Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 06-25 CCP Regular Session AGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 25, 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. 5301 Dupont Avenue North, Citizen Concerns—Councilmember Lasman 3. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4. Adjourn MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DATE: June 21, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mariam* SUBJECT: 5301 Dupont Avenue North Background: Council member Lasman as requested that an item be placed on the Council Agenda to discuss information related to the meeting held at the Police Station on June 14`x' 2012 regarding 5301 Dupont Avenue North. One of the questions raised regarding the property is the licensing status. Our records indicate that a type 1 rental license was issued to this 6 unit complex on June 2, 2011 based on the a finding of two code violations (0.33 per unit and 1 qualifying police call (0.17 per unit) within a 12 month period. i Mission: Ensmhw air uttnictive,cleem,saj e,inclusive couruuinitp that enhances the quuli(r of life for all people auil preserves the public bast CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center June 25, 2012 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. —Pastor Bernard Bouissieres, Brookdale Christian Center 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. June 11, 2012—Study Session 2. June 11, 2012—Regular Session 3. June 11, 2012—Work Session b. Licenses C. Amend 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule to Cancel the August 17 Municipal Primary Election Canvass d. Resolution Appointing Additional Election Judges e. Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Ordering the Removal of Diseased Trees at Certain Properties in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 25 2012 I f. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project No. 2010-01, 02, 03 and 04 Contract 2010-A, Dupont Avenue Street and Utility Improvements g. Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project No. 2010-05, 06, 07 and 08, Contract 2010-13, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements 7. Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations —None. 8. Public Hearings a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinance Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land, Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City, at 5401-5415 69t"Avenue North —This item was first read on May 29, 2012; was published in the official newspaper on June 7, 2012; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: —Motion to open Public Hearing. —Motion to take public input. —Motion to close Public Hearing. —Motion to adopt ordinance. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. Request for Development/Site and Building Plan Approval Trough the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process for a New Three- story, 97 Bed Nursing Care Center (Phase 1) and Parking Areas; and the Future Development Plan (Phase II) of a 38-unit Senior Independent Living Facility — Located at 5401 & 5415 69th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 31, 2012, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 - Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for a Development Plan/Site and Building Plan Approval for a New Three-story, 97 Bed Nursing Care Center (Phase I) and Parking Areas; and the Future Development Plan (Phase II) of a 3 8- unit Senior Independent Living Facility — Located at 5401 & 5415 69th Avenue North Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. i ii CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 25, 2012 b. Planning Commission Application No. 2012-007 Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of Maranatha 2nd Addition — Located at 5401 & 5415 69th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 31, 2012, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-007 — Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval of Maranatha 2nd Addition — Located at 5401 & 5415 69th Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 31, 2012, meeting. Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Council Consideration Items a. An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2010-12 Regarding Council Salaries for 2013-2014 Requested Council Action: —Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for July 23, 2012. b. Resolution Approving Final Plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment 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 STUDY SESSION JUNE 11, 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 (arrived at 6:27 p.m.), Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Finance Director Dan Jordet, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Myszkowski requested discussion on Item 6b, Garbage Hauler Licenses, in particular the issue of going to a single hauler. She asked how many garbage haulers are licensed. City Manager Curt Boganey estimated not more than nine. Councilmember Lasman requested discussion on Item 10b, Charter Commission Recommendation Regarding Amendment to City Charter Chapter 9 Relating to Eminent Domain, in particular whether the Charter Commission would be represented at tonight's meeting to present its recommendation. Mr. Boganey stated he has not heard that a Charter Commissioner will be present. Councilmember Ryan asked if the Charter Commission had submitted a revised recommendation on the issue of eminent domain. Mr. Boganey indicated the Charter Commission has not held a meeting since the last City Council meeting but the City Attorney is scheduled to attend its June 13, 2012, meeting. Mr. Boganey referenced the information handed out prior to the meeting relating to Work Session Item 2, Update on Shingle Creek Crossing Phase I and II Development Activities and Improvements. He noted updated information had also been provided relating to Item 6i, Resolution Appointing Election Judges, since there were names withdrawn. Councilmember Lasman asked if the City Clerk has a waiting list for election judges. Mr. Boganey stated he was unsure there was a waiting list but the item before the City Council would provide adequate election judges. 06/11/12 -1- DRAFT Councilmember Ryan referenced the information provided by Mr. Boganey related to the cost for a Charter amendment, noting the total to date is estimated at $1,753. Given the Charter Commission has $1,500 allotted annually, he asked whether the City would make up the difference in cost. Mr. Boganey indicated it is the City Council's discretion whether to expend beyond the $1,500 allotted in the budget. In this case, the City Council has already authorized virtually all of the expenses listed but not yet incurred the cost of the ballot. Mr. Boganey noted the Charter Commission rarely expends its $1,500 annually or requests consultation with the City Attorney. He asked whether the costs for the City Attorney were incurred by the Charter Commission or under the direction of the City Council. Mayor Willson agreed the City Council had authorized the City Attorney to become involved and attend the upcoming Charter Commission meeting; however, he would like to know if there are expenditures outside those listed. He asked who prepares their Charter Commission meeting minutes. Mr. Boganey stated the Charter Commission has its own secretary and the City Cleric posts their minutes to the website. Councilmember Ryan asked if Charter Commission application records are available to the City Cleric. Mr. Boganey stated the City Clerk does not receive those applications. Mayor Willson stated he receives copies of that documentation as the Mayor. MISCELLANEOUS INCLUSIVENESS AND DIVERSITY—MAYOR WILLSON Mayor Willson stated this topic had been placed on the City Council's Study Session agenda at the request of a constituent. The Mayor and Councilmembers discussed the amendment, restating their position as expressed at the May 29, 2012, Council Work Session. It was reiterated that this matter was already addressed by two State statutes and was not a proper amendment to the State Constitution but should be properly defined as a civil rights issue. The City Council noted the City has an established history of supporting inclusiveness and diversity as evidenced in the City's policies and fee schedule, which are under its discretion, assuring none are discriminated against. The consensus of the City Council was to not consider a resolution or take a formal stance relating to the proposed marriage amendment since this matter was not under the jurisdiction of the City Council and should be left to the individual. ASH BORER INFESTATION Councilmember Lasman asked whether fallen Ash tree branches are a symptom of Ash Borer infestation. Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug stated he will provide more information on Ash Borer and asked the City Council to inform staff if they have questions about possible infestation of an Ash tree so it can be inspected by the City Arborist. 06/11/12 -2- DRAFT i I RENTAL OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION Councilmember Lasman referenced a recent newspaper article about the Duluth City Council considering new rental rules to restrict numbers of people living within a rental dwelling. She asked whether the City's rental ordinance regulates the number of people living within rental single-family dwellings. Following review, Mr. Boganey read the section regulating occupancy of rental units whether multi-family units or single-family dwellings. Councilmember Kleven arrived at 6:27 p.m. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY UPDATE Mr. Lillehaug introduced the item and provided an update on the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study and items that will be addressed at the upcoming public hearing. Mayor Willson asked about past discussion with the County and State relating to the Highway 100 on- and off-ramps. Mr. Lillehaug indicated there is not an issue with the ramps on the north or south sides of Highway 100 but there are issues with the interchange at 51St Avenue, immediately south of the south ramp. He advised that this ramp is ranked by the County to be in the top 12 due to significant safety issues. Mr. Lillehaug stated 51St Avenue does not warrant signalization so staff and the County are considering the option of moving the primary access up to the southerly entrance ramp and creating frontage road access for Malmborg's Nursery and the Church site, parallel to Highway 100. In addition, staff is working with the County on its re- decking project for the Highway 100 and Brooklyn Boulevard bridge to reconfigure lanes, address pedestrian traffic, and bicycle lanes. Mayor Willson asked about the configuration farther north where the City Council had discussed a roundabout and Highway 100 off ramps by Davanni's. He noted another issue is how hard it is to get to Shingle Creels Crossing businesses once past the off ramp. Mr. Boganey indicated those initial concepts were discussed early on when condemnation was still an available tool. He recalled that the costs were more than the City could bear and change in redevelopment ideas for the area resulted in it being put on the "back burner." Mayor Willson stated he would like it brought to the forefront as the City goes through the development of Shingle Creek Crossing and acreage north of Bass Lake Road. Mr. Lillehaug advised that interchange is independent of this discussion since it is northeast of the Bass Lake Road interchange. He stated if directed, staff could see if it is within the Comprehensive Plan's goals for that area. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. 06/11/12 -3- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to reconvene the Study Session at 6:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY UPDATE—CONTINUED Mr. Lillehaug completed presentation of the Corridor Study and encouraged the City Council to attend the June 19, 2012, public hearing when Corridor Study concepts will be presented to gain input from the City Council, property owners, and residents to assure it contains their concepts and meets their goals. Mr. Lillehaug reviewed future considerations and indicated staff will work with a consultant to assure input is adequately addressed in the implementation plan. He asked if the City Council's expectations are being met pertaining to the project progress and if it supported this public participation element. Councilmember Kleven asked about the study. Mr. Lillehaug advised this Corridor Study cost $190,000 and is about one-half completed at this point. Councilmember Kleven indicated support to move forward. Mayor Willson stated the street amenities slide was familiar from a previous study and he supported moving the process forward once support is assured. Councilmember Lasman stated she has been a long-time proponent of addressing the corridor south on Brooklyn Boulevard to assure a holistic approach. She stated she supports incorporating a larger viewpoint from businesses and residents and asked about the open house presentation. Mr. Lillehaug stated a short presentation will be made at 4:30 p.m. and handouts will be provided to solicit comments and input. Mr. Boganey indicated staff would be happy to make a presentation before the City Council if any cannot attend the public hearing. Councilmember Myszkowski agreed there needs to be an effort to draw input from business owners, noting some may not be comfortable with English. She asked if an interpreter will be in attendance, if needed. Mr. Lillehaug reviewed staff's efforts to reach out to businesses, property owners, and tenants along the corridor with a mailed invitation and to solicit comment. He acknowledged staff has not done well to reach out to people who speak different languages but did speak about this element with Hennepin County and will re-evaluate how to assure they attend the public hearing. i 06/11/12 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Myszkowski stated her appreciation that additional effort will be made because some of those small business owners have important opinions to share and the City needs to be all inclusive and assure all participate. Mayor Willson suggested staff also take advantage of the Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Study Session at 6:59 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 06/11/12 -5- 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 JUNE 11,2012 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, Finance Director Dan Jordet, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, 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. No one wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION As the invocation, Mayor Willson requested a moment of silence and personal reflection for those individuals who have served our country in the military. 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, Kay Lasman, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Finance Director Dan Jordet, Public 06/11/12 -1- DRAFT Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, 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, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 29, 2012—Study Session 2. May 29, 2012—Regular Session 3. May 29, 2012—Work Session 4. June 4, 2012—Joint Work Session w/Financial Commission 6b. LICENSES AMUSEMENT DEVICES Theisen Vending Company 210557 1h Avenue N. 6211 Brooklyn Boulevard FIREWORKS - PERMANENT Target#240 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway GARBAGE HAULER Ace Solid Waste, Inc. 6601 McKinley Street NW, Ramsey Darling International, Inc. 9000 382"d Avenue, Blue Earth MECHANICAL Crow River P &H 74402 01h Street SW, Howard Lake Legend Services, Inc. 201 North Medina Street, Loretto Sylvander Heating, Inc. 412 Tyler Road N., Red Wing RENTAL— CURRENT RENTAL STANDARDS INITIAL (TYPE III—one-year license) 5724 Logan Avenue N. Konstantin Ginzburg 7009 Unity Avenue N. Bakary Fatty INITIAL TYPE H—two-year license) 3815 52° Avenue N. Jeffrey Sandberg 291865 1h Avenue N. Hong Yang 291667 th Lane N. David Bui 5407 701h Circle N. Bakary Fatty 6614 Bryant Avenue N. Yi Lin 06/11/12 -2- DRAFT IIII 4201 Lakeside Avenue N. #106 Warsono Widjaja 4724 Lakeview Avenue N. Rebecca Hernandez 5315 Logan Avenue N. Kristen and Joel Carson 6812 Perry Avenue N. John Tatley RENEWAL (TYPE III—one-year license) 6400 Noble Avenue N. ZamZam Gesaade RENEWAL (TYPE II—two-year license) 3 819 61 st Avenue N. Fred Hanus 511866 1h Avenue N. Scott Hanson RENEWAL (TYPE I—three-year license) 5906 Dupont Avenue N. Bruce Goldberg 4718 Twin Lake Avenue Richard and Elizabeth Becht SIGNHANGER DeMars Signs 41093 d Avenue N., Coon Rapids TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Walmart 1200 Shingle Creek Crossing 6c. 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 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-75 AUTHORIZING DESIGNATION OF EASEMENTS FOR SHINGLE CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL REALIGNMENT PROJECT 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-76 PROVIDING A NINE MONTH EXTENSION TO THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE SUBMITTAL OF THE EVANS NORDBY ADDITIONAL FINAL PLAT 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-77 AMENDING THE AMPHITHEATER FUNDRAISING TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP ROSTER 6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-78 DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES 6h. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-79 DECLARING EARLE BROWN DAYS AS A CIVIC EVENT FROM JUNE 21 THROUGH JUNE 23,2012 6i. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-80 APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES 06/11/12 -3- DRAFT 6j. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-81 AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF ONE PERSONAL FLOATING HOLIDAY FOR THE MONDAY PRECEDING THE 2012 CHRISTMAS DAY HOLIDAY FOR CITY EMPLOYEES 6k. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-82 DECLARING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR 2012 Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-83 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF DAN STARLING FOR HIS DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012-83 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Dan Starling for his Dedicated Public Service on the Park and Recreation Commission. Mayor Willson read the resolution in full. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-84 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATIONS OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB IN SUPPORT OF THE 2012 EARLE BROWN DAYS PARADE, THE 2012 YOUTH GOLF LEAGUES, AND THE COMMUNITY GARDEN PROGRAM Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012-84 Expressing Appreciation for the Donations of the Brooklyn Center Lions Club in Support of the 2012 Earle Brown Days Parade, the 2012 Youth Golf Leagues, and the Community Garden Program. Mayor Willson read the resolution in full. Motion passed unanimously. 7c. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-85 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE MEDTRONIC FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF THE 2012 EARLE BROWN DAYS FIREWORKS Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012-85 Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Medtronic Foundation in Support of the 2012 Earle Brown Days Fireworks. 06/11/12 -4- DRAFT Mayor Willson read the resolution in full. Motion passed unanimously. 7d. PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 21, 2012, TO BE DALE GREENWALD DAY Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve PROCLAMATION Declaring June 21, 2012, to be Dale Greenwald Day. Mayor Willson read the proclamation in fill and presented it to Dale Greenwald. Motion passed unanimously. Dale Greenwald thanked the City for this recognition and indicated it has been a "wonderful ride" due to people like City Manager Curt Boganey, retired Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, and retired Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren. He commented that City staff had promoted all working together, creating cohesiveness that he and his company appreciated. The Council and audience responded with a round of applause. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS -None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-86 ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 Mr. Boganey introduced the item, reviewed meetings held with the City Auditor and Financial Commission, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. Finance Director Dan Jordet presented the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the calendar year ended December 31, 2012. He described the auditor's role and presented the auditor's opinion and findings, noting the auditor had offered an unqualified, or clean opinion and no findings were made over internal controls. Mr. Jordet then presented 2011 financial results and stood for questions. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2012-86 Adopting Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2011. 06/11/12 -5- DRAFT I i I� Mayor Willson complimented Finance Director Jordet and his staff for this comprehensive CAFR, which gave a clear and concise picture of the City's finances. The Cou ncil added its appreciation and indicated the document was easily understood and provided transparency of the City's financial standing. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER CHAPTER 9 RELATING TO EMINENT DOMAIN Mr. Boganey introduced the item and noted a Public-Hearing had been held on May 14, 2012, at which time action was tabled to tonight's meeting. He advised a unanimous vote was required of the City Council since the action would amend the City Charter. Mr. Boganey indicated tonight's consideration is on the original ordinance as proposed by the Charter Commission, with a 60-day timeframe to consider eminent domain. This is the ordinance initially published and under which the Public Hearing was held. Mr. Boganey indicated the Charter Commission has not yet presented a formal request to amend that language. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere advised the Charter Commission can submit an amendment at any time but to be placed on the November ballot, it must be submitted 17 weeks prior to the general election. Mr. Boganey indicated there is sufficient time for the Charter Commission to make the request to place the amendment on the ballot for the November election. Mayor Willson noted if the City Council is not unanimous, the Charter Commission could submit language for the ballot subject to City Council approval. He stated there is also a mechanism for a special election, which he would like to avoid due to its expense ($10,000 to $12,000). Mayor Willson noted the City Attorney will be attending the Charter Commission meeting on June 13, 2012, and asked him to make the Charter Commission aware of the timeline to place an item on the ballot. Councilmember Ryan stated the text under consideration tonight is the original text, about which the City Council has already expressed its concerns and those concerns remain. He stated if time permits, he would support a process to work with the Charter Commission to reach resolution. Mayor Willson noted the City Council did receive Charter Commission meeting minutes relating to its consideration of a revision to the proposed Charter amendment; however, those revisions have not been formally presented to the City Council. Councilmember Lasman stated the Charter Commission seemed to be somewhat in agreement that the original language for a 60-day period may be too short. She stated if this item is not unanimously supported, she hopes the Charter Commission would make its intent clear about the time period and open a process of conversation to avoid a costly special election. Councilmember Lasman stated she appreciates the work of the Charter Commission and has faith it will look at what is best for the City after conferring with the City Attorney. 06/11/12 -6- DRAFT Councilmember Myszkowski concurred with the comments of Councilmembers Lasman and Ryan and indicated she had hoped a hybrid compromise could have been reached. She noted this is very important to the Charter Commission and she wished she had known if there were community concerns or complaints that resulted in the proposed Charter amendment. Councilmember Myszkowski stated she hopes this language can be worked out with the Charter Commission. Councilmember Kleven stated her agreement with the comments of her colleagues. Councilmember Ryan referenced the recent change in State law to provide that protection for property owners and expressed concern that an amendment to the City Charter may result in a future conflict with State law. He expressed concern for the cost to amend the Charter, noting to date it is $1,753 and if improperly drafted it could create more problems than it would solve. Councilmember Ryan reviewed points of concern raised in the City Attorney's memorandum that have not yet been resolved. He indicated he hopes the City Council and Charter Commission continue to work together on this issue. Mayor Willson stated he had served on the Charter Commission for eight years and the Charter Commission is fully within its rights to propose amendments to the Charter. He stated his support for the City's Home Rule Charter form of government and indicated he hopes the Charter Commission had taken the public's input and understands its wishes. Councilmember Lasman stated her concern relates to the proposed phrase indicating: "The City has a 60 day period from initiation by the City Council of eminent domain to dismiss proceedings unless an extension is stipulated and agreed to by all parties." She noted the City Attorney has addressed the lengthy process for projects and indicated 60 days is a very short time period to complete such a process. Councilmember Lasman stated her concern with the proposed amendment that after 60 days, the City would be locked into a land purchase that may cost taxpayer money to no avail. 1. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER REGARDING EMINENT DOMAIN Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to not adopt Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter Regarding Eminent Domain. Mayor Willson asked for a legal opinion on the action before the City Council. Mr. LeFevere advised of Statute language and that the action would be a motion to approve with a vote or a motion to deny with a vote. Councilmember Lasman stated she proposed a motion to deny since a motion to approve would negate her previous comments. Motion passed unanimously. 11. . COUNCIL REPORT 06/11/12 -7- DRAFT Councilmember :M szkowski reported on her attendance at the following: Y p g • June 4, 2012, Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission • June 5, 2012, Earle Brown Days Committee Meeting Councilmember Myszkowski announced the Earle Brown Days Celebration from June 21 to 23, 2012. She also urged all to be aware that children are now out of school for the summer. Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following: • May 31, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting • June 4, 2012, Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission Councilmember Kleven reported on her attendance at the following: • May 30, 2012, Delivered Welcome Bags to New Residents • May 31, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting • June 4, 2012, Joint Work Session with Financial Commission Councilmember Kleven announced that the Brooklyn Center Police Department had received the "My 'Boss is a Patriot Award" in recognition of its assistance to Officer Jeff Sommers' family during his deployment. She stated she found it moving to hear the Robbinsdale Cooper Chamber Choir sing the national anthem during President Obama's visit. Councilmember Kleven announced Earle Brown Days events starting with the parade on June 21, 2012, and culminating with a fireworks display. Councilmember Lasman reported on her attendance at the following: • June 4, 2012, Joint Work Session with Financial Commission Councilmember Lasman urged all drivers to be extra careful and aware of school children out in the neighborhood. She announced the upcoming Dudley Classic Softball Tournament. Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following: • June 4, 2012, Joint Meeting with the Financial Commission • June 6, 2012, Appearance on the Cable 12 Show, "In the Know" • June 7, 2012, Brooklyn Center High School Graduation Ceremonies Mayor Willson announced he will be throwing out the first pitch at the June 17, 2012, Dudley Softball Tournament, which is the start of Earle Brown Days celebrations. He indicated this Tournament will be followed by the parade and many other events that are posted to the City's website. Mayor Willson encouraged all to come out and enjoy the celebration events. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 06/11/12 -8- DRAFT i 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 JUNE 11, 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 8:18 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, and Carla Wirth, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. UPDATE ON SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PHASE I AND II DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel introduced the topic and presented slides of the former Brookdale Mall; Shingle Creels Crossing Master Plan adopted May 23, 2011; the first PUD amendment approved September 12, 2011, that addressed mall separation from the Sears building; reconfiguration of the interior mall, elimination of the building next to Sears, and creation of a commercial pad and parking in the southeast quadrant of the 56t" Avenue and Xerxes entrance. Mr. Eitel advised of an opportunity to enhance Shingle Creek by extending daylighting and incorporating a water feature and restaurant pad sites and to enhance the separation of Sears and the mall to create a four-sided building front that is 60 feet apart. Mr. Eitel indicated the current PUD does not include colleges and business schools as acceptable uses within the confines of Shingle Creek Crossing. However, a group is viewing the site tomorrow for a University site. He explained the Planning Commission will address Phase II green spaces at its June 28 meeting and PUD amendments and the preliminary plat at its July 12 meeting. Mr. Eitel presented the projected cash flow and bond repayment schedule for TIF No. 5 that included a projected revenue stream from 2011 through 2028 and created a pay-as-you-go note, inter-fund loan repayment, other in-district expenditures, out-of-district expenditures (10% pooling), and 10% administrative expenses. Mr. Eitel asked if the City Council supports proceeding with an amendment to the Tax Increment Agreement for Shingle Creels Crossing that would facilitate further enhancements to the daylighting of Shingle Creels within the Shingle Creek Crossing development and enhancements 06/11/12 -1- DRAFT i associated with the separation of the Sears building from the remaining portion of the mall and internal streetscaping. If approved, unallocated funds would be used. The City Council/EDA discussed its support to move forward with both enhancement opportunities. Mr. Eitel answered questions relating to the Sears automobile building at the entry of 55th Avenue and agreed it was tremendously underutilized and there was opportunity for enhancement. He explained there has been indication Best Buy is interested in downsizing, possibly to 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. The City Council/EDA emphasized the importance of assuring adequate security at Shingle Creek Crossing so all feel comfortable using this retail area. Mr. Eitel reviewed the City's efforts to address loitering and truancy and stated he has relayed the importance of reinforcing those issues with Mr. Gatlin. With regard to safety of bus transportation, Mr. Boganey advised of staff's meetings with Metro Transit executives and indicated staff will continue to push that issue. The City Council/EDA stated its support to consider a CUP amendment for a public college option. There was discussion on the Sears building. Mr. Eitel advised that Mr. Gatlin is paying for a new Sears entry, resurfaced parking lot, and building separation. However, there has been no indication that Sears is positioning itself for staying long term. The consensus of the City Council/EDA was to support proceeding with an amendment to the Tax Increment Agreement for Shingle Creek Crossing that would facilitate further enhancements to the daylighting of Shingle Creek within the Shingle Creek Crossing development and enhancements associated with the separation of the Sears building from the remaining portion of the mall and internal streetscaping. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:04 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 06/11/12 -2- DRAFT City CouncH Agenda Item Igo® 6b t COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager 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 June 25, 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 Mendota Valley Amusement, Inc. 6110 Brooklyn Blvd 6845 Shingle Creek Pkwy GARBAGE HAULER Allied Waste Services P.O. Box 39, Circle Pines Budget Waste Systems, Inc. 3516 East Lake Street,Minneapolis LePage&Sons,Inc. 3118 162°a Lane NW,Andover SANIMAX USA, Inc. 505 Hardman Avenue, South St. Paul T& L Sanitation Services P.O. Box 49695, Blaine Walters Recycling&Refuse P.O. Box 67, Circle Pines Walz Brothers Sanitation P.O. Box 627,Maple Grove MECHANICAL Airics Heating 2609 Hihway 13 W, Burnsville Comfort Matters Heating&Cooling 10981 4t Street NE, Hanover Custom Refrigeration, Inc. 640 Mendelssohn Avenue N, Golden Valley Egan Mechanical 7625 Boone Avenue N, Brooklyn Park Swenson Heating&Air 12723 320th Avenue NW, Princeton RENTAL See attached report. SIGN HANGER Twin Cities Sign Installations 14333 Ural Street NE, Ham Lake � illission:3>nsuring an attractive,clears,safe,inchisive eonununity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 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 1—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 15 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 tfian 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 < GkeatQrithan 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission:Insuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive conunnnify that enhances the qualio?of life for all People ant preserves the pubtic trust z { � �t �'�` � ` eta �I�censes�for$Cou.nc�I A' 2 roualon"Jun'e 25 '2012 = ;`3 ', Property Final Previous Dwelling : Renewal Code License Police License. License Property Address Type or Initial Owner Violations Type CFS'* Type** Type*** 6001 Admiral PI Single Family Initial Eileen Quade 0 II N/A II 5325 France Ave N Single Family Initial David Goeske 1 II N/A II 4 5306 Russell Ave N Two Family(1) Renewal Donna Reinarz 2/Unit II 0 II II 5931 Halifax PI Single Family Renewal Jerilou Wiedmeyer 0 II 0 II N/T 7143 France Ave N Single Family Renewal Yi Lin 6 III 0 III IV 6101 Xerxes Ave N ISingle Family Renewal I Govan Singh 0 1 0 I IV *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 1=3 year Type II=2 year Type III=1 year City C®uncH Ageuda Item No© 6c i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson City Clerk SUBJECT: Amend 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule to Cancel the August 17 Municipal Primary Election Canvass Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider amending the 2012 City Council meeting schedule to cancel the August 17, 2012,Municipal Primary Election canvass. Background: The 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule was adopted on November 28, 2011, and included the Municipal Primary Election canvass of returns, scheduled for Friday, August 17, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. At the close of filing affidavits of candidacy for two City Council Member seats, there were three affidavits filed. Since not more than twice the number of affidavits for the two City Council Member seats were filed, there will not be a Municipal Primary Election. Therefore,the City Council does not need to convene to canvass the returns of the Municipal Primary Election. The three candidates will appear on the November 6,2012, General Election ballot. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,cleat,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and pfeseives the public trust City of Brooklyn Center Amended 06125112 2012 City Council Meeting Schedule Regular City Council Meetings Special City Council Meetings Council Chambers All dates are Monday unless otherwise noted. City Hall January 30 5:00 P.M. Canvass Returns of Special Election CC Study/Work Session 6:00 p.m. March 3 (Saturday) 8:00 a.m. Facilitated Retreat EBHC Informal Open Forum 6:45 p.m. April 11 (Wednesday) 6:00 p.m. Joint Session w/Commissions CH Regular Session 7:00 p.m. RESCHEDULED TO APRIL 30 7-;00 p.�. Work Session immediately following (Continued) Regular Session April 30 6:00 p.m. NIMS Training CC _ Brooklyn Center City Council regularly April 30 7:00 p.m. meets the 2nd and 4th Monday each Board of Appeal & Equalization cc month, unless Monday is a holiday. May 7 6:00 p.m. January 9 Continued Board of Appeal & Equalization CC June 4 6:30 p.m. January 23 Work Session w/Auditor and Budget Work Session February 13 w/Financial Commission CC February 27 July 2 6:30 p.m. March 12 Budget Work Session w/Financial Commission CC March 26 July 30 6:30 p.m. April 9 Budget Work Session w/Financial Commission CC April 23 August-17 6;00 p.mi , May 14 Returq"f Primaty Election CC May 29 (Tuesday) August 20 6:30 p.m. June 11 Budget Work Session w/Financial Commission CC June 25 October 15 6:30 p.m. July 9 Budget Work Session w/Financial Commission CC July 23 October 29 6:30 p.m. Budget Work Session w/Financial Commission CC August 13 November 13 (Tuesday) 5:45 p.m. August 27 Canvass Returns of General Election CC September 10 December 3 7:00 p.m. September 24 2013 Budget Hearing CC October 8 October 22 November 13 (Tuesday) November 26 December 10 All dates are subject to change. Call City Hall at 763-569-3300 to verify dates and times. Strikethrough indicates meeting has been CANCELED. CC— Council Chambers located in upper level City Hall CR— Council/Commission Conference Room located in lower level City Hall CH— Constitution Hall located at Community Center EBHC— Earle Brown Heritage Center, 6155 Earle Brown Drive City Coaaneua Agenda Item No, 6cl i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 15,2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: Resolution Appointing Additional Election Judges Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a Resolution Appointing Additional Election Judges. Background: Minnesota Statutes, Section 204B.21, subd. 2, requires election judges be appointed by the governing body at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. A resolution is included that lists additional individuals who have applied to serve as an election judge for the 2012 elections. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for«11 people and preserves the public trust it Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES WHEREAS, a State Primary Election will be held August 14, 2012, and a State General Election will be held November 6, 2012; and WHEREAS,Minn. Stat. 204B.21, subd. 2,requires that persons serving as election judges be appointed by the City Council at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve,except that the City Council may appoint additional election judges within the 25 days before the election if the City Council determines that additional election judges will be required. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the individuals named below and on file in the office of the City Clerk be appointed to perform the duties of election judge. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any substitutions or additions as deemed necessary. Kate Burggraff June 25, 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 Nye 6e i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager tl� FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant 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 anti preserves the public trust i 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. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 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 allowing 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 Address Tree Type and No. 440165"Ave N Elm—30 5340 Girard Ave N Elm—32 5436 James Ave N Elm—33 5903 Emerson Ave N Elm—34 6130 Fremont Ave N Elm-35 6910 Humboldt Ave N Elm-36 291865 1 Ave N Elm—37 7012 Oliver Circle Elm-38 380672 n Ave N Elm-39 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. I RESOLUTION NO. 3. After five(5) days,if the property owner fails to request a hearing,the free(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. June 25,2012 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 C®uiaci� Agenda Item N®® 6f° COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project Nos. 2010-01, 02, 03 and 04, Contract 2010-A, Dupont Avenue Street and Utility Improvements Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the resolution accepting work performed and authorization final payment, Improvement Project Nos. 2010-01, 02, 03 and 04, Contract 2010-A, Dupont Avenue Street and Utility Improvements. Background: On May 10, 2010, the City Council awarded Contract 2010-A to Nodland Construction Co., Inc. of Alexandria, Minnesota for the Dupont Avenue Street and Utility Improvements project. Nodland Construction Co., Inc. has completed the construction work and is requesting final payment for the project. Although the contractor requested final payment, they did not complete the project on time as prescribed. The contractual project completion date was prescribed to be September 30, 2010. The actual completion date was July 20, 2011, which was the completion of the final wear course paving. Based on the contractual prescriptions, the City may assess liquidated damages totaling $211,750 based on a per day amount. Although the City has the right to assess liquidated damages in the amount indicated, City staff in consultation with the City Attorney offered a reduced assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of $96,000. This reduced offer was based on multiple factors, reasons and contingencies including: overall reasonableness of the potential assessment amount and how others might look at this amount should it end up in litigation, actual additional City costs plus buffer as a result of the delay, potential extra costs of eminent litigation should the City assess the full amount, consideration of additional time needed by the Contractor to perform significant warrant work that was completed prior to the final paving (which could have been completed after the paving but would have resulted in a less than desirable final product), and multiple other factors including offering an amount with appropriate buffer where a contractor could reasonably consider the offer without pursuing litigation. Nodland subsequently counteroffered a liquidated damages amount of $60,000 with the commitment to fulfill all other contractual obligations and deliverables. This counteroffer adequately covers the City's additional hard cost expenses that resulted from the project not being completed on time and is recommended to be accepted. Budget Issues: The original contract amount with Nodland Construction Co., Inc. for the project improvements was $2,489,652.24. The total value of work certified for final payment is $2,547,568.80, which includes a deduction for liquidated damages in the amount of$60,000 and Change Order No. 1 11ission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive co nuuuiity that enhances the quality gf`lije fi>r all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM in the amount of $30,956.75. Increased costs in the final payment amount is for additional quantities of contractual work that included increased concrete sidewalk and curb and gutter replacement and needed roadway subgrade corrections. These additional amounts are within the budgeted contingency amounts. The approved estimated total project cost was $3,210,770.24. The total final project cost including contingencies, administration, engineering and legal is anticipated to be approximately $3,155,000, which is under budget by approximately 1.7%. Once the project is finalized and payment made to the contractor, a final and amended budget will be presented to the Council for consideration. Council Goals: Strategic: 7. We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 5. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is properly managed Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inehrsive eonimunitp that enhances the quaflt,of life firr all people and preserves the public•trust ; Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2010-01, 02, 03 AND 04, CONTRACT 2010-A, DUPONT AVENUE STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS,pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,Nodland Construction Co. Inc., of Alexandria, Minnesota has completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: Improvement Project Nos.2010-01,02,03 and 04,Contract 2010-A,Dupont Avenue Street and Utility Improvements NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Final payment shall be made on Improvement Project Nos, 2010-01, 02, 03 and 04,2010-A,Dupont Avenue Street and Utility Improvements,taking the contractor's receipt in Rill. The total amount to be paid for said improvements under said contract shall be $2,547.568.80 2. The estimated construction contractual costs are hereby amended as follows: COSTS As Original Award As Final Contract $2,489,652.21 $2,576,612.05 Change Order No. 1 $ 30,956.75 Liquidated Damages ($ 60,000.00) Total Contract $2,489,652.24 $2,547,568.80 June 25 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 COUNCIL. ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 19, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer 5 SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final Payment, Improvement Project Nos. 2010-05, 06, 07 and 08, Contract 2010-13, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the resolution accepting work performed and authorization final payment, Improvement Project Nos. 2010-05, 06, 07 and 08, Contract 2010-13, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements. Background: On May 10, 2010, the City Council awarded Contract 2010-B to Nodland Construction Co., Inc. of Alexandria, Minnesota for the Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements project. Nodland Construction Co., Inc. has completed the construction work and is requesting final payment for the project. Although the contractor requested final payment, they did not complete the project on time as prescribed. The contractual project completion date was prescribed to be October 8, 2010. The actual completion date was August 22, 2011, which was the completion of the final wear course paving. Based on the contractual prescriptions, the City may assess liquidated damages totaling $246,750 based on a per day amount. Although the City has the right to assess liquidated damages in the amount indicated, City staff in consultation with the City Attorney offered a reduced assessment of liquidated damages in the amount of $82,000. This reduced offer was based on multiple factors, reasons and contingencies including: overall reasonableness of the potential assessment amount and how others might look at this amount should it end up in litigation, actual additional City costs plus buffer as a result of the delay, potential extra costs of eminent litigation should the City assess the full amount, consideration of additional time needed by the Contractor to perform significant concrete warrant work that was completed prior to the final paving (which could have been completed after the paving but would have resulted in a less than desirable final product), and multiple other factors including offering an amount with appropriate buffer where a contractor could reasonably consider the offer without pursuing litigation. Nodland subsequently counteroffered a liquidated damages amount of $50,000 with the commitment to fulfill all other contractual obligations and deliverables. This counteroffer adequately covers the City's additional hard cost expenses that resulted from the project not being completed on time and is recommended to be accepted. Budget Issues: The original contract amount with Nodland Construction Co., Inc. for the project improvements was $3,433,246.65. The total value of work certified for final payment is $3,385,311.41 which Mission:Ensuring ccn attractive,clean,safe,inclusive conimunity that enhances the quality of life .for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM includes a deduction for liquidated damages in the amount of$50,000; Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 in the amounts of $7,275 and $1,650; and a deduction for other miscellaneous charges in the amount of$5,167.51. The approved estimated total project cost was $4 207 896.65. The total final project cost pp P J p J including contingencies, administration, engineering and legal is anticipated to be approximately $3,830,000, which is under budget by approximately 9.0%. Once the project is finalized and payment made to the contractor, a final and amended budget will be presented to the Council for consideration. Council Goals: Strategic: 7. We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 5. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is properly tmanaged lVission;Etrsuring an eittruetive, clean,safe, inclusive cuninuutitr that enhances the 11uuGtY of life for all people(nnd preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2010-05, 06, 07 AND 08, CONTRACT 2010-13, TWIN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS,pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,Nodland Construction Co. Inc., of Alexandria, Minnesota has completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: Improvement Project Nos.2010-05,06,07 and 08,Contract 2010-B,Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Final payment shall be made on Improvement Project Nos. 2010-05, 06, 07 and 08, 2010-13, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements,taking the contractor's receipt in frill. The total amount to be paid for said improvements under said contract shall be $3,385,311.41 2. The estimated construction contractual costs are hereby amended as follows: COSTS As Original Award As Final Contract $3,433,246.65 $3,431,553.92 Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 $ 8,925.00 Miscellaneous Charges ($ 5,167.51) Liquidated Damages ($ 50,000.00) Total Contract $3,433,246.65 $3,385,311.41 June 25, 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 Agency Item No. Ba COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist 4� THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development t SUBJECT: Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 — Second Reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinance Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land, Generally Located in the Northwest Quadrant of the City- 5401-5415 69th Avenue North, Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council, following consideration of a public hearing, adopt the attached 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 of Brooklyn Center and located at 5401 and 5415—691h Avenue North. Background: On April 12, 2012 the Plamling 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 69th Avenue North, from R1 and R6 to a new PUD-MIXED R5/R6 district. The application was tabled to the May 17, 2012 PC meeting. At this May 17th meeting, the Commission considered the rezoning component of this new PUD only, whereby an amended planning report was presented, the original public hearing from the April 12th meeting was reopened, public comments received and noted for the record. The Plamling Commission subsequently adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-06, which recommended approval of the rezoning change, and elected to delay action on the final development/site and building plan until the May 31, 2012 regular meeting. Also at the May 17th meeting, the Commission considered under separate application a land use amendment of the subject site, from PS-Public/Semi-Public and MF Multi Family to a new MF- MIXED ENHANCED (Multi-Family Mixed High Density with Enhanced Setbacks). This land use amendment was necessary to ensure the new PUD Mixed zoning category of R5/R6 is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City. The Commission accepted the findings made by city staff in approving this amendment, and adopted Planning Resolution No. 2012-05, which was then forwarded and presented to the City Council. At the May 29, 2012 regular City Council meeting, and upon the closing of public comments, the Council adopted City Resolution No. 2012-72, which approved the proposed land use amendment, contingent upon Met Council review and approvals. 0 Mission:Ensuring rnr attractive,clean,safe,inc•hrsive conununitp that enhunces the quality of life for all people and preserves 1he public trust i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Also at the May 29"' meeting, the Council received the favorable recommendation and resolution regarding this rezoning, and approved the initial stage in accepting this rezoning by adopting Resolution No. 2012-73. The Council thereafter conducted a first reading of the proposed ordinance amendment to this rezoning and set a public hearing date (second reading) for June 25, 2012. The Ordinance is attached for Council review and final consideration. As of the preparation of this memorandum, the Met Council is still considering the land use amendment. Staff anticipates this approval will occur sometime during the 30-day p ublication period of said ordinance. 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. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive cornrnunitp that enhances the quality.of fife for all people and preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th 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—691h Avenue North. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Cleric 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, LOCATED AT 5401 AND -5 415 —69T"AVENUE NGR ri. 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: Let vek 1, M.,.,,rat „ Addition. Section 35-1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 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 it I Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption, after receipt of Comprehensive Plan amendment acceptance letter from Metropolitan Council, and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Cleric Date.of Publication Effective Date (Note: (Stp�text indicates matter to be deleted, while underline indicates new matter.) 2 M O Z O C) X Z m -0 z o z o � NOI i 1 I I it VERA.CF 2A W IIERAC 2A 4 / I , - No ~— - 3Nd ❑ _ -I -- -- 3AY ❑ -j - I .1 I � SCO }1VE_N = � � I � SC67'f'-VE N I I I I I_ N O S 0— l _ m r-- I I - I � REG �- - - J3 �� f ; � N_ A N N DAd NITS I I Irnj tin' iLL i d)LAVEN �.. 'CU ILAVE j� L Adlldn imp m I — AtlIIM!] - �r T Z l m I j Z Z P ER nH J-1 Il A\ Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home Inc. (Presbyterian Homes) Ordinance Amending Ch. 35 of the City Code — Zoning Classification of Land — located at 54.01 & 543.5 69tn Avenue N. Planned Unit Development . Application No. 2012- 00 City Council Meeting Item No. 8.a June z5, zos2 Introduction Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., - requesting rezoning from RZ (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 (Second Reading) of an Ordinance amending Ch . 35 of the City Code related to Zoning Classification of Certain Lands — located at 5401 and 5415 — 69th Avenue North First Reading of Ordinance conducted on May 29, 2012 Site/Aerial Map Tow, w e t• • . . x a t " ' l Oil , IN.$. �w �w gad HJsVIES PROJECT SITE 0 30 1^0 180 :40 w+ Feet awrHMtrr �roMI1NF - The Maranatha campus consists of two lots. The nursing home parcel (5401 — 691h Ave.) is 3.78 acres in size and is situated in the R1 district. i • The existing 64-unit senior assisted living R' facility (5415 — 691h Ave.) R6 is 3.28 acres in size and situated in the R6 district. D m j 68TH AV IN Q Existing Zoning U N m O _ Z 1 r z� ( m I Cr a N 7 H RIZ TA-L-ZONE'- 7GTH VE N �6 A z w 67TH AVE N -- -, --- — — _ INTERSTATE 94 iH E�� , O rn PUD- Z MIXED R5/R6 M 2 Z _ D m I < I ry N U H 6 1 I Proposed LU fi7tH AVE N (Amended) • • -. Map Classification INTERSTATE 94_.. H E tia 1 R5 & R6 Zoned Parcels ,�{r �NTERSTATE694 (adjacent to R1 Zoned lands) ; 1 � ;x_CUR5JR4Xj \ �' C1 'K ! ► , i Granite Peaks Ra Cl �F� Z MARLIN O – —t— : i I —p PARK Brookwood Crossings —1— — { m bGTM 4,, N Cie :r EL Cu . R5 _ _ Z_. _- w Z Q Ca W W C2 z. �_ Gateway Commons C2 Q �– _—Q COUNTY READ 1� &pss LA Z C: O �t ilic Apes. _ R4 R5 & R6 Zoned Parcels (adjacent to R1 Zoned lands) S3f6 PL N '^ > Twin Lake manor M ' t --- 53R6' N GARDEN CITY ee 7 I I I T I • �r Rs Garden City Court Apts_ - - --_ \ GARDEN , I 52 AVE N "° r l/ � CITY SCHOOL x ( LU a IF PARK $ r - L r 1 E $0TH AVE N 1 4 r t ND N fig EH se f C! _ _ _1 PUD1C2 C2 ■ tmpUrK2 z iuR3' _ i Zoning 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 development of a 38 —unit senior independent living (residential) facility Need to determine the appropriate zoning to accommodate proposed uses under this new PUD New Site Plan AVENUE NORTH -- -— t -- a LJ .1-1 ,; z % C) i t ❖ Development Plan/Site g o 97 PA0.KMC Plan must be approved o = STALLS with any new P U D STING 64 UNIT E v ASSISTED LIVING Rezoning / TO REMAIN f I t t ❖ Site Plan originally t submitted o5/16/2012 > ❖ Updated Site Plan (shown) submitted _ � FUTUR� 2 112 STORY t 06/21/2012 t 38 UNIT I -- j r--- DEPENDENT 23rwraw ;F�CILITY W!60 MUM NEW 97 BED i SKILLED NDERGROUND �•� NURSING ARKING STALLS i -- . To be considered under FACILITY-TCU/ jLTC I MC ---� separate action (tonight) PP P °E° ` ; --- roao i \ I • t I�t __._. ' FIRE LANE ----- -------------------- Rezoning Evaluation & Findings(per Sect. 35-208) 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? Findings The proposed PUD Rezoning... demonstrates a clear & public need or benefit to the community & regional area; will not be a detriment to the neighborhood, and should provide positive effect on the community; facilitates 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; consistent and compatible with the surrounding land use classifications; provides 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; and will enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market place. Planning Commission Recommendation (May 17 thMeeting) Unanimously recommended City Council to accept the proposed zoning change of the subject site, from Ri and R6 to a new PUD - Mixed R5/R6 (Planned Unit Development of Mixed - Multiple Family Residence) district Requested Council Action Motion to Open Public Hearing Motion to take public input Motion to Close Public Hearing Motion to Adopt the 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 City Cou"cH Agenda hema No. 9a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DA"I'E: June 25, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Plamling and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development j�CL_" SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2012-003 - Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for a Development Plan/Site and Building Plan approval for a new three-story, 97 bed i nursing care center (Phase I) and parking areas; and the future development plan (Phase 11) of a 38-unit senior independent living facility—located at 5401 & 5415 — 69th Avenue North. Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the Resolution regarding the recommended disposition and approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003, submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for a Development Plan/Site and Building Plan approval for a new three-story, 97 bed nursing care center (Phase I) and parking areas; and the future development plan (Phase 11) of a 38-unit senior independent living facility — located at 5401 & 5415 —69th Avenue North. Background: On April 12, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider Planning Application No. 2012-003, a request for a Planned Unit Development, which included 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, along with a new conceptual Development/Site Plan. At this meeting this application was tabled to allow the Applicant to redesign elements of the plan and address adjacent residential neighbors' concerns. The Commission reconsidered the rezoning portion of this new PUD at its May 17t" meeting, and delayed action on the final development/site and building plan until the May 31St meeting. At the May 31" meeting, the Commission directed the Applicant/Developer (added as part of the resolution of approvals) to make reasonable efforts in providing a suitable lighting plan; fire lane modifications; landscaping and appropriate screening measures from the adjacent neighborhood. The City's Fire Chief, upon consultation with other municipal fire departments, agreed that a 12- foot fire lane (instead of the planned 20-ft.) would suffice, with allowance for two-foot clear zones on each side of the road. The removal of lighting along this fire lane was also deemed acceptable, since this lane would not be used for any daily or regular vehicles. All lighting will be limited to the parking areas and building/wall pack lights as needed. The Applicant also adjusted the fire lane and landscaping plan to save five mature evergreen trees along the east boundary line, and also planned to provide a staggered row of evergreen trees Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,wife,inclusive cormnunitV that enhances the quality of life ,fir all people anal preserves the public trust i I COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM along this easterly area. However, due to the new drainage swale and ponding features in this same area, it was determined that a dense, staggered row of evergreens would be difficult to install, so a 6-foot fence was determined to be the best alternative in meeting the City Code Sect. 35-410, which requires an "opaque fence or Council approved substitute" [for screening R5/R6 zoned areas from R1 zones]. Maranatha is planning to forgo a fence on the south side due to the saving of existing mature trees along this area, and will provide additional evergreen and other plantings to supplement any voids or open areas. The updated final Development/Site Plan illustrates 120 parking spaces, with 14 shown as "proof-of-parking". This parking is designed on the premise that Maranatha has agreed to put into future PUD agreements that the existing 64-unit senior apartment facility will transition to a senior assisted living facility, which could allow for a reduced parking standard from 2 spaces per unit to 1 space per 4 units. Maranatha recently confirmed with Planning Staff that the care center campus has 55 employees on the early morning shift, 22 at the afternoon shift, and 15 at the late night shift, or 92 total employees. In consideration of these numbers, the revised parking breakdown can be noted as follows: ® 64-units (Senior Apts.): 64/4= 16 spaces ® 97 Nursing beds: [1 /4 beds=24 stalls] + H /2 emp. @ 92 =46 stalls], or 70 spaces O COMBINED USES: 16 +70 = 86 required (adjusted) parking spaces The 38-unit senior independent living facility will require 2 per unit, or 76 spaces. The Phase II plans identifies 60 underground parking will be provided. If the site is developed with 120 spaces plus the 60 underground, this would provide up to 180 available spaces. The Westwood Engineering Traffic/Parking study however, indicated a daily peak (parking) need of 90 spaces on this site, typically when the turn-over between the morning and afternoon shifts takes place. With the knowledge that 90 spaces (peak need) plus the 76 spaces for the future apartments would require approximately 166 needed spaces, the City is acknowledging that the site should safely accommodate the visitors and employees parking at this site, and the campus should be able to "park" itself during this period of time between the Phase I and Phase II developments take place. Staff may even recommend later that the underground parking could be reduced to 46 spaces, which represents the 14 additional parking not needed if the Council accepts the premise that only 166 spaces, instead of 180, are needed. Attached is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-10, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of the development/site and building plans. Excerpts from the May 31, 2012 Commission meeting minutes 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. Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for alt people and preserves the public trust Ii 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., FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT/SITE AND BUILDING PLAN IN RELATION TO THE NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401-5415—69TH AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. (Maranatha) proposes a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) for properties generally located in the northwest quadrant of the City and addressed as 5401 and 5415 - 691h Avenue North (Subject Site); and WHEREAS, the PTJD Application comprehends the rezoning of the Subject Site 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, and includes a development/site and building plan consisting of a new three-story, 97 bed skilled nursing care facility and a future 38-unit senior independent living apartment facility; 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 PUD rezoning and development plan were received, and the action item was tabled; and 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; a public hearing was re- opened, public testimony was received, and the request was duly considered in light of all testimony received, whereupon the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-08 which provided a unanimous recommendation to approve this PUD rezoning only, and elected to table consideration of the final Development/Site and Building Plan to the May 31, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2012, the Planning Commission reconsidered Application No. 2012-003, and reviewed and received an updated planning report on the proposed new Development/Site and Building Plans, which included the new site and building plans, elevation plans, civil plans, and a traffic and parking study performed by Westwood Engineering, all in conjunction with a new Planned Unit Development of the Subject Site, which plan comprehends i RESOLUTION NO. the construction of a new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility and a future 2.5 story, 38- unit senior independent living facility, along with surface parking lots, fire lane, site lighting, I landscaping and screening measures; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did thereby recommend to the City Council that the Development/Site and Building Plan component of the proposed Planned Unit Development submitted under Application No. Application No. 2012-003, and as submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The Development/Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2. The Development/Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Planned Unit Development proposed on the Subject Site, 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; 3. The improvements 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 enhanced setbacks provided under the proposed land use amendment and approved Development/Site Plan; 4. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 5. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and 6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) and a Development Plan as contained in Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is,therefore, in the best interest of the community. i RESOLUTION NO. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did further recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2012-003, which comprehends the final Development/Site and Building Plan in conjunction with the proposed new Planned Unit Development of the Subject Site, be approved subject to the same 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 proposes a new Development/Site and Building Plan in conjunction with the proposed new Planned Unit Development of the Subject Site, of which plan comprehends the construction of a new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility and a future 2.5 story, 38-unit senior independent living facility, along with surface parking lots, fire lane, site lighting, landscaping and screening measures, is hereby approved based on the following conditions: 1. The Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memos, dated April 9, 2012 and May 25, 2012. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4. The location or placement of all fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6. The Developer shall submit 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. 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas RESOLUTION NO. to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including any new freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to separate sign permit submittals and approval. 10. 136-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 12. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13. The Developer shall provide and dedicate all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer, either on the new plat or by separate recordable document/agreements. 14. The Developer shall provide connecting.walkways between the sidewalk along 69th Avenue North to the parking lot areas, and walkways from interior parking areas to other main door access points or other connecting walkways. 15. The Developer agrees to submit for additional review revised plans and work-with City Staff in making reasonable efforts and means in providing a suitable lighting plan, fire lane, landscaping, and appropriate screening to adjacent property owners. The screening must meet City Code Section 35-410, in which an opaque fence or substitute is approved by the City Council. Any opaque fence or screening device shall be constructed with either cedar wood or composite/vinyl materials, with final style and locations approved by the City's Business and Development Director. 16. The Developer agrees to replace any existing significant trees noted to be saved on the Landscape Plans (Sheet L1-1) that may become damaged or removed as a direct result of construction on this site. 17. The owner of the property shall enter into a utilities and facilities maintenance agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and II RESOLUTION NO. storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 18. Storm water drainage systems shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of any permits. 19. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 20. The owner shall enter into a PUD Agreement and/or Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be prepared and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific standards and regulations provided by the underlying PUD-MIXED R5/R6 zoning district; as well as all other conditions of approval. This agreement shall further assure compliance with the development/site plans submitted with this application. 21. Any new (future) building comprehended under the Phase II portion of this approved PUD Development/Site and Building Plan shall be subject to full review and consideration under separate Site and Building Plan application approvals, as per Sections 35-230 and 35-355 of City Code. 22. Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. June 25 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. 69TH AVENUE NORTH y w, C= 0 PROOFOF 0 101i PARKING 97 STA L PARKILS NG 0 O7 111 I LL 0 -EXi TI 64 UNIT Ui AS IS ED LIVING - -------- TO REMAIN T= RAMP 4, F '---- :: fo, 0, 2 11U STOR 38 UNIT 0" NDEPENDEN' F CILITYW/6) 23 PARKING NEW 97 BED STALLS DERGROUI\D SKILLED ARKING STAL_S NURSING ----- ----- FACILITY-TCU LTC I MC j j PROPOSED II I r it POND IF cl FIRE LANE --------------- ------ -------------------------- L_________ _ FUTURE INDEPENDENT OPTION Maranatha Skilled Care BROOKLYN CENTER,MINNESOTA t 6-19-2012 1 COMM#72535-09066 mesWedan homes K, services i PARKING PROVIDED LOCATION NO.OF STALLS NORTH PARKING LOT 97 WE5T PARKING LOT 23 ULs.PARKING LOT 60 TOTAL PARKING ISm 69TH AVENUE NORTH Y W — IL LU z Y xlzl O Y PARKING — 0 0 / STALLS DO LL ICI s v IFI EXISTING 64 UNIT V ASSISTED LIVING TO REMAIN x _ II I S�x�C � I RArnPI O / x KNOCKDOWN BOLLARDS AT BEGINNING OF FIRE LANE I1� I5'. NOTE: NO LIGHTING ALONG I FIRE LANE TYPICAL FUTURE I! 1 2 1/2 STORY m m' 2' 38 UNIT � DEPENDEN o'-m 35 m' 23 PARKING sow CILITY W/6 LL STAS NEW 97 BED SKILLED DERGROUN NURSING ARKING STALI S FACILITY-TCU/ I— LTC/MC I' x11 PROPOSED POND II� I cawce .. I I IT 24'o' v _ O — I S FIRE LANE N MARANATHA SKILLED CARE fn issi[t III. 72535-09066 BROOKLYN CENTER,IvN Drm EI NW3 Received by City 06/07/2012 He 5131112 SITE PLAN se POPE ASSOCIATES,INC. 9 0 1295 BANDANA BLVD N,SUITE 200 ST.PAUL,MN 55106-2735 (651)642-92001 FAX(651)642-11011 W-'j.popear6—. 11 { T-7, of P�BI �fll I SCI i�, ear IrQDr_��i 1ee1 I� B� I a� f a�i di B-01 'CHI u A- M7 I�I !i'> ML iM_I - I - , r WEST ELEVATION PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION SOUTH. ELEVATION 188; B_81 c BE�I I81 ii c. E9I!` I�G-!%1Cl iGAI u X51 BAI�f pfl r_f I �I.' 'NCI ( 1011 IB0 i8_fll k' 111�BI r J'BEII �fl --'�I'�_'IBdI f ��� )�J�Cf-Il_'�C�.I�'�� '''�CI IBC ;�fll s' -�r�� ICI Of �I '1-1 = {•, EAST ELEVATION Maranatha SM ed Care BROOKLYN CENTER 5-16-2012 f COMMN72535-09066 �lyll 1L nZ�lW�li�ll llQllllll llllarfles T1/ s ASPHALT SHINGLE VINYL SHAKE SIDING PREFIN.METAL FASCIA BER CEMENT TRIM J6 A l� l _ --� I I � I Wt 1 z; n I 'I -!11 7. -i LE �-FACE RRICI: ROCK FACE Cn•lU 'VINYL HORIZONTAk SIDING FIBER CEMENT HOARD&BATTEN 1NYL WINDOWS FACE BRICK AXEST ELEVATION I Lt, � I G SOUTH ELEVATION LJ .� i Omz 1 1� _ 1 i 1 (1. I_it L �i L�_ [ I ..�I `I I J L'_. ! LJ�I L: ) EAST ELEVATI10N Maranatha Skilled Care ��, . BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 4-5-2012 COMPON72535-09D56 -' Building Materials ID Sheet (Elevations are Not Accurate) -� Ld E7'IL s: In N -{ w A J - ° I � 5 i � "� � 5�3 •__ -,Swr ` >�`m�i.. �Feu \ s d' L' ni T 7. I �Y n�tt 7.D i6 C R � ., t, r z ' — �•a Ct h , J- 1 r _ ji ^, t ^ _ w I i ur w.. i tl Ld I ! tv _IT r_ — DPI lT Ir I _L_�-.s 6 ❑❑❑❑❑❑L, „,. .>.. .. 4�a.,u,mo ., �m Y a . m.� yea• ., �.zws.-a„ .�•.. +^++^'x.zvA av3'i- n.sa u.x.a a:.sr rm,9F>.asp iam ( .... `i�, �i ,� � .��/•�' - ��E .I OS m'+ a�� �' lip I \EE���I I�1 i�!�7��II LI I'�•,::•: 4 ,�. ,� � © ��: 'o�,; ,gn1� .p,� � � y � _ Il�li `�� r�il A p, '+�,•'•'•:L444 .+' I • �'/i'yti'I: Y'�i\ �n�-� M. — �G(j�j I a�i•:�•:Mrsf;:t�w...eR�feya .. min .°,� i� .. ��_J•jjklllalikl_Ili” .... '�-�I-" 1 1� � Aft qw xx• ••i �" .. ?� . �:: v ,..,. : �i 3< 4% '4e-.,. :E•�—Ilry°.�IIL�!IIL�I� ,- — � ., ,I 4 �:� w 111 —_�•.����,r::E=•I�i!I�E! I y �I,�k>: Y :g�.�•— IIL.,_:•_.1 Via. Iwo! � H 11...:°.- p �I .. .,r !. °►3� :I u'lll III!_ �4x, • ... -. , .:- , I' ^bed •1�'1�� �!! �� ` 1 .�.�� �•� 1111_; �i • mom. ,.�:,, . ,�,.�.� 10 ., ., � ��:�. . :: -• ,:� © m�� r�r• �e�uoc` r>. � '�a'�` n YQl�l�llll_�!!!• 0� ,� pig ��i.m•.. :.�� uUM.ro..�acm. .rr�.. . . . " {t ---- i i -- - I F ............. _69TH. AVENUE EKE 30, is 0 30. 60 tuArF—V.70— ST.- c] t' E3 MARANATHA xq SKILLED CARE I. I, BROOKLYN CENTER MN BKB4 % �0' ED cy :p 'g-7 If lu.-T,o G) ...... Q .)<c R Xty al W 113 w°..,,.,., x k go N, ....... DEMOLITION AND La 'X' "k EROSION CONTROL PLAN al 1 ]I TON ANO FRGS ON CONTROL P,AN........... .j ITI C1.0 L ceMwnwwx ... .......... ­Z_ .--697H­""A VENUE— 30, 60, Z-11— kXTE—I-3W MARANATHA SKILLED CARE BROOKLYN CENTER,MN tAli" 44 WX I . � A? 1�r- "s L l 1, o.,, ,4 I ZVI, Z411 /* GRADING.DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL P- PLAN 3. MM" .......... Z ,vil L. f. ......... It C2•0 • ;::Ill�r ' 69TH AVENUE NORTH -..... { .,. DD' 15 SALE t.=90r So.eAUUmrzs lxe A', rt C ----1 - ' nwn .®j. ACIaf Iw„of MARANATHA SKILLED CARE c7T r= S`' .:i,— ;,:..; � --- m;°.'o!s'eo,^;�•"9�t�':m;r. 1a;°�,,;:;'M°3°::.aStbrK.��" '<":t~;vtE.'id;�6:a"Ca;iwuw:°5,[ BROOKLYN CENTER,MN BKBM - -- •f'I%•ii �-%y<..��,-- � ---- '__ o',o row„xw.�,,,,.,w<[.,....w,..,[,m.,�r,�.x d- I' ;,,����.;;`*/.--�/�i i'n � --- o'WO.[:.��::,:o�:tarottM;�,�°�K•s`i:°::;a,t:�^ro^��,:°;;,�,.:;r:��;vw'::�tx,a.,.<�„�w. e� �F lr --- S•—_ i.l �n...�'.<,:.v,uwx.iuw^..��,•.:u,,,r o:�xu�.w..�oo.,..<urz.^, D O m., �..,* .r•'I. � '�� --' ., p.,,,,.�,x^.m.`w°m[�,a�,�,,,,,w'wr:,[,.�n,..„�amwµx.,<o....,mx..ar,....,w,..,.m,..a..,,.r.w o y' I my ` ' �- � cox,.0 urvmua io,ur.rmwr.0 it i ,.. •! ` , , ____ i i ,, w[I ` � ' ' ___ w w.rw mry x o°wu=x<wrw nvra u,wwmw.mw,n rwx,f ox.0 vcwa wrct I r -�______�� 1 I osyo n UTILITY PLAN �.._____, ___ ,,. m,nw ,.o-n w,�bm w. <rw..ery.,�.. 1 I m muu ,.__v____._, - ___ [n¢,.rwwm.xo arurc.,mf. GfivnM°Nb^"�•EmVN-eMiy 0i�1 a 1 r I • ur, .iv Pvm,*•.+RJ-bra,c)Oi SANITARY SEWER TABLE I 't Tp �__ P Im1W-b STORM SEWER TABLE we' Ix rr ., ---_ •_:�..__._._.__,.,.._ IMLIwYh%QOM i _ � nu u u,u u,it n. nuvo s•o.n, X3.0 i UTil�tt PLAN 0 1=1—---------- .......... 69TH AVENUE 808TH ae optic . .............. j- '9 A L EV 3 W Pvc mnnn v MARANATHA SKILLED CARE C] El a] el: BROOKLYN cl (D CENTER,MN 1'. El I (D 01 Ll /Al BKBe W, o/W > ... ......... _11%� 1111=111 Icl [D ---------- ---------- E3 -- LU 4 ---- III ......... ......... m cl. PAVING AND -------1.11-------- GEOMETRIC PLAN A. IW ------ ----------- ------------- p 7 _dn ............... ­­................ — —--—--—--— JAJ.711. ETL In r2`� DRIVE ENTRANCE PVINQ AND GEOMETRIC PLAN C4.0 Commissioner Kuykenbdall introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-10 I� I RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC., FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT/SITE AND BUILDING PLAN IN RELATION TO THE NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401-5415—69TH AVENUE NORTH 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 - 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 Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on April 12, 2012, whereby a planning report was presented and public testimony regarding the PUD rezoning and development plan were received, and the action item was tabled; and 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 p resented, 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; 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 Commission adopted PC Resolution No. 2012-08 which provided a unanimous recommendation to approve this PUD rezoning only, and elected to table consideration of the final Development/Site and Building Plan to the May 31, 2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, on May 31, 2012,the Planning Commission reconsidered Application No. 2012-003, and reviewed and received an updated planning report on the proposed new i i i I� PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-10 Development/Site and Building Plans, which included the new site and building plans, elevation P g p plans, civil plans, and a traffic and parking study performed by Westwood Engineering, all in conjunction with a new Planned Unit Development of the Subject Site, which plan comprehends the construction of a new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility and a future 2.5 story,38- -unit senior independent living facility, along with surface parking lots, fire lane/ring road, site lighting,landscaping and screening measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the Development/Site and Building Plan component of the proposed Planned Unit Development submitted under Application No. Application No. 2012-003, as submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. be approved based upon the following findings: 1. The Development/Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2. The Development/Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Planned Unit Development proposed on the Subject Site, 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; 3. The improvements 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 enhanced setbacks provided under the proposed land use amendment and approved Development/Site Plan; 4. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 5. The Development/Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and 6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) and a Development Plan as contained in Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site 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 be approved PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-10 1 subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memos, dated April 9, 2012 and May 25, 2012. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4. The location or placement of all fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6. The Developer shall submit 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. 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including any new freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to separate sign permit submittals and approval. 10. B6-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. I i PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-10 12. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13. The Developer shall provide and dedicate all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer, either on the new plat or by separate recordable document/agreements. 14. The Developer shall install the 14 proof of parking spaces on the northwest area of the assisted living facility, and the 16 spaces on the north end of the fire lane/ring road in the northeast corner of the site. 15. The Developer shall provide connecting walkways between the sidewalk along 69th Avenue North to the parking lot areas, and walkways from interior parking areas to other main door access points or other connecting walkways. 16. The Developer shall install a 6 to 8-foot high screening fence along the easterly and southerly property lines or buffer areas. Said fence/screening device shall be constructed with either cedar wood or composite/vinyl materials, with final style and locations approved by the City Business and Development Director. 17. The Developer shall modify the Landscape Plan to include a clustering of four to five evergreen/coniferous trees between the six bi-color oak trees along the east buffer area, and the southeast corner of the pond area; the Plan should also be modified to provide a small number of ornamental trees into the plan; and Developer agrees to replace any existing significant trees noted to be saved on the Landscape Plans (Sheet Ll-1) that may become damaged or removed as a direct result of construction on this site. 18. The Developer agrees to submit for additional review revised plans and work with City Staff in making reasonable efforts and means in providing a suitable lighting plan, ring road, landscaping, and appropriate screening to adjacent property owners. 19. The owner of the property shall enter into a utilities and facilities maintenance agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. i PC RESOLUTION NO.2012-10 20. Storm water drainage systems shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of any permits. 21. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 22. The owner shall enter into a PUD Agreement and/or Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be prepared and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the propert y and shall acknowledge the specific standards and regulations provided by the underlying PUD-MIXED R5/R6 zoning district, as well as all other conditions of approval. This agreement shall further assure compliance with the development/site plans submitted with this application. 23. Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan ' necessary. May 31, 2012 Date Chair ATTEST:, Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Burfeind and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Kuykendall,Parks and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None. l Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 31, 2012 ROLL CALL Chair Rahn, Commissioners Scott Burfeind, Kara Kuykendall, Michael Parks and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmembers Dan Ryan and Carol Kleven, Bud Sorenson, Park and Recreation Commission, Director of Business & Development, Gary Eitel, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Steve Lillehaug, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino and Carlos Morgan were absent and excused. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:04 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—MAY 17 2012 There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Schonning,to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2012 meeting as submitted. Commissioner Parks abstained since he was not present 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. PRESENTATION—SHINGLE CREEK WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED DISTRICT Third Generation Plan —Second/Updated presentation by Wenek Engineers & Scientists—joint meeting of the City's Citizen Advisory Committees —Park and Recreation Commission and City Planning Commission. No official action is required. Ed Matthiessen with Wenck Engineers, presented an update to the proposed 3`d Generation Watershed Management Plan. He stated that the plan must be updated every three years. He reviewed Rules and Standards that protect Wetlands, Floodplains and the rate of storm water runoff. Mr. Matthiessen also reviewed redevelopment requirements, infiltration requirements, monitoring programs and sites, water quality, lake and wetland monitoring, education and outreach. APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 MARANATHA CONSERVTIVE BAPTIST HOME INC. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2012-003, reconsideration of a proposed development plan/site and building plan for a new three-story, 97 bed nursing care center (phase I) and parking areas; and the future development plan (Phase 1I) of a 38-unit senior independent living facility for the property located at 5401 — 69"' Avenue North (Maranatha Homes Care Center). 5-31-12 Page 1 I i This portion of the application was tabled at the May 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-31-12 for Application No. 2012-003.) Mr. Eitel explained that the Maranatha campus consists of two separate lots. One lot contains the nursing home parcel (5401 69th Avenue N) and is 3.78 acres in size and the other contains the existing 64 unit senior assisted living facility at 5415 69th Avenue N and is 3.28 acres in size. He added that the nursing home use was approved as a Special Use in the R-1 zoning district when it was built in 1959 and later expanded in 1994. Mr. Eitel further explained that approval of this application will allow Maranatha to continue to operate a nursing care facility. Once the nursing care addition is complete, they will remove the old facility and then complete Phase II within 3 to 5 years. He pointed out that following meetings with the neighborhood and considering their input, the revised plans still call for a three story, 97 bed, 84 unit skilled nursing care facility that will provided nursing care for transitional, long term care and memory care services with recommended 100 ft. setback from the neighboring residential properties. The City strongly encouraged the 100 ft. setback as a buffer space to provide separation from the properties along Toledo Avenue. Improvements to the site include five ponding or rainwater treatment areas. Mr. Eitel explained the physical layout of the building including the building's exterior components and revisions to the previously reviewed plan. Chair Rahn asked staff about the Phase II plan and asked how approving this application affects completion of Phase II. Mr. Eitel responded that they are required to put in a pond, landscaping, a fire lane and lighting throughout the site after completion of Phase I. Phase II may not occur for five years. He added that another site plan review will take place for approval of Phase II, however, the site must meet all requirements after Phase I is complete. Commissioner Parks asked about the appearance of a perimeter road on the site. Mr. Eitel responded that the fire department is requiring an emergency access road around the site so they can enter and exit the site appropriately. He added that is different than the original plan and is a fire code issue. Commissioner Parks also asked about the lighting on the site. Mr. Eitel responded they have met standard light standards at 25 ft.that cast down on the site. Commissioner Parks asked if staff was satisfied with the City Engineer's review of the site as far as drainage, etc. Mr. Eitel responded that staff feels that the modifications presented are appropriate for the site. PUBLIC HEARING—APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks , seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall,to reopen the public hearing on Application No. 2012-003, at 8:34 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. 5-31-12 Page 2 I Mr. John Mehrkens with Maranatha reviewed the revised plan for Phase I including how the building will be established on the site. He also addressed the fire lane question and stated that after discussion with the Brooklyn Center Fire Department, they are requiring a 20 ft. wide roadway for the fire department rigs consisting of asphalt rather than pavers that appear to be more of a walkway. There will be buffers on site to eliminate traffic around the perimeter. Mr. Mehrkens also pointed out planned parking on the site based on peak parking times and he stated that they feel they have adequate parking as shown on the plan and dased on those numbers they have eliminated some of the parking. He added that in its place is the roadway for emergency vehicles and some reconfiguration of parking that turns the parking inward to the site. Mr. Mehrkens stated that they feel the plan being submitted meets with their approval as well as all conditions of approval as noted in the staff report and resolution. He added that they will provide adequate screening and landscaping along the neighboring residential properties. Mr. Mehrkens also stated that the addition of six transitional care beds should not have a significant impact on parking on the site. Commissioner Parks further asked about the fire lane on the site. Mr. Mehrkens responded that the ring road was the least obtrusive way to deal with a fire lane and still provide adequate parking, screening and water retention on the site. He added that the berm will also be removed to make room for storm water management on the site, however, adequate screening will be provided in its location. Commissioner Parks asked about drainage and storm water retention on the site. Mr. Mehrkens responded that the plans being reviewed today have been approved by the City Engineer. He further explained the location of the proposed ponding areas on the site as it is redeveloped and demonstrated how water will travel to the north and off the site along 69th Avenue North. Mr. Mehrkens further explained that with storm water management and the addition of more retention ponds,there will be no more water runoff on the site than what is currently there. Commissioner Burfeind asked about irrigation on the site, parking and lighting around the ring road. Mr. Mehrkens stated that the entire site will be irrigated and he added that the lighting presented is not required but they prefer to add lighting to make the site a safe location for their residents. Commissioner Burfeind replied that he feels that the lights being at 25 ft. next to the residential properties might create a lot of light onto those properties. Mr. Mehrkens responded that they have no problem with putting in different lighting along the walkways. Commissioner Schonning also stated that he would like the applicant to make sure there is no glare from the site onto the neighboring residential properties. Commissioner Parks stated that he feels that they should look at some alternatives on the site to the ring road specifically how it affects existing landscaping and buffering on the site. He further stated that he doesn't believe that the Fire Department cannot work out a better solution on the site to navigate their vehicles that would allow for more impervious materials. He feels that the best thing for Brooklyn Center is a more sustainable site. 5-31-12 Page 3 i Mr. Mehrkens replied that a good portion of the trees on the site will remain on the site. He also stated that creating a hammerhead instead of a perimeter road created just as much of an asphalt surface on the site. He added they tried to create a site with an impervious surface and have a positive effect on the neighborhood. He further stated if they could go from a 20 ft. drive lane to a 10 ft.,they would do so but it wouldn't affect the storm water retention ponds. Commissioner Parks replied that if they could redesign the plan they could create more green space on the site. He suggests that they commit to sustainability and take some of the storm water on the south side of the property and keep it from draining out to eliminate sediment getting into the city's storm water. Mr. Mehrkens replied that they will be handling storm water in a much better way on this plan than what is currently there. Commissioner Parks asked why they are locating the parking along 691h with no visibility to the building from the street. Mr. Mehrkens stated that it has to do with staging and the process involved with building the new building and still providing parking during and after construction. Commissioner Parks stated that he doesn't agree with the City Engineer regarding B612 curb and gutter requirements and if they had a better design with more green space and more water infiltration it would be a more sustainable site. Ray Christiansen, 6803 Toledo Ave N, stated that when his home was built, they couldn't build homes on the Maranatha site because of the water table. Further, when the four story addition was built, they were told that R-1 would always stay R-1 and he doesn't believe that there is any other place in the city where R-1 abuts R-6. He added he does like the parking in the back since it doesn't take away their sunlight. He added that we continue to get new plans and they seem to change every day. He also stated that what really irks him is that Maranatha, City Council and Planning Commission did not come to any neighbor and ask what they think and it is because they don't care what they think. He stated the R-1 should stay R-1 and feels that the Phase II should go before the City Council five years from now when they will be changing their plan again. Arvid Sorenson, 6901 Toledo Ave N, stated when he looks out his front door he looks at the parking lot. He feels that some of the information being received and reviewed is flawed particularly information received from the City Engineer regarding a study from Westwood indicating that the parking on the site is sufficient. He also pointed out information in the report stating that a left turn signal onto the site is not required. Further, he feels if you increase the amount of parking on the site, it creates additional traffic and hazards on the site. He also asked that if these applications are approved but nothing ever happens,what then? Mr. Eitel explained that if the project does not go forward after two years, it can go back to its original zoning through a process by the City Council. Mr. Sorenson stated that he feels that this project does not fit the neighborhood and it will diminish their property values and anyone looking to buy will expect to get these properties dirt cheap. Mr. Sorenson feels that Maranatha is claiming to be the victim here in order to get the approvals they need. He added the current owners knew the nursing home was obsolete when they bought it and yet they still bought it. He 5-31-12 Page 4 I asked the Commission to not make the homeowners look like idiots by allowing a multi-story, multi-family building in the neighborhood. Randy Christenson, 7001 Regent Ave N, referred to comments in the traffic study and how they described that people use public transportation and biking which he is sure the residents of the nursing homes do not do. Mr. Christenson demonstrated how he feels that the applicant will keep changing the plan and `they are eating up every half they can' and still not meeting the residents half way. He added no one has explained to him why the property was split into two zoning districts and he doesn't agree with the whole premise, they haven't been there for it and it doesn't fit the neighborhood. Sandra Christenson 6803 Toledo Ave N, asked if the Phase I does go through, how long do they expect it to take? At what point will they tear down the other buildings? She doesn't want overhead power lines and there should be a 25 ft. easement. Mr. Eitel responded, that as soon as this is approved, probably in July, the applicant will start construction of the three story building. Phase I will be finished in 2013, the current residents will be moved to the new building and the existing building would then go down. It is critical that it be done timely for the benefit of the residents. Mr. Mehrkens added that the storm water necessary to serve the site is located where the existing building is located. He added that the new building cannot be built until the old building goes away and once the new building is constructed, the residents will be moved and then the new entry is built, taking about 12— 16 months to complete. He added that the elevations for the care center include a mansard roof intended to mimic a residential roof line and the proposed flat roof is necessary with a 100 ft. wide roof. They have put in a 5/12 pitched roof which is the lowest possible. Commissioner Kuykendall asked if they could still obtain a parking study since there will be no secondary entrance. Mr. Eitel stated that there was a discussion regarding the subject, however, the proposed design layout indicates two entrances coming in fiom 69th Avenue. He added the County's analysis is that it isn't an issue to continue to allow the two driveways to exist. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she would like to see the traffic issues studied further based on what the residents have stated. Mr. Eitel replied that traffic guidelines were addressed by the City Engineer. He added that the peak of traffic onto the site is based on when they experience a shift change and not necessarily during normal rush hours. Commissioner Kuykendall stated she is not concerned with parking on the site but rather how the site affects traffic on the street. She further stated there is not going to be single family homes on the site and it is either going to be as it exists or it is going to be the new proposed building. Mrs. Christenson stated that she feels that they could just tear down the building and put something else up and they (Maranatha) don't have to be catered to them. She feels that the Commission is catering to the money in allowing this development. She feels they are big money and have used that to influence staff. 5-31-12 Page 5 i Chair Rahn stated that there are real people, human beings, living in this facility and it is outdated and a new facility will increase their quality of life and it is important to consider that as well. He added that the current building doesn't meet the needs of the current residents. Mrs. Christenson replied that the building could be someplace else and she knows that Brooklyn Center just wants it for their tax base. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she is offended by these comments. She reinforced that the building is obsolete and cannot be maintained. She asked the residents if they want the people misplaced off the property? She added they are proposing to replace an outdated facility and provide a decent place for their residents to live. Mrs. Christenson said that Northridge is 50 percent vacant and they could go live there. She added that this facility is not necessary for this community. Commissioner Kuykendall responded that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows that there is a need for senior housing in this community and at the time it was discussed (during the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan), nobody in the city came forward to speak to the Planning Commission at the public hearings. Mrs. Christenson stated that this is not the appropriate thing to do and the Commission does not know what they are really going to put in there because they will change and they are going to vote on something that they know nothing about. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that they have studied these plans in depth and she takes offense that the residents think they are just redlining things without appropriate consideration. She added she has a stake in this community as well. Gary Eitel stated that he has not heard anyone opposed to Phase I. Mr. Arvid Sorenson stated that there are other properties where this could go particularly city owned properties. Randy Christenson apologized if he offended the Commission. He has also put in a lot of time reviewing this. He stated that if the building is obsolete doesn't that also make the homes in the area obsolete? Mr. Mehrkens stated that the facility is no longer functioning as it should and the age and condition of the building has created safety issues as well as quality of care and quality of life. He added that if this is not approved, they will continue to operate until it can no longer function and no-longer has a useful life. Mr. Christensen asked that if the facility no longer has useful life, what happens to the property? He referred to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and asked what will happen in 15 years. Mr. Mehrkens stated no one can predict 15 years from now, however, the population is aging and the number of people needing facilities such as these continues to grow especially in Brooklyn Center. He added that if Maranatha wants to continue to serve Brooklyn Center residents and 5-31-12 Page 6 i keep them here, then they need a updated, functioning facility such as this. He feels that Maranatha would like to stay in the community and continue to serve the residents of Brooklyn Center with assisted living, memory care and skilled care. Many Maranatha residents are former residents/homeowners of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Christensen asked if they would consider anything less than what is being proposed. Mr. Mehrkens stated they feel this is a good use for the site. Mr. Christensen replied `we don't'. There was a motion by Commissioner Parks to table the application and continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she recommends this application move forward and they not table the application. Commissioner Burfeind stated that he agrees that the application should move forward. Commissioner Schonning stated that he agrees that the application should move forward. There was no second to the motion to continue the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, 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. 2012-10 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-003 SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME INC. FOR APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT/SITE AND BUILDING PLAN IN RELATION TO THE NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401-5415—69TH AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Burfeind, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-10 with additional review of the lighting plan, ring road, landscaping, and appropriate screening to adjacent property owners. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Kuykendall, Parks and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 25, 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. 5-31-12 Page 7 i f11tOOk'LYN CGNTEK Planning Commission Report j Application Filed on 03/15/12 Meeting Date: May 31, 2012 City Council action should be taken by 05/14/12 (60 Days) REVIEW EXTENDED to 07/13/12 Application No.: 2012-003 Applicant: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. Location: 5401& 5415 —69th Avenue North Request: Approval of a Development/Site & Building Plan to a new Planned Unit Development INTRODUCTION Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., is requesting consideration of a Development/Site Plan under a new Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would allow the development of the subject site with a new three-story, 97-bed skilled nursing care facility and related parking areas, along with a proposed 38-unit senior independent living facility. This PUD is planned for the redevelopment of the exiting Maranatha Nursing Home and Senior Apartments campus, located at 5401& 5415 - 691h Avenue North. This report will provide brief background inf o rm a tio n an analysis,updated and suggested recommendations for the Development/Site Plan component of this PUD request. This item is being presented under a continued public hearing from the April 12th meeting, with follow-up noticed provided to the surrounding property owners (within 350-ft. of the subject site). PUD PROCESS A Planned Unit.Development proposal includes the rezoning of land with a PUD designation followed by an alpha-numeric designation of the underlying zoning district; or in this case 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 and Developers the needed flexibility in addressing development and redevelopment issues. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. The Planning Commission should refer to City Code Section 35-355, which addresses standards and provisions allowed under a Planned Unit Development proposal. BACKGROUND The Maranatha campus consists of two separate lots. The nursing home parcel (5401 — 69th Ave.) is 3.78 acres in size and is situated in the RI district. The existing 64-unit senior assisted livin g facility (5415 — 69 Ave.)th 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 by PHS. PC 05-31-12 Page 1 of 14 i I XBROOKLYN NTER The nursing home facility was built in 1959 and expanded in 1994. It is understood 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. as "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 R1 (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; RI-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. F tr 11.1 C1 02 R2 4� t �•'-{{ r ����� �. .; Ci1R1 I»;':;»'.�PUDlCtA �- -$R3 •—G— _ t u CVR51R4 PUDJC2 R4 C7A PUD1I1 W R5 ,. C2 T 7 PUDIR1 ®RS 3 t _ 11 PUDIR3 ��eq R7 S 1 J1 x4Ex 12 PUDMIXED �firtxAuuG� Ot =R1 1,nmt j IIIIlIt11.)1U ;_Ihml M i 1 � > 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. The Commission approved a recommendation to change the Maranatha properties from this PS and MF to a new MF-MIXED ENHANCED (Multi—Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks), which would facilitate the proposed rezoning comprehended under this PUD Application. 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. Upon completion of this nursing care addition, Maranatha will remove the old nursing home facility, and intends to complete Phase II of this redevelopment project within 3-5 years (per the original narrative). 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, PC 05-31-12 Page 2 of 14 BROOKLYN CEN TER 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. CONTINUATION of ANALYSIS As the Commission is aware, this item was 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. On May 3, 2012 Maranatha conducted another open house, which was intended to provide a design "charrette" with the neighbors. The following day, Maranatha representatives provided city staff an updated concept/site plan of the Maranatha site. The plan was adjusted to illustrate the original planned nursing care facility in the same location, and readjusted the original layout to the Phase II area. Maranatha agreed to construct a 2.5 story (instead of original 4-story) building, with the ability to maintain a level up to 38- residential units for future senior housing development. The Developer was encouraged by Staff to create greater setbacks from the single family zoned properties, as much as possible. Staff suggested a 100-foot setback along the east line, even though a 48-50 setback would be required (setback must equal twice the height of the building). Maranatha's plan showed a majority of the new building would meet this 100-ft. setback, except for the winged area which showed a 76.75- ft. setback. The plan also illustrated 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). Upon City Staffs' review of this plan and a follow-up meeting with Maranatha representatives, it was recommended by staff to maintain the 100-foot setback all along the east boundary, reshape the ponding areas, and illustrate as much proof of parking as possible. This new site plan and related attachments were submitted to the City on May 16, 2012. This amended report and analysis contained herein reflects this May 16th submittal. DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SITE & BUILDING PLAN REVIEW Phase I still calls for the construction of a three-story, 97-bed, 84-unit skilled nursing care facility. This facility will provided nursing care for transitional, long-term care, and/or memory care services. Floors are equipped with common areas such as kitchen and dining areas; living/congregation areas; conference rooms; exam rooms; activity and therapy rooms; utility rooms; and offices. The nursing care will also provide an small fenced in"memory garden" area for its residents. A small, separate utility/maintenance garage is also planned on the southern end of the westerly parking area. The site will be improved with five ponding or rainwater treatment areas, with the larger pond PC 05-31-12 Page 3 of 14 i C,Itvnf Bill)lil,SiY CENTER located between the nursing care and future 38-unit facility serving as the main storm water retention facility. The existing site contains 110 designated spaces, consisting of 99 surface spaces and 11 'garage stalls. 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 11 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 23 stalls to the west of the new nursing care center, or 104 spaces. 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. The parking analysis and recommendations will be provided later in this report. ❖ BUILDING The building elevations and floor plans for the proposed building addition are attached to this report. 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 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 fascias and typical, earth-tone colored asphalt shingles. 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 minor in scope and is not a major concern to Staff. Under 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) 1 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,CIA or C2 zone abuts an Rl or R2 zone,the setback of this building from the RI or R2 property shall be no less than twice the height of the building. 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 PC 05-31-12 Page 4 of 14 i CI{r n! BROOKLYN CENTER reduce any perceived impacts upon the neighboring properties. The plans call for some landscaping and screening along the south edge, which will be addressed in the "Landscape/Screening" section of this report. Since this Maranatha Care campus, which is located in the R6 (and a proposed PUD Mixed R5/R6 zone), abuts an R1 (One Family) zone, the setback standard of"twice the height of the building" comes into play. The new nursing care building is planned to have a 64-foot setback (at its closest point) from the south lot line, which increase to 71.5-ft. at the other end. The side yard setback is 74 feet from the west line. The Applicant's architects indicated the building's wall height of 32 feet, which would effectively meet this double setback standard and acknowledged under this PUD Plan approval. The Development/Site Plan also identifies a future 2.5 story, 38-unit independent living facility, which would replace the old nursing home buildings once it is removed. This residential building is identified under a Phase II of this PUD. The narrative originally identified this building as a "29-38 unit" apartment, on account of the unknown allowed density the City will provide under this PUD. Allowable density of a particular site 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 A(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 • R6: 5.12 ac. x 19.8 units/ac. = 102 allowable units Deducting the existing 64 units leaves 19 to 38 available units for the Phase II portion of this PUD site. By recommending approval of the rezoning element of this PUD at the May 17, 2012 meeting, the Commission acknowledged this site may accommodate up to 38 units as shown. The new senior housing center is shown with a 100-ft. setback, which is a buffer space that City Staff strongly encouraged Maranatha designers to adhere to, in order to provide added separation and sunlight to the rear yards of the neighboring residential properties along Toledo Avenue. The new building would be accessed off the new fire lane/ring road for this site. The parking is planned to be installed underground, with up to 38 stalls or more if space is available. Maranatha did not provide an elevation plan or sample picture or design of this 2.5 story facility. Nevertheless, this new facility will need to match or exceed those standards presented under this PC 05-31-12 Page 5 of 14 Olt"of JIJtOOKI.YAr CENTER PUD plans for the new skilled nursing facility and senior assisted living facility. The building illustrated under this future Phase II of this PUD plan is not officially approved until later, when the Applicants will be required to submit a new Site and Building Plan for said building. Any changes or modifications PHS (or any other future owners of this site) would propose on this Phase II area, and which reflects anything different, either more or less than what is approved under this PUD Plan (and PUD Agreements) would trigger an additional PUD Amendment application and full review before the Planning Commission and City Council. As part of this PUD Agreement, the Applicant is stipulating that the 38-unit facility will be reserved for senior residents only, which is a segment of the population Maranatha primarily serves. ACCESS/PARKING The subject site is accessed from 691h 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 entering the site. The westerly drive leads to the rear parking and loading 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 691h Avenue to serve as a drive- aisle to the expanded parking lot. The westerly leg continues as it did before along the west edge of the existing and new buildings and serves as the driveway leading to the new 23-stall parking lot. The easterly access is shown with an off-set from the 25-stall parking area immediately to the south of this access. The City Engineer has requested this access be aligned with the parking lot drive aisle at this location. This may require moving this access point slightly farther west along 69th Avenue, or shifting the parking (or all areas) slightly east to meet this alignment. The parking is reduced on the south area and expanded on the north area to accommodate 81 surface parking stalls. The site is shown with 104 total hard-surfaced parking spaces. The new site plan illustrates 87 "proof-of-parking" spaces, or double the original revised plan. If all indicated/illustrated parking were installed,this site could accommodate 191 parking spaces. 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 employees and one space for each staff doctor. PC 05-31-12 Page 6 of 14 i XBROOKLM TER In 1987, the west parcel was created; rezoned to R6 Multiple Family; and the new senior apartment facility was constructed. This new facility required 130 parking spaces; however, Maranatha owners were approved to provide only 95 spaces,with an arrangement for 35 proof of j parking spaces under a recordable covenant. 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. " These 35 spaces were to be installed in the event the site became deficient or congested(as determined by the City),which never occurred. The 1987 Site Plan also noted the existing nursing home facility needed 48 spaces, which were demarcated on the approved plans, but apparently these were never installed according to the plan layout. In 1994, Maranatha received approval to construct the addition to the mid-wing of the nursing home. The Planning Report indicated the nursing care site required 66 spaces, but only 53 spaces were noted (and approved) as being sufficient for the nursing home needs. The 13 deficient spaces would be provided in an additional proof of parking arrangement between the Owner and City, which is also unconfirmed if said agreement exists. By today's count, the existing nursing care property only shows 37 spaces on this easterly parcel. Today, the entire Maranatha site appears to have only 110 usable spaces. As was noted in the April 121h report, holding Maranatha to our current City Code parking standards, and based on the existing senior apartment plus the new nursing care facility, this redeveloped site would need to accommodate the following number of parking spaces: • 64-units (Senior Apts.): 64 x 2 = 128 spaces • 97 beds (nursing home): [1 per 4 beds = 24 stalls] + [1 per 2 emp. @ 65 = 33 stalls], or 57 spaces • COMBINED USES: 128 + 57= 185 required parking spaces Adding in the new 38 unit senior independent living facility (at 2 per unit) would require an additional 76 spaces, or 261 total required parking spaces. At the April 12th and May 17th meetings, a number of residents indicated the large number of vehicles entering/exiting this site; a request to make Maranatha add center turn lanes or passing lanes on 69th Avenue; and does the new Development Plan provide enough parking for the existing and future uses. Included with the May 16th Plan updates, Maranatha submitted a new Traffic and Parking Study performed by Westwood Engineering (complete report attached for review). Some findings and conclusions made by the Westwood report (as supported by the 2008 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation and the ITE Parking Generation Manual 4`h Ed. (2010), indicate the following: I 1) The trip generations (vehicle movements in and out) of the site under Phase I will not change; and the trips under Phase lI should be minimal; PC 05-31-12 Page 7 of 14 c C/[r of BROOKLYN CENTER 2) Based on the turning traffic off 69th Avenue, these numbers are not warranted and therefore turn lanes are not recommended; 3) For assisted living facilities, ITE suggests a 0.41 space/unit standard; for skilled nursing care facilities a 0.35 space/nursing bed standard; and for independent living facilities a 0.59 space/unit standard. Based on these reduced standards, the existing assisted living and nursing care under Phase I would only require 61 spaces (versus 185 by City Code). With Phase II, the total number equates to 83 spaces (versus 261 by Code). 4) The study also included a table which provided a "typical daily demand" of on-site parking, which was determined to be a low of 5 spaces to a high of 80-90 spaces used. 5) The study suggests the City consider utilizing a compromised standard, between the City Code, ITE and Peak Demand thresholds, and further recommended that "Rest Homes, Nursing Homes..." standard of 1 per 4 beds and 1 per employee be used for the nursing care and assisted living, which equates to 73 needed spaces for just these two uses. The independent living under Phase II would be held to 2/unit, or 76 spaces, for a total of 149 spaces. Assuming the new Phase II independent living building can contain 38 underground spaces, this would require at least 111 outside parking stalls, or 7 short of what is planned or illustrated on the new Development Plan. Normally, when a report of this type is presented, Staff assumes the information is correct and accurately reflects new standards or requirements that may be the norm under today's development and redevelopment standards throughout the nation, and even the Twin Cities. However, the parking standards supported by the ITE manual did not reflect too well or comfortably with Planning Staff, due in part to the obvious and drastic reduction in parking spaces that would be required using just these numbers. The peak utilization of 90 parking spaces reveals to Staff that this site requires at least 104 or more spaces to adequately serve its residents, employees and visitors to the site. The recommended (or compromised) standard in the report appears somewhat reasonable, and we feel ultimately the Planning Commission and City Council should make the final determination of any reduced standard. Nevertheless, under this 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. Staff is also recommending that in order to ensure that all existing and immediate future parking needs are met, Maranatha should install the 14 spaces to the northwest area of the Assisted Living facility and the first 16 spaces in the "proof-of- parking" area located near the northeast corner. These 30 additional spaces will bring the total site up to 134 spaces, which Staff feels may be adequate and reasonable. If during the operations of the newly redeveloped site it is determined that added parking is warranted, the City will require Maranatha to install the remaining stalls in the proof of parking area. Any additional parking areas should also be improved with sidewalk connections. Staff also recommends a pair of crosswalks/pedestrian paths from the parking areas to the sidewalk along 69th Avenue be included. PC 05-31-12 Page 8 of 14 XBROQA'TER ❖ 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. 136- 12 curb and gutter is to be provided around all driving and parking areas. 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 natural area storm water systems. The Director of Public Works/City Engineer is reviewing the plan and the Commission's attention is directed to his comments. ❖ LANDSCAPING/SCREENING The basis of a landscaping plan is to provide natural and aesthetic enhancements to a development site; tangible and natural features or elements for the residents and visitors to enjoy; and provide an environmental friendly screen from adjacent uses. The PUD may permit reduction of required standards, but typically the Developer and/or the development site must provide suitable and acceptable buffers or screening measures (such as landscaping, fencing, berming, or combination ) to lessen these impacts upon the adjacent properties. City Code Section 35-410 (Special Requirements in R3-R7 Districts), Subpart 3 provides the following: Where a proposed R3, R4, R5, R6, or R7 development abuts an RI or R2 district other than at a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established. There shall be provided a protective strip not less than 25 feet wide in the case of R6 and R7 uses and not less than 15 feet wide in the case of R3, R4 and R5 uses. The protective strip shall contain an opaque fence or a Council approved substitute. The protective strip shall be landscaped and not be used for parking, garages, driveways, off-street loading or storage. The screening device design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the multiple dwelling area. A proposed fence shall be no less than four feet in height and shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right-of-way. The submitted Site Plan did not include any designs or indicate any fencing or screening device proposed on this site. The Planning Commission should make a determination as to the p g adequacy of the screening plan and provide a condition that includes the site to be fenced along the easterly and southerly borders. This fence could consist of a 6-8 foot high wooden (cedar preferred) or composite/vinyl materials. If any fence is provided, Maranatha should determine if any fenced-off areas need to be adjusted to accommodate neighbor's garden plots or similar sensitive areas. 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 PC 05-31-12 Page 9 of 14 I AMVPjW Clh•nf BROOKLYN CENTER 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 indicates 24 new deciduous; 17 new coniferous; and 124 shrub varieties. The preliminary point total awarded to these new plantings is 404 pts. The plans indicate the removal of a few trees and the protection of existing trees on the site, which appear to number 9 deciduous and 13 coniferous trees. These saved trees equate to 168 points. Adding these points into the new landscape points equates to 572 total points, which exceeds the minimum points requirement. Upon review of this updated landscape plan, some of the same concerns raised in our April 12th Planning Report remain, particularly the planting varieties, the numbers,placement, and whether these plantings provide the suitable and appropriate buffers and screening measures from the single-family residences. For example, the east boundary area is shown with two separate areas, with 3 bicolor oaks and 10 dogwoods and 10 viburnum shrubs spread out between these trees. Between these two planting areas are five staggered Austrian pines. ' Bo ' ={ - f 1 i- � •, - 5 AP 1*_ 4 dd i 7 ? lS F L Ile i, PC 05-31-12 Page 10 of 14 XCBROOK MR These oak trees, viburnum and dogwoods are all deciduous varieties, which will shed leaves and prevent the year-round screening Staff encouraged. Although a new fence may provide the opaque screening required by Code, additional year-round (and natural) screening beyond the top of the fence lines should be encouraged. Therefore, Staff suggests this east buffer strip area be improved with additional coniferous type grouping of trees, and in a similar staggered fashion as the five Austrian pines(as shown in the diagrams below). ! I BASIN I 1 FLANS) - TING TREES ``(( 1t {7 t I/ r t / CD , It 45_ sou C \w 10 S J 1 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 seven 6-inch trees. The landscape plan contains a note which states instead of planting six — 6-inch trees, that twenty-four 2.5 inch caliper trees would be planted. Staff tends to agree that most trees from nurseries typically are shipped or provided at the 2.5 inch caliper sizes, which makes them easier to plant, maintain and increases the survivability rate when replanting. Similarly, the areas along the south boundary may need additional screening or trees, especially along the inside ring of the fire lane road. The original (April 12th) plan also included a number of ornamental trees, such as flowering crabapples and thornless Hawthorns. This new plan is absent of these and Staff would request that some of these trees be included in any updated plan sets. PC 05-31-12 Page 11 of 14 Cltrn! � BROOKLYN CENTER I •:- LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan for this site. All new lighting should 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. All new(final) lighting will be analyzed and reviewed prior to issuance of any 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. CITY ENGINEER'S REVIEW The City Engineer indicated to Planning Staff that the original April 9, 2012 review memorandum, which identified certain site design issues and conditions, remains in place as his general comments and conditions that must be addressed prior to issuance of any site or building development permits. Certain conditions and recommendations were also identified in his May 25, 2012 Review Memorandum related to the Preliminary/Final Plat consideration of MARANATHA 2"d ADDITION. Please note some or most of these conditions would ultimately be reviewed and approved later under separate site and building permits. Other conditions or improvements may be subject to approvals as part of this proposed future platting of this site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2012-003, which comprehends the Development/Site and Building Plan of the subject site, which is an integral part of the proposed Planned Unit Development requested of this site, subject to the following conditions: 1) The Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memos, dated April 9, 2012 and May 25, 2012. 2) The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3) The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4) The location or placement of all fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. PC 05-31-12 Page 12 of 14 I i Citr of BROOKLYN CENTER 5) Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6) The Developer shall submit 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. 7) Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 8) An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. i 9) Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including any new freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs,which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to separate sign permit submittals and approval. 10) B6-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11) All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 12) Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 13) The Developer shall provide and dedicate all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer, either on the new plat or by separate recordable document/agreements. 14) The Developer shall install the 14 proof of parking spaces on the northwest area of the assisted living facility,and the 16 spaces on the north end of the fire lane/ring road in the northeast corner of the site. 15) The Developer shall provide connecting walkways between the sidewalk along 69"' Avenue North to the parking lot areas, and walkways from interior parking areas to other main door access points or other connecting walkways. 16) The Developer shall install a 6 to 8-foot high screening fence along the easterly and southerly property lines or buffer areas. Said fence/screening device shall be constructed with either cedar wood or composite/vinyl materials, with final style and locations approved by the City Business and Development Director. PC 05-31-12 Page 13 of 14 XCTA"NW i 17) The Developer shall modify the Landscape Plan to include a clustering of four to five evergreen/coniferous trees between the six bi-color oak trees along the east buffer area, and the southeast corner of the pond area;the Plan should-also be modified to provide a small number of ornamental trees into the plan; and Developer agrees to replace any existing significant trees noted to be saved on the Landscape Plans (Sheet L1-1)that may become damaged or removed as a direct result of construction on this site. 18) The owner of the property shall enter into a utilities and facilities maintenance agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 19) Storm water drainage systems shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of any permits. 20) The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 21) The owner shall enter into a PUD Agreement and/or Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be prepared and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific standards and regulations provided by the underlying PUD-MIXED R5/R6 zoning district, as well as all other conditions of approval. This agreement shall further assure compliance with the development/site plans submitted with this application. 22) Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD,which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. If the Planning Commission accepts this recommendation and the conditions listed herein, the Commission may elect to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-10, which memorializes the findings in granting said approval of this proposed Development/Site and Building Plan for the new Planned Unit Development on the subject site, and provides for the conditions of approval as they relate to this approval. Attachments 1) Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-10 2) Location/Site Aerial Map 3) Maranatha Narrative(03.15.12) 4) Westwood Engineering Traffic Study 5) City Engineer's Review Memos—dated(04/09/12 and 05/25/12) 6) Full Site Plan Set of Maranatha Care Center PUD 7) Landscape Plan 8) Lighting/Electric Plan 9) Civil Plan Set PC 05-31-12 Page 14 of 14 ""J 7 Z ' t, - 69 z w i A k 7-77 u G rj 6843i A L -,A -2h," �3, gk� A;, 11 1 1 A Ot �Wo Ljl' AJ 6831 L ,5'it 4. ,'I u{, ' ��,� "", '6825 J, o 1 tI� j J, A C I *.-np ;Wl es.5 4 �,�r J� Ir, --,qi 111[-711111 Y4, 1 7 low 16813 A s' ',77, -6 *44 CTIL, -A J rin —gA it tAkIlL gl 44 L--"" "Tl� 560 C r 36 Alf r E17371 All MARANAT A HOMES I 0 30 60 120 180 240 PROJECT SITE Feet o2lzrl YX ENTER ` •. innovations in y of .•-t, Senior LiAng Communities SENIOR HOUSING IPA R" EF 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 for the redevelopment of the current 97 bed Maranatha Care Center located at 540169'"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: I(a)—Expand parking on the north side of the site along 691h Avenue I(b)—Demolish existing garages in the south parking lot Q I(c)—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. 2845 North Hamline Ave.,;,Suite 100 Roseville, \minnesota 5511.3 : www.seniorpartnersxom (651)631-6300: Fax tGSl) 631-6301 : 800-891-9126 As Phase I is a Redevelopment of the current facility nd maintaining the same services, number of units p Y g 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. 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, jp�-_A � J Deb Zarbok/Project Developer Senior Housing Partners/Presbyterian Homes Cc: -°Tim Benetti/Planning and Zoning Specialist Greg Woollums/POPE Architects ` I 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 FAX 952-937-5822 Westwood TOLL FREE 888-937-5150 www.westwoodps.com MEMORANDUM Date: May 15, 2012 Re: Maranatha Care Center Traffic Technical Memorandum: Review of Traffic Impacts File 20121085 To: Deb Zarbok, Senior Housing Partners From: John M. Hagen, P.E., PTOE Summary As requested,Westwood has completed a review ofthe traffic-related impacts of the proposed Maranatha Care Center located south of 69th Avenue, between Unity and Toledo Avenues, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota(see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to evaluate trip generation, site access,need for turn lanes along 69th Avenue at site access points,parking, and travel demand management opportunities. Per discussions with City staff, a detailed traffic impact study(with peak hour traffic operations analysis at key intersections)will not be required due to the size of the proposed redevelopment. Proposed Redevelopment The existing Maranatha Care Center consists of 64 assisted living units and 97 skilled nursing beds. The proposed redevelopment of the site will occur in two phases. The first phase will consist of the replacement of the existing skilled nursing facility located on the eastern portion of the site with a new skilled nursing facility located on the western portion of the site. The number of skilled nursing beds will remain the same under the existing and build conditions(at 97 beds). Once the new skilled nursing facility is completed,the existing skilled care center will be removed. A potential second phase may include the addition of 38 future independent living units. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. I Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the a.m.and p.m.peak periods and on a daily basis were calculated for the existing and proposed Maranatha Care Center site. The trip generation estimates were Land and Energy DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS A 0 1 F-9 13 1 ED 13 El Q i I May 15,2012 Page 2 based on rates provided in the 2008 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report. The resultant trip generation estimates for the existing and proposed redevelopment are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Trip Generation Estimate: Maranatha Care Center(l)- Average AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekday Land Use Size Total In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 170 6 3 9 6 8 14 Skilled Care Center(New) 97 beds 330 11 5 16 7 14 21 Subtotal 500 17 8 25 13 22 35 ai Existing Conditions Assisted Living 64 units 170 6 3 9 6 8 14 Skilled Care Center 97 beds 330 11 5 16 7 14 21 Subtotal 500 17 8 25 13 22 35 Phase I Net Gain/Loss(l) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Proposed Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 170 6 3 9 6 8 14 Skilled Care Center-(New) 97 beds 330 11 5 16 7 14 21 Independent Living 38 units 132 2 3 5 4 2 6 G Subtotal 632 19 11 30 17 1 24 41 Existing Conditions Assisted Living 64 units 170 2 4 6 9 8 17 Skilled Care Center 97 beds 330 11 5 16 7 14 21 Subtotal 500 17 8 25 13 22 35 Phase II Net GaiAoss(l) 132 2 3 5 4 2 6 (')Net gain/loss represents the difference in trips generated by the proposed redevelopment as compared to the existing site for each phase. As shown in Table 1,the first phase of the proposed redevelopment will not change the number of trips generated by the existing site. The existing and proposed conditions of the Phase I development will both generate approximately 500 vehicular trips on an average weekday, 25 vehicular trips during the a.m. peak hour(with 17 inbound and 8 outbound), and 35 vehicular trips during the p.m.peak hour(with 13 inbound and 22 outbound). Under the potential Riture Phase II,the proposed 38 independent.living units will generate approximately 132 vehicular more trips on an average weekday,5 additional vehicular trips May 15, 2012 Page 3 during the a.m.peak hour(with 2 inbound and 3 outbound), and 6 additional vehicular trips during the p.m.peak hour(with 4 inbound and 2 outbound). I Since the proposed redevelopment will not generate more than 10 additional vehicular trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours(versus the existing conditions),-a detailed traffic operations analysis of the adjacent roadway system is not required by the City of Brooklyn Center. i Site Access Access to the existing Maranatha Care Center is provided along 6901 Avenue via two driveways. The easterly access is located approximately 180 feet west of Toledo Avenue, and the westerly access is opposite of Unity Avenue(approximately 235 feet west of the easterly access). Both access points are controlled by stop signs,with the 69th Avenue approaches uncontrolled. The easterly access serves the existing northern parking area located to the north of the existing skilled nursing facility. The westerly access serves the southwest parking lot, as well as the visitor parking and resident drop-off area located to the east of the existing assisted living building and north of existing skilled nursing facility,respectively. Visitors and staff currently and in future Phases I and II will have the option to use either access point to enter/exit the site since they are both connected by an internal drive aisle. Access for the proposed future phases will remain.in the same location as the existing driveways, and an internal connection between the two driveways will be maintained. Warrant Evaluation of Turn Lanes along 69th Avenue at Site Access Points The City of Brooklyn requested that the need for turn lanes along 69th Avenue at the site access points be evaluated. Brooklyn Center currently does not have a published turn lane policy for the installation of turn lanes within the city. Since 69th Avenue also carries the County Road designation of County State Aid Highway(CSAH) 130, Hennepin County staff was contacted to see if the county currently has a policy for the installation of turn lanes along county roads. Similar to Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County does not currently have a published turn lane policy for the installation of turn lanes along roadways under their jurisdiction. However,the county has, on occasion, used a general rule-of-thumb threshold of 40 to 50 turning vehicles during the peak hour to justify consideration of a turn lane along county roads. Since the maximum number of turning vehicles (along 69th Avenue)at the two driveways combined do not reach 20 vehicles during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour,this County rule-of-thumb threshold for the installation of turn lanes is not met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT), in partnership with the Local Road Research Board (LLRB) has developed a sample policy for the installation of turn lanes. This sample turn lane policy can be based on two approaches: roadway functional classification or traffic operations analysis. Since the additional trips generated by the proposed redevelopment does not trigger the need for a detailed traffic operations analysis,the roadway functional classification approach will be reviewed. The sample MnDOT and LRRB Turn Lane Policy i May 15,2012 Page 4 provides the following able See Table 2 as guidance for turn lane needs based on functional g ( ) g classification of intersecting roadways. Both the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County classify 69th Avenue as a Collector Roadway. Table 2 Turn Lane Needs Based on Functional Classification of Intersection Roadways(a) Principal Arterial LTL LTL LTL LTL KR) N.A. MinorArterial LTL LTL Min LTL Min LTL Paved Shoulder Collector LTL Min LTL Min LTL Paved Paved Shoulder Shoulder Local Street LLT Min LLT Paved Paved Paved Shoulder Shoulder Shoulder Definitions: LTL=Left Tam Lane N.A.=NotAllowed Min LTL=Minimum Length teft Turn Lane(480feet=180feetoftoper+ (MR.)=Intersections of local streets with Principal Arterials are not 300 feet ofstorage) recommended (°)Sozirce: Minnesota's Best Practices and Policies for Safety Strategies on Highways and Local Roads,MnDOT and LRRB, 2011. As shown in Table 2,turn lanes are not needed at Collector Roadway intersections with private driveways. Therefore, based on a review of the turning traffic on 69th Avenue and given the functional classification of 69th Avenue,turn lanes are not needed on 69th Avenue at the Maranatha Care Center driveways. Parking Analysis The purpose of the parking analysis is to determine if there is sufficient parking available to meet the needs of the proposed redevelopment, The existing Maranatha Care Center has 110 parking .stalls (including 11 garage stalls located in the southwest corner of the property).The existing site has 56 proof-of-parking stalls located in two separate areas; 14 stalls of proof-of-parking northwest of the existing assisted living facility, and 42 stalls of proof-of-parking just south of the existing southwest parking lot. The proposed redevelopment will provide 104 parking spaces in two reconfigured parking fields; 81 parking stalls in the northern parking lot and 23 parking stalls in the southwest parking lot (See Figure 2). Staff parking will be provided in the southern spaces of the southwest parking lot as well as the northern spaces in the northern parking lot(closest to 69th Avenue). This will i May 15, 2012 Page 5 allow for visitor parking spaces closest to the west and east entrances to the facility. In addition to these 104 parking stalls,the proposed site plan also provides a total of 87 stalls proof-of- parking located in three separate areas; 14 stalls northwest of the existing assisted living facility, 48 stalls just east of the reconfigured northern parking lot and the future independent living facility, and 25 just north of the southern fire lane. An additional 3 8 parking stalls will be provided in an underground parking garage when the future 38 unit independent living facility is built under Phase II of the proposed redevelopment. Table 3 presents the City of Brooklyn Center zoning requirements versus the ITE estimated demand to determine the total parking demand versus supply for the site under existing and future conditions. The ITE Parking Generation Manual 4th Edition(2010) is often considered an industry standard for parking demand. The City's zoning code requires that assisted living facilities provide two parking stalls for every unit. The ITE demand comparison is based on 0.41 parking stalls per assisted living unit. The City's zoning code also requires that skilled care facilities provide one parking stall for every four beds plus one space for every two employees and one space for each staff doctor. The ITE demand comparison is based on 0.35 parking stalls per skilled nursing bed. Finally,the City's zoning code requires that independent living facilities provide two parking stalls for every unit. The ITE demand comparison is based on 0.59 parking stalls per independent living unit. As shown in Table 3,the Maranatha Care Center is required to provide 185 parking stalls under the existing and future Phase I conditions, and 261 parking stalls under future Phase II conditions according to the City's zoning requirements. This results in a deficit of 75 parking stalls under existing conditions, a deficit of 81 parking stalls under future Phase I conditions, and a deficit of 119 parking stalls under future Phase II conditions. When considering the ITE based demand, Table 3 also shows that the Maranatha Care Center has a parking surplus of 49 parking stalls under existing conditions; and a surplus of 43 and 59 parking stalls under future Phase I and II conditions,respectively. It should be noted that these deficits/surpluses do not include the existing 56 and future 87 future proof-of-parking stalls. The primary difference between the City and ITE values occur in the parking demand needs for the assisted living and independent living land uses. The City of Brooklyn Center parking requirements for assisted and independent living facilities applies the same rate (2 parking stalls per dwelling unit) as any other residential land uses within the City. This rate is almost 5 times greater than the ITE parking demand values for similar assisted living facilities across the country and almost 3.5 times greater than parking demand values of similar independent living facilities. In order to determine which parking demand estimates provide a better representation of the parking needs for the existing Maranatha Care Center, a parking utilization study was conducted. Existing parking demand and supply was measured on Wednesday,May 9 and Thursday, May 10, 2012 between the hours of 5:00 to 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 to 3:30 p.m. These time periods were selected since they coincide with the changes between the night, day, and evening shifts. The results of the parking utilization study are shown in Table 4. May 15,2012 Page 6 Table 3 Maranatha Care Center Parking Demand: Existing and Future Phase I and H Conditions Parkin Demand Parking Parking Surplus/ Land Use Size Rate Demand Supp!y Q2efiSDt City Requirements Assisted Living 64 units 2 per tout 128 Skilled Care Center 97 beds 1 per 4 beds plus 57 110(2) (75) 65 empl 1 per 2 employees(1) Totals 185 110(2) (75) ITE Parking Demand Assisted Living 64 units 0.41 per unit 27 Skilled Care Center 97 beds 0.35 per bed 34 110�2� 49 Totals 61 110(2) 49 City Requirements Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 2 per unit 128 Skilled Care Center(New) 97 beds 1 per 4 beds plus 57 104(3) (81) ,.. 65 empl 1 per 2 employees(l) Totals 185 104�3� (81) .c a' ITE Parking Demand Assisted Living 64 units 0.41 per unit 27 Skilled Care Center 97 beds 0.35 per bed 34 104(3) 43 Totals 61 104(3) 43 City Requirements Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 2 per unit 128 Skilled Care Center(New) 97 be 1 per 4 beds plus 3� 65 em 1 1 per 2 employees(l) 57 142 (119) G Independent Living(New) 38 units 2 per unit 76 Totals 261 142(3) (119) R .L' ITE Parking Demand Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 0.41 per unit 27 Skilled Care Center(New) 97 beds 0.35 per bed 34 142(3) 59 Independent Living(New) 38 units 0.59 per unit 22 Totals 83 142(3) 59 (')City requirement also requires one additional stall per staff doctor;however,Maranatha does not have any staff doctors on site. (2)Does not include the existing 56 proof-of-parking stalls. (3)Does not include the future 87 proof-of-parking stalls. I b � w D e v, ' N O N Table 4 Uaranatha Care Center: ExIstinn Time-of-Day Demand Distribution(l) Parldn-,Supply and Demand Perceut Nvailable Parldng Parldnr 5:00 5:30. 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 9:00 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 Field Stalls a.m. M. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. p.m. pan. p.m. p.m. p.m. 5 LI 3 2 2 6 S 10 22 24 27 27' 29 'NTE- 34 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 �:o o or o 0 0 0 15.b 15:'0 12:•0 9.0 6:0 6:0 1S:o 4% 9:b 65.0 71;0 79%0 79.o 55:0 AtiV' 11 ' S 7- 5 7 6 7 9 9 4 1 5 4 5 45% 45% 64% 45% 64% 55% 64 0•0 52% S2% 36°.0 9% 45 0,'0 3640 45% 2 19 24 29 41 51 53 56 53 55 5S 47 45 3% 3.0 9:o 370'o 455% 63% 78% 82% 86% S20'o S5°•10 S9°.ro 72% 69°.'o Total 110 _ 12 12 30 32 38 49 64 70 75 79 80 90 78 79 11% 1 11% 1 27% 1 29% 35% 45% 58% 64% G8% 72% 73% 82% 71% 72% (')based on parking utilization study conducted May 9 and 10.201'_. i May 15,2012 Page 8 As shown in Table 4,the peak parking demand for the Maranatha Care Center occurs between 1:30 and 2:30 p.m., when 80 to 90 vehicles are parked on the site. This is not too surprising since this time frame corresponds to the shift change between the daytime and evening shifts (which combine to account for approximately 84 percent of the number of employees that currently work at the facility). Based on our review of the parking demand and supply data presented in Table 4,the existing Maranatha Care Center currently provides more parking(110 stalls)than is needed to currently service the peak parking demand(80 to 90 stalls between 1:30 and 2:30 p.m.) for the existing 64 assisted living units and 97 skilled nursing beds. Therefore, the ITE parking demand numbers provide a better representation of the existing parking needs for the Maranatha Care Center than the City's requirement of two stalls per assisted living unit. Alternatively, instead of using the ITE parking demand values,the City could consider applying a revised parking requirement for assisted living facilities equal to that found in the City Ordinance under the miscellaneous category for"Rest homes, nursing homes, sanitariums, and homes for the aged and for children" (which calls for one parking stall for every four beds plus one space for every two employees and one space for each staff doctor).. The resultant parking requirement will be closer to either the existing or ITE based parking demand values. Table 5 shows a comparison of the existing parking demand (from the parking utilization study)with the revised parking requirement for assisted living and the ITE parking demand. Table 5 Comparison of Existing,Revised City Requirements, and ITE Parking Demand: Existing Maranatha Care Center Parking Demand Parking Parking Surplus/ Land Use Size Rate Demand Su 1 (Deficit) Existing Parking Demand Assisted Living 64 units Skilled Care Center 97 beds 90 110�2� 20 Totals 90 110(2) 20 Revised City Requirements for Assisted Living Land Use Assisted Living 64 units 1 per 4 beds plus 1) 16 4Q 1 per 2 em to ees 1 10(2) 37 W Skilled Care Center 97 beds 1 per 4 b e plus 57 65 empl 1 per 2 employees(l) Totals 73 110(2) 37 ITE Parking Demand Assisted Living 64 units 0.41 per unit 27 110(Z) 49 Skilled Care Center 97 beds 0.35 per bed 34 Totals 61 110(2) 49 (')City requirement also requires one additional stall per staff doctor;however,Maranatha does not have any staff doctors on site. (2)Does not include the existing 56 proof-of-parking stalls. . I i i i May 15, 2012 Page 9 As shown in Table 5, the parking demand for the existing Maranatha Care Center based on a revised City requirement for assisted living land falls approximately midway between the existing and ITE parking demand for the site. It is therefore recommended that the City of Brooklyn Center consider applying the revised parking requirement for"Rest homes, nursing homes, sanitariums, and homes for the aged and for children"to both the assisted living and skilled nursing components of the Maranatha Care Center. The resultant parking requirements for the proposed future phases of the Maranatha Care Center are shown in Table 6. The ITE parking demand is included in Table 6 for comparison purposes. Table 6 Maranatha Care Center Parking Demand: Future Phase I and II Conditions Based on Revised City Requirements for Assisted Living Pa king Demand Parking Parking Surplus/ Land Use Size Rate Demand Supply (Deficit) Revised City Requirements for Assisted Living Land Use Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 1 per 4 beds plu 16 1 per 2 employees(l) 104(2) 31 Skilled Care Center(New) 97 beds 1 per 4 beds plus 1) 57 �-+ 65 empl 1 per 2 employees Totals 73 104(2) 31 a ITE Parking Demand Assisted Living 64 units 0.41 per unit 27 Skilled Care Center 97 beds 0.35 per bed 34 104(2) 43 Totals 1 61 1 104(2) 43 Revised City Requirements for Assisted Living Land Use Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 1 per 4 beds plu(1> 16 1 per 2 employees 97 beds 1 per 4 beds plus 142(2) (7) Skilled Care Center(Now) 57 65 empl 1 per 2 employees(1� p Independent Living(New) 38 units 2 per unit 76 R Totals 149 142(2) (7) p" ITE Parking Demand Assisted Living(Existing) 64 units 0.41 per unit 27 Skilled Care Center(New) 97 beds 0.35 per bed 34 142(2) 59 Independent Living(New) 38 units 0.59 per unit 22 Totals 83 142(2) 59 (')City requirement also requires one additional stall per staff doctor;however,Maranatha does not have any staff doctors on site. (2)Does not include the future 87 proof-of-parking stalls. May 15,2012 Page 10 As shown in Table 6,the Maranatha Care Center will have a surplus of more than 30 parking stalls in the future Phase I conditions with the recommended changes to the City's parking requirements for the assisted living facility portion of the site. Under Phase II,the Maranatha Care Center may have a deficit of approximately 7 parking stalls unless a portion of the future 87 proof-of-parking stalls are utilized. Travel Demand Management Plan The primary goal of a Travel Demand Management Plan(TDMP)for a specific development is to manage and minimize the number of vehicular trips generated by the site. TDMPs have benefits for a variety of stakeholders, including but not limited to: ® Potential benefit to property owners by potentially reducing the number of parking stalls required. ® Provides commuting choices for employees and residents. Lessens the potential traffic-related impacts on adjacent roadway system by lowering peak hour demand. There are four main TDMP strategies that can be implemented to manage and minimize the number of vehicular trips generated by a development: • Public Transit • Carpool—Both informal(set up by individuals) or more formal services (Rideshare) • Vanpool—Can be sponsored by the employer or MetCouncil • Biking/Walking TDMP opportunities for the Maranatha Care Center are somewhat limited due to its land-use and location. It is difficult, if not impossible for employers of skilled nursing facilities to offer l telecommuting or flexible work hours for their caregivers(which account for the majority of their on-site staft). Furthermore,there are currently no public transit routes along 69th Avenue, and sidewalks are only provided along the south side of 69th Avenue. Nevertheless,Maranatha can focus their efforts on the following TDMP measures: 1. Designate a TDMP liaison for the site that will maintain, monitor, coordinate, and promote commuting options. 2. Conduct a baseline survey to assess resident and employee commuting habits. 3. Promote alternative modes of transportation during a designated month each year. This could include a display in common areas with information concerning alternative modes of transportation available to residents/staff. 4. Develop move-in material for residents and new employee information on alternative commuter and transportation modes. 5. Provide a location on site for bicycle parking(bike racks or lockable storage area). 6. Promote employee carpool/ridesharing i it May 15, 2012 Page 11 7. Conduct follow-up surveys and review the TDMP within two years to determine its effectives and make changes as appropriate. Conclusions Based on our review of the proposed redevelopment,we offer the following comments for your consideration: • The first phase of the proposed redevelopment will not change the number of trips generated by the existing site. The existing and proposed conditions of the Phase I development will both generate approximately 500 vehicular trips on an average weekday, 25 vehicular trips during the a.m. peak hour(with 17 inbound and 8 outbound), and 35 vehicular trips during the p.m.peak hour (with 13 inbound and 22 outbound). • Under the potential future Phase II,the proposed 38 independent living units will generate approximately 132 vehicular more trips on an average weekday, 5 additional Vehicular trips during the a.m. peak hour(with 2 inbound and 3 outbound), and 6 additional vehicular trips during the p.m.peak hour(with 4 inbound and 2 outbound). ® Access to the existing Maranatha Care Center is provided along 69th Avenue via two driveways. Visitors and staff currently and in future Phases I and II will have the option to use either access point to enter/exit the site since they are both connected by an internal drive aisle. Access for the proposed future phases will remain in the same location as the existing driveways, and an internal connection between the two driveways will be maintained • Based on a review of the turning traffic on 69th Avenue and given the functional classification of 69th Avenue, turn lanes are not needed on 69th Avenue at the Maranatha Care Center driveways. • The existing Maranatha Care Center has 110 parking stalls(including 11 garage stalls located in the southwest corner of the property). The existing site has 56 proof-of-parking stalls located in two separate areas; 14 stalls of proof-of-parking northwest of the existing assisted living facility, and 42 stalls of proof-of-parking just south of the existing southwest parking lot. ® The redevelopment (Phase I)is proposing 104 parking spaces in two reconfigured parking fields; 81 parking stalls in the northern parking lot and 23 parking stalls in the southwest parking lot. In addition to these 104 parking stalls,the proposed site plan also provides a total of 87 stalls proof-of-parking located in three separate areas; 14 stalls northwest of the existing assisted living facility, 48 stalls just east of the reconfigured northern parking lot and the future independent living facility, and 25 just north of the proposed southern fire lane. Staff parking will be provided in the southern spaces of the southwest parking lot as well as the northern spaces in the northern parking lot(closest to 69th Avenue). This will allow for visitor parking,spaces closest to the west and east entrances to the facility. . II May 15,2012 Page 12 • An additional 38 parking stalls will be provided in an underground parking garage when the future 38 unit independent living facility is built under Phase II of the proposed redevelopment. • Based on the City's zoning requirements,the Maranatha Care Center is required to provide 185 parking stalls under the existing and future Phase I conditions, and 261 parking stalls under future Phase H conditions. This results in a deficit of 75 parking stalls under existing conditions, a deficit of 81 parking stalls under future Phase I conditions, and a deficit of 119 parking stalls under fixture Phase 11 conditions. This deficit does not include the existing 56 and future 87 future proof-of-parking stalls. • When considering the ITE based demand,the Maranatha Care Center has a parking surplus of 49 parking stalls under existing conditions, and a surplus of 43 and 59 parking stalls, respectively, under future Phase I and II conditions. This surplus does not include the existing 56 and future 87 future.proof--of-parking stalls. • The City of Brooklyn Center parking requirements for assisted and independent living facilities applies the same rate (2 parking stalls per dwelling unit) as any other residential land uses within the City; and is almost 5 times greater than the ITE parking demand values for similar assisted living facilities across the country and almost 3.5 times greater than parking demand values of similar independent living facilities. • A parking utilization study was conducted in order to determine which parking demand estimate provides a better representation of the parking needs for the existing Maranatha Care Center. Existing parking demand and supply was measured on Wednesday,May 9 and Thursday,May 10,2012 between the hours of 5:00 to 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 to 3:30 p.m. These time periods were selected since they coincide with the changes between the night, day, and evening shifts.. The parking utilization study revealed: • The peak parking demand for the Maranatha Care Center occurs between 1:30 and 2:30 p.m.,when 80 to 90 vehicles are parked on the site. • The existing Maranatha Care Center currently provides more parking than is needed to currently service the peak parking demand for the existing 64 assisted living units and 97 skilled nursing beds. Therefore,the ITE parking demand numbers provide a better representation of the existing parking needs for the Maranatha Care Center than the City's requirement of two stalls per assisted living unit ® Alternatively, instead of using the ITE parking demand values,the City could consider applying a revised parking requirement for assisted living facilities equal to that found in the City Ordinance under the miscellaneous category for"Rest homes, nursing homes, sanitariums, and homes for the aged and for children". The parking demand for the existing Maranatha Care Center based on this revised City requirement for assisted living land falls approximately midway between the existing and ITE parking demand for the site. i , May 15, 2012 Page 13 • It is therefore recommended that the City of Brooklyn Center consider applying the parking requirement for"Rest homes,nursing homes, sanitariums, and homes for the aged and for children"to both the assisted living and skilled nursing components of the Maranatha Care Center. • With the recommended changes to the City's parking requirements for the existing assisted living facility,the Maranatha Care Center has a surplus of more than 30 parking stalls in the existing and future Phase I conditions. Under Phase I1,the Maranatha Care Center may have a deficit of approximately 7 parking stalls unless a portion of the future 87 proof-of-parking stalls are utilized. ® Travel Demand Management Plan(TDMP) opportunities for the Maranatha Care Center are somewhat limited due to its land-use and location. It is difficult, if not impossible for employers of skilled nursing facilities to offer telecommuting or flexible work hours for their caregivers. Furthermore,there are currently no public transit routes along 69th Avenue, and sidewalks are only provided along the south side of 69th Avenue. Nevertheless,Maranatha can focus their efforts on the following TDMP measures in order to manage and minimize the number of vehicular trips generated by the site: • Designate a TDMP liaison for the site that will maintain, monitor, coordinate, and promote commuting options. • Conduct a baseline survey to assess resident and employee commuting habits. • Promote alternative modes of transportation during a designated month each year. This could include a display in common areas with information concerning alternative modes of transportation available to residents/staff. • Develop move-in material for residents and new employee information on alternative commuter and transportation modes. • Provide a location on site for bicycle parking(bike racks or lockable storage area). • Promote employee carpoollridesharing • Conduct follow-up surveys and review the TDMP within two years to determine its effectives and make changes as appropriate Attachments: Figures 1 —2 cc: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, City of Brooklyn Center P:t2 01210851docstTrqfflctReportWaranatha Traffic Memo_5-15-2012.docx i o -+$-,�-•r! }7-�'•-"� f (." ,--+ ��" •t� rl riy y Y U^ ', s y 7• ,,. °I.. ,, -I .ra, y,r i �., Y n r I 7 I (, 4 Al IIG 7 e n. •y7I ti l Y .tx ..,o pC Ay£..:y�-rte�y aaa'4}r !` ,.,y t -�i p`�,r F r �.i. ,:.�.. %�'` 0.� z � Y' 'r a. ��:� '°i' �,NS�"k� -c'S hC r,. r '•r '' a I ,/ %?'Y 4�y*.+q} 'tis. `f'•'--r'�r'a°.°'F'i't ! �{k ��! 7' �, ��T ff .^ s �r<•:w�y� � .r �': t �r Q,,Yac `.-I--"`-, � 1,. 1'\�'i�'� �. 4 `,J. r i � 7a �¢. r'" r✓(-r"y' h. y. y,. 1 .��"r,sy.r.I.e4:Xc ° ,_,- 'r lt.l.'a4..fix. ' ,.f .p; ri� -, i 130�_. f Q�.ir• '- 1 �130 -.-., -' .�"". 130 ��` �-Iil;•._ ,Y±" '` y� !-�' , �� 1 ��, � f-ilk .1." '� l�l�r'�l� (ire .i��.�`�.�` '"*'T�'�4_t�''' . 44' e yy ,� ,��,,c 73r I t" p .(• i��tl( T^r ��° ,• a���..- ' (� �w n 1 �.rs, s l I r_1 i�l �, f. fi.';,`I Rd' r#'`�1'' .� Yt-•.1 1. � �� �"w sr7x:„ _. ti ,�'� � , �'� r � Y -Valo-i. .� 'Tli.`� '..Y�� .•�� 'Y lv�—.!;��.. �i � �s�:wc— �-t�g.I�.�,I �� J1�o" � '!. ._ Y`=1� ,�tY.y, ;U� � �i''�'� "it/��sL ��� � a y.,��n.�.."���'8' _ q,�.4 ,1�tn CN�"'y '� II 't J .�,':JJ �j I,• I k � r. ,4"� .S +� r: } +r•�•�,4� (�It;,, IIJ � � a `�� �r�' ���i'k ���cl���u r7p-r��� ",... Wit..`� ..C'�. w� � '7 r �,•. r:`s.-"�'�'a.� »�:3`�_� ,.lri r °1,5,r u/' �v�',A �f+�.J c� . R. a1r � r'�.� -4i1J1F¢ ..r II,�,; ��•� i� a'tr 4Y�j -p �,� i o'. a n •.i�',� ;M s�;l: i. �C_���iuY!h�,� .I{ ✓.•�M�,. � a� ':`��•t.' i� 5 -° s•-q+! 4 �., ..� - - �}� - � III r�-1 �� e t - �'.'� -� tien,¢o S" +'"Y4 .-iVr' -y @ 1 `t �, - Y I..I I k'`f w.0 �.� J1. :l✓ r^��''-Wit--.. SZ __ °�-.,... � "_r"1 � 1571 •-w,.-... _w -�S`���„'��.+�1��aamr`tr���.ex1.��ac r�.i` "la+7e7 _—�-tea 3 1 Sk �Y - . �t hr' I ' � s,.3��, } � , �. .id��"'yl►'.ar'T +._ F°'`.+:ir`,,; w,.n r �,��.�" iT�'w'z�n' � 'v �11 � ei,If `. vrYrl' �'�'•i 1 �i � 4 _�; ;i.5f>,��s�.A�,'Ij it: ;JVr• , ♦ �,v�1 � y�L°.r^Ic.s Carr. ,:Re's ICI aI. ��:-��' �°ll i ��a dc �' :.-. 'j , ;, � 'r, " "`�hyy„t w� I""�I�'`�i�i'' �' ,a vr. •.�;«... .. �I r �' -_ ti,� ,.�' :.. .y"� t�'"�,. " "�[i.- t�'..�J �'•��J��v'�eL.Z�'.'��` 9L .�W.�u< Base map source: Bing Maps,Microsoft Corporation,2011 May 15,2012 #20121085 Westwood Professional Services,Inc. Project Location 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 PHONE 952.937.5150 Maranatha Care Center TrafficStudy Figure FAX 952-937.5822 TOLL FREE 1-888.937.5150 Brooklyn Center,MN Wes'tuvood www.westwoodps.com 1 �----- 69TH AVEN EE NO ORT qwl — —mot a .iwl !. r� 0I !O! r — -81 PARKING - IF I Iol f 0]I STALLS LL O' ILLI 101 ! - -- rJ IF! EXISTING 64 UNIT 't-rLi (vl I'' ASSISTED LIVING L__ ! Il i TO REMAIN Af RMIP >j; -- i i �, 41 TOTAL PRObF OF PARKING (87 STALLS) I<. I--- I FUTURE 2112 STORY --i r— 38 UNIT INDEPENDENT FACILITY 23PARKIDIG-I NEW 97 BED �`•`'_ /,l I I '-- STALLS .� r - r✓-d' . SKILLED — I ! .._ NURSING i ---- ! FACILITY-TCU./ ( ( r--� !1 LTC!MC PROPOSED — — i--- ! 1 I I POND I -- , ' 91, FIRE LANE Site Plan Source: Pope Architects,Inc.and Presbyterian Homes&Services Not to Scale May 15,2012 #20121085 Site Plan Weshvood Professional Services.Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344 PHONE 952-937-5150 MaranathaCare•Center Traffic Study Figure FAX 952-937-5822 TOLLFREE 1-888-937-S15O Brooklyn Center, MN 2 Westwoc) I V—..—twoodps.carn MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 2012 TO: Tim Benetti,Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Bruce Johnson,Engineering Technician Supervisor Steven L. Lillehaug, City Engineer/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Works—Revised Preliminary and Final Plat Review for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION Public Works Department staff reviewed the preliminary plat and final plat submittals dated May 16, 2012, for the proposed MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION and provide the following revised recommendations: veneral: 1. All recommendations and requirements indicated in the April 9,'2012,PUD and Site Plan review memorandum from Public Works are included by reference. 2. An easement vacation is required as part of this redevelopment.The formal vacation document must contain an easement vacation description and depiction exhibit signed by a professional surveyor. 3. The City has record of easement number 3211239 on file.The developer must confirm the status of this easement. If it has not already been vacated, it must be vacated as part of this development. 4. Proof of parking has been demonstrated;however,the proof of parking layout must be revised to demonstrate a more realistic parking lot plan if it were needed to be built. 5. The easterly access for 69th Avenue must be aligned with the parking lot drive aisle. 6. The measured snapshot of parking reported was 90 vehicles during a routine shift change period under the existing site scenario. The parking study identified that the ITE parking demand numbers provide a better representation of the existing parking needs than do the City's requirements; however,the ITE projected demand is only 61.Therefore,the ITE projections in this scenario are significantly underestimated and should not be relied upon to base parking needs for this sight.If deviations from City ordinance are considered,the required parking should be based on actual studies and should include a factor of safety for those periods and events that might exceed the everyday normal situation.At a minimum without further information and without viable alternatives to overflow parking, I recommend constructing the proposed Phase 1 parking(104 parking stalls) plus an additional 28 stalls that could be constructed in the proof of parking areas in the northwest area and in the northeast area.Additionally, if issues were to develop anytime in the future,the developer would be required to construct the full amount of required parking stalls. 7. Provide connections of internal sidewalks to public regional trail/sidewalk along 69tH Avenue. 8. Preserve or replace sidewalk on the northwest side of the existing 64 unit facility if the i i 'I Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Review Memo-Maranatha 2nd Addition Page 2 May 25, 2012 proposed proof of parking area is implemented.This may require a reduced number of proposed parking spots available in this area. Preliminary Plat: . 9. Show the total acreage on the plat. 10. Show the name and address of the subdivider. 11. Show the existing zoning on the site. 12. Show any proposed zoning changes. 13. Show the plat adjoining the west property line. Final Plat: 14.Provide a working drawing of the final plat with all proposed easements that includes an overlay of all ponds, all utilities (private and public,proposed and existing) and grading elevations for the City to use to verify adequacy.The drainage easements must encompass the ponds, overflow areas, and channels at or above the determined individual 100-yr flood elevations for those elements and areas. Prior to Issuance of Land Alteration and Building Permits: 15. Submit a recorded copy of the restrictive covenants (subdivision agreement). 16. Submit final site plans and specifications for review and approval by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. 17. Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow for the land disturbance portion of the project in the amount of 150%of the estimated cost or in the amount determined by City staff to comply with the land alteration permit, site improvements and to restore the site.The developer may submit one itemized letter of credit, if approved by City staff.The City will not release or reduce the letter of credit or cash escrow until work has been completed according to the final site plans approved by the City. 18, A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions,traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions,tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions,temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance-provisions.The plan must be in a City approved format and must outline minimum site management practices and penalties for non-compliance.- 19. Submit a$5,000 separate cash escrow for the construction management plan elements as part of the non-compliance provision. This escrow must be accompanied by the agreement and signed by the developer and property owner.Through this document,the developer and property owner will acknowledge: a. The property will be brought into compliance within 24 hours of notification of a violation of the construction management plan, other conditions of approval or City code standards. b. If'compliance is not achieved, the City will use any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any deficiency and/or issue. 20. Schedule and hold a preconstruction meeting with the City staff. i Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Review Memo—Maranatha 2nd Addition Page 3 May 25, 2012 All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review.The preliminary plan (site plan and preliminary plat) and final plat must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plat may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. I i i MEMORANDUM • i DATE: April 9, 2012 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Steven L. Lillehaug, City Engineer/Director of Public Works Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor SUBJECT: Maranatha Skilled Care Center PUD and Site Plan Review—Public Works Public Works Department staff reviewed the Planned Unit Development(PUD) and Site Plan submittal dated March 19, 2012, for the proposed Maranatha Skilled Care Center and has the following comments: Submittal package: 1. All comments that follow are made with the assumption that this development process will eventually proceed through the subdivision process and combine the site's two parcels into a single parcel. It is anticipated that a preliminary plat and a final plat would be evaluated and approved by the City and County prior to proceeding with an issuance of any permits for any actual construction work. Proposed property lines, easements, setbacks, etc. have not been fully evaluated for these reasons;therefore,the full evaluation of these elements will take place once the preliminary plat and final plat are developed and formally submitted to the City for consideration. 2. A lighting plan is required to be submitted as part of this application and review of the PUD and Site Plan(Ordinance 35-355).This must be provided for evaluation. 3. A site plan is required to be submitted as part of this application and review of the PUD and Site Plan(Ordinance 35-355)that includes proper dimensioning of drive aisles, parking stalls, curve radii, and other typical site plan dimensioning. This must be provided for evaluation. 4. A drainage plan is required to be submitted as part of this application and review of the PUD and Site Plan(Ordinance 35-355).This plan must include all storm drainage hydraulic and hydrology calculations for the site including piping on-site/off-site, infiltration calculations, detailed design and construction plans for all storm water utilities and treatment.facilities, detailed pond and infiltration basin cross sections, storm water facility planting plans, etc. Provide geotechnical soil parameters and soil infiltration rates for soils located in the immediate area of any proposed infiltration basin. These items must be provided for evaluation. 5. Provide the City with a traffic impact and parking study for the site.Required elements of the study must be discussed with the City Engineer prior to performing the study. 6. In accordance with Ordinance 35-2150.2.a,the lowest floor elevation including the basement floor must be at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation, which is estimated to be 859.5 feet. The proposed building lowest floor elevation is shown at 8 52.8 8 feet—this must be raised 6.62 feet to 859.5. I Preliminary Plan Review Memo—Maranatha Center Page 2 of 5 April 9, 2012 Easements, Agreements and Plat: 7. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing easements. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated and proposed easements must be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final platting process. 8. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Engineer and City Attorney for review at the time of the preliminary plat application (within 30 days of preliminary plat application). Additionally,this will need to stay current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of release of the final plat. 9. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions,traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions,temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance provisions.A$5,000 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. 10.A Subdivision Agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 11.An overall easement agreement is required that will provide the City perpetual accessibility to all private utilities and storm drainage areas to inspect and enforce proper utility service and maintenance for the entire site.This easement agreement also includes private inspection, maintenance and reporting responsibilities and must be executed prior to issuance of building and land alteration permits. 12.A 10-ft drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on the plat around the entire perimeter of the site. 13.A drainage and utility easement encompassing all storm water treatment facilities must be dedicated on the plat. 14. The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating site development plans with all private utility companies (Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications; etc).Easements necessary to provide utility service'to the proposed site development should be dedicated on the plat as necessary. 15.Private site appurtenances (e.g. light poles, signs, etc.) must not encroach on public easement areas. For appurtenances that provide adequate setback and will not have any direct impact on the public elements within the easement area as allowed and approved by the City will require an Encroachment Agreement. General Items: 16. The proposed plat is located adjacent to Hennepin County right-of-way. Minnesota Statutes require that the City submit the plat to Hennepin County Transportation for written comments and recommendations. All Hennepin County comments will be conditions of approval. 17. The civil plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota. 18. This development is required to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. All City and Watershed storm drainage,treatment and infiltration standards are required to be met. Preliminary Plan Review Memo—Maranatha Center Page 3 of 5 April 9, 2012 19. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. The City's standard details must be included in the final site plans. 20.A general project phasing and sequencing plan must be provided for the development. 21.During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings are established,the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. 22.Upon project completion,the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures, and provide certified record drawings for any associated private and/or public improvements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 23. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer's design/project engineer. Upon project completion,the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer's immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as- built drawings. 24. Provide irrigation for the entire site. Permitting: 25. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 26. A City of Brooklyn Center sewer and water disconnect permit is required. 27. A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 28. A MPCA NPDES permit is required. 29. A MPCA sanitary sewer permit may be required. 30.A Minnesota Department of Health department permit is required for the watermain extension. 31. A Hennepin County permit is required for work within Hennepin County right-of-way. 32. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission(SCWMC)plan review and approval are required. 33. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warranted. Site Plan 34.The joint walking path/fire access plan must be approved by the fire chief. 35.The entire perimeter parking and drive aisle area must be constructed with B612 curb and gutter. 36. Designate appropriate design vehicle and provide vehicle turning movements for vehicles through the points of ingress/egress and throughout the site to/from delivery locations. 37. Provide concrete driveway aprons at access points to 69th Avenue (use City standard details). Preliminary Plan Review Memo_Maranatha Center Page 4 of 5 April 9, 2012 Sheet C1.0 38. Provide additional plans sheets as noted in the keyed notes contained and referenced in the plans. 39. The sanitary sewer and water lines must be disconnected and inspected before any . building demolition starts. 40. All Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Best Management Practices (BMP) devices must be installed and inspected by the City prior to the start of any site work including demolition. 41. Remove the water meter and return the meter to the City before building demolition starts. 42.Remove the existing bituminous trail along 69th Avenue and replace with concrete walk. 43.Provide permanent storm water basin emergency overflow BMP devices. 44. Show watercourse for all storm water facilities and piping from origination to ultimate discharge location from the site. Sheet C2.0 45. Provide detailed plans for the proposed retaining wall on the west side of the building that include top and bottom wall elevations. 46.All drainage and erosion control BMPs must be incorporated into an all-encompassing SWPPP plan sheet. Sheet C3.0 47.Provide large note indicating "All proposed and existing utilities contained within this site are PRIVATE". 48. All utility connections to City utilities must be inspected by City staff. 49.Install new gate valves and Packaged Magnesium Anodes at all watermain connection points. 50.Hydrant location must be approved by the Fire Chief. 51.Provide watermain profile plans for watermain located adjacent to ponding areas. Further evaluation will be needed pertaining to the pond NWLs and the proposed watermain elevations. 52. The City recommends extending a proposed future watermain stub to a point outside of the limits of the proposed parking lot for future looping of the future building located in the southeast quadrant. 53.The sanitary sewer connection point to the public sewer located in 69th Avenue must be in an existing manhole. Connection into the existing sanitary sewer system as prescribed in Keyed Notes No. 1 will not be allowed via a WYE, but must be into an existing manhole. 54. Provide profile plan and connection details for proposed sanitary sewer segment within public right-of-way. 55. Use SDR 26 PVC for all sanitary sewer lines. 56. The City recommends extending a proposed future sanitary stub to a point outside of the limits of the proposed parking lot for future connection to the future building located in the southeast quadrant. 57. Provide culvert profile for culvert crossing easterly driveway. 58.Define NWLs and 100-year flood elevations of all storm water basins. 59.Provide plans and details for rooftop drainage. 60. Provide detailed channel plans and provisions that demonstrate and/or propose Preliminary Plan Review Memo—Maranatha Center Page 5 of 5 April 9, 2012 improvements to accommodate and/or enhance the drainage Swale along the westerly property line to include the ultimate site discharge culvert.The plan must include properly designed watercourses from all treatment basins with properly designed permanent outlet BMPs. The design must ensure no negative storm water impacts are projected onto adjacent properties. 61. Operation and maintenance manuals are required to be provided for all proposed, permanent storm water treatment facilities. Sheet C4.0 62.Drainage area 4 must be treated prior to discharge from the site. 63.Provide detail for rock construction entrance. 64.Provide details for all SWPPP BMP devices. 65.Provide and list a SWPPP inspector/manager with contact information that must be available within 4-hrs notification to respond to and implement SWPPP related corrective measures. 66. All inlet protection devices must have overflow protection. 67.The developer must send digital(PDF) copies of required SWPPP inspection reports to the Engineering department within 12 hours of completion of the required inspection events. 68.A more detailed SWPPP is required that includes interim BMP devices and measures throughout the site including temporary sediment basins, etc. and designed to meet the MPCA NPDES permit requirements. 69. BMP provisions for a vehicle wash-off point must be incorporated into the plan and implemented should the City Engineer determine the necessity. 70.All SWPPP BMPs must be installed and inspected by the City prior to any disturbance of the property. 71. Silt fence must be installed around the entire perimeter of the site. 72. Street sweeping must occur as needed, on a daily basis and/or as directed by the City Engineer as warranted. 73. Show and label water course with flow arrows and label ultimate site discharge point(s). 74.Define and show an exclusive SWPPP containment boundary that identifies a sediment and erosion limit that must not be exceeded. If exceeded, all work will cease until corrective measures have been implemented and the issues have been remediated. Sheet L1-1 75.Include permanent turf restoration plans for entire site. 76.Provide detailed storm water treatment basin planting plans. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The preliminary plan(site plan) must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the preliminary plat, final plat and final site plans may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and needed easements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. i Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive 612-596-0300,Phone Medina,MN 55340-5421 763-478-4000,FAX 763-478-4030,TDD www.hennepin.us Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor May 22, 2012 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Re: Preliminary Plat Review—Maranantha 2°a Addition Residential Care Facility 69th Avenue North(CSAH 130) at Unity Avenue Hennepin County Plat Review No. 3242 Dear Mr.Johnson: Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462.355, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. This residential development was reviewed by the Plat Review Committee on May 1, 2012. It should be noted that 69th Avenue North (CSAH 130) is a collector street, and hence it has fewer significant concerns than a typical county minor arterial roadway. The road is on the county list of potential road turnbacks to the city for future discussion, and this has previously been acknowledged by city staff. Right-of-way—there is no additional right-of-way dedication requested on this roadway. Driveway access—no change in site access is being proposed. Tra,ff ac Impacis—this project is anticipated to have fairly minimal traffic impacts. Permits—Please inform the property owner(s) that all proposed construction within county right of way' requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes; but is not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping/ streetscaping. Permit questions can be directed to Carolyn Fackler at (612) 596-0336 or earolyn.faekler(a)co.heiing in.mii.tis,. Please contact Bob Byers at (612) 596-0354 or robert.byers(i�eo.hennepin.rnn.its for any further discussion of these items. Sincerely, James N. Grube,P.E. Director of Transportation and County Engineer JNG/rqU cc: Plat Review Committee Marls Larson,Hennepin County Surrey Office An EquolOpportunity Employer Recycled Paper Maranatha / Presbyterian Homes 5401 & 5415 - 69tH Avenue N . Final Development / Site & Building Plan Item No. 9.a Planned Unit Development Application No. zos2- 003 City Council Meeting June z5, 2012 Introduction Presbyterian Homes (PHS) seeking the establishment of a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Maranatha Care Center campus properties Under a PUD consideration, a new rezoning and development plan must be approved together Final consideration of the PUD Development/Site Plan- consisting of the a new three-story, 97- bed skilled nursing care facility — Phase I - and Future 38-unit senior independent living residential housing facility (in place of nursing home) — Phase 11 Site/Aerial Map - _ a� lriow AM 7 _4 A. } { r , r 1A m IMF .Wrr MARANATHA HOMES PROJECT SITE 0 30 40 120 180 240 *w Fee4 �r�Mirr tkxre,t -1LLL 1L!iL.L1J1.l.L__ The M th e arana a campus k _ 717,- consists of two lots. The nursing home parcel (5401 — 69tH Ave.) i s 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 RG R' situated in the R6 district. O • The combined area of these sites is 7.o6 acres. rn > 68TH AV Q Site Info The Maranatha Nursing Care Center is located in the RZ One Family Residence district. Nursing Center built in 1959; expanded in 1994. Nursing Home was approved as a special use under the R1 district regulations, by Sect. 35-310, Sect. z.g . as "Other, non-commercial uses required or the public welfare in an Rs district as determined by the City Council". The Maranatha Senior Apartments are located immediately to the west at 5415 - 69th Avenue and in the R6 Multiple Family Residence district. The senior apartment site was created by the filing ofa new plat (Maranatha Addition) and rezoning from R1 (One Family) to R6 (Multiple Family Residence) in 1987. The existing 4-story, 65 unit apartment was completed in 1988. SITE PLAN SITE PLAN Original (2/24/12)Submittal Updated (5/16/12) Submittal 69TH AVENUE NORTH - - VENUE NORTH — — O e. aT�u&L O EXISTING 64 UNIT ASSISTED LI ING INDEPENDENT - K v I EXISTING 64 UNIT I V LIVING TO REMAIN TO REMAIN - w o O FUTURE = O 4 STORY m x _ M - 36 UNIT r LL INDEPENDENT " "4 a.i•�J /���,/i�� Tm�.vnoaor LIY , I < r�rtx w STALE.SI__._ NEW PARKING -) - (/ FUTURE� 2 112 STORY I I � ;• : 38 UNIT INDEPENDENT II I I NEW 96 BED nwwa»• I FACILITY NEW 97 BED I I I SKILLED "'^ - aru�s SKILLED UNDERGROUND (I t NURSING EXIST.97 BED SKILLED : :PARKING FOR 38 1 Imo' NURSING ___1 I_.__ FACILITY-TCU I NURSING FACILITY/TCU TO FACILITY-TCU LTC/MC BE DEMOLISHED I, LTC/MC . t I -- - I FM LAW / I SITE PLAN UPDATED DEVELOPMENT/SITE PLAN 69TH AVENUE NORTH W . PROOF OF ol PARKING 97 PARKING D I STALLS co w LL 0 0 U 'EXISTING 64 UNIT TO REMAIN ASSISTED LIVING', RAMP y 2 112 STOR'' i I J'• I 38 UNIT twDEPENDEN� ---- 23 PARKING STALLS NEW 97 BED FyCILITY W1 6) SKILLED UNDERGROUND NURSING PARKING STAL-S FACILITY-TCU i LTC MC PROPOSED POND ............ "A ------------ L------ FIRE LANE 7w WEST ELEVATION �I 11 I i r Tt , 1 J PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Maranatha Skilled Care • BROOKLYN CENTER ;•IG•2Di_ (tOMMa�:;l;� '4L� Presbyterian homes & services ASPHALT SHINGLES VINYL SHAKE SIDING PREFIN.METAL FASCIA FIBER CEMENT TRIM _ [_ _ D1 [E I uijjj Elf . y 4..1 I' r'� +(� t. �{ - - '; a lip FACE BRICK 1 ROCK FACE CAI" VINYL HORIZONTAL SIDING FIBER CEMENT BOARD&BATTEN VINYL WINDOWS FACE BRICK ASPHALT SHINGLES VINYL SHAKE SIDING : cn v� LA in r� - - � `• -it(„���i .. - _ _ . ai _ V r ! li4JLAf_.4. fE - z: I O J a LL j _----------------- r-71, VIS, v, L A UNIT A A A •ry i 1 .1 1 UNIT C ELE�c UNIT A 9 SEATING UNIT A DINING TE it I jO LINITA MTA 47, �477 7 PROCESS. CLEAN UWr,AT ORFF�Cff LA erg CORRIDOR ----------------- 2H. Lrll L1FT1. OFFICE DATA UTILITY ACTIVITY LIFT r PA COW. ROOM O� �Z7 ROOM TEN LTC ENTRY QI I STAIR Tr: LAUNDRY LOW STORi H.H. STATION mc F ACTIVITY FNTRY I KITC-ICN ELEC DISH IT AR.NI �11T I I ROOM CO STAIR l0a L LW-T A �F'tJlt A .......- CORRIDOR CORRIDOR EXER UWTA:! LIFT I�L J 0 A� .............. DINM UNIT A L LOST IrA a:.1 Jl iiiiTA uwr C UNIT A DR" OPEN ;A I , 11 OFFK�F jL UNIT D LINITIl F, E KRC71`1 CORR lw C. STAFF F—I TRANSITIONAL CARE F� LONG TERM CARE CONE O F MEMORY CARE R �FT, wow . CORK COMMON SPACES OFF ADMINISTRATIVE xe" CIRCULATION Commoml F-1 FACILITIES!SUPPORT r71 UNITB IAIRC ;j UNITA UNITA ') UNRA VNRA UWT A 7 UWrA UNIT LINITA Z v ye> L_ir "�l+ Y .. . 1 j - II n" ' �HERIAPY .4 �( �: n ROOF '�9� � , /- I ._. UNRA _ITSTOR.t I T. ♦F TILI_T.-_Y_ �5li a—+1I'. _�',,C -_--.+ I .. " I j - , I C. uNPZC A', OFF.MFCH ELE CORRIDOR CORR IDOR N ^ URSE LOBBY LAUNDRY K KITCHEN ..T..I. IN B`(Y_i_Of_i B. � .4 LIFT STAFF UNITA T ROOM LIVIING • 6 ` ELE OFFICE CON KITCHEN: OXSPA OFICE� TCU r ENTRY T LAUNDRY H �TATION; STOR; TRENY i - ELEC. SOILED MECN CONF. o � DISH UNIT A x LIFT TLRY _ 1`ROOM 'iS, ,l jY/ LIFT �ELB S f JF lr I � LIFT CORRIDOR CORRBXM �__�.__' r t•�x PEEC�F �•. +.AnL �) ���' O.T. THER • -— L \ I:1 - (� Qfi,� UNIT At STOR VEST. i_ UNTTA UNITA ON 1 I UNITA UNIT UNITA UNITA UIIRC UNITA -• ;C," UNR - UNIT B UN,T A ❑ TRANSITIONAL CARE ❑ LONG TERM CARE ❑ MEMORY CARE ❑ COMMON SPACES ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE ❑ CIRCULATION ❑ FACILITIES/SUPPORT 2 UNIT UNIT �-->, UNfTA 7T UNIT A U!MTA UNRA UNRA I:.UIRTA UMf C. .:�.± i ,UNRA;{ 11 DFAW _ .?.i, I .. ACTIVITY .._._. Mn Ir M+� -- -- ) ) A. r'/ f l UNITA `.y -- ACT. O _ _., LLs' T—, y' , �_' �" --' CORRIDOR UNIT Al --� m ■ r .� 3700. �J LIFT \ -- .._._.__....._._.. TJ T. (Cy�C�I` D j UNIT A L FT U IC�1 Y I T. SPA I CONF. — - L C \ N �bi ..dwJ r ELE J _� LTC Z ISTAi ACTIVITY 1 _ ENTRY TRABW _ r^-p^yi --LAUNDRY ROOM ..-... ITCVHEN! _ _-_ LOBBY LAUNCRYI, SITTHG BB Q - ' �� C [ srAnoNa ENTRY i STOR. 1 S91 . MECH. LNIiO sf °s ELEC..s.,:• UNITA LIFT_I UTILITY I` ROOM .. R .. - c TOR F'.'. F .. .. p -- � :rELEV�j ry n, d.' i' 'tea LIFT a OFF_. iETAp� .�j CORRIDOR CORRIDOR WORK LIFT r OW n- r. a I UlAT A —' I v ! A , Dodw 1 UNIT A UlNT A UNIT A ( UNITA r { UNIT C UNIT l y UNIT A 3 t.. UMTA I�•xl �. t .� 1 UNIT A UNIT C �_,' . e�! !K_...e+..e El 1:1 ❑ TRANSITIONAL CARE ❑ LONG TERM CARE ❑ MEMORY CARE ❑ COMMON SPACES ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE ❑ CIRCULATION ❑ FACILITIES/SUPPORT Ioff fl1 Itn; w 1�� III 00� •• u11 a of ■■ / 1 ii i� �i 1 .�i.�iii �rt�l�i" / �� �� ■n / ��...' '. :111 .. � `a►��rte', � _ --z �a a — 119 i I i r?------ ,F1 �■�t r Eia � t � � i t i I F 1 + 1 � ' x1 p � ! ft ! �� �[[�1` � jflt,', •Jy�i � : �� ,�3, ' �� �� � �f � �rb1is '�;�� � !!� � Y �9, E [ k��":,•! j #�i !Y ! j11i� �; ��i!! � r °! t 1� '� 1�j �� 1 � ;r � 1K��t : '=5l�� !' '�!'q�#ri } ` ; �� � ! E���i i � E� 7■� � ��� !ii ia�� ' � i� ;f� � t` ti! !t � �� ! f !�! ��ty � 2� 1 lit��' �i i f p�!� i ■�: 'i. h 4 - � p FF 'ky�l ! i :f �` �!■��3El� FM ■� ■ ! it i t x��� f� N t# +J Ilk ;'x �� ' s� ���, �f; ■ r� r"1 I !tt _`!! �S�! Mf E�tt r r:ti c � t i€ �' �i ! "'� ^!�rg[9 � "Y l i ;, , h 1 'f 1!r !+ �Il S i1j l+�it `!�: [f !� =i #� �• : r � i,��! r f} !r � t::t t?��![s[L�F t i,rIilFi•�7fi[e Yw?Y=- . ?�r.6 I '3.i [i Sri�sf.t x' �t a�t e ��rIl,`l�re�.ppP�1i r 1 x f r,i..iri;i',i �#r!tI��',r��tl5r'it�l}ry'}!fE1"i"i i��t i€�i 1�7 3 *�r � t t i!t! �1E1,t i,l l a i }$■ 1 3 •I i ;I h.l p pia if�ar�i � a �.Y�i���Y� a�it��. .3 ■! `�i; � �p p +p�i�,�.i�� fi�•■�yi '� � {�r � ![i� Y iii ■ ( f• pt !■'1 tx 1 t i ri �I Ci(qq it3 (5 ��'S��s 1[[i y! t.i ■xe it €'� • �i z ''�tf�,;yy��1'!V ({y�) i i!�'t5Eislr.t '!� �g1!' a, .! S rti't;lld �i� 'i'■'q� '� �! } � � �f-�.�si[9t !!d2,# + !!+ }#.g■ i1}•l�pi io a' !'r IIff1. ! xt� ht '!,! }' ���''�� � iii Er t!�� ���'►�:.:���•"®' '. �Ilf�xti,��.f�€r.� ig1�i j�■trli�t-i!1 fr}„ � t� i��p �� 1 of ��!�€Sp f L�,i�I l���t g l>l;�i l�!S i �y t p i �g�!a!t�B t t!1 I!�rr;,o�G�i gF giqtai���,l�i1!�3 a:.�[.�t e.�`f tl•!�>�ri!�sr�l,C'#i x��r!�:{i�f�yi l 1w;�!�•�t' 1.�l.f}.�Ky.s l�.�r �"l i+�t;t f�:,;;1 i • ." ! Iits����:'����iI�fl�E,�t!lti�t�" �- # tH�i�t ooss e0000 o Mt 1 .. ........ . i I — i 1 L J LAS I... F, 'All 5 LANVSUAP�PLAN: W11111 OR 4C 13Z TIM SkMrd Cm,•c• "AD 0 iAO'Rqtt,Am.N, Lj IE hw HI 34.4.9 moN MN w"n•I�r An IN"Aw i Ea 41 LAN Al 50 - I r-I-, W PI AN Im. 69- R EE,- --------- w. IK za. un. -%Mz. Ii.4Z 4 MW "Pb -tn W. 4w. WIFIZA. 'A r L' %S �'I — ,• SPAS'•" '�.JtS?Cq!ll�iSZ�.�'�7�'1' `tS'S�3. a=rrui, "'•~- — �-� I m1(.C�'� IS Zvi W.A oil— I ., O Rb""7a`1w`R7!"a�k.T.7.':°"a6 S.Q"•_.:n'6'L a'�`.'i ilFt^"""'•••• a...r......»r» < _ °�..e.YU7cS'�.O�.JY a.Tr�<'CLS.JLrNaw�� `— a a .......�..w.,.�.rr_�.._..re..._..nm. • 'gym'.' 6 "� `.�:t�'-=c.��.�sv��'st�aa.,�»...e,.rR...•. _ ..a.a rr�rrwravn.r rr. "A t 'r ti"`�"'Stlt'Y°.�•'r•e, r«rteor.w»rw. a j lor eeae ftAm �t1 IITIR(r {�.W _s_.a..r_w..i aa.a..►r�....cww. q I f F r e oil to fill Rom foil }a`�ap ! i r`I - - T_ _-,�i; 'r—� .t4 • � � t �� t`/M ��_}Y e tF �� d�4'�sp�� � ���� 'i� � � :+ItF�+•f4tR1,., 8 oil oil 1� q�l• t�i��i'��� d � 34 � �� .,p, . k f�� E�i� '•` r�t�l�+��lt�` i i � r�t�Ef �►ll�Si� .� ' `y n ;dt' �� x ,�1 - � � ti. t l 1 • ��'i '• x { a J,I Y� 4� � AR I TPJ �� i n INS. i N i r l.NrS'c Xr FIT V'S L•1N":A.M PLAN. '�,`�, axwwwk.n vsa ws ham � v fif 1 1 ,,f �~i7 exi^yw1 s.r...nu� r • . k ,I •4f- w.tl....• «w.�-v.�tW_.... ..VU...N,.1[�+..s�•r.w.•.�.V• w.w.w••e -- .. ---- -- ----- * (�a.YI/(_�• �rJCwt�Y. IWI.MY+1.Y...•dMT•. •wtr• W ..` r. ���.om .. --_-_ -_ I • 1 1 SLR.. ex=, f • Y�SIF:�•at• 1 ( I � - T�:" ... M : "'474" •.....� 1 I �✓ i , 1 Jr- Y t 1 t I 1 1 .. / ��^���'`.-•��� ( � _ice _:.. .f �'9� ® ,'�.-n ..e,,•.- �'� � ct 1AND%CAPE ftEQUIPEVENT$� ,. .. NIIR.1CN(Niti1bTJ.JfYfji C4 iFhrr,QN1?F41Al:CU47►K1<If 1.4'VTC..// 1 �`- "�±�x•eVS•r.rylA• AIDIRe�l v4S1AJ►L1eD:a.:'chLfOt lv:}t rtm THIS 9II iR6AIR w.Ml�•rwre.r 1'/"Q wtfINI.Y hYNI•KtNGN I.t Yl OL..�wi AAA A[grr»,CN.nI`th/ rr SJ141W1ARR(IIKAil NINrt0lV/lft Of:IUMQ 1 '® ��°war» �; � ® y- —41• '��tt _ c_ RvT/"Nl.t" Y •� r (ry 11.1 .M+•'r' �� R. we. :i . , Cdv i .,� SRN ift IT • FFY \--YAY/FRii.�Hh Yr��T' Y�tV K�Tr 1_ rnlv/ir- • +i✓'i l�iiF�1w:i.... .+M!!°"`ff'9...f!:..., -'�" _';'Y I `�tf -,� — �j:^[' �l ?:RF*ALLL"L4111AL ��r-" t�sN�gl' ""o...""..r�>�:7__"" -�aC° -+c.nr-c_. .`• ... .` .. : .. j.� waw it S`�'_""" ..^�G•_. A/' A i i -� w.iF •°• � ll��ff •i 'i-� {, �( ..�.�w$'rye+ys.._-- +�`'y•- -&• "�ji' _ ('rl rJr.- _- I. rte.-'•i- � .$ �.r�✓ t ]sfaan/W IIN.w.taRNb.M-IM+nN:IaRrlw.r'•r[-yW+x. � .-��'NYCwwlle nM.ea.«r+R '/�N[.rrnMY✓rw M Mn:ri a.i trNLlti•r r s -. 4FA�rINIM�. 1M S.x+9�t ' 9iNl.rntwv[A/i.i+:rvr+rr�.vecan WlAt N 1N.c.a•111. W�iunl...x -or�wr�w...wu �. �_ 4.wr...— _.«.1.. .t•mow... A..w..w`..i-c:f i.A.Wtlt.M1.•.O ~ pl.vaaews,..u/+r.r...ix.wr.:rur..eNr ru'.w Naw.=UI+IV ���. •r��•.^•�a'WaIMY''-'- .• a�+•.fll••..NwF ff.NK.iMIYw.w,»nw+W f.s.�s .. 1 I .. �wi.M�.ir��w lyrwrr "rAM I yl +Nu.M .Yrr. '4n� 1 I 1 �u�4 ���• w� ..mow _ 1 n .. p Mfti>.a'wlrw.W+II�w.M.. frl.�.•n..+rlv...w/•w•M..T•d' -, _•. k+._ri�MC"�'M .!_�1.Y�'rM.•'r�°+"Ir1/Y M1. .Nw..wif�lr:� �lwlii fl•/r../w►y/.:TSaFh.K•Vt K.• ,7,!f•,. :-. �ww'•+�•a/.al. .. � •�r _ L••. � ry .A/ - ._r.anr.+v+.w./s....w /w•..+awYfw/w.ewe.rtowirwar m�+/.w..:. •0..+�1`�ww w:M� .. A•afD,l�• .r.ax Ywlk[iyt nYhMI.cY w_Jru r.:/` ,• ' N^R��rR.iM.kxi wY.VitrM�'4�r if - rY/INM +L<R.�t .fMltwr Y Y1[.4'a.4 1a. aM1Iw.J h I••• W.w i ..iV. -.yiT.rM1..f_YeMe-MIM.Na.�r�•rM•W?.WtVw.YnM.sk.Yl iNT,WR1/ra+--.wV'-w w.R.N� JlS'Vw "••��A �� t•-�!^+ '�f._ '. 1 m Ur. •.wP.ua rVarsorl+rwkM.rr/-kKVrw uonn Nww�aaa• 1 -_ - fv/af ns.ih�M .• .. �� a'I�aA .. . /..y ..- �1 +Y +p r.-ar..f.wt Yiwr.,s.•� . � � w M•.•`•YkA/I.•r� W. to MawtrsW�_+.s � Yr a,ann wW i Ma/v �1 . •` ' ~ e 1 f ' wA�oM.•v Ma+�•r�ta/.!•.Arl✓•Y wry o. w ar f • .+rv. 1 «rnw r ' AM4L 11••aWV+ •YIf.W.'Vny, - . �' t. Yl - - iwwY .w..r...: . �....ti. �•..;,'�"'t ,�.•,,,"".,�",.,,,;/�,�.* '.- ..-,..r..,.•• � -1 ' ";.�.;1•• ""a 'fir iRw .fw�Yr�+'��' >V M -.--y ar r.. .WWT - y 1N[rN.ty.y M1 • - .uM 1 Yas.,. ! MAw�rF'4.�F•J•MLYa.►r.«w+M ' •ral+n/1+• a.�aYkrM•1t1Y+www+r- .yI.AyV�+fw.r..rw.-r. n .+r..vWAie r.YN.ieh .'� 1- �rA►� A Wrrayw•` �W i'r.rN..gR.n� tf n.Y wa•y.iu�.Pi's+•�.nY t' M�wNw� 1' ' *" � 1 •,n � W[.qr. .wil.nNLw.[w.a• .«..a- •1 i�of r/Vna•RI.NV.�.a•• w �• � r yW, •.. 'NN..�..M s► • �+.+�iY+SANK Y�RYi�, }}�� �p,p� Vr+MIa� 1Mi kM.+ nr/./I.vOM',a1RW M r., -r__.�.w.�+.•- �•fir r/I•.f�+:•.Vi/l•N+r Y'A1e'•/!tYn ti 'Yr'grw"�;w._......a_..L' __-.. y4r..3:..'N.•.f.wa►n..f.. ,v .s�•alw ,/rrOM. -ax.awa � -ME 0 1 0 Density Calculations AM R5 (See Sec. - v • 2,70o/unit 19.8 units/acre* R6 (See Sec. 35-41 2,20o/unit 16.13 units/acre* Nursing Care Homes 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 Building S tbacks DistricrOW Land Area Width Rear ide 0. .. , 2,70o/unit 100 35 (4) 40 (4) 15 (4) 25 (4) 2,Zoo/unit zoo SOW 40 (4) 20 (4) SOW Under R5 and R6 zoning district, new residential buildings must comply with the following standards: 4. When a building of 2-1/2 stories or more in an R5, R6, R7, G.A or C2 zone abuts an R1 or R2 zone, the setback of this building from the R1 or R2 property shall be no less than twice the height of the building. Nursing Care Bldg . setbacks qm 23 PARKING STALLS NEW 97 BED SKILLED NURSING FACILITY- TCU LTC MC GARAGE e Setbacks from R1 have been "enhanced" — to meet with the proposed land use amendment change of this site. TOTAL PROOF OF PARKING . 1oo-ft . buffer & fF- setback ri r� f i��-��� permanent green space \ / \ TOTAL PROOF OF_ PARKING (87 STALLIL \/ I R� 0 R IT I ENT T --- Y � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 171 - I E r � � Access Issues.. . Existing access off 69th Avenue Recommended to align the to remain easterly access w/the parking lot drive-aisle - ---_�-- --_ � 69TH AVEN RTH _ _ --�-. \ 1v1 - — ?- 1ZI �Y' J -- - - 81 PARKING ~-- -- 1 • , Issues � I I I o 81 PARKING STALLS -_._.. ENIRA�or� Pursuant to Zoning Code Section 35-704 [MINIMUM PARKING ° SPACES REQUIRED], the following 12 �1 spaces are required for each type ( _ of use: 1 .Residence ( - 14 a.Twos aces per dwelling unit I � � r 4. Miscellaneous I " h' b. Rest homes, nursing homes, ( I I~ `:;,,..' `PR, u . t. sanitariums, and homes for 23 PARKING { ►fN ��� STALLS RAMP the aged and for children:One space for every four beds plus one space for every two employees and one space for x each staff doctor. . I I - I 104 TOTAL j I I SHOWN GAW4GE PROPERTY LINE—j Y � fJ .r yJi . .. a 2 ir C I z b' (f Y HOUSING Loadfnq " d c 0 89443 m a 6 o n 14 �ck}E Pon - a I I ce. i 9 C--rf narking Fufure eovored F3Anutifica irony+'" - °ROPERTY LINE - -�- TOTAL-:0, P MC FOR nROn08ED ERLY HOUSIN ,�I -�- �nFS Fu E - 35 " RAND T t 30 PROPOSED ELDERLY HOUSING Loading SS UV. NRSX2- 130 �`>t;- - f �� F.F ':. 854..'15 a.. ......._ _.... lac E Pond J � J 1987 Site Plan Future Parking ter 6 Approved for 35 spaces under a - ,� e, 7. t_ Sb BUILDING_S6BACK a OPOSED PART "proof of parking' covenant Crack Beautification PROP Parking Existing Maranatha site has 110 spaces. City Code Standards: 64-units (SeniorApts.): 64X 2 = 128 spaces 97 beds (nursing home): [1 per 4 beds = 24 stalls] + [1 per 2 emp. 65 = 33 stalls], or 57 spaces COMBINED USES: 128 + 57 = 185 required parking spaces Adding the 38 unit senior independent living (at 2/Unit) would require an additional 76 spaces, or 261 total required parking spaces. Staff suggested Maranatha illustrate on May submittals a large number of "proof arkin " to accommodate h numbers p p g e t ese m u be s Peak utilization of go parking spaces indicated Site requires at least Zoo (or more) spaces to adequately serve residents, employees and visitors Westwood Parking Study Findings . . . • of .. Trip generations (movements in and out) of the site under Phase I will not change; and the trips under Phase II should be minimal Based on the turning traffic off 69th Avenue, numbers are not warranted to justify any turn lanes (therefore not recommended) ITE Suggested Standards: Assisted living facilities - 0.41 space/unit standard; Skilled Nursing Care - 0.35 space/nursing bed standard; and Independent Living Facilities - 0.59 space/unit standard. Based on reduced standards, the assisted living and nursing care under Phase I would only require 61 spaces (versus 185 by City Code); while with Phase II - total number of 83 spaces needed (versus 261 by Code). Study 's "typical daily demand" of on-site parking: low Of 5 spaces to a high of 8o-90 spaces used. The study suggests utilizing a compromised standard, between the City Code, ITE and Peak Demand thresholds Parking Findings . . . The updated Development/Site Plan illustrates 120 parking spaces, with 14 "proof-of-parking" Maranatha agrees to put into future PUD agreement - the 64-unit senior apartment facility will transition to senior assisted living facility Transition may allow for reduced parking standard of 2/Unit to 1/4 units. ❖ Maranatha confirmed Staff that the care center campus has 55 employees on the early morning shift, 22 afternoon shift, and 15 late night shift, or g2 total employees. In consideration of these numbers, the revised parking breakdown can be noted as follows: 64-units (SeniorApts.): 64/4 = 16 spaces 97 Nursing beds: 11/ 4 beds = 24 stalls] + [1 / 2 emp. @a 92 = 46 stalls], or 70 spaces COMBINED USES: 16 + 70 = 86 required (adjusted) parking spaces •:• The 38-unit senior independent = 2/Unit or 76 spaces. Phase II identifies 6o underground parking If the site is developed with 120 spaces plus the 6o underground, up to 18o available spaces. s�s 90 spaces (peak need) plus the 76 spaces for the future apartments would require approximately 166 needed spaces Parking Findings . . . Reduction in parking may be granted, subject to the Applicant demonstrating a real need for reducing said numbers or providing suitable alternatives •• The recommended (or compromised) standard in the report appears somewhat reasonable; the City Council can make the final determination of any reduced (acceptable) standard ' Recommended PHS maintain the 14 spaces to the northwest area of the Assisted Living facility. All new parking areas should be improved with sidewalk connections. Crosswalks/Pedestrian Paths from the parking areas to the sidewalk along 69th Avenue be included. Landscaping/Screening Measures . . . )ggered row of co us trees between oaks ff%Ht NATION BASIN ' C ;SEE fIV11 � I PLAN TI\ TRFF�DG Si �c 1X Y 6i �� I I I Scan I I I _ J -^E .FR------ � I io 1 B I son Vi=i 1�., � J-- � �Ct •� '%�(�G. art ® .�-'Z '!■ ■■�li 0 .� Fl 7C i■ ,o -wllr Ira ilw • _ r ,.,, � ■■tom■ II►T�-� ■ ■■■�■■■ - .� , *► t y F y „ � a X x " x r� e r s Ot vo Ar INNIN �Y 7 ■ mill Mo --------- MINE R , , me 672 (� ' ' �■ + � 1 1 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Planning Application No. 2012-003, which comprehends the Development/Site and Building Plan of the subject site, subject to the following conditions: I. The Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memos, dated April q, 2012 and May 25, 2012. 2. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4. The location or placement of all fire hydrants and other fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6. The Developer shall submit 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. Re omm d ions . . . �I 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. s. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site g g Y P maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including any new freestanding, wall (building) signs and directional signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to separate sign permit submittals and approval. Zo. B6-12 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current Standard Specifications and Details. 12. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency priorto disturbing the site. Recommendations . . . 13. The Developer shall provide and dedicate all necessary easements as required by the City Engineer, either on the new plat or by separate recordable document/agreements. 3-4. The Developer shall provide connecting walkways between the sidewalk along 691h Avenue North to the parking lot areas, and walkways from interior parking areas to other main door access points or other connecting walkways. i 25. The Developer agrees to submit for additional review revised plans and work with City Staff in making reasonable efforts and means in providing a suitable lighting plan, fire lane, landscaping, and appropriate screening to adjacent property owners. The screening must meet City Code Section 35-410, in which an opaque fence or substitute is approved by the City Council. Any opaque fence or screening device shall be constructed with either cedar wood or composite/vinyl materials, with final style and locations approved by the City's Business and Development Director. i6. The Developer agrees to replace any existing significant trees noted to be saved on the Landscape Plans (Sheet L1-1) that may become damaged or removed as a direct result of construction on this site. 3.7. The owner of the property shall enter into a utilities and facilities maintenance agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 1.8. Storm water drainage systems shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of any permits. I Recommendations . . . 19. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 20. The owner shall enter into a PUD Agreement and/or Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be prepared and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific standards and regulations provided by the underlying PUD-MIXED R5/R6 zoning district, as well as all other conditions of approval. This agreement shall further assure compliance with the development/site plans submitted with this application. 21. Any new (future) building comprehended under the Phase II portion of this approved II PUD Development/Site and Building Plan shall be subject to full review and consideration under separate Site and Building Plan application approvals, as per Sections 35-23o and 35-355 of City Code. 22. Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. Reques ed Action Motion to Adopt - the Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2012-003 - Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for a Final Development Plan/Site and Building Plan approval for a new three-story, 97 bed nursing care center (Phase 1) and parking areas; and the future development plan (Phase 11) of a 38-unit senior independent living facility — located at 5401 & 5415 — 69th Avenue North . City ®une" Agenda Item No. 9b i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM f DATE: June 25, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel,Director of Business and Development' SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2012-007 - Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval of Maranatha 2"a Addition - located at 5401-5415 691h Avenue North. 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. 2012-007 - Submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval of MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION-located at 5401-5415 691h Avenue North. Background: On May 17, 2012 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 2012-007 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. for preliminary plat approval. The application was tabled to the May 31, 2012 meeting, whereby an amended planning report was given, the original public hearing from May 17, 2012 meeting was reopened, and public comments received and noted for the record. Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-11, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of the preliminary plat and final plat of MARANATHA 2"d ADDITION. Excerpts from the May 31, 2012 Commission meeting minutes, as related to this consideration of this matter, are also attached. Please note the resolution attached to this memorandum is only in reference to the preliminary plat. The new final plat is to be presented separately by the City Engineer and considered under separate action by the City Council. 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. � � a A ission:Ensuring an attractive,dean,saP,inclusive community that enhances the quality of lire for all people any!preserves the public trust I lVlI L.LL/\ P lvi n < u,nl° 1 All / !7 u .. r.s.L.urr Iv ..__ 6O ��---- A'MMGDl4gPNfR JfL 3S M9l/D.F2Il ,f•'•• �f '^ —,rre—'--0{— YA^11IX N[�DVINI DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED a a•NS.Ainw�/iA N¢I/ f1�"�' Lol°I k 2•Block I,MARANATHA ADDITION NOTFS Evlatl,p c.,dltla,a°how,ae h,dad lino work. o�,'o—_---- YJD —•� I "\ 3D�9B e9.f1.or 7.0670 aw a I \I ale, � m D•De. / Ba• 'aa'i °°'w'��a SUBDIVIDER o I a S°,lor Ho i,9 Porker. � �d A A A Y /I 1 / / —.� Roo WII°.MN M.-5113 N. v/�� _ n /v �I /7 r 1 C� ZONING FASTING: Lol I,Block J.MARANATHA ADDITION-RI 0,e Fomlly Rmid...a Dletrlct V Lot 2.Block I.MARANATHA ADDITION a R6 Mulllplo Fomlly Haeido,ca Dialrlct aa,eJ /.i'.p ui it —9 terra ,I y Lot I,Block I,MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION-R6 Multiple Fomlly ftaaitlanca Dlalrlcl I ' N� 19.0.0m anaan aaa; ®I V/C(N17Y MAP It Xr cl '1 I ✓ ° i\ °m \ A nl I vl,aw � ,a•� 1i��� \ t\ .CC Pau _ Iw a tl I a \ a 9•'r f I T�/� I �b �;"�•`�g Y^^Pg$I I C> hereby caNfy that thio ourvoy,piv,,or port w°s el ' \' `` �a 1` ° MS.R BI' ♦— that alrcd b�dulY Licenend LandrSUrvayar cnd.,th. d i('' \� a0•JI'JYE l 1 m I i' W.of the Slale of Minnocolo. Dated thla Blh day of Ju 2D12. 'I'll V`�I 0.00 I =gym �I I SONDE L D SURVEYING,L C. r. ___ �� 9r—. NB6'JB'14'E ° ue Mork S.Hanaon,P.LS. Minn.Lt..No.15490 I a, B F'T�'°t usuaiit•.. tP' � —— eoo a w°YVO`tzo7. A �&.. e n as a,s, 4a \�a 'ap E IJJ.JI y w9�b //vY,r I ReNead er CIl Memo doled OS 9 012. MLS O6 DB 2012 f/YY ��.—.—a———— 5°x'1 10•—tl-- —— —— J NaJ'DI' 50a'0a'1a'W IJJ.Ja n �.�a'W L--` .�nau-------- ------- —=�; °a Ix _J� w n PRELIM/NARY I3'0a'E tIflNNAGE Y nun 0.] [A:DAFNi—fir — fS PUTPOR.• N89'57'25"W 501.0/ MINIM NIA THAN2NDADD(T10N (NBD'SIILY'WJ ! I IA,A/n nn ' i ,, e --A m l�M S «ens°o Hel'ue �� „ n .� ' ; l� sISUNDE,BaI°,�_eal;;, 0 4o Bo IANDSUXVSPINO os`id SCALE IN FEET aA«t• 1 01 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2012-007 - SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST CARE, INC. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION-LOCATED AT 5401-5415 6 9TH AVENUE NORTH. WHEREAS,Planning Commission Application No.2012-007 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care,Inc., requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat approval of a subdivision to be titled MARANATHA 2nd ADDITION, which is a replat of two contiguous parcels located and addressed as 5401 and 5415—69th Avenue North(Subject Site); and WHEREAS,this plat is being requested to create one lot for the benefit of the existing Maranatha Care skilled nursing and assisted living facilities on the Subject Site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 31, 2012 at which time a staff report and public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of MARANATHA 2nd ADDITION were received; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission also considered under the same public hearing the proposed Final Plat of MARANATHA 2nd ADDITION; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission determined during its review of the preliminary plat and final plat of MARANATHA 2nd ADDITION,that said plat is in general conformance with City of Brooklyn Center's City Code Chapter 15—Platting,and that all conditions have been or will be met by the Applicant prior to release by the City of the final plat for recording purposes; and WHEREAS, on May 31,2012,the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2012-007 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-11. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,that Planning Application No. 2012-007 submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc., requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat of a subdivision to be titled MARANATHA 2nd ADDITION,is hereby approved based upon the following considerations: 1. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated May 25, 2012 (and those related to the PUD Development/Site and Building Plan review memo of April 9,2012)shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals; 2. Any easements to be vacated under this platting process must be considered i RESOLUTION NO. under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits singed by a licensed surveyor; 3. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City Engineer,prior to release by the City for recording purposes. 4. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 5. No building permits shall be issued for any new buildings until the final plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 6. If required or asked for by the City, and updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final plat application(within 30 days of release of the final plat). June 25, 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 P u r f e i n a introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-11 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-007, SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME, INC., A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT APPROVALS OF MARANATHA 2�'D ADDITION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401-5415 — 69' AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS,Planning Commission Application No. 2012-007 submitted by Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting.on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home,Inc., requesting approval of a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat approvals of a subdivision to be titled MARANATHA 2"d ADDITION,which is a replat of two contiguous lots generally located and addressed as 5401 and 5415 691"Avenue North(Subject Site); and WHEREAS,this plat is requested to combine two separate lots into a single lot for the overall benefit of the Maranatha Care Center campus, located on the Subject Site; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission initially held a duly called public hearing on May 17, 2012,whereby this matter was tabled to the May 31,2012 meeting; and WHEREAS, at the May 31, 2012 meeting, the Planning Commission reconsidered this matter, at which time a staff report was presented, and the public hearing was reopened to allow for public testimony regarding the preliminary plat of MARANATHA 2nd ADDITION,were received; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has determined during its review of the preliminary plat and final plat materials submitted with Planning Application No. 2012-007, that said plat is in general conformance with City of Brooklyn Center's City Code Chapter 15— Platting; and 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. 2012-007 as submitted by Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., requesting Preliminary Plat and Final Plat consideration of a new subdivision to be titled MARANATHA 2"d ADDITION,be approved based upon the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated May 25, 2012 (and those related to the PUD Development/Site and Building Plan review memo of April 9, 2012) shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals; i i i 2. Any easements to be vacated under this platting process must be considered under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits singed by a licensed surveyor; 3. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City Engineer, I prior to release by the City for recording purposes. 4. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 5. No building permits shall be issued for any new buildings until the final plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 6. If required or asked for by the City, and updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final plat application (within 30 days of release of the final plat). May 31,2012 Date Chair r^ ATTEST Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kuykendal l and upon vote being taken thereon,the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Rahn , Commissioners Burfeind, Kuykendall , Parks and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. i The Commission took a five minute break and reconvened at 10:23 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 2012-007 MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOMES, INC. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2012-007, a proposed Preliminary Plat and Final Plat of Maranatha 2"d Addition located at 5401-5415 69th Avenue North. This application was tabled at the May 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-31-12 for Application No. 2012-007.) Mr. Eitel stated that the applicant is seeking preliminary and final plat approval to combine two existing lots into one, large single lot for redevelopment. He added that this item was tabled at the May 17, 2012 meeting and it was acknowledged that the public hearing would be continued at tonight's meeting. PUBLIC HEARING—APPLICATION NO. 2012-007 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Burfeind,to reopen the public hearing on Application No. 2012-007, at 10:29 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. Mr. Randy Christensen, stated that he is opposed to this since it is tied to everything else and it still doesn't fit. Mr. John Mehrkens with Maranatha, stated that the replatting of the property into a single lot just makes sense in light of the proposed redeveloped. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Schonning ,to close the public hearing on Application No. 2012-007. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-11 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2012-007 SUBMITTED BY MARANATHA CONSERVATIVE BAPTIST HOME INC. A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT APPROVALS OF MARANATHA 2'ADDITION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5401-5415—691H AVENUE NORTH There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-11. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind,Kuykendall,Parks and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. 5-31-12 Page 8 i The Council will consider the application at its June 25, 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. DISCUSSION ITEM There were no discussion items. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Parks stated that Luther tore down trees and a decorative fence and he feels that what is approved by the Commission doesn't hold any teeth. He hopes that Luther has planned a buffer or something decorative to replace it. He also stated that light rail transit will have a station at 63`d Avenue and Bottineau at the Park and Ride. Also Shingle Creek restoration is taking place by the High School. Mr. Eitel stated that Brooklyn Park ranked 6th for federal funding for restoration of Shingle Creek and the project involves a trail along the creek. The city will be facilitating some easements related to this project. He added that Luther is redoing the area along 69th Avenue and they will be installing a decorative wall around the site. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Parks,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. 'I Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass 5-31-12 Page 9 XCrBROOKLYN NTBR Planning Commission Report Application Filed on 04/09/12 Meeting Date: May 31,2012 City Council action should be -- taken by 06/08/12 (60 Days) Application No. 2012-007 Applicant: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. Location: 5401& 5415 —691h Avenue North Request: Preliminary and Final Plat for Maranatha 2°d Addition INTRODUCTION Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., is seeking Preliminary Plat and Final Plat approval to replat two existing lots into one, large single lot for their Maranatha Homes senior apartment and nursing care campus, located at 5401 and 5415 691h Avenue North. A public hearing was originally scheduled for the May 17, 2012 meeting, with notices mailed to the surrounding property owners. This item was tabled to this May 31St meeting, with the acknowledgement the public hearing would be continued on this same date. ANALYSIS 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. The senior assisted living apartments were created in 1987 by the filing of a new plat (Maranatha Addition) and rezoning from R1 (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 located in the City of Brooklyn Park. Sewer and water are both available from 69th Avenue. The proposed new nursing home facility will have separate water and sewer line connections made if the PUD Rezoning and future Site Plan are approved for this improvement. The preliminary plat illustrates a number of perimeter drainage and utility easements, which are typical of these types of replats. Other existing easements are scheduled to be vacated or PC 05-31-12 Page 1 of 2 C.i[vof /fROOhI fit' CENTER released on this site, but not until all other easements necessary for the is overall PUD site improvements have been determined. Most of these easements have been reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be acceptable at this time, with minor modifications allowed to be made prior to the City releasing the final plat for recording. The new final plat will reflect a new Lot 1, Block 1, Maranatha 2,d Addition. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2012-11, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2012-007, which proposes a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for MARANATHA 2 ° ADDITION, subject to the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated May 25, 2012 (and those related to the PUD Development/Site and Building Plan review memo of April 9, 2012) shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals; 2. Any easements to be vacated under this platting process must be considered under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits singed by a licensed surveyor; 3. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City Engineer, prior to release by the City for recording purposes. 4. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 5. No building permits shall be issued for any new buildings until the final plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 6. If required or asked for by the City, an updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final plat application (within 30 days of release of the final plat). ATTACHMENTS • Aerial/Location Maps • Preliminary Plat of Maranatha 2"a Addn. • Final Plat Map of Maranatha 2"d Addn. • City Engineer's Review Memo(dated 05/25/2012) • Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-11 PC 05-31-12 Page 2 of 2 i MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25,2012 TO: Tim Benetti,Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Bruce Johnson, Engineering Technician Supervisor Steven L.Lillehaug, City Engineer/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Works—Revised Preliminary and Final Plat Review for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION Public Works Department staff reviewed the preliminary plat and final plat submittals dated May 16, 2012, for the proposed MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION and provide the following revised recommendations: General: 1. All recommendations and requirements indicated in the April 9,2012, PUD and Site Plan review memorandum from Public Works are included by reference. 2. An easement vacation is required as part of this redevelopment. The formal vacation document must contain an easement vacation description and depiction exhibit signed by a professional surveyor. 3. The City has record of easement number 3211239 on file.The developer must confirm the status of this easement. If it has not already been vacated, it must be vacated as part of this development. 4. Proof of parking has been demonstrated;however,the proof of parking layout must be revised to demonstrate a more realistic parking lot plan if it were needed to be built. 5. The easterly access for 691h Avenue must be aligned with the parking lot drive aisle. 6. The measured snapshot of parking reported was 90 vehicles during a routine shift change period under the existing site scenario.The parking study identified that the ITE parking demand numbers provide a better representation of the existing parking needs than do the City's requirements;however,the ITE projected demand is only 61.Therefore,the ITE projections in this scenario are significantly underestimated and should not be relied upon to base parking needs for this sight. If deviations from City ordinance are considered,the required parking should be based on actual studies and should include a factor of safety for those periods and events that might exceed the everyday normal situation.At a minimum without further information and without viable alternatives to overflow parking, I recommend constructing the proposed Phase 1 parking (104 parking stalls) plus an additional 28 stalls that could be constructed in the proof of parking areas in the northwest area and in the northeast area.Additionally, if issues were to develop anytime in the future,the developer would be required to construct the full amount of required parking stalls. 7. Provide connections of internal sidewalks to public regional trail/sidewalk along 69th Avenue. 8. Preserve or replace sidewalk on the northwest side of the existing 64 unit facility if the I I Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Review Memo—Maranatha 2nd Addition Page 2, May 25, 2012 proposed proof of parking area is implemented.This may require a reduced number of proposed parking spots available in this area. Preliminary Plat: 9. Show the total acreage on the plat. 10. Show the name and address of the subdivider. 11. Show the existing zoning on the site. 12. Show any proposed zoning changes. 13. Show the plat adjoining the west property line. Final Plat: 14.Provide a working drawing of the final plat with all proposed easements that includes an overlay of all ponds, all utilities (private and public,proposed and existing)-and grading elevations for the City to use to verify adequacy. The drainage easements must encompass the ponds, overflow areas, and channels at or above the determined individual 100-yr flood elevations for those elements and areas. Prior to Issuance of Land Alteration and Building Permits: 15. Submit a recorded copy of the restrictive covenants (subdivision agreement). 16. Submit final site plans and specifications for review and approval by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City.The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. 17. Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow for the land disturbance portion of the project in the amount of 150%of the estimated cost or in the amount determined by City staff-to comply with the land alteration permit, site improvements and to restore the site. The developer may submit one itemized letter of credit, if approved by City staff.The City will not release or reduce the letter of credit or cash escrow until work has been completed according to the final site plans approved by the City. 18.A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions,traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions,tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions,temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance provisions.The.plan must be in a City approved format and must outline minimum site management practices and penalties for non-compliance. 19. Submit a$5,000 separate cash escrow for the construction management plan elements as part of the non-compliance provision. This escrow must be accompanied by the agreement and signed by the developer and property owner.Through this document,the developer and property owner will acknowledge: a. The property will be brought into compliance within 24 hours of notification of a violation of the construction management plan, other conditions of approval or City code standards. b. If compliance is not achieved,the City will use any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any deficiency and/or issue. 20. Schedule and hold a preconstruction meeting with the City staff. i Ii I Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Review Memo—Maranatha 2nd Addition Page 3 May 25, 2012 All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The preliminary plan(site plan and preliminary plat) and final plat must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plat may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. i Flennepin County Department 1600 Prairie Drive 612-596-0300,Phone Medina,MN 55340-5421 763-478-4000,FAX 763-478-4030,TDD www.hennepin.us Bruce Johnson,Engineering Technician Supervisor May 22,2012 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Re: Preliminary Plat Review—Maranantha 2na Addition Residential Care Facility 69`'Avenue North(CSAH 130) at Unity Avenue Hennepin County Plat Review No. 3242 Dear Mr. Johnson: Minnesota Statutes 505.02, 505.03, and 462°358, Plats and Surveys, allow up to 30 days for county review of preliminary plats abutting county roads. This residential development was reviewed by the Plat Review Committee on May 1, 2012. It should be noted that 690, Avenue North (CSAH 130) is a collector street, and hence it has fewer significant concerns than a typical county minor arterial roadway. The road is on the county list of potential road turnbacks to the city for future discussion, and this has previously been acknowledged by city staff. Right-of-way—there is no additional-right-of-way dedication requested on this roadway. Driveway access—no change in site access is being proposed. Traffic Impacts—this project is anticipated to have fairly minimal traffic impacts. Permits—Please inform the property owner(s)that all proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping/ streetscaping. Permit questions can be directed to Carolyn Fackler at (612) 596-0336 or curolyn.f aciclera,co.hennepin.nin.us . Please contact Bob Byers at (612) 596-0354 or r©bert.byersci,eo.hennepin.YVtn.us for any further discussion of these items. Sincerely, James N. Grube, P.E. Director of Transportation and County Engineer NG/rqb cc: Plat Review Committee Mark Larson,Hennepin County Survey Office An Equal 0ppcvt init-Empty;er Pecycled?ape( .V I ,v '— _ - �..•=---_.' p=,,sue+,,-s`�e.�u".cam---.- ;kYrK.., x� {S,,� t ¢x` J a>� Yw�t,,u y.I"L .''� �::.. d y�;" .:+r �-S90�1 � ,7:;>:�:. ' .T--- •-•� �r.,asa,.. i� aa'S �� ., .,„ _�• 4,r r Iq� � � n m. i ;. "1 :,¢> } -� �,. ,_, a,.1''L:1.a Mk �" :::L �;.' �.Srq .«l`uu ;tali l't.�may.,. ^F , .' 4.•.'� i ,} � � _!,:'•9✓.,. r 'Iz J w .Y4w ...._ �s ✓ 4 130 .m eta ,eo�� 7'� r ._ _ �iaye °:.'�' I, , ..y,^M A -' .V _ _ 'fit ��„•.�k¢,,,3, •}fR7J.`. uy, .. ,_._ 't;>f(-y �f,� �i:'�VJ+T ^�, a._l+ 1 t� -m•;r a+ ,7 -.",..t y`I � �__.;/ ,:r..:._..�. �-- .x ;.a• f.^. m .y� ?x. ".,s,�,• .. :..i' - fir..,.-..-.. _'-'-.,--] .� _. � r,e�x`r tat' •, .,. ,„... .„...'t.'. �_.� ._bTs,. _ _ '' �� � e t}d' :tii�• ■o a®e'u"bad �t?rw d�iS�'-d? y ,I 4 --._.,__. _.. .i,.. ,,._ ..t J.rt`• w�. x,,=w.tw.,r ,. .,� i ,r.,. r� j p drys m•�6' .,i�;�� r .P •d�'a i+n"•ane"�a®®e- ¢a� .'_a ' _`"3 1"r�+,x.• .,:. .� •rWI" *, T.. t '� - :i�" 1i rr• """� '"w?',d'� ,y�` 'l17 .;"^ ;�i�-.•.-- . ::: x .�_, ,:•.:.r e �_.� N �ie7l •tN, r��j r .'.l, n .,t= I- .� �t ' W� _, �,•.. ._ 1'� rIe �+,,�. _ I '��a� .r 1. f "' '��„ seas" `l+!�1 -ir.'f\y � t A�3 °t5 `..i a4 i�,��i�rI�...�;=:1,:G..,�.'I.:�..:n.'_I.,�,I---'.r L'��r,-�i"1[�=,'I�T.1�'�__�I I,Q�i t-.I i.�rI__.c_i-'`_,,i q I-Il t I I a:�'--I,w-t,_i,iaiI..p.7 i•..te.1-.1�i!-'.,.,i._.:'..:._:�--l. , �'''�_E., ',,u,y,.;v:.1„_,• fi?.`*R.I1 t:..,l:t'1::;.;”n lti�"`,l,i1 1 t,(�l 1 J l��c�7 C'I.l 1l�?;rI�.�1>�.>Cxi��I ti4 M n sE•.+'i v 1 X..-.''i 1 t.,1.�,,�,^-_,-'''t f�b_w.'S.rI.--':s;j,&ct1 y a1,T'.^p.t!�r..-:�:�..�.._1 7���.-;>.�<.'�1�t.',,11'r;a 91°Ir._n 9IIl:.�.9r6,—.t.,1•—,:.k.�_.�.._.€1 r_J. -.ffi_.`^--�I;,-"f-1S.��.L1 j$!l r_a 9,I I_-I w j I�.��:��,t•i i!{Y��\,aS r�a.�arir.�,.�.�.iv,',1^_'-4r+.ifi'�.''.;��",I.`�,i''.:..�7,,—TM�y lfik.yA,s f�T('_«�Iy�f..�°�a.-'f�1,�".`.�r"-r,•r'�5�2w.<c,.•��t-,I Z'_-'...,.-`1 v.,:�`-,`��,.-�,;",_�r.'.,;r,yt�,t„:}�®.X�k-.`�7�s`3�i P�-'r!'-�t T��•f,C':7 l Ii_..j.}9�V{i�'�!..l._lil,;(4;;lb'`eq�ifi�n ee'I�-t(,�o®n�I1 Ni1�9�t.y l'y l t,��`I ul�I li I�I�)y .r +M w l�.I:-T.rn)-w m'm�y-?N..hmtrS eI-,”.,�I'�_.i'l:'i a rp I`�I•A�{,.I:-'f i.ka�"sbtl#�5'��i.'.7�r w.5y q W a,�,J.:1 i'a r�}1..?��yi„5)�^�T�'1?"I•-^�","rP t,t\t r,en,"y„�?_?®.�,x,•r�'��<..r zr,:�t'-�.�,`.-�r,`"x`4C1�r�"+�-yi�c r..i y�n.>l rc 1 1�iK'I�,t t l 1'.0 sr.e%7it�.'-1 y,?i��S"-_''a.�ee,t I��x.I,�is�I,�i a-e^a t:-`�...•.•,-,}_"��—.^,'`.,r_�r-�°t�i ru�:r-�,--l a�_.�I�a a.i.,'l 1.�r:.!."..iW.r,,-I ffre r 1,.'4�.,)._4�,.'r'.`:.t.I{1�.`6.�.'—�c:^n-"ri�-.fl.'>:-_�.It I-t�,,I-�s-d a rt�,`L.}��r1<rI� '',bt���;J I r;,t`'-°_rI!,_�i y•'�,p.Tw:-,.:!l�s ti�i+r"*'�i r s�,�_i,`.I.:=�l.n.,'.�l�i__1.,J'vt{•.t?.:,ds;�:i'�-l A W'.��„.°r�®�_�o d.d'a`Puc''�r�d�}d�r.ri;�wL-i VY t�t j�r_s�x 1>t.x�a���zr k"��,tb'.tix_x„_}w I..vL'.a�.i.'�r.j i����'�,.i��i.°�k.,��I�,,S 6s�'^-.rt 6L/6 t r'6���'`6r.��_T�-y H�`•—°�'As�I�-WV',Y."',:..,_•a"s��v°e E3��.•f!.'�Ib 3 N.r`y,ty�4��Pi��,I 7�;.IJ��9�i'I"�I•I",(trvt Imt��Oz„,-,_�,I.-���r l,1i�"lFh:l I� ",>;t j.I'�l5•''�.f��l�.`��t��S iI I�'Lif�r I t y��t9 I I t1�:yI,'j-I�.` i l Ui I.�I�r I I x<•-w;97�'i^I�`t t m.yl"�rI f I�r�,j��6ni"•x x K y J6 r-,,�`YE t'o t��•1',p��6(•�0.'1�,.'g_��r',(.�'. .��I�r�7 j r�-•v Iy i,�-�f I-���-I,l•r.,'`",'�. �'r f,'i�•.I q..n�- ." . ,s e�'L rI6,,•n7 .a 6,f 7 1,lo , 77,ar sq- V, 83 l.6'fi _1 • ,t I,l,t ;J. I�0 6825�!. 4°25 68.i s _ ta � r i d 6 19 xA, 6 6613 rnr 6667,ED ss87-c "W-1 0 IL U6r—or, FAO 2 67s7..�"'._ 7. . MARANATHA HOMES PROJECT SITE 0 30 60 120 180 240 r . ' '`... nnoocrrN CEA'7Elt Maranatha / Presbyterian Homes 5401 & 5415 — 69th Avenue N . Preliminary Plat of Maranatha 2"d Addition Agenda Item No. 9. b Application No. zo12- 007 City Council Meeting June z5, zos2 Introduction Presbyterian Homes Housing and Assisted Living, Inc. (PHS), acting on behalf of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., is seeking Preliminary Plat and Final Plat approval to replat two existing lots into one, large single lot for their Maranatha Homes senior apartment and nursing care campus A public hearing was originally scheduled for the May 17, 2012 meeting, with notices mailed to the surrounding property owners. This item was tabled to this May 31St meeting, with the acknowledgement the public hearing would be continued on this same date . I 69TH AVENUE NORTH I ( I IL Ivl IZ' 1 C) IQ r 81 PARKING X 0 _I STALLS m m ` I — 0. O J ~ FXISTIN UNIT q »+ U V A ED LIVING / TO REMAIN Platting will remove the lot line between Lic f �_I p RAW � these existing and future building additions 1 C PARKING I � li FUTURE I' 2 112 STORY \ I I f 38 UNIT �- It INDEPENDENT II I 2 PARKING NEW 97 BED I FACILITY STALLS SKILLED I UNDERGROUND NURSING PARKING FOR 38 _ FACILITY-TCU i LTC MC I II I L- vRO stc --- I L LANE - I I Preliminary Plat Th"c' 19T IMA. ........yl- _ ----:-—-——————— it wwv 14CMTY MAP 3a BL O,C K T 1114. + FAELAW4W SUNDE jig Proposed Final Plat MARANA THA 2ND ADD/T/ON Ilk CO! ,O. 7 i e I C. .- � .z n .r n _r ,u... �.. •.,:- .F:w 4l r'z.s2rs TMr�..exm4 n�IA..al..r.r In+a.a lwawla.rea.n.n p.✓.re✓,!rata.r F,w.••r.FP.f _�__—_� �]K� �—_____ �:',^✓'xivl�v:' wlm,�AZr,��.lwuw.nl..eom. ������ taw m..tl rp.p.f.M vpM W aa'n.p.W.W W.�P WFrrr a 4,+..,arra.a fa r•WS H O.Yf ur Haw.Me a.i.p a.! •VRN�� %��::::�:' 11'w�u � •ay. . ....0 arr.w w.Ya ."�avF espy ? ���� 4 2 2 .�..ax w rasa tarar..11w aryl aana•..e...s sw.a..Fa.a!•♦/r+M n.1•nw.pr.r _u+.al -- s+r.0"�iµ:r n°'� S1:H r::"+cYu': r:'.^Ti';N �—_'.t' - r..rr ep....Ir Mllrr o..• -_— AIPWINT Ono I.vuain __•�• arm-.-.. `. I to wPaa a.w.w!ap.r Nara+:"pori Wpw N:.r a Ir.rr�w+�n srw a.s!<asaas.. _—.—_r•� (ia+ ( - '� ,.,1...,..rap a,a.a.„r.�.sp .a«..a.l .n a nrM.r 1..-s.•+r„F...srn r Va•.Wa 4>a a.aarr.ft nlna•bb.d N.wM.y w•.nw.i.✓-F •�,a.�.e!..t b.1 n�f w r.w.r.u...tr !/ I L'J A 11 l ,l A I�I 2� f..l V•f}'.Af 9!l-:.w ra M Odw bIrY aw4aYw w.f/v".ti.ati. w.far.N s apc..M b. a.+rs w.n•Ha pF � I h (l !J 71 I it l' f Vr I 1 rah S.Nn.�ltwp!la.•w+•}a�-- i .I I .r co r i I � �_; „_..F_..,w,�..a.aaf..W.n.p N� an s_ __��,,.✓.,Na.p e I li 1 M]p1M SIVrrR YME):r1A I _____ 1 a 20.__ ap.M. w s. •aro�.. Mp.d 4s Lp.rrp.d trw..awlp M F.C4R, •.r•+I W.ar row W.: F.IM✓M>'...'.p f.M Me!aw an.....r...rw.f.r BL O I C K 1 p hi.IY.rh((PM.C.!F\!f./G,VNYi9pfa II I I � /� m __ __Wp P• ..raM• ✓i I 1 � ' 1 I �. I �,al.,ub{pn nrV.M.•'.V....,.r..Ya..w wa i.af b....a.M.N FY 1•ef,a.1N Vi_�b N I c v _. i� i �I ��3i'. Ila:� c. I I -; nnw.+f,re..f..a m.hn.sp xue sPS f�.n1 r•a.a pap•....-+o«____...b .az.... all I � t I��j/ •iT I R�� �•j.�I � ' I _/ Rlnlr NIXS(tn w aw G..ry V'+.4n. �S I ♦ .Q E � Sa�7j 1� X711 � �} �h.U.S."f r.a x•wp•Vw b a>..Ntrxa..F.mluf...e....n..✓..n......_aa,.l_,...-. -._�zP_._,p...._.....-scan yll,••rw I _.e_._..y/_—--• .rap "L1�-� ,°..rte'• t�¢�-..—._ r�,r�w'. ,rYa a^".. ' s;, . �/I r �'r;l • oewrts.o.p.artp rows..w>n � ✓,�y',��„S—-.,�.,.lR_ss�'y�//i� �y�',S'�•�'In i'op°s�.w.oats:P+NmPrq C �.c-- �.vmlr. ma '�— .!P'MV.r>4r°-� . ..... I .rl.^!.VFOf-)ti fM.•a'.M .wc•uM.[Vlsrnlr_— :1.+'_-•' fa. N;t l�h AY....O t0 Vw(A Bt.wW - O y7thY!Dt AIM7Ptili1Y ,pLN /'�} Ir uv,rrvr,_ L:�t��vl� ..rrf awnjt'u..,r- if1 na'urr.✓�. b 0 M n �SU.N.�rD�.�Ea�r £.aL .Ilr 1rA�wla..•�..I Planning Commission • • • Planning Commission recommended (unanimously) the City Council accept/approve Planning Application No. 2012- 007, which proposes a Preliminary Plat (and future) Final Plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION, subject to the following conditions: 1. All recommendations and conditions as noted in the City Engineer's review memorandum, dated May 25, 2012 (and those related to the PUD Development/Site and Building Plan review memo of April g, 2012) shall be complied with or completed as part of any final plat approvals, 2. Any easements to be vacated under this platting process must be considered under separate and formal City easement vacation process, with all documentations, descriptions, and exhibits singed by a licensed surveyor, 3. The final plat shall be subject to review and final approvals by the City Engineer, prior to release by the City for recording purposes. 4. The final plat shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 5. No building permits shall be issued for any new buildings until the final plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County. 6. If required or asked for by the City, and updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Attorney and City Engineer for review at the time of the final plat application (within 30 days of release of the final plat). Requested Action ❖ Motion to Adopt — the Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application NO. 2012-007 - submitted by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Care, Inc. for Preliminary Plat approval of MARANATHA 2nd ADDITION - located at 5401-5415 69th Avenue North . city C0undl Agenda Item Igo® 10a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: 5 June 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Financial Commission Recommen ation on Mayor and City Council Salaries Recommendation: I 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. Proposed action is to approve the first reading of this ordinance and set a Public Hearing for Monday, 23 July 2012 for the second reading and final adoption. 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. Following discussion the Commission unanimously recommended that the Mayor and City Council receive increases in wage for 2013 and 2014. Wages are recommended to increase 3.0% each year. The Commission cited the four year freeze of Council wages from 2009 through 2012 as one of the reasons that an increase is "overdue and justified." Relative position in the 10 city comparison of mayor and city council wages was also cited as well as the reasonable level of compensation for the duties, responsibilities, and costs incurred by the Mayor and City Council members. On 27 July 2010, the Council adopted an ordinance setting salaries at prior year levels for 2011 and 2012. According to Minnesota Statutes 415.11, such ordinance will be in effect for 12 months after which the salary reverts to the previously designated amount. In order to increase salaries for 2013 and 2014 the Council must adopt a new ordinance. The attached ordinance proposal calls for a public hearing to be` held on Monday, 23 July 2012 on a new ordinance establishing 2013 and 2014 salaries 3.0% higher for each year. Budget Issues: Under the recommended proposal, wage costs for the Mayor and City Council will increase by a total of$ 1,361 for 2013 and $ 1,402 for 2014. Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Mission:Ensurin;an attractive, clean,safe,inclusive community that enhances the qualit 1 of life for all people raid preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 23rd day of July 2012, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creels Parkway, to consider An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 2010-01 Regarding Council Salaries for 2013- 2014. 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 ORDINANCE NO. 2010-12 REGARDING COUNCIL SALARIES FOR 2013-2014. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. City of Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 2010-12 which amended the amount of the annual compensation to be paid to the Mayor and Council Members to become effective January 1, 2011, is hereby amended. Section 2. Effective January 1, 2013, the annual salary for the Mayor shall be $11,501 and the annual salary for Council Members shall be $8,805. Section 3. Effective January 1, 2014, the annual salary for the Mayor shall be $11,846 and the annual salary for Council Members shall be$9,070. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of ,2012. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (e+,. u4 indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) 415.11, 2009 Minnesota Statutes .Page 1 of 1 'oog Minnesota Statutes 1 SECOND TO FOURTH CLASS CITIES; GOVERNING BODY SALARIES. Subdivision 1. Set by ordinance. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special law, charter, or ordinance, the governing body of any statutory or home rule charter city of the second, third or fourth class may by ordinance fix their own salaries as members of such governing body, and the salary of the chief elected executive officer of such city, in such amount as they deem reasonable. Subd. 2. After next election. No change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding municipal election. Subd. 3. Temporary reductions. Notwithstanding subdivision 2 or a charter provision to the contrary, the governing body may enact an ordinance to take effect before the next succeeding municipal election that reduces the salaries of the members of the governing body. The ordinance shall be in effect for 12 months, unless another period of time is specified in the ordinance, after which the salary of the members reverts to the salary in effect 'immediately before the ordinance was enacted. History: Exl967 c 42 s 1,2; 1976 c 44 s 34; 2009 c 152 s 17 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?year=2009&id=415.11 8/18/2010 i SECTION 11-- 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. ,I D. Compensation set pursuant to this policy,and procedure shall be deemed to be 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 inay.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 II-GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code of Policies 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. 98-9.1• City Council Minutes 1/10/94 City of Brooklyn Center 08/14/06 Page 208 City of Brooklyn Center Comparative Mayor and Council Wages Fiscal Years 2009 through 2012 2010 Census 2009 2010 2011 2012 city Population Mayor Council Mayor Council Mayor7F 7 Council Ma or 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 $ 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. Crystal: 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 6/5/2012 Mayor I $14,000 - $12,000 $10,000 i I $8,000 i I E 2009 ■2010 � 2011 $6,000 F)2012 $4,000 I i i i $2,000 I I I ii i l i White Bear Shoreview Roseville Richfield Crystal Fridley New Hope Brooklyn Golden Maplewood Average Lake Center Valley Council $12,000 i $10,000 $8,000 I � 2009 $6,000 ■2010 2011 ■2012 $4,000 $2,000 $_ White Bear Shoreview Roseville New Hope Richfield Crystal Brooklyn Fridley Golden Maplewood Average Lake Center Valley i 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 City CouncH Agendn Item No. IM i COUNCIL E U DATE: June 19, 2012 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Final Plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the resolution approving final plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION. Background: The final plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION was developed and would combine the following existing properties: Lot 1 and Lot 2, Maranatha Addition (see attached final plat). The Brooklyn Center City Council considered approval of the proposed preliminary plan under separate council action earlier tonight. The applicant is now seeking final plat approval from the City Council. The final plat is recommended for approval subject to the conditions established by the City Engineer, conditions established by the City Attorney based on a review of an updated title commitment provided by the applicant (within the past 30 days), conditions as previously approved by the City Council, and any conditions established by Hennepin County for recording of the plat documents. Budget Issues: The applicant has paid a final plat application fee of$125 and must reimburse the City for any additional engineering, administrative, legal or other fees associated with the filing and recording of the final plat. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Mission:Ensuring an attractive,clean,safe,inchisive colnnnuunity that ennhances the quality of life for all people anal preserves the public trust Member introduced the followin g resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR MARANATHA 2"ADDITION WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has recommended approval for the preliminary plan and final plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION based on certain conditions as set forth in the Planning Application No. 2012-07 and Planning Commission Resolution 2012-11; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for approval of the preliminary plan and final plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION as required by City Code. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota that the final plat for MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION is hereby approved,subject to the following conditions: I. Conditions as previously recommended by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-11, and/or as revised and amended by City Council actions taken on said development's Preliminary Plan approval. 2. The final plan must incorporate the conditions of approval as indicated in the Preliminary and Final Plat Review Memorandum dated May 25, 2012, or as required and approved by the City Engineer. 3. Previously platted and dedicated public easements that exist that are being granted on the final plat must be released and terminated. 4. Evidence of title satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer. 5. Any other conditions as established by Hennepin County for recording of said final plat. 6. Prior to release by the City of the final, approved plat, the owner must reimburse the City the full amount of legal fees incurred by the City in obtaining a review or opinion of title. June 25, 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. 60 11Q Lot Lot I, Block 1, MARANATHA ADDITION 2/V01 rnUU//r/te/v And that Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, owner and proprietor of the following described propertf to wit: VER of Lot 2, Block I, MARANATHA ADDITION 7,RGE.2l ° (�.vvivi// nvr,ir ivv. ,.:vl o n V COUNTY 589°SJ'S0°E IIENT) n Have caused the some to be surveyed and platted as MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION and do hereby dedicate to the public, for pu 2623.14 �- shown on said plat. NORTH LINE P. THE NE l2i_i Tl/ A I/F-A(/I r' A!/l-)T)I NORHfEAST CORNER OF SEC.33 TWP.(/9,RGE.2/ OF SEC.33, MP. /19,RGE:21 5-In /--IVLIVVL /VVI5/f 0 0 (FOUVO/N A(ANHOLE COVER PO9T10N In witness whereof said Paranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., has caused these presents to be signed by its proper office t a E57-ABLIWED!19NG 30 FOOT OFFSET S89 5350E 499.80 PER 2009 HENNEP/N CO. T/E SHEET) Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc. OUaNA SIGNED --DRAINAGE&UTILITY EASEMENT ---- L----------1 _ PA nU _ Gf 269.77 ��_ SEJ,/ery Y._____._ / ,ZNI 589°53'50°E 525 2g 33°E -\ COUNTY OF AINNESOTA--_ 21.19_ N ) Spb 589°53'50°E Sao The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this —___day of_-___— 20_, by_ G4 447 said Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., a Minnesota non-profit corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public, _---County, {° My Commission Expires —__—_—_ /C// / I / / I / V /-1 / 1,7 /-1 I C j In witness whereof said Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this 4°E I C Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. /1 r) /-Y / T / n n / /-I / (� / / / L_/ / V i SIGNED:__ (1 �� STATE OF MINNESOTA v I Lt, COUNTY OF_—_ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ _day of _—_—, 20_—, by r t L ® 7- said Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. 01 C) Notary Public, ______County, M lj� My Commission Expires Iw � F �n 1, Mark S. Hanson, do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Lice plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey, that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on ihl been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Secti I41 shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. L ® C K I a N Dated this —_—day of___—____ —_, 20—_. i °A Mark S. Hanson, Licensed Land Surveyor E STATE OF MINNESOTA Minnesota License No. 15480 NT 52 64 SL S O rte• COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me on this __—day of . 20___, by Mark S. Hanson. \p9s 1•: I �l� fY; Notary Public, _ ——County f°� 1�- I ------ Pdy Commission Expires BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA ;l, This plot of MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, at a r 20___. If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Tronsportc 45 �> by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provide °°� e'`F,�F(tij'}F• Nom^, o 4�1•• �n I CITY COUNCIL OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA h� r n m a C, ----- BY. — ---------------- Mayor BY, 0 _ _� o : p'. TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Hennepin County, Minnesota o� h ereby certify that t axes payab le In 20___and prior y ea rs have been paid for land described on this Plat d oted this 38 l4°E `c" > 204.57 Mark V. Chapin, Hennepin County Auditor BY: DRAINAGE �k �''- 586°32'08°1Y sago T k UTILITY W �°j / °,'p'� SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota - o EASEMENT ,\ •3 25 00_ 'L' J n;o N6I' 1'02°E -'� ?P�:�t - Pursuant to Minnesota Statute Sec. 3838.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this day of tJ88°00'20°E 133.31 S S __ pQ-PJ'�4, Hr'•--'- 588°00'20`w 133.36 --`, IF---"'-%4'P S26°12S8°E ,a T William P. Brown, Hennepin County Surveyor BY: 68.64 .-�;"S26'1 - DRAINAGE k UTILITY EASEMENT-----` - - 1 72.45 COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota i I i MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION ............. Item 10b. Final Plat Regular City Council Meeting: June 25, 2012 I I 0 1 I MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION Final Plat developed in consideration of: • PU D • Preliminary Plan (Site Plan and Preliminary Plat) • Future vacation of existing easements • Future Subdivision Agreement MARANATHA 2ND ADDITION Final Plat (Sheet 1 of 1) MARANA THA 2ND ADDITION 1C.R. Doc. NO. r �� I :R:..r/'f�� Y.`x uLL't 5.,5 ea M![P!CSYT id a .,Aa_f.xw'Mr p sr 11"-..r,..a Wek:..u.-rraAR c.rrnal.n a.r�x u J pA•w.ur R Y,'WoMq 6,uxN T N c I: - p �+ r r 1 r. i.,., r... py..,...e.d �..w.. II...*F r . :r w...•u n.n • �J l�I el,.v I,♦,t.uT«uJJIxM ____ __��-3 � .0 ��,.�...����� a.r✓ /Yi✓rrrvr• u.a s.t'.br fJl Swxn.F.ar..eF:,.F....a"F,Frr:•a r.rp.�ww+.Y.r ud tYaplet.,r✓e.hke.rM M.'lllwl p.qw-r rt!lf.d n�M.�uT:r.r MwrpF.SSrtY cr M..are. i,�.o.rf/ !�s drrd..rdrne'v b w.rM u!rM•W..wW„alM.Yt]WJIY sd i M!r drRl.'.9.pdu..v y.a!M rw..l,:\.wdw«.d xrtxr.d,rwrr•Y r ut ,...ua M.. raY STT �S,q A..MA, ��r/T /y r G,rte Irn [� r t IIMMIYtw/rI F.ry '4n✓x.w. pr.rn•.t. peM g •rVR� /.J :+„rkx.v.•.1d"ws.'FU C-w.�r.dllr,'• M� Fw.a�f rtr M+1rH\.x. .rlcx RA_dar e• M- --- soMuwv MlGO UAW CY[T. T cr wamre — [o.nY.I �( M r,wnM b..bia,d k.ru,n.rtu_da,..• :G !. ,A. a i�« I i�)Yd d I A ! A A/ll A T 11 A 1• i' xv [y ....... /✓I n !1 Pn /Y rn I f7 /1 �� F.r.n,M..m..aa::e�.-.A 5..w p.rt..r,.I.e tsx,ewai•\w tru.r,....b.o.d!r:«rV..nu a,_Am> ad- ,xt'1M ,rl A n { I IPl iu LOT 1 I .. .....,..V� 'ab.rl:.FUIn•T,,.m... Y a,xr•.Tlx. eixk•,•.wt.r R I I LJ �I it •I 1 Ct 1 r.xb'.IIMw M h+ T•ry 1. i 1- r T i b r - dT it WT T-'r I ax r TJY 1+^'n`M fond^•r+rw r h r rrr • •b•er ,f t 1 ��rc Tl rh 1� .4xF b d rt•xil T.tdl Txn d.r Ird nrA�M r rl.lwr�,�'MnF,•r.�.� *L wrM n ITrAI« T�' +•xrx• nr• ,�i I 1� W +•-•and IhF/ bx and it rdl: +••nn•b..n Td I+-bd r�hn rIM BL OICK 1 w +d 4w_4n M _ i 1 J l W...w..n«.bra caw r ... m m —T .• —ty x.+;K— :1' 1 f` � ��`f «k� ; I, � ( :; urn `x •' n.'.. y• Y rr n.. -a..YIM>.e�'n�r ra.r«r«w.rn I I 'J 1 � I s �: ..r.ry ry ntbw TT,r d r«x« n nor,I rn.r M wT.'.•«.-.•,+yi r.•rx�.�xm r««�°w.i Fr w'n,nmrr.,.s..mn ar at^wF.} Trx•,rEp'�p'•N£�'6',rTlCrt.llxryr r.uxr.Nrrr•r � �T.rx t �r;rM•r Tn•«w rMls n};:�«d tlxr Y!Tr bmr FrT rfd Y«MO MrrrM r'tw+Tn•.'rTH•rb_Tar!• ,r _ .1rrYrk _L._____--- r !1 lrrx t\\� I xTY. 'FTIn.YI.nT.'n.r•1 arc ny «dry r � VVVt-�T xx ~\ �' 4llr[r nHYiM.NTrMr'carer WYxnsrt _ rw�,\ _!�'t3R' =y M.rk�t��'a�L-I' Fwx.'.•+rnrr...•.vnFr•. ...I axJ tNa1*FrY rM r«Mr sw++d Mx—Mr•^ 2a_ •I nsw�u.C]o'M[MY E �yy11•_ —J Yx9Vix•'��■—�•�• �'i� ` ^._ .rr •MVd� I .�mYfY[� —��_ ���-----.�--�--�� NT r h•K.M,rc•Fr rr.Mr x yn IT' wx,r.t ,mm .—Tv eG;n".Ew.M•mTY r+�rn r.,rw,r+r I!n M ra:nC cf Tx9 Nrf9'T1:7.T'N ,TCr,c' �T;iYF 1H llx!V M i I htiy r.M•r Tm M.rhr pla•.•".F,n,Tllw .frylY!• yM •o- r TI.rn•rtr_da•° —w =•1-•1—• v...rE.M::Xa..L 4�*ROc5'49 6:74 • MARANATHA 2 ND ADDITION Final Plat i Requested Council Action : • Motion to adopt Resolution Subject to the six (6) conditions as outlined in the resolution . Item 10b. Final Plat Regular City Council Meeting: June 25, 2012 I I ork Session Agenda i AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 25, 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. Update on The Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1. National League of Cities Service Line Program 2. Sister City Update 3. Success Target Update I II Work n Item i MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 22, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana SUBJECT: The Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding the current direction of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. Background: In 2008 following the results of the PERF study which identified youth violence as a major issue in both of the cities, Mayor Willson and Mayor Lampi convened a meeting of key public leaders to consider the establishment of a joint powers entity that would bring together our collective resources with the goal of making each of the two communities, the best place for youth to grow into productive citizens. Eventually almost all of the invited public entities signed on to the agreement. Over the last several years many initiatives have been fostered by the group. Recently a consensus of the members has been reached that the next step in this journey requires staffing and financial resources to advance the mission of the Strategic Plan (enclosed) that has been developed. The purpose of this work session item is to update the Council and to determine if we are heading in the right direction as far as the City's involvement and financial commitment goes. At this point the recommendation is that The City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park commit $50,000 this year and in each of the next two fiscal years to support this effort. I have enclosed a copy of the recent drafts of the following documents: • Overview of the Alliance current efforts • The Strategic Plan • Roles and Responsibilities of Alliance Members • Proposed Joint Powers Agreement Policy Issues: Is the Alliance heading in a direction that the Council is willing to continue to support? Mission:Ensuring can attractive,clean,4a/e,inclusive cornrnunily than enhances the alualitV oflif'e ,for all people and preserves the public(rust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will ensure a safe and secure community 5. We will value and benefit from the community's demographic makeup and cultural diversity 6. We will increase the engagement of all segments of the community Mission:Errsarin an attractive,Clean,Safe,inclusive calrrrrrraarrity flaarf enhances the quaalitr Y li e ! .for all people argil preserves the public frusf r i Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth May 31, 2012 Summary Description The Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth (Alliance) is an intergovernmental body of top-level decision-makers from Hennepin County; the cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center; the school districts of Osseo, Anoka-Hennepin, Robbinsdale and Brooklyn Center; and Hennepin Technical College and North Hennepin Community College. The Alliance is requesting the active involvement of county officials in this collaborative alliance. Amidst growing concerns in juvenile crime, the Alliance formed a Joint Powers Agreement in 2008 to address regional youth issues and create a vision and action plan to help all youth succeed. The purpose of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance is to leverage the resources of all participating entities to collectively combat conditions that challenge hope in the youth of our community. The'Alliance aims to marshal the forces of education and learning beyond the classroom as a primary tool to ensure youth safety and success. While the intent of the Alliance is focused in the right direction, the representative entities have come to the conclusion that its mission cannot be achieved as it is currently constructed. The existing JPA does not have a fiscal component and there are no dedicated financial or human resources to further the objectives of the collaboration. Additionally, the JPA does not provide a structure for how to work collectively. The work of forwarding Alliance initiatives has been severely constrained by the fact that no one person has been tasked with coordinating, and none of the participating entities have the resources to dedicate to this shared work. In January of 2012, following a strategic planning process with the Alliance membership, a sub-committee of the Alliance began meeting to determine what would be necessary to make the Alliance successful. The sub-committee included the city managers of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, the superintendent of Osseo Area Schools, and Osseo School's director of community engagement. The meetings were coordinated with the assistance of an outside facilitator. The recommendation of the committee was to revise the Joint Powers Agreement to include a financial commitment from participating entities and a clarified structure to work collectively. The financial contributions will allow the Alliance to hire an executive director to serve the critical functions of coordination, communication and implementation of the Alliance's strategic plan. As part of the discussion, staff will further outline the work of the Alliance and its desired outcomes, as well as the proposed structure and entity contributions. The Alliance will not provide direct services to youth, although it may act as a"project incubator;" it analyzes and disseminates information, convenes key stakeholders, 1 I i and builds partnerships for action. The Alliance work plan will be actively measured. The decision to continue beyond 2014 will depend, in large part, on the collaboration demonstrating its ability to successfully leverage the resources of the entities for youth achievement. The Joint Powers Agreement revisions are currently under review by each of the entities, which have indicated their support to present the IPA to their respective boards for approval. The cities will also be drafting a Memorandum of Understanding related to the hiring and management of the executive director to allow the recruitment to move ahead while the IPA approval process is pending. 2 Prepared for Discussion by the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth on April 10,2012 I Brooklyn Bridge Alliance For Youth April 2012 STRATEGIC PLAN Shared Vision The Brooklyn Bridge Alliance assures the success of all youth by challenging the conditions that diminish their hope, by assuring that all youth are connected to a trusted adult who is vested in their success as measured by educational success and mastery of essential skills. Purpose The Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth creates community-wide supports for youth in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park to thrive and ensure they have access to high quality learning opportunities in the out-of-school time'..The Alliance will focus its collective efforts on creating supportive systems,which promote positive outcomes for children and youth. Goals & Strategies 1. Increase successful coordination of stakeholders in communities and among local and state decision-makers, and work to decrease unnecessary competition and avoid duplication. A. Create a multi-year action plan by committed leadership of Alliance partners. B. Identify'sustainable finance strategies to increase access to and quality of out of school time programs. C. Public policy platform established to meet needs of youth and community organizations. D. 'Develop data- driven advocacy strategies to better coordinate activities. E. Convene community stakeholders to meet collective goals of the Alliance. 2. Work collectively to increase access to expanded learning opportunities that are developmentally appropriate and hold community stakeholders accountable for success and improvements. A. Determine what space and facilities are available in the community to provide learning opportunities beyond the classroom. Work with public and private organizations to better leverage space and facilities for programming. B. Utilize a variety of marketing efforts to promote learning opportunities beyond the classroom including; youth to youth,web-based program locators, social networks and families. April 10, 2012 i Prepared for Discussion by the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth on April 10,2012 C. DEnsure a wide variety of program opportunities are available community- wide to appeal to diverse interests. Program fees,time of day and focus will be examined to increase access. D. Examine transportation policies and options to increase access to out of school time opportunities. E. Track non-duplicated numbers of attendance at afterschool programs. F. Conduct a community-wide needs assessment and identify gaps, and or shortages, in programming and opportunities. G. Advocate for healthy foods for children and youth through the support of the after-school snacks program. 3. Improve the quality of expanded learning opportunities and ensure consumers are aware of which programs are of high',quality. A. Encourage community-wide adoption of a single quality assessment tool, such as the YPQA (Youth Programs Quality Assessment) Tool. B. Develop community-wide quality standards Mand improvement plans . C. Develop shared staff trainings for after school and school staff on quality programs and learning opportunities. D. Encourage the use of quality self-assessment tools to monitor program performance. E. Raise awareness about quality learning opportunities beyond the classroom to ensure parents,youth and schools know what quality looks like in programs. F. Strengthen capacity of community organizations to build quality programs and opportunities for young people.' G. Quality and continual Mimprovement efforts are in place. 4. Optimize the use of public and private resources to leverage and maximize existing human and financial resources to enhance the infrastructure and systems that support expanded learning opportunities. A. Map current expenditures of out of school time opportunities by local government agencies to better understand how programs are funded. B. Map current out of school time programs across the community and identify gaps. C. Encourage dedicated funding streams for out of school time opportunities S. Communities will develop agreements and tools to share and coordinate data between expanded learning opportunities and schools.These tools would assists in determining the impact of learning opportunities and determine how to better support youth outcomes. A. Shared data between out of school time programs and schools to measure outcomes. B. Develop long- term goals and data needed to measure success April 10, 2012 Prepared for Discussion by the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth on April 10,2012 C. Establish consistent data to collect from programs and track participation D. Analyze program results and report to stakeholders. E. Use data to show evidence of benefits and make changes as needed. 6. Engage youth in leadership opportunities to support their own growth and development and inform the work of the community. A. Ensure youth input is integrated into all work of the Alliance. B. Establish youth leadership teams to assist with collective work of the Alliance. C. Hire youth assistants for internships opportunities. The Following Outcomes for Children and Youth Will Result from the Collective Actions of the Alliance 1. Youth will have access to high quality programs beyond the classroom that build hope and prevent risk-taking behaviors. 2. Youth are connected to a trusted adult. 3. Youth will master essential life skills; such as problem solving, decision-making, resourcefulness (navigation), responsible, self-directed, skilled communicators. 4. Youth will graduate from high school on time and be prepared for higher education or the workforce. April 10, 2012 Prepared for Discussion by the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth on April 10,2012 Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth April 10, 2012 Roles & Responsibilities Alliance Members 1. Regular or active attendance of alliance meetings and/or active engagement in the alliance 2. Act as a connector by leveraging resources and opportunities to promote and work toward our collective vision and goals 3. Identify benefits of participating in the collaborative work to our own organizations 4. Frequent focused information sharing about what is happing with the alliance within our own organizations 5. Communicate the value of the alliance to the public and to our own organizations 6. Contribute financial or human resources to the collective work 7. Provide oversight on collective goals (monitoring progress and providing feedback) 8. Act as the governing body of the alliance (may also provide fiduciary oversight) 9. Supervise and provide oversight for staff of the alliance 10. Be clear about what people are contributing to and receiving from participating in the alliance (what do we give and get from our collective work) - outline contributions from partners I, agree to the above roles and responsibilities as an Alliance Member on behalf of . My signature acknowledges my intention to adhere to these roles and responsibilities. a Signature Print Name i i Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT The parties to this Agreement are the City of Brooklyn Center, City of Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, Anoka-Hennepin School District, Brooklyn Center School District, Osseo School District, Robbinsdale School District, Hennepin Technical College and North Hennepin Community College, all of which are governmental units within the State of Minnesota. This Agreement is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. ARTICLE I. GENERAL PURPOSE The general purpose of this Agreement is to create a collaborative initiative through which the parties may cooperatively create a community-wide vision that will focus on developing a detailed action plan to collaborate in support of positive youth development opportunities for all youth in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. The parties hereby form a joint powers organization for that purpose, which shall be named The Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth (herein referred to as the "Alliance"). The Alliance will concentrate on encouraging community partnerships that will improve the factors building positive youth development and diminish or eliminate influences that limit healthy youth development. The Alliance will serve as a formal collaborative structure to assemble permanent partnerships within and across member organizations that will be responsible for implementing this action plan. I ARTICLE II. PARTIES Section 2.1. Eligible Members. The governmental units that are eligible to become parties to this Agreement are the City of Brooklyn Center, the City of Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, Anoka-Hennepin School District, Brooklyn Center School District, Osseo School May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4 Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 I District, Robbinsdale School District, Hennepin Technical College, North Hennepin Community College and such other governmental units as are admitted in accordance with Section 2.2. Section 2.2. Membership Process. Any additional governmental unit desiring to enter into this Agreement shall seek approval of the Alliance Board of Directors. If the Board approves the addition of the proposed Member it shall specify the contribution to be made by the proposed Member in accordance with Section 5.1 . Thereafter, the proposed member may become a Member upon the execution of a copy of this Agreement by its duly authorized officers. The governmental unit shall file a duly executed copy of the Agreement, together with a certified copy of the authorizing resolution or other action, with the fiscal agent, whereupon it shall be a Member of the Alliance. ARTICLE III. MEETINGS, ELECTIONS, AND DUTIES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Section 3.1. Fiscal Agent. The City of Brooklyn Park will act as the fiscal agent of the Alliance unless otherwise specified by the Board of Directors. Section 3.2. Alliance Board Members. Each Member designates the Chairperson or presiding officer of its governing body as a voting Director of the Alliance Board of Directors. Each Member shall appoint an Alternate Director who may participate in Board meetings but may only vote in the absence of that Member's Director. The city managers of the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park shall each appoint two additional Directors, one from each city's police department and one from each city's parks and recreation department. Such additional Directors shall each have one vote. Section 3.3. Officers. At the first organizational meeting of the Alliance, the Board shall elect from its members a Chair and Vice Chair or co-Chairs, a Secretary and a Treasurer. The office of Secretary and Treasurer may be combined. The new officers shall take office for a period of one year after the date on which they are elected. May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4 i Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 An officer may serve only while a Director. The Board may appoint a Recording Secretary and Assistant Treasurer who need not be Directors. Section 3.4. Meetings. At the first organizational meeting, or as soon thereafter as may reasonably be done, the Board shall determine its procedures, including the time, place, and frequency of its meetings. The Chair shall ensure that notice by email, mail or personal delivery shall be given of the time and place of the meeting to all Directors. The Alliance shall comply with the requirement of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Statutes, Chapter 13D. Section 3.5. Duties of Alliance Members. The Alliance and its Members will work to support the shared vision and implement strategies that best leverage resources, both human and financial, to improve access and quality of positive youth development opportunities. ARTICLE IV. ALLIANCE POWERS Section 4.1. Employment. The Board may employ permanent and temporary employees, as it may require, and determine their qualifications, duties and compensation. Section 4.2. Local Services. The Board may use the services of staff of the Members if the Member agrees to accommodate the request. Section 4.3. Contracts. The Board may execute contracts or other instruments as are necessary for the purposes of this Agreement. Section 4.4. Task Force Members. The Board may appoint such task forces or committees as it deems necessary. The task forces or committees so appointed may include persons who are not Directors and representatives of parties that are not Members, but must include a representative of at least one Member. May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4 Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 Section 4.5. Expenditures. The Board may receive and expend funds from public and private sources for its purposes. The Board may accept gifts or grants of money or other property for its purposes. Section 4.6. Insurance. The Board shall secure public liability insurance with such limits as it deems appropriate. However, such insurance shall provide coverage for at least the amount of the liability limits set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04. Section 4.7. General. The Alliance may take all such other actions as are necessary or convenient to carry out its purposes. ARTICLE V. FINANCING Section 5.1. Funding. Operating funds of the Alliance shall be provided and furnished in each calendar year commencing January 1, 2013 and thereafter by each of the Members in accordance with the following schedule: City of Brooklyn Center $50,000 City of Brooklyn Park $50,000 Hennepin County $5000 Anoka-Hennepin School District $5,000 Brooklyn Center School District $5,000 Osseo Public Schools $10,000 Robbinsdale School District $5,000 Hennepin Technical College $5,000 North Hennepin Community College $_5,000 Such funds shall be provided by the Alliance Members within thirty (30) days of receipt of a copy of the budget approved by the board submitted on an annual basis. With the support of two-thirds of May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4 i Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 Directors, the Chair may request and the Members shall pay an increase in these amounts of up to an additional 15 (fifteen) percent for each year this Agreement is in effect. Section 5.2. Base Budget. For the calendar year 2013, the Board shall prepare a budget as soon as is practicable after its organization. Each year thereafter, the Board shall prepare an annual base budget for the ensuing calendar year. The budget shall show estimated expenses of operation and the amount to be paid by each of the Members, to be apportioned among them, up to the amount specified in Section 5.1. If a majority of the Directors vote in favor of the budget and if those voting in favor include representatives of half or more of the Members, the budget shall be approved. After the base budget has been approved, the Chair shall give written notice to each of the Members of the amount owing for the base budget. The funds for such budget shall be provided by Members within thirty (30) days of written notice. If the amount of the budget is less than the sum of the contributions of the Member listed in Section 5.1, the contribution of each Member shall be prorated on the basis of the amounts listed in Section 5.1. Section 5.3. Supplementary Budget. The Chair may prepare and provide a supplementary budget in addition to the base budget. Any funding of the supplementary budget shall be by voluntary contributions by Members, income, gifts, grants and sources other than public funds provided under subsections 5.1 and 5.2. The supplementary budget shall be approved in the same manner as the base budget. Section 5.4. Interest. Interest accrued on Alliance funds may be used by the Board for any lawful purpose. ARTICLE VI. WITHDRAWAL Any Member may at any time give written notice of withdrawal from the Alliance. Withdrawal after January 1 st of any year shall not relieve the Member from its obligation to contribute its share to the budget for that year in accordance with Article V. May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4 Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 ARTICLE VII. DISSOLUTION Section 7.1. Dissolution. The organization shall be dissolved upon adoption of resolutions of dissolution by a majority of all remaining Members of the Alliance. Section 7.2. Assets Upon Dissolution. Upon dissolution, the remaining non-cash assets of the organization, after payment of all obligations, shall be distributed among the remaining Members as determined by the Board. Cash assets shall be distributed among remaining Members prorated by the contributions specified in Section 5.1. ARTICLE VIII. DURATION This Agreement shall continue in effect until December 31, 2014 unless the parties agree upon an Agreement extension. ARTICLE IX. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement shall become effective on January 1, 2013. City of Brooklyn Center By: Its: And by: Its: City of Brooklyn Park May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4 I i i Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 By: Its: And by: Its: Hennepin County By: Its: And by: Its: Anoka-Hennepin School District By: Its: And by: Its: Brooklyn Center School District By: Its: And by: Its: May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4 i Prepared for Review by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for on May 31,2012 Osseo School District By: Its: And by: Its: Robbinsdale School District By: Its: And by: Its: Hennepin Technical College By: Its: And by: Its: North Hennepin Community College By: Its: And by: Its: May 31, 2012 401412v2 CLL BR291-4