o beds/acre *calculated at 43,560 sf. (1 acre) divided by 2,700 sf. or 2,200 sf., respectively. Site is 7.06 acres in size. The 97-bed nursing care requires 1.94 acres of area (97/50 = 1.94) The remaining 5.12 acres is left to accommodate the existing senior assisted living and future independent living centers, which is calculated as follows: •R5: 5.12 ac. x 16.13 units/ac. = 83 allowable units •R6: 5.12 ac. x 19.8 units/ac. = 102 allowable units Deducting the 64 units leaves 19 - 38 available units for Phase II Developer requests the ability to add 38 units i �I • s---9rH A uENUF NORTH Ab I If I i i I {I 1 r EXISTING 64 UNIT ASSISTED LIVING < i TO REMAIN ❖ Presented at the I� April 1 FUTURE 2, 2012 PC S' - I m, 4 STORY I 8 UN . '. INDEPENDENT— T i LIVING. U 1 I NEW i I PARKING :1 I 1 I NEW 96 BED SKILLED j NURSING -j%\`�- EXIST.97 BED SKILLED FACILITY-TCU/ �/ _�`\ NURSING FACILITY i TCU TO i LTC/MC �// , BE DEMOLISHED _- - I SITE PLAN NDRTH ^ 9TH AVAVENUE NORTH ` II - I I -- Q IZI ❖ This site plan was submitted to the City n � {( �t� BI PAR 5 - ---� Y r LL L I May 16, 2012 ;ql IH; EXISTING 64 UNIT IVI', ASSISTED LIVING TO REMAIN I � w •'• Not to be considered or officially reviewed under I I "` ` ' tonight's presentation TOTAL PROOF OF • 1 ( PARK]NG I; ••• Development/Site Plan I ' / �\ / (a?STALLS) I' scheduled to be FUTURE - I I____ `. 2 112 STORY reviewed at the May 31, 38 UNIT INDEPENDENT 23 PARKW, FACILITY 2012 Planning f STALLS NEW 97 BED SKILLED DERGROUND NURSING RKING FOR 38 I I d Commission meeting FACILITY-TCUI I" LTC/MC PROPOSED LL JL! l..'.'....,..` I POND •• I1 Development Plan must Ii I be approved under any new PUD Rezoning LL PNtE LANE --�_ . . .-. ........................ TOTAL PROOF OF PARKING _ I f (87 STALLS) buffer -- -- setback I " f � ' �t I EE � I n I • • L_ _� I M 0- _ M _ _ I Findings The proposed rezoning appears to demonstrate a clear and public need or benefit to the community and regional area, as it will improve the appearance of the city and enhance the quality of life, property values and civic pride in this neighborhood area; The rezoning and its related development proposal will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and should provide a positive effect on the community; subject to the site plan issues being fully resolved by the City and Applicants; ® The rezoning will facilitate the redevelopment plan of this site, which will be compatible with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and underlying land use plan. The proposed zoning is consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications, The proposed rezoning will provide an opportunity to provide an ideal redevelopment of a targeted area for the community's senior residential and health care sectors, eliminates an obsolescent or deteriorating nursing home facility; and will stimulate new investment in the neighborhood and community. The proposed rezoning will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place by the following supporting statements: a; helps to increase employment opportunities, rental occupancy and tax base; provides for the redevelopment of an obsolete and underutilized site into a use(s) that address needs in the marketplace, especially for senior housing and life-cycle housing needs. the new site will use shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and diversity of uses. c The proposed land use amendment will provide an opportunity to create a new zoning district provides for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good design. Staff Recommendation Recommend to the City Council to change the zoning of the subject site from RZ-One Family Residence and R6-Multiple Family Residence to PUD-Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development-Mixed Multiple Family Residence) district, subject to the following conditions: The Metropolitan Council approval of the land use amendment change of this site from "PS-Public and Semi-Public" and "MF-Multi-Family (High Density)" to a new overall land use of "MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks)" designation. The rezoning shall become valid only if the City Council adopts the proposed land use amendment change (under separate consideration), and accepts and approves the final development/site and building plans for this Planned Unit Development. All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 04/o6/12) and all other subsequent or updated conditions required by the City Engineer are submitted and/or fulfilled. Execution of a PUD development agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. The Final Development and Site and Building Plan shall be tabled and approved separately by the Planning Commission at a future meeting date. Planning Commission Recommendation ( May 17t� Meeting) TABLED consideration of the Development/Site and Building Plan of this PUD application to the May 31St meeting, TABLED consideration of the proposed Preliminary Plat to the May 31St meeting; i Unanimous) recommended City Council toaccept the y y proposed zoning change of the subject site, from Rz and R6 to a new PUD- Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development of Mixed- Multiple Family Residence) district June 25, 2012 — City Council will conduct an additional public hearing on the PUD Rezoning; consideration of the Final Development/Site Plan; and the Preliminary Plat 01 1 - 1 E 0 Requested Action 1) City Council adopt the Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2012-003 - submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for the Rezoning of Land Located at 5401- 5415 — 69th Avenue North from RZ (One Family Residence) and R6 (Multiple Family Residence) to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development — Mixed Multiple Family Residence) 2) City Council consider the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, at 5401-5415 69th Avenue North: Requested Council Action: —Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for June 25, 2012. QUESTIONS , City Council Agenda Item No. 10a I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerlc SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5812 Camden Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License and Mitigation Plan for 5812 Camden Ave N. If the Council chooses not to issue the license, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for denial of the rental license for the next Council meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a renewal rental license. This property qualifies for a Type IV provisional rental license based on nine property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection and one validated police incidents/nuisance calls for the past twelve months. Staff from Administration, Building& Community Standards and Police Departments worked with the property owner regarding a mitigation plan,which requires Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program, and other items included by City ordinance for a Type IV License. A Mitigation Plan has been developed addressing the requirements of the ordinance and any issues specific to the property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Type IV Rental License on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the attached copy of the Mitigation Plan for more information. The following is a brief history of the license process actions: 02-02-2012 The Owner, Robert Miguel Rodriguez, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 5812 Camden Ave N, a single family dwelling. 03-06-2012 An initial rental inspection was conducted and nine property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 04-10-2012 A second rental inspection was conducted and passed. 04-10-2012 City records indicate one police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the past twelve months. (Burglary on 7-12-2011.) 04-17-2012 A letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases 1, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 04-30-2012 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-17-2012 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-18-2012 A final letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a Mission:Ensuring at attractive,cleat,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust it COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM rental license. Le. Completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-18-2012 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held May 29, 2012. If approved, after six months, a new rental license will be required. The license process will begin in approximately four months. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. Excerpt from Chapter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1. Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2. The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. 3. Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4. Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence,the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan, the Council will consider, among other things,the facility, its management practices,the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license,the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people anti preserves the public trust I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 5. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Rental License Category Criteria Policy — Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1. Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2. Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect,monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3. Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4. License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected, the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units,to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type I—3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+units 0-0.75 Type II—2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III— 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV—6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+units Greater than 3 b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide,rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of"Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units` Greater than 0.25 but not more than l 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive connnunity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: We will ensure a safe and secure community We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods P g Attachment - Mitigation Plan I Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive comnnnni{v that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 04/30/2012 10:52 9528565124 PROTON INVESTMENTS PAGE 01 City of Brooklyn Center Phone:763- TTY 711 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway r ax.763-569 3360 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 www. 9 'it`..%vc+die:'Et.}l�'.•}_--.Y�•v.i�l1�.-..'..• .�.7.,:...:_-•_• '. '. Rental License Mitigation Plan--Type N Rental License Handwritten plans will not be accepted.Please type or use ftllable form on City website. 'rx° .r»P•'a•:^ - `.7.' x 'y,+V�:lr°-'�9':., a",n,_i_. .w- .g,Y �. �" ?_`C� �d o•__':7''`%>:�.,;.-xr.�r. :!7�'t��;'?��. .�� tS '� 4 .�'Ta •fit^•'-_ .��:1='�..r,,��.-:�> Pro'p. n Address: - Y. _ - 2=:Gam r�N`une:� 'O n �°Zo. .S rofon°Inves`rrefl���' `t"`�c'°r• ' Fri t' . rAddiess: - 'A' dr •'•:• . :�S' lJ.ci''x:a:7Ei��w:,F1.i�'�� °`•d0%` ..,�...:,._.{._,.,,.:. 'joDfl•,s•��� =�7_�,,::-,. •.�:��.._:.:`�i�':-`�: - �:' Owner Phone: 952�50 =8 '10> 6 =245=979:0;;' 'Owner Email: -- - �-�; •`A'`eiafEfiiail:Fr°�;='.",::�� ..rbrtrod .ea_tthlirtknet:;'� - _ =�'-g - _.rb,_�_trod; •ear� lnk:�_et,,, ; . Rerital:Lceti�e;: �Ne�:: - :<Re'•e'sval:_scG�lrienf��ieez�s�'''. iratioii�I�atei'=.. •r. i S.: - `m•`' :ent ce`''e-' `.`haft `oti'• c` � s - ';`rz'm Based on property conditions and/or validated police nuisance incidents,the above referenced property qualifies for a Type IV Rental License. Before your license application can be considered by the City Council, a Mitigation Plan must be completed and reviewed by City staff A fully completed Mitigation Plan must be submitted immediately to ensure timely completion of the license application process. The Mitigation Plan should indicate the steps being taken to'correct identified violations and the measures-that will be taken to ensure ongoing compliance with City Ordinances and applicable Codes. The Mitigation Plan provides an opportunity to review property concerns and identify possible solutions to improve the overall conditions and management of the property. j NOTICE: Time is Running Out--You must TAKE ACTION NOW in order to meet all the city ordinance and Mitigation flan requirements within this*pending license period and avoid legal actions, _ ",;-:. -�. •Ycz£:'6`sn}r== °' de:� 'E� :N�6�? :?�i�„8�t'Y,�--�?�`.-y.•1- ';t.p'�'.'"`, -t ..T,'�°r,ti��vs�:::�.`'i°�-�="'.j':`:'. '.. Submit the following documents with the Mitigation Plan for approval: v i 1. Crime Free Housing Program Training Certificate(if completed,if not completed,please include F-71���� scheduled date in Section C. 2. Copy of Lease including Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum 9 T3. Submit written report by 10t4 of each month(after license approval). .�e. f+T?!�isA�° WAI• �N .'tiQ `~ - Y.:!s7: ,rf wi`-`-�i.`t'rr."KL"y+i:Eor"-i:'. Phasel 1. Use written lease including Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum. 5712. Conduct criminal background check for all prospective tenants. Provide documentation to City if �--,- requested. 3. Pursue the eviction of tenants who violate the terms of the lease or any addendums. Page 1 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 I i �I 04/30/2012 10:52 9528565124 PROTON INVESTMENTS PAGE 02 4. Attend City approved eight hour Crime.Free Housing course. Date Course Completed: I! / 1112,009 or Date Course Scheduled: Phase II Complete Security.Assessment and implement all security improvements recommended by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Date Scheduled: Will call Becky 1 f 2 Improvements to be completed by: -2- Phase III ®t will attend a minimum of 50%of the ARM meetings(two). 1 wit attend the ARM meetings scheduled for: AlAy to, & SHPT 13 Do these two meeting dates occur before the*Pending Type XV License expiration date? �Yes No (*See Section A)If no,you will only be able to qualify for a Type IV Rental License upon renewal. I will have no repeat code violations previously documented within the past year. ,For properties with four or more units: ©} I will conduct resident training annually that includes crime prevention techniques. �1 I will hold regular resident meetings. Based on condition and age,estimated replacement dates are provided for common capital items. Funding should be considered accordingly. However,items broken,wom or otherwise in violation prior to the estimated replacement date will re uiro earlier corrections. Date Last Replaced Estimated Replacement Date Furnace/AC- 204 Water Heater- Kitchen Appliances- j0 Laundry Appliances- 2000 41*1 Exterior -Paint/Siding,fascia,trim 26V 2U Y -Windows r -' -hoof r Z ZD -Fence .---- --� -Shed A -Garage -Driveway -Sidewalks .�--- Smoke Alarms&Carbon Monoxide Alarms 2011 Other(s) r".�` �•�y::_ -,zed< .:.!s,F=„�.4�,,��4r�:v;'�*r �4'":r^�,-— cr•;r=.;�<;:`.=in;' 'S0G#IO,7Q?�St�-�a��F ."v!Sy�.. _� i•_A S 1w�'�'d;.�`�,%:.L.,�=����, Implementing the following best practices may assist in the management of your property. By checking the boxes below,you agree to. 1. Check in with tenants every 30 days. 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a month. Page 2 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 04/30/2012 10:52 9528565124 PROTON INVESTMENTS PAGE 03 i IL=J 3. Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendums. 4. Provide lawn/snow service. S. Provide garbage service. LL--j 6. Install security system. 7. Provide maintenance service plan for appliances. Name of service co.: ® 8. 1 am and will remain current on payment of utility fees,taxes,assessments,fines,penalties and other financial claims due to the City. 9. Other(s): According to Lease,Tenant is responsible for utilities and lawn/snow service. Please read thoroughly: If the Type IV Rental License is approved by the City Council,the Licensee must comply with the approved Mitigation Plan and all applicable city codes. No later than the I0'h of each calendar month,the licensee must submit to the Building and Community Standards Department a written report describing all steps taken to comply with the Mitigation Plan. I verify that all information provided above is true and accurate. I understand that if I do not comply with an approved Mitigation Plan comply with all applicable ordinances within the license peri4 or-0 erate beyond . complaint or license review may enforcement actions such as citations formal om lam Y the license expiration date, p result. ROBERT M RODRIGUEZ Owner or Agent Na e a d Title(Please Print) April 29, 2012 Owner or Agent 1 Ade Date ANDREY SOKUREC Additional Ow ent Name and Tii e(if applicable)(Please Print) April 29, 2012 Additional wn A ignature (if applicable) Date For Cky/JUse--Mitigation Plan Approved By: Police Department/Title . Date Buildin ' ommunity Standards Department/Title _ Dates Page 3 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 • City Council Agenda Item No. lOb i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5049 Ewing Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License and mitigation plan for 5049 Ewing Ave N. If the Council chooses not to issue the license, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for denial of the rental license for the next Council meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a new rental license. This property qualifies for a Type IV Provisional Rental License, based on 13 property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection. Staff from Administration, Building& Community Standards and Police Departments worked with the property owner regarding a mitigation plan, which requires Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program, and other items included by City ordinance for a Type IV License. A Mitigation Plan has been developed addressing the requirements of the ordinance and any issues specific to the property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Type IV Rental License on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the attached copy of the Mitigation Plan for more information. The following is a brief history of the license process actions: 02-13-2012 The Owner,Raymond Glasser, applied for an initial rental dwelling license for 5049 Ewing Ave N, a single-family residential property. 02-17-2012 An initial rental inspection was conducted. Thirteen property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria) 03-16-2012 A second rental inspection was conducted and passed with weather deferral. 03-19-2012 A letter was sent to the owner(s)notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases 1, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 04-17-2012 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-15-2012 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-18-2012 A final letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. Submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 05-18-2012 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held May 29, 2012. If approved, after six months, a new rental license will be required. The license process will begin in approximately four months. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. Excerpt from Chapter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1. Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2. The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. I 3. Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, 11, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4. Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence,the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan,the Council will consider, among other things,the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license,the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. i Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 5. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month,the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,dean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i I I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Rental License Category Criteria Policy—Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1. Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2. Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license,inspect, monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3. Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4. License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected,the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units,to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type I—3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+units 0-0.75 Type II—2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III— 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+units' Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV—6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+units Greater than 3 b. Police Service Calls. . Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide,rape, robbery, aggravated assault,burglary,theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 5188.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of"Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3.4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: -We will ensure a safe and secure community -We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Attachment -Mitigation Plan l Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive conununio� that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i City of Brooklyn Center Phone:763-569-3300 TTY 711 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Fax:763-569-3360 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Rental License Mitigation Plan--Type IV Rental License Handtpritten plans will not be accepted,Plerise type or us•e finable form on City ipebsite. �SeclOn A� Propertylnforintto *. *-_ ,.�.. r.r .1. z., ...t ?.r Propeity Address '5049 EwingAve North oivaer Nanne Ray Glasser Loeal Agent Sarah Biondi Owner Aadtess Address; kl t PO box 732!'- 32! Bismarck;ND 58507 2 7ti Wisconsin Ave N Golden Val(ey MN 55427 Owner o ne 701.-400 3142 Agent Plnone 95,2 500 1,825 ;'ON $n ail .e ls midconet :. sarahglaz hotmall com Rental License RE Newi F-1,Rencwal: Current Li-eerise Expiration Date ' *Pending Type IV License Exp.Date: 3ixnroiilla` rotucnrre�tt7icenseex'irrrtion - Based on property conditions and/or validated police nuisance incidents,the above referenced property qualifies for a Type IV Rental License, Before your license application can be considered by the City Council, a Mitigation Plan must be completed and reviewed by City staff. A fully completed Mitigation Plan must be submitted immediately to ensure timely completion of the license application process. The Mitigation Plan should indicate the steps being taken to correct identified violations and the measures that will be taken to ensure onpoine compliance with City Ordinances and applicable Codes. The Mitigation Plan provides an opportunity to reviewproperty concerns and identify possible solutions to improve the overall conditions and management of the property. NOTICE. Time is Running Out--You trust TAKE ACTION NOW in order to meet all the city ordinance and Mitigation Plan requirements within this*pending license period and avoid legal actions. rt Secttgn B2etei►`re�boc menf r Submit the following documents with the Mitigation Plan for approval: L Crime Free Housing Prograin Training Certificate(if completed,if not completed,please inc tilde �j scheduled date in Section C, l V JJ 2, Copy of Lease including Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum 3, Submit written report by 10°i of each month(alter license approval), $echon.G C,r.<me Free.Honstn Pro rnmlte" uirements f' t ,, eI ✓ 1. Use written lease including Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum. 2. Conduct criminal background check for all prospective tenants. Provide documentation to City if requested. r '3. Pursue tine eviction of tenants who violate the terms of the lease or any addendums. Page 1 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 i r-774, Attend City approved eight hour Crime Free Housing course. Date Course Completed: or Date Course Scheduled: May 16111 Pl►ase II Complete Security Assessment and implement all security improvements recommended by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Date Scheduled: April 16th Improvements to be completed by; June 1 st Phase III I Y I I will attend a minimum of 50%of the ARM meetings(two). 1 will attend the ARM meetings scheduled for: May 101h & July 12th Do these two meeting dates occur before the*Pending Y)pe IV License expiration date? ❑Yes❑No (*See Section A)If no,you will only be able to qualify for n Type IV Rental License upon renewal. I will have no repeat code violations previously documented within the past year. Ror properiies with four or snore thins, I will conduct resident training annually that includes crime prevention techniques. I will hold regular resident meetings. ;Sectttin,D I;ori'Te`r> Ca italIirl rovaineritsPlan - r..., ., __ y , Based on condition and age,estimated replacement dates are provided for common capital items. Funding should be considered accordingly. However,items broken,worn or otherwise in violation prior to the estimated replacement date will require earlier corrections. Date Last Replaced Estimated Replacement Date Furnace/AC- 2000 2025 Water Heater- 2000 2025 Kitchen Appliances- 2011 2021 Laundry Appliances- 2011 2021 Exterior -Paint/Siding,fascia,trim 2009 2019 -windows 2010 2026 =Roof 2000 2025 -Fence nta rva -Sited n1a WEI -Garage 1955 2045 Driveway 1990 2090 -Sidewalks unknown unknown Smoke Alarms&Carbon Monoxide Alarms 2011 2015 Other(s) "Sefit>n: ! '` te-s 10 Iii rgye lYltIiR"emeltt a111c1.�Coi>d�tioTls bnplementing the following best practices may assist in the management of your property. BY checking the boxes below,you agree to: ✓ 1. Check in with tenants every M days. �✓ 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a month. Page 2 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 i II Y 13. Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendums. ✓ 4. Provide lawn/snow service. 1 V tl S. Provide garbage service. IM 6. htstall security system. 7. Provide maintenance service plan for appliances. Name of service co.:Center Point ✓� 8. 1 am and will remain current on payment of utility fees,taxes,assessments,fines,penalties and other financial claims due to the City. 9. Other(s): Please read thoroughly: If the Type IV Rental License is approved by the City Council,the Licensee must comply with the approved Mitigation Plan and all applicable city codes, No later than the 10 of each calendar month,the licensee must submit to the Building and Community Standards Department a written report describing all steps taken to comply with the Mitigation Plan. I verify that all information provided above is true and accurate. I understand that if 1 do not comply with an approved Mitigation Plan,comply with all applicable ordinances within the license period,or operate beyond (lie license expiration date;enforcement actions such as citations,formal complaint or license review may result. Q0., '&t On ,) 1 l 1 } Owner or Agent Name and Title(Please Print) 0 ryl La Owner Agent Signature Date Additional Owner or Agent Name and Title(if applicable)(Please Print) Additional Owner or Agent Signature (if applicable) Date For City Use--btiti,ation Plan Approved By: Police Department/Title Dat BuiWW&Conununity Standards Departtttenl/Title Date Page 3 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 i AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION TUESDAY, May 29, 2012 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Council Salaries—Financial Commission 2. Firehouse Park PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1. National League of Cities Service Line Program 2. Sister City Update 3. Success Target Update 4. Brooklyn Boulevard Study Update Work Session Agenda Item No. I i MEMORANDUM -- COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: 21 May 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Financial Commission Recom dation on Mayor and City Council Salaries Recommendation: It is recommended by the Financial Commission that the salaries for the Mayor and City Council increase 3.0% for 2013 and 3.0% for 2014. Background: Every two years the Financial Commission is required by the City Council Code of Policies to review the salaries for the Mayor and City Council and recommend any changes that may seem appropriate. The goal for setting salaries for the Mayor and City Council has been to assure that the salaries are at or above the median for a specified group of comparison cities. The data on comparison with those cities for the years 2009 through 2012 is attached. The Financial Commission met on Thursday, 17 May 2012 to review the attached information and make their recommendation. Discussion from the Commission included questions about the costs borne by the Mayor and Council Members for technology, personal office expenses, campaigning, communications and the like. It was suggested that an allowance for technology had been rolled into Council wages in 2000, that campaign expenses were not a consideration for Council wages, and that expenses for communications and office expenses were covered adequately by the wage. A question was raised about how a suggestion of a rate higher than the rate given to non-union or union staff would affect either union negotiations or staff morale. It was suggested that this would not be a significant problem as most people realize that the Mayor and Council did not receive a wage increase for 2012 while staff received a 2.0% increase. During the discussion there was general consensus that an increase for both the Mayor and Council members is overdue and justified. Following the discussion the Commission unanimously recommended that the Mayor and City Council salaries for 2013 be increased 3.0% from the 2012 level and that the 2014 wages be increased 3% from the 2013 level. The Commission cited the current General Fund budget situation and the comparative analysis of salaries as reasons for their recommendation. Mission:Ensuring an attractive, clean,safe,inclusive eonnnaurity that enhances the quality of life �^ for all people and preserves the public trust i MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION The dollar impact of the proposed changes is as follows: Current 3% 3% Compensation Increase 2013 Increase 2014 Mayor $ 11,166 $ 11,501 $ 11,846 Council Member $ 8,549 $ 8,805 $ 9,070 Total Cost $ 45,362 $ 46,723 $ 48,125 Difference Year $ 1,361 $ 1,402 Total Difference $ 2,763 Policy Issues: The Commission recognizes that it is the Council's prerogative to accept or modify the Commission's recommendation. Iii any case, an ordinance must be prepared, public hearing held, and new ordinance adopted setting Mayor and City Council wages for the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years prior to the General Election. Budget Issues: If the Commission's recommendation is adopted, the Mayor and Council wage budget will increase $ 1,361 in 2013 and$ 1,402 in 2014 for a total of$ 2,763 for the biennium. Council Goals: Ongoing: 2. We will ensure the financial stability of the City Hission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inchisive community that enhances the quality of life for all people antipreserves the public trust SECTION II-GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies 2.05 Policy and Procedure on Mayor and Council Member Total Compensation 1. Need for Policy The community is entitled to a clearly articulated, written description of the policy and procedure for establishing the total compensation of local elected officials. 2. Policy A. Service on the City Council is a civic obligation and an honor. The total compensation of the Mayor and Council Members should, therefore, not encourage candidacies based on monetary rather than public service objectives. However, the compensation of Brooklyn Center elected officials shall be fair and equitable in order to attract qualified candidates for local elective office. B. The propriety of the compensation levels of the Mayor and Council Members shall be evaluated through comparisons with compensation paid to similar officials within the seven county metropolitan area. C. The compensation levels of elected officials should be regularly reviewed and adjusted to ensure compliance with the objectives of this policy and to avoid the need for drastic or sudden compensation adjustments. D. Compensation set pursuant to this policy and procedure shall be deemed to be the total compensation for elected officials of the City with the exception of expense reimbursement which shall be the same as provided all other City employees. 3. Procedure A. The City Manager shall biennially prepare a compensation report that contains an analysis of the compensation paid to elected officials of Minneapolis-St. Paul Area Metropolitan cities having a population within 10,000 of the City of Brooklyn Center that are generally fully developed {Such grouping shall include the cities of Richfield, Roseville, Maplewood, Fridley, Shoreview, White Bear Lake, Crystal,New Hope, and Golden Valley, in addition to the City of Brooklyn Center.} The report shall compute the average and median amounts paid to Mayors and Council Members and correlate survey results to the current compensation of Brooklyn Center elected City officials. The City Manager shall assemble such additional information on compensation of City elected officials as may be requested to assist the Commission and Council in their review of elected official's compensation. B. The City Manager shall submit the compensation report to the City Council and the Financial Commission prior to June 1, for information pertaining to the applicable calendar year. City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 207 SECTION H— GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies j C. The Financial Commission shall biennially review the City Manager's compensation report and discuss possible' budgetary and public perception impacts of the indicated changes. Prior to July 1 of the same year, the Commission shall recommend to the City Council that the compensation of the Mayor and Council.Members either remain the same or be changed to some specific amount in the manner prescribed by law. D. Consistent with the City Charter, Section 2.07, the Mayor and Council Members may, after conducting public hearings, set their compensation by ordinance. No change in compensation shall be in effect until January 1, following the next succeeding general election. 4. Authority The authority for establishing compensation for the Mayor and Council Members is found in Minnesota Statutes 415.11 and the City of Brooklyn Center Charter, Section 2.07. Reference: City Council Resolution No. 98-91; City Council Minutes 1/10/94 City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 208 City of Brooklyn Center AW Comparative Mayor and Council Wages modaw Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 2010 Census 2009 2010 2011 2012 City Population Mayor Council Mayor Council Mayor I Council Mayor Council Golden Valley 20,371 $ 11,619 $ 8,696 $ 11,619 $ 8,696 $ 11,619 $ 8,696 $ 11,619 $ 8,696 Maplewood 38,018 $ 12,302 $ 10,827 $ 12,302 $ 10,827 $ 12,302 $ 10,827 $ 12,855 $ 11,314 Fridley 27,208 $ 10,531 $ 8,650 $ 10,531 $ 8,650 $ 10,525 $ 8,632 $ 10,525 $ 8,632 Richfield 35,228 $ 9,688 $ 7,520 $ 9,979 $ 7,746 $ 9,979 $ 7,746 $ 10,179 $ 7,901 New Hope 20,339 $ 10,673 $ 7,552 $ 10,673 $ 7,552 $ 10,673 $ 7,552 $ 10,673 $ 7,552 Roseville 33,660 $ 9,300 $ 7,020 $ 9,300 $ 7,020 $ 9,300 $ 7,020 $ 9,300 $ 7,020 Crystal 22,151 $ 10,308 $ 7,930 $ 10,308 $ 7,930 $ 10,308 $ 7,930 $ 10,411 $ 8,009 White Bear Lake 23,797 $ 7,680 $ 5,400 $ 7,680 $ 5,400 $ 7,680 $ 5,400 $ 7,680 $ 5,400 Brooklyn Center 30,104 $ 11,166 $ 8,549 $ 11,166 $ 8,549 $ 11,166 $ 8,549 $ 11,166 $ 8,549 Shoreview 25,043 $ 8,976 $ 6,648 $ 8,976 $ 6,648 $ 9,060 $ 6,720 $ 9,060 $ 6,720 Average 27,592 1 $ 10,224 $ 7,879 $ 10,253 $ 7,902 $ 10,261 $ 7,907 $ 10,347 $ 7,979 Median - $ 10,420 $ 7,741 $ 10,420 $ 7,838 $ 10,417 $ 7,838 $ 10,468 $ 7,955 Brooklyn Center as a % of: Average 109.10% 109.21% 108.50% 108.90% 108.19% 108.82% 108.12% 107.92% 107.14% Median - 107.16% 110.44% 107.16% 109.07% 107.19% 109.07% 106.67% 107.47% Notes: Golden Valley: Pays per diem of$ 50 per extra meeting to a maximum of$ 150 per month if claimed. Also provides city-owned laptop computer for Mayor/Council member use New Hope: Pays per diem of$ 25 per EDA meeting, provides DSL service at residence. Maplewood: Provides computer if requested. Crustal: 2012-first time they have budgeted a stipend for technology of$ 250 per year per member. Fridley: Council wage is for At-Large member. Ward Council members receive$ 7,654 annually Brooklyn Center: Rolled technology reimbursement into base wage in 2000. 2012councilwagecomp 5/22/2012 Mayor $14,000 $12,000 m o. $10,000 $8,000 02009 ■2010 f1 2011 $6,000 02012 li $4,000 I v $2,000 i $ white Bear Shoreview Roseville Richfield Crystal Fridley New Hope Brooklyn Golden Maplewood Average Lake Center Valley Council $12,000 $10,000 -- $8,000 2009 $6,000 ■2010 II 2011 92012 $4,000 $2,000 White Bear Shoreview Roseville New Hope Richfield Crystal Brooklyn Fridley Golden Maplewood Average Lake Center Valley Work Session Agenda Item No. Z MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: May 21, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation- Firehouse Park Monitoring Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding monitoring of the Firehouse Park basketball court. Background: At their February 2012 meeting,the Park and Recreation Commission continued their discussion regarding basketball activities at Firehouse Park. To date,the Commission has spent significant time discussing the park,the basketball court and activities at the park. Discussion Summary: In July 2009, staff removed the basketball hoops at Firehouse Park as a result of multiple incidents at the park. Following a neighborhood meeting, the City Council asked that the Park and Recreation Commission study the basketball court issues and provide recommendations to the City Council. In October 2009, the Park and Recreation Commission forwarded a recommendation to City Council (see attached) regarding the basketball court at Firehouse Park. Ultimately, the City Council made the decision to reinstall one of the basketball goals in spring 2010 and asked that staff continue to monitor activity at the Park. In July 2010,the City Council revisited the issue and asked that the Park and Recreation Commission look at possible relocation of the court to other areas of the park and/or the Brooklyn Center High School property. In October 2011, the Commission passed a motion recommending the City Council add $15,000 to the 2012-2024 Capital Improvements Plan in 2012 for the potential relocation of the Firehouse Park basketball court. The Commission noted that, while the option of locating the basketball court on school district property or elsewhere in Firehouse Park remains under examination, the additional allocation allows for construction once a preferred site is identified. Commission Recommendation: In late 2011 and January 2012,the Commission continued discussion of possible alternate locations for the basketball court. During the January meeting,the Commission looked at the costs, advantages and disadvantages of five alternate locations (attached). As a part of that discussion,the Commission asked about the possibility of a camera at Firehouse Park, in lieu of relocating the court. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people anal preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Per that discussion, staff met with the City's current security camera vendor seeking a quote for the installation of a camera at Firehouse Park. The quote(also attached) is for a pan/tilt/zoom camera that would allow for different areas of the park to be monitored. In addition, with the camera mounted on the East Fire Station,the camera would be connected via fiber optic cable to the current system. This would allow for camera operation and monitoring from remote locations. It would also provide a record of the activity at the park for later review. After significant discussion and careful consideration,the Park and Recreation Commission unanimously passed a motion recommending the City Council consider the installation of a camera at Firehouse Park vs. relocation of the basketball court. Staff Perspective: In speaking with the Police Department, Chief Benner noted that, while he is a huge supporter of cameras, he wanted to emphasize that there would be no one available to monitor the camera on an on-going basis. It would only be done on an"after the fact"basis; after an incident had occurred. Furthermore, Chief Benner indicated he would prefer to have patrol officers respond to an incident, rather than try to call up a camera while on patrol. Lastly, the Chief noted there were many other sites in the city that he would view as a higher priority for cameras other than Firehouse Park. The attached report shows the calls for service to Firehouse since the one basketball hoop was re- installed in the spring of 2010. From March 1, 2010 until May 21, 2012 we have had 77 calls for service at Firehouse Park. That equals approximately 2.85 calls per month. However, a number of these calls are "officer initiated" calls. In fact, 28 of the calls were officer initiated. If you subtract the officer initiated calls, the monthly average drops to 1.8 calls per month. In addition,when reviewing the report, it was noted that a limited number of callers are responsible for a high number of calls for service. While you cannot discount these calls, we are not certain whether the increased call levels reflect the actual reality of activity levels at the park. If you were to subtract the high callers and the officer initiated visits,the calls for service during the period drops to 30. This is just over one call per month over the 27 month period. In addition to the calls for service by the officers, the Police Park Patrol has been monitoring the activity at the park on a regular basis during the summer months. During that time, they have not seen any activity levels they would term as excessive. Staff Recommendation: While staff is supportive of cameras and would welcome the purchase of a portable camera that could be deployed in various spots throughout the community, we cannot support spending $6,000 on a permanent installation at this location. Moreover,we do not feel the current activity levels at the park and/or the calls for service would justify the moving of the basketball court at the current time. We would suggest continued monitoring of the activity levels at the park. As always,please let me know if you have any questions regarding the recommendation or would like additional information. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality o17ife for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Policy Issues: What course of action best meets the City Council goals and/or expectations? Council Goals: Strategic: 3. We will ensure a safe and secure community Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust i i Total FHP CFS 3/1/10-5/21/12 Call Type Count SPOT CHECKING 11 SUSPICIOUS ACT 9 AFTER HOURS 8 FIGHT 7 JUVENILE PROB 7 LOUD MUSIC 4 DISTURBANCE 4 PARKING COMPLAIN 3 SUICIDE 2 WELFARE CHECK 2 ASSIST/FIRE 2 PROP LOST/FOUND 2 BREATHING PROB 1 THEFT 1 LOUD PARTY 1 DOWN/UNK PROB 1 SLUMPER 1 POLICE/PRI 3 1 SUBJECT STOP 1 TH EFT/RPT 1 HARASSMENT 1 TRAFFIC STOP 1 MUTUAL AID POL 1 DAMAGE PROP 1 TRAFFIC/CO M PLAIN 1 RECOVERED VEH 1 INFORMATION ONLY 1 SHOTS HEARD 1 Grand Total 77 FHP CFS 3/1/10-5/21/12 without high callers Call Type Count SPOT CHECKING 11 SUSPICIOUS ACT 9 FIGHT 7 JUVENILE PROB 4 DISTURBANCE 3 AFTER HOURS 3 SUICIDE 2 ASSIST/FIRE 2 PROP LOST/FOUND 2 BREATHING PROB 1 THEFT/RPT 1 INFORMATION ONLY 1 MUTUAL AID POL 1 TRAFFIC/COMPLAIN 1 DOWN/UNK PROB 1 HARASSMENT 1 RECOVERED VEH 1 THEFT 1 SHOTS HEARD 1 TRAFFIC STOP 1 SLUMPER 1 WELFARE CHECK 1 DAMAGE PROP 1 SUBJECT STOP 1 Grand Total 58 FHP CFS 3/1/10-5/21/12 without high callers and officer initiated activity Call Type Count FIGHT 7 DISTURBANCE 3 ASSIST/FIRE 2 PROP LOST/FOUND 2 JUVENILE PROB 2 SLUMPER 1 THEFT/RPT 1 SUSPICIOUS ACT 1 HARASSMENT 1 DAMAGE PROP 1 INFORMATION ONLY 1 SUICIDE 1 WELFARE CHECK 1 THEFT 1 BREATHING PROB 1 TRAFFIC/COMPLAIN 1 DOWN/UNK PROB 1 SHOTS HEARD 1 MUTUAL AID POL 1 Grand Total 30 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 COMMUNITY ROOM#221, COMMUNITY CENTER I CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sorenson, Commissioners Ebert, Peterson, Shinnick and Starling were present. Commissioner Lee was absent and excused. Commissioner Russell was absent. Also present were City Council liaison Carol Kleven and Community Activities, Recreation and Services Director Jim Glasoe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Peterson asked that an item"East Palmer Park Basketball Court"be added under Old Business. By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 17,2012 There was a motion by Commissioner Shinnick, seconded by Commissioner Starling to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2012 Park& Recreation Commission as presented. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilmember Kleven reviewed the actions of the City Council from its February 13 1h meeting including; the swearing in of new City Council member Lin Myszkowski, the creation of an ad- hoc amphitheater fundraising committee, the Brooklyns Youth Council and a zoning change for the former Lifetime Fitness site. 2012 ADOPT-A-PARK PARTICIPATION Chair Sorenson asked if the Commission had a desire to adopt Marlin and Lakeside Parks again this year as a part of the Adopt-A-Park, Trail and Street Program. After some discussion there was consensus that the Commission would again adopt the two parks. Chair Sorenson noted the "kickoff' event was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on April 21sc JOINT CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSIONS MEETING CARS Director Glasoe reported that the City Manager, at the request of the City Council, had set an April 11 th meeting date for a joint meeting between the City Council and all of the Commissions. Mr. Glasoe noted the meeting was scheduled for 6:00-8:00 p.m. in Constitution Hall. Mr. Glasoe indicated that each Commission had been asked to report on its activities throughout the past year and answer any questions from the City Council or other Commissions. Mr. Glasoe noted that he had updated the Park&Recreation Commission's power point presentation from 2011 and asked for Commission input. Commissioners offered some minor revisions and Chair Sorenson asked that the item be placed on the March agenda for further consideration. FIREHOUSE PARK BASKETBALL COURT-Review Camera Option CARS Director Glasoe presented a quote for installation of a camera Firehouse Park, as an alternative to five options for relocation of the Firehouse Park basketball court. Mr. Glasoe reported the East Fire Station was connected to City Hall via fiber optic cable and that the camera could be added to the City's current system. CARS Director Glasoe noted the cost for the camera installation was based upon a pan/tilt/zoom option,which would allow for monitoring or the entire park and not just the basketball court. Mr. Glasoe added that the cost could be significantly reduced if a"static" camera option was chosen. After considerable discussion, Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peterson to recommend the City Council consider the installation of a camera at Firehouse Park, instead of constructing a new basketball court in a different location. The motion passed unanimously. NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATIONS CARS Director Glasoe presented the updated map of the neighborhood designations, noting the names of the Northport and Twin Lakes neighborhoods had been changed per the Commission's recommendation in January. Mr. Glasoe asked if the Commission had any further input. After some discussion, the Commission determined they had no further input at this time. EAST PALMER PARK BASKETBALL COURT Commissioner Peterson asked for a recap of the East/West Palmer Lake Park basketball court discussion, as he had not been in attendance at last month's meeting. i I CARS Director Glasoe reported that benches would be added to the West Palmer basketball court in the spring. Mr. Glasoe continued that the former basketball court at East Palmer Park had been examined and that an estimate of$6,000 and $8,000 had been established to refurbish the court. Mr. Glasoe noted the former location was still subject to frequent flooding and that, if the Commission wanted to recommend the reconstruction of a basketball court at East Palmer, it might be best to do so through the annual Capital Improvements Program. After additional discussion, the Commission consensus was that CARS Director Glasoe would bring alternate locations, along with costs,for the East Palmer basketball court back to a future meeting. Mr. Glasoe indicated that he would try to have the options and costs identified by the April meeting. SET NEXT MEETING DATE By consensus, the next meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was set for March 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Community Room#221 of the Brooklyn Center Community Center. MEETING ADJOURNED Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Starling, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. i pf - , M_ wT c D _..._ 5005 Cheshire Parkway-Suite#3- Phone:763-553-1477-Fax:763-553-0204-Email: solutions @pro-tecdesign.com Sold To: City,of Brooklyn Center. Ship To: City of.Brooklyn Center Patty Hartwig Patty.Hartwig 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway . Fire Station Brooklyn Center,MN 55430=2199 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199: United'States of America lJmte;d States'ofAmerica . Phone (763)569.-3371 - Phone: (763),569=3371 Fax:.:; (763)569-3494 Fax: (763) 569-3494 Email:. phaitwig @ci brooklyn-center mn:us Email; phartwig @ci.brooklyn-c6hter.mn.us Firehouse Park Camera The following proposal outlines the necessary items for the installation of a PTZ camera similar to what is installed at Liquor #1 for viewing of the northeast side of the fire station. QUOTE Date Quote Valid'For Quote# Rep J Terms 01/23%12; 30 days` PTDQ5736 Tim Ferrian Net 30 days Line : Qty Description Unit Price Ext. Price 1 PTZ Exterior Camera Axis P5532E 2 1 XPROTECT ENTERPRISE,CAMERA LICENSE $236.05 $236.05 3 1 PMA(PRODUCT MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT)XPROTECT ENTERPRISE, $43.00 $43.00 CAMERA LICENSE, 1 YEAR 4 1 CAMERA, NETWORK, PTZ,29X ZOOM, MJPEG/H.264,WDR, IMAGE $2,364.21 $2,364.21 STABILIZATION, INCLUDED OUTDOOR HIGH POE MIDSPAN INJECTOR, INCLUDES HOUSING. MOUNT EXTRA. 5 1 WALL MOUNT BRACKET,T91A61, FOR P33 SERIES/Q6032/Q5532E/Q5534 $97.56 $97.56 6 1 CORNER BRACKET, FITS T91A61 CAMERA WALL MOUNT $77.85 $77.85 7 2 CONDUIT, 3/4"EMT 10FT $6.40 $12.80 8 0.2 CABLE, CAT 5E CMP PLENUM 24AWG 4PR YELLOW, 1000FT POP-BOX $242.40 $48.48 9 1 MISC MATERIALS,CONNECTORS, PATCH CABLES, ETC. $212.00 $21100 10 1 WARRANTY&SUPPORT(1 YEAR) $74.29 $74.29 11 1 ENGINEERING SERVICES-SYSTEM DESIGN&DOCUMENTATION $86.16 $86.16 12 14 SENIOR INSTALLING TECHNICIAN $86.16 $1,206.24 13 1.5 PROJECT MANAGER-LABOR&MATERIAL SCHEDULING&COORDINATION $86.16 $129.24 14 1 CAD DESIGN SERVICE-SYSTEM SCHEMATIC&BLUEPRINT DESIGN & $86.16 $86.16 UPDATES 15 S ubTotal $4,674.04 01/23/12 Firehouse Park Camera PTDQ5736 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 21, 2012 COMMUNITY ROOM#221, COMMUNITY CENTER CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sorenson, Commissioners Ebert, Peterson, Shinnick and Starling were present. Commissioner Lee was absent and excused. Commissioner Russell was absent. Also present were City Council liaison Carol Kleven and Community Activities, Recreation and Services Director Jim Glasoe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Peterson asked that an item"East Palmer Park Basketball Court"be added under Old Business. By consensus,the agenda was approved as amended. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 17, 2012 There was a motion by Commissioner Shinnick, seconded by Commissioner Starling to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2012 Park&Recreation Commission as presented. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilmember Kleven reviewed the actions of the City Council from its February 13`x'meeting including;the swearing in of new City Council member Lin Myszkowski,the creation of an ad- hoe amphitheater fundraising committee,the Brooklyns Youth Council and a zoning change for the former Lifetime Fitness site. 2012 ADOPT-A-PARK PARTICIPATION Chair Sorenson asked if the Commission had a desire to adopt Marlin and Lakeside Parks again this year as a part of the Adopt-A-Park, Trail and Street Program. After some discussion there was consensus that the Commission would again adopt the two sT parks. Chair Sorenson noted the "kickoff' event was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on April 21 i i JOINT CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSIONS MEETING CARS Director Glasoe reported that the City Manager, at the request of the City Council,had set an April 11 t" meeting date for a joint meeting between the City Council and all of the Commissions. Mr. Glasoe noted the meeting was scheduled for 6:00-8:00 p.m. in Constitution Hall. Mr. Glasoe indicated that each Commission had been asked to report on its activities throughout the past year and answer any questions from the City Council or other Commissions. Mr. Glasoe noted that he had updated the Park&Recreation Commission's power point presentation from 2011 and asked for Commission input. Commissioners offered some minor revisions and Chair Sorenson asked that the item be placed on the March agenda for further consideration. FIREHOUSE PARK BASKETBALL COURT-Review Camera Option CARS Director Glasoe presented a quote for installation of a camera Firehouse Park, as an alternative to five options for relocation of the Firehouse Park basketball court. Mr. Glasoe reported the East Fire Station was connected to City Hall via fiber optic cable and that the camera could be added to the City's current system. CARS Director Glasoe noted the cost for the camera installation was based upon a pan/tilt/zoom option,which would allow for monitoring or the entire park and not just the basketball court. Mr. Glasoe added that the cost could be significantly reduced if a"static"camera option was chosen. After considerable discussion, Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peterson to recommend the City Council consider the installation of a camera at Firehouse Park, instead of constructing a new basketball court in a different location. The motion passed unanimously. i NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATIONS CARS Director Glasoe presented the updated map of the neighborhood designations, noting the names of the Northport and Twin Lakes neighborhoods had been changed per the Commission's recommendation in January. Mr. Glasoe asked if the Commission had any further input. After some discussion,the Commission determined they had no further input at this time. EAST PALMER PARK BASKETBALL COURT Commissioner Peterson asked for a recap of the East/West Palmer Lake Park basketball court discussion, as he had not been in attendance at last month's meeting. CARS Director Glasoe reported that benches would be added to the West Palmer basketball court in the spring. Mr. Glasoe continued that the former basketball court at East Palmer Park had been examined and that an estimate of$6,000 and$8,000 had been established to refurbish the court. Mr. Glasoe noted the former location was still subject to frequent flooding and that, if the Commission wanted to recommend the reconstruction of a basketball court at East Palmer, it might be best to do so through the annual Capital Improvements Program. After additional discussion,the Commission consensus was that CARS Director Glasoe would bring alternate locations, along with costs,for the East Palmer basketball court back to a future meeting. Mr. Glasoe indicated that he would try to have the options and costs identified by the April meeting. SET NEXT MEETING DATE By consensus,the next meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was set for March 20, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in Community Room#221 of the Brooklyn Center Community Center. MEETING ADJOURNED Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Starling,to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. .Firehouse Park Basketball Court Options/Costs Option#1 <$1,000 Half Court, or back to back baskets Option#2 $4,000-$12,000 Full Court or half court Option#3 $8,000-$12,000 Full Court Option#4 $10,000-$15,000 j Full court-Some retaining wall work necessary due to elevation change Option#5 $8,000-$12,000 Full Court 1 i Y\ 7 \ ­226-CGNCKETE SLAB PLACED ON \ \�^SIGN BASE B A SAME TE DESIGN AS CURB AND GUTTER) auk\ IN@ILTRATi9N8A5INNi - 921• �g4^ 'o ad5.5x _ �8� ` -'--'-^^643 I =84. z6 S. i �—DEPRESS cFxrErsuNE 841 OPCONCRETESI.A83' xyoS i '-7 ' @ .0 MA \\1.40 �� :c6G5.3 �xL'95,1 INV.-843.00 HOCKEY KINK)INFILTfUiT1Gtr VERIFY �sx _ (ALTERNATE' if)-9281 CULVERT AND It =-r'rL GAS A �n�'� �rtiM4 6s.s 1 WM wM bt i 7tYIfTEfr1 ------ r`E9E 643 SEWER Ste• 1, o! t on ss �j � 644 IAN )N ^1,2,,.i, TPA- MM x4553 fl48 � ��is ��a ���,,,F+r� 1 � �a'�st� �Fr;+,.av�,�' !-� Gs xCr!G.5`•.�,�i5,6�{r�.c..!-.,r-` ��+ . 845. 3 e•s >' �,. MA�,.+1 &rla---'—"! .m Ex ,.'�*�'g�n5i�w°r: +z ''��•,,.s'- •n�_. y.,%� o?7.s �' �`;_ �._ - c}7.c;c' . �_ =rte•1...._. • ' s—.._�.�.-,��'r--�,� Ji:`� --1 -'---,X f X i�'..�(^t'•'_' g r.�= _S="'a%'._"_��— YdaT,35 X X X X A X L S4740 ta7s" re,7,D 7 - 112 — f / 3 u 6" WATER LINE %s?7. EXTENDED AROUND r :; A• BLDG W x x 7A % 7.4 �lv/ x ' sq4 7 'D.l} °•7.•} 5. lE o ,' ;., G!9.3 W I x:r!7.1 475.9,e - �'yxx 62s.0 5.6.sx c'tiW8 { 647.0 .-r1- 1 ,16h7.0 xC1a.0 RL 'Milo y, 090.4. $49 14 f 1 I I 94PR3 1f , xEtE.5 fi;GS 4S6 ` ' ` �}z ' x44$.8 xG'.6 xE:6, lY•"`•fliS.i 0111-1 FD 8NS.7 x�a.3 i 0 _ 3 1� W d" E4P tz a mL• 48 P- u . s<5.e P_ Mlflu�¢-f.ONN �N 1t^fo RD �' 5N i p 4° n emu 111, lim | wv Tj itt ti emu 111, lim | wv Tj ti emu 111, lim | MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION OCTOBER 11, 2011 COMMUNITY ROOM#221, COMMUNITY CENTER CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Sorenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sorenson, Cormnissioners Ebert,Peterson, Russell, Shinnick and Starling were present. Commissioner Lee was absent and excused. Also present were residents Diane Sannes and Issa Mansaray and Community Activities, Recreation and Services Director Jim Glasoe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Peterson asked that an item be added to discuss amenities at East and West Palmer Parks. Commissioner Ebert asked that an item be added to discuss dog parks. By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended. Chair Sorenson directed the additional items be added to the agenda after the Old Business items. APPR O VA L OF MINUTES—September 20,2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Russell, seconded by Commissioner Ebert to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2011, Park and Recreation Commission meeting as written. The motion passed unanimously. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Councilmember Ryan was not in attendance. HENNEPIN COUNTY YOUTH SPORTS APPLICATION CARS Director Glasoe reported that the next round of applications for the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grants were due shortly. Mr. Glasoe asked for a resolution of support for an application to convert the baseball field at Centennial Park to youth soccer fields. i After some discussion, Commissioner Peterson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Russell recommending the City Council support the grant application for youth soccer fields in Centennial Park. 2012-2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM- Planned Park Improvements CARS Director Glasoe reviewed the proposed 2012-2026 Capital Improvements Plan, noting changes that had been made since last year's plan. In addition, Mr. Glasoe added the City Manager was still looking for the Commission's recommendation related to the basketball court at Firehouse Park. CARS Director Glasoe continued that a conversation with the Brooklyn Center Schools Superintendent had taken place regarding the possibility of locating the basketball court on school district property. Mr. Glasoe noted the response was the school district would consider locating the basketball court on school property,but not in the area of the current tennis courts. CARS Director Glasoe suggested that,in order to provide flexibility, the-Commission could ask that funding to replace the court be placed in the CIP, without designation of the final location of the court. After additional discussion Commissioner Shinnick made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Russell recommending the City Council approve the parks portion of the 2012-2025 Capital Improvements Plan. As part of the motion,the Commission asked that $15,000 be added to the plan in 2012 for the potential relocation of the Firehouse Park basketball court. The Commission noted that, while the option of locating the basketball court on school district property or elsewhere in Firehouse Park remains.under examination,the additional allocation allows for construction once a preferred site is identified. The motion passed unanimously. COMMUNITY GARDENS CARS Director shared the completed matrix of potential park locations for the locating of community garden plots. Mr. Glasoe reported site criteria evaluated included general location, water supply, soil, site storage for material,parking, access issues,proximity to residential properties and safety. After much discussion and careful consideration, Commissioner Peterson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Russell,to recommend to the Housing Commission that the combined Brooklyn Park/Crystal site at 63rd Avenue and Douglas Drive, the Centennial Park West location at Nash Road and Brooklyn Drive and the Happy Hollow site at 50th and Abbott Avenue were considered by the Commission as most favorable for the development of community gardens. The Commission felt the combined Brooklyn Park/Crystal site location provided the most potential to get a community gardens program up and running quickly, as the site already contained all of the essential elements to support a successful program. The Commission noted the Centennial Park West site included ample space for 50+ gardens and storage and felt the site lent itself well for community gardens. Conditions also noted as positive were: water supply in adjacent shelter building, no residences in close proximity, adequate parking and good site access. In addition to the above attributes,the Commission did identify a few concerns regarding the location. These included: the current soil conditions, the fact the area is prone to minor flooding, the proximity of parking to the actual garden locations and the fact is it adjacent to Shingle Creek. Lastly the Commission noted the Happy Hollow site was also recommended. The Commission noted attributes including: water supply to park,no residences in close proximity, adequate parking and good site access. As with the Centennial West site,the Commission also noted a few concerns. These included: the current soil conditions, the fact the garden location is a distance from the parking, sun conditions, as a result of significant tree cover and the location adjacent to a commercial building. EAST & WEST PALMER PARK AMENITIES Commissioner Peterson asked if some benches might be added to the basketball court at West Palmer Park. Mr. Peterson also asked about the status of the basketball court at East Palmer Park. Chair Sorenson responded that his recollection was the court was removed as a.result of continual flooding and because it was creating problems as it was "hidden behind the former shelter building. After some additional discussion CARS director Glasoe offered to speak with the Public Works Streets and Parks Maintenance Supervisor regarding these items and to report back at a future meeting. After some additional discussion, Chair Sorenson asked that this item be added to the November agenda DOG PARK Commissioner Ebert expressed a desire to have the Commission discuss the need for an off- leash dog park in Brooklyn Center. Chair Sorenson responded the Commission had previously considered the issue, and ended up not recommending such a park. After additional.discussion, Chair Sorenson asked that CARS Director Glasoe research the past Commission discussions on the issue and share them at the November meeting. BASS LAKE ROAD STREETSCAPE AND REGIONAL TRAIL PROJECT—STREET LIGHTING AND BANNERS Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug discussed the history of the street light banner options for the Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail project. At the October 12, 2009, City Council meeting, Council requested additional information to add double banners on all poles throughout the median of Bass Lake Road from Brooklyn Boulevard to Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Lillehaug provided an overview of the costs for the street light banner options. Estimated project cost difference of single banner poles versus double barrier poles is approximately $40,000. He advised his recommendation is to include single banners in the proj ect. Councilmember Roche stressed the importance of the streetscape creating the critical elements of color, vitality, and energy. He stated his position that the project should be amended to include double banners, specifically in the location of Bass Lake Road from Highway 100 to Shingle Creek Parkway. There was discussion on the project as currently proposed and the cost/benefit of additional double banner poles being included in the project. Mayor Willson and Councilmember Ryan stated their position that the project should not be amended to include additional double banner poles. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to amend the Bass Lake Road Streetscape and Regional Trail Project to replace four of the single banner poles with double bawler poles in the median along Brooklyn Boulevard between Highway 100 and Shingle Creek Parkway. SHINGLE CREEK RIPARIAN RESTORATION—GRANT APPLICATION Mr. Lillehaug discussed the history of the Shingle Creek Restoration Plan included in the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the City of Brooklyn Center 2010 CIP. He reported that recently City and Watershed staff submitted a grant application to Hennepin County for this project. The project is included in the Draft 2010 CIP, which will be presented to Council for approval in the future. Mr. Lillehaug provided a brief overview and answered questions of the City Council on the Shingle Creek Riparian Restoration Project. There was discussion on possible tax incentives for maintaining natural buffers along the creek. Mr. Lillehaug indicated he is not aware of any tax incentives or other type of program offered by the DNR or other entity. He will report back to Council with any fiurther information on this topic. Mr. Lillehaug provided information on strategies outside of the project to address the source of problems such as sediment or chloride impairment to the creek. There was discussion on culverts installed with the City project on the west side of Shingle Creek and the possibility of including an infiltration basin with this project. I 10/26/09 -2- i The majority consensus of the City Council was support of accepting the Hennepin County grant for the Shingle Creels Restoration Project. Mr. Boganey indicated that Council will be provided with another opportunity to provide approval on the project in the future. RENEW LOAN PROGRAM SIX-MONTH UPDATE Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel provided the ReNew Loan Program six-month update. He noted there has been a fairly equal distribution of funds throughout the City of Brooklyn Center. He noted that Council has been provided with a letter fiom Steve and Jennifer Hinz requesting the EDA's consideration to amending the program policies/guidelines to allow a new homeowner, that was unaware of the program, the option to make application to the ReNew Loan Program. Council is being requested to provide direction on whether the guidelines of the program should be amended as requested by Steve and Jennifer Hinz. There was discussion on the ReNew Loan Program and the request by Steve and Jennifer Hinz to amend the ReNew Loan Program guidelines. The majority consensus of the City Council was that the guidelines of the ReNew Loan Program should not be amended. Staff is to report this information to Steve and Jennifer Hinz with an explanation of how amending the program guidelines as suggested would open the program to all individuals that have previously purchased foreclosed homes in the City. COUNCIL RETREAT SCHEDULE Mr. Boganey introduced the item and requested discussion from Council on whether to schedule a Council retreat for 2010, and if so, if there are any proposed changes to the format or facilitator. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to schedule a 2010 Council Retreat for a Saturday in January. Staff is to contact several potential facilitators and request that they submit a proposal for Council review. FIREHOUSE PARK REPORT Mr. Boganey introduced the item and noted the October 21, 2009, memorandum providing an update and his recommendation in response to.concerns raised about unacceptable activities that occurred this summer at and around Firehouse Park. Council has also been provided with the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation. There was discussion on the location of the parking lot in relation to the basketball courts inducing a party atmosphere. It was suggested that staff inquire if the owners of Georgetown would be amenable to building a basketball court on Georgetown property. It was noted that there is vacant property in the area of Bryant and 66t" Avenues that could be explored for a potential basketball court in the future. 10/26/09 -3- I It was stressed that the residents deserve an effective response to the issues that occurred in the area of Firehouse Park. There was discussion on the recommendations of the City Manager and the Park and Recreation Commission to address concerns related to Firehouse Park. There was discussion lowering the rims on the basketball hoops as another option for consideration. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to proceed with staff recommendation No. 1, reorientation of the basketball court to one 1/2 court in the spring. There may be consideration of adding an additional 1/2 court or removing the hoops in the future, dependent on the results of the reorientation. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman moved and Cotulcilmember/Coininissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. I 10/26/09 -4- i MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: October 21, 2009 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manager SUBJECT: Firehouse Park Report COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED This is a staff review update conducted in response to concerns raised this summer because unacceptable activities that occurred this summer at and around Firehouse Park. BACKGROUND This summer various concerns were raised by neighbors living in and around Firehouse Park. The concerns included loud noise,unruly and inappropriate conduct, fights and other acts of violence that occurred at or near the Park. Most of the problems encountered seemed to center around the basketball court. As a result,the basketball rims were removed on July 9, 2009. In addition,neighborhood meetings were held to provide accurate information and to receive public feedback. Since the removal of the rims and closer monitoring of public gatherings at the Park many of the problems experienced earlier in the summer have ameliorated significantly and neighborhood complaints have also reduced correspondingly. On Tuesday, October 20th the attached reports were submitted to the Parks Commission along with a set of recommendations from the City Manager. The four Commissioners present reviewed the information and provide the following recommendation to the City Council. This recommendation is not totally consistent with the Manager's recommendation to the Commission. 1. Rim Locks are recommended to be purchased and used if future incidents occur. 2. Enhanced signage should be considered,with clear language relating to behavior expectations. 3. Reorientation of the basketball court is not recommended at this time, as the Commission did not want the actions of a few to determine the recreational opportunities for the majority of the residents. The final vote was three Commissioners voting in favor of the motion and one voting against. It is worth noting the authorized strength of the Park and Recreation Commission is seven members. At Tuesday night's meeting three Commissioners were absent and excused from the meeting. 1 i Staff is seeking further direction from the City Council on this matter. COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES i What course of action best meets the Council Goals and expectations? I City of Brooklyn. Center A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: October 13, 2009 TO: Park and Recreation Commission Members FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage SUBJECT: Firehouse Park Recommendation On July 9th of this year, I ordered the temporary removal of the basketball hoops at Firehouse Park. This action was taken based on our assessment that serious problems appeared to be escalating in and around the basketball courts. While it was uncertain that the serious issues, i.e. assaults etc. we were seeing were related to the actions of basketball players, the court did seem to be focal point. Therefore we removed the equipment as a mitigation measure as we completed our assessment and response plan. Attached, please find the assessments and recommendations from the Police Department and the Community Activities, Recreation and Services Departments. Although you will see a number of similarities in their respective recommendations, there are also differences. Accordingly, I will offer my recommendations as you consider this issue. Recommendations: #1. Reorientation of the basketball court: Staff has developed several options for repositioning the basketball goals that would prevent full court play. This full court play appears to be a contributing factor in the incidents related to the basketball court. #2. Enhanced signage: Revised sign designs detailing conduct expectations in clear, concise, "bullet style" format. Current signs would be replaced and additional signs considered. #3. Seek opportunities for supervision.or joint programming: I will encourage staff to seek grant opportunities or joint programming ventures related to use of basketball courts in the City. , 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Bi ooklyn Center, 1YIN 55430-2199 • .(763) 569-3400 City Hall& TDD Number(763) 569-3300 FAX(763)569-3434 FAX(763) 569-3494 www.cityofb7-ookly7teenter.org #4. Evaluate the changes: Evaluate the activity levels, calls for service and park maintenanceT issues at.Firehouse Park during the spring and summer of 2010. Recommend any additional measures-that might to be necessary. Thank you for your consideration and recommendations regarding this issue. My intention is to have the City Council consider this issue, along with the Commission's recommendation, at an upcoming City Council work session. 5 j 1 ("Its of°Brooklyn Ceenter A Millennium Community MEMORANDUM DATE: October 2, 2009 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services SUBJECT: Firehouse Park Recommendation ` Pursuant to the incidents at Firehouse Park that led to the removal of the basketball courts; and responding to some of the suggestions of the July 20th neighborhood meeting, I have examined a number of issues related to the problems related to use of the basketball courts and possible re'lnedies. I should preface my statements by indicating that i am an unwavering advocate for recreational amenities'for a community. I think we have an obligation to provide for the recreational needs of our residents. As a result, and with respect to Fire House Park, it is not a question of whether we should provide basketball hoops at the park, but more, how we manage that use. Basketball Hoop Locks As reported by the neighbors at the July 20t"neighborhood meeting, and as substantiated by the Police reports, most of the issues related to the basketball courts are occurring in the late afternoon or early evening. One option suggested was to "lock"the hoops during this time frame to prevent the use of-the hoops, In researching this option, I was able to find a couple of inexpensive options (see attached) that would prevent the baskets from being used while the locks are in place. While the locks are relatively inexpensive,there would be a significant labor expense from locking and unlocking the hoops on a daily basis. Additionally,there may be some safety concerns for the staff as they attempt to lock the hoops, as they would undoubtedly encounter resistance from the basketball players. 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 zvwty.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Alternate Court Locations One additional suggestion that'was investigated was to move the basketball court to another location. I have examined the park and found two alternate locations for the court. (see diagram attached) While option 1 is to move the court to the west, closer to the East Fire Station, this would place the court approximately the same distance from the houses on the south side of 65th Avenue as it is currently from the houses on Bryant Avenue. The option 2 location would place the court almost in the center of the park,just outside the outfield fences for the softball fields. While this option would move the court away from houses, it would place it closer to the playground equipment. It is worth noting,that moving the court to either location would be an expensive undertaking, currently the cost to construct a basketball court is approximately$15,000-$18,000. While as a long term decision this might be something we could consider,for the short term, the cost appears cost prohibitive. As additional information,the basketball court has already been moved during this last decade. In 2002, the court was moved from the north side of the park(66th and Colfax)to allow for the construction of the softball fields. When the court was moved, it was also shortened,to discourage use for full court games. Court Reorientation One additional option that was researched was the reorientation of the basketball court. By moving the basketball goals, or by removing one goal and reorienting the other, we could eliminate the option of using the court for games. As this seems to be a contributing factor to the issues with the basketball court, it could allow for use of the basketball hoops, but would prevent full court play. This option appears the least expensive, as moving the hoop(s)would cost no more than$500-$1,000 in labor costs. I would recommend trying this option and then monitoring the situation Programming/Supervised Use Currently,the City offers no formalized programs at Firehouse Park. Without question,the park could benefiffrom staff supervision during the critical 4:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., (May through August) time period. One option would be to try and identify grant funds to staff the park during these times. Additionally, the City could look at the option of partnering with the Brooklyn Center School District as part of their new Community Schools initiative. Signage One additional item that was examined was the option of enhancement of signage at the park. As per the recommendations contained in the 2006 study of Evergreen l5ark conducted by the Police Department, changes to the park signage and locations should be considered. Per the 2006 memorandum,the revised signs should be in "bullet points" highlighting the major expectations as prescribed in City Ordinances. Additionally signs could be erected'adjacent to the basketball court identifying behavior expectations in the same bullet point format. The cost to replace the current park signs would be approximately $4,300. Costs that are not currently included in the 2009 or 2010 budgets. Recommendations: #1. Reorient the court to prevent full court play. This is the most cost effective alternative that still provides for basketball at the park. #2. Enhance the signage. Bullet point type signs that detail conduct expectations. The added cost for this would be approximately$250.00. This could also be used as a "test park'for'determining if we wanted to extend this signage to all our parks. #3. Look for grants or other opportunities that would provide funding for supervision of the park during critical times. Amazon.com: Goalsetter 1-foop Lok Basketball Rim Lock, Sports & Outdoors, Page 1 of 3 <<:,tai s-,.5 :��<:_::- •.::;,;,:: - Hello,Sign in to get personalized recommendations.New customer?Start here.0.f3, r h6fcitetl YourAmazon.com ' Today's Deals I Gifts&Wish Lists I Gift Cards YourAcceunt ; Help Shop All Departments Search Sports&Outdoors : ; Gart Wish List �I Sports&Outdoors € Apparel Action Sports Cycling Exercise&Fitness Fan Gear. Golf Outdoor Recreation Shoes Team Sports Sales«Deals More A-vna7€ n.cor$Search Results for"basketball goon tact;" First Team Lock for 4in,Sin and Gin EZ-Crank v Sparing 411-519 Positive Lock Rim T Basketball Hoop Adjust... _ F3uy new:X89$99.00 Buy new:'640.19$34. r`95 4 Used&new from$99.00 - 1 Used&new from$34.95 i.tn..sto- wt`s i;ievving this page linay be inve?'c".sted in this SponS'asrod Link (what's this_?) Basketball Goals&Hoops $500 Off USA Made Goals&Hoops Free Shipping on Basketball GOAL www.versacourt.com/BasketballGoals Goalsetter Hoop Lok Basketball Rim Lock Other products by G_oal!jdter $59.95'-Free 5hicpin - No customer reviews yet.Be.the nest i higre about_this_product In stock. Processing takes an a ....................._....._.... ..........._._........................... .............-_........_-._-._ additional 4 to 5 days.Ships from and sold by Dazadi List Pyre: x ri <ra ' ` Ouantity: 1 Price: $69,95 - J S You Save:$12.79(15%) Special Offers_Fi_yailahle or Sion in to turn on 1-Click ordering. In Stock. '3 Processing takes an additional 4 to 5 days for orders from this 1 { seller. Ships from and sold by'Dazadi. ` More Buying Choices Have one to sell? See l�jmer irnag and other vie, c�,M I ' Share with Friends Share your own customer Images pedal Offers aind Product t romoUons Get Free Shipping on every order from Dazadi. Here's how(restrictions apply) Product Featuf-es • Protect rim from unauthorized use • Designed to fit over standard and break-away rims • Padlock included Product De-'sci'!'odo n Product Description Protect your rim from unauthorized use with the Hook Lok Basketball Rim Lock.This lock system is designed to fit over standard and break-away rims.The Hoop Lok is a simple, effective and economical way to reduce theft.The padlock is included. i-aduct Details Shipping Information:View'ship.ping rafies.and—p olicies ASIN: B00283Y6TI Average Customer Review: No customer reviews yet. 13e i ie.fit .- Amazon.com Salves Rank: +225;354 in Sports&Outdoors(See Bestsellers in Sports&Outdoors) T,h lf)1ST/TT 10 1A Ill nno r 41 'x. c 4 - -- --------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------- rY -- --- n a •rte-' ..� .r$,,w, sa,.«^+* "1`".. a," g:.�r r1.; '" ''a'r ••.x.�:ttr,-s. h,:.' r :. a. t .,r. f;1.........'4.f i , u.. r r« ,a. _.in.�* ! t.5 „•*7 rY,. "a. a b�` -�r.. 4-q,�'. , -: , ,«. ,..., ;. .;:: I i:.- °:1,r r =75 a'""9�^'"^ ;vr u.. tM• .'f. F.- S! ,.•'M'c:✓ra �£S"�'+✓„i�'�£�'.,ur. r`riz�, •»,.�w- r.Ai",. ay,,._ irC.ti-.7Y xJ..,ns�'` ''?'b'a.C :, err �� d. •-.•. -- ,,.rr7,,,,a`. - 1. � r$„�>t,.,,, �.. ,r^rr., r."s'Cf ,.r.�'i;:,r .•:.Ax` „ l�•rr� -�:� w ',a ,, ? { t ..:�..�'._�'k :: .. ..- .. ... n ,r,F:-.,a,tr',4.,.., r'n..._ .?ar�4 a,>ti �'wu ;.. x- [ `.':.r;"�'o. � :,n `;;,.r •,fJ„^'cxsr-^r a �I ..r.C:• .... .. ,.,: ,. .. r.: r'. .,.. „i,.,.,,- .,YSr"s'1'i:'. „i+�'S✓ . .,;..�,r„ ) a � 4l''.,�° 1rw1I:''�3Y ,r •:h`P�r'",.t .,IC 1'- �k' ,'w- ,. r., ._ ::,::. „ .. .•'+ .x. { ve,Msa,...;:drgSrr '..e«., ,,.,b..if.'7r�,r,�" ,, �„��,l�'' b M1'P '�F i�.: "" ` ;`+4r3,,.t.. ...-..,.. ,� ...w N,,. a .,� .:_ ,.. ... .". ...... .... ,,. r #+; z� �;.�rr"^�r ,. x�,,��s'wr„ ,x 5�. .. ,A,4 `{r...,a'!i•S`�, r ,r. W'-u .x'a'� H.I,�( l� l r. _.:.. /•:j;. l - ..::.. :... ... .. ..,•-P:_ '-;? -,�G 57 anpxd((,T'r'l'i��pr,. ,�.. 'f ,,'3tlh '. .t�.'�!.u'�. , r:M - `. mrre• x'� ,.,.. :.;... r.. .. -h! ' y; 7 y: � M1- '.1,,aT r.,u'"` r�'? y�i�',ri. _t.7:_.3. "3a ....,15✓j�.., a„„'r _ ,A ya x,r,r),u. `-. r.r... ... .:..:.: `• r -... `: •' �� I .l. `=:� ."r' t,•'?r�'.,;n• :.a. .; ^^ tt1'�r- !. --rxA:t� sr,+� �!'.:ir+_;r.^�.Y: ^•y rxr” t d.,yC .a: k`.';v.: w.-z-.. ;af�: � z'H”. .r: r�"+,':,�.:a� ,"�. d F v,!✓'. J' .Y n" �"'•„t#•.. �':M ,ab....nwr'� r' -rr�...:... .,...., ,,n-m'ra r• ~l;,,,s,..1� -.?5,+..,.. - rlrYr"nr.. .-. -'' r'`.a r �,,rr . :K � ,.."c"1.�, ..; •. 9fi"". -.,:' .n. •y:': ,i,�'»a»nx w:x :.,.t.,;.,.�.v H.:�t� Z�' 1 _:�..,,. - .. % -^'i.;x, �.rA I'i'x” mi ..>""� >f t`rzh �'d 1>x. mf 1 �f•...:{- N* R•"r �'-ivr,,,; ::h'. .,:>.. t, ", , •SF. .x A`r`.�3.:.r,.,.?N,»p .. ";:W�'',2`.. ,. 5y. .� ,y�. .. --�:� nt`�' :.,r,'k'?G,,'r i .1_�, �iiS,.ti 1 -, iF; .,,.:,v,,EG �J-,r- ,.,-„ ., ut .. ,,Mr,,'3� .'. , 'r r.�b'1;�s xr4� J�', :.: r •'$!1' .r'z ,�.,x ..,f'.1 d't' r, ','�," �"i'� 7,; .r.x .;._,,1�«'}.: , "' .5,iaTa.. e =:Z"•u.t"Y..,;Ar r.G ..},(Y , «s :�5.- xY•F .�' fr#}`} , ?#, �� ,R� ..°.s': � 'r 'nw''.! � .�-"r� .r7aJ' �:-<... .. Pam,, 'v i. ,r;i � �: - s''.,.��r� ,t..:,;.. •�' x - -.:'. '^ ry -�^.sr � r• `':rJ •,*,,�ce f1,7�iF t "J r ;Y.• fi:',". H. t ....a!- `a ,� C':,(:Y, �{,,. J✓ r, :.g ;�,: 'r•. "a' 7°.:• ,�'• r r«d.;, 9rp� v. P,a,^i.k,...r.�„, qfi ,.,.., s .: f�l`.'�a � <?':a yt �'. ..r.. ,-r.. ..�'sr `3:::-!,.. �: ,� �.� u� n -� "Jr .r. ✓,�'� I r;:F.7 ' •ra.;;:y.,;.n'Y}�, , "� r„4� arfi„ ,.p w>a _ a!= M,t:i_'ss : ' ,,.. r,rr.� +",u, •,., ,,. r,,, -s A.� �rgy.. a r �>. ,':+� `"�'!--.,� .a�.�< r_,. E,y ,.ar r ky� �'^-� ;;�,cs ,w�tiv�,�i� ,~^sx:. ;�� �T �;,a •r � 9� ,t,';. R:e",^T'b:.{°.'7 r.,�t,ux, C �"''`-:;. N =, � ', � r:, ^i%. .,r'� .'..,. '�;`!�•. Z :>,:,...>'+ .('1 ��'+n'n,V•2'" +i ���F.'v.,• ��:�.� , 3,y .«!:*r«,6-F"n,,:•;'-'.`•' �::�v.: � ,y- \, r. Rdf'.+}. -. �..7r dr:,�da"^'"fi 't�.. 7,9.E' �',�i ,r`�.F. r� !'tf �`�:c!,� ,s�,�" fr' .W;; r ply.. ' I l�:a, •' "r ::-, ,. !,. " r`.Xt; y1.r,, .'!?+'('�„ .• .rw, '.. N "Yr 3,: ,1t V.'rf, �..�.;,nu: ;w,}gy. 'Y�, .c. aM'- }5xN« ,,a3.': ":: .s�' .+,.,i £v:.•r x" 1" '� ,.1 t,', s �+n �' �a' fw•.uua:C`"`{st .'�,':"�" c;,✓^ �.Oy,,A,, .ar• pr._ .'� � .), Y J' :,LC ry � .. ..tn r.i N�"tt't't�n.lr•-,�.. ttpp -' s s. R •fix. 'L T !s' ,� I .,..6,`•"Af'r",4. _�w r �� .?; .K. n"r�. 'i- P: c� ..a^:G9 b „1g�'.a:.',• �G� .F_ 'y yam'�:, r?1 �•t µ, .,�' .. sry/�f ;tt 5. "5v.`r' ,.Y3:.x. Nl 'b'?•,. .1. h I*+rte' r Y� Y'G I.rS x,£'d' 1 �t....l - A% .S. �{ '.2:iF r� tad• _ "-r: "„' �' �. rr. 'Ma" 71'', � t,•:• r•^,'t+ d „ �r:.�::'r�L-i. F.S'tf. ,''�'S X. i, M;W.�,. x ' �,�� -.D,siN. :+ •,i o-'rr 4>r n- ,r=; -r e' R...ir .V� .ii }r u "��:w"`r�'"tk••:...e"•• :W ,'. a`' .�::.. t t�" a :1 v :i�. T�` •s yy -�.�,.pp,,y�,, �'',.�' 's ;„. ..s':. rJ. ��'' a I l :!'`"I:t. r'a.a�,'i '�.•+." �,. :.�.. �'y� �a: +✓l ;, 6rt''+�'`>e r,U ;•4,'. r:.L lJ. 5:'.' S:fit: � .1 T �,,,L,..�>L.:.`II" :ks. t iT:� ;'."�Vr7)+i`,. � .�•k�"��. 'in , 3 s 'r:.}f e.: -1.}• P. .W+r ...e ,,.g" •:�i :u,ai3^, `U'-'J$.n,. F... L: r YI�1 �,� ,..",• :.rM. ..- ,4r: '•' ..it.. .. .,k� c.rr : �,. .Ncs£ t. t 1.,. d a°xj„ A .-���:«, �J, I ,r.r.' , f...,N::1,, k I !7✓'# a r 1.. ,:'3ti .�. .:,ac.;'}<ikrf'-. er '^-i, ,r:, .: ,! F.. .,�:,`:=,... ��;,,,,,.ti .c� •�t"Zss 1 ��-„, r✓ �. %t��y��1 a3 411. ✓�'jy .� .L t?`;" 1, r,y' L M �A..,J I - rF•;'r1'..^d.•, ,:f.,'J.., '.'1:4,�/. ,.C•' b ,J ^.!'J, M J y�,*,,CJ,.,:. 1 :'�'. k : 'ax ,T,., ! ".5 '!�'� r" �• ,u�' �,n r, P_' >" ,..;,., .'fir r}rk .a:�-% .!,.. ,,;ys a �-.^ak+. u., ➢i y •.� .? k 4 t tr �r.cs.. � NI". A. ut ;: •.�-. r°'� ,,aa;�t vet .e,:: ;. ` : ,r;:7, ..;• • ," .. :r�*' 4 t 1 7JF�r�,rY�l.. �,I t r�; t,;.. �,<, �F�--1 I ,,• }r; h✓:. d }4J. y.I�V.�x-> ?' '� t .i'. t 1 c i.:".� r••' :,.-Y" ,;� rn pp"!;,jk ,➢ :«,, ...,*:? q�� 41•� a 9 l t .b -Ilr_ ..1 r'. '!: r t- f ..f "'u 'I:_ -x, ,.5 rwa a' �•�'":�" ��. '"'� .w. � e - , a. I . r � r .u_..x ,. :, ., ,. � p :, stiff' .., -,.,,r^✓� :. t�,. 1 tt f'. F t' � t 1 e�'"Y`ai 1. i•. r..,3•,x.'�K t,,,, .r, .i ,.::75k"� ,:is a.,. }�' - ,�i:� r!, ._�'r.�:._ J:'; r' ,.:t:ie r r!,^,, �`§ �, c r �1,. �'�} .;;�-:-. SIA','L«:✓ ,� 7 ' Y�. fY;, D.S. f`• ill.•'. '.,I ..I a 2 f' 1,. t , r 1 i r k✓,`Nr°,:r, , I ','bi1�'F;'3w•",d.` �1. .+ i ,!:„ w � •• � � �:v I:If'i byt, II t M ,,`C^, �,, r 1 '1_ !? t :1 r Ems, d*, J 3?3:;�, .i JS �,1, r ,C .^•,;'1. „r ii 4ti, r- -a :'t�. s_ r{•,-r:^ °�''r y' s. 'I. .,>l- ':,s 4,y t "3_ '� .,r'-'S;• ! k,r I r 4. P".!1. A'. h., a .:.,�, t�`a,.:u. .`,'�',�-•i✓_i �• 6 '{Jt s�' r h >a,i' 1�.,.,. u t •rx. :a }�G 1�` 1 .n r"4„- -,1,1• .. � I r t .,� -'•' q ",Sy+-ee, I� x y w t.7r rte. n•,. ✓f,., r."�„ a.” n r. a�•'' ? �� v ll"'�` P^ r t+.. ..)F°• _rP 1',, „rr.�".SIB.e✓I.r P -F^. '.��._. rstyrr•' p^'s. ��•r.' t'�� k U01d r•.:. -���`�. t.t � :ry a�. ^:•a ,:n.�. d L`•..,wa!_ d-j:r„ d ">!:,• .x ['C, .� O }, , x r �;!I'r•r vst' 1- -,�.r s' ::l: r p� - �rt r � .:.,P�,r'F:D• _ �.r� �}� J.4�eLxz'1,K,n "� �::l. .-'�.r' .:n" x'Y« ,�.,e n '6 ,7. �,` .Gr r .�•. s-t' '�� "i,' >,. '�. -m fir. ..�;: .u. ��' ,+ 8s. t 'n,`t- t •tr wt'#�rr,: r'6 �^m'•3 p„m'C ,fir>.,.,,.k•��:.. =L �i fi`_ xr , rr .'�::. (r.�f•"(e✓' F :r_..�A' [: N ,1,. Y: l '•'"tu Z,£�.... J f �. .„� .t���' �.v+,,, •f 1. ..G� -'fh 4 '!:'ar ,.��� _:�,r �,+'�.C^'.in+ll^ £.. Y'.: k .:� •�'i. r i. _ .3 J:: ..ilr3a, y w y n„d•. {".° StiJ F - },. 3• +},:. �,"�4, .akl 'd J iyr !, r. >.�G. � •'J.a. � •i'i r� •`�.b:6 � ,R ,J , �:.1�✓^k,�" :,:�'. ,,�Ut n 't l C � r -.}' �•�S%•.� ,.r;">a w `'�,^^fa't���te,a �e',N�" �:i:it .,t n aF. y5 a if: 3 .err „''',r�� �. �:�?�•s.-' � T :T r1.,,,,. [ s3`. F ? t Yr ,” •l 5Y.£V;T St", •,f..f,',4' xM ' t�• •a M p... '�`.. .;;1 s,-ec;:' e- J a.,dK�"!i c r: i,i. S� r;r%r' , �.�:.,. ,:o, F« u : ^:.•.,. .�"7 �' ,:V`1,,�,,gg�.•,,.. a. Y Y,'t` 'r Q 4i':£, ('e .vS'�,� ,; r• ,:r : 11, , �Ad 1 II= �-% ..'4• 't✓.,i.. r�`Y::. -� b.. r$ r I r. r v'a �`I4 z•T'e.�.. '� .0 '"a�� l.»"sJ - `Y3'Fr h:.,t: .,.,xr :. '�xn_a:.. -„•t,l. � .>. y � -„ .�,. ,�.-'�” _,�::.'. r.,i„ ';:3 _ ,. - i .'� av 'y, "1.' 1P ta" S �r"� ;$.i'{' ,y= �'�• ,'.�;;. ti,,,r:u..:. .y o'f, � ,r �I r, .I. ,}:, ,t. _"�. �'n'sf' ,r,f�, •. ,A ,�,.,<••, z.rtra' j-...7, '�'r,..l .'�^.•.{'A.. - 'btf �N 11 I I 1 1 ,..f! <". d e h, T/�� .. r4''. li.. ..Y •w.'"F-� � 1 i= d' :I. t f 'i+, f �:y�-,"tJ 4,� � ..J. n j r.$�r�, ,�ti3:�' „`'hJ, a t!. r�. .'.!� i rlt 4�1'�'.IS y!I t �..: .ir;r 'r ��... ,,,t 'r1.3F'�a�,'� ..w^.�,1b'..��, �1"'t� u. v..:AU I `.�r u.'•£ x ryf��tt�... :;� S a!r'.i,r:.,n.. ; ;#;.. �j ,l.•"�^,J•,'.,a t 4 .'�, L Y ar'.'�1 •,Gw:;.:-x� .� r-J �,.. r',.. 1 5 �"= a )�r ,,..+..r'ii � i.'. 7.,1'�,��.. .;�mF. :«J"... ry.,. .7 +;w - N;.,a� at�, g�;�};I!p`j?t$!,, '/t P„ '7J.',,rx .� .J,Y}'yltyY),•,-'�['�I :in. �:Y'. t Y.a'i^..Y:.% �. -�'1�.1� ','�i- t.... .py(I ?`u��"' 1'�SS ��tl� �t,.y. „��,1^`•+���. �'�s;"��r„. '" � �:��:° �'ilu� t�+�'4:;rx; � ,:r<'• ,n �. r 7 ; . t' ;�';4 r a�, a� ��„.f3�'f F�,�+"<..'�e' '� _ �'r ,'s.:,'"Y �' v ^it. •�. �i i� ` r'y�" e-, :a°r.- P. a:• @o-s, � } >ir�rx4" :?7`; '(1r. .:1f>. 4"%,7;,. 1,- t iti-: er..�'- 4 Yu�c'•a1•: „r� .o, �� 'a- f' N'^' Y'.� ...._`.i ... .. .... k r..l, 11 -'t'4{• :5.. 5. ,u!r. W £`TaJ!CY"r b, r, %},'�r,,. 's4 't+a I �r ! :.l ,b. -r 9 i tis`� '•� +:.,4'�k; � ^,r - Yn R` wt. h E,.x ,�- t. .�� a t,.ii I I 'r.r r _{. ,,,;^ y •-,x '�✓� :r.�w ?`{. '.4'• ?,^ r,r«•,-zr.. :uI$,..t3r1 �`pr t.. z UOI�C� F tr,l.. i.. sc..a .-a •'rp!° i�,. a <y r a, -",.'d°�.. �._ ,>;,. .x. ( y: .�} � 1 sr t .ri�r, .;o..i.,.r ' •a � �',`r�,� -,: t x,.'"x.".Y 1P'�"*, ;„.:..;iw+, {r� Yi'r•"E :-��" �._ -x�t� I, '( ,�,.� 1 , 4. C r •�"...� `�' *x ,'1rt _r.,,na-v.y rim, 'a„�° ;.(•. 'irsi� -t-4 i y,: -.Ir r,` +ya lL 3': •-U^� r .I r I I�� `�+, ,.r,^ „a_ :r:..�` k,r:-4 t'h. ...;T' ,.,.:d"• � N••, nf� ..- rhrt,'.x.. .. '•. r�C:..,rd n. -�'.i .. 1'. ) �i � r,�;'.�'ry ��� r .; _1. yam •'k ,.ti,,,r>.{. ., ,;J= y, tt� ,, r. u•?N'-'a;: iya U8J111 '•'.•,. .,G .r" a ;:,, -..... i' I .r.' 1 - S,,„,1'aG,u,#3,P',p t 1�,. ``"' p,e,;: r.. ..k �'` ,`�", .. gr N! `'"�a n,, {�•.Tor i1•d s 3-=d r>E� 41 s d 3.,ry ,4a: _"•'?.., .t ,��� .[:r d. zt s;+ 'y;r. .yt- r' ,r f 4' r ,. #�_.'�',-�• C. �£�x- ,�'< +,-i*�,1 {° a pxr, ,ar. :�",�n.t' ,�'fr:,. ¢. T t-' xir I 1 I Ir' ��'`I 9 -a� '4,7��.,t r. r :a � ..r,: •.�„ >K.,« 'ri' •.�a.^"i 'I �,,,;,Ni. E. :-.S x'T' `a ^tx \, t !: i, t•�."':a`«n"z; ,fir. ;,'f.+FA,fi-:-�� 6' �'' �r. "kr' ;;. -�°j!' J, ) A< + ..41 t. :rr`,}gym, a .y: sa•;�', .1, _ ..t 1 �'i' yy :.�ijf �, t ?. 'I �� r r:r.• ;a,c i �irYu�r'-q, •-p" 5 Y r, ,a„ ,..a:� v - ! ,ur 411 ! 'a•.;xy 'f'" �.�r�rylg+ :.F.�ai,`k(•m'.' ,a.� or;. :�*¢ r .n ...I.1 :1 :� rj" v�..tr�• r ,.W' 1.� .4 :- „ r,_�.,:,r`.. , �':,,, a,.:l. 1 cl r��,w,��. G-•y,ayr .a,n x+ �.S.�`u•, :;54, .��4 �,"v. K �'. ;Y.•,yPg; �: rG• -.J r ,Yr ,l _ .-."��,•s � L,. ;I" ..rror "v'.x; F.; t-IJi. i.9,�r'. 1. ?.i I li: a"` '� ,s`.,,e .:,,r �^. ..._..i v,•-rrxr r x. :xr<5,: _ -Y'%..a �•,. ^ ,.; ,?,G ,. _.,. 1,_,. ..•- '»: r 1 r,r +P •„IP!ri,':• - '', '� .. ,..0 ... 5 L, ..!1. r'. ., .X•T,T"., ,.. ., ...t..^. LS,. e ., i a4 4- " k�.,-�y„.•�:�_ ,, .: t .,........•. r ,..r,.,.wy .. '+ry ,,.a• +,,.: ,:. ,£A -n: r" -R at^h`.`�.„' F ,� '''�'� u4 ;:, to r- ,.s• m rai„ :1> ,d .� r ' '.,"�`{s�r t� :r' ?r k b-_ • .C}i,•.i_.a ..:. .r. _.... .........'F',: •ryrr, .,. ,., .. a _ r,,....-s .�.?x..,•.X R ,,. .,, :„�.: „ rF'x ..`, 'rl}. a,. ,aSW,'„"s.a• d.5r ..>_.- nI' »1", -.C.,,r-,.�r r' )^^ - $,,�' .r nL'_.. i i�„ 1 P y.. "r"&it, •S^'� ,ra' '.c, r'«3r��w:-: i<G,. �'( .g`'''4•� 1 a�3 •^£:,.. R.s'a'r d,.f� `:d�� .'i, ,r :'iN"«..n� .,iS`< ,.,.,xr.:",°. �: r,- �::' .r•!. 'a,` r 3: �✓ kys =°",^`� ., r. ;••.N,r �.1 ,s"u .It°;+f'... ;E`�.Ci'r.. ,v^� ,T J^„n r±l rm�t s:; ..,W ,t ,?.r ,: '•h-.>.,B, ,s.,• .AF�. , f �,E �..., ,.1:.__... 1 ��""-��.r .. .,, .`:l',..A-.. � :.��, v >'., , .-'. ..SG,r.j••d "la tp A ',k. fr✓ �,r r , ;lG.,, � t. p S e � b� r ti•r. • - J � .,,+ 4.„ -..., x: "e°-; ,;� ,:�. Hn+ < .� ., t ,( .i+H;tl ^•,'r2'r+„ d R.m. "G .•:rh'.*- .,. i:.r '.; r,.� .r* t -.�_�x-. v ,,.,1. .. �,-, .... ..',:,.,,. w � �::, ,.&�:. w• rr`ar?17 w•.d'n i.d: ,4".0 r; � ,.,-r'Tr��� � ��w -h.r. - .,.�";J�e:. ..x' ,.1 1 : tt+,:J�.' r ✓Ph'^Y rr. r-.E�•. Y,,tJ"" E•`a ':5,� ar �,F Y.I.,G.frxn}w^S' ,,,r:S•. ;/" -.(fv .r, � Y ,6 lr. C, 'imtit • � n�.�.((. ,G'r.>p'.k'!`'"A : •h*",1Y1 _..1....fir.. e.."4:: .� ,e�,- - V nt.kr• a.�'�,""'Y''. � _L�'a�.yCs- .�!. ',a�'i?r, {. .� ,A7 i✓:, u '+"r, w. Y..x �r'a�h ,.rA,.r. ..r' `�' ..a,.y .) •r w rq `� Y.sri+ .F�7-. tN. ..,F-:r 4 '.0 H�,R' ^"-ta f a .`r Mr''P. ,`3!;7�'•�" Y' ,,,; �t,� ^} � ,!Y'" S7 :�,;o- ,4 .,,i #� ,I r; I' ,lw ?ti+- ,`!:,:1T rh, �'!1 �;1 rfT :D `;Ih- E, •r% r� :.5,4... v •ta`, i'h',t., f1�' Srb+,a, f'F"`'`,. 'c� fi%_r:.. S 'h �i�. t i':. u.. :r� a n`'F� '..:rt;2, .fir ,.f•:. ,� s,.. ,I >"'.. dw* � h.' ..+%lr�' ,�r `'tf-c `�d✓ 5� r :..+- :'«,.'�-z'. ... �r S�'. .. q. ,.;.5'r'°�t�':'2`�r t .. ,... , ,. ..x ,�` �a #,s �rw•ur: «+✓ �5Y'fx�rf„ :U t. t � rt ., ,r-. n' r,•a'� X4,1 s� d �' ° „ � �.'�..S "Y„*;; h�'s��,., ,t. �' ��A,' c;..i„ ;;'i.. r!. �•`'� ,r �.. ,"""u"`i,.F+4 n C�hek,',yEt� r.� r't' .�1�' :*'ra .�°.0-t5 �:l'.� .,3 .t "4' ',3 y.,A. ..r 7'-a'•'S'.1'aa'+ 9 ..i` ,...,. M. ^r,. '.. '�Y✓.hi f t ...5 c' .)' J ,ru .,43 J. 44ra.,�-' e+:_.:,'S�. r` mil,i. l" ,:,,:,; .. M;� ,,_ .� S",.. .;:J a r..,. uJ , � r',nl�x"'" w, ,"�� , >r r,' +d�„- ;�.� .:t•°-". , ,='�.r3 ,,. ,,,;K fr':� s' r:rw nz. .:',4-' fa„`�Z Hr"-'•;?�y�'*�5;:•�•,. "" %-,' ;q ^�'•s. f. ',rV ^A �wln,fi�",_+"rs.5.^''c�"..;F:�-e'7^a' .�? �x r, „�tr;�r;,�.g...i IP".,1'� ;!',�. ,•,±�' ?M �k`' ?nwr Vii'. x.f £� .J-a,'�:�, riL f f t V iS!,d,it: - c-„F � :_ �';.fi.-.. "• '.r.,: .a-, ,. ,.r ;. ,,, .r ,,�G,,r. ,SM��,Wi t - `.�;� k'S' .: •' .. !.{. ""�� sd" ;a- (✓,lry'�y. :L,.If {,i-�i•��': :',`.",�•ir ..•71`5 f” "'II r� � �. Y"4 1 i��.��•. i. #;!>`u:.r .✓' "! i t' ! .'9 a .xf fr� tt as,',+..,•. >D <, '�, r .rti r• a S,, , .; t„, ,,,,.,.'r. .,, �, rYa; ..,r J .. I.is ,r �' ,:T.3..1 >' •.: P: r �> PRIOR—,- : ✓ h:Tr,'+. Y � - ,..x ... ,, .�. .i •. �, ,r� ..�- 5?`F,R'.,I,1 •5'�' sr2 -�°A'.15 �.t , r +t;:.i:..' ,- -- , ., im!..'� -,1,,> r .-. 1 {.. 'rr', t'. k;• '� "�7,4- w'� /'; g rv+�” s' .. .£' 5� ,4'". Q, 1 r S??"r .�'F, :'•'V•Y:1fYn...'F4. ..k.N�,.. 4 K 7 :7i i ?:rpyki 'V":. .5+}r.G.;� «. nv %�.. - ,,.:,,r �. ,�•"..; .,?u '�. " «., :.r. .. :!I a .7'7F""• ",.1 ,:: - ..K�' -,F; r „rr1... � - -.• r. .:....,; , s,' ks� f:to a'•'"�Z.- •..r•,r .;q,. r Ivt: r4:..,:�,x.. .3tt. :,.n .. , ""^:,: , :.,, r. :} '�, r "�ar r,wr✓.,.. xw* 7^'z-" :tr. 2 �ut`J:r G•.M ;-�*,�:�.�'�;?:'�:^o-'�, a: F. ,n.}£ �n #'aa _- ts 1 , � �: '„�: �9•s -.Y�`�'c-�°,: �'" w;r.,. ,r:,rr.,,s�kr"=,^r�i'ap`' �.l a.,'�, � :`� �L_J ir"," ;r+�. aw.- 15� 1 �I �A i£"'a '?' � 'r�(FP "G t'�r •)...,. K�'if�l 4'y.". G,r,"7r.•+ t�,' 'B .,.,.. ''-L�,',;.i;i1)-,,,,' tuK 75, 'lJ I t ��.. � .,,<. �wx �d„r.• "�,>✓r.?r t �,'? :u_ z,..a::. -,:,. wY �� s u r ✓ r:fy. c'�. ,m, & ,� ,^G , d yGr,'�,a'��- '�,x-r.S i -t. ',i N�.,, '::£ ��..!• rajr• P � s.i;� �C, ,tl� ;'w.rf ., ,�a,r� F' �f f.. "}"'Y' �d,`2',; v 1.. �:•, kw::,.; y c�sn�. ;` _t:. �, � ���� } u�,'. ,fit;• fo -., 's''�r R�.>” :rJ".y:. -�,:, .F �r � .1 'r i 4 t.^ ♦..1. AY'W ,4". i1iT.t ., •+f' a+y' _.Vr, a.p. .F,. gr }T' _,�-,� ,I,as .Y ,, rH. "� xr rj,•', yr,�,Sr� ''t.,,s.- S'-%,ieay v`ir , " �'„�• t ✓' r ., °+. a. f .,rA 9. a. ,,. ,..�k' �, ,, w.. r..r I.. ,.; '` .i .�".,. ?N:�. fr, "'�'•., Nx1}�„, C.'•.«rr�� r.! x ,•xh'. ICE.�,yfw:,.1r.:`•!?,r_I.)l(.�N r.h-•�".'rl'^�y�rrtlg�,,{-C--s,{:.Y.. rx.(�.,Y.,J k+e a�Y:,:,�.._,,,r".k...,..r;f,�"".''. r.i^,•...I 1"l i;'f','.,(r:�.n..-.Y,.1.�,,_�.''X,,1.,..,r.s 1_r r:?,.i.1•.s..•y.t..��,,,:r.«..�.'.^..�.,,,Y:+.�'.�'t,5r'.I,W e,"...�..,-..'.t�..,�.r,,..:.G"r�'r G,.�w�,}:,t�r 5 z,.3�.re'��r,'y.?S. -v ,.irt r ftY'''.#�,�"`'r<"''„".^N�h d eM N�N'�r�L 9si..,,,.,_,4'•!,...;:,.,.”_� (1"I! r,I"t,..r..I,.:Ii,..r-i.1 I..;1,u.:,r....r....t,:. .:. -l.r,i,„,.d,..,(•..r,:.:,.-%N_.a rZ::.�a r f w•. .'- : Jr..*{:-.nf lY.,'.i'�y lf l. 9�, ^.r r.�i�i!+JrY�•y,.f�ac£.:;u,rr,•a.i�,:7•� �'r�f�i,a. rM`',�-3�^az�V'��k�'.vn 5,y•r�5,'.'r...�.�,::tAS✓,•4't..4.,.,k,p:,.•t'��-�r•:�i'..i'S:F�YG A 4 a�G.F :N v k.'1 f.t f1�1,"k�.«tw,•,.I r.•�__y-A::`2',.:;f r=k y 1 r 5..t�-�i hF+[:t}}i•n Y,Y i C�i',i.ry.',I r,r^+yv•IG.r.Y Cs:.,w 1C.h.io-..el, 11B - Tom m ssi,f . r;ri mown NIP . x riJ•,n•:'r x'n r r.. . - r.•. r.:,,,,r., J,t �,..,.- x� ..,.',4xa-. .dk «aw r,, �, � r r',,.�, J r r� ,.rtw ,.' �. ( �. ,rx. r: �r, .c" w"r+•i'-�'�;%as rs•. s t^k. '-"'�,' -�. • •r ..... .. r.. .> x.,x<I.,:da,.:y.,.r•.r.,t.- 'k,'>. .«.. ,,'.. , ,� : :,.: t_-t �t'. ,.:,•. A4` r'•;�.z .,P"G tears': �r ';k";'� ,:'7tn' ':,.M1 a„ >F _..,f, r,•o,ux, li,l .P. nr �. ,.:k IZ v. , .ns'l `�' ,n'... r z, " ":5�" ";..7 �i:'Y,. s;Jiiayx•'�"ta sItn„'«�'�-•�rr - ".t.i�- s 'r--"�°�H'r+.,cry:. �'�"j•8". ,:w:y,..' .-•:"'. :' Y' -.e t,.adv n :.',. .:� , v ', :,r. i v :.„"{ :' ,': : Ef•• �. ,p,.. .,• ., ,�'xM,M?v�. ,�': Y .Y b...,,,•,. �' rt 4 '!rJ rt.',N .,Y F"w}r.,�Y� S '�.� N F� Rt Mr, Ml}y,.;, I, :•rV ..{,-rAr ✓,��,' S �'., i -Yl ......ti: „W..< rtr... .., `9� ,;- '�-°�• -. .,'.n 4� ,�.i7.�', "Y}.9t;s "' 1 .s -,sr•:,✓., '..,, r :a- ..11 kS _'y E. 1, ✓s.r.. :cia..-.' :Myr.,. n„ :.:�Z ,.y, ;t? w r'. f r �9..; S '1� f.1-.µ-.'w: •r°�dy-.:wl.- :,,:�., ,a•a,b;«a,.,u::xy- w.. .r. .� ,� 'b.. u rr 'r'rs,.. r 1 i i� .y' X .i n. ..�w -,, I '4Ai'�M A: •t. v! "�„�.� Jas ,�, ,.v�:+: .rt '� -.t a•L nP` L t H - '�• M1 -�. F ;.w`':C,+3'e';V„A °¢ -�., ..t^f✓•,. ,:r.: :! x'x ,a�rx+ ,.co ,u„ r..: - .. : r,« � .. o..� ,,. pa-. F..: , „8;, ,X x :'Ha'.v N.:,T�'i .y' n, ,,.. �•3 ,Y;,,:§ .� -;.� .w °' , �ew. ao. d ,e. r .�:�<. :'"' ,«,A...'.;r,,, .;,.;. ,rm •. r., �»` a :, r r..l�`�r� rt ��{,r ,,a>:..t.d:, ,,x„ .+t'r d:c .,.Y::',;�. �., r,.o� .>ni h. n.«�a?;,,,`,� .✓���� .d .r `x L ,,.a,�' ,t ,t ,.•LrGi".Si:. d- .c �;`. ., �'" '.,.c x� i „ ..' R,.wf .. .�,�,✓�.r .r. t'�x;t W rvx m G st...•� .4,.Gxr,. ,..:. ,.:. Sri.: .m,.><.>:,.z. ,, ,rJ�<� M .rs:.' � •!'':". •� a b ,.. n /' � h. .,..::.fX,., f 1`t. 9- �,la x : h4''. ..„Y: B .. ,. e fM r,a,... .,...,.:rfi ,,�fM .'..,: '':...,..� �.,. of 4/Y> :.•<• r � A'�Y n.aa-N,•.•h{ �d ;ra'z. „`:_„v, 'edx •'^..f.,.' J. ��., , P -a' �r��vi..., r s.: .� d,,. ✓,.r .,.�`rJ�s9lt �.., ,1 ., ,✓Y: ..,,r a,w`a','y. s,r :,}.. a°�”:.M�j i�,. �,,yy .`x'a.r.is,. .x, ..r'. -{ F?:� t.; x C •hr; -r. ,. "y ,�a J :•u„�':� t' ::f •,yY,,,.,Tp•i ..:>� -:•lw. .. ., 'ry �,_,. •... r h...:m sa�. «:„ ., .r" .. ,:. rr :., & „-.•r« re�: v '-+. ,t,.<....: �,"`: 'S },.«, �:. .�. >k` .?r,r 5`^. _..f?'ra:"' ,F. •s•- ,r r .r,. ,s-i,:• .r. qy r• :G' .:�„+#'1.a:' ✓G" -`a.✓: •i`�. -:x,+ �. 4 z1x�' ,.r., ,.),,yg� m.- i �i'_ :J`� .:, ;�a �Ntx..e• r xt Y .:la ,� ''i T!xr., "w'. `•,ei�Hr '4 :,�: ,�7 fr, � � ",4.•Ik � M, '�',,, at ww. r.d.' J a,4+ A. .�, ,r 5.`M1-r Y s. r,. ,krrv. •-tir L.. t a •5 •L. .. w:.. x- :%3 " ., �k�`rr�.. 9�'•.. ,. "�• '�,x". '�$%`.rte, rp" ,S ?:'�•,. .,✓?,7? p. ,.,r,.l i,s� :7. r., s>°A.'9�.•''d:'.'�`t ,4.;'*=. d..r .u: ..,.r. .t,� ..a,r „ � ,a...r u a E�.'', n: ....;• .°.v'„ P - t,..,u .°..+.ra r:}. .. :t 5 �'"�f.a_ ?ut.r .r .F,`J,,.. •�: ,1 x ,,-v.-ro-.car ...e -•�J.� - .,1. , �..a ' ``�_. ,. I r..r,:. ,_. .:„. r ,:...--” �.X� ._r.✓^^'.,. ... `e ... , ,. Yt3�. a'• i., ..!y�f.'C ..•r; h r�.;1��"�', ,lt.., .:r- .x...« .r,. d ...,.. .,r„s.. 1 ^v "i ... - _ .,.. ... ,�,xrwA ,. :{-. t...sa. ,.-_.br f r. .>...1,a, �ti;�✓^�, �>.!I R ,x4, �1.:� 's, ..1",=. .,� ...............3a,-.�s:.v,,..'x'sY....r.t,r.,,.,...�,.C._. ...b .'rr, ..a-,..'„ .3' :.:: f' .. ,:.,. +r :,,. .�1t ,. ..,. . .. a.,.. !r. 'S :, .�Y'`....r„r ..J 2�;,+.a r:». SFrr:!.• .,'✓,':F _»..rc.r:. :-w ,. v ,>r,....r...,,,,xo "r:.,,,.t..,._..oJ,:_--.......nr,1 m.U.,a`„>;x.,_<n.,..,".•,rr..:.r..w-,a,,,.n,t °>ro.......�... ...... ....r;..Jart� �:..-,..,....,.a.",.,,.t.a.. .n,udr,-r �h.^haa5.,,;,.'...,, x:-,. .«... ,. ..r.:-r,Y„�rJ;LrJ.i�r�ar...wf,..,u't�'<.N.r,lit.ua-:.ac..kntn(.�s:t .,:'.t;..,..a..J, y-+: + { �y voLicp G1'tx op BROOKLYN CENTER- POLICE DEPARTMENT {: N� MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Glasoe, Director of CARS FROM: Kevin Benner, Commander DATE— October 8, 2009 SUBJECT: , Firehouse Park Project Summary: On July 20, 2009, a neighborhood meeting was held at Firehouse Park to address citizens concerns about nuisance behavior in and around the park. The common complaint from the residents was activity generated from the basketball court located on the north portion of the park. The police department already had the hoops temporally removed on July 8, 2009. Staff from the Parks. Recreation,and the Police department was tasked by the City Manager to review activity and make a recommendation to address the neighborhood concerns in balance with the need for park facilities. Scan of Firehouse Park: Firehouse Park is a seven acre park equipped with the follow_ ing recreational amenities: 1) Two fall baseball fields, 2) One Rill basket ball court(Currently no backboards) 3) Over 4200 square feet of playground equipment 4) One 600 square foot shelter with four picnic-tables 5) Four picnic tables spread throughout the south side of the tree park area 6). One portable outhouse 7) One drinking fountain 8) Eleven garbage cans 9) Two barbeque grills- 10)Two designated handicapped parking stalls 11 Thirty-one standard parking stalls The principle use of the park varies by time of day, with the majority of crowds at the park using the baseball fields, basketball court, and the shelter with the grill. Year to date, the shelter has been reserved by permit through the CARS department four times by citizens, and two times by the police department. { Page I of 5 i The two baseball fields are used by the Brooklyn Center High School girls' fast pitch teams in the spring for practice sessions. In the past, these fields were used by the Little League girls softball teams, but due to low turnout they were not used in 2009. The demographic makeup of those using the park varies throughout the day with a majority of identified park visits from those in the immediate area. The park is located in an area surrounded by multi-family housing with high pedestrian traffic. A large amount of the park visits is from the students coming from Brooklyn Center High School located next door. The afternoon hours, when school adjourns,is the peek for pedestrian traffic through the park. In-depth review and problem analysis of Firehouse Park from each department: Streets and Parks, Supervisor John Harlow Over the last several years,the amount of resources and manpower required to maintain Firehouse Park has been a fluctuating issue. The amount of maintenance resources used has directly correlated to certain types of activities occurring in the park. Most notable, is the amount of basketball playing and the presence, or not, of basketball hoops erected at the court. In spring and early summer of 2009,removal of trash, litter and rearranging of park amenities consumed approximately eight(8)hours of park staff time per week. During late s-ulimer and fall, these same maintenance tasks required only one (1)hour of staff time per week. Community Activities, Recreation, and Services (CARS), Director Jim Glasoe There are no City sponsored activities at Firehouse Park through the CARS department. The shelter at the park is open for permit reservations from the CARS department. Police Department, Commander Kevin Bernier In review of the police calls for service occurring at Firehouse Park,there has been a notable decline in fight/assault type calls since the removal of the basketball hoops on July 8, 2009. The first call for service in 2009 to Firehouse Park came on May 7, 2009. (This information helps identify a trend of nuisance behavior as more related to seasonal park use versus the park in general.) From May 7,2009 until July 8,2009,there was an additional 15 police calls for service. Seven of the calls were fights or assaults,to include one person being stabbed in 2009. At least five of the fight/assault calls were directly linked to the basketball court. From July 9, 2009 until October 4,2009,there have been 12 calls for service to the park. There has been one report of an assault. (In that case,the victim refused to speak with officers and the case is unfounded.) Three of the calls were related to youth playing dice games in the shelter area and three related to cars parking in the lot after 10:OOpm. The remaining calls varied in description but were unfounded suspicious activity: Page 2 of 5 The majority of all calls in 2009 were received from 6:00p.m.-10:00p.m. j Throughout the entire summer,Firehouse Park was patrolled everyday by the Park Patrol unit and complimented with the Community Service officers and Patrol division. This provided constant police presence in the park with a focus on the 6:00p.m.-10:00p.m. times. Since the removal of the basketball hoops,the officers have reported that there are now very few people at the park and it is often vacant during their patrols. A review of the environmental design of the park showed a clear view of the entire park from any entry point to the park. There were no obstructed areas where a person could hide or come from unexpectedly, except for the portable outhouse. There is no direct lighting in the playground area or the shelter picnic tables. Ambient light from the east parking lot did reflect to these areas,but is not the intended source of lighting for those areas. The park rules,are clearly displayed at two entry points from the Bryant side of the park. Both signs are identical and address all the expected conduct in the park except gambling. N. ! l 5 ! y! J j .. 7 R ter:" � A Y In discussion with the Brooklyn Parr Director o f Recreation and Parks, J ol i O yan agi and the Three Rivers Parks police department, they also agreed this signage was appropriate for the amenities offered in this park. A review of the parks ordinances used by the Three Rivers Park police and those of the Brooklyn Center police was completed. The only difference is the consolidation of the ordinances into one location by:Three Rivers Park district. The ordinances and laws available to the Brooklyn Center police to address the nuisance and disorderly conduct in our parks meets the current needs, they are just located in several different chapters of the City ordinances. Page 3 of 5 Collabor=ative Response: The conduct of the visitors to.the park at the basketball court was clearly the primary source of nuisance behavior. A concern of speeding traffic was raised and this masked the identified problems of the park and should be addressed in a separate review. The removal of the basketball hoops did have an obvious impact on the reduction of violent calls for service, but did not resolve the need for park usage. The basketball court was a clear draw for the numerous youth from all over the Firehouse park area and a maj ority of the youth playing there were law abiding. The long term solution of leaving the hoops down will mean only reduced park activities for youth. This is clearly evident with the vacant park use since the hoops were removed. There are many suggestions to assist in addressing the park usage and some have a large cost associated with them. Outside agencies were contacted for suggestions. In discussion with John Oyanagi, (Who also use to work for the Minneapolis Parks department.) he indicated the challenge of youth nuisance behavior occurring in parks is not new and the most successful actions he has seen is with youth outreach in the parks during the identified troubled times. Most problems begin to occur in the Spring time and can easily get worse in the Summer months. The timing of the youth intervention is very predictable provided the outreach staffmg in available. Recommendation#1 Supervised use In combination with youth outreach is scheduled basketball court times with the use of basketball rile locks. The court times for use will be posted and the youth outreach worker or Park volunteer would be able to participate in the games. The recommended hours would be 4:OOpm to 8:OOpm and start the first week in May. There is grant funding for youth outreach for 2010 that could assist in funding the,staff needs. Recommendation#2 Court reorientation By moving the basketball goals to bcdi facing east, this would eliminate the full court games. This would allow for youth to still play basketball games,just more youth can play games in a smaller count setting. This option would cost no more than$500-$1,000 in labor costs. There would still be a need to monitor this recommendation closely as a repeat of the same problem could easily occur. Recommendation 93 Brooklyn Center High School partnership With the Brooklyn Center High School entering into the "2010 Full Service Community Schools Program"a partnership with the City and the School_ to offer afterschool basketball indoor court use. Currently the City does not have an indoor court for use by the public. The staffing needs could be shared with the youth outreach and afterschool staff. A majority of the youth served would be students. Recommendation#4 Leave the basketball hoops down Page 4of5 �/ The City of Brooklyn Center does not have.any basketball youth programs currently available,nor-staff to referee the game play: This is now the third basketball court rendered inoperable in Brooklyn Center due to nuisance calls for service and park misuse. History most likely will repeat itself A the hoops are just put back in play with no funding or resources to address the supervisory needs at the basketball courts. It is clear the youth will come if the courts are playable. Page 5 of 5