Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016 06-13 CCP Regular SessionAGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 13, 2016 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 3.Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4.Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center June 13, 2016 AGENDA 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. —provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2.Invocation —7 p.m. 3.Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4.Roll Call 5.Pledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1.May 23, 2016— Study Session 2.May 23, 2016 - Regular Session 3. May 23, 2016 - Work Session b. Licenses C. Resolution Adopting Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2015 d. Resolution Accepting a Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (East of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 13, 2016 e. Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (East of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements 7.Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations —None. 8.Public Hearings —None. 9. Planning Commission Items a.Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-004 Submitted by Matt Zdon Requesting Approval of a Variance to City Code Section 35-400 - Minimum District Requirements, Which Would Allow an Encroachment of 26.7 Feet from the Required 35-Foot Front Yard Setback Standards for a New Garage Structure (Located at 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. b.Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006 Submitted by Anthony Nelson for Special Use Permit Approval of a Special Home Occupation Allowing a Silk-Screen Printing and Image Printing Operation as a Home-Based Business in the R-2 Two Family Residence District (Located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental Licenses 1.Resolution Approving a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 4013 65th Ave N 2.Resolution Approving a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5444 Dupont Ave N 3. Resolution Approving a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 2913 Nash Rd Requested Council Action: —Mayor poll audience for applicants to address Council. —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing. —Receive testimony from applicants. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action on rental license applications and mitigation plans. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 13, 2016 b. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City Requested Council Action: —Motion to remove item from table. —Council discuss. —Motion to adopt ordinance or take other action on ordinance. 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment Agenda Items Tabled or Continued An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City —This item was tabled at the April 25, 2016, City Council meeting and discussed at the May 23, 2016, City Council Work Session. AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 13, 2016 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. Surly Darkness Day Event PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.Resident Economic Stability Update Including Diverse Businesses Opportunities 2.Fire Department Structure 3.Use of Hearing Officer Policy 4.Centennial Park Improvements 5.Solar Energy Options 6.Paperless Packets Report 7. Civic Group Policy - Mayor Willson City Council Agenda Item No. Ga MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 23, 2016 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 April Graves (arrived at 6:06 p.m.), Kris Lawrence- Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Interim Assistant to the City Manager Reggie Edwards, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Michaela Kuj awa-Daniels, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS City Manager Curt Boganey requested discussion on Item 8a, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Fire Prevention. He stated that in the Fire Chief's memorandum No. 6, Section 5-209, is incorrectly numbered and should read, Section 5-205. He also stated that No. 7, Section 5-2 12, does not require any changes, the current and proposed language in the ordinance read the same. MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Dan Ryan stated he was absent for the May 9, 2016, City Council meeting, and asked if Consent Agenda Items 6c and 6d will be added to the budget process and if discussion regarding bonds for those projects will occur at that time. Mr. Boganey replied that is correct, the bonds for the Evergreen Park Area and Brooklyn Boulevard Reconstruction Projects will be discussed at a later date during the budget planning process. He stated that both projects have cost estimated and responsibility will be split between several agencies and the total costs should be within the City's means. He also noted due to the size of these projects and the fact they require more upfront efforts, the City is seeing them earlier to plan accordingly, however, it does not commit the City to any funding at this time. Councilmember Graves arrived in Council Chambers at 6:06 p.m. Mr. Boganey stated he received a letter from Maurice McGough, Region V Director, Office of 05/23/16 -1- DRAFT Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, inviting him to serve on the Fair Housing Implementation Council Select Advisory Committee. He stated the Committee's focus is to help establish recommendations and do analysis on many issues raised regarding the diverse housing needs of the communities, one issue raised and currently being discussed is fair housing choices. He stated it would be helpful to have someone from Brooklyn Center on the Committee, and noted he agreed to serve unless the City Council had objections. No Councilmembers had any objections. Mayor Willson stated he would also like to serve if possible. Mr. Boganey suggested Mayor Willson contact Mr. McGough directly to discuss him serving on the Committee as well. Mayor Willson agreed. Mr. Boganey stated that Senator Amy Klobuchar will be the guest speaker at the May 31, 2016, Brooklyn Center Rotary meeting. He stated all Council Members are invited to attend and asked Mayor Willson if he would introduce Senator Klobuchar at the meeting. Mayor Willson replied he would be happy to introduce her and confirmed the location is the Doubletree Hotel and that it starts at 12:30 p.m. Mr. Boganey confirmed the details are correct and stated he hopes to see all Councilmembers there. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS WATER TOWER PAINTING PROJECT CONCEPT Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug introduced this item. He provided background on this project and a presentation on the project status. He presented two recommendations for the Water Tower No. 3 Project; "A" Paint the water tower an off white color and use the current logo and lettering, or "B" Paint the water tower now, employ a designer to rebrand the logo, and engage the community in the process. He noted recommendation "B" would be a process which could take several months to complete and ultimately conclude in the spring of 2017. Mr. Lillehaug reviewed the current water tower design and presented many examples of other water tower designs. He noted one of his favorite designs is the City of Minnetonka' s water tower. Mayor Willson stated he didn't see a lot of options that were "outside the box". He asked if there would be room to have Brooklyn Center's mission statement on the water tower. Mr. Lillehaug replied affirmatively. Mayor Willson asked if there would be any LED lighting on the water tower. Mr. Lillehaug replied there will be LED lighting on the top of the water tower. Mayor Willson stated he likes the idea of having a smaller LED sign attached to the water tower to display notifications or announcements to the community. Mr. Lillehaug replied they can look at that option when they have further discussion on this item. Mr. Boganey stated if rebranding is the direction the City Council decides to go, he thinks involving the community somehow in the decision would be a good idea. 05/23/16 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Myszkowski stated she feels the current logo makes no sense and she would like to see a clean, white water tower, with an attractive image on it. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson echoed her thoughts on the current logo. Councilmember Graves stated she likes the idea of rebranding using an image that relates to the many nice parks or creeks within the City. Councilmember Ryan stated he likes the idea of rebranding as well. He stated he feels doing a new image featuring the Earle Brown Heritage Center logo would be a good idea. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson concurred. Mayor Willson stated he feels they should move forward with recommendation "B" and open up some communication with the community allowing them to submit ideas and vote on the final design. It was the consensus of the City Council to move forward with recommendation "B" and rebrand the City's logo and lettering by employing a designer as well as engaging the community in the process and allowing them to vote on a final decision. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adjourn the Study Session to Informal Open Forum with the City Council at 6:44 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/23/16 -3-DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 23, 2016 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 April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Interim Assistant to the City Manager Reggie Edwards, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Director of Community Activities, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, Acting Fire Chief Gary Hendrickson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Michaela Ku] awa-Daniels, 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 Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2.INVOCATION Councilmember Graves offered the invocation. 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 05/23/16 -1- DRAFT Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Interim Assistant to City Manager Reggie Edwards, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, Acting Fire Chief Gary Hendrickson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Michaela Kujawa-Daniels, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6.APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.May 2, 2016— Continued Board of Appeal & Equalization 2.May 9, 2016—Study Session 3. May 9, 2016 - Regular Session 6b. LICENSES MECHANICAL Air Corps, LLC All Systems Mechanical LLC Amco Inc. CDM Heating & A/ C Good News Heating & Air DBA Kingsway Plumbing Holl-Tec Installations, LLC McDonnell Plumbing & Htg LLC Nordic Services, Inc. Steinkraus Plumbing Inc. Stem Heating/Cooling Inc. RENTAL RENEWAL (TYPE III— one-year license) 1100 69th Avenue N. 3213 62nd Avenue N. 5043 Brooklyn Boulevard 2230 Terminal Road, Roseville 2282 Terminal Road, Roseville 2422 Millennium Drive, Elgin 6040 340th Street, Stacy 451 Babcock Circle, Delano 772 13th Avenue, Foley 19412 Queen Circle, Elk River 11965 Larc Industrial Boulevard #600, Burnsville 112 E 5th Street, Ste. 101, Chaska 34181 180th Avenue, Red Wing Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master (Missing cpted follow-up and 1 ARM meeting) David Cheng (Missing cpted follow-up) Invitation Homes 05/23/16 -2- DRAFT 6601 Camden Drive 5025 Drew Avenue N. (Passed with Weather Deferral) 5111 Drew Avenue N. 7131 Halifax Avenue N. (Passed with Weather Deferral) 6012 Kyle Avenue N. RENEWAL (TYPE II- two-year license) 5000 France Avenue N. 3349 49th Avenue N. 6013 Colfax Avenue N. 5 82 Ewing Avenue N. 5131 Howe Lane 5730 James Avenue N. 5443 Logan Avenue N. 3019 Mumford Road 7243 Riverdale Road Leroy Massaquoi (Missing 1 ARM meeting) Ryan Partners, LLC Kin Chew Open Hands, Inc. James Hager Dean M. Gannon & Michael Nightingale Isaac Obi Nathan Nemmers Invitation Homes Rafik Moore/RTO Investments LLC Dan Paul Wagner Kin Chew Morris Matthews Invitation Homes RENEWAL (TYPE I— three-year license) 5425 70th Circle Ali Sajjad 6615 Camden Drive Calvin Johnson 4900 Zenith Avenue N. Invitation Homes SIGNHANGER Designer Sign Systems 9975 Flanders Court, Blame Install This Awning & Sign 4835 Lyndale Avenue N., Mpls JC Signs and Graphics 6163 125th Avenue, Clear Lake 6c.ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 2.07, 3.01, 4.01, 4.02, 4.06, 4.07, 5.04, 5.05, 5.06 AND 5.10 OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER —APPROVE FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 27, 2016 6d.APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY ST. ALPHONSUS CATHOLIC CHURCH, 7025 HALIFAX AVENUE NORTH, FOR A SOCIAL EVENT TO BE HELD JULY 15 THROUGH 17, 2016. 6e. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE BUILDING CODE —APPROVE FIRST READING AND SET SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 27, 2016. 05/23/16 -3- DRAFT 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-74 ORDERING THE CORRECTION OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND FURTHER FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCES, SAFETY AND HEALTH HAZARDS WITH RESPECT TO THE REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 6037 COLFAX AVENUE NORTH, BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK 1, DAHINDEN'S SECOND ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND ITS OWNERS, SHAWN AND SHANNON GILLESPIE Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-75 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF JOHN HARLOW FOR OVER 41 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the Resolution. He stated he has had the privilege of working with Mr. John Harlow for a long time and stated he is among one of the most accomplished, hard-working, responsible people he has ever known. He stated Mr. Harlow possesses all the characteristics of a leader any organization would be lucky to have. He noted it is with great privilege and great loss, that he recommends the City Council adopts this Resolution. Mayor Willson invited Mr. Harlow forward to say a few words. Mr. Harlow expressed his gratitude to the City Council, staff and citizens of Brooklyn Center for the opportunities he was provided and stated he has extremely enjoyed his tenure with the City. CouncilmemberS presented Mr. Harlow with a plaque, took some photographs with him and thanked him for his service to the City. Mayor Willson read in full a Resolution expressing recognition and Appreciation of John Harlow for over 41 years of dedicated service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-75 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of John Harlow for over 41 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-76 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER SONS OF THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 630 IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASING A THERMAL IMAGER AND PAGERS FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT -4-DRAFT 05/23/16 Mayor Willson invited Acting Fire Chief Gary Hendrickson to come forward to say a few words regarding this Resolution. Chief Hendrickson stated the department was extremely grateful for the donations provided by the Brooklyn Center Sons of the American Legion. He stated they were in need of the items and appreciate the American Legion's generosity. Mayor Willson read in full a Resolution expressing appreciation for the donation of the Brooklyn Center Sons of the American Legion Post 630 in support of purchasing a thermal imager and pagers for the Fire Department. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-76 Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Center Sons of the American Legion Post 630 in support of purchasing a thermal imager and pagers for the Fire Department. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. ORDINANCE NO. 2016-05 AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO FIRE PREVENTION City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed ordinance amendment relating to Fire Prevention in the City. This ordinance is recommended by Fire Chief Lee Gatlin. It was noted this item was first read on April 25, 2016; published in the official newspaper on May 5, 2016; and is offered this evening for Public Hearing and adoption. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2016-05 Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Fire Prevention. Motion passed unanimously. 05/23/16 -5- DRAFT 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-77 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-005, SUBMITTED BY PARENTS IN COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. (PICA) REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE C-i SERVICE/OFFICE DISTRICT TO OPERATE A LICENSED DAYCARE FACILITY WITH EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS AND EDUCATION (AUBREY DELLA EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CENTER), LOCATED AT 6415 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-005 and advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at its May 23, 2016, meeting. Mr. Benetti provided a presentation that referenced the location of the facility, included a site map, parking lot information, an image of the playground, as well as, an image of the banner currently being used as the center's business sign and the fencing surrounding the facility that requires repair. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked if there was a timeframe for the fence to be repaired. Mr. Rico Alexander, Director of the Aubrey Della Center, was invited forward by Mr. Benetti to respond to the Councilmembers questions. Mr. Alexander stated they are in the process of replacing the banner being used as the center's business sign with a permanent sign and are planning to have the fence repaired prior to opening the center. Councilmember Graves stated she is a big fan of the Head Start programs, noting both her children went through their programs. She stated it's great for the kids and parents within the community. She asked if this facility had been considered when the City mapped the area restrictions for Level III Predatory Offenders. Mr. Benetti replied affirmatively, noting it is in very close proximity to a school and was included in the restricted areas previously. Councilmember Myszkowski stated she is very excited about the opening of this center. She asked Mr. Alexander how many children the center will serve. Mr. Alexander stated they will have in total approximately 184 children, including those who only attend part-time. Councilmember Myszkowski asked if the building will have the capacity to provide services for all children in need in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Alexander stated that they certainly hope for that but it depends on several variables. He noted that if they need more space to accommodate the children in the community, they would seek out more space in the future. Councilmember Myszkowski stated she serves on the board for the Community Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) which is located down the road from the new center. She noted if he wanted to get involved with a local organization as well, they can always use the help. Mr. Alexander replied stating he will certainly do that and appreciates the offer. 05/23/16 -6- DRAFT Councilmember Ryan stated he is happy this center is in the City and his only concern would be the safety of the children being picked up and dropped off with the busy street located in front of the center. Mr. Alexander stated they provide transportation to all children who come to the center. They have 21-passenger buses with 5-point harnesses and they are extremely safe. He stated there is door-to-door service with a staff member accompanying each child to and from the bus. He noted the only exception would be if parents decide to drive their child to the center themselves. Mayor Willson stated the center is very welcomed into the community. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-77 Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-005, Submitted by Parents in Community Action, Inc. (PICA) Requesting Consideration of a Special Use Permit in the C-i Service/Office District to Operate a Licensed Daycare Facility with Early Childhood Programs and Education (Aubrey Della Early Childhood Family Development Center), located at 6415 Brooklyn Boulevard. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS lOa. CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSES Mayor Willson explained the streamlined process that is used to consider Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental Licenses. Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide testimony on any of the rental licenses as listed on tonight's meeting agenda. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a motion on Agenda Items lOal through 10a5. lOal. 3313 63RD AVENUE NORTH 10a2. 6106 ALDRICH AVENUE NORTH 100. 6642 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH 10a4. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-78 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6418 MAJOR AVENUE NORTH 10a5. RESOLUTION NO. 2016-79 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 7033 UNITY AVENUE NORTH Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for the following: 3313 63rd Avenue North; 6106 Aldrich Avenue North; 6642 Dupont Avenue North; and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2016-78 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 6418 Major Avenue North, and RESOLUTION NO. 2016-79 Approving a Type IV Rental License for 7033 Unity Avenue North with the requirement that the mitigation plans and all applicable ordinances must be strictly adhered to before renewal licenses would be considered. 05/23/16 -7- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. 11.COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • May 17, 2016: Neighborhood Meeting at Evergreen Park • May 26, 2016: Lions Club Meeting at Scoreboard Pizza Councilmember Myszkowski reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • May 5, 2016: Earle Brown Days Committee Meeting • May 17, 2016: Neighborhood Meeting at Evergreen Park • May 18, 2016: CEAP Board Meeting • May 21, 2016: Lions Club Crime Prevention Book Sale at Brooklyn Center High School Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: May 26, 2016: Brooklyn Center Luncheon Councilmember Graves reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • May 9, 2016: Racial Justice Speaking Event St. Paul • May 12— 15, 2016: Young Officials Conference and Training, Chicago • May 16, 2016: Youth Council Meeting • May 17, 2016: Neighborhood Meeting at Evergreen Park o May 18, 2016: Taught last yoga class to youth group Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: • May 12, 2016: Metropolitan Council Blueline Corridor Committee Meeting • May 13, 2016: Senator Amy Klobuchar Speaking Engagement at Hazelden • May 14, 2016: Meeting with Realtors for Property in Brooklyn Center Idea • May 17, 2016: Neighborhood Meeting at Evergreen Park 12.ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 7:48 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/23/16 -8- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MAY 23, 2016 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 8:13 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager/Executive Director Curt Boganey, Interim Assistant to the City Manager Reggie Edwards, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Michaela Kuj awa-Daniels, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CHAPTER 12 AMENDMENT LIMITING THE DENSITY OF RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan started discussion on the proposed Chapter 12 Ordinance Amendment, Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. He asked Councilmembers/Commissioners to review the document provided titled 12-901 Ordinance Amendment, Placing Density Limit on Single Family Rental Properties: Work Session Questions/Comments. Mayor/President Willson stated that would be helpful. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan read through the document line by line. Mayor/President Willson stated if they move forward with this ordinance they will need to consider extenuating circumstances and hardships and have a process which allows those individuals to seek an exception that allows them to rent their home for a certain period of time in certain circumstances. City Manager/Executive Director Curt Boganey stated he is not in a position to respond to all questions in that document currently, but he would answer what he could. In response to questions Al and A2, he stated he does feel there is a profit based motive for realtors to not want to pass the ordinance. He stated based upon most of their comments on this item, they seem to be reflective of their bias. In response to question A3, he stated he believes the MAAR has the most reliable and current data available. He noted he would be surprised if there is better information out there. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he agrees with Mr. Boganey' s analysis. 05/23/16 -1- DRAFT Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski asked how many rental license applications the City regularly receives. Mr. Boganey stated he does not believe the moratorium has ended as of the current date. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski stated she would like to see data showing the number of single family homes being converted into rental properties within the City. She noted her assumption would be it is considerably fewer than when the recession occurred in 2008 and the few years following. Mr. Boganey stated he thinks when looking at the decision if they will adopt this ordinance, it would serve them better to think about the housing market as it currently is, stable and normal. As opposed to thinking of it being an exceptional period in the market such as the 2008 recession. He stated if the ordinance is adopted it would create a cap and limitation on the ability to convert some properties into rental homes, and while that may be an issue if another catastrophic period occurs, the question that needs to be considered is if the ordinance is adopted and it stays in effect for a long period of time, will there be more value to having it in place for the stable and normal periods in the market. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he has personal experience with property management companies and he believes it is a valid observation to make, that homeowners who occupy their homes have more motivation to maintain their home value and neighborhood character, whereas renters and landlords don't have the same motivation in most cases. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski stated she is having a hard time finding the rationale behind adopting this ordinance. She stated she would like to see more data on the homes that are being poorly maintained to distinguish between if they are renter occupied or owner occupied. She also stated she would like to see data on which homes have what license types and if they have maintained them. She noted the City Council/EDA may not need her vote to adopt this ordinance, but she is not in a position to make a decision as she needs more data. Mayor/President Willson stated there have been many good points raised. He stated he feels the City has good ordinances and codes in place currently that help keep rental properties well maintained. He stated the issue is residents are bringing forward their concerns with having too many rental properties in their community, 5-7 blocks are currently over 30% rental density. He stated he is comfortable moving forward with this change; however, he wants to ensure there is some sort of process which allows for hardships and mitigating circumstances in which if a home owner would need to rent their home in a block that would put that block over the allowed 30% rental density, they would have that option. He stated an example could be a homeowner who is a member of the National Guard and gets ordered to deploy overseas. In that case, an administrative hearing or something similar would allow that resident to bring forth his circumstances of which he needs to rent his home, regardless if it will cause the block of his home to exceed the 30% rental density ordinance. Mayor/President Willson stated it could be for a certain period of time having a finite ending date, in which, the expectation would be the owner returns and occupies the home down the line. He noted the only people speaking out in open hearing have been realtors and that credits to Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan's previous points regarding their motive being profit. 05/23/16 -2- DRAFT Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he appreciated what Mayor/President Willson mentioned in regard to potential military members. He noted his intention is not to stigmatize renters; rather his intention is to remember what made the City great, the homeowners who started their lives here and built the community. Mr. Boganey stated the issue he is hearing is that the ordinance will prevent renters from coming to Brooklyn Center; however, the data doesn't support that or show that will be an issue. He stated they should speak with West St. Paul officials to learn how they handle any hardships or exceptional situations, given they have a 10% rental density ordinance in effect, they most likely have experienced it many times. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he spoke with someone under the Director of the City of West St. Paul and she indicated the program is working very well and it has high citizen support. He noted there was a high demand for the ordinance due to neighborhood issues similar to what Brooklyn Center has also dealt with in the past. The consensus of the Council is to seek information from West St. Paul regarding what their experience has been with situations they have concerns about. Councilmember/Cbmmissioner Graves stated she is frustrated with this proposed ordinance. She stated she hasn't seen any letters in support of this ordinance from residents. She stated she has however received a few letters from residents against the ordinance. She noted she needs more information to make an informed decision. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he has a good amount of personal insight regarding the requests from residents for an ordinance in support of a rental density limit. He stated since 2006 while running for Office, he and Mayor/President Willson have personally knocked on almost every door in the City and they were informed this is a problem residents want addressed. He stated this ordinance is the way to address the issue. He noted the lack of support of the ordinance from residents, he believes, is due to the lack of knowledge regarding its proposed existence. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski stated there are plenty of issues with home owner occupied properties and as long as they continue to monitor the expected standards of all properties, that should keep the community in good standing. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she believes if this ordinance passes there will be a reduction in renters and that it is a code enforcement issue mainly. She noted she would like to see data on the police calls and get clarification on what types of properties they are coming from. She stated ultimately she does not agree with telling people what they should or shouldn't do with their homes. City Attorney Gilchrist stated his initial research was focused on the Winona case and the powers involved. He stated he would like to look into it more and get useful information on the differences between Winona and Brooklyn Center. He noted he does not believe there is a yes or no answer on this issue but more information could only help. 05/23/16 -3- DRAFT Councilmember/Commjssjoner Ryan stated they need to remember there are ownership rights on both sides of this issue and they are not taking rights away from owners, owners have rights regarding if they want to live next to several rental properties. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated it is important to take into consideration that renting and low income are not conclusive. She stated in reality they usually pay more for renting a home than a person with a mortgage on a comparable property. She noted renters of single family homes are usually dual income households and families with children and it may not be that they can't own a home but it is possible they don't want to own for whatever reasons. Mr. Boganey stated it is simply the data that shows the correlation between rental properties and police calls, and it can be assumed if nothing is done to mitigate the potential issues that many concentrations of rental homes in a community could have, blocks of homes could end up having excessive code violations and police calls, which in turn may affect the stability of the neighborhood and the city. Mayor/President Willson asked if there was still consensus to gather more information before deciding if they want to remove this item from the table at a future meeting. Mr. Boganey stated if directed, staff can get information on the police calls for their review; however, getting data together on code violations may be too complicated at this time. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to put this item on the agenda for the next meeting to review and decide then if they want to move forward with the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/23/16 -4- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b [EI1IJ[J I fl U KA Uh'A I Dk'A (I] 1I PlIIk'A I DATE: June 6, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Rozlyn Tousignant, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses on June 13, 2016. 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 DEVICE Theisen Vending Company Family Dollar Store #5110 Family Dollar Store 44514 Jammin Wings GARBAGE HAULER Allied Waste Services of North America LLC Darling Ingredients, Inc GarbageMan of Twin Cities dba GarbageMan, A Green Co. LePage & Sons Inc T & L Sanitation Walz Brothers Sanitation MECHANICAL Alliance Heating and Cooling Central Heating & Cooling LLC Crown Drain Cleaning MAG Mechanical New Century Systems Riccar Heating & A/C River City Sheet Metal Inc dbã River City Furnace Soderlin Plumbing, Htg & Air Summit Commercial Facilities Grp 2335 Nevada Avenue North, Golden Valley 2105 57th Ave N 6211 Brooklyn Blvd 2590 Freeway Blvd 8661 Rendova Street NE, Circle Pines 9000 382nd Avenue, Blue Earth 13895 Industrial Park Blvd #100, Plymouth 23602 University Avenue NW, Bethel P.O. Box 49695, Blame P.O. Box 627, Maple Grove 2934 Colfax Ave, Minneapolis 26009 Nightingale Street NW, Isanti 3232 9QthAve, Blame 7100 Medicine Lk Rd, New Hope 20150 75th Ave, Ste.B, Corcoran 2387 Station Pkwy NW, Andover 8260 Main Street NE, Suite 39, Fridley 3612 Cedar Ave S, Minneapolis 8818 N 7th Ave, Golden Valley Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust III]JI[i1 I I kVA LA I Mk'A (I) 1WI WA'A I Swenson Heating and A/C 12723 320 1h Ave, Princeton RENTAL See attached report. SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Leroy Signs, Inc 6325 Welcome Ave N, Brooklyn Park Signminds Inc 1400 Quincy Street NE, Mpls Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust [S[I1U[SJ I fl I V ak'A L I Dk"4 (I) 71I mJ I 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 11-2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 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 Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than I 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust (13 4-' >- 0 Ii) (I,Ca)U -J (13 a)CI') 0'c-cii(-3 ita)LI) 0 03- if)000 0 00 000 0000Q000000000000000C 000 0 00 000 0000000000000000000 CP u, *= ==—==========^^=^—=== U CL CL - ci* - (4* cci (1).su-JN -C 4-, LI)C C C C 0 C C C C 0 C C C C C C C C 0 0 C C 0*-—ZZZ LI)q ciU to o =-—-=—==E - -==== =—= ==—= U, U .C5 ci) cci c-CLI)CC -LI)-4 U)C LI)C t m C N N -m C N 1€ oU >-—-—---—------———-- '5 cC -- C-)—J -j Ul-C C C I- —->-w -0 Q(I)0 00 -C0 C (1)--C (4 E E -+CE cci2EC0 cci E =4—o w C Z ,,LnW o ZECOo=(4?E 0 S o<E<0)< 0 4 110 C C ,Eo Ca --Ccci C----->---E .o c vXiE 0)W-ECE =0 0<—-?0 m Ln ca CL 0 -ra -Fa-_---Fo 0)0)ci)0)ci)ci)0)ci) ci)ci)ci)ci)ci)ci)(1)ci)ci)ci) ci)(1)ci)(1)0)0)U C—c cci cci ci)C C CCC C C CCC C C C C C C CC C C C C C Cci)Cci)ci)ci)w w (1)0 w (1)0 (I)0)0)w ci)0)(I)ci)ci)ci)ci)ci)(I)ci)(1) cl^0 —--Cx CC:cc ci w ci E E E 00 m ci m u 'E E c-(Li..ciLI-mLI-cciLI-ciLI-cciLI-cciLI-(ciLi cciLI-COLI-mLI-CciLi.mLI-CciLL (ciU..mU..IL..COCciU..mLi.. ci) ci)C) m Li.. I LI- LI- (1) LI- ci)ci)0)ci)ci)0)0)ci)(1)ci)ci)ci)ci)ci)(1)(D (D (1)0)ci)=°E EC L/)V)(I)L/)U)V)V)LI)V)V)(4&)(/) Z (.0maiWZN -o>Z Z Z Z ci)>ZZZ ci)ZCO ZWZZZ Z <0)0)(1)aj cu <<ci)-°.Cci)ci)ZZci)<C<<00)>>> 0)- ci)T C ..0 C C C ..c:c:CO c:E E w-'cci00 .Rcci i0 -Fa 00 (I)Cci)I (1)N 1 I---LI)CN 41Co -iN 4-'00 4-'0)(4l_,i -o—>-'-Cci ---cci 0(D 0 Z 0Ztio C C 0000 m N C LI)C N 00 C NCLI)C -1 C -1 -LI)LI)N N 00 CO C N LI)-4 NC --1 CM NM NM -1 0 N N C 4 C (1oc-fl N C C m -1 W MN LI)-1NC -'--'-4 -4 N C0)c-flOmCO (00)Ct -c N N NN NNO)0)..0)0LI)(C)aCNu)mCC:LOH>-LI).C:U)If)N m LI)N -1 If)LI)LI)U)U)N LI)c U)N LI)LI)(0(0 LCD a)0 a)a- ci)a->-4-,a)U, a) a) >- .y rn II- 0 a)> 0_ a) CL 0 0 CS 4-,0 tLo '4, C a) U,a- C >- a) I— •a) —U, Ct ** ** * U,a)x 4-, >- a)0 0 a- -oC(U a) 4-, 4-, >-4-, C) a) (U U,a) a)a- 0 Q- City Council Agenda Item No. 6c DATE: June 13, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director W12 SUBJECT: 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution accepting the 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Background: On June 6, 2016 the City Council and Financial Commission met in a joint work session to hear from James Eichten of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Co. (MMKR), the City's auditors, about the results of their audit of the City's financial statements for the period ended December 31, 2015. During the session Mr. Eichten reviewed the purpose of the audit process and the results of his firm's audit of the 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most importantly, the City received an unmodified opinion, which is commonly referred to as a "clean audit opinion". This means that, in the auditor's opinion, the financial statements conform with applicable accounting standards. In addition to formulating an opinion on the City's financial statements, the auditors reviewed the City's internal controls, legal compliance and financial management practices. Those results were included in the Special Purpose Report which is issued under a separate cover. The City also expended more than $750,000 in federal financial assistance during 2015. This triggers an additional audit procedure known as the A-133 or Single Audit. The audit reviews for proper receipt, use, recording and reporting of federal financial assistance. The City's federal Awards that were subject to the audit included the $14.6 million of Capitalization Grants for Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which was passed through the Minnesota Public Facilities Authority. The Single Audit found no discrepancies or internal control issues and expressed an unmodified opinion on the presentation of the financial statements for the purposes of the A-133 regulations. The City implemented GASB Statement Nos. 68 and 71 during the year ended December 31, 2015. These statements provide new guidance on accounting and financial reporting for pension accounted for in the financial statements of plan employers. Implementation of these new standards resulted in an adjustment to the beginning equity reported in the City's government- wide and proprietary fund financial statements. Overall, the information in the 2015 CAFR continues to show the City is in excellent financial condition and should continue to monitor itself to ensure its continued fiscal good health. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 1IJ[J I U I U MhYA L'A I 3 0) 11I )IBA'A I The attached resolution ratifies the work done by City staff and accepts the CAFR, Audit Opinion and related materials. Budget Issues: The 2015 CAFR conveys the fiscal condition of the City as of December 31, 2015 and lays the groundwork for understanding the financial resources available to the City when planning for thefuture. Strategic Priorities: Financial Stability Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2015 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by State Statute and City Charter to annually produce financial statements for submission to the Office of theState Auditor by June 30 each year; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to provide an auditor's opinion as to the representations in the annual financial statements; and WHEREAS, the financial statements have been audited by the independent CPA firm of Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. asrequired; and WHEREAS, Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. opined that the general purpose financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Brooklyn Center as of December 31, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Brooklyn Center for the calendar year ended December 31, 2015, and all supporting documentation, is hereby adopted as the official financial record for the 2015 fiscal year. -Time l3.2016 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. 6d COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 7, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Mike Albers, Project Engineer 1* THROUGH: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting a Feasibility Report and Calling for a Public Hearing, Improvement Project No. 201 606, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (east of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the resolution accepting a feasibility report and calling for a public hearing, Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (east of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements. If approved by the City Council, legal notice would be published, and all property owners who could potentially be assessed for improvements would receive a Notice of Public Hearing via mail. Background: The project was established by the City Council on July 27, 2015, by Resolution 2015-118, for the residential neighborhood area commonly referred to as the Freeway Boulevard Area. This action was taken in accordance with the Capital Improvement Program, which identifies the Freeway Boulevard between Xerxes Avenue and the existing bridge over Shingle Creek for street improvements during the 2016 construction season. The attached feasibility report provides a summary of the project evaluation process and street improvements. The report also includes the results of a resident questionnaire that was mailed to all property owners within the project area. A public information meeting will be conducted to provide project information to property owners and tenants within the project area and gain additional input from the public. A formal presentation of the feasibility for the project is planned at the public hearing. Budget Issues: The total project cost is estimated to be $760,000. Funding sources for the project are proposed from a variety of sources as described in the feasibility report. Strategic Priorities: • Key Infrastructure Investments Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, soft, inclusive conniunuty that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 1 11 Ta 2016 is the City of Brooklyn Center's 23' year of its long-range infrastructure rehabilitation program. This program has consisted of a systematic rehabilitation and/or replacement of the City's aging streets, water main, sanitary sewer, storm sewers, sidewalks and street lights. The City's Capital Improvement Program identifies this segment of Freeway Boulevard for pavement reconditioning in 2016. The proposed project includes a roadway mill and overlay with minor utility improvements within the project limits shown on Figure 1. The improvement area consists of Freeway Boulevard between Xerxes Avenue North and the existing bridge over Shingle Creek, just west of Shingle Creek Parkway. This report was prepared in response to City Council Resolution No. 2015-118 dated July 27, 2015, directing staff to prepare a feasibility report and collect public input for the proposed project. A property owner questionnaire and letter have been distributed as part of the project evaluation process. A summary of property owner comments is provided in Appendix B. A public informational meeting with property owners located within the project area will be scheduled shortly. The 2016 project area consists of approximately 0.5 miles of streets. The project consists of approximately three industrial properties that are zoned I V and 6 planned unit development properties that are zones "PUD/Il". Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 2 EE / \\\ \ XRXES - /-)F U I I > 0>fl- 0In > ci)ci) U- --\'. 0- - 2:Li z 2:Li- Figure 1: Project Area / Ii - -- 1 \I \ ! C) IL zHL Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 3 OCR A.EXISTING CONDITIONS Freeway Boulevard was originally a two lane rural roadway in the early 195 0s. This roadway was expanded in several phases over the past 50 years. The portion of Freeway Boulevard from Xerxes Avenue to the Shingle Creek bridge was constructed in 1974. The existing street within the project area is currently a 48 feet wide urban section roadway with concrete curb and gutter. A concrete sidewalk exists along the north side of Freeway Boulevard from Xerxes Avenue to Shingle Creek Parkway. An existing pavement evaluation was conducted resulting with the surface showing significant deterioration and significant lateral cracking throughout. Surface pothole repairs are significant and full depth pothole-type pavement failures have occurred in locations were the mainline pavement adjoins commercial driveways. Soil borings and pavement core measurements were conducted at seven locations within the project area. These measurements revealed that the existing pavement sections within Freeway Boulevard consist of three to five inches of bituminous pavement and an undetermined thickness of aggregate base over a fine to coarse granular subgrade material. This underlying pavement. structure is generally stable for the majority of the roadway. Additionally, limited sections of deteriorated concrete curb and gutter were identified within the project area. Recent traffic counts along this segment of roadway are 3,800 vehicles per day. The current roadway configuration has been in-place for over 40 years and appears to be functioning adequately. Traffic counts on Freeway Boulevard are not projected to substantially increase in the future. Major changes in local traffic patterns are not anticipated as a result of the proposed reconstruction of the streets segments. The existing street configuration is expected to be sufficient to convey existing and future anticipated traffic volumes. B.PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS Based on the age, condition and extensive maintenance needs of the existing bituminous asphalt pavement surface, the recommended pavement improvements consist of a mill and overlay rehabilitation of the existing pavement. The existing concrete curb and gutter on Freeway Boulevard has not exceeded its life expectancy and can be suitably rehabilitated with spot repairs. Approximately 20 percent of the concrete curb and gutter and concrete driveway aprons are estimated to be replaced due to heaving/settling issues and as warranted or impacted by other construction (e.g. storm sewer repairs). In accordance with the Complete Streets Policy adopted by the City in 2013, all streets and trail projects, including design, planning, reconstruction, rehabilitation, maintenance or operations by the City of Brooklyn Center shall be designed and executed in a responsible, equitable and financially reasonable way to accommodate and encourage travel by bicyclists, pedestrians, public transportation, emergency and commercial vehicles in a balanced manner. Implementation of the City's Complete Streets Policy ensures that the needs and safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities are taken into account in the design and operation of roads. Accordingly, a worksheet has been completed to assist in the complete streets evaluation (see Appendix A, Complete Streets Worksheet). The Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan adopted in March 2014 was also reviewed and no recommended improvements were identified for this section of roadway. Based on these considerations, the following strategies and improvements are recommended: • An estimated 20 percent of the sidewalk along the northerly side of Freeway Boulevard is warranted to be replaced due to heaving/settling issues and to obtain Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance. Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 4 All pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed within the project area including the crosswalks located at Xerxes Avenue and Freeway Boulevard with truncated dome detectable warning systems to obtain ADA compliance. Disturbed boulevard areas will be restored with topsoil and sod. iiu:3vt1aI a :mei: I:tk[ITMi1 A.EXISTING CONDITIONS The street improvement program has historically included the replacement of free-standing street lights located within the project area. Free-standing street lights are defined as lights mounted on poles, which do not contain any other overhead utilities attached to them. There are currently seven free-standing street lights within the project area. These lights consist of older style wood utility poles that have been in service for many years, most likely dating back to the original construction of the area. The existing free-standing street lights have underground power services with cobra-head type light fixtures. B.PROPOSED STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS The recommended street light improvements include replacement of the seven existing free-standing street lights with fiberglass poles and cut-off type LED light fixtures. A.EXISTING CONDITIONS The project area is located within the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission area and ultimately flows to Shingle Creek. The existing storm drainage system in the project area consists of a network of storm sewer pipes installed in 1974 and range in size from 12 to 30-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe sewer. A televising of the storm sewer in this area was found to be in fair to good condition with some isolated issues identified in a couple of inlet structures that warrant repair. B.PROPOSED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Storm sewer improvements will be made to the existing system that includes replacing catch basins casting as necessary within the project area. V. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM A.EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing sanitary sewer along the west half of the project area consists of 15-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe installed in 1996. The existing sanitary sewer on the east half of the project area consists of 8-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe installed in 1974. All public sanitary sewer pipes were inspected with remote televising equipment. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the area is rated as good. B.PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Sanitary sewer improvements will be made to the existing system that includes replacing manhole castings and lids within the project area. The replacement of the castings with external seals will help minimize inflow and infiltration of rainwater into the sanitary sewer system. Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 5 A. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing water main in the Freeway Boulevard project area consists of 12-inch diameter cast iron pipe installed in 1974. The water main is in good condition based on current maintenance records. i: I)UhIIiYI..0 L'AVi kIIk'41JUiiA flk'AI Water main improvements will be made to the existing system that include adjusting/replacing gate valve castings as impacted within the project area. Generally, all public infrastructure owned, maintained and operated by the City throughout the project area is located within City easements and/or right-of-way. It is not anticipated that the City will need to obtain any additional easement for any existing or proposed improvement located within the roadway. If necessary, any identified easement needs during final design will be further coordinated with the City Attorney and the identified property owners. IX. ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS The total estimated cost of the proposed project is $760,000. Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated project costs and recommended funding amounts from the various sources as indicated. Funding for the project is further described below. A. FUNDING FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS The estimated project cost of roadway improvements for all streets in this project area is $640,000. This preliminary estimate includes the cost for project administration, legal, engineering and construction contingency. Special assessments for street improvements are proposed in accordance with the City's Assessment Policy. The commercial/industrial properties on Freeway Boulevard would be assessed based on an acreage basis (see Figure 2). An "A" zone benefit includes the area abutting the street to be improved, extending to a depth of 200-feet and a "B" zone of lesser benefit for the remainder of the property area. The "A" zone rate is based on assessing 70 percent of the total street project cost deemed to benefit the property and the "B" zone rate is based on 30 percent. Based on preliminary cost estimates, the full unit rate has been determined to be "A" zone rate of $0.2902 per square foot and a "B" zone rate of $0.1244 per square foot. It should be noted that historically the assessments have been levied based on estimated costs rather than actual costs, understanding that the project costs are levied at a reduced percentage (70 and 30 as indicated above). A total estimated special assessment amount of $300,139.60 would be levied for street improvements. The remaining street construction costs would be funded from the Municipal State Aid (MSA) Fund. A summary of the proposed special assessments for street improvements is provided in Appendix C. Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 6 C. FUNDING FOR UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS The estimated cost of storm drainage improvements is $50,000; the estimated cost of sanitary sewer improvements is $10,000; the estimated cost for water main improvements is $10,000; and the estimated cost for street light replacement is $50,000. As previously noted, these total cost estimates include the costs for project administration, engineering, legal and construction contingency. All costs for water, sanitary sewer and street light improvements will be funded by their respective utility funds in accordance with established policy for such improvements. Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 7 Table 1: Cost and Funding (0W ) CD 0 Q0 - C\ = IL - cu0>0 0o 11) 000 0 000000 0000(0 (U (0000 r 0 a,Odd000 0C)U)(Diaic000000CC'0—2 Cc C)'-0O 0CC t 0 CCC (j)0 0 C)0 C)C)CC)0FWN-If)(F)COO)(F)(U (Ok!)0-'-LUL0CUCOi/)(F)(I)(0 Lu U)(0 (1)U)(I) CC 00000000CC)C)doc CD c:)0000C)C)0(N-If)C)C)C) N- (1)(0(0(0LOlL)0 1))(0 010 011)Cl)(/) (0 C)000 0000oq pbOo000000(D(O (00 00 (00 (0(0(0 Ci)(I)C') 0 00000 Q.C)0 C)Odd m 0 0 C&co00(D-U)C)0 00 C)0W(010(0 co(I) N-- 1/)(0 Cl) 0 000000000Q bOo 0 0 oa,000 0 0 C)(UN-In C)0 C)cu 0.(Ii r-Lo(oc')Cl9Cl)0It)) C)(F)0It) CC 000000oqcpvpboo00)o 00000(0CC)00 C')(1)(0 000)tc'iC 0 0 0 I—co r-0)(U CDC')COC')co(1)(1)U)C')C') co LL 0 0C VI CC DCU'C 0cLDC)EL'-L'ti a, (U LLa,''a, - t.0 o 0 0)C)a,f'C a, Lu I) m 0)0)a '-p --0)IDC + u L'- Lu CLI . ' •(t)u): •t;Lu I-Lu Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 8 Figure 2: Assessment Map (0 0 0 0 > 1)> ED >-0 Co 1)ci) U- 0 Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Page 9 Z. Table 2 is the preliminary schedule for the project. Table 2. 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay Project - Schedule Action Target Date City Council Receives Feasibility Report, Declares Cost to be Assessed and Calls for Public Hearings June 13, 2016 City Council Holds Public Hearing, Authorizes the Project and Orders Preparation of Plans and Specifications July 11, 2016 City Council Approves Plans and Specs and Authorizes Advertisement for Bids July 25, 2016 City Receives and Opens Project Bids August 2016 City Council Considers Award of Contract August 2016 Start Project Construction September 2016 Construction Substantially Complete October 2016 4 KI][Ii IJJ (S)FLI II .1 [I)k'A IIYA I k1 I7I V (I)iN1 The overall condition of the City's street and utility infrastructure systems is critical to the operation, safety, welfare and economic health of the entire community. As a result of the infrastructure needs described and the proposed solutions and estimated costs provided in this report, the proposed project is considered to be necessary, cost effective and feasible. Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overicty Page 10 ^ M^ZI ^ Comp l ete Streets Worksheet Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Appendix A [i]ij1.] YiYf T This Complete Streets Worksheet is intended to serve as a guide when reviewing a roadway's ability to accommodate all modes of transportation (pedestrian, bicyclists, transit riders, freight, and automobiles) and people of all abilities in a cost-effective manner, while promoting safe operation for all users. Complete streets address the design of the entire street right-of-way to determine the best allocation of space between the various transportation modes. Complete streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of smaller-improvements or maintenance activities over time. This worksheet was developed to facilitate implementing the complete streets process and to help sort through potentially conflicting modal priorities. The worksheet is also available in an electronic format that allows responses to by typed directly into the worksheet. Please reference the following materials when filling out the checklist: • City and/or County Comprehensive Plans that cover the project area • Transportation Plans that cover the project area (e.g., City, County, and/or State) • Bicycle or Pedestrian Master Plans that cover the project area (e.g., City, Park district, County, and/or State) City and/or County ADA Transition Plans that cover the project area • Area specific studies • A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO "Green Book") • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition • MnDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual • Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) • ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) • Proposed Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) • Hennepin County Complete Street Policy • State of Minnesota Complete Street Policy Complete Streets Policy Adopted by City Council June 24, 2013 Project Location 'City of Brooklyn Center (municipality): Roadway Jurisdiction: City of Brooklyn Center Project/Roadway Name:Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay Improvement area consists of properties along Freeway Project Start Point:Boulevard from Xerxes Avenue to the Shingle Creek bridge. Project End Point:See project area map in feasibility report. Mike Albers, City of Brooklyn Center Project Manager Define Existing and Future Land Use and Urban Design Context 1.Do any adopted plans call for the development of bicycle, pedestrian, transit or roadway facilities on, crossing, or adjacent to, the proposed project? If yes, list the applicable plan(s). Guidance: Possible sources of this information include Comprehensive Plans, Transportation Plans, Bicycle or Pedestrian Master Plans or area-specific studies developed by applicable City County and/or State Agencies. None are identified in the following: Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan (City of Brooklyn Center, March 2014) Hennepin County 2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan (Hennepin County, April 2015) 2.Are there any local, county, statewide or federal policies that call for incorporating multimodal facilities? Guidance: Policies at the state and federal level may impact a project due to funding sources. No. A-2 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE 3. Describe the study area. Guidance: What are the predominant land uses along the corridor? What is the community character? (e.g.) tree-lined streets, historic, new development) Are there any planned redevelopment areas in the project area? The project area consists of approximately 0.50 miles of streets and utilities. The project consists of approximately 3 industrial properties that are zoned 111111 and 6 planned unit development properties that are zones "PUD/Il". A. What trip generators (existing and future) are in the vicinity of the project that might attract walkers, bikers or transit users? Guidance: For example, large employers, downtown or shopping districts, schools, parks, community centers, medical centers, transit stations, government buildings and senior care facilities. The project area includes 3 existing hotels, 1 church and access to the Shingle Creek Regional Trail. Define Existing and Future Transportation Context 5. Describe existing and projected modal volumes, if available. (k -OK Freeway Blvd (2015): 3,800 Freeway Blvd (2035): 4200Average Daily Traffic Not Available Not AvailablePedestrian Counts Not Available Not AvailableBicycle Counts Not Available Not AvailableTruck Volumes Not Available Not AvailableTransit Volumes K APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A-3 6, Existing vehicle speed conditions. a.What is the posted speed limit for the project and associated intersecting streets? 40 mph b.Provide speed data, if available. Not Available c. Are excessive speeds an issue in the project area? None Known 7. Describe crash data, if available, and known conflict locations. Guidance: Crash data will likely not be available for pedestrians and bicycles. Crash trends and known conflict points should include neighborhood input and antidotal data, such as areas of known "near misses", or areas where seasonal activities cause safety issues, such as sports arenas or fairgrounds. ion redTransportat Mode ___ 1 throughout 1/1 /2005 - 6/1/2015 Vehicles the corridor 3 throughout 1/1/2005 6/1/2015 Pedestrians the corridor none 1/1/2005 - 6/1/2015 Bicycles a.Are there any crash trends between specific modes? There are no crash trends between specific modes. All 3 pedestrian involved crashes had at least 1 party under the influence (2 pedestrians under the influence and 1 driver under the influence) b.Are there known conflict points between specific modes? No A-4 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE 8. Describe Classifications. a.What is the road functional classification? Freeway Boulevard is designated as a Collector. b.Does the street cross any high functional classification roads? (yes/no) If so, please list. Yes: The west boundary of the project is Xerxes Avenue which is a Collector and the east boundary of the project is Shingle Creek Parkway which is an Arterial. c. Does the roadway have other classifications (e.g., truck route, transit route, bicycle route, emergency vehicle route)? (yes/no) If so, please list. Yes: Freeway Boulevard is a MSA route. 9. Sketch in or attach the existing cross-section(s). Guidance: The existing cross-section should include the full right-of-way and be clearly dimensioned. Additional cross-sections are advisable to illustrate specific situations or if corridor segments greatly vary. EXISTING TYPICAL SECTION NORTH SOUTH ROW 100' ROW APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A5 1 0. What multimodal accommodations exist in the project and on streets that it intersects? Guidance: Multimodal accommodations may include transit routes, sidewalks, trails, and designated on-street bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, sharrows or signed bike routes. Concrete sidewalks exist along the north side of Freeway Boulevard from Xerxes Ave to Shingle Creek Parkway. Concrete sidewalks existing along the east and west sides of Xerxes Avenue and Shingle Creek Parkway. A Bituminous trail exists along the east side of Shingle Creek. 11.If there are no multimodal accommodations, how far away are the closest parallel facilities? Guidance: Designated transit routes or bikeways may not exist within the community; and therefore, may not be applicable. Metro Transit routes exist on Shingle Creek Parkway and on Xerxes Avenue. 12.What multimodal amenities exist in the project? Guidance: multimodal amenities may include benches, bike racks/lockers, trash receptacles, crosswalks, traffic signals, mature tree canopy, transit stops/shelters, and wayfinding signage. Freeway Boulevard amenities: traffic signals at Shingle Creek Parkway with crosswalks and access to Shingle Creek Regional Trail. 13. Describe any particular user needs/challenges along the project corridor that you have observed or have been informed of. Guidance: User needs may consist of lack of facilities (worn dirt pathways), traffic congestion, difficulty accessing bus stops or sidewalks due to snow piles at intersections, at-grade crossings of railroads or high volume roadways, and steep terrain. None identified. A-6 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE 14.Are the existing facilities ADA and PROWAG compliant? Guidance: Reference resources include the ADA Accessibility Guidelines ADAAG), Proposed Rights-of-Way( Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), and MnDOT Accessibility Design Tools website. No: The existing sidewalk along the north side of Freeway Boulevard does not have pedestrian curb ramps at Xerxes Avenue. The pedestrian curb ramps will be reviewed for compliance and will be replaced with truncated dome detectable warning systems in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Identify Existing Deficiencies 15.Based on the land use and transportation context analysis, describe existing and anticipated future deficiencies to full multimodal transportation that the project could/should address. The Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan has not identified any improvements or deficiencies for this area. Describe Future Objectives 16.Develop objectives regarding how multimodal facilities will be integrated into the project and how identified deficiencies will be addressed. Guidance: The objectives will form the basis for the street design. -Pedestrian curb ramps will be constructed throughout the project at each crosswalk location with truncated dome detectable warning systems in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). -Sidewalk will be spot repaired/replaced to ensure ADA compliance. -The minimal bike traffic that exists can use the shoulder as a shared travel lane. Recommend Area Typology/Street Typology and Test Cross-section(s) 17.Complete the following questions if your community has developed Area Typologies and Street Typologies (See page 21, "Roadway Classification versus Settings" for a description of area and street typologies.) Guidance: If applicable, list document that contains your agency's Area Typologies and Street Typologies a.What is the recommended Area Typology? Not applicable b.What is the recommended Street Typology? Not applicable APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A-7 1 8. Sketch in or attach the initial cross-section(s) that depicts desired street elements. Guidance: Initial cross-section should be clearly dimensioned and indicate any additional right-of-way required. Additional cross-sections are advisable for specific situations or if corridor segments greatly vary. Not applicable. This is a mill and overlay project and significant changes are cost prohibitive. Pedestrian/bike improvements are not identified in the City's Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan. 19.Describe any constraints associated with the initial cross-section. Guidance: Potential constraints include lack of right-of-way, existing structures, existing mature trees or environ- mental features, topography or number of driveways. Not applicable. 20.Sketch in or attach alternative cross-sections. Guidance: Alternative cross-sections should be modifications of the initial cross-section that respond to identi- fied constraints. All modes should receive equal consideration and accountability in the development of alternatives. Not applicable. A-8 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE Describe Tradeoffs and Select Cross-section 21.Describe tradeoffs associated with the alternative cross-sections. Guidance: Examples of tradeoffs include removal of mature vegetation, narrower travel lanes, removal of on-street parking (one or both sides), right-of-way acquisition costs, and provision of bikeway facility on an adjacent parallel street. Not applicable. 22.Sketch in or attach the selected cross-section(s). Guidance: Selected cross-section should be clearly dimensioned and indicate any additional right-of-way required. Additional cross-sections are advisable for specific situations or if corridor segments greatly vary. NORTH SOUTH ROW 100' ROW 5' 20' 48' I 26' BLVD BLVD 8' 16' I 16' 8'-- -PARKING I LANE I LANE PARKING 23. If the project does not accommodate all modes, list reasons why facilities for that mode are not provided. Guidance: For example, the cost of the facility will be disproportionately high in relation to number of projected users; adequate right-of-way does not exist and acquisition of additional right-of-way would create adverse impacts to valued community assets; a bikeway facility is being planned on an adjacent parallel route that can service bicyclists' needs. Not applicable. APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A-9 Implementation 24.Identify project milestones, roles and responsibilities for project implementation City Council Conduct Public Hearing / Order Plans: July Il, 2016 City Council Approve Plans/Authorizes Advertisement for Bids: July 25, 2016 City Council Accept Bids/Award Project: August 2016 Begin Construction: September 2016 Substantial Completion: October 2016 25.How will access for all modes be maintained during project construction? Guidance: Reference resource includes MnDOT Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Webinar, Maintaining Pedestrian Access Through Construction & Maintenance Work Zones A drivable street will be maintained at most times during the construction. The exception would be during the installation/repair of the City utilities and rehabilitation of the existing roadway, when access may be cut off for a limited period of time. Even during those activities, though, access will be restored by the end of each day. Access to the sidewalk system will be available for the majority of the construction project. However, the main interruption to access of the sidewalks will be during the replacement of deficient sections of sidewalk. For this work, access will not be available for approximately 7-10 days while the concrete cures. 26. Facility Maintenance a.What agency will be responsible for on-going maintenance for each mode? City of Brooklyn Center - Public Works Department will be responsible for on-going maintenance for the streets, sidewalks and trails. b.What specific seasonal and long-term maintenance is needed for each mode? Maintenance activities typically include patching, sealcoating, crack sealing, sweeping and minor sidewalk repair. A-iD COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE Property Owner Questionnaire Property Owner Comments Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay QUFJ STINNAI{RE 2016 Freeway Jonlievad Mifi a n d averliay P r oje c t This questionnaire will help the City of Brooklyn Center Engineering staff to better understand the infrastructure needs and issues on Freeway Boulevard. This survey can be returned in person or by mail to: City of Brooklyn Center/Engineering Division, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430; by fax at 763-569.. 3440; or by email at: publicworks@ci.brooklvn-center.mn.us . Please return this survey by June 3, 2016. Thank you for your cooperation in providing this important survey! 1.Contact Information: Name/Business: Address: Email Address: Phone Number: 2.Have you experienced any problems with sanitary sewer service, such as the line plugging or having the service cleaned out to the street? How often? 3.Do you have a problem with drainage or flooding in the street, your yard, or your basement? 4.Do you experience problems relating to the water distribution system such as water pressure, taste, odor or color? 5.Do you have a lawn irrigation (or sprinkler) system located within your property? Please circle one: Yes No 6.What other concerns, comments and/or issues do you have pertaining to the streets, sidewalks, utilities, etc.? Should you have questions or need more information, please contact the Engineering Division at 763-569-3340. Please return by June 3, 2016 to: City of Brooklyn Center - Engineering Division 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Fax: 763-569-3440 Email: publicworks@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us I . I I I . . 1 .1 ii I I I I I I DRAFT Proposed Pending Assessment Roll Feasibility Report 2016 Freeway Boulevard Mill & Overlay CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSED PENDING ASSESSMENT ROLL June 13, 3016 2016 FREEWAY MAILL AND OVERLAY STREET PROJECT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-06 01 PROPERTY ID HOUSE STREET NAME LEVY#STREET NOTES Industrial, Ii 3511921240005 2300 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 20,513.01 (A) 64,708.22 sf, (B) 13,944.34sf Industrial, II 3511921240004 2400 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 39,730.30 (A) 86,492.66 sf, (B) 117,605.56sf Industrial, PUD/Il 3511921240009 2500 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 28,675.95 (A) 48,000.10 sf, (13) 118,539.54sf Industrial, PUD/Il 3511921240008 2550 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 37,299.37 (A) 51,681.03 sf, (13) 179,272.85sf Industrial, PUD/Il 3511921240007 2590 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 36,454.90 (A) 90,367.28 sf, (13) 82,237.29sf Industrial, II 3511921230001 2700 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 64,289.87 (A) 141,665.74sf, (13) 186,322.14sf Industrial, PUD/il 3511921230086 2781 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 28,046.72 (A) 86,692.09 sf, (13) 23,220.90sf Industrial, PUD/i1 3511921230087 2741 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 $ 13,610.44 (A) 7,060.53 sf, (13) 92,937.90 sf Industrial, PUD/11 3511921230088 12701 FREEWAY BLVD 19303 1 $ 31,519.04 (A) 102,332.86 sf, (B) 14,646.65sf Total Assessments 1 $ 300,139.60 City Council Agenda Item No. 6e [EI1UESJI fl U ik'AU!A.I M4 (IM11I 1BJhYA I DATE: June 7, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Mike Albers, Project Manager p4- THROUGH: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Costs to be Assessed and Calling for a Public Hearing on Proposed Special Assessments for Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (East of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the resolution declaring costs to be assessed and calling for a public hearing on proposed special assessments for Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay Street Improvements. Background: The attached resolution declares certain project costs to be assessed for the Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay Street Improvement Project and calls for a public hearing on the proposed special assessments on July 11, 2016, immediately following the improvement hearing. Staff recommends that the City Council consider holding the special assessment hearing immediately following the project improvement hearing. The purpose of holding the special assessment hearing prior to beginning the project is to assure that any objections to or appeals of the assessments are known prior to entering, into a construction contract or issuing bonds to finance the assessed portion of the project. The established assessment rate would set the maximum levy amounts, guaranteeing property owners of the final cost they will pay for the project. Special assessments for this project have been calculated in accordance with the City's Special Assessment Policy. Budget Issues: The total project cost is estimated to be $760,000. The total special assessments for this project are estimated to be $300,139.60 for street improvements. The Draft Special Assessment Levy Roll for Improvement Project No. 2016-06 is included in Appendix C of the project's feasibility report. Strategic Priorities: Key Infrastructure Investments Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-06, FREEWAY BOULEVARD (EAST OF XERXES AVENUE) MILL AND OVERLAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council has accepted the Engineer's Feasibility Report for Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill an Overlay Street Improvements; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the street improvements of said project is estimated to be $640,000; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk and City Engineer have prepared a proposed assessment roll showing the proposed amount to be specifically assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece, or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1.That portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners for street improvements included in City Improvement Project No. 2016- 06 is declared to be $300,139.60. 2.A hearing shall be held on the 11th day of July, 2016, in the City Hall Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to pass upon such assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvements will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 3.The City Clerk is directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. 4.The City Clerk shall cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. RESOLUTION NO. June _13,_2016 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 N0 9a COUNCW ]ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Application No. 2016-004 Submitted by Matt Zdon Requesting Approval of a Variance to City Code Section 35-400 - Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an Encroachment of 26.7 Feet from the Required 35-Foot Front Yard Setback Standards for a New Garage Structure (Located at 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East) Recommendation: Recommend the City Council, following consideration of this item, adopts the Resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Application No. 2016-004 submitted by Matt Zdon requesting approval of a Variance to City CodeSection 35-400 - Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 Feet from the required 35-Foot front yard setback standards for a new garage structure, located at 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East. Background: Matt Zdon requests a variance from City Zoning Code Section 35-400, Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an encroachment of 26,7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback standards for the placement of a new 20' x 20' attached garage. The new garage is proposed to have an 83-ft. setback from this front lot line and 3,1 feet from the side-yard (established) lot-line. At the May 23, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this item, and received no comments (for or against) regarding this application. The Applicant also submitted for consideration a letter of support from the neighboring owners to the south; and stated owners to the north support this request as well. Planning Staff also received verbal support from homeowner directly across the street. Excerpt minutes from this meeting are attached for the Council's review. Also attached for Council consideration is the 05/23/16 Planning Report; Applicant's survey, narrative and illustrations; and site photos. A copy of the adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation from the Planning Commission of this variance, is also attached. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: o Targeted Redevelopment Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances time quality of Ii For all people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2016-004 SUBMITTED BY MATT ZDON REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO CITY CODE SECTION 35-400 - MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT OF 26.7 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 35-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARDS FOR A NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE (LOCATED AT 5261 TWIN LAKE BOULEVARD EAST) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-004 submitted by Matt Zdon ("Applicant") proposes a variance to City Code Section 35-400 - Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback standards for the placement of a new 20' x 20' attached garage, located at 5601 Indiana Avenue North ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016 the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding the variance and concept building plans were received; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating and determining variances under City Code Section 35-240 and the Comprehensive Plan, and moreover those variance standards as provided under Minnesota State Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6 Appeals and Adjustments, the Planning Commission considered and determined the appropriateness of said variance based on the following factors: a)the property owner's request to modify front-yard setbacks to accommodate this new structure on the subject property in a manner normally not permitted by the zoning ordinance is justifiable and reasonable; b)the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the owner presented a reasonable remedy of placing the new garage in a location that best fits within the subject lot; c)the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality due to similar and allowed encroachments in this area, and d)Economic considerations alone did not constitute practical difficulties in this particular case. RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - AND WHEREAS, upon acceptance of all public comments and discussion of this Variance request, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016- 06, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council that this variance requested and comprehended under Planning Application No. 2016-004, may be approved with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2016-004 as submitted by Matt Zdon for Variance to City Code Section 3 5-400, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback for the placement of a new 20' x 20' garage to be located on the Subject Property, is hereby approved, subject the following conditions: The new garage and all related improvements shall comply with the recommendations and requirement set forth by the City Engineer in their City Engineer's Review Memorandum, dated May 18, 2016, and which is also made reference herein: a)Applicant shall complete a wetland delineation to determine the impacts if any to the backwater area, which is classified as wetland. If there is the potential to fill in the wetland, that will need to be mitigated. b)Applicant shall submit an updated site plan, with a grading and erosion control plan (that shows the delineated wetland boundary and the areas of cut and fill) and calculations documenting the volume of floodplain fill and the volume of compensating storage created. The WCA process will run parallel to the Commission's review process, and the commission review and approval will be contingent on completing the WCA review process c)Applicant must provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. d)Certified Survey must show certified wetland delineation and 100 year flood elevation. e)Applicant must provide a structural certification for existing retaining wall and soils, evaluating and confirming proper stabilization and design for garage structure. f)Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit g) Erosion control Best Management Practices must be inspected prior to issuance of land alteration permit. RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - h)Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. i)Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 2.No major modifications or expansion to the proposed garage or the existing residence will be allowed, except those illustrated on the submitted plans and considered exclusively under this variance application. Any deviation or modification to these plans will require separate consideration and approval. 3.Based on FEMA floodplain maps for the community, this property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Any modification to the property and structures must fully comply with the City floodplain Ordinance 35- 2100. Detailed flood-proofing measures and plans must be provided for review and approval by the City Planner and City Building Official. 4.The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey information showing existing ground elevations and contours of the property for determination of drainage and flood plain impacts. 5.The new garage must be compatible and match the architectural features of the exiting dwelling. Building plans are subject to review and final approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property upon completion of the new garage, including lowest floor elevations, outside grade elevation details; exact location of the structure on the lot; and any related improvements, including the location and design of any required floodplain compensatory storage areas, and wetland mitigation measures (if so required). June 13, 2016 Date Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2016 - 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. Ci1 of BROOKLIWCJ_ Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 26, 2016 • Application Filed: 04/18/16 o Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 06/17/16 • Extension Declared: N/A Extended ReviewPeriod Deadline: N/A Application No. 2016004 Applicant: Matt Zdon Location: 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East Request: Variance to Allow Reduced Setbacks for Garage INTRODUCTION Mr. Matt Zdon is requesting a variance from City Zoning Code Section 35-400. Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35- foot front yard setback standards for the placement of a new 20' x 20' attached garage. The new garage is proposed to have an 8.3-ft. setback from this front lot line and 3.1 feet from the side- yard (established) lot-line. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices to surrounding property owners have been mailed. The Applicant has submitted for review and consideration one letter of support from the neighboring property owner to the south; the Applicant verbally stated the owner to the north supports his request; and Staff received verbal support from the neighboring owner directly across the street from the subject property. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan. Single-.Family Current Zoning. R4 One Family Residence Surrounding Zoning. North: R-1 One Family Residence East: R1 One Family Residence South: R-1 One Family Residence West: R-1 One Family Residence Neighborhood: T in Lake Conformity to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes Subdivision Ord.: N/A Sign Ord.: Unknown or not under consideration at this time. Variance Needed for Request. Yes App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 1 BACKGROUND Records show the original house was constructed in 1947. The property contains a single-story, rambler "cabin-style" home approximately 1,240 sf. in size. The home has a full, finished basement with a 12' x 24' (288 sf.) single car tuck-under garage. The front face of the home sits 16 feet from the front lot line, with a small 3.6' x 7' open portico over the front doorway. The house is set back 31.3 ft. from the southerly (side) property line; roughly 90+ ft, from the Twin Lake shoreline (rear yard); and almost 54 ft. to the northerly (side) line. Because this dwelling does not meet current front-yard setback standards of 35-feet, the property is considered legal non-conforming. A public roadway/lake access drive is located on the north side of the subject property. - - -- jre I OT 7 Public Lake Acce From this driveway, the Applicant's land rises up to a built-up berm and grade approximately 6-8 feet above the street grade, where the house sits on top of this higher grade elevation. The southern elevation is absent of this grade, and actually drops slightly below the street level grades, which provides a level grade and opening to the tuck-under garage, and access to the rear yard towards the lake shore. App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 2 The existing single-car garage is located on the southeast corner of the home, and is extremely difficult to access once a vehicle pulls into the property. The south side of the lot is situated against a thumb-shaped body of water and wetlands that is an extension or part of Upper Twin Lake (per opinion of MN. Dept. of Natural Resources). This south lot line is separated from this small pond area by an old concrete retaining wall, which will not be affected by this garage project. App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 3 The setbacks for a dwelling and detached garage in the R-1 One Family Residence district lot are as follows: DWELLING (Principal) GARAGE (Accessory) Front Yard = 35 ft. Front Yard = 35-ft. Side Yard = 10 ft. Side Yard (interior) = 3-ft. Rear Yard 25 ft. Rear Yard = 5-ft. Mr. Zdon explored the option of constructing a new garage on the north side of the home, where setbacks could easily be met. However, Mr. Zdon realized this would involve removing a large section of side yard and fill material to create a suitable driveway grade, and a need to relocate the sanitary sewer and water service lines that connect into the house in this area, all of which would be cost prohibitive. RIP As stated in the introduction section, the new garage is proposed with an 8.3-ft. setback from the front lot line (Twin Lake Blvd. ROW line). The 3.1-ft. setback from the side-yard is allowed for accessory structures. Mr. Zdon is choosing to place his new 20' x 20' garage at this preferred location, due to the proximity to the old garage space, the existing driveway is already in place, and he can save the two large oak tress located near the home. App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 4 N c / \ (I A 660.3 / /, // O ol \\\Nd> /vall 4i 6 /2 65 /,J ( PIZ 7 / 19 6 6' 4 5557 6 / Ile 2 / The overall distance from the front face of the garage to the roadway edge of Twin Lake Boulevard ranges from approx. 26 to 33 feet. If the garage were to be approved at this location, this added "boulevard" space may provide additional sight-line space needed to adequately back out of the garage and onto Twin lake Blvd. Sect. 35-111 provides "No such nonconforming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time of the adoption of this ordinance." As illustrated by the Applicant's survey, the existing home does not meet current setbacks, and by adding the new garage, it essentially increases the nonconforming status of this property. Allowing the connection-way between the two structures means the joined structures would be considered as one, large principal structure, and therefore all principal (dwelling) setbacks as noted above are required to be met. The Planning Commission should also be aware that the subject property is affected by the 100- year floodplain established from Twin Lake. As part of the overall floodplain development standards and regulations provided under City Code Sect. 35-2100 - Floodplain Management, approval of this variance and subsequent building permit would be subject to additional development standards required under the floodplain ordinance, which are very detailed and specific. This variance is not requesting relief from any standards or requirements listed under the floodplain management ordinance, nor would it be applicable since any allowance or relief from the floodplain ordinance requires a special use permit instead of a variance application. ANLU VSIS Section 35-240 - Variances of the City Code provides the current governing rules and standards in the review of variances. The section states the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, recommends and the City Council grants variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 5 that all of the Standards for Variances, contained in the Zoning Ordinances are met, which include the following: a)Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, aparticular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. b)The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other properly within the same zoning classification. ç) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. In 2011, the Minnesota State Legislature passed a new law that significantly revamped the parameters or standards in which municipal governments can review and grant variances. According to Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments, the standards noted above have now been revised by eliminating the need to justify or prove a hardship in variances. The primary standard or principle in the granting of variances is now based on a "reasonable" test or justification. The new law (abbreviated below) provides the following standards: Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties, "as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a)that the properly owner proposes to use the properly in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance, b)the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the properly not created by the landowner; and c) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The City Attorney's office advised staff to use these new variance standards to be compliant with State Law. The following is city planning staffs findings based on these above-referenced standards: App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 6 • that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; The Owner stated that the current tuck-under garage space is very small, and extremely difficult to maneuver into once you enter the property from the driveway off Twin Lake Blvd. Mr. Zdon seeks to provide a better means of driving straight into the property and pulling into the garage space; and the new garage provides a suitable and much more adequate means of keeping his vehicles in a larger and enclosed structure. Mr. Zdon stated he intends to convert the old garage space into usable living space, should this new variance be approved. It has also been stated and demonstrated by the Applicant his overwhelming desire to save the two large, mature oak trees growing along the south side of his home and possibly need of removing the attached deck along the side of the home. By removing one or both of these trees, the Applicant could place the new garage farther back into the lot and meet or exceed the required 35-front yard setback. However, the homeowner has expressed immense reservations in removing these beautiful shade trees for that purpose, and Staff agrees and supports his efforts to keep and save these trees. The "reasonable" nature of this particular variance case appears to be rational and practical. The alternative proposal of cutting down the berm or grade on the north side seems to be an extreme measure as well; and would require the relocation of the sewer and water service lines to the home, which could prove costly. Planning staff believes the functionality of this residential property may operate better with a garage at this location; and therefore the proposed use appears to be an appropriate need of this site and may be considered a reasonable use. • the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner As noted previously, the home and tuck-under style garage were built in 1947. Without an original house plan or lot survey, and without knowing what the geometries or layout of Twin Lake Boulevard were at that time, it appears the house was built with the reduced setbacks, which may have never been an issue (required setbacks) at that time. There are a number of properties along Twin Lake Blvd. and Indiana Avenue (mostly to the north of the subject property) where some residential homes and detached garages (5615, 5607 and 5601 Indiana Avenue for example) were either built with reduced setbacks, or were allowed to be expanded under variance approvals. Some Commissioners may recall that a variance was recently approved for the residence located at 5601 Indiana Avenue (Planning App. No. 2012-022 - Ludmilla Bryskina), which allowed the homeowner to build a tunnel addition from the home and detached garage, which did not meet setbacks form the road right-of-way line. Mr. Zdon's home appears to be an unique property that was developed with reduced setbacks from the beginning, and the house has remained in its current setting since 1947. App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 7 It also appears a few other homes or structures in this Twin Lake neighborhood were built with reduced setbacks, and seemingly most were allowed or approved for permits without any variances. The term "plight" as noted in this standard heading is defined as "an unfortunate condition; a difficult or dangerous situation, especially a sad or desperate predicament." The remedy, as proposed by the Applicant homeowner, remains a reasonable and logical solution and fix to the predicament left by the former owners, and in turn may make this request somewhat unique and not created by the landowner. Planning Staff believes part of the circumstances that are creating the need for this variance request are somewhat unique to the property and not created by the landowner, and therefore can be supported. + the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff does not believe that granting of this variance would alter the essential character of the locality or the neighboring residential homes in this area. The placement and height of the building will match or tie into the lower level of the dwelling, and no views from the neighboring properties will be dramatically altered or diminished that are already impacted due to natural vegetation and growth around the lake and backwater pond area to the south. The Commissioners should note the location of the new garage is being sited very close the "thumb-shaped" body of water to the south, which is a small fingerling extension of Twin Lake (per opinion of Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources). Although the survey map identifies this area as "Backwaters"; this area is inundated with wetland grasses and vegetation that appears to be wetlands. Mr. Zdon has been notified that Shingle Creek Watershed has requested to review his plans for constructing this new garage, and provide any evidence that he is not impacting or infringing any adjacent wetlands. Mr. Zdon's consulting engineers are working on a wetland delineation for this purpose, and have plans to present their case before the watershed at the June 16th meeting or thereafter. Planning does not believe any wetlands are being impacted, but will defer this finding and recommendations to Mr. Zdon' s consultant and watershed experts for recommendations or mitigation measures if needed. As part of any future grading on the site and construction performed under the building permit, impacts will be eliminated or addressed during full review of said permit. Any grading (grade changes, slopes, etc.); erosion control, or drainage impacts caused by the installation of said improvement will be fully reviewed and approved by the City Engineers prior to any construction. + Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. As indicated previously, a number of options remain available to the Applicant in order to avoid the need of a variance. The option of placing the garage on the north side would entail the removal of valuable side-yard (open) space; the removal of a large amount of fill material and grade reduction to place the garage at lower level; the installation of a App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 8 new driveway and curb-cut; and new sewer and water lines to the home. The option of removing the one or two of the large mature oak trees on the south side of the home also remains, but this too could prove costly, as Mr. Zdon would have to possibly remove or reconfigure the attached decks and stairs in this area and close off windows to the home. The removal of these trees would take away the natural shade and landscape features that make this lake lot an attractive feature. Mr. Zdon has stated that his reasons for placing this garage at this location are not based solely on "saving money"; but moreover his desire to save the side-yard space; protects the trees; and provides a reasonable means of accessing a new garage and suitable connection into the house. Although some might argue this project is being done for economic reasons by Mr. Zdon, Planning Staff does not believe the Applicant's request of this variance is due to economic reasons or considerations alone. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION The updated variance statute states "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The new garage size is minimal compared to other new detached garages approved by the City, and the Applicant has demonstrated his strong desire and need for placing it at the proposed reduced setback location as the best option for this property. The allowance of this garage with the planned (reduced) setback appears reasonable and justifiable. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the variance based on the grounds that the new standards for granting variances (under MN SS 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6), particularly the standards for reasonableness and uniqueness to this and all other properties throughout Brooklyn Center have been met; and the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. If the Planning Commission accepts this recommendation, the Commission may elect to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06, which memorializes the findings in granting this variance and provides for the conditions of approval as follows: The new garage and all related improvements shall comply with the recommendations and requirement set forth by the City Engineer in their City Engineer's Review Memorandum, dated May 18, 2016, and which is also made by full reference in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06. 2.No major modifications or expansion to the proposed garage or the existing residence will be allowed, except those illustrated on the submitted plans and considered exclusively under this variance application. Any deviation or modification to these plans will require separate consideration and approval. 3.Based on FEMA floodplain maps for the community, this property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Any modification to the property and structures must fully comply with the City floodplain Ordinance 35-2100. Detailed flood-proofing measures and plans App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 9 must be provided for review and approval by the City Planner and City Building Official. 4.The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey information showing existing ground elevations and contours of the property for determination of drainage and flood plain impacts. 5.The new garage must be compatible and match the architectural features of the exiting dwelling. Building plans are subject to review and final approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property upon completion of the new garage, including lowest floor elevations, outside grade elevation details; exact location of the structure on the lot; and any related improvements, including the location and design of any required floodplain compensatory storage areas, and wetland mitigation measures (if so required). ATTACHMENTS • PC Resolution No. 2016-06 • Applicant's Narrative • Aerial/Location Maps • Survey Map/Site Plan • Site Photos of the Property • FEMA Panel No. 27053CO202E (100-Year Floodplain Firmette Map) • Neighboring Property Owners' Letters of Support App. No. 2016-004 PC 05/26/2016 Page 10 kUDL"fIJY.II )IIIYAI DATE: May 18,2016 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review - 5261 Twin Lake Blvd. Public Works staff reviewed the following documents for a variance request or the proposed garage at 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard submitted on April 21, 2016: Variance Request Narrative Survey Hennepin County Aerial Map Subject to final staff approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit: The project is adjacent to Upper Twin Lake and has floodplain and potentially wetland impacts the plan will have to go through a formal project review with the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Pertinent to the preliminary summary provided in an email to William Becklin from the Shingle Creek Watershed, dated May 17, 2016; the following requirements must be met. 1.Most immediate, the project will need a wetland delineation to determine the impacts if any to the backwater area, which is classified as wetland. If there is the potential to fill in the wetland, that will need to be mitigated. It may be possible to accomplish this onsite as part of creating the compensating floodplain storage. Contact Wes Boll in our office at 763.479.4283 for guidance. 2.You should also review the project with the DNR Area Hydrologist Kate Drewry to determine if you will need a DNR permit or need to submit any calculations to her. She is at 651.259.5753 or kate.drewry@state.mn.us . 3.The application will require submittal of a site plan, a grading and erosion control plan (that shows the delineated wetland boundary and the areas of cut and fill) and calculations documenting the volume of floodplain fill and the volume of compensating storage created. The WCA process will run parallel to the Commission's review process, and the commission review and approval will be contingent on completing the WCA review process. 4.Because of the size of the project, it will not be required to meet the Commission's rate control, infiltration and water quality requirements. 5.You can find the application form, fee schedule, and other submittal info at http://www.shinglecreek.org/rules-and-standards.html. Grading Plan. Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 6.Provide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 7.Certified Survey must show certified wetland delineation and 100 year flood elevation. 8.Provide structural certification for existing retaining wall and soils, evaluating and confirming proper stabilization and design for garage structure. 5261 Twin Lake Blvd. Page 2 of 2 Site Plan Review Memo, May 18, 2016 9.Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 10.Erosion control Best Management Practices must be inspected prior to issuance of land alteration permit. Anticinated Permitting: 11.Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 12.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined by the City. G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTJVE Development Projects\Brooklyn Center Mini-Storage\P!an Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\15 1022_Plan Review Memo.doc El Ll II • • U I.•1 'I. c4 A $ r c h '' * St- IAI r-7 LO ©N r \farance Request This proposal letter is to request a Variance for a residence at 5261 Twin Lake blvd E in Brooklyn Center. The Variance requested is imperative to insure safe passage into the home in winter months and yet not destroy the 2 enormous oak trees which adorn the property. Further, if granted, this variance will not obstruct any of the neighbors view of the lake or require the movement or alteration of any natural or city structures, utilities or pavements. A great amount of effort and money has been spent to insure that the simple garage structure will gain approval from City, State and DNR and still exists in harmony with the existing structures, neighbors and most importantly natural features. The Issue: I purchased the home on twin lake abandoned and uninhabitable and performed a complete gut and rebuild, with the intention of making Brooklyn Center my long term home... However no one will marry me if they have to park outside in Minnesota. I - - __ L - /I I 01 I Existing Residence 856 I \ #5261 Twin Lake 861.7 \54.5 1 Blvd. E, I ' 855.4 cfr'\ <, 0 / \ . . 1 O 85L U 852,0 861.2 8606 Proposed ° 8551 86 1 8564 9 ar.age / . c8e55 854.3 41/ \ -. /\\f Iz- 855. 8566 //562 9 9 855.7 x8561 7 / 856.3 This varency would not be out of line with the neighborhood as there are many houses who's structures do not conform to the standard setback some as close as 1 foot to the property line. c4 I- Ai'; I Ir. iL-- 1ft VS. B.5ft The request: ldealy to achieve the above mentioned low impact placement and save the Historic trees I am requesting the following placement which includes a set back from the front property line of 8.3 feet, 22 feet from the curb. The garage will be behind one of the oaks and will be almost not visible from most of the road and after an extensive survey and review drainage will not be impacted. ILA um ouuij' LunoD utdauu9fl PZ AlatlIPW ___ L2/7 UOSTU.. • Jo 101 I UOSU1HI!I ^ ^ "o ccI: A AiflS JO 1°JDHHvq rr. .1F i: 0: 0 <0 ==•= =-= 0 E=0 o : -- o7E0 \ I \ II OE. N N N N I\' Na ID N I N \ • N 0 N %. IN0<N °/ - N 0 / i ---•N N N \\ , J : ' N N 0 N N N N N N0 / 'I / 0 \N N N II ti/" IO i ,V/S \N N N\ I N/ H N/, P / /0 C N,// N0 5 Ij' 1NMg CA / N 1 1/ /\ 03//I Yl /( 0 \ // // UPEP 1?E * 5301iV 4. II AIL 7 . :1•& ..•4 j4$f•I . ,•./ // 1 4I / / IIdrI E:7 Legend IJRO0A FLOOD ZONES ZONE AE (FLOODWAY) 1VTER 5261 Twin Lake Blvd. East ZONEAE(100.YRFPw/ BASE FLOOD ELEVS) ZONE A (100-YR FP w/o BASE FLOOD ELEVS.) ZONE X (500 YR FP or 0.2% ANN. CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD) 0 30 60 120 EIIII -Feet ZONE X (OUTSIDE FLOOD PLAIN) AM ms S. iA 'I r :Q 4. ... r4 'IJ:T1; '•J' 'I. - il, G .. . / • _____ •:' S 4 .• ; _______ ttt '.1 ____ 1' '1 / 1 I I _____• ____ . 15$t r. ;.. • p '% 'I j1tL • • . • ..4 : Vitt I4t :. I I Isk : I __ ... II ljI I I to if L . .•,. ,.. ,•,mw '•. .. - tot j - 1 ••' •••_;.. -. Ic • !b CIt 4 I . I 0 - I.I -1 - ____ \ I P :-.. ";': •. /4.--I- x Iva rt 11 Fk r7e for rj LIxi IVdt !, u!d Ljdflq Sur lony,raI d feel th n'a tr -'fled; - I7- - COPY Commissioner MacMillan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2016-004 SUBMITTED BY MATT ZDON REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO CITY CODE SECTION 35- 400 - MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT OF 26.7 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 35-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARDS FOR A NEW GARAGE STRUCTURE (LOCATED AT 5261 TWIN LAKE BOULEVARD EAST) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-004 submitted by Matt Zdon proposes a variance to City Code Section 35-400. Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback standards for the placement of a new 20' x 20' attached garage, located at 5601 Indiana Avenue North; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016 the Planning Commission held a duly called and noticed public hearing, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding the variance and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating and determining variances under City Code Section 35-240 and the Comprehensive Plan, and moreover those variance standards as provided under Minnesota State Statutes 2010, Section 462.357. Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments, the Planning Commission considered and determined the appropriateness of said variance based on the following factors: a)the property owner's request to modify front-yard setbacks to accommodate this new structure on the subject property in a manner normally not permitted by the zoning ordinance is justifiable and reasonable; b)the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the owner presented a reasonable remedy of placing the new garage in a location that best fits within the subject lot; c)the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality due to similar and allowed encroachments in this area, and d)Economic considerations alone did not constitute practical difficulties in this particular case. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 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. 2016-004 submitted by Matt Zdon of a Variance to City Code Section 35-400, which would allow an encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback for the placement of a new 20' x 20' garage, located at 5601 Indiana Avenue North, is hereby approved, subject the following conditions: The new garage and all related improvements shall comply with the recommendations and requirement set forth by the City Engineer in their City Engineer's Review Memorandum, dated May 18, 2016, and which is also made reference herein: a)Applicant shall complete a wetland delineation to determine the impacts if any to the backwater area, which is classified as wetland. If there is the potential to fill in the wetland, that will need to be mitigated. b)Applicant shall submit an updated site plan, with a grading and erosion control plan (that shows the delineated wetland boundary and the areas of cut and fill) and calculations documenting the volume of floodplain fill and the volume of compensating storage created. The WCA process will run parallel to the Commission's review process, and the commission review and approval will be contingent on completing the WCA review process c)Applicant must provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. d)Certified Survey must show certified wetland delineation and 100 year flood elevation. e)Applicant must provide a structural certification for existing retaining wall and soils, evaluating and confirming proper stabilization and design for garage structure. f)Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit g) Erosion control Best Management Practices must be inspected prior to issuance of land alteration permit. h) Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. PC RESOLUTIONNO. 2016-06 i) Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 2.No major modifications or expansion to the proposed garage or the existing residence will be allowed, except those illustrated on the submitted plans and considered exclusively under this variance application. Any deviation or modification to these plans will require separate consideration and approval. 3.Based on FEMA floodplain maps for the community, this property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Any modification to the property and structures must frilly comply with the City floodplain Ordinance 35- 2100. Detailed flood-proofing measures and plans must be provided for review and approval by the City Planner and City Building Official. 4.The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey information showing existing ground elevations and contours of the ( property for determination of drainage and flood plain impacts. 5.The new garage must be compatible and match the architectural features of the exiting dwelling. Building plans are subject to review and final approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits.tn 6. The applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property upon completion of the new garage, including lowest floor elevations, outside grade elevation details; exact location of the structure on the lot; and any related improvements, including the location and design of any required floodplain compensatory storage areas, and wetland mitigation measures (if so required). May 26, 2016 Date Rall Christensen, Chair ATTEST: Secretary PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Koenig and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Sweeney; Schonning; Morgan; Koenig; and MacMillan; and the following voted against the same None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26,2016 6b) APPLICATION NO. 2016-004 MATT ZDON PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5261 TWIN LAKE BOULEVARD EAST Chair Christensen introduced Application No. 2016-004, consideration of a Variance to Allow Reduced Setbacks for a new 20' x 20' Garage in the R-1 One Family Residence District, located at 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East. (See Planning Commission Reports dated 05-26-2016 for Application No. 2016-004.) It was noted that legal notice was published in the local Sun-Post and notice letters were delivered to all neighboring properties within 150 feet of the subject site. Secretary to the Planning Commission Benetti provided a presentation, with project layout, highlights and brief analysis of the variance requested under Planning Application No. 2016-004 for the Commission. Mr. Benetti noted staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Application No. 2016-004, consideration of a Variance to Allow Reduced Setbacks for a new 20' x 20' Garage in the R-1 One Family Residence District, located at 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East., with the conditions noted in the Planning Staff report and also similar in the Resolution. Chair Christensen asked if Commissioners have any questions for the Applicant. Commissioner Morgan asked Mr. Zdon how long he has owned the residence and asked what the total square footage will be upon completion. Mr. Zdon thanked Commissioner Morgan and replied he has been in the house for 2 years and it has been a lot of work but is a nice house. He stated upon completion it will be approximately 2,000SF. Chair Christensen asked if it will be a 2 car garage and asked if it is a 500-year floodplain. Mr. Zdon replied it will be a 2 car garage. Mr. Benetti stated the building needs to meet the City's own floodplain ordinance, which provides specific and strict guidelines and standards for any new building in the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Benetti stated Mr. Zdon is aware of these standards and is willing to accept these as part of any conditions of approvals for this project. Mr. Benetti further stated he has spoken with many residents in this area of Twin Lake, and they have not witnessed or experienced Twin Lake breeching the banks or any major flooding for years. He stated it is not believed to be an issue they will need to deal with. Chair Christensen asked if there will be enough room coming from the driveway to put the proposed doorway in the breezeway. Mr. Benetti replied it will depend on the permit they receive. M r. Zdon noted it is just an idea and he is open to whatever they can accommodate in that space per the permit. EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 2016 OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS - APPLICATION NO. 2016-004 Chair Christensen recognized residents in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2016-004, at 8:36 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen called for comments from the public. There were no individuals in attendance and no comments received at that time. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING) There was a motion by Commissioner Sweeney, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2016-004. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen called for questions and comments from Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-004 SUBMITTED BY MATT ZDON There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Morgan, Schonning, and Sweeney. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 13, 2016 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. Matt Zdon Request for Variance 5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East Planning Application No. 2014-004 City Council Meeting June 13, 2016 AGENDA ITEM No. 9.a Request Matt Zdon requesting a variance from City Zoning Code Section 35-400. Minimum District Requirements, which would allow encroachment of 26.7 feet from the required 35-foot front yard setback for new 20’ x 20’ attached garage. Garage proposed to have an 8.3-ft. setback from this front lot line and 3.1 feet from the side-yard (established) lot-line. Location Map Site Photos - Subject Site House constructed in 1947. Single-story, rambler “cabin- style” dwelling - approx. 1,240 sf. in size. full, finished basement with a 12’ x 24’ (288 sf.) single stall tuck-under garage. House sits up on elevated grade supported by front retaining wall Site Photos - Subject Site Site Photos - Subject Site Site Photos - Subject Site Site Photos - Subject Site Site Photos - Subject Site Survey - Subject Site SETBACKS DWELLING GARAGE FY= 35 ft. FY= 35-ft. SY= 10 ft. SY = 3-ft. RY= 25 ft. RY= 5-ft. Survey - Subject Site •Home sits 12.3 feet from front line; •31.3 ft. from the south (side-yard); •90+ ft. from Twin Lake (rear yard); •54 ft. to the north (side-yard) •Dwelling does not meet current front-yard setback standards - considered legal non-conforming. 8.3-ft. setback Front Image Overhead Image 100-Year Floodplain Map Standards for granting variances Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6. Appeals and Adjustments •Variances shall only be permitted i.when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance; and ii.when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. •Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means: a)that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; a)the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and a)the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. •Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.  request to modify this property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance is justifiable and reasonable the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: •house built 1947; created a situation with front yard setbacks; • owner has presented a plausible and reasonable means of providing covered garage space for his residence. will not alter the essential character of the locality •placement and height of the garage matches or ties into lower level of dwelling; •no views from the neighboring properties will be altered or diminished (already impacted due to natural vegetation and growth around the lake and backwater pond area to the south) •Owner awaits the outcome of local watershed review, which will provide recommendations and conditions if any impacts are noted. •Grading and filling of the site will be monitored and properly mitigated under City Floodplain Ord. rules Economic considerations alone did not constitute practical difficulties in this particular case Summary & Recommendations Summary & Recommendations The new garage size is minimal compared to other new detached garages approved by the City, and the Applicant has demonstrated his strong desire and need for placing it at the proposed reduced setback location as the best option for this property. Allowance of this garage with the planned (reduced) setback appears reasonable and justifiable. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the variance based on the grounds that the new standards for granting variances (under MN SS 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6), particularly the standards for reasonableness and uniqueness to this and all other properties throughout Brooklyn Center have been met; and the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. May 26, 2016 – the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this matter (notice letters mailed to all property owners w/n 150-feet of the property); and received no public comments at the hearing. The Applicant submitted for consideration a letter of support from neighboring owners to the south; stated owners to the north support his request; and Staff indicated support from homeowner directly across the street. Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-06, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning App. No. 2016-004, a variance requested by Mr. Zdon. Adopt the Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Application No. 2016-004 submitted by Matt Zdon Requesting Approval of a Variance to City Code Section 35-400 - Minimum District Requirements, which would allow an Encroachment of 26.7 Feet from the Required 35-Foot Front Yard Setback Standards for a New Garage Structure (5261 Twin Lake Boulevard East) QUESTIONS? Recommendation 1.The new garage and all related improvements shall comply with the recommendations and requirement set forth by the City Engineer in their City Engineer’s Review Memorandum, dated May 18, 2016, and which is also made by full reference in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06. 2.No major modifications or expansion to the proposed garage or the existing residence will be allowed, except those illustrated on the submitted plans and considered exclusively under this variance application. Any deviation or modification to these plans will require separate consideration and approval. 3.Based on FEMA floodplain maps for the community, this property is located within the 100-year floodplain. Any modification to the property and structures must fully comply with the City floodplain Ordinance 35-2100. Detailed flood-proofing measures and plans must be provided for review and approval by the City Planner and City Building Official. 4.The Applicant shall provide detailed and certified topographical survey information showing existing ground elevations and contours of the property for determination of drainage and flood plain impacts. 5.The new garage must be compatible and match the architectural features of the exiting dwelling. Building plans are subject to review and final approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 6.The applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property upon completion of the new garage, including lowest floor elevations, outside grade elevation details; exact location of the structure on the lot; and any related improvements, including the location and design of any required floodplain compensatory storage areas, and wetland mitigation measures (if so required). Conditions of Approval City Council Agenda Item No. 9b COUNCIL IThM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony Nelson for Special Use Permit Approval of a Special Home Occupation allowing a Silk-Screen Printing and Image Printing Operation as a Home-Based Business in the R-2 Two Family Residence District (Located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North) Recommendation: Recommended the City Council, following consideration of this item, adopts the Resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony Nelson for Special Use Permit approval of a Special Home Occupation allowing a silk- screen printing and image printing operation as a Home-Based Business in the R-2 Two Family Residence District, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North) Background: Anthony "Rick" Nelson requests consideration of a special use permit approval to operate a small silk-screen printing and image printing operation as a home-based business from his residence. The special home occupation is conducted entirely within a detached garage; includes periodic UPS deliveries; limited customer/clientele traffic; and involves equipment not customarily found or used in typical residential dwellings. Pursuant to City Code Section 35-311 R-2 Two Family Residence District standards, Special Home Occupations as defined in Section 35-900 are only allowed by means of a special use permit. On May 23, 2016 the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. 2016-006. Full consideration was given under a duly noticed public hearing. No comments (for or against) were received concerning this application. Excerpt minutes from this meeting are attached for Council's review. Upon close of this hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-07, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation of this special use permit. This resolution and full Planning Staff Report are also attached for Council's review. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: o Resident Economic Stability Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive conununitj' that enhances the qiiulltj' of life For all people and preserves the public tins! Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2016- RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-006 SUBMITTED BY ANTHONY NELSON FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION ALLOWING A SILK-SCREEN PRINTING AND IMAGE PRINTING OPERATION AS A HOME-BASED BUSINESS IN THE R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (LOCATED AT 5323 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony "Rick" Nelson (as "Applicant") requesting a Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation to operate a small silk-screen printing and image printing business from the personal residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the R-2 Two Family Residence District, and pursuant to City Code Section 35-310, Subd. 2. Special Uses, "Special home occupation as defined in Section 35-900" are allowed in the R-2 District by means of special use permit approved by the City Council, and the Applicant has submitted such application to the City of Brooklyn Center for official consideration under Planning Application No. 2016-006; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and called public hearing, whereby a planning staff report was presented, and public testimony regarding the special use permit were received and noted for the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request according to the general standards noted under City Code Section 35-406, Additional Requirements for Special Home Occupations, and determined this special home occupation permit met or would meet these standards and requirements as set forth under said City Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request in light of all testimony received, and found the request complies with the general goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and meets the guidelines and standards for evaluating this special use permit contained in Section 35-220 of the City's Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-07, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2016-006 may be approved with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding the Special Use Permit of a Special Home Occupation as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2016-006, is hereby acceptable, and finds the request complies with the general goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and meets the guidelines and RESOLUTION NO. 2016- standards for evaluating a special use permit as contained in Section 35-220 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which are noted as follows: A.The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. B.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. C.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. D.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. B. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that the Special Use Permit of a Special Home Occupation allowing a small silk-screen printing and image printing business from the personal residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North, as comprehended under Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1.The special use permit is granted for the exclusive operation of a small- scale silk-screen and image printing operation by the fee-title homeowner (Applicant) only. 2.Applicant is allowed to operate the special home based business between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. each day. 3.No retail sales or displays of merchandise and printed (finished) products will be allowed on the premises, either inside or outside the garage and residence. 4.Per City Code- Ch. 34-Signs, the Applicant may have one freestanding or wall sign for the home-based business, with the maximum size area not to exceed 2.5 square feet and the height above ground not to exceed six feet. 5. Applicant is allowed to have up to one (1), non-family member employee RESOLUTION NO. 2016- work at the business if necessary, with no children hired to serve the business until they are of legal working age, per Minnesota State Statute 181A. 6.Any equipment used in this print shop operation shall be used in a safe and normal manner; and all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, screens, etc. are disposed of or stored properly. 7.All parking associated with this home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the Applicant. There shall be no on-street parking associated with this home occupation and all vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. 8.The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Building Official with respect to safety related matters regarding the location and operation of this home occupation. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is required regarding fire safety and exiting. 9.This home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the special use permit. 10. The special use permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinance and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. June 13, 2016 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. 3 rlyRCOLof KLJ';V \IER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 26, 206 • Application Filed: 04/26/16 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 06/25/16 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2016-006 Applicant: Anthony (Rick) Nelson Location: 5323 Dupont Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation INTRODUCTION Mr. Rick Nelson is requesting special use permit approval to operate a small silk-screen printing and image printing operation as a home-based business from his residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North. The special home occupation is conducted entirely within the homeowner's detached garage; and includes periodic deliveries by UPS to and from the residence; with occasional customer/clientele traffic; and involves equipment not customarily found or used in typical residential dwellings. These contributing factors require the granting of a special use permit by the City Council, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission under official public hearing process. Written notices of this public hearing were mailed to all residential property owners within 150- feet of the subject site. As of the preparation of this report, no comments either for or against this request, have been received by the City. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: Single-Family Current Zoning: R2 Two Family Residence Surrounding Zoning: North: R-2 Two Family Residence East: R-2 Two Family Residence South: R-2 Two Family Residence West: R-2 Two Family Residence Neighborhood: Be lvi.ie Conformity to: Land Use Plan: Yes Zoning Ord.: Yes Subdivision Ord.: N/A Sign Ord.: Unknown or not under consideration at this time. Variance Needed for Request. No App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 1 BACKGROUND Pursuant to City Code Section 35-311 R-2 Two Family Residence District standards, Special Home Occupations as defined in Section 35-900 are allowed by means of a special use permit. City Code Section 35-900, a Special Home Occupation is defined as follows: Home Occupation, Special - Subject to the further limitations of Section 35-406 hereof, and subject to approval by the City Council, a special home occupation is any gainful occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling unit or any permitted accessory buildings or installations on a lot, by a family member residing within the dwelling unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the dwelling unit, the accessory structures, and the lot upon which it is constructed, including, without limitation, barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studios, group lessons, saw sharpening, motor driven appliances and small engine repair, and similar activities. Per Code Section 35-406, the following are additional requirements for special home occupations: All special home occupations shall require approval of a special use permit pursuant to Section 35-220 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 2.No special home occupation shall use more than one accessory structure or installation and such structure or installation must be a permitted use under Section 35-310 and Section 35-311 of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. 3.A special home occupation may use equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling unit. 4.No special home occupation shall employ, at any one time, more than one person who is not a member of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 5.No special home occupation may include the teaching of more than ten (10) students at one time who are not members of the family occupying the dwelling unit. 6.No special home occupation shall cause traffic congestion on the lot containing the special home occupation or on the streets adjacent thereto. 7.No automobile parking related to the special home occupation shall be permitted on the street provided, however, that upon a finding that the special home occupation is not feasible without on street parking, the City Council may authorize parking on the street based upon a consideration of Section 35-220.2 and of the following: a. The amount of the applicant's street frontage. App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 2 l . 'S b.The rights of adjacent residents to park on the street. c.Preservation of the residential character of the neighborhood. No special home occupation shall produce light, glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the lot. 9. No special home occupation shall include the retail sale of merchandise produced off the lot. DETAILS of HOME OCCUPATION Mr. Nelson is the registered fee-title owner of the subject property. The property consists of 5,124 sq. ft. of land area, and contains a 1,038 sf., 1.5 story, single family bungalow style residence, with a 20' x 30' (600 sf.) detached garage off the back alley (see image below). Mr. Nelson provided a brief summary on his application describing the screen printing business. The business is limited to the confines of his detached garage. Mr. Nelson works approximately 3-5 hours per week; with work focused primarily on silk-screening (printing) images on t-shirts or posters. Mr. Nelson confirmed the business produces occasional deliveries by small UPS trucks. Mr. Nelson states the ink that he uses is non-toxic and relatively odor-free. Mr. Nelson occasionally uses various chemical and household solvents to clean the printing equipment or remove stains, etc., and most of the odors or smells dissipate rapidly due to leaving the garage doors open or ventilation system. Mr. Nelson does not plan to have any employees work for the business, other than his wife whenever needed. ANALYSIS - SPECIAL USE Pursuant to City Code Section 35-220; Subpart 2. Standards for Special Use Permits, a special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that certain standards used to measure or allow a special use have been or will be met as part of any approvals. The following section highlights these standards (italic text), with city planning staff App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 3 responses to each standard afterwards: a.The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. The Applicant indicated this screen printing operation is very limited (3-5 hours per week); and does not create or demand a lot of customer or truck traffic. Although this personal print shop (special use) does not necessarily "promote or enhance" the general public welfare, Staff believes this use will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort of the neighborhood or adjacent residents, provided the Applicant maintains limited hours, does not create loud or increased sounds from the activity, or the chemicals/solvents and ink used in the production operations do not create an obvious odor or nuisance with neighboring residents. b.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The Applicant has stated his neighbors are not bothered by the small print shop operating inside his garage, and the city has not received any complaints that would contradict this statement. Barring any negative comments or registered complaints from the neighbors, city staff will assume that this special use will not be injurious or take away any enjoyment of the surrounding properties due to this use. Should this print shop or printing activity become an issue or cause a disturbance with neighbors, the City reserves the right to take corrective action; or have the special use permit rescinded and order the print shop/activity to cease if necessary. c.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement ofsurroundingpropertyfor uses permitted in the district. The Applicant's property is surrounded by similar single family residential uses. With the screen printing activities limited in hours and in the garage only, Staff does not believe this use will impeded the normal and orderly development and improvements of these surrounding properties. d.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The Applicant's garage contains an overhead door to accommodate up to two vehicles, with added shop or storage space along vehicle parking space. The garage is accessed from the north/south alley located to the rear of the property. Mr. Nelson also appears to have a paved, single space parking pad near the south side of the garage. The City assumes any truck or parcel deliveries from the alley are done quickly and infrequently to insure neighboring residents are not impacted or inconvenienced by such deliveries. Staff believes adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking for the current residence and special home occupation as requested. App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 4 e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The residential dwelling appears to conform and meets all applicable regulations of the R-2 Zone. The allowance of this screen printing use should not impact or create any unsafe or non-conforming situations that would deem the property unusable or dangerous to continue this studio activity. Staff assumes or relies on the word of the Owner/Applicant that any equipment used in this print shop operation will be used in a safe and normal manner, that no children will be hired or serve the business until they are of legal working age, and that all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, old screens, etc. are disposed of and stored properly, and all materials and activities are designed not to create any health hazard or the potential of fires. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is recommended regarding fire safety and exiting; and this item should be a condition of any approval of the special use permit. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2016-07, which comprehends approval of Planning Application No. 2016-006, a Special Use Permit to operate a silk-screen and image printing business as a home-based business from the residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 5 1.The special use permit is granted for the exclusive operation of a small-scale silk- screen and image printing operation by the fee-title homeowner (Applicant) only. 2.Applicant is allowed to operate the special home based business between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. each day. 3.No retail sales or displays of merchandise and printed (finished) products will be allowed on the premises, either inside or outside the garage and residence. 4.Per City Code- Ch. 34-Signs, the Applicant may have one freestanding or wall sign for the home-based business, with the maximum size area not to exceed 2.5 square feet and the height above ground not to exceed six feet. 5.Applicant is allowed to have up to one (1), non-family member employee work at the business if necessary, with no children hired to serve the business until they are of legal working age, per Minnesota State Statute 181 A. 6.Any equipment used in this print shop operation shall be used in a safe and normal manner; and all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, screens, etc. are disposed of or stored properly. 7.All parking associated with this home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the Applicant. There shall be no on-street parking associated with this home occupation and all vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. 8.The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Building Official with respect to safety related matters regarding the location and operation of this home occupation. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is required regarding fire safety and exiting. 9.This home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the special use permit. 10.The special use permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinance and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. App. No. 2016-006 PC 05/26/2016 Page 6 H Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/17/2016 PARCEL ID: 0111821330141 OWN ER NAME: A F Nelson & H M Nelson PARCEL ADDRESS: 5323 Dupont Ave N, Brooklyn Center MN 55430 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead PARCEL AREA: 0.12 acres, 5,124 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract MARKET VALUE: $117,800 TAX TOTAL: $1,840.04 SALE PRICE: $143,200 SALE DATA: 08/2002 SALE CODE: Rejected Comments: This data (i)is furnished 'AS IS with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 L1 / r A AL 11 -- (. I:. r I .: - -Lc:•. • ___ I lu 1 _ _——.—:1# r L 1! Commissioner Schonning introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-006 SUBMITTED BY ANTHONY NELSON FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION ALLOWING A SILK-SCREEN PRINTING AND IMAGE PRINTING OPERATION AS A HOME-BASED BUSINESS IN THE R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (LOCATED AT 5323 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony "Rick" Nelson (as "Applicant") requesting a Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation to operate a small silk-screen printing and image printing business from the personal residence, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the R-2 Two Family Residence District, and pursuant to City Code Section 35310, Subd. 2. Special Uses, "Special home occupation as defined in Section 35-900" are allowed in the Ri District by means of special use permit approved by the City Council, and the Applicant has submitted such application to the City of Brooklyn Center for official consideration under Planning Application No. 2016-006; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and called public hearing, whereby a planning staff report was presented, and public testimony regarding the special use permit were received and noted for the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating this special use permit contained in Section 35-220 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and found the request complies with the general goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony "Rick" Nelson may be approved based upon the following considerations: a)The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. b)The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. c) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 Page 2 of 3 d)Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e)The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2016-006 may be approved, subject to the following conditions and considerations: The special use permit is granted for the exclusive operation of a small- scale silk-screen and image printing operation by the fee-title homeowner (Applicant) only. 2. Applicant is allowed to operate the special home based business between the hours of 9:00 am. and no later than 9:00 p.m. each day. No retail sales or displays of merchandise and printed (finished) products will be allowed on the premises, either inside or outside the garage and residence. 4.Per City Code- Ch. 34-Signs, the Applicant may have one freestanding or wall sign for the home-based business, with the maximum size area not to exceed 2.5 square feet and the height above ground not to exceed six feet. 5.Applicant is allowed to have up to one (1), non-family member employee work at the business if necessary, with no children hired to serve the business until they are of legal working age, per Minnesota State Statute 181A. Any equipment used in this print shop operation shall be used in a safe and normal manner; and all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, screens, etc. are disposed of or stored properly. All parking associated with this home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the Applicant. There shall be no on-street parking associated with this home occupation and all vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2016-07 Page 3 of 8.The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Building Official with respect to safety related matters regarding the location and operation of this home occupation. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is required regarding fire safety and exiting. 9.This home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the special use permit. 10. The special use permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinance and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. May 26, 2016 Date Ran all Christensen, Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Koenig and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Sweeney; MacMillan; Morgan; Koenig; and Schonning; and the following voted against the same None; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 2016 6c) APPLICATION NO. 2016-006 ANTHONY "RICK" NELSON PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5323 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH Chair Christensen introduced Application No. 2016-006, Consideration of a Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation of a Silk Screen and Image Printing Business in the R-1 One Family Residence District, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North. (See Planning Commission Reports dated 05-26-2016 for Application No. 2016-006.) It was noted that legal notice was published in the local Sun-Post and notice letters were delivered to all neighboring properties within 150 feet of the subject site. Secretary to the Planning Commission Benetti provided a presentation, with highlights and brief analysis of the new special use permit as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2016- 006 for the Commission. Mr. Benetti stated Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City consideration of a Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation of a Silk Screen and Image Printing Business in the R-1 One Family Residence District, located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North. Chair Christensen asked if the Applicant wished to step forward and make a statement or add anything to the staff presentation. Chair Christensen asked Mr. Nelson if he plans to expand his business and hire employees at some point. Mr. Nelson replied he has no desire at this time or in the near future to expand and hire employees. Chair Christensen replied in any case he will hope for the success of the business so he will need to hire employees at some point. OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS —APPLICATION NO. 2016-006 Chair Christensen recognized residents in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. There was a motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2016-006, at 8:44 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen called for comments from the public. There were no individuals in attendance and no comments received at that time. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING) There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2016-006. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Christensen called for questions and comments from Commissioners. EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 2016 The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2016-08 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2016-006 SUBMITTED BY ANTHONY "RICK" NELSON There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-07. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Morgan, Schonning, and Sweeney. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 13th, 2016 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. RICK NELSON 5323 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH Planning Application No. 2016-006 Special Use Permit for Special Home Occupation City Council Meeting June 13, 2016 Agenda Item No. 9.b Introduction Anthony “Rick” Nelson requests consideration of a Special Use Permit to operate a small silk-screen printing and image printing operation as a home-based business from his residence, (detached garage) Section 35-900 Home Occupation, Special – a special home occupation is any gainful occupation or profession carried on within a dwelling unit or any permitted accessory buildings… by a family member residing within the dwelling unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use… Home Occupation conducted within homeowner’s detached garage; includes periodic deliveries by UPS; occasional customer/clientele traffic; and involves equipment not customarily found/used in residential dwellings. LOCATION/ ZONING MAP •Property located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North •R-2 Two Family Residence District Special Home Occupations allowed only in the R-1 and R-2 Zones by means of Special Use Permit 1,038 sf., 1.5 story, single family residence; w/ 20’ x 30’ (600 sf.) detached garage 3-5 hours per week; silk-screening / heat-pressed images on t-shirts or posters. Ink used non-toxic and relatively odor-free; occasionally uses various household solvents to clean equipment or remove stains, etc., Odors dissipate rapidly due to leaving garage doors open or ventilation system. SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS Pursuant to City Code Section 35-220, Subdivision 2, a special use permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following [standards] are met: 1)The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 2)The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 3)The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4)Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 5)The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Residential dwelling/garage conforms and meets regulations of R-2 Zone. Allowance of screen printing use should not impact or create any unsafe or non-conforming situations that would deem the property unusable or dangerous to continue this studio activity. Equipment will be used in a safe and normal manner; no children will be hired or serve the business; all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, old screens, etc. are disposed of and stored properly; and all materials and activities are designed not to create any health hazard or the potential of fires. Inspection of the premises by the Building Official is recommended regarding fire safety and exiting; Recommendation On May 26, 2016 - Planning Commission conducted an duly noticed public hearing on this item; no comments were received from the neighboring owners or general public. Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2016-07, which provides favorable/unanimous recommendation to approve Planning App. No. 2016-006, a Special Use Permit for the requested home-based business (with conditions) Adopt the Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2016-006 submitted by Anthony Nelson for Special Use Permit Approval of a Special Home Occupation allowing a Silk-Screen Printing and Image Printing Operation as a Home-Based Business in the R-2 Two Family Residence District (Located at 5323 Dupont Avenue North) QUESTIONS? SUP Conditions 1)The special use permit is granted for the exclusive operation of a small-scale silk-screen and image printing operation by the fee-title homeowner (Applicant) only. 2)Applicant is allowed to operate the special home based business between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and no later than 9:00 p.m. each day. 3)No retail sales or displays of merchandise and printed (finished) products will be allowed on the premises, either inside or outside the garage and residence. 4)Per City Code- Ch. 34-Signs, the Applicant may have one freestanding or wall sign for the home-based business, with the maximum size area not to exceed 2.5 square feet and the height above ground not to exceed six feet. 5)Applicant is allowed to have up to one (1), non-family member employee work at the business if necessary, with no children hired to serve the business until they are of legal working age, per Minnesota State Statute 181A. 6)Any equipment used in this print shop operation shall be used in a safe and normal manner; and all materials used in the operations of this print shop, including ink, solvents, rags, screens, etc. are disposed of or stored properly. 7)All parking associated with this home occupation shall be off-street on improved space provided by the Applicant. There shall be no on-street parking associated with this home occupation and all vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19-103, Subdivision 12 of the City Ordinances. 8)The Applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the Building Official with respect to safety related matters regarding the location and operation of this home occupation. An inspection of the premises by the Building Official is required regarding fire safety and exiting. 9)This home occupation may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the special use permit. 10)The special use permit is subject to applicable codes, ordinance and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. - City Council Agenda Item No. lOa City Council Agenda Item No,, lOa #1 IEI1SI(iJ I U I I a L' I Mk' 0) 1II 1ii05 I DATE: June 13, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk Whw t^^ SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 4013 651th Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Mitigation Plan, Resolution and issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 4013 65th Ave N. The applicant or representative has an opportunity to present evidence regarding the submitted Mitigation Plan. If the Council chooses to modify or disapprove the Mitigation Plan, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for disapproval of the Mitigation Plan and notify the license applicant of any pending license actions to be taken at a subsequent Council Meeting. Background: This owner is applying for renewal of three rental licenses. This is a single family property. The property would qualify for a Type III Rental License based on Six (6) property code violations found during the initial rental inspection and zero (0) validated police nuisance incidents for the past twelve months. However, the owner failed to comply with the Mitigation Plan and applicable Ordinances, specifically failed to attend Owners/Managers Association Meetings, turn in monthly updates and complete security improvements. According to City Ordinances, if the requirements of the license category and the Mitigation Plan are not met, the license renewal category remains a Type IV. Under this license action, the property owner will receive three successive Type IV Rental Licenses- one that will have expired on September 30, 2015, one that will have expired on March 31, 2016 and lastly, one that will expire September 30, 2016. City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a licensee of a Type IV Rental Property to complete Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program. City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c requires an owner (or authorized representative) to attend a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers Association Meetings. Staff is recommending approval of the continued Type IV Rental License in lieu of denial, revocation or suspension because the owner is working with staff to meet the license requirements and the property is currently in compliance with the ordinance. The following is a brief history of the license process actions. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust kI]JJ1 I I MkA U I Dk'A [I) 1I1 WJ I Current rental license approval activities: (License that is being considered and expires on 09-30-2016) 03-31-2016 The previous rental license expired. 05-02-2016 The owner, Gao Qing Liu, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 401365 1h Ave N, a single family dwelling. 05-19-2016 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. Six property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 05-23-2016 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-24-2016 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-25-2016 A second inspection was conducted for the exterior items. All exterior items were complete; could not gain entry to verify interior corrections. 05-26-2016 A third inspection was conducted and passed. 05-27-2016 City records indicate 0 validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 05-27-2016 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-31-2016 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held June 13, 2016. Current Type IV Rental License approval activities: (License that is being considered that expired on 03-31-2016) 09-30-2015 The previous rental license expired. 05-02-2016 The owner, Gao Qing Lui, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 4013 65th Ave N, a single family dwelling. 05-19-2016 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. Six property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 05-23-2016 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-24-2016 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-25-2016 A second inspection was conducted for the exterior items. All exterior items were complete; could not gain entry to verify interior corrections. 05-26-2016 A third inspection was conducted and passed. 05-27-2016 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 05-27-2016 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-31-2016 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will beheld June 13, 2016. 114ission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust [S1IJ[iJ I N V ak'4 LA I k'À (I) 1IhI IlSk'À I Current Type IV Rental License approval activities: (License that is being considered that expired on 09-30-2015) 03-24-2015 A $125 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan. 03-31-2015 The previous rental license expired. 04-02-2015 A $250 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan. 04-10-2015 A $300 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 04-22-2015 A $500 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan. 05-07-2015 A $1000 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a Mitigation Plan. 06-25-2015 A $600 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 06-26-2015 The owner, Gao Qing Lui, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 4013 65th Ave N, a single family dwelling. 07-20-2015 A $125 Administrative Citation was issued for not meeting mitigation plan requirements. 07-21-2015 A $1200 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 07-22-2015 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. 12 property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 07-23-2015 The property was posted as unlicensed. 09-10-2015 A second inspection was not conducted; no access was provided at time of inspection. 09-23-2015 A $2000 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 09-28-2015 A third inspection was not conducted; no access was provided at time of inspection. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 10-15-2015 A fourth inspection was not conducted; no access was provided at time of inspection. Tenant stated they did not receive proper notification of inspection and wanted to reschedule. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 10-29-2015 A fifth inspection was not conducted; no access was provided at time of inspection. A notice was sent to property owner for a follow up inspection to be completed on 02-01-2016. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 01-04-2016 A $2000 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 01-25-2016 A $2000 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 02-01-2016 A sixth inspection was not conducted; no access was provided at time of inspection. Tenant stated they did not receive proper notification of inspection and wanted to reschedule. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 04-13-2016 The Housing Supervisor submitted the correction notice via email to Sam Liew, Property Manager. 04-26-2016 A seventh inspection was conducted; corrections complete. A total of $400 in reinspection fees remaining. 04-28-2016 The $400 in reinspection fees was paid; rental license passed. 05-23-2016 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-24-2016 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-27-2016 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 05-27-2016 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental il'fission: Ensuring an attractive, dean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of ife for all people and preserves (lie public trust O1lJ[iJ I fl U I Mh'A L'A I 3A (I] 1WI I1lJYA I license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-31-2016 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will beheld June 13, 2016. Previous Type IV Rental License approval activities: 09-30-2014 The previous rental license expired. 10-20-2014 The Owner, Gao Qiang Liu, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 4013 65thi Ave N, a single family dwelling. 10-30-2014 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. 11 property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 12-01-2014 A second rental inspection was conducted and failed. 12-15-2014 A third inspection was conducted and passed. 01-07-2015 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 01-07-2015 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 02-18-2015 A second letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 03-24-2015 A $125 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a mitigation plan. 04-02-2015 A $250 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a mitigation plan. 04-10-2015 A $300 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 04-22-2015 A $500 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a mitigation plan. 05-07-2015 A $1000 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a mitigation plan. 06-01-2015 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 06-05-2015 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 06-15-2015 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held June 22, 2015. If approved, after six months, a new rental license is required. The license process will begin immediately. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. Excerpt from Chanter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Mission: Eizsziiing an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of ilfe for al/people and preserves the public trust [EI1th[iJ i I IIYA U I a (II )1IJ'AI Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1.Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2.The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. 3.Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4.Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan, the Council will consider, among other things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license, the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. 5. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public (rust [EI1IJ[J I N U U 3I L!'4 I IhYA (I] 1I I1II1 Rental License Category Criteria Policy - Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1.Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2.Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect, monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3.Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4.License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected, the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units, to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Mission: E,zstiring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust [I1flhJ[iJ I I IIk'A L'A I ak'4 CS] 1WI I1IJ1 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Onlv Type I - 3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+ units 0-0.75 Type 11-2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III - 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV - 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 -3+ units Greater than 3 I b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Units I 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 0-0.3 5 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 I'l4'ission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust [I[I1IkIJ I I I Mk'A U I k' [0] 1I P1IJk I Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Attachment - Mitigation Plan - Resolution Approving Three Type IV Rental Licenses for 4013 65 t "Ave N 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 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 4013 65TH AVEN WHEREAS, City Ordinance Sections 12-900 to 12-916 set forth requirements for licensed rental properties; and WHEREAS, the property located at 4013 65th Ave N, is issued a Type IV Rental License with an expiration date of September 30, 2015; and WHEREAS, the property located at 4013 65 t" N, is issued a subsequent Type IV Rental License with an expiration date of March 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, the property located at 4013 65th Ave N, is issued a subsequent Type IV Rental License with an expiration date of September 30, 2016; and WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a property owner who receives a Type IV Rental License complete Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program; and WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c establishes the requirement for Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program including attendance at a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers Association Meetings and completion of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Requirements; and City Ordinance Section 12-913 requires submittal of monthly updates; and WHEREAS, the property owner of 4013 65 t"Ave N, Brooklyn Center failed to attend Owners/Managers Association Meetings, turn in monthly updates and complete security improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that two TYPE IV Rental Licenses are hereby approved for the property at 4013 65 t"Ave N, Brooklyn Center, MN. June 13, 2016 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. Owner's Ne): cla-Da lng Uu Owner'a Address:145 LMNO;^ Lam Szj hkdp 5537 Chvn eft. Phone: (52) 4-000 own e r's Em, aiL Local Aq:etit5): Aenit's Address: Shakqpae RN 5517a Agent's, Phone: {52) 463-000 Ag ent's niil Current Expiration Date: Pend ing Expiration Date: ) I ir B ased on property co nd itions and/or va l idated pol ice nuisance Inciden t s., the above refsreneci property qualities for a Type lV4 Month Ren ta l Licen s e. Prior to applistiri approval by the City Council a fu lly comp l eted Miist1on Plsii niu.t be completed a nd approved by City staff, A Mitition P lan rn ust be mptf Imm ed ia t ely in order t o ensure ,timely wnpletion of the li c ense application process. The Mitietion Plan shou l d, indicate the steps being taken to corre ct Iden t ified vitIOfl5 and the measurestht iMli be taken to enure ongOing compliance with City. Ordinan ces and a pplicable codes, A Mitigation Pan allows the owner a nd the City to review corimms. and identity possible solutions to improve o verall candlofls oflhe prerty. U the Mitition Flail is not submitted, and all items are n ot completed whin the pending licen s e period, or the above property operate beyond the license expiration date, enforcement actions such as laion, f ormal complaint, or licere review nay res ult , Betoe submitting, f11I-oit Se ctions A, B, and C Toceted on pages 2 4 and S. - R. Ciy of Ira i4 vowcci ithrcntercir 001 fflri 11 PrTi5E'3D I 1TY711 Phase I I) Use a written lease agreement. The lease agreement. shall Include the Cirre Free Housing Lease AdrtUurn A. copy of the lease agreeeM and Cdnie Free Housing Lease Addendum must tx attached to The Mitigation Plan when subMitted.*-2) Agree to pursue The termination or tease agreerrierit or avciion of tenants who violate the teirns of the tee or any adderidurn. Conduct criiminall background check for all new prospective tenants If L is current W tenant a iiew backmund check is riot required. Must be able to provide documentation / ti City 1requested. 1?F ,4) Attend a Cy approved eight-hour Crime Free Housing training course. Information For 1' approved courses can be foitnd at www,rn nopa. net under the Training and Evef?tS1ib- A copy of the Crime Free Housing Certificate must be attached to the MUJatLon Plan when submtted Crime Free Houain training wa completed oMs scheduled for.". L) I Lr )AF Owner or egen aendeVIs prnIr1g to attend training at city oi L-Lftt S 5 Submit Monthly Update by the 1 e day ofeath month. P1101-1— Phse [] 1) Complete a Seorft Msesstnent and implement improvements requested by the rooiyr Center Police Department To schedule an initial orfo[low-up Security Assessment, call (763) 5B9444 A follow-up aseasmcnt must be completed before the lhcene expliratlon date to verify the setirIty improvements have been Implemented. If a Security Assessment has been previously completed, wiite the completion e, Security Assessment was completed o&is scheduled foi __________ Security Assessment follow-up was completed oriIs scheduled forj1IA h 7 Continue Sections A, Phase III on page 3. pa"e Tp IV Ljt31 PW, fv. 4415 City ufBoMy cc1 —*JAm 1L1tt ww.dn1w'i 301 SiInIu Crk 8riokI'n cenr, MN 3t2T 1 PJibie: I7) 5-333 I TTY. Til Fac (73) &93EJ] Phase m 1)Owner or agent will attend at mbinium O% (2)ct the A.R.M. meetings, The AR.M. meetings mist b omplted within the rental flceise period and before the pending Type IV Lkiis xpfratton date Registration Is not required, hGweveryoll 1ftU tbe meeting. Mite Iwo meeflg dates n owner or agent plan to / attend. '9AIqOwner or agent will attend PLR.M, meetings sciedued an2i3 2)i't 1ie no repeat code violations pevIouiy documented with the past year. The f1I0w]n atIons are required for properties wth four (4) or more on Its j 1) Conduct rsktent training annually that Includes crime prerenlion:techniques. 0 2) GDnifuct regular resident meetings- P meatings- Paps aa Typa JV kit tkvnsu MAYRjObnA'Srj, REV. 4444 City o rkyri C —Btibliu n4 mmiMty t.tJar Pcr4mertJ IIT Slrle Cek Pk BrkIyn Onn1r, MN 554D219I ?how(M)SM-3330 I TTY; 711 I Fx (71) -36 BIJILDING AND COMMUNITY STAM)ARDcity f - BROOKLYN Rentat License Mitiat1on PlanCtNTER - Type VLTenso Sct1ois B.—Long Term Capi tal Improvem e nt Plan Based on condItIon and aa, estimated replawment d21s rd to be prcMtrd for ocrnrnon cspltal iterns, Funding should be nidred oordlly, erns That are broken, worn, or otherwhse in violation prior to the estimated replacament date need LG be replaced sone'r. All items rnut Iia''e a dete for Ethed RepJaca'7ant D. Dae& .uch "unsure","don't know", •r Uwn broke will not be acceptecL IFyou are unsure of Mien arp item will aser replaoed you can make a prediction based on the age, appeatanm, condition, or rneufctUr&irdusV recommendations. Addilon1 Information on Expected Useful Life can be found etvAvwhudgov. Item Exep/e: Wa ter i-ieaer Eurnce Water Healer Kithan Appliances Laundfy Appliances Smoke Alarms! Data Last Replaced May 20 1 0 o? 2009 new 2014 new NONE Condition," Expted R bement Date F May 2021, Carbon Mone Alarms 014I .4erlor Itrt Paint1Sdiri Windows Roof 10 or ress ____ 7D 10 Pence Shed none Garage unsure Driveway uiure _______ 7Q Sidewatks Uft!sure Candithn Abbre'tIIer: N41 &'tthG FIrF Rplement=R J7FY1f1, Rev. 4-4-15 Ciyo1kI m 5 niar—Buijilipy jmd Community Shhig irc P1c'', AN 554O2t59 TTY: 711 I Fx:U9-3aD BUiL1MWG AND CO :UITY STAN PADS ty of! - -A—THR OKLYN Rettai tJcons MitigationP1arNTER L ] Type N License Sections, CS.fepa to Improve Maj7 jrgement and CodIiloaS of Pcopezy The items in this- secUop have been proven to sist with roperty management and property Image. The 1ro11owhcj actions are required: i check-In with tenants every Odays 2. Drive by property to he!c for posble 4ode vidation.W ) Evict tenants in vioration of the lease or any addondumS 4) Rernelri current on all utifty lees, taxes, assesrnen1S1 fines, ponallies, and other fliianiet claimslpaynients due to the City. [j 5) Other - The following actions are optional unlesr, requlired by the CLy E] i) Provide iaIsnoW seryie. fl 2) provide garbage ) Install seunity system. jjProvide maintenance &eMce plan for appliances. Name of senilce conipany: 5 Other: If Type IV-6 MonthRental License Is approved by the City Council, the licensee niust cornply with the approved Mitigation Plan and all applicable City Codes. A written report must be submitted by the 10 4 I day of each -Month with an Update of actions tehig taken by the owner andor agent to comply With this- itlat1on Plan. A copy of the Monthly Update can be found on page 7- A fluleble form can be found on the City's web.le at Wk'W..0 of ookfynicenter.or or call (763) 569-3330 lo have ani electronic copy eerl to you vie email, ease attach additional information if necessary - - WL9 W Rentof tbM s e P?r iy 1 Cn1ild at CturnKy d&rd DpT*1neL1 61 Bik1yn Cr4nr, MN 4O2i9 Roo: (763) 552-3 3 30 1 11Y 711 1 Fim BUILD INC AND COM1UJN117T STANDARDS ity f BROOKLYN RetaJ Lcne Mitjat1on Plan CENTER Type FV L]cerse Sign and Vorliy verify 1haL fl information provided Is tnAe and acatrIe. I unders t a nd that if I do not comply with the proved Mffltion Pan, comply with all Ftem within he l ice nse peiod, or ope ra t e beyond th e ll ceflse expira tion date, nforcerflent actions such as ci t ation s , formal c omplaints , or license revi e w may result Sam Lw - i1a'u16 /4rwAge?1r nrLft& Dare Aftlbna? a nd Tr (th, Pease PA1 Miir c,N1r Atf SiTh're Atib1) £fe CI.v S!( Only ø1CF - auft4q and P'11;e Depmt1 cakrivrw S:dir bepMmfV S^e MO ReNat 444-45 City nB Iy th —i1dii anti cunmItyStraDefrn 01 rikIymC1nr MN 554021 Phon; 3-33D I TTY !711 I BUILDING AND COMMUNITY STANDAftOS City OF N Renta' License Mitigation Plan.CEWTIM Type I-IandwIUei Wtfgaffoa Plans will nt be accepted, A flIbIe form can be fQvrd on the city's website at br&k1 enteorg or calf (7) 569-33 to have a ti e1ecronic copy sent to you via email. Property Address- JiiOin1r, MN E5'1ZD Owners Nani(s): Oo Oir Liu 145 Dcii EriOwne?& Address: b1S7 Owner's Phone: thinrs En1EFJ: Local Agent(s), Ager1's Address: 145 Dcngob Lr Agenrs Phone: (952)40003 Agent's Email: samliew1384fte.com Current Epra1fomi JJas: C1 Pe in d j ng Ex p I fation eats: (Y1iinh1'a imm nrii) Based or property conditions ndIorvefldsed police inijisnrice incldenta the above referenced property qualifies for a Type IV-5 Month Rental License- Prior to application approva I by the City Goijt)oll'a hilly completed Mitigation PLan must to completed and appicvd by City staff. A MilriUon FLa.n must be completed irnrneifa1&y in order to ensure thnely completion of the license application pooss The Mftiatian Plan should indicate the steps beirig taken to correct Idert1fed vloltfoas and the measures ht will be taken to ensure onobig compliance with City Ordinances and appthcabfa codes. A Mitigation Plan al'ows the owner and the City to review concerns and identity poss1bIe soltlors to improve oveaU conditions of the property. If the Mitigaiiori Pir is not submitted, and all items are not completed within the pending lcenae paiod or the above Wperty operates beyond the license expiration date, enforceFT*nt actions such as citation, formal oorflpain$, or license , review may result. Before submittIng, fill-out Sections A ) B and C located or pages 2, 3 4 and . Type WRa t Lcr Phrn, Rev 44445 Cammuraty Slandt&dsP itL 63Dt Shiflgk Crook. Parkwy, Wooklyn o e rAar, MM 0-2 I F1-irrn: (T8) -3J I 1Tr; 71 BUILDING AND COMMUNITY STANDARDSTityof - CENTERA) 3 Eel- Rental Lictrnse Miitgallon Plan Type W License Setiois A-Cmne Free Housing Program R e q u irements Phase f 1) Use a written lease agTeement The lass agreement shatl include the Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum. A copy of the lease agreement and Crime Free HotaFng Lease Addendum must be attached to the Mitigation Plan when subrnJtted ) Agree to purse the terminefan or lease agreement or ectr1 of teria nts Who v]olale the terms of the lease or any addendums. Conduct crimlal background check fOr al new prasective tenants. If it is a ourent IV tenant a new backgeound check is not required, Must be able to pride documerUon / to City ir requested, 4} Alter a City approved eight-hour Crime Frau Housing (reining course, Information for ap.pro'ed courses can be found at vavw, mncp net Under the ThThThg wd Eves tab. A copy, o(thn Crime rrea Housing Certificate must he attac hod to the Mitigation Plan when submitted. t Crime Free Housing training was compieed on1i scheduled Ion 14 '-D 1 [# 5') Owner or aert attened/iB planning to attend training at city or Submit Moiithty UpcJae by the 1O' day of each niorth. PbM It [J 1 Compete a Security Assessment and implement imj:woumenEs requested by the 6moktyri Center Police Depaarnerbt. To achedtfle an initial or flrow-up Security Asseasmnent rail (7) 5e-3344. A follow-up assessment must be omp1eted before the license sxptratlôn data t' verify the zecurity improvements have been Implemented, IfaSecurityAssessment has been prevkiuy compieted 1 write the completion date. Security Aeessrnent was completed onus, scheduled fort _/j1 k- ScityAsseament fallow-tip was completed ora scheduled. for.__________ Continue Sections A, Phase UI on page Flap 2A3 ? i'rFVe,n. Rev. 444- ir6kIyn an c muii$a1z4 eparm w.1yi'enter.e I Ptn(73)G3-330 I TTf71 J FBxU-GF 1)Owner or agent wHI attend at rn]nirnI, 5% (2) of Uie A.R,M, nesUn9. The A.R.M. meetin-Pis must becomplated witliFi the rental Ilcensia period and Wore th panding Type IV License expiration cthto. Reisrtbr Is not required, however you fl-tiit lgnin di.sring the eetri, Wiie IWO meeting dates an ow1err agent plan toVattend, H ,/ Owner or agent will rd ARM. meetings scheduled d 2)i-five no repeat co de vioiaiiois preiiouly docismnted with the past year. The following actions re nquired for properties with (our (4) or more units, 1) Conduct resident training rnuIty that includes Ofte prevention techniques.0 2) Cordut reguia.r resident meUns. F! R ev. 4-14-15city fBradyn r—Building --q4 Commmity WxAardlt Da1r1 margU1 shinIac kPariy 1 RaF4 crir, MN 4O-21'9 I FJitii: (5a) I lT(;11t I F Lf AND coxmitrrm STANDARDS irBROOKLYN 1 -1 CENTER Rentz f .Liet?n$e Mitigation Plan - - Type N License StIors E —Lo g Term CpkI imprnvman t Plan Based on condition and age, estimated repaeament doles need to be provided for common capRat item, Funding should be considered acccirdirigfy, Items that are broer, warn, or otherwise In violation prrto the estimated replaocernent date Reed to he repI3d sooner. M items must have date for Est,mated Repi ement Dale. Dates such a: d n sur& dot kflOV?'r or 'when broken" wilt not e accepted. If you are unsure of when an item will need to e replaced, you can make a prediction based on the age, appearance. condition, or manraure/ridustry emieridati. Additional information on Expected Usefu' Life can be found atJov. Item Example: Water Heater Fumce Weer Healer Kitchen AppIince-s Lound Appliances Data Last Repacnd Mey 2010 20N new 2014 new NONE CoridItion Expected RapIacemnt Date May 2020 ____ ZOiE Snoka Arms! Caton Monoxide Maims 2014 new 1erfor It ems PaInt!SidJng Windows Roof Fence Shed Garage Driveway Sidevialks Other SuIunaw 2Oa 10 01 F0S nono norke un Uflt2rB Unsure ZO -- _ --2- 22D 4 Condihbn Abvi2to: w=N FirF bjqedSFZqP1aCeM9nMR Pa4/$ Typo V lLk-a-tao IAY43ffm FZ0,s'. 4.14-Iff fk1yn Cnk ii]d.thrj and Lyi hiw 6301 t'nt crkPrw,3, e 1 P nu:t763 41 I TT(71I I Fn JTBROOKLYN'yM BUTh]xrcj ri COMMTJNJY Ti1U CENTER IIIIIIIIIIIIIi Rentar Lic. ange MjUgaflo n Plan Type IV License sect i ons C-S tops to improve manay ealvne wd C001Uns 40 fPfoperty The items fri this ser.1jon have eJi proven to assist with propry management and property image, The following actions , are reciuirsd 1)Check-In with tenants every 30d2y.1Z 2) Orra by property t check for psibre code viotaliDn. ) Evict tenants Th vi0r2tlon of the lease or anyaddendurn. 4) Rernin tIrrent on Of irU1Iy fees, iareB, assessments, lines, penaii, aind. other finaactal CtaimVPSYMents. die to he City.ED 5) other- The followr actIoijs are opflonal Unless riqufrad by the City.fl 1) Prcvide Iawfnj 2)Provide rbae service. U iran sertwity s ystem , U 4) Provide mainjonanCeservice plan for .appIinoes rne of service oomprby.0 II the Type IV Month Rental License approved by the City CoirncfJ, the lfcertgee mir&comprywith the approved wigaw Plan and all eppUcable City Codes. A written report must heSubmilted by the I r diy of each month with an update of q&jOris being taken by the ownerandjor agent.to oomply wIth this Mitigation Plan, A copy or The Monlhfy Update cai he forJDdDnpage 7. A fUlable fon'n call be found or the City's wbsit atw ciobrcokynctero or 76) 69-3343() to have an eecIroniç copy sent to yo,r va email. Pkae attch acklltkirpf infor ma ti on if necesaty. PAV Sm 7pp iW IL Mafir P&i Rev. 4444! ook1y C i.tcuinJty tadrd epar4mtQ1 riidI ik rkç flrokIyri Cenr, MN (I1 J Plin: -33D Tl)'--711 1 Fac 5- 337iILD1 END COMMtfljIy STANDARDSCyof Rental License Mitig a tio n pl anCENTER Sign and Verify I verity that ag ItIforrinatfon provided rs true an accurate, I Underst-vd that if I do not comply with theppm1leE MlFitcr Plan, cDrnlywitt 811 ierns Within the lierise prod, Or Operate beyord thelicense expEratot date, enforcement actions such as CttaUons, formal oomplain cit license reviewmay rasiiiL Sm LEw W d Th (Fe P Vf I 16 JOTJAfJf A9hi &A:Ir)af Sgn,e (fTApphc) cily staff only T} VRyZ F,ai1 Av, $4449 ioQky Cn±y 1tM4ri MN 4j J hon; (T8) I TTh;7i1 Fx 7S BUILDfl AM COM WIT TAN!MWXci BR^CQOXLYXtyfReuta License tIt1gaton Plan Type lVLkns HwthyrItten M!fIation PIs Will be aopd. A fllrbie form can be found on the City'swebsite at vcvw.cItyQ1bmD1dync trorg or call (7 ) 3330 to have i on electronlo copy sent toyou i14e em a il, Property Address: N 5 E430 Owner's Name(s),3ao Cling u 2w1118 Addre 115D go: tLMN 55 Owner's Phone. 52) 400 Lo ca l A g ent (s): 145 Dn LrAerWs Address -, 145 Vtf 553 70 AgenEs Phone: 92) 46400 Owner's Ernel: Ag ent 's Eimll: Current Expi-ation Date:-7,b Fending Expiration Date: 4E1 m c nihs frc4yi xr!nt pfiln aed on property oendJloris aniJor irelFdied poIce nuisall'100 incierta The above referenced property qalitis fore Type IV-6 Mo n th R en ta l Liens, Prior to application approval by th e City Couritil a fuity completed Mftigaioii Plr must be completed and appro ved by city staff, AMitigation Plan must be comp l eted Immediately in order to enure timely completion of the li cense appiica1io process, The MitlgtforL Plan should inUlcate The steps belr 'taken to correct IdentifiedViOlations and the measures That wHI be taken to ensure ongi3ing co mpliance with City Ordinan ce sand appticabe oode, A Mitigation Plan allow the owner a nd the City to review concerns andidentify polbIe solutions to improve orera11corct[ans ofthe property, If the Mitigation Plan Is notsubmitted, and all items a re not ornpetec vfluln the psidlrij license period, or the above p ropertyoperates beyond the licen s e expiration date, enforcement actions s,rch as citatloi, torrnal ciniplalnt. or Jic ense review may resi,rlL B efore ubmittin, fill -out SecU o ns A, B, and C locatd on pages 2 1 3,4, and S . R3 gq IY15 TM W iJ Lceit e 1010 am P.sj, P.0 V.44445 City ok1 C -BIIiit tdb wit neM 3Di $hins Cre Btiiii Ont MN 43iI -21 FII (7 I Th'71 I F'c: (5 E-33D 2U1LDNG AND COMMUNITY STAN D1B1L Rental IJna Mitigation PlanBROOMYN -__CENTER ] Type IV License Sections A—Cr1tie Free Thushg Prgrm ReqLIThrnerts Phase [J 1) Use a written lease agreement, The lease agreeiiierit &iII include the crime Free Housing La Addrdum. A expy of the lease agreement and Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum must be attached to the Mitigation Phrn when submitted. • Agree to pursue the trminatn or lease agreement or eviction or tenants who, violate the terms f the lease or any adderidums. 1/) Conduct crirnlnal background check for all rew prospective tenants. If Ft is a cwient tenant a new background check Is not required. Must be able 10 provide documentationc to City Ffrequested, 4) Attend a City apprve iht-liour Crime Free Housing training curse Informaflon for - approved courses- can be found at Wvw.m ncpa. net under the TWO and Eve n ts th b A copy of the Crime Free Houshig Certificate must be attached to the Mitigation Plan when subrnItted j / Crime Free Housing frinlrg was cciripleted ors scheduled for 4Yk-? 1 [P )11 Owner or agent attendedris planning In attend training t city ofr LIi4 t S ) Submit Monthly Update by the 10th day of each month. Phase II j 1) Complete a Security Assessment and iniprernent improvements requested by the Brooklyn Center Police Department, To schedule an initial or rollo*up Security Assessment, call 5694344. A follow-up assessment must be competed before the license expiration date to verify the security Improvements have been implemented. if a Security Assessment has been previously completed, write the conipletic'ti dale Seuri(y Assessment was. completed ondis scheduled for; Serxuity Assesrnent follow-up was completed oriis scheduled for:Ati Continue Sections P Phase III on page 3. Pao 21 4.14 ify cne Cornrri,iutt!y ndpxmeid 3O iig Crk Parcy 1 rco1cn CMr1 AP1 121Ae 1 h'iti;(7C) 63 1TY; 711 I F475e3 E 1) CKvner or agent vAl attend atmintrnum 50% ( t the ARr' mtla. The A.R.M.Me e tings must bo compiet&d wfthki tho reFfla r rrnse prtod and before th epending Type W LTcne expiration date. Registraffbil Is n o t required, hDvver youmust srWn during the meen. Write two meeling dates an Owner rett plan toW t L/ 0 tier or a g ent ¼iflatterd A,ftM. meetings ththiled iW T-::^ncl4/1 C-) 2) Jiawe no re pe a t code vIoIa1ioj pnvlotsly documented Mth the pest year. The following a ctions are requTroI for Pr oporves with four (4) or more tuiJt 1)Conduct resfclant ttetng 2nn uaMy that Ioluds ale prevention techniques- 2)Conduct regular resident nieethigs. Page a-15- - MtPr 44-City Bk1y Crniuity 5hL4rt Pep nnt ynnlertffn Cr Pk Or 'rCjr MN 53O-21 FJln; 7) -33i r TM 711 1 015 9-O DU1LTirNG AND COMMUWriy STANDARDS CENTER Reritat License Mifigatlon Plan Typo IV License Sctons B—Lotg Term C apital Improvement plan Based on imnaition.arld age, eimaLed rpLaoement dales need to be provided ftr common c.spital ttem., Funding .toiId be conSidered aordFnly, Items that am brkerF, Worn, or othenvise invkatIon prior to the estimated repracement date need t he replaced scrier, At] Items must have ads rr Estimated Regawmegtimle. Dates such as:"unsure", -don't kriow" or 9 when broken" will not be accepted. ff you are unsure of when an item will need to b e replaced, you canmakes prediction bed on the age, appearsnc, condition, or rnanufac!tr&ndustry recommendations- AddiiortsI tnfonnation on Expected userul Life can. be found atvhutgr. Item ExrnpI1: ftter NOEFfer Furnace Water Heater Kftchan Appliances Laundry Appliances Date Last Replaced May 2010 oaenw - 2314 now NGi ConthtIon Expected Replacement Dee F May 202Q ---ZO Smoke ATairnsI Ciarbon Monoxide Alarms 2014 new Lo7-Q - Efter1i If em Pain1iding Windows Root Fence She Garage Driveway Other 10 Dr less none noflo unsure Ufl9!fl UflUrB Nawr( FRir NBd plemnIR pagw 4/5 Tma dV JLir9 ai P1Jt. R 4-14.t City of 1y.tt C —Bulling ind 'ng Crrk Par:j e'I'i Center, YN Sum2iN I Fbar; {7' -3o I Tw 7 I F (7;3) X BtILThING AND CO 5MUNM STANDARDSCity lot CEENTER Rental Stk,n CSteps fo IM.PMVQ Mnf.j Cond iffbas cfPropeqy The items In Thk &c[on have :ben prveri to assist with property Management 8nd property ngeTbc following actions are rquired J 1) CIecIcin wI(h tenants every -dys. - 2) Drive by properly to check fr paibe code vi ola ti o n s- Evict tenant vioJ[ri of the lease or any addenclums, 4 Remain current on a lRTh]iy fea.s, taxes, assessments,rths, Penalties, and etherffnenaI CiaimslPaYrrkentsdue to the City.D 5) Other - The following ectJon ere 0131iorij unless required by the Ci,0 1) Pm awn/sr)c,, serv i ce , £1 Prvkpe gatage El ) PrsrIi security system, 4 Provide maintenance -service plan for appljajjceB. Name of service company! - 5)Other,- If the Type W-0 Month Refa1 Lens pp.tveci by 1he CIy Council, the Ic nsemut corri'piywith 1 he OPROV6 01 Mitir Plan , and air appifcabre City Codes. A written report must ho ttbmitted by the 10 day of each month with an update of actions belng taken by tho owner anchor get to compy with this MitFaton Pfari. A copy of the Month ly update can be foLir4 onpane 7. A tiIlebre form can lbe found on the Cfty's Webite at v !1 ,ciyofbroI nteroj or call{7) 5333 b Jiye n eredrorfia copy sent to you via emaiL P.PeaO attach atkIItFOIiSJ i1ormati if necessary. Pap E%o ACity OfErOOldyn C Pk1TLQN1J .3O1 h I n g I e C40g k Pjcwr 81ok C1r MN 219I I Pkon (?e) r Tm 711 p Fa 75a$4U - E1rnnm MU nCity c AND CO y RYM RentalLicense MItJaIJOIP Type IV License Sign and Verify I verify that all in1ornij, povfdes i true andaccurate_ I undersland that if !o not crnpTy With the approved Mi11fj' PlOn, cpIy with ah RQMS with In he Iere period, or operate beyondI?cergse expiration date, enfo(C -ement acifons &ch as cftatiQfl r formJ ü ip1as or license reviewmay resirt and Tit&. - IaUiG doJ OwrorAg]r &9ARIUM ff1puLe) Cy SIB ffonly P Drj - Date m nd rni sa?Q ecp2rn?1t 4!1 /e.—Da 3Dfrj D!ok2 C 444-15 1U' 4N J.flpq I I TTy; 71 F: City Council Agenda !tem No. Aa #2 [i1Si[i1 I U U *'A Uh'A I II'4 (I] 11I WJ1 DATE: June 13, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk ]Wm 6AX SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5444 Dupont Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Mitigation Plan, Resolution and issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 5444 Dupont Ave N. The applicant or representative has an opportunity to present evidence regarding the submitted Mitigation Plan. If the Council chooses to modify or disapprove the Mitigation Plan, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for disapproval of the Mitigation Plan and notify the license applicant of any pending license actions to be taken at a subsequent Council Meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a renewal rental license. This is a single family property. The previous license was a Type IV Rental License issued on March 14, 2016, on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan and City Ordinances. The property would qualify for a Type III Rental License based on five (5) property code violations found during the initial rental inspection and zero (0) validated police nuisance incidents for the past twelve months. However, the owner failed to comply with the Mitigation Plan and applicable Ordinances, specifically failed to turn in monthly updates. According to City Ordinances, if the requirements of the license category and the Mitigation Plan are not met, the license renewal category remains a Type IV. City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a licensee of a Type IV Rental Property to complete Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program. City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c requires an owner (or authorized representative) to attend a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers Association Meetings. Staff is recommending approval of the continued Type IV Rental License in lieu of denial, revocation or suspension because the owner is working with staff to meet the license requirements and the property is currently in compliance with the ordinance. The following is a brief history of the license process actions. A!issioii: Ensuring an a(tructn'e, clean, safe, inclusive cominunitV that enhances the quality of'liJl' ftui all people and preserves the public (ins! [EO1U[J I fl I I Ik'A U I k' ci) 1AhI I1Ikl Current rental license approval activities: 01-31-2016 The previous Type IV Rental License expired. 02-19-2016 The owner, Willie Young, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 5444 Dupont Ave N, a single family dwelling. 03-14-2016 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. Five property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. The property was posted as unlicensed. A $300 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 04-14-2016 A second inspection was conducted and passed with weather deferral. 04-15-2016 City records indicate one validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. Incidents were 10-25-2015, theft. 04-19-2016 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-09-2016 A second letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-18-2016 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-24-2016 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-27-2016 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will beheld June 13, 2016. Prior Type IV Rental License approval activities: 07-31-2015 The previous Type IV Rental License expired. 08-03-2015 The owner, Willie Lee Young, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 5444 Dupont Ave N, a single family dwelling. 08-27-2015 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. Eleven property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 09-04-2015 A $600 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 09-27-2015 A second inspection was conducted and passed. 10-07-2015 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 10-07-2015 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 02-01-2016 A $125 Administrative Citation was issued for submitting a Mitigation plan. 02-08-2016 A $1200 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license. 02-12-2016 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 02-22-2016 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 03-04-2016 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held March 14, 2016. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safi, inclusive conununhly that enhances the quality oJ'11ft' for all people and preserves the public Ijitsi S1Ih[J I U I Mk'4 L'A I MA 0] UI flSJI Previous Type IV Rental License approval activities (Valid 02/01/2015 to 07/3112015): 03-05-2015 The owner, Willie Young, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 5444 Dupont Ave N, a single family dwelling. 03-30-2015 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. One property code violation was cited, see attached rental criteria. 04-28-2015 A second inspection was conducted and passed. 05-06-2015 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 05-06-2015 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-01-2015 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-15-2015 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-18-2015 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held May 26, 2015. Prior Type IV Rental License approval activities (Valid 08/01/2014 to 01/31/2015): 09-11-2014 The owner, Willie Young, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 5444 Dupont Ave N, a single family dwelling. 10-02-2014 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. Twenty four property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 11-14-2014 A second inspection was conducted and failed. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 12-17-2014 A third inspection was conducted and failed. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property 01-21-2015 A $300 Administrative Citation was issued for renting without a license based on the 07/31/2014. 01-31-2015 The previous Type IV Rental License expired. 02-03-2015 A fourth inspection was conducted and failed. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 02-17-2015 A fifth inspection was conducted and failed. 03-05-2015 The $300 in reinspection fees was paid. 03-18-2015 A $125 Administrative Citation was issued for not meeting mitigation plan requirements. 03-23-2015 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 03-23-2015 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 04-09-2015 A second letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-01-2015 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. Mission: Ensuring on attractive, clean, sti inclusive community that enhances the quality ojlfe for all people and preserves the public trust iEI1iJJ I fl I aIhYA U I DkY1 LI] t1I flhJ I 05-15-2015 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 05-18-2015 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held May 26, 2015 Prior Type IV Rental License approval activities: 05-17-2013 The Owner, Willie Young, applied for an initial rental dwelling license for 5444 Dupont Ave N, a single-family residential property. 06-10-2013 An initial rental inspection was conducted. (14 property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria) 08-15-2013 A follow up inspection was conducted and failed. 11-04-2013 A follow-up inspection was conducted and passed. 11-06-2013 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 11-18-2013 A second letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 12-17-2013 A $125 Administrative Citation was issued for not submitting a mitigation plan. 12-30-2013 The property was posted as unlicensed. 01-09-2014 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 01-17-2014 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 01-17-2014 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held January 27, 2014. If approved, after six months, a new rental license is required. The license process will begin immediately. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. 1flsNio/I: Enczuuzg all attractive, clean, sqk. inclusive conimunilV that enhances the qiuiJitj' oJLfe for all people and preserves the public trust [[i1IIOJ INH 1 S I MA (I) 1I )1IJ1 Excerpt from Chapter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2. The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4.Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan, the Council will consider, among other things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license, the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. 5.Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. )I!ssioii: !?n.cunhzg an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that ejiltaiwes the quality ofhje /i all people and preserves the public trust [i1SJ[iJ I UI I Mh74 L!'4 I Dk'A (I] I1IJ I Rental License Category Criteria Policy - Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1.Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2.Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect, monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3.Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4.License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected, the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units, to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Mission: Envuriisg an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive conufluflity that enhances the (full/it) of life for all people mid preserves the public trust [i[I1IJIJ I fl U U k!4 lh' I h'A [I] I1Sh' I Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category Number of Units Property Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only Type I -3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II —2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III - 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV - 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+ units Greater than 3 b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subd. 2(a). License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units Decrease 1 1-2 5 or more41ttttttttt more than 3 Category 3-4 units t more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 -Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 __________ Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, snf, inclusive conununhty that en/lances the quality oJ'liJ for all people and preserves the public trust [EI1U(i1 I U I I 1k"A I'A I k'A (I) 1WI 1SJI Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Attachment - Mitigation Plan - Resolution Approving a Type IV Rental License for 5444 Dupont Ave N Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, sn/i', inclusive coniiniunt,V that enhances the quality of//fr for all people and preserves the pub/sc trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5444 DUPONT AVE N WHEREAS, City Ordinance Sections 12-900 to 12-916 set forth requirements for licensed rental properties; and WHEREAS, the property located at 5444 Dupont Ave N, was issued a Type IV Rental License on March 14, 2016; and WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a property owner who receives a Type IV Rental License complete Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program; and WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c establishes the requirement for Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program including attendance at a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers Association Meetings and completion of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Requirements; and City Ordinance Section 12-913 requires submittal of monthly updates; and WHEREAS, the property owner of 5444 Dupont Ave N, Brooklyn Center failed to turn in monthly updates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that a TYPE IV Rental License is hereby approved for the property at 5444 Dupont Ave N, Brooklyn Center, MN. June 13, 2016 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. BUILDING AND COMMUNITY STANDARDS City of RO01JYN Rental Uoewso Mtiatin Plan CENTER Type IV License ndwrh'ten M$t?gion F1fis will nt ?cepèd A filble form can be foi.n on the Citys website atv ,cityo'brnokIyncenteror rcall (763) -3330to have an electronic copy sent to you vfa enialL Propery Address: M44 Dupont Ave N Broyn Center, MN 554305 Onersiame(s): .MIIi Local Agent(s): R"tr Warthothe Owners Address: 13CO EdinDrok Terrace N. Agent's Address: CiOl Baker Rc Brco'lyri Park, MN 5443 Minnconk MN 55345 Owners Phone (012) 207-0634 Agents Phone: (612) 526-3709 Owner's Emit: wit Ii eyoung t @msncom Agent's Email. Current Expiration Date: --- Pending Expiration Date: - (5 niflth frc eJrn1 Based c'n pmporty conditions andlor slidated polica nuisance Incidents the above referenced property qualifies fors Type W-6 Month .Rental Liee Prior to applio0ton approval by the City Council a fully completed Mitigation Plan must be completed and approved by City staff. A Mitigeion Plan must be conipkted immediately in cider to ensure tino1y comptiQn of the license application process The Mitigation Plan should iiidkte the steps being taken to correct Identified viola tions and the rneasures that will be taken to ensure ongoing compliance with City Ordinances and applicable codes A Mitigation Plan allows the owner and the City to review concerns and idontify possible solutions to improve overall conditions of the property If the Mitigation Plan Is not submitted, end all items re n toompleted within the pending license period, or the above property operates beyond the license expiration date enforcement actions such as citation, formal complaint or license review may result. Before submitting, fill-out Sections A B 1 and C located on ps 2 3 4, And & ryçi IVR GCI.5 F&n, Rv, 4$5 City rn4 c urdly S idzd fliparnctt w,cr1yCrWcf[ €noi SIfl Crlk Pkwl, On CrileJ, MN 55430-21 Ra I Phri(7ss) Tfl': 711 I r: ç73 6E350 Seticin A—CthnG Frb E1ourng Pro gram Reqw!nentS Phase 1)Use a wrttefl Feae areerrient. The lease agreement shall. include the Crime Free Housing Lao Addendum- A copy of the lease agreement and Cii Me Free Houtig Lea5e Addendurn must be att a ched to the Tigation Plan when aubmitted 2)Aee to pursue the termination or lese agreement or evi c tion of ten ants w tlo violate the terms of Ihe lease or any adderidurrbs 3)Conduct criminal background check for all new prospeve ten a nts, If it is a cu rrent ten a nt a new background check is not required Must be able to provide (lument$liOrl to City if requested 4)Attend a City Opp roved eight-hour Crime Free Housing training courses lr tfOrnla tiM fOr approved courses earl be furi4 at www.rnncpa.net under the Training and Events tab A 00py of the Cr i me Frot Housing Certifteate mu5t be attached to the Mit1giloi1 Plan when submtLed Crime Free Housing training WaS completed on/is choduled for— Owner or aent attthdedhs planning to attend training at city of: 5) Subm it Monthly Update by th 10"i day of each month. Ph a se II ) C om pleteSewity As ses sment and implement improvements requested by the Brooklyn Center Police Department- To schedula an initial orfollaw-uPeCUFY AessmerTh cell (763) 5693344. Afoilov'-UP a esmenttnustbe cornpIted before the license expiration date to verify the security improvements have been implemented, 11 a Security Assessment has been previously completed, write the completion date Security Assessment was oonlplotad o&is scheduled far Security As ssmsntflloVI-uP was completed onris scheduled for: Contiliup sections A 1 Phase Ill on page 3. Pkm, 4,1445 Page 216 City of r1dy uter—Th 1II1En Cfirc1iflltY artdrd Dop?1rfltt 63l Shngk Crk Prkwy idi C let it 5E430^1O t Phc; Q 3-O I 1T:711 I [7e3 5 -5U BUIELDING AND COMMUN1T STANDARDS city Bru nCeiMN 43OF Rental License Mitigation Plan Type [V License Sections A—Crimo Free Houskq Frorp-rn Peq'irement (coflinued) Phase 1(1 [?] Owner or agent will attend at nnfmum )% (2) of the A.RM meetings The kRM rneLlris must be completed within the rentall I icno pakiad and before th pending Type IV License expiration data. Registration is noUquired, however you mut&n-in during the meeting Write tio meeting dates an owrr or aprilprita attend. Owner or agent will attend ARM meengs shdr on: 3fnd 7/i r 2) Have no repeat code violations previously doumeted th the past yeat. The following tion are required for properties with tour (4) or noe unTts fl 1) Conduct resident traiung annually that includes CFflie prevention tech niques 2) Criduct regular resident meetings. Pape 316 TyWra(LL1 iw MiWgeba rl PA i4'111 City of 216 O Rl yll —ild-ttg and Commuiiy txthir rnrt 6iO1 rnnI3 Cr Parkway, roIyn Ce1ff, N 554-2i9 Phcnt i) OJ-33O I lTf: 711 I F:7.3)55436D BUILDING AND COMMUNITY STANDARDSXtyf OgLYN roktnCemerMN 43C5 Rental License it1gaiJn Ptn Type IV L i cense ethrns —Lng Term Capital Improvement Based on condition and ag e, e1irried re.pIcenierit dates need to be prided for common c a pital itanis. Fund ]ng should be cons i dered accordin g ly. ttems that are b ro k e n, worn, or otheráse in viol a tion prior to the estimated replacement date need to be replaced sooner, Al items must 4ave a date for F imtd Rp/cernenl D ate,Dates such a "unsur e ", dôri' QV' or when broken" will not b e accepted. If you are unsure of when a Mci-n will need to be replaced, you can make a prediction based on the a g e, appearance, condition, ortYini.rfctUr&ifldU5t1y recornme.qdation:s Additional information an E x pected Ue&il Life can be found atvnrIhudgod, Item Date Last Replaced ,Ex a mp ^e W ter l-leater May 2010 Furnace -Oicber 2 U1 Water H ea ter Surrmir 200 Kitchen Ap p lian c e s Range 08, Fudge 00 Laundry Appliance s Swrimer O8 Smoke AJarrns/ Carbon Monoxide Al a rrn Sumnt 2012 Exterior items PaintfSiding Windows Ro o f Fence Shed Garage Driveway Ski ewl Other;Front Steps Coditn Abri1ictms: Cond(ticr Expted Replacement Date F May 2020 G Otr2U2 G -umrncr 2025 a Range 23, Fudge '1 2020 C 2016 G 2017 F 202.0 2032 F 2020 G 2022 G Reseal 2016 G F Spcir201a FirF Fds RplamentR Tnri 2 0 12 Spring 2012 D'xsr2Gt5 RcM12, Dbi'r 12 tJavi4J Goc4=' Pe 4/6 Type Ve Priri, Rp, 4-f 5 o fBioe11yn eand. Community epiett I ya 0,01 1,Rhin giza Cro ok Parkw, Crkl1,ri Ci'ie, MW 55430-21 I Phr.rrn: 763) trY: 711 1 Fsx. (763.) 1fl1D 1MG :ND COMMUNITY STANDARDS Ci f 13ROOKLYN BckJ,riCth,iorMN 43(L Rental License M[t1to Plan -CE N TER Type IV License Sct[on C—Steps to froprovepifanagemeotand Conditions of Property The Lterns i n this section have been proven to .asistviih prUpr1y mart agement and propetyirnage. The following actions are required. f] 1) Chock-in with toriants every 30-day 2) Drive by property to check for pQsible code 'violations, E1 3) Evicttenants inviatiQn of the leas or any 4) Remain currenton-aUutilityfot$1 aaessnient fines, penalt i es, and other[]financialdaitmWpaymerlts, due to the Cltj LI 5) The foIEowinj actions are Optional uiThs rettired by the City, 1)Prcvlde liiiSnoW serarice, 2)Provide garbage service, Z 3)install secwity systern. 4)Provide maintenance service plan for applianoes, Name of service company: Center Point Hams Service Pius If the Type IV-6 Month Ran[ License Is approved by the City Coundl, the liceree must comply with the approved Mitigation Plan and all applicable City Codo, A w1tten report nit be submitted by the 101h day of each mouth with an update o1 actin being taken by the owner and!or aont to comply with this Mit-tIEr1 Plan. A oo.py of the Monthly Update can bo found on page 7. A fillabla fornt can b found on the Cily's web5ite at wMvc!tyofnrooklyncenterorg or call (763) 66--323O to have an electronic copy sent to you Via email. Pteae attach additional information (1 .neeary Pip Tj'p )V Rental Rw, 4445 ........-......- .-.,-.. City of Brooklyn C i1dg CQiinty tanavd artrn 8Dt Ehl4 Crk Pwiy, othr Oribr MN -2fL9 I F?lore: (73) -33 11Y: V1 I F351 BUILDING AND COMMUN1T STANDARDS BRo CC1V City of Bfocne1.rrTh '543O Rental License Mitigation PlanENTERTypo IV Sian and Votify I verify tit all information provided is true and accurate. I understand that if I do not anipIy with 1 1he approved Mitigation Plan, comply with all items within the Jicoriso pioci, or cpte beyond 1h licono oxpiatior eiforcmnt ntioris suoh as •cittiin foimal complaints, or license re'iew may reul1, WItL Young Mrne and D& (FiJ Pr iii) 'of 14t2Oi OwTcr ør 4n Siam Date MUD ri Owner 0 rAi Narna end Th is ((fAppNe, Pia!.e Fth) Adthc'r! Cmir or A gem Sg?ewre J( Ap&aeJ or City st.rfr Only e S T7' fh fri J) ptr)?imJry 51?,33rdJ grTfli,9( Oeh J '4' POLT Mi Typo i' 414-15 CRY of Brooldyn Ctn ui4 Cgmnwity dayft Dop1rnent 6301 Shingle Crnk Pay, urcnk!yi Conhar, MFI 4Q-21 [ Ph; (73 &33-23 I I1Y: 711 1 Fax: (7) 5E960 City Council Agenda Item No. lOa #3 S[1111[6 10 I I &'A U I k'A (I] 1I IlSJk'A I DATE: June 13, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk aoum SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 2913 Nash Rd Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Mitigation Plan, Resolution and issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 2913 Nash Rd. The applicant or representative has an opportunity to present evidence regarding the submitted Mitigation Plan. If the Council chooses to modify or disapprove the Mitigation Plan, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for disapproval of the Mitigation Plan and notify the license applicant of any pending license actions to be taken at a subsequent Council Meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a renewal rental license. This is a single family property. The previous license was a Type IV Rental License issued on September 28, 2015 on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan and City Ordinances. The property qualifies for a Type IV Rental License based on nine (9) property code violations found during the initial rental inspection and zero (0) validated police nuisance incidents for the past twelve months. Further, the owner failed to comply with the Mitigation Plan and applicable Ordinances, specifically failed to attend Owners/Managers Association Meetings and failed to complete security improvements. According to City Ordinances, if the requirements of the license category and the Mitigation Plan are not met, the license renewal category remains a Type IV. City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a licensee of a Type IV Rental Property to complete Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program. City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c requires an owner (or authorized representative) to attend a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers Association Meetings. Staff is recommending approval of the continued Type IV Rental License in lieu of denial, revocation or suspension because the owner is working with staff to meet the license requirements and the property is currently in compliance with the ordinance. The following is a brief history of the license process actions. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive colntnunity that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust i1ih[iI I fl I I Dk'A U'A I DWA 0) t1I I1Ik'A I Current rental license approval activities: 12-16-2015 The owner, Chen Xuan Zhou, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 2913 Nash Rd, a single family dwelling. 01-08-2016 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. Nine property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 02-09-2016 A second inspection was conducted and failed. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property. 03-30-2016 A third inspection was conducted; corrections complete. Reinspection fees are still owed. 02-28-2016 The previous Type IV Rental License expired. 04-12-2016 The $100 reinspection fee was paid. 04-13-2016 All corrections made and rental license passed. 04-19-2016 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 04-19-2016 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 05-09-2016 A second letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6- Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 06-03-2016 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 05-31-2016 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 06-03-2016 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held June 13, 2016. Prior Type IV Rental License approval activities: 06-12-2015 The Owner, Godiva Properties, LLC, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 2913 Nash Rd, a single family dwelling. 06-30-2015 An initial rental license inspection was conducted. 10 property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. 08-17-2015 A second rental inspection was conducted and passed. 08-31-2015 The previous rental license expired. 09-03-2015 City records indicate zero validated police nuisance incidents occurred in the past twelve months. 09-03-2015 A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. 09-17-2015 A Mitigation Plan was submitted. 09-17-2015 The Mitigation Plan was finalized. 09-21-2015 A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held September 28, 2015. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust i[I1SJ(i1 I fl I I IA U I thYA 0) 1I IIBJ011 If approved, after six months, a new rental license is required. The license process will begin immediately. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. Excerpt from Chapter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1.Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2.The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. 3.Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4.Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan, the Council will consider, among other things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license, the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust S1IJ[iJ I U I I 1k'A L'A I MA (I) 1iI WA I Rental License Category Criteria Policy - Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1.Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2.Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect, monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3.Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4.License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected, the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: • At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. • At least 25% of units, to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive coinnuinitj' that enhances the quality of life Jar al/people and preserves the public trust EI1IJ[iJ I U V I1 U'A I Dk'J (0) 1I I1IJi b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per yeal,. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Category Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category 1-2 0-1 Impact 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2 Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust [I1flhJ[SJIUli MY4 IBM Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Attachment - Mitigation Plan - Resolution Approving a Type IV Rental License for 2913 Nash Rd 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 APPROVING A TYPE IV RENTAL LICENSE FOR 2913 NASH RD WHEREAS, City Ordinance Sections 12-900 to 12-916 set forth requirements for licensed rental properties; and WHEREAS, the property located at 2913 Nash Rd, was issued a Type IV Rental License on September 28, 2015; and WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-901.2 requires a property owner who receives a Type IV Rental License complete Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program; and WHEREAS, City Ordinance Section 12-914.3.c establishes the requirement for Phase II of the Crime Free Housing Program including attendance at a minimum of 50 percent of Owners/Managers Association Meetings and completion of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Requirements; and City Ordinance Section 12-913 requires submittal of monthly updates; and WHEREAS, the property owner of 2913 Nash Rd, Brooklyn Center failed to attend Owners/Managers Association Meeting and complete security improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that a TYPE IV Rental License is hereby approved for the property at 2913 Nash Rd, Brooklyn Center, MN. June 13, 2016 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. BLDNG AND coMr4rr STANDARDS 'City of - BRO4YN ittcri P Wk Type tV biense Bin MWgf1n Pl a ns wIll not A IilIabI for rt be bird on Itw Ciy w eb roileat www.cl ty orbroomy ti c e nte r.org or a1l (73) 59-3330 to have a n e1ecrn1 copy sent You Vie m a il, PM "Adr MN E54 Owrers Nanie(): 11t01*bes LL 2Pcny 1-n NOwnersM're MN 5511 OVT!E 9IQJi -4 LxaJ Agerbts}: thbfl Pte$ kii.T*nyNV*I m trtWrvn Paden Arta Ads: 4512 N Im Ilel Ave - Mirnjcili, MF.&41I Agenr$ Fk 612) 44u cJMr .rnI: reItorche hotrna]Lirn Agerta Email,, tonyuTbanrerttam Current Expiration Ua (J 1 u Pendibg ExpiratIm oat: rrAnth Based on property con di t ions ndar vs Wgted police n1since Incide nis . the a -ie rncec property uiries for a Type IV.6 Month Rantal tk-mse . Prio r to eppIkaIon aproal by thia City coun c ill a fu ll y cornpd Mi bj^a l fark Plan nuet be rnp ^@I ad a nd approd Iby City staff. A MlU9A IMn Par must be c omplW;d irnediaE.ly in prer to en s ure Umly ccrnp1e1oi of the l icense application The MJtgaion Plan should indi cate tha;tteps bei ng taken to corru lnUfd violations and the m reIhtv4ll be taken 10 en sure wgoMg 6r1ilianoe with Ci ty Ord1rr and appllc.be codas, A M I1iri ?an allows the owner and the CitJ tii mi ew cone-ems and ldenfy p1ile s o lutions to rtdi1iclrs of the property. if the Mi1igon Plan Is not ibrnitted, and a ll i terns are not iIed Mthln ihe pncirig li c ense perfod, or IKO above property peratas beyond the ficansoe x pl,rati pn do l e, enforcement a Laldris, such as itatori, tonrTa1 mprn! or Ncene w- ilaw may raul. Bare s-ubniltflt 1iIF-ait $e Gtfons & B , and C loated on pages 2 0 ,S, 4 and 5. tity *f AZY)84A IG 1u1iAi9 P94 ily S iidard. mrlc 2JJ1 S hIn gp Crpw X'nc)N 1' I F I W11 I F:(a-iM aufttm G AND COMMU1TEY sThNDMWi CiIBROuKLYN Brc'aPJfl center 1 MN 55430 Rental U1sfr hEtiatEo Plan - ;j C ENTER Type IV 8etlon A—Cr2ine F-Me HgPruwufl Phe I 1) We e written ree remenL The !ei aeement 5Iiell inclu d e the Cri me Free Hou sing Le a se Aerdurn Acoy of (to and Crim Fi-o H'ung Lee Adeki4ithi rn!Jt he attached to the Miliatkrn Pian when s ubmitted. j 2) Agree t Q pursue the WIlllin?kOrb a r Ieae a gre em ent Qr eviaLin of tvlart.15 whi ate the term o f thb toamy, or a ny ad dandurn s . 3) Condu ct crIra background check for all new proepeU''e te nan ts. It It Is a tenant a new b^a ckqround ch eck is not required Must be able to provide dourenthion to City it rqsted j 4} Ailerid a City appyrxvi2 d eht-hour Crime Fre Hwsing tra ining formtiw for ppved courses can be found, at mrcp-anat un-der the IirainMg and i5 vants A copy ofThe C rime Free HousTng C ertifica te must be attaad to the Miti gatio n Fhtii whon su bm itted . Crime Free Hoi,irtq tra ining was completed ort/is scheduled for: W1 1W39 Omer or aent attendedrit. pl a n n ing to attend trpEning at, city of,- 5) &nbrnit Mnthy Update by the 10 " day ofeadi mn1i. Phasfl LVJ 1) Ciirnplthe a Secrity A eemerLt md i mpleme n t i mprovements raclimrA ed by the rtkIyi Center PoIce Depar Witnt, To 1iedulB an inflial rfoIaw-up Security ismerit1 call 765) 569-44. AftUoW41p sment must be compfe ted b E^fa rg t h e lirene explrtkn date to ery the secuflt mpri have beeil implemen ted. If a S ectifiry Assisimt has bert prvk'iy completed, wiie the completion Sirty Aessment was wirnp l a l ed Iiethite Qt UiJrity Aernan1 foUcvp was cornpteed en/is ahethited kr CtULe Si6ttto ns A Phase M urk pe 3 Of DrC-MYA CiThilldbiq wnIr 6301 IiIn Cn PI'i.'j MP4 4U21 1 Hice; - M.,711 I Fi 76) 23ii nrnwrric w COMMNM si'w Miallash RdBRO.1W Cityof piti 65430 Rental License MUlgalloin PIii Type IV License SctiQn ACi*ne Ree ikiiffig Prrm Requfrement (ntIiwed) Plha5e 1111 [J i Owner or ct will ttnd ?tIainirnvn 50% (2) of 1h ARSM neeln The ARM. meetIngs must be , completed within thq rental ficenso period atw bkio the pa'ndn Type W Lm-ensepiraibri datE Srtiii is rd equiie, however y must riin during tho moeting. Wdt€ Mo niaoUrig an twrir or gnt plan to Owner or apent vIi lind kFLM. mtri hadt.nid =X106 arwEVIV16 - 2) Have no repeat ce viotafloris proiy docwneed with the past year. The following tr rrd for prapedies with four (4) or more ufflt. ]I1 1) CrduiL rdent training annuallythat includes crinia prvtkir iiqu. 0 2) Ccir&d regular resident meetns. WfLs Miii Prcity; of BkIya aumtinit Department T?flLrAll Ln1cj Er5, i-ay, (ôEkr CiiIr1 PN 541-21 J 7) 1T 711 I '- k?) ConditioW Expected Replacement flato F May 2020 Vay 2025 J1 °° F El BND COM W1T?2 TADM XR()KLYN ek1yn Cnte, MN W 3 0 RntaI L1c Mitigation PIarNTER type IV License Sections B—Long Term c01taI 1nprovtI41r1t P1n Based on condition and a, estimated raplamer-datee need to be provided for common capital Items, Funding .hutd be n&ered occordingly. lternthat era brokefl1 Worn, of otherse In violation prior to the eiimated replacement date ncixi to be repIoed sotnet AJI items must have datp fpr RepecOrTh?Jit Data. Dates such as. Ur dm't know". or "when bren" Will not be epLcL If We thiute of Mien an item will ned to be replaced, you tan rrRe a prediction based on the age. epperane,ordftion or mnufureIindu5try AddtioneI nformaticn on Expected Useful Life can be found at uov. Hem Date Last Rep1ae ExampJ Water Healer My 20W Furnace M 1900 Water Hai.er M a y .200 Kitchen ApplianGos Laundry Appliances May2020 Smoke AtarctsF Carbon Mxide Alarms Ex1!!Or UeJflf P&nti$iding ,un2O1 Windows Roof May 200 3 Fence Shed Garage 1057 Driveway 1080 Side-q-tatics iaso Othen M2017 June 217 My 201 2025 2025 Aij t . July 2025 July 2125 Criiion Abbrjtrt Falr-F 4ees plR W Renro L& ain PJ*& R. city 11nand Community tintt Lytlht ba Q1 9Vjqe rrkPrkwy, &c C'n1r, i'lN 4f-21e pnce: 7E3-323D TTY 711 II BUILDING AND COtThIWITY STANDAMDSCiL7oI j213NhRdU01MYN ! jBtO¼yrCnL1 1 MN Rental Len5e Mtiatioi Plan L Liconse ectkins C.Step to 1mprov M9efnd Corydittons of Properly The items in this sectiQri have teen proven to assist th property management and property ha The fl1owig actiona faire €u1re4 [E1 1) Check-ii with tenants every 30dy D rive by popty to obook for possible code vlD11ioit. •) EvItt tenants in Vjolaiion of the feaseor eriy addoWm.s. 4)Remain rrnLon 1ru1i1ity fees, taxes, assessmeritq, rines,Penalties. and Other flrncla1 claliistpyrriwis doo to the City,o 5)other The following actions are optTon,91 unless rqu1red by the CIty.E1 1) FrOVIe iawtvanow srvloe, 2) Provide gatage service, Eli tren security system. 4) Provide rnalntenancA servibe plan for appliarceL Nrfle of service company D ) Other If the Type N-45 Month Rental Licne is approved by tho City Counc, The ljoensee mist comply with the approved Mffigafion Fran and all applEcable City Codes. A w1tten .prt must be submitted by thie I yf each month with an update of dlori being takn by the owner and/or agent to cnpiy with thts M Ltigation Fn A copy of the Monthly Update can be fund on T. A flirabre form can be fQurd or the C(tye website ator oalI (76) 33I to have an ekcrorii copysen! to you ia Maw attach addiffonal infamiation if ieaaary1 VLPPgi4-14-5 City c rnrrnm14y DepzmI!n1 WdW ,Aro0KtVTceMBr.1Yq02016Ar&s reekrarkwy, Bra cdyn UrTIe, M1 430-2113 Puflt. (7E) -O I TtY: ill I Fan: (76) -Ei BUilDING MW COMMUNITY SThNDA1WS LVN arod1yn Ce1ar. R e ntal Uc e nse MItIatLo-n PlanCENTERType IV Ucw'ie Sign andVor1fy verify that all InformOon p rovid e d is rii an d a ommfe r I und e rsta nd that if I d not crrbpy wilF th Dpproved M ft ati cn Pfan, ooiiply with all iterns within the Ierse period, or opera te beyond the Itre explr.Aon de, enforcement tir sith as c htuns, form al conipFairit&1 or Iioerise review rnajreLlLL Ty Wdm a n Pr1r Manager rvr'lpX Na me and 769 (PIea,w ThrQ .i.- ^. ev a&502 018 r4T (Pb PIs' Pi-fn Mff/ "ni O(A gent snarW8 (kpk -L) Cliy &1(Ordy &^L c -- ' 'g an mOpT Papa- M Type W RMu I LJOP rw Mrtfl RWI, Hw. 4-4-1 City Bku Cu r—flilljh sn4 Co rnfftuft i fy SI lA dards Dztnt 63O1 Shir-I Crk Pariy, ErcThJn CeiW, lN 4U-1I I Pii'xi: 3] 5-333.J TTY.'711 I f 76) City Councill Agenda Item No. lOb - COUNCW ]ITEM MEMORANDUM ( DATE: June 8, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City C1erkcJ/414J SUBJECT: Chapter 12 Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in Single Family Neighborhoods Recommendation: It is requested that the City Council remove the item from the table, discuss, and consider taking action or providing further direction to staff regarding the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901; limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. Background: At its May 23, 2016, Work Session the City Council discussed the Chapter 12 Amendment Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. The majority consensus of the Council was to bring the item back on June 13 for Council consideration. I have attached the minutes from the May 23, 2016, Work Session, as well as the proposed Ordinance and all materials related to this item from previous meetings. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MAY 23, 2016 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 8:13 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager/Executive Director Curt Boganey, Interim Assistant to the City Manager Reggie Edwards, Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Michaela Kuj awa-Daniels, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CHAPTER 12 AMENDMENT LIMITING THE DENSITY OF RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan started discussion on the proposed Chapter 12 Ordinance Amendment, Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. He asked Councilmembers/Commissioners to review the document provided titled 12-901 Ordinance Amendment, Placing Density Limit on Single Family Rental Properties: Work Session Questions/Comments. Mayor/President Willson stated that would be helpful. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan read through the document line by line. Mayor/President Willson stated if they move forward with this ordinance they will need to consider extenuating circumstances and hardships and have a process which allows those individuals to seek an exception that allows them to rent their home for a certain period of time in certain circumstances. City Manager/Executive Director Curt Boganey stated he is not in a position to respond to all questions in that document currently, but he would answer what he could. In response to questions Al and A2, he stated he does feel there is a profit based motive for realtors to not want to pass the ordinance. He stated based upon most of their comments on this item, they seem to be reflective of their bias. In response to question A3, he stated he believes the MAAR has the most reliable and current data available. He noted he would be surprised if there is better information out there. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he agrees with Mr. Boganey' s analysis. 05/23/16 -1- DRAFT Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski asked how many rental license applications the City regularly receives. Mr. Boganey stated he does not believe the moratorium has ended as of the current date. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski stated she would like to see data showing the number of single family homes being converted into rental properties within the City. She noted her assumption would be it is considerably fewer than when the recession occurred in 2008 and the few years following. Mr. Boganey stated he thinks when looking at the decision if they will adopt this ordinance, it would serve them better to think about the housing market as it currently is, stable and normal. As opposed to thinking of it being an exceptional period in the market such as the 2008 recession. He stated if the ordinance is adopted it would create a cap and limitation on the ability to convert some properties into rental homes, and while that may be an issue if another catastrophic period occurs, the question that needs to be considered is if the ordinance is adopted and it stays in effect for a long period of time, will there be more value to having it in place for the stable and normal periods in the market. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he has personal experience with property management companies and he believes it is a valid observation to make, that homeowners who occupy their homes have more motivation to maintain their home value and neighborhood character, whereas renters and landlords don't have the same motivation in most cases. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski stated she is having a hard time finding the rationale behind adopting this ordinance. She stated she would like to see more data on the homes that are being poorly maintained to distinguish between if they are renter occupied or owner occupied. She also stated she would like to see data on which homes have what license types and if they have maintained them. She noted the City Council/EDA may not need her vote to adopt this ordinance, but she is not in a position to make a decision as she needs more data. Mayor/President Willson stated there have been many good points raised. He stated he feels the City has good ordinances and codes in place currently that help keep rental properties well maintained. He stated the issue is residents are bringing forward their concerns with having too many rental properties in their community, 5-7 blocks are currently over 30% rental density. He stated he is comfortable moving forward with this change; however, he wants to ensure there is some sort of process which allows for hardships and mitigating circumstances in which if a home owner would need to rent their home in a block that would put that block over the allowed 30% rental density, they would have that option. He stated an example could be a homeowner who is a member of the National Guard and gets ordered to deploy overseas. In that case, an administrative hearing or something similar would allow that resident to bring forth his circumstances of which he needs to rent his home, regardless if it will cause the block of his home to exceed the 30% rental density ordinance. Mayor/President Willson stated it could be for a certain period of time having a finite ending date, in which, the expectation would be the owner returns and occupies the home down the line. He noted the only people speaking out in open hearing have been realtors and that credits to Councilmember/Commissiofler Ryan's previous points regarding their motive being profit. 05/23/16 -2- DRAFT Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he appreciated what Mayor/President Willson mentioned in regard to potential military members. He noted his intention is not to stigmatize renters; rather his intention is to remember what made the City great, the homeowners who started their lives here and built the community. Mr. Boganey stated the issue he is hearing is that the ordinance will prevent renters from coming to Brooklyn Center; however, the data doesn't support that or show that will be an issue. He stated they should speak with West St. Paul officials to learn how they handle any hardships or exceptional situations, given they have a 10% rental density ordinance in effect, they most likely have experienced it many times. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he spoke with someone under the Director of the City of West St. Paul and she indicated the program is working very well and it has high citizen support. He noted there was a high demand for the ordinance due to neighborhood issues similar to what Brooklyn Center has also dealt with in the past. The consensus of the Council is to seek information from West St. Paul regarding what their experience has been with situations they have concerns about. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she is frustrated with this proposed ordinance. She stated she hasn't seen any letters in support of this ordinance from residents. She stated she has however received a few letters from residents against the ordinance. She noted she needs more information to make an informed decision. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he has a good amount of personal insight regarding the requests from residents for an ordinance in support of a rental density limit. He stated since 2006 while running for Office, he and Mayor/President Willson have personally knocked on almost every door in the City and they were informed this is a problem residents want addressed. He stated this ordinance is the way to address the issue. He noted the lack of support of the ordinance from residents, he believes, is due to the lack of knowledge regarding its proposed existence. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski stated there are plenty of issues with home owner occupied properties and as long as they continue to monitor the expected standards of all properties, that should keep the community in good standing. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she believes if this ordinance passes there will be a reduction in renters and that it is a code enforcement issue mainly. She noted she would like to see data on the police calls and get clarification on what types of properties they are coming from. She stated ultimately she does not agree with telling people what they should or shouldn't do with their homes. City Attorney Gilchrist stated his initial research was focused on the Winona case and the powers involved. He stated he would like to look into it more and get useful information on the differences between Winona and Brooklyn Center. He noted he does not believe there is a yes or no answer on this issue but more information could only help. 05/23/16 -3- DRAFT Councilmember/CommissiOner Ryan stated they need to remember there are ownership rights on both sides of this issue and they are not taking rights away from owners, owners have rights regarding if they want to live next to several rental properties. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated it is important to take into consideration that renting and low income are not conclusive. She stated in reality they usually pay more for renting a home than a person with a mortgage on a comparable property. She noted renters of single family homes are usually dual income households and families with children and it may not be that they can't own a home but it is possible they don't want to own for whatever reasons. Mr. Boganey stated it is simply the data that shows the correlation between rental properties and police calls, and it can be assumed if nothing is done to mitigate the potential issues that many concentrations of rental homes in a community could have, blocks of homes could end up having excessive code violations and police calls, which in turn may affect the stability of the neighborhood and the city. Mayor/President Willson asked if there was still consensus to gather more information before deciding if they want to remove this item from the table at a future meeting. Mr. Boganey stated if directed, staff can get information on the police calls for their review; however, getting data together on code violations may be too complicated at this time. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to put this item on the agenda for the next meeting to review and decide then if they want to move forward with the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissiofler Myszkowski moved and Councilmember/CommiSsiofler Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:25 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/23/16 -4- DRAFT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of April, 2016, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; limiting the density of rental housing in the city. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12-901, OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES; LIMITING THE DENSITY OF RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Legislative Findings 1.01 The City of Brooklyn Center ("City"), pursuant to Chapter 12 of the City Code, requires a license for any person to operate a rental dwelling within the City; 1.02 The purpose of the rental dwelling license requirement is to ensure rental housing in the City is decent, safe and sanitary and is so operated and maintained as to not become a nuisance to the neighborhood or to become an influence that fosters blight and deterioration or creates a disincentive to reinvestment in the community; 1.03 The City may amend ordinances enacted under its police powers as it sees fit; 1.04 The City has studied the effects of an unlimited number of rental licenses being allowed within the City through reviewing applicable studies and the current conditions of the City's rental housing; 1.05 City records show that police calls to rental housing are significantly greater than non-rental housing; 1.06 The City has reviewed various studies that suggest that rental housing can have a negative effect on surrounding properties; and ORDINANCE NO. 1.07 As a result of these findings, the City has determined it is in its best interests to limit the amount of rental housing in order to protect the interests of non-rental owners. Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code, Section 12-901 is amended by adding the following language: Limitation 01 rental o f th e c ity, not more than 30 percent ( of the lots on any block shall be ofeligible to obtain a rental housilig license. A block is defined as a groUP ets,public land, railroad rights-of-WaY, zoningproperties bounded entirely by stre hysical features such as rivers outeropPingsdistrict lines. corporate limit lines_ ^ifinal delineation of a block shall be made by the citponds or lakes, provided that mana),er or designee. When determining the umber of eligible properties on block the number shall be the lowest numb er at results in 30 perc ent or more of the residential lots being rental. The following table indicates bow many lots are able to be certified as rentals based on the number of lo ts Lots Rental Lots Rental 4-6 1 2 24-26 8 7 -10 3 27-30 9 31-33 10 -iiT 5 34-36 ll i0 16 37-40 112 Lots Re tal Lots Rental Lots Rental 41-43 13 61-63 19 81-83 25 44-46 14 64-66 20 84-86 26 47-50 15 67-70 21 87-90 27 51-53 16 71-73 22 91-93 28 54-56 17 74-76 23 94-96 29 57-60 18 77-80 24 97-100 30 III a:,''7 exempt zone, only the ted portion s silbject t0 this r e gul ati on. a. Exceptions. This limitation shall not appiyAi 1.Dwelling units within a duplex 2.State licensed residential facilities, but only to the exterlt. includi the number of residents, the city is required by statute to allow thrnor 3. Rental properties which are validly licensed as of the date of adoption of this regulation, but such rental prop ert ies sh al l be counted among the 30 percent of allowable rental ho use s purposes of determining whether new licensesm ay-b e b. Exempt Districts. Property located within the following in 1ncts are empt from this rule, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, Cl, C1 A. C2, i-i 4JQL2 ORDINANCE NO. C. Temporary Rental. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a property owner, whose property is subject to the 30 percent limitation. may obtain a temporary rental license for a property for a period of time not exceeding 12 consecutive months under the following conditions: 1.The property is actively being offered for sale to the public by the owner, or by any authorized agent of the owner, during the license term: 2.The property shall be temporarily licensed for rental purposes only if the property complies with all applicable City and State rental housing requirements: 3.The property shall be licensed only for one of the followina: (a) one adult living alone: or (b) two unrelated adults living together with any dependents by birth, adoption, or law: or (c) any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or law; 4.The temporary rental housing license shall terminate immediately upon the closing of a sale of the property to a purchaser or at the end of the license term. whichever event first occurs: and 5. A copy of the lease agreement shall be deposited with the City within one week from the date of the execution of the lease. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2016. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (-S-trikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.) IkA I Mk"4 (I] OJJ 11 I1Sh[J I 'LI] ti CU II OII DATE: May 19, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag SUBJECT: Chapter 12 Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in Single Family Neighborhoods Recommendation: It is requested that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901; limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. Background: On April 25th 2016, the City Council held a public hearing and second reading on the proposed ordinance amendment that if adopted would limit the density of rental housing in the City of Brooklyn Center to 30% in a census block. City Council has received several written comments in addition to the comments made during the public hearing regarding the proposed ordinance. Following the public hearing the City Council discussed the proposed ordinance and many of the issues identified during the hearing. I have enclosed an excerpt copy of the minute's discussion for your review. Following the Council deliberation a motion was approved to table consideration of this item and to schedule discussion at a work session in May. This item has been placed on the agenda in response to this direction. Based on the Council discussion we look forward to answering any Council questions or concerns about the draft ordinance. I expect that some questions will require additional research which we will perform as expeditiously as possible. Policy Issues: What additional information if any would the Council seek in order to make an informed decision? Should the ordinance be removed from the table for Council consideration? Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image illissunz: Ensuring an attractive, dean, saj', inclusive community that enhanwy the quality of lift or all people and preserves the public trust LeRoy Bendickson Real Estate Consultant www.leroybendickson.com E-Mail: leroybendickson@ediriarealty.com May 9, 2016 Councilmember Dan Ryan 6442 Indiana Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dear Councilmember Dan Ryan, On Monday, April 25, 2016 at the Brooklyn Center Council Meeting there was a public hearing about the proposed ordinance amendment limiting the density of rental housing in the City. My name is LeRoy Bendickson, a REALTOR and former owner of a rental unit in the city of Brooklyn Center. I was at that meeting, but did not say anything at that time. After digesting the meeting and having more time to think about-all of this, I felt that I needed to speak up. My fellow REALTORS made some compelling arguments against enacting this rental ordinance. In addition to that Following are some items for your further consideration. 1)I felt that it was interesting that the years chosen (2008 and 2015) to look at in the presentation was interesting. In 2008 there was over 200 single family home rentals in the city and in 2015 that grew to over 700 such rentals. I am wondering what it would show if we were to look at each year individuatlyinstead -of the growth difference for those two years. What would a graph show is? What would a graph of the years 2000 to 2008 tell us as well. Then what would it look like if we had a crystal ball. I think that the crystal ball would show us fall in the number of single family rentals. 2)In 2004 my daughter and son in law bought a townhome. It is a new development and low income housing in which they were given a grant of $25,000.00 from the city of Plymouth to buy the unit. The Rules were that they had to pay it -back whenthy sold andthèy could not rent the unit. This - was prior to the downturn in the housing market so we feltcomfortable with those rules. Things changed, they had a daughter in 2007 and then 3 years later a son. In a 2 bedroom Townhome it was kind of crowded. We went to the City Council three time to plead our case. They owed more for the home then it was worth so they could not sell it and the rule was no rentals. The third time we went to the City Council they told us that we could go ahead and rent the home. It turns out that there were a large number of people that had life changing circumstances that caused them to have to rent their units. THE POINT HERE IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. Just like my daughter and son in law most of the people became landlords. Not because they wanted to, but because it was forced on them. I think for this same reason your numbers from 2008 to 2015 grew so significantly. Most of those people did not want to be landlords either. 6800 France Ave. S Suite 230 Edina, MN 55435 Cell: (651) 336-7495 0 (800) 953-7692 a Fax: (952) 927-1675 My daughter and son in law are still Ian dlordsbecause the:market has still not fully recovered. Pre 2008 we had financing that caused the Wall Street turndown.and housing meltdown. We had mortgages that were called "No Doc Loans" (people could get a loan without providing the normal tax returns, credit report or bank statements). We had loans that were given out at up to 120% of the home's value. We had predatory lending of which Minnesota, sadly, was one of the worst. These things have gone away and the banks have tightened their credit restrictions. With these changes .1 would expect that this is not likely to happen again. Councilmember Lin Myszkowski, mentioned potential law suits. The courts do not look favorably when we try to take away people's rights. When we do that we take away our freedom. How do I know this, you ask. My sister is Schizophrenic. When we took her to court we asked for her basic rights to be-given to us and a guardian appointed by the court. The courts denied our request for most of her rights, but did grant us the right of housing, contracts and medical for a short period of time. Since that time I have learned a very difficult lesson - Even being given these rights we cannot force people to do anything that is against their will. We cannot force her to move, we cannot force her to take her medication and we cannot stop her from signing contracts (especially on line contracts). My sister had never held a job outside the home and has very little social skills and a rather low 10. Her income is now social security disability and maybe five hours a week at a retail store. This has been a very difficult situation because she is so stubborn and wants to be self-reliant. I will not bore you with the lone, long story, but the point is that, there most likely will be law suits because you are trying to take rights away from people. Renting their home is a fundamental right of private property ownership. I live in an association development. Our association just went through the process of trying to limit the number of rentals in our association. The association overwhelmingly chose not to have that right taken away from them and the proposal failed. It is my hope and my prayer that you will decide to work with the Minneapolis Association of REALTORS to come with a substitute plan to resolve this. You have done a lot of work to improve your City and we applaud you for all the work that you have done. Continue to move forward with a new plan to resolve the rentals so that you do not punish 70% of your homeowners. Respectfully Yours, dJ LeRoy J. Bendickson REALTOR Curt Boganey From:Julia Parenteau <juliap@mplsrealtor.com > Sent:Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:46 AM To:Tim Willson; Kris Lawrence-Anderson; Lin Myszkowski; April Graves; Dan Ryan; Curt Boganey; Jesse Anderson Cc:Bill Wald; Shields, Judith A; Lowry, Cotty; Bland, Faye; Wilson, Vita; Robertson, Lael; Anthony Sanders; Eric Myers (emyers@spaar.com ); Patrick Paulson; I-bern, Steve; davidevanson@kw.com Subject:Public Hearing Follow Up Categories: Red Category Dear Mayor Willson and Members of the Council - On behalf of the nearly 150 REALTORs® who live in Brooklyn Center, and our members at large who represent buyers and sellers in your city every day, I want to thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the rental density ordinance proposal at last night's public hearing. It was gracious of you to allow each speaker significant time to convey their thoughts, and to engage each person offering testimony with additional questions. We are pleased you have agreed to give this complex issue further study. To that end, we would like to reaffirm our offer to help you and your staff dig further into the issues surrounding homeownership and residential occupancy. MAAR seeks to be a partner with Brooklyn Center, rather than just an opposing voice on the other side of the podium. However we may be of assistance, please let us know. Thank you again, Julia Parenteau Vice President, Public Affairs Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® p. (952) 988-3124 e. juliap@nlsrealtorcom Excerpt from April 25th 2016 Regular Meeting Minutes AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, SECTION 12-901, OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES,; LIMITING THE DENSITY OF RENTAL HOUSING IN THE CITY City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed ordinance. It was noted this item was first read on March 28, 2016; published in the official newspaper on April 7, 2016; and, is offered this evening for Public Hearing. Deputy Director of Building and Community Standards Jesse Anderson provided a PowerPoint overview relating to the background of this consideration, summarized the conditions, rental density and percentages for RI and R2 properties within a census block, noting 7 census blocks exceed 30% and 35 census blocks exceed 20%. Mr. Anderson displayed a map depicting the location of rental densities. He then provided an overview of the proposed ordinance that would set the density limit • at 30%, define a neighborhood, allow exceptions under certain circumstances, and allow for a one-year temporary rental license. Mr. Anderson reviewed potential benefits and costs and stated if adopted, it would be effective on June 4, 2016, following publication. It was noted the moratorium expires on May 21, 2016. Councilmember Ryan stated the actual percentage of single-family rental units is about 10.5%. Mr. Anderson confirmed that was correct. Mayor Willson referenced the letter from Kennedy & Graven and asked how this relates to the density being set at 30%. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist advised that all local ordinance decisions have to be done reasonably based on the facts presented. He noted staff has done a good job in pulling together information for the City Council's consideration and the setting of the percentage is a policy decision of the City Council. Mr. Gilchrist stated if greater restrictions are imposed, it may increase the chance of challenge. It is his opinion that staff has presented everything needed for the City Council to make this policy decision. Mayor Willson reviewed the District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling in Winona's favor in the Dean v. City of Winona lawsuit, finding the Winona ordinance was an authorized and constitutional exercise of Winona' s police powers. It was noted the Supreme Court ruled in Winona' s favor by dismissing the lawsuit but declined to address the validity of the ordinance. Mayor Willson stated Winona followed up four years later to determine if the ordinance was effective, and should Brooklyn Center adopt such an ordinance, he supported doing the same. Councilmember Ryan noted only 7 out of 391 census blocks have a greater concentration of rental housing than 30%, so there is opportunity for additional rental in other census blocks. 1 I age Councilmember Graves asked why there are more rentals on those seven census blocks, such as being closer to public transit. Mr. Anderson stated he has not seen a strong consistency between those seven census blocks. Councilmember Myszkowski asked whether there is a profile or demographic information on renters of single-family dwellings. Mr. Boganey stated he is not aware of that information. He explained no current rental properties or renters will be impacted by this ordinance as they are grandfathered. The impact would be on current homeowners who wish to convert their property to rental. Councilmember Graves stated it had been mentioned earlier that the City can only enforce to the minimum standards. She asked if there is a number set on the police calls at a property for renewal consideration. Mr. Boganey explained there is consideration of excessive and verified police activity, which can change the classification of the rental license. Councilmember Graves stated she is interested in the complaints received from residents who wanted this considered, thinking they may have lived within these seven census blocks. Mr. Anderson stated rental complaints are most often from tenants about their landlords or about code violations but location of calls asking the City to consider density thresholds has not been tracked. Mayor Willson stated he also did not track the location of calls he received relative to considering density thresholds. Councilmember Ryan referenced the pie chart depicting types of rental licenses, noting the lower number of shorter-term licenses may be indicative that there is a lower number of landowners who do not perform well with the inspection criteria. Mr. Anderson stated that is correct and some are repeat 6-month license terms. Councilmember Ryan stated he hopes this ordinance allows the City to better manage those rental properties that consume excessive City services. Mayor Willson commented on the benefits of the current performance rental license program and stated he finds this will be another tool to deal with density of rental properties on a given census block. He stated his support to move this forward, noting the Milleimial generation will be looking for quality rental housing. In addition, if the City does not take action, he is concerned with the potential future impact should there be another real estate downturn. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. David Evanson, 771 69th Avenue N., developer and licensed real estate agent, addressed several unintended consequences that may result from a density restriction including the impact to Millermials who oftentimes do not purchase homes due to school debt, 2P age diminishing the interest of investors to purchase and renovate foreclosed/distressed property, need to disclose this restriction when writing a purchase agreement, collusion between neighbors to 'rent' to a relative to remain below the 30% threshold, and increase in vacant homes that are vandalized. He opined the City cannot improve things by taking away people's rights and if there are not full rental rights as with other cities, it raises the question whether additional rights will also be taken impacting ownership in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Evanson suggested a license restriction rather than an ordinance consideration. The City Council discussed the current seller's market and low inventory in Brooklyn Center of 48 homes for sale with only 3 being over $200,000, real estate trends towards rental apartments, and the City's Opportunity Site that is targeted towards Millennials to balance out the City's housing stock. Discussion was also held on the potential impact of the City's image for homebuyers, noting however, it has improved with the demolition of Brookdale, creating of a trail system, and other amenities that make Brooklyn Center attractive for first time buyers or single ownerships. Mr. Boganey and Mr. Evanson discussed the potential impact on resale values and ability to sell when a density requirement is established. Mr. Evanson felt one block does not determine the entire neighborhood and if that were to happen, the City already has an existing rental license ordinance and lease mechanisms can get rid of undesirable tenants. Mr. Boganey stated it seems city government would be concerned about crossing that density saturation tipping point. Mr. Evanson stated the issue is determining where that tipping point is. The City Council discussed the average rent for a single-family house rental. Anthony Sanders, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice, Minnesota office, stated he had submitted a letter asking the City Council to vote against this ordinance. Mr. Sanders addressed census data indicating over 77% of people own the home they live in, but for African Americans it is as low as 25% and for Hispanics it is as low as 50%. He confirmed these are State of Minnesota statistics and not based on Brooklyn Center's census. Mr. Sanders commented on the legal challenge of the Winona ordinance, noting his law firm had represented the homeowners and his involvement had taught him that renting is normal and part of human society. He suggested that the proposed ordinance results in telling someone they can't make money by renting their home and saying to the person who now cannot rent, that they are a second-class citizen, as they can't afford to purchase a home: He asked the City Council to think twice before voting on this ordinance. The City Council discussed the impact of instituting a rental density threshold and income disparities, that it takes pride in the City's diversity, and understands the need to institute carefully crafted housing policies so unintended consequences do not occur. The City Council also discussed the concern expressed at Truth in Taxation meetings by corporations that own large numbers of single-family home rentals on the tax value of those homes. 3Page Mr. Sanders stated West St. Paul has a 10% density rule so his clients won't look at those foreclosed homes for investment because on some blocks, the density limit has been reached. With regard to corporations increasing rent rates as a result of supply and demand, forcing out lower-income citizens, Mr. Sanders did not think the issue was who owned the home. The City Council acknowledged that renters will need more than a minimum wage job to rent a single-family property and the only thing this ordinance will guarantee is a certain number of rentals on a census block. Pat Paulson, realtor and Past President of the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, addressed the cyclical nature of the real estate market, which is currently up streaming. He recalled the 2008 housing crisis and suggested the proposed ordinance will limit options for those who may find themselves in foreclosure or need the rental income to supplement their retirement. Mr. Paulson offered to work with the City to encourage home ownership. The City Council discussed the practice of redlining, or steering certain homebuyers to Brooklyn Center because of its large affordable housing stock, which is a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Mr. Boganey thanked Mr. Paulson for his offer to work with the City, noting one of the City Council's strategic goals is to increase home ownership. He stated should the ordinance pass, the City would focus on the seven census blocks where the 30% density has been reached and determine paths available to encourage home ownership and lower that density. The City Council continued its discussion of the 2008 housing crisis and the practice of redlining, noting often involves a disparity in the types of loans offered to minorities as compared with Caucasians within the same income class. Steve Hoem, realtor, addressed his concerns to provide housing options for all, noting Minnesota has the honor of leading the country in home ownership and also having the biggest disparity in home ownership for people of color. He stated it is tragic to take away a property right in how homeowners can use and enjoy their homes and for a renter who wants to live in a single-family home. Mr. Hoem urged the City Council to celebrate the City's amenities by attracting residents and punishing landlords through an ordinance but not punishing renters. He noted another unintended consequence would be someone in the military who cannot rent their house while deployed. Julia Parenteau, Vice President of Public Affairs, Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS, stated the bottom line is that people of color are more likely to be renters than homeowners so an ordinance that impacts the supply of rentals will drive up rent rates and have a disproportion impact on those more likely to be renters. She stated while it is not the City's intent to impact those communities, intent does not matter and if 4 1P age impacting a protected class, it is a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Parenteau described the dropping of house values in West St. Paul and in St. Paul around St. Thomas when rental density restrictions were enacted, noting there is no demonstration where the tipping point impacts the City's stability. Rather, stability is a result of the City's ability to enforce its codes. Ms. Parenteau addressed the City's median home prices, Minnesota homeowner percentages based on race, and roughly estimated that in Brooklyn Center that would equate to 12,000 people identified as white living in a home they or a relative own and 5,700 people of color living in owner occupancy. She also addressed the illegal practice of redlining, and stated in her 15 years of involvement with the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS, not a single case has been brought to them as a fair housing complaint. Ms. Parenteau encouraged the City Council to think about the problem trying to be solved and whether there is a more equitable way to solve it. She offered to be a partner for education, to facilitate home ownership, and programs to get people financially stable to become homeowners. Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Myszkowski asked whether the City's insurance would cover a legal challenge. Mr. Boganey stated generally speaking, the City has broad insurance coverage including errors and omissions and general liability and as long as the City Council is acting within the scope of its authority, there is probably coverage. Mayor Willson asked whether the outcome of the lawsuit against Winona is a precedence considered by the court. Attorney Gilchrist stated it would be looked at. He explained this is a unique situation with rulings generally in favor of the City and the Supreme Court dismissing the lawsuit. Attorney Gilchrist stated there are no guarantees but Winona was defended through the League by. their primary defense firm. As far as this case, if challenged, he is not overly concerned about that potential. Councilmember Graves stated she is curious about the reasons or causes of elevated code violations and police calls for renter-occupied properties and whether it is a result of a renter not knowing about the City's ordinances. Mr. Boganey stated the Rental Ordinance specifies confirmed violations that count against a rental license but this is a broader data set of calls for service that goes beyond the Rental Ordinance. Mr. Boganey stated when the moratorium was established, it was with the intent to find the facts, not to find the facts to support a particular outcome. Staff could confirm two data sets (calls for service by the Police Department and code enforcement violations) that showed significant disparities between owner-occupied and renter-occupied properties. Calls for service were calculated where the Police Department responded to that residence. 5Page Councilmember Ryan stated his concern relating to suppression of housing values and options for veterans. He asked if there should be a provision for an additional extension of the one-year conditional license. Councilmember Ryan stated the City Council may need more data on the issue of home value suppression. Mayor Willson asked if the City Council should extend the consideration to allow additional time for analysis. He stated if there is data available that may sway a decision; he does not want to rush to a decision. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council can disapprove the ordinance, approve the ordinance as written, or table action and request additional information/analysis. If additional information is requested, he recommended scheduling a Work Session to determine the type of additional information needed. Mayor Willson noted that Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson is absent tonight and he would like to hear how she would weigh in on this issue so he leans towards more time. He agreed a Work Session discussion would be needed to identify the metrics and data sets. Mayor Willson stated the City Council heard compelling arguments tonight and he would like the opportunity to also hear from landlords about those issues. In addition, there could be more community involvement. Councilmember Ryan stated there is a short supply of homes for sale so if this action were deferred in lieu of further study, he would not expect there to be many more homes converted to rental during that time. Mr. Boganey agreed a month delay will not impact the number significantly. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to table consideration of Ordinance Amending Chapter 12 of the Brooklyn Center City Code; Amending Section 12-901, limiting the density of rental housing in the City. Motion passed unanimously. The consensus of the City Council was to schedule a Work Session the second meeting in May for further discussion. 6 1 Page COUNCIL I[TEM MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City.. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing, take public input, close the Public Hearing, and consider adoption of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. Background: October 26, 2015 - The City Council adopted a resolution establishing a moratorium on the licensing and operation of new rental dwelling units and imposing temporary regulation on residency location of predatory offenders within the City and approved first reading of An Interim Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City. November 23, 2015. - The City Council held a Public Hearing and adopted An Interim Ordinance Imposing a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City (effective 120 days from adoption until March 22, 2016). January 25, 201 - The City Council approved first reading of An Interim Ordinance Extending a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City. February 22, 2016 - The City Council held a Public Hearing and adopted An Interim Ordinance Extending a Moratorium on the Licensing and Operation of New Rental Dwelling Units and Imposing Temporary Regulations on the Residency Location of Predatory Offenders within the City (effective 120 days from adoption until May 21, 2016). March 28, 2016 - The City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Section 12-901, of the City Code of Ordinances; Limiting the Density of Rental Housing in the City. Attached are the materials that were included in the City Council packet. pji_i6 - The City Council will hold a Public Hearing. Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post newspaper on April 7, 2016. If adopted, effective date will be June 4, 2016. Several public comment e-mails and letters have been submitted for the Mayor and City Council Members and are attached. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that e,i!iaflceS the qualify of life for all people and preserves the public trust letter to Brooklyn Center 04 21 16.txt April 21 2016 To the City Council of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota I am requesting for the Council's NO vote on the Rental Density ordinance on April 25, 2016. I Oppose this Ordinance Because: *Rental homes are an important part of the housing choice spectrum. *Today's renters are tomorrow's homeowners. *Renters tend to buy in communities where they already feel welcome and comfortable. *Rental license caps decrease available housing choices and therefore have a negative impact on affordability. *Allowing fewer rental homes in the city will not increase the homeownership rate of our diverse and lower-income communities; it will merely make housing more expensive and harder to obtain. This will have a disparate impact on our communities of color, those of lower incomes, and newer Americans. There is no demonstrated justification for this disparate impact. single-family rental homes currently only make up 6.4% of Brooklyn Center's housing stock. *while the number of single-family homes that are renter-occupied has increased since 2008, there have been only 45 new conversions in the past two years, which is consistent with the market trends locally and nationally during the economic recession. *There is no evidence to suggest that an increased rate of rental properties directly contributes to negative property values or diminished community image. Many cities, even in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, and have significantly higher rates of rental occupancy with no negative impact. *Rental license caps are arbitrary. There is no evidence to suggest renter occupancy at 30% (or any other percent) of homes per block and is a "tipping point" where quality of life and community drops as a result. *Rental license caps are unfair. They strip away property rights from homeowners without due process. *There is no demonstrated cause for this removal of rights. Thank you for your consideration. Jean Leake Resident 6343 Kyle Ave North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Page 1 Sharon Knutson From: Patrick Paulson <pat.paulson@ermetro.com > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:15 PM To: Tim Willson; April Graves; Kris Lawrence-Anderson; Lin Myszkowski; Dan Ryan Cc: Julia Parenteau; Curt Boganey; Sharon Knutson; Patrick Paulson Subject: Brooklyn Center proposed rental restriction ordinance Hello Council Member I'm an active Realtor with clients in Brooklyn Center, and a Past President of the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, (MAAR). Collectively, we have and will represent most of the property owners in the city. They are our clients, and we share with you a duty to act in their best interests. We are strong advocates of private property and fair housing rights. For these reasons, we oppose rental restrictions. ICompelling N!rTT.r11Restrictions In reviewing the proposal, there seems to be concern over the recent increases in rental single family units, from 287 in 2008 to 746 in 2015. A closer look reveals that most of the growth occurred during the foreclosure crisis, like most areas across the Metro, and then slowed down as the market improved. Only 45 units were added in 2014 -2015. Resident surveys were done in 2008 and 2012, a time when rentals went up over 100%. Despite the increase, only 16% of residents believed there were too many rental homes in 2012. Of much greater concern to residents were too few retail shopping opportunities, too few dining and entertainment establishments, and too few "Move Up" homes. Also of note in the surveys is that 'Condition/Appearance of Homes', 'Community Identity/Neighborliness', 'Quality of Life', and 'Direction of City', have all improved substantially as rentals more than doubled, while the rating of 'Rundown Properties' as a serious issue has dropped from 9% to 2%. It's hard to justify such an impactful change when things are going so well. Severe Impact of Restrictions Real estate markets are cyclical. We are currently in a state of low supply of homes for sale and rising prices. Several years ago, there were three times as many homes for sale with few buyers and falling prices. If restrictions are in place when (not if) the market goes down and property owners are unable to sell it will lead to an increase in foreclosures and vacant houses. Forced sales at lower prices will become comparable sales that set values for the whole community. I realize that the 30% cap will not have a direct effect on everyone but there is an indirect effect on all. The simple possibility that an important fundamental property right could be taken reduces the value of real estate. The reason is obvious. Real estate is both tangible (land and structures) and intangible, (a bundle of rights). If you remove some of the rights, the value goes down, just like removing a garage. A recent example is in St. Paul. In 2012, rental restrictions were placed in a student overlay area near St. Thomas. The restrictions don't affect everyone directly but values have been suppressed since then. In a rising market, the area values have risen just 7% since compared to 15-20% in the surrounding areas. The only other area with rental restrictions in the Metro is West St. Paul, placed in 2006. At the time, their median prices were higher than the Metro median. Once the restrictions were put in place values dropped below the Metro median and have stayed below ever since. Implementing restrictions could lead to lower values relative to surrounding communities, which would lead to lower income residents. A lower income community would attract less business, making Brooklyn Center less appealing to new residents. Property tax revenue would be less and the city could struggle providing services. Fair Housing The Twin Cities has one of the largest homeownership disparity gaps in the country. This means that a much higher share of people of color are tenants. To place a limit on rental properties could be interpreted by some as placing a limit on people of color, regardless of intent. A recent US Supreme Court case in Texas found that "impact" was enough and that intent need not be proved in a Fair Housing Act case. The justices wrote: "These unlawful practises include zoning laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without any sufficient justification." We should be creating opportunities and encouraging homeownership rather than restricting options and excluding people from the community. Risks Beyond reduced property values and tax revenue, the possibility of litigation exists. It could come from property owners due to loss of property rights, or civil rights groups for violation of Fair Housing laws. In addition Brooklyn Center home sellers could be at risk of lawsuits if they fail to disclose the rental restrictions as a material fact. As mentioned, we as Realtors and you as elected officials have the duty to act in the best interests of Brooklyn Center residents, current and future. We will agree on most issues and would like to work together with you in the future. We are strong advocates of homeownership and work with strategic partners to educate the community about the value and process owning a home. There are a number of programs to assist buyers with entry costs and available mortgage programs. Perhaps we can work together to encourage homeownership in Brooklyn Center, especially among our minority communities. Thank you and please contact me with any questions. Pat Paulson, Realtor Past President, Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors (MAAR) Founding Chair of MAAR Research and Technology Committee Founding Chair of MAAR Diversity Committee Two time Chair of MAAR Equal Opportunity Committee Founding Board Member and Past Chair of the Minnesota Fair Housing Center I value your referrals and will treat them with care and respect. Pat Paulson REALTOR® SFR, AHWD EXIT Realty Metro Past President, Mpls Area Association of Realtors Cell: 612-386-8902 www.PatPaulson.com Sharon Knutson I am unable to make it to the City Counsel meeting this Monday but want to make my voice heard. I am a resident of Brooklyn Center (Twin Lake neighborhood) and a real estate broker who runs my real estate business in the city. I am also a former member of Brooklyn Center's Housing Commission where I volunteered my time addressing housing issues. As a resident, and licensed real estate broker, I am asking that you vote NO on capping the number of rental licenses in the city. I ask that you consider the following before you vote: Such caps will negatively affect property values in Brooklyn Center. As a real estate agent I can tell you that a healthy housing market includes 25% investor buyers. If this cap is put in place you will effectively take 25% of the demand from the market. It is simple supply and demand, remove 25% of the demand and the remaining supply will drop in value. A drop in values also means a drop in tax revenue. I would ask that you look at the city of West St. Paul as an example. They implemented such a cap on the number of rentals. Since that time property values have decreased, houses stay on the market longer, and more homeowners are not able to participate in the economic recovery as they remain upside down on mortgages. I have had 2 separate clients who .refused to even look at houses in West St. Paul citing this ordinance. They reasoned that the future is uncertain so did not want to give up their ownership rights. I would hate for the same thing to happen in Brooklyn Center. Second, such caps cause undue hardships on both home owners and renters. How homeowners are effected: In this mobile world it is not unusual for someone to take a job transfer and leave the area temporarily. When this happens the homeowner has 2 options for their current home, rent or sell. If this is a family home, one that they really love, or they are upside down on the mortgage, rental is the best option. People who fall in this category (except the upside down) are most likely long term residents who have deep roots in the community. I would hope these are the type of homeowners we want to encourage to stay, or in this case return, to Brooklyn Center. If this ordinance passes you will take away the rental option forcing good residents to leave the community, or worse, face foreclosure. How renters are affected: some people have residency requirements for their jobs. Some work in Brooklyn Center so want to live close to work but don't want to buy, or can't afford to buy now. These people will be effectively priced out of the rental market. Again, it is supply and demand. If you cap the number of rentals then you limit the supply. The people who want to live in Brooklyn Center but can't afford to buy won't be able to afford the rents and will have no other option but to move to another community. As a resident I want people who love the city and want to be here to stay. Please vote NO on this ordinance. Jim Richards, Broker Hot Market Realty.com Thank you for your time. 763-587-3789 Sharon Knutson From: Bendickson, LeRoy <LeRoyBendickson@edinarealty.com > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:57 AM To: Sharon Knutson; Curt Boganey Cc: Bendickson, LeRoy Subject: Rental Denisty Ordinance Hello Sharon and Curt, Please forward to Mayor Wilson and Members of the Council. Thank you. I am a REALTOR in the Minneapolis and surrounding suburban area. I would like to voice my opinion in regards to your upcoming potential ordinance vote that would limit the number of rental licenses issued for single family homes in your wonderful city. As a REALTOR I would not be in favor of this ordinance for the following reasons: 1)The ability to buy, sell or let for rent is a fundamental right of private property ownership. 2)This would grant rights to a select few owners while simultaneously deny those same rights to others. 3)This potential ordinance would tend to create vacant property because an owner is unable to sell or rent the home. 4)This could create home owners renting and avoid the license procedure. This would create rentals that are not inspected and possibly not cared for like they should be as a rental. I have personally seen this during the recent turndown in the housing market (which could happen again). Along with this it could create loss of control over rentals and loss of city income. 5)Non-homestead properties pay a higher property tax payment, benefiting city and county budgets. 6)Rental Density could damage housing affordability by limiting the supply of housing options. 7)Rental Density ordinances tend to impact those owners (your residents) who are already suffering. 8)Strong rental demand, when considered in national context, is a sign of more prosperous days ahead. There are more reasons that I could give, but this is enough for now. I would appreciate you taking the above into consideration. If you could also take a closer look at what can be done to address this rather than forcing this ordinance on the home owners of Brooklyn Center. Respectfully Yours, LeRoy J. BENDICKSON EDINA REALTY - TITLE - MORTGAGE 651-336-7495 Ieroybendickson@edinarealty.com vww.leroybendickson .realtor 2011 NAR Good Neighbor Award Recipient Serving Minneapolis-St.Paul and Suburbs Sharon Knutson From:Hoem, Steve <SteveHoem@edinarealty.com > Sent:Saturday, April 02, 2016 12:00 PM To:Sharon Knutson; Curt Boganey Cc:Julia Parenteau (juliap@mplsrealtor.com ); Bland, Faye Subject:Brooklyn Center Rental Restrictions Brooklyn Center City Council and Mayor: I will start by saying I understand the need to ensure neighborhoods are safe, pleasant places for residents to call home, and make a city a desirable destination for people to want to seek out housing. However, I am dismayed at the tact that you and the city of Brooklyn Center are taking by seeking to impose rental restrictions. Rental restrictions are a form of discrimination against the financially disadvantaged and those who do not want to be homeowners. I find this behavior appalling and also an affront to your constituent residents. This is an example of government overreach and infringes on the individual citizen's property rights to own and use residential property in a respectful way that serves our communities. If the concern is crime and blight, enforce your laws and statutes with homeowners AND renters AND landlords who do not maintain their homes or the minority who create the majority of disturbances and police calls (the 90-10 rule). Creating rental restrictions is NOT the right answer as it: (a)infringes on our individual property rights and (b)drives up rental costs for those who either don't want to own a home or can't own a home Let me be clear - I am saying this not as a licensed real estate agent but as a concerned citizen. Sincerely, Steve Hoem Edina Realty Steve Hoem I market expertise and award-winning service Voted Super Real Estate Agent by Minneapolis-St Paul & Twin Cities Business magazine readers since 2008 Edina Realty, Inc. 17767 Elm Creek Blvd. Suite 200, Maple Grove, MN 55369 Email I stevehoem@edinarealty.com Cell I 612.207.3311 Office I 763.494.8183 Fax I 763.420.2603 http://www.TheHoemTeam.com Curt Boganey rom: Dan Ryan Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:53 AM To: Curt Boganey Subject: FW: proposed Brooklyn Center rental density ordinance Hi Curt, FYI, forwarded here is a letter in opposition to the proposed revision of City code, Chapter 12-901. Dan Ryan City of Brooklyn Center Councilmember Home 763-535-4177 counc i1 mem b erryanci.brooklyn*center.mfl.Us From: tom@tomslupske.com [tom@tomslupske.com ] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:02 AM To: Tim Willson; April Graves; Kris Lawrence-Anderson; Lin Myszkowski; Dan Ryan Subject: proposed Brooklyn Center rental density ordinance Dear Mayor Willson and Members of the Council, I'm writing in regards to the proposed Brooklyn Center rental density ordinance. First, a brief personal background: I lived in Brooklyn Center from 1980 to 2003. During that time, I was very active in the community. I served on the Bi-Centennial committee; I was a member of the group representing Brooklyn Center for the All-America award celebration in Washington, D.C. I served on the Earle Brown Days committee for a dozen years; I was privileged to twice chair this committee. During the EBD committee I chaired the following events: 5-Ring Circus; Hot Air Balloon Race; Carnival. During these times I worked with city staff, the mayor, council and police for safe and enjoyable events. I chaired an election committee for city council. There are several other community involvements. I am also a REALTORS who has practiced in the Northwest area since 1977. I know Brooklyn Center and surrounding communities very well. I attended the Monday, March 28thi discussion of the proposed ordinance. During that time, I heard all sorts of negatives about renters. One council member described her experience with a drug house on her block; the drug house was a rental. When I resided in Brooklyn Center I too experienced a drug house on my block, 5900 block of Abbott. However, this drug house was owner-occupied. My example is to demonstrate there are drug houses whether or not it's owner occupied. I listen and read the presentation that property code violations are more common with rental housing. During 'ny residence in Brooklyn Center I called the city to report code violations; once again, the violators were home owners. If housing code violations are a problem, why not enforce existing ordinances? Why are you considering excluding a group of people based whether they rent or not? Some might say this is discrimination. I can provide other examples of renters and home-owners. This proposed ordinance is unfair to both home-owners and renters. Home-owners have property rights and this ordinance will deny them their rights. Most people would rather own than rent. It may only be temporary for these folks to seek rental options until they can afford to purchase. Housing rentals became more common during the recession years. Primarily due to home-owners who could not afford to sell and were forced into foreclosure or an option to become landlords until they could afford to sell. As the housing economy improves there will be a normal trend once again for home-ownership. Until this occurs, a rental ordinance will penalize home-owners who cannot - or do not want to - sell. If home-owners cam-tot rent, they may be forced into foreclosure which will depress the city's housing prices. Yes, I know that the proposed ordinance includes a 1-year waiver for these home-owners. For many, it may take more than 1 or 2 years to again have their mortgages above water. This proposed ordinance is unfair to both home-owners and renters. In my professional opinion this proposal will accomplish just the opposite of what the community needs. I urge you to reject the proposed rental density ordinance. Thomas jiip1e, REALTOR® J Broker-Associate Direct J 763-235-7090 j Mobile/Text 1612-720-2997 I Email tomslupsLe4rernax.net I Website I www.tomslupske.com I Changing the Way you Search for Homes. RE/MAX Results offers FREE home search Radar App j How do you ger this App? I Just Text HomesByTom to 612-223-77001 Open the App I Click RE/MAX Results Radar Button I Point your phone at the listed home I Review all the listing infomation and photos. Socialize with Tom on ....Facebook I Linkedln ,U!log I Twitter I YouTube R1 Results 1378483 d Way #200 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Each office Independently Owned and Operated. Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments maybe legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail or any attachments in error, please notify the sender by calling (763) 235-7090 and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachments for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. Thank you. Dear Members of the Brooklyn Center City Council, First, I would like to thank you for attempting to address the issue of rental properties within the city. It is certainly a tough issue and I commend you for attempting to address the concerns of many BC residents. I was born and raised in BC. I am now raising my own family in BC. All told, I have lived in BC more than 35 years. This city is important to me and I feel invested in our community. I am also a home owner (6249 Brooklyn Drive) and a landlord (2801 67th Lane North), My wife Melissa and I purchased our first home (280167 1h Lane) in 2004 at the height of the housing boom. In 2013, as our family continued to grow, our nice little townhome no longer fit our family. Unfortunately, our townhome was now tens of thousands of dollars underwater. Our options for moving were short sale, foreclosure or rental. Renting was certainly the best option. We purchased a second home in BC just a half mile or so away from our townhome. This allows me to be responsive to any issues that come up at our rental property. I do my best to be a fair, responsible landlord. Ultimately, my desire would be to sell the townhome but property values remain low for townhomes in the city (though they are slowly rising). So I see this issue from both a perspective of a concerned member of the community and a landlord. Your proposal, while well-intentioned, seems to me to not be the best option for dealing with problem rental properties. Here are several reasons why: 1.The issue is not rental properties, or even renters; it is irresponsible landlords. I believe the city has a robust and fair process for granting and maintaining rental licenses. Things like number of police calls to a property and safety violations are taken into consideration when granting a permit. This also affects the length of the rental license. This ordinance only punishes future landlords and does nothing to address current problem landlords. It is important to understand that the issue is not rental properties but the behavior/irresponsibility of bad landlords. 2.From what I can tell, your 30% cap seems arbitrary. You've indicated that you have looked at numerous studies. Can you further elaborate on where this percentage came from? 3.The rights of a home owner should be fair and universal. Rental licenses should be based on merit. Your proposed changes grant a right to some while denying that exact same right to others based on nothing other than where their property is located and if their neighbors got in line before them. How is that fair? Either everyone should have the right to rent or no one. This is an unfair (and probably unlawful) change that will unfairly punish many BC homeowners. I have a hard time believing this is an ordinance that would stand up to legal scrutiny. 4.As I mentioned in the first point, this ordinance does nothing to address problem landlords that already have rental licenses within the city. Frustrated neighbors will still have the same issues even after this ordinance goes into effect, except now they will have one less option for getting away from those problems! So what do I propose as a solution? 1.Do not deny the right every home owner in city should have to rent their home. Many times this is the only "good" option a person may have. This ordinance may have the unintended consequences of increased foreclosures and hardship for BC home owners. 2.Amend the current rental licensing program to be more robust. More oversight is needed! If the issue is problem landlords, let's address those landlords, not punish other home owners for something they have not done. For instance, the city could set the number of legitimate police calls to a property in a year. Anything over that number would result in revocation of the rental license. A more robust rental program with more oversight should naturally weed out bad landlords and encourage good landlords, of which there are many. Again, I would like to thank you for attempting to address this issues. it is encouraging to see city leadership doing something rather than nothing. Admittedly, this is a tough issue and I understand why you are seeking to make these changes. I ask that you have an open-mind and rationally consider the points that I have made. I strongly suggest that you delay voting on any changes to this ordinance until further consideration and study can be done. Thank you for your time and service to our community! Best Regards,rzL Paul Carey 6249 Brooklyn Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (763)202-5085 Sharon Knutson rom:Curt Boganey Sent:Monday, April 25, 2016 2:29 PM To:Sharon Knutson Cc:Rozlyn Tousignant Subject:FW: Vote NO on proposed Rental Density Ordinance Copy for meeting please. From: John Busch [rnailto:iohnfbusch@gmaiLcoIifl Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 2:56 PMTo: Sharon Knutson; Curt Boganey; Tim Willson; April Graves; Kris Lawrence-Anderson; Lin MyszkoWski Dan Ryan Subject: Vote NO on proposed Rental Density Ordinance Hello, I am a home-owner resident on Twin Lake and I oppose the proposed Rental Density Ordinance. My main reason is that I would like to have the option of renting out my house some day if I move. If I decide to move, but I want to keep my property but I cannot get a license because my neighborhood is already at 30%, then what am I supposed to do? If I leave my house vacant then it costs money to do that legally and might invite other problems and crime. If I rent it out illegally then the city wont be able to assure good living conditions for the renter. Please don't limit my rights as a homeowner. I also oppose the ordinance for the following reasons: o Rental homes are an important part of the housing choice spectrum. • Today's renters are tomorrow's homeowners. • Renters tend to buy in communities where they already feel welcome and comfortable. • Rental license caps decrease available housing choices and therefore have a negative impact on affordability. • Allowing fewer rental homes in the city will not increase the homeownership rate of our diverse and lower-income communities; it will merely make housing more expensive and harder to obtain. • This will have a disparate impact on our communities of color, those of lower incomes, and newer Americans. • There is no demonstrated justification for this disparate impact. • Single-family rental homes currently only make up 6.4% of Brooklyn Center's housing stock. o While the number of single-family homes that are renter-occupied has increased since 2008, there have been only 45 new conversions in the past two years, which is consistent with the market trends locally and nationally during the economic recession. o There is no evidence to suggest that an increased rate of rental properties directly contributes to negative property values or diminished community image. Many cities, even in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, have significantly higher rates of rental occupancy with no negative impact. • Rental license caps are arbitrary. There is no evidence to suggest renter occupancy at 30% (or any other percent) of homes per block is a tipping point where quality of life and community drops as a result. e Rental license caps are unfair. They strip away property rights from homeowners without due process. • There is no demonstrated cause for this removal of rights. El WORKING TOWARD JUSTICE FOR ALL MID-MINNESOTA LEGAL AID MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE Lael E. Robertson (612) 746-3834 1erobertsonmyIegaIaid.0rg April 25, 2016 Mayor Tim Willson mayorwillson@ci .brook1yn-center.mfl.0 Councilmember April Graves Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson VIA EMAIL Councilmember Lyn Myszkowski councilmemberrnyszkowSki@ci.brookjYn enter.mn Councilmember Dan Ryan coun cilmemberryan@ci.brooklYcente.m 1 s Dear Mayor Willson and Councilmembers It has come to my attention that you are currently considering an ordinance that would limit the number of single-family rental properties in city neighborhoods. As the Supervising Attorney of the Housing Discrimination Law Project, I am concerned that this ordinance may create an adverse disparate impact on members of protected classes, specifically immigrant populations, people of color and families with children. Statistics show us that people of color in Minnesota are, by in large, renters. In February, the Minnesota State Demographic Center reported that minorities in Minnesota, in general, are more likely to rent than own homes. 92% of Somali households rent; over 75% of African Americans rent; 57% of Mexican Americans rent; 52% of Hmong households rent. http://www.startribune.com1 1 gips/3 667541211. Brooklyn Center is a vibrant, diverse city. The 2014 American Community Survey puts Brooklyn Center's population at 30,549 people, with almost half of the population identifying as a person of color (14,692 people). http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/j sf/p a g e sL productview.xhtml?srcCF. However, within the City of Brooklyn Center, HUD data shows that there are already approximately 1,435 low income minority renter households paying more than they can afford or living in overcrowded conditions. https ://-vvww.huduser.gov/poi-tal/datasets/ep/CHAS/data d own lo ad chas.htnBy eliminating rental options for these families, the proposed ordinance can only make this situation worse, adding to the number of poorly housed low income minorities. The ordinance therefore 430 First Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: Facsimile: (612) 746-3834 Client Intake: (612) 334-5970 www.mylegaIaid.org A United Way Agency April 25, 2016 Page 2 makes housing unavailable in a way that disproportionately burdens racial and ethnic minorities protected by the Fair Housing Act. Moreover, single family rentals are often the best option for households with minor children and larger families. There is a lack of affordable housing for larger households, and often single family homes are the only suitable choice. Limiting the number of single family rental homes will disproportionately affect people based on familial status. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits making housing unavailable in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings on the basis of protected class status. 42 U.S.C. 3604. This prohibition includes housing practices with a discriminatory impact, even when no discriminatory intent is present. The Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations regarding cases of disparate impact state specifically identify "implementing land use rules, ordinances, policies or procedures" as housing practices implicated in the disparate impact rule. 24 C.F.R. 100.70(d)(5). Housing practices that create a disparate impact may be legal if they are "necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interests . . .and. those interests could not be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect." 24 C.F.R. 100.500(b). Moreover, the "substantial" interests must be "supported by evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative." Id. The reasons that the City has proffered for capping this ordinance do not rise to the level of a proven substantial business purpose. Local media reports have stated that there is concern regarding the upkeep of rental properties Even if we assume that this reason meets the standard laid out in the federal regulations, the answer should not be to decrease the availability of desperately needed affordable housing that will disproportionately affected a number of protected classes. Less discriminatory alternatives exist, including holding the home owner accountable for the upkeep of the properties. It is also my understanding that the City has noted that city services like police calls are used at a higher rate for rental homes than for owner occupied dwellings (3 to 1). It is also my understanding that this is not atypical of cities with rental properties. The City has not shown any data that would indicate that reducing the use of city services by single family rentals is a substantial, legitimate interest, particularly in light of the fact that the single family rental homes make up less than 7% of the total occupied housing units in the City. The City has looked to other cities with density caps already in place. However, the situations in these cities are not analogous to Brooklyn Center's, nor is their affected population the same. Winona, Northfield, and Mankato density caps came as a reaction to student populations around major colleges where one rental would hold a number of unrelated students, causing parking issues and late night disturbances. Brooklyn Center, in contrast, would be restricting single home rentals to, in general, single family households with children. April 25, 2016 Page 3 I urge the Council to vote no on this change, or at the very least to table any vote until a more thorough study can be done to see if there may be a less discriminatory way of reaching any alleged substantial business interest the City may have. Sincerely, Lael E. Robertson Supervising Attorney LER:ler cc: City Manager Curt Boganey cbo ganeyci.brooklyn-center.rnn.us City Clerk Sharon Knutson sknutson@ciy.brooldyn-center.rnfl.uS 1306-0363107--1628842.docx April 25, 2016 Brooklyn Center City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS" Dear Mayor Willson and Members of the Council, On behalf of the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® and the more than 7,500 REALTORS® members in the Minneapolis area, many of whom live and work in Brooklyn Center, today we respectfully reiterate our opposition to the proposed amendments to Brooklyn Center City Code Chapter 12, Section 12-901 regarding 'Limiting the Density of Rental Housing.' We are joined in philosophy by the Saint Paul Area Association of REALTORS®, the Institute for Justice, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, the Housing justice Center, and numerous other housing and community-focused organizations. REALTORS® are opposed to the Rental Density ordinance (a.k.a. "Rental Density Cap") because:- It confers rights to some homeowners while simultaneously denying those rights to others; . It creates a disparate harmful impact on people of low incomes and communities of color; It will suppress housing values; It damages housing affordability by limiting the supply of a variety of housing options; and REALTORS® seek to protect the private property rights of all Minnesota homeowners. REALTORS' believe in homeownership and private property rights. REALTORS® believe the 'ability to buy, sell, or let for rent' is a fundamental right of private property ownership. Cities should not arbitrarily restrict homeowners' abilities to exercise their fundamental private property rights. Arbitrary Limits on Rental Housing can Cause Disparate Impacts under Fair Housing Laws. In Minnesota, people of color and those of lower incomes are more likely to be renters than homeowners. By eliminating rental options for these families, the proposed ordinance will only add to the number of poorly housed, low income minorities. The ordinance therefore makes housing unavailable in a way that disproportionately burdens racial and ethnic minorities protected by the Fair Housing Act. Rental Density Ordinances Negatively Impact Home Values. One of the most common arguments MAAR hears from governments and communities is that new laws and regulations are needed because a current problem is negatively impacting housing values. However, our sales data rarely bears that out. But the data does show a correlation between the enactment of rental density caps and a drop in property values. West Saint Paul historically had housing values above the Twin Cities metro, until it created a rental density cap of 10 percent per block— in the months following that enactment, the median sales price in West Saint Paul dropped below the metro region's values and has not recovered. The same drop in values was demonstrated in Saint Paul after the enactment of its rental density ordinance surrounding the University of Saint Thomas. The Mac/Groveland neighborhood (historically one of the more affluent in the city) saw values drop in the rental density zone immediately after the cap was enacted - and like West Saint Paul, the area sales price has yet to recover, even as the regional economy has rebounded. And Conversely, Rental Caps Damage Affordability. Renters need to obtain stable and affordable housing in an area of their choice in order to position themselves to be financially able to purchase a home. Rental density caps foster unaffordability by limiting the availability of housing in the city, which drives rents up. We urge the Council to vote No on rental density caps in Brooklyn Center. Seek to determine what problems truly exist, and then find solutions that are fair and equitable to all current and prospective residents of the city. Utilize strong and uniform code enforcement coupled with attractive and varied housing options, incentives, and homeownership opportunities that will ensure Brooklyn Center remains a desired community within the Twin Cities metro area. On behalf of the more than 7,500 REALTOR ® members of the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS ® and their clients who are current and future residents of Brooklyn Center, we stand ready to assist your community as you face housing challenges. We would welcome any opportunity to assist the city in finding equitable and effective solutions to property issues, especially regarding single-family housing. Sincerely, %`Z^ Julia Parenteau Vice President of Public Affairs Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS ® p. (952) 988-3124 e. juliap@mplsrealtor.com Cc: Curt Boganey, City Manager MAAR Executive & Government Affairs Committees COUNCIl I{T]KM MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2016 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manage SUBJECT: Adoption of an ordinance to restrict the number of single family rental properties in a neighborhood Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council remove the subject item from the table so that it may be considered at the March 28th meeting. It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of first reading and schedule a public hearing for an ordinance restricting the number of single family rental properties in a single family neighborhood. Background: On October 26, 2015 the City Council approved a moratorium on new single family and single family attached rental properties and Level 3 Predatory Offenders. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow for time to conduct a study to determine the effects the increase in single family rental licenses and Level 3 Predatory Offenders had on the neighborhoods and community. The following information is a summary of information collected relating to the moratorium and options related to single family and single family attached rental properties. According to the City Attorney, cities have the authority to restrict the number of single family rental properties. A copy of the memo from the City Attorney is attached. Summary of Conditions • The total number of single family and single family attached properties has increased from 287 in 2008 to 746 in 2015. • While single family rental properties are distributed throughout the city, some blocks have a higher density of rental properties. Approximately seven blocks exceed 30 percent rate of rental properties. Approximately thirty-five blocks exceed 20 percent. Please see the attached density map for the density in census blocks. % of Rentals within Census Block # of Census Blocks 0%107 1-4.9%36 5-9.9%113 10-14.9%70 15-19.9%30 20-24.9%18 25-29.9%10 30-34.9%4 35+%3 Il'Iissioj,: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive COnhJIuhifltj' that enhances the qiielitj' of life for all people aiidpi'eseri'es 1/ic public Ijitsi cisisJi i ii i u ii t. ii asii The rate of police calls for service and property code violations are higher at rental properties compared to owner-occupied properties. Police calls for service (cfs) are 3.03 cfs at rental properties compared to 1.13 cfs at owner-occupied properties. For property code violations, the percentage of properties with property code violations is 34% for rental properties compared to 15% for owner-occupied properties. These statistics indicate that more city services are consumed at rental properties, which more likely have a negative impact to the neighborhoods and community. A higher percentage of code enforcement complaints are received about rental properties than owner-occupied properties. The number of complaints received about rental properties is 21% (165), 9% at owner-occupied properties (583), and 45% (583) at vacant properties. Due to current information systems, we were unable to compare complaint percentages from previous years, but anecdotally feel the percentage of complaints at rental properties has decreased since implementation of the performance based rental program.• We found no studies from independent sources showing the impact of rental properties on neighborhoods. However, some cities stated anecdotal or possible specific community impacts, since enacting density requirements. Some potential impacts of a restriction on the number of rental properties are provided in a later section. • City staff performed a review of similar neighborhoods, with high and low number of rental properties, to determine curb appeal influences. Because of the winter weather and limited time frame, correlations of rental properties on the neighborhood could not be determined with the limited number of properties in the study. • The ratio of rental properties in other cities varied and was not necessarily an indicator of neighborhood conditions. Many other community characteristics appear to affect the numbers such as student housing, higher number of multifamily, etc. Further, many cities did not have the number of single family rental properties accessible. Options to Consider 1.Do nothing related to density or quantity 2.Implement a density requirement (Information attached for four cities that have density requirements) 3.Implement a proximity requirement 4.Implement overall cap Potential Impacts and Feedback The following information was provided as feedback through research of other cities and through the focus groups in relation to potential impacts to Brooklyn Center if a restriction on rental properties is enacted. Potential Benefits• Potential decrease in police calls for service within neighborhoods • Potential decrease in property code violations within neighborhoods. 1'Iiss!on: Ensuring an attractive, clean, saft, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the public trust S[I1U[iJ I fl I I DhYA U I k'A [I) IAI 1IJhA I • Potential overall improvement in neighborhood appearance. • Potential increase in owner-occupied properties. • Potential improved property value stability in neighborhoods Potential Costs • Decrease in home sale prices due to the restriction on potential use of the property as an investment property. • Increased time on market for houses for sale. • Negative impact to property owners desiring to rent house due to sudden change in status such as job change or death of property owner. • Litigation from property owners or advocates. • Additional staff time and resources needed to manage, educate, communicate, and enforce this requirement. Budget Issues: At the 30% density maximum we believe no additional staff will be required in order to manage, educate, communicate, and enforce a density or proximity requirement. As the density maximum is decreased below 30% the staffing requirement increase significantly. Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Attachments: • Ordinance • Attorney Memo • Statistical Information • Rental Density Information from Other Cities: • Report from Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors • Density Map A'Iission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for al/people and preserves the pit bile trust Attachment: Attorney Memo Kennedy Graven CHARTERED Troy J. Gilchrist 470 US Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9214 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax tg il c h r i stk enn edy_graYen.00m htt p://www .ken nedYgraVen.00m Also: St. Cloud Office 501 W. Germain Street, Suite 320 St. Cloud, MN 56301 (320) 240-8200 telephone MEMORANDUM Date: December 21, 2015 To: Vickie Schleuni flc From: Troy Gilchrist Kyle Hartnett Re: Restrictions on Rental Licenses The City of Brooklyn Center ("City") is considering placing limits on the number of rental licenses it will issue. The leading case on this issue is Dean v. City of Winona, 843 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. App. 2014). In this case, the City of Winona ("Winona") adopted an ordinance limiting 30% to the number of lots per block in certain zoning districts that can obtain certification as a rental property. Three property owners sued, challenging Winona' s ordinance, claiming it violates the Minnesota Constitution and exceeds Winona' s statutory zoning authority. The District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in Winona' s favor, holding that the ordinance was an authorized and constitutional exercise of Winona's police powers. The case was then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court ("Supreme Court"). The Supreme Court ruled in Winona' s favor by dismissing the lawsuit, but declined to address the validity of the ordinance. While the case was working its way through the appeals process, the circumstances of the owners who brought the suit changed in that they had either sold their property or had received a rental license under the 30% rule. Therefore, the Supreme Court found the appeal was moot because there was no longer ajusticiable controversy. The Supreme Court reasoned that the property owners no longer had a sufficient interest in the litigation's outcome because, due to their changed circumstances, they were no longer seeking rental certification. Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015). The case gives guidance on the factors a city should consider when placing restrictions on rental housing. The purpose of this memo is to provide the City some background as to the lessons learned from the City of Winona case. 471082v2 BR291-4 Analysis of Case In the case, Winona was concerned about the number of rental housing units near Winona State University. The issue was initiated by Winona' s Planning Commission noting that there had been an increase in residential properties being converted from single-family usage to rental usage, which resulted in increased parking demands. The Planning Commission held numerous public input meetings with interested parties. The Winona City Council then held a number of town hail meetings designed to address density, parking, and aesthetic issues within the area of the University. Winona also formed a study group to look at the issues. Winona also formed a parking advisory task force. The task force found that rental housing units comprised about 39% of Winona's total housing units, but 52% of the complaints were received by the Community Development Department ("CDD"). In order to reduce this impact, the task force suggested that the number of rental units on any given block be limited to 30% of the total properties on that block. The task force recognized that the proposed limit on rental licenses would have an effect on property values and the ability to sell property. The Planning Commission reviewed the recommendation and noted that the task force found that neighborhoods heavily populated with student rental housing tend to become run down and unattractive. The Planning Commission noted that the CDD found that 95 of the 99 addresses that had two or more calls for police service based on noise and party-related complaints were rental properties. The Planning Commission also noted that 53% of the zoning violations that resulted in written violation were from rental properties. The Planning Commission and City Council both approved the 30% limit on property rental license. F9ur years later, Winona again looked at the issue of limiting rental licenses and found the 30% rule was working and that the rule had preserved affordable housing and reduced conversions as intended. As stated above, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that Winona was within its authority to limit the number of rental licenses it issued. The court ruled that the record established Winona determined the conversion of owner-occupied homes to rental properties and the concentration of such properties in some neighborhoods began to have a negative impact on the quality and livability of those neighborhoods. Therefore, the ability to deal with the negative impacts was a valid use of the Winona's police powers. The court also ruled that the 30% rule did not violate the Minnesota Constitution. The court noted that because the 30% rule was put in place after a long, deliberate information-gathering process, it was not an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious interference with private interests, and therefore allowable. It should be noted that the Court of Appeals did not address whether the 30% threshold was an appropriate threshold. The parties did not challenge where the limit was set, but instead only that a limit was in place. While the case did go to the Supreme Court on review, that court did not provide any additional guidance to this matter or a ruling on the questions raised in the case. At the time the issue got to the Supreme Court, the changed circumstances of the property owners rendered the case moot and so the Supreme Court refused to rule on the other issues. 471082v2 BR291-4 City Considerations The case affirms that the City has the authority to restrict the number of rental licenses it issues as long as those restrictions are not set in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Before setting a limit, it will be important for the City to study the issue and determine what, if any, negative effects rental housing is having on the City. Ideally the study would result in a statistical analysis showing the effects of rental housing in the City including the effects on crime, parking, zoning violations, etc. Likewise, the City will need to have solid reasoning to determine a limit on rental housing. If the City were to simply adopt a limit without valid reasons on how it set the limit, a court may determine the limit is arbitrary and capricious and overturn it. It is clear that Winona went through a detailed and thorough process before adopting its 30% rule. The City would need to proceed with a similar process before adopting any similar restrictions on rental housing. TJG: 471082v2 BR291-4 Attachment: Statistical Information, Density Requirements Other Cities, ( The following tables include general information relating to the increase in the number of rental properties, housing trends, and other city service impacts. (oiU€rr Number on: J11L1{ Single Pending Duplex Multifamily Family Total Percentage Difference January 1, 2008 287 N/A N/A 75 362 January 1, 2009 321 N/A N/A 75 396 9.39 January 1, 2010 489 27 47 75 638 61.11 January 1,2011 478 35 47 (74 Units)74 634 -0.63 January 1, 2012 569 33 47 (74 Units)74 723 14.04 January 1, 2013 643 34 47(74 Units)74 751 3.87 January 1, 2014 701*52 47(74Units)74 827 10.12 January 1, 2015 698 29 46 (76 Units)74 847 2.42 November l,2015 746 15 46(76Units)74 881 4.01 *Included Humboldt Ct Condos 36 separate licenses prior to conversion to apartment The following chart shows the trends of mortgage foreclosures, registered vacant properties and licensed single family rental properties. L [Othi ftfl F (t ttt ii Issued issued Issued ttive,Issuedl AcThflii '--- '. License 2010 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 Category Type 79 (23%) 322 (41%)85 (18%)375 132(24%)282(33%)102(20%)301 72 194—3 Year (45%)(36%) Type 11 156 (45%) 359 (45%)230(48%)356 218(40%)428(51%)192(38%)408(48%) 77 208 -2 Year (43%) Type 111 80 (23%) 77 (10%)86(18%)24(3%)103 (19%)91(11%)109(22%)105 27 48-lYear (13%) Type IV 33 (9%) 30 (4%)75(16%)76(9%)90(17%)42(5%)103(20%)28 13 20 -6 Months _________________________(3%) *Active means the number of rental licenses active and valid at a given point of time regardless when it was issued.For example,a Type 1-3 year rental license- may be issued in 2012; however it remains active through 2013 and 2014.Further, the active license number does not include licenses pending or in the licensing process. Ren Type 111- -ir Rental-Type 1-3 / Year / 37% 2Year 47% Active 5 License Type Rental-Type 1-3 Year Single Family 271 2 or more Units 54 Rental-Type 11-2 Year 345 46 Rental-Type 111-1 Year 100 14 Rental-Type IV-6 Months 25 4 The rate of police calls for service and property code violations are higher at rental properties compared to owner-occupied properties. Police calls for service (cfs) are 3.03 cfs at rental properties compared to 1.13 cfs at owner-occupied properties. This is for the time period of 01/01/15 through 12/10/15. This is based on a total of 800 single family rental properties and 7,235 owner-occupied single family properties. Police Calls for Service Average Per Property 01/01/2015 -12/10/2015 N e ighborhood Health Review: In reviewing the effect of a higher number of rental properties on neighborhoods, staff conducted physical surveys of homes in six neighborhoods. There were 3 groups of 2, in different areas of the city. Each group had a neighborhood with a higher percentage of rentals and a neighborhood with a lower percentage of rentals. Properties within each neighborhood were rated based on 18 different categories. The categories included; Siding material, siding condition, garage stalls, garage condition, lawn condition, trees, condition of plantings, landscape maintenance, appearance of front entry, driveway material, driveway condition, roof condition, exterior lighting, architectural elements, nuisance code violations, and overall appearance. In two of the three groups the neighborhood with lower density of rentals scored higher. The following chart provides a brief summary of the results. The group where the higher density of rentals scored slightly higher was a group that had overall lower scores. Average Neighborhood Score 868 76 'y•• ':V q-• - \ 0 \, .I 1' Rental Density information at Other Cities: Part of the analysis included a review of other cities near Brooklyn Center, the number of rental properties, and impact on their city. ('ai, 0110 A nfa City # of rental units Total number of units Brooklyn Center 3,786 11,640 32,5% Brooklyn Park 7,293 27,841 26.2% Fridley 3,839 11,760 32.6% Golden Valley 1,959 9,349 20.9% Maple Grove 2,939 23,626 12.4% New Hope 3,576 9,051 39.5% Plymouth 7,907 29,982 26.4% Robbinsdale 1,817 6,416 28.3% Cities with density restrictions Mankato 6,885 15,784 43.6% Northfield 1,972 6,832 28.9% West StPaul 3,572 9,139 39.1% Winona 4,312 10,989 39.2% Staff contacted each city to get a further break down of the number of single family versus multi- family rental units. City # of single family I rental units Total number of units Percentage Brooklyn Center 761 11,640 6.5% Brooklyn Park 2,300 27,841 8.3% Fridley 900 11,760 7.7% Golden Valley 406 9,349 4.3% Maple Grove 564 23,626 2.4% New Hope 545 9,051 Plymouth 1,551 29,982 5.2% Robbinsdale 775 6,416 1 12.1% Summary of rental density ordinances at other Minnesota Cities: There are four cities with rental density restrictions. Each city's ordinance was reviewed to understand the restrictions and a brief summary of each ordinance is provided below. City of West St. Paul: City of West St. Paul has the most restrictive rental density program of the four cities. West St. Paul adopted the rental density ordinance in 2006, however, in 2012 the rental density restriction was limited to Ri zoning districts. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of each license is 12 months on a rolling calendar. According to City ordinance Section 435.05 subd. 12 Rental Density for Single Family Rental Dwellings, in RI zoning districts no more than 10% of the single family lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental license. Below is the chart in the ordinance indicating how many rental licenses will be issued based on the number of units on each block. # of total units on block Number of allowed rental licenses on block 1-14 1 15-24 2 25-34 3 35-44 4 45-54 5 55-64 6 65-74 7 75-84 8 85-94 9 The City may grant Temporary Licenses if the number of rental properties exceed the 10% rule (Section 435.05 subd. 12.c) and the owner would be required to hire a professional property management company to manage the property. However, the City Council would still have full discretion whether or not a temporary rental license would be issued. All temporary rental licenses would be required to renew on an annual basis. City of Northfield: City of Northfield adopted the rental density requirement in 2007. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of the rental license is two years. City ordinance 14-97 states that in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts no more than 20% of the houses on a single block shall be granted a rental housing license. The city does not have a chart indicating the number of rental licenses that it will grant based on the number of property on a single block. The City offers a temporary license (14-99) valid for 12 months and offers a one-time extension not to exceed 12 months. The owner must apply to receive a temporary license and the owner must meet or meeting one of four outlined conditions within the next 30 days. 1.The property owner is currently taking, or will be taking, an extended leave of .absence from the property owner's place of employment for a duration six months or more where the property owner or the property owner's family do not reside at the property; or 2.The property owner is involved in a bankruptcy or foreclosure proceeding directly involving the property and property owner; or 3.The property owner (i) is currently or will become unemployed, or (ii) has or will have a change in employment status resulting in a loss of income or in the relocation of the property owner more than 20 miles away from the city; or 4.The property is being or will be actively listed or offered for sale to the public by the property owner. City of Mankato: City of Mankato adopted the rental density ordinance in 2008. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of the rental license is three years. City ordinance, Sec. 5.42. subd. 20, allows for no more than 25% of the lots per block to obtain a rental license. Below is the chart in the ordinance indicating how many rental licenses will be issued based on the number of units on each block. # of total units on block Number of allowed rental licenses on block 1-4 1 5-8 2 9-12 3 13-16 4 17-20 5 21-24 6 25-28 7 29-32 8 33-36 9 37-40 10 41-44 11 45-48 12 49-52 13 53-56 14 57-60 15 61-64 16 65-68 17 69-72 18 73-76 19 77-80 20 81-84 21 85-88 22 89-92 23 93-96 24 97-100 25 Mankato may grant a temporary rental license; however, the license is not to exceed 6 months and may be renewed at the City Council discretion if the property is actively marked for sale. To obtain a temporary rental license the property must fall into one of two categories. 1.The property is being sold and the owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property. 2.The owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property and the occupants are providing a caretaking function for the property. City of Winona: City of Winona adopted the rental density ordinance in 2008. The rental license program requires the submission of a rental license application and the property must pass a rental license inspection. The term of the rental license is five years. Ordinance 33A.03.i states that no more than 30% of the lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental license. Below is the chart in the ordinance indicating how many rental licenses will be issued based on the number of units on each block. # of total units on block Number of allowed rental licenses on block 1-3 1 4-6 2 7-10 3 11-13 4 14-16 5 17-20 6 21-23 7 24-26 8 27-30 9 31-33 10 34-36 11 37-40 12 41-43 13 44-46 14 47-50 15 51-53 16 54-56 17 57-60 18 61-63 19 64-66 20 67-70 21 71-73 22 74-76 23 77-80 24 81-83 25 84-86 26 87-90 27 91-93 28 94-96 29 97-100 30 The city offers a temporary rental license or properties that are on blocks that exceed the 30% rule, however, there are five criteria outlined in 33A.03.iii that must be met. The temporary license may not exceed 12 consecutive months and must meet the criteria. 1.The property is actively being offered for sale to the public by the owner, or by and authorized agent of the owner, during her license term. 2.The property shall be temporarily licensed for rental purposed only if the property complies with all applicable city and state rental housing requirements. 3.The property shall be licensed only for one of the following: (a) on adult living alone; or (b) two unrelated adults living together with any dependents by birth, adoption, or law; or (3) any number of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or law. 4.The temporary rental housing license shall terminate immediately upon the closing of a sale of the property to a purchaser or at the end of the license term, which ever event first occurs. 5. A copy of the lease agreement shall be deposited with the City's Community Development Department within one week from the date of the execution of the lease. Defining a Block Each city differs in how it defines a block. None of the cities used the census block definition and created its own block definition. Further the interpretation of the block definition is relied upon staff City Density Restriction Block Definition Mankato 25%(5.42 subd.20.B1) .. .land enclosed within the perimeter of streets, watercourses, railroad right- of-way; public parks, municipally owned lands, and City boundaries, unless otherwise depicted on the attached map. Northfield 20%(14-97) . . .as houses on both sides of a street between successive intersecting streets or between other such boundaries, railroad rights of way, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds or lakes. Corner houses shall be included in the count of houses on a single block, regardless of which way they face or on what street they are addressed (corner houses may be counted as part of more than one single block). West St Paul 10%(435.05 subd.12.a.1) . . .an area of land enclosed within the perimeter of streets, watercourses, public parks, municipally owned lots, and city boundaries. Winona 30%(33A.03.i) ...a group of properties bounded entirely by streets, public land, railroad rights of way, zoning districts lines, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds, or lakes; provided that final delineation of a block shall be made by City staff. Sample Ordinance Language City of Mankato In cases in which one portion of the block is not subject to the application of this ordinance, only the affected portion of the block is subject to this regulation. B.The following shall apply to the determination of eligible lots: For the purposes of this Subdivision, a block shall be defined as an area of land enclosed within the perimeter of streets, watercourses, railroad right-of-way; public parks, municipally owned lands, and City boundaries unless otherwise depicted on the attached map. The attached map depicts the boundary of blocks for the purpose of establishing the number of lots in a block. 2. This Subdivision shall apply to legally conforming lots of record and legally nonconforming lots of record, as defined in Chapter 10, in existence at that time of the effective date of this ordinance or approved by new subdivision of unplatted and undeveloped property after the effective date of this ordinance. For the purposes of this Subdivision, lots of record may also be referred to as 'properties", property, or 'lots'. C.For the purposes of this Subdivision, the following shall apply: The Council hereby adopts the attached map that depicts the area of application of this ordinance, and the boundary of blocks. The map may be amended by City Council resolution and without public hearing. 2. Properties licensed for rental purposes on the effective date of this ordinance shall he included in the calculation of the number of permitted rental properties in a defined block. Subd. 20. Rental Density. Not more than twenty-five (25) percent (rounded up) of the lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental license or to be licensed as a rental property. A. When determining the number of eligible lots on a block for rental license purposes, the number shall be the lowest number that results in twenty-five (25) percent or more of the residential lots being rental The following table indicates how many lots are able to be licensed as a rental property based on the number of lots that exist in a block. Lots Rental [ Lots Rental Lots Rental Lots Rental r Lots Rental rr 49-52] 13 73-76 19 97-100 25 5-8 2 29-32 8 53-56 14 H 77-8H 20 H 9-12 1 F 33-36 F F 57-60 15 81-84 1 21 rr r l346 r4rI374o1or[616416 :r8s8 22 17-20 21-2 4 Subd. 21 Temporary Rental Licenses. A. Temporary rental license may be granted by the City for unlicensed properties to an owner of property for a period not to exceed six (6) months for the following circumstances: 1.The property is being sold and the owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property. 2.The owner and the owner's family are not residing at the property and the occupants are providing a caretaking function for the property. Six (6) months from the date of issuance, the temporary rental license shall expire and is not subject to renewal, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. The Council may approval additional extensions provided the property is being actively marketed for sale. Temporary rental licenses are not transferable to new owners. (Ord. of 3-23-2009) The issuance of temporary rental licenses shall conform to all standards of Chapters 5, 10, and 13, except the Building Official may grant variances from Chapter 13 provided critical life safety requirements are met. I 5[444[ 11 6H448 r i rri 8ir 3.if the number of rental properties equals or exceeds the permitted number of rental properties per defined block on the effective date of this ordinance, no additional rental licenses shall be approved for the block. Existing rental licenses may be renewed and transferred per Section 5.423: however, should a rental license not be transferred or renewed ; or if the rental license is revoked or lapses, the rental license shall not be reinstated unless in conformance with this Subdivision and other applicable Sections of the Mankato City Code. 4.Temporary rental license issued per Section 5.42, Subdivision 21, shall be exempt from this Subdivision. 5.Rental licenses for State Licensed residences shall be exempt from this Subdivision. if the property is no longer licensed by the State of Minnesota, a new rental license application shall be submitted and reviewed for compliance with this Subdivision and other applicable Sections of the Mankato City Code. 6.In the Office-Residential District located within the City Center Planning Area, as defined in the adopted City Center Renaissance Plan, a rental license may be issued to a lot within a block that exceeds the 25 percent permitted number of rental licenses, provided the ground floor(s) of all principal and accessory buildings on the lot, and any other floors below the ground floor, are occupied and used for a non-rental permitted and/or conditional use and the rental use of the property is confined to floor areas located above the ground floor(s). City of Winona (i) In R-R, R-S, P-i. 1.5 and R2 districts of the city, no more than 30 percent (rounded up) of the lots on any block shall he eligible to obtain certification as a rental property, including homes in which roomers and/or boarders are taken in by a resident family, A block is defined as a group of properties bounded entirely by streetsa public land, railroad rights of way, zoning district lines, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppingS, ponds or lakes: provided that final delineation of a block shall be made by City staff. When determining the number of eligible properties on a block, the number shall be the lowest number that results in 30 percent or more of the residential lots being rental The following table indicates how many lots are able to be certified as rentals based on the number of lots that exist on a block. I at Rental Lits Poltal Lois tniai Lois Rriiil L'ai RntaI I 21 2 II ii I i IV l 2 2'! '•' 11 1 1 , 2 V 4II 1 i7-G 2! 27 a ii 4 fl 10 1 a a I 1-I( I 2? 172i? 6 17.40 1' 2-i y;,( In cases in which one portion of the block is in an affected zone and another is in an exempt zone, only the affected portion is subject to this regulation (I) Exceptions This limitation shall not apply to state licensed residential facilities nor to rental properties Miich are validly licensed as of the date of adoption of this ordinance The latter will be counted among the 30 percent of allowable rental houses for purposes of determining whether new, licenses may be issuod (u) Exempt Districts. Property located within the following zoning districts are exempt from this rule: AC. R-MHP, C1, R3, 8-1, a2, 825, 0-3, M1 1 and M-2, (iti) Temporary Rental License. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a property owner, whose property is subject to the 30 percent limitation, may obtain i temporary rental license for his or her property for ,,,3 period of time not exceeding 12 consecutive months under the following conditions: 1 The property is actively being offered for sale to the public by the owner, or by any authorized agent of the owner, during the license term. 2. The property shall be teinporanly licensed for rental urposes only if the property complies with au appltcabte City and State rental housing requirements. 3 The property shall be licensed only for one of the following. (a) one adult living alone, or (b) two unrelated adults living together with any dependents by birth, adoption or law Or (C) any number, of persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or Law, 4 The temporary rental housing license shall terminate immediately upon the closing of a sale of the property to a purchaser or at the end of the license term, whichever event first occurs 5. A copy of the tease agreement shall be deposited with the City's Community Development Department within one week from the date of the execution of the tease. Landlord and Realtor Feedback: In an effort to receive feedback city staff from Building and Community Standards and the Police Department met with a focus group of landlords and representatives from the Minneapolis Association of realtor. The landlords supported stronger enforcement of current codes. They also had strong opinions on how the strength of the neighborhood affected the overall likelihood for them to purchase a property and the price that they can rent out their properties. The Minneapolis Association of Realtors representative expressed that they would prefer the city to become more aggressive with enforcing city codes and not regulate the density of rentals. They expressed that the overall appearance of a home and neighborhood does not affect the purchase price of a property and that the main contributing factor in price is the overall structure of the home. A copy of their report is attached. BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF 'EMERGENCY' RENTAL HOUSING RESTRICTIONS Prepared for the City of Brooklyn Center By -the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS ® Department of Research and Economics Staff Contact: David Arbit, MCRP DavidA@MPLSrealtor.com (952)-988-3150 November 2015 "It's always better to have occupied homes than vacant homes." —Mayor Tyra-Lukens (Eden Prairie) I.Introduction The challenge of exactly how to deal with rental properties—particularly those in urbanized areas near large job centers, universities and other economic drivers —is one of the more complex issues facing today's policy-makers and city planners. Those who support rental restrictions or moratoria on rental conversions claim that neighborhoods change too much when too many homes are converted to rentals. Opponents of such ordinances cite the importance of respecting private property rights, the fact that this activity is market-driven and point out that restriction not only harms consumer choice but can lead to outcomes worse than the problem they set out to solve. There's also the reality that certain segments of the population are more apt to utilize rental housing: this is especially true amongst young adults and seniors. II.Housing Analysis Figure I shows a variety of housing metrics for Brooklyn Center as well as for other related geographies, including the percentage of units that are renter- versus owner-occupied, as well as occupancy and vacancy rates.' Hennepin Brooklyn United States Minnesota County Center Total housing units 131,704,730 2,347,201 509,469 11,640 Occupied housing units 116,716,292 2,087,227 475,913 10,756 %88.6%88.9%93.4%92.4% Vacant housing units 14,988,438 259,974 33,556 884 %11.4%11.1%6.6%7.6% Owner occupied units 75,986,074 1,523,859 306,121 6,970 %65.1%73.0%64.3%64.8% Renter occupied units 40,730,218 563,368 169,792 3,786 %34.9%27.0%35.7%35.2% Vacant units -for rent 4,137,567 48,091 13,951 441 %27.6%18.5%41.6%49.9% Vacantunits - forsale 1,896,796 30,726 6,571 182 %12.7%11.8%19.6%20.6% (Source: US Census ACS) Exactly 64.8 percent of Brooklyn Center housing units are owner-occupied. That is consistent with a 65.1 percent owner-occupancy rate in the U.S., but lower than the 73.0 percent rate in Minnesota. The data in Figure I also show that renter-occupied units make up the remaining 35.2 percent of all occupied units in Brooklyn Center. That figure climbs to 42.0 percent for zip code 55429, greater than the U.S. as a whole, Minnesota and Hennepin County. This demonstrates the prevalence of rental housing among residents and thus the importance of preserving and even expanding the number of rental units. 1 The area columns at the top reflect a nested geography methodology whereby each geography reflects smaller and more specific areas that are—for the most part—wholly contained within the preceding area.2 While Brooklyn Center's 7.6 percent vacancy rate is lower than the U.S. and Minnesota, it is higher than the immediately surrounding Hennepin County. Of those vacant units, approximately 50.0 percent (49.9 to be exact) of them are "for rent—nearly twice the share than that of the U.S. and nearly three times the share for Minnesota. In other words, of Brooklyn Center's vacant properties, half of them would remain vacant in the face of a rental license moratorium—which could invite more and worse challenges for the city. Of the rest of the vacant units, about 20.0 percent are 'for sale." If a homeowner is unable to sell, he or she may prefer to rent the home to obtain cash flow in the short term - which can fund needed maintenance and repairs. And by limiting a property owner's future right to rent, those considering buying a home in the city might think twice if this important option is not available to them. The overall makeup of renter- versus owner-occupied properties in the city indicate a strong need for and use of rental properties. Figure II below shows moderate recovery since the economic downturn in terms of unit sales, though traditional buyer demand is still well below 2005 levels. Figure III below shows the median sales price in Brooklyn Center compared to the metro area as a whole. Though there is a gap between Brooklyn Center sales prices and the Twin Cities metro as a whole, prices are rising in the metro as well as in the city. In fact, the rate of price increases in Brooklyn Center has far outpaced the metro region in almost every month of 2015. If home prices rise faster than household incomes, the need for plentiful rental housing becomes that much more important. Figure II Closed Sales - e,00kJyn Center SQO - 500 400 300 200 IOU 1-2000 1-2005 1-2007 1-2000 1-2000 1-2010 1-2011 1-2012 1-2013 1-2014 1-2015 BIODIJIU CnUr Trdi5onnl Figure III Median Sales Price 5240K 5220K 0200K 0100K 5460K S14OF( 0120K - ErooHyn Center - T,45n Cities Region 510010 - -1-2005 4-2008 1-2007 1-2000 1-2000 1-2040 1-2011- 1-2542 1-2013 1-2544 1-2015 0,0 0514,, Cent,, & T,,ln C5eS Renion: TraditOflaI Noure IV Quickf acts Minnesota Hennepin County Brooklyn Center Population, 2014 5,457,173 1,212,064 30,729 Population, pct change -2010 to 2014 2.90%5.20%2.00% Living in same house over 1 year 85.60%82.60%84.20% Foreign born persons, pct 7.30%12.90%23.20% Homeownership rate 72.50%63.70%63.80% Housing units in multi-unit structures 21.60%36.30%28.10% Persons per household, 2009-2013 2.47 2.38 2.65 Per capita income (2013 dollars)$30,913 $37,485 $21,275 Median household income $59,836 $64,403 $46,149 Persons below poverty level 11.50%12.80%19.00% Figure IV demonstrates a number of important considerations to take into account before implementing new housing restrictions. First, Brooklyn Center's population is not what some would call "transient." In fact, more people in the city have lived in their current home for over I year (84.2 percent) than in Hennepin County as a whole (82.6 percent). As further evidence, the homeownership rate is 63.8 percent in Brooklyn Center—slightly higher than the 63.7 percent homeownership rate in the surrounding county. Second, almost twice the share of the population in Brooklyn Center is foreign born (23.2 percent) than in Hennepin County (12.9 percent). Foreign-born families and individuals typically rent first before considering homeownership. This is well-documented by the Center for Immigration Studies, Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies and others. This means having adequate access to safe, affordable rental options are especially important in Brooklyn Center. 4 Third, per capita and household incomes are lower in the city than in the surrounding county. Homeownership simply isn't achievable for everyone at any given time. But with access to adequate rental units, families can have stable housing situations while they work hard to save for a down payment. Additionally, it is important to note that the number of single family units that are renter-occupied via current license is 746, which accounts for less than 7% of the total occupied housing units in the city. Relatively, the number of single-family homes that are not owner-occupied are a minor cohort in Brooklyn Center's housing market - even with a 150% increase in rental licenses issued since 2008. Bear in mind also that the increase in rental license applications for single- family homes is trend that has been seen throughout the region, for legitimate economic and demographic reasons. The a real estate market has seen increased demand for single-family rentals across the metro, from a variety of sources - including families who are re-entering the housing market after enduring significant financial hardships during the economic downturn, and new residents who have been recruited to the Twin Cities for employment opportunities. With the documented worker shortage in the metro region, businesses are increasingly turning to talent pools in other parts of the country, or the world - and many of those new residents prefer to rent a home before buying one. Ill. Demographic Analysis With a median age of 33.2 versus 36, Brooklyn Center's population skews slightly younger than the surrounding county. Young adults tend to preserve their mobility, perhaps more so now than in previous generations. And with a younger population, it's plain to see how a city-wide rental restriction would disproportionately and adversely impact a significant number of Brooklyn Figure V Age Breakdown Brooklyn Center Hennepin County Minnesota <5 years 800%6.60%6.70% 5 to 9 years 790%6.20%6.70% 10 to 14 years 5.90%6.10%6.60% 15 to 19 years 6.60%6.20%6.90% 20 to 24 years 6.00%7.00%6.70% 25 to 29 years 8.70%8.80%7.00% 30 to 34 years 9.00%7.80%6.50% 35 to 39 years 6.60%6.50%6.20% 40 to 44 years 6.60%6.80%6.70% 45 to 49 years 5.40%7.10%7.70% 50 to 54 years 6.10%7.40%7.60% 55 to 59 years 5.80%6.60%6.60% 60 to 64 years 4.50%5.30%5.30% 65 to 69 years 4.00%3.60%3.80% 70 to 74 years 2.60%2.50%2.90% 75 to 79 years 2.30%2.00%2.30% 80 to 84 years 1.80%1.60%1.90% 86years+2.20%1.90%2.00% Median age 33.2 36 37.4 Source: US Census Center residents. Today's younger generations have been slow to enter into homeownership, and for a variety of reasons, many are electing to rent rather than buy. Brooklyn Center's youthful population indicates a higher likelihood that residents will prefer or need to rent, rather than buy, housing. Brooklyn Center has a higher share of 30-39 year olds than both the county and the state. This is a very common age for forging new households. Without adequate rental options available, the city risks losing this vibrant, innovative and productive group with high rates of labor force participation. Many in this group form small businesses that can be strong economic growth engines and meaningful contributors to the local tax base. IV.Economic Analysis Nothing occurs in a vacuum. When considering wide-reaching rental ordinances, it's important to keep in mind the state and composition of the labor market and broader economy. Figure VI Avg. Weekly Wage Percent of All Jobs Hennepin Brooklyn Hennepin Brooklyn Industry County Center County Center Total, All Industries (000000)$1,387 $943 100.0%100.0% Natural Resources and Mining (1011)$1,238 --0.1%-- Construction (1012)$1,318 --2.8%-- Manufacturing (1013)$1,534 $1,110 8.5%17.1% Trade, Transportation and Utilities (1021)$1,188 $837 18.1%23.8% Information (1022)$1,866 $729 2.4%0.6% Financial Activities (1023)$3,005 $1,848 10.4%3.7% Professional and Business Services $1,639 $1,280 20.7%14.0% Education and Health Services (1025)$952 $795 22.2%23.2% Leisure and Hospitality (1026)$461 $295 8.9%8.4% Other Services (1027)$672 $741 3.1%3.3% Public Administration (1028)$1,200 $1,340 2.8%3.3% Source: MN DEED, 2015 Of all jobs in the city, 23.2 percent are in the Education and Health Services field, with an average weekly wage of $795—the fourth lowest paid industry. Another 23.8 percent of jobs are in Trade, Transportation and Utilities, with an average weekly wage of $837—the fifth lowest paid industry. Leisure and Hospitality and Other Services combined make up nearly 12.0 percent of city jobs and those industries have the lowest and third lowest typical wages. Higher- wage jobs in Professional and Business Services and Financial Activities together only comprise less than 18.0 percent of all employment. Figure IV shows Brooklyn Center's current (2014) median household income at $46,149. With wages lagging behind Minnesota as a whole and Hennepin County, it's evident that additional housing restrictions would not only adversely affect an already vulnerable population's ability to secure quality housing, it would also cause rental prices to rise by diminishing the supply of rental units while demand is increasing. The city's fragile stage of economic recovery indicates that a notable number of current and future residents will still require rental housing in the coming years. The importance of available rental as part of a stabilizing economy cannot be overestimated—rental homes, and single- family rentals especially, are very often stepping stones for households on their paths to homeownership and to greater economic security. V.Policy Concerns Changing Housing Needs: Policymakers may not understand how quickly housing needs can change. Job relocation, active-duty military deployment, financial hardships, medical illness, and the changing housing needs of seniors can very quickly and unexpectedly change housing Figure VII Closed Sales - by Seller Type T,)o — L,flde,4ld0)Ie4 003 003 40) 300 200 100 needs. Enacting an overlay regulation that restricts rentals could exacerbate hardships on these would-be sellers, where housing demand may otherwise exist but for the rental restrictions. Workforce Housing: It is crucial for municipal policies to support and create housing that is accessible to people across a range of incomes, and to ensure those who work in fields such as education, health care, retail, service, and public defense can live within areas of their choosing. As we consider resident incomes and housing affordability, it is important to also evaluate the housing market of the region. Home sale price data in Figure Ill highlights how the City of Brooklyn Center has had a slower market recovery than the Twin Cities region. We see a clear and persistent gap in the trend lines between the two geographies. Limiting the ability of homeowners to rent their properties is unlikely to help close that gap. 5-2005 1-2020 1-2007 1-2020 1-2009 1-23)) 1-2311 1-2052 0-2003 1-2014 1-2015 flroo0jn C,r.1er Additionally, when evaluating closed sales by seller type, the data from Figure VII indicates that the Brooklyn Center market was hard hit by foreclosures. In fact, less than three years ago, the majority of sales in the city were either foreclosures or short sales. Limitations on the ability of homeowners to rent their properties could cause an uptick in foreclosure activity, which could bring down surrounding prices and tax base. Marketability and Value Issues: Policy decisions, such as those that limit individual property rights, can have an impact on the marketability of homes in a city. If the rental license moratorium is continued, the city council can expect a negative effect on the value of properties. From a buyer's perspective, a home that can be used as a rental is generally more desirable than a comparable one that cannot be rented; this is true even if their intent is to reside in the home. Rental Density Issues: Implementing a city-wide rental license moratorium creates a de facto Density Ordinance. These types of ordinances tend to increase vacancy rates; rental density ordinances that restrict the ability of owners to rent may lead to the unintended consequence of increased vacancy rates. Owners left without an ability to sell or rent a property may find little choice left then to let the homes become abandoned or go into foreclosure. VI. Conclusions The Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® understands the City's challenge in navigating the conflicts that sometimes arise between the renter and property owner communities. MAAR also supports the City's desire to encourage harmonious living environments in our neighborhoods. However, by enacting an outright moratorium on rental licenses, we believe that the policy action not address the root problem, and also that the prohibition on new rental licenses, however temporary, could do fundamental economic harm to the city's current and future residents. MAAR sees many areas of opportunity for the City to consider. Enforcement of Current Codes: While there does not appear to be a compelling basis for the rental license moratorium, it is clear that better enforcement of existing ordinances (i.e. public nuisance ordinances, occupancy and building codes) would be the preferable approach for protecting the character of existing neighborhoods. Better Coordination of Efforts: MAAR suggests continued cooperation and coordination between city officials, community stakeholders, tenants, landlords, police officers and neighbors is the most effective strategy and is preferable to the perpetuation of the rental license moratorium. Like many things, housing exists on a spectrum, and it is critical to preserve all options on that continuum, as they each play a key role in the housing economy and increase consumer choices and opportunities. It is both unfeasible and imprudent for all households to be owner- occupied. The consequences of underqualified individuals owning property without adequate financial support when an economic downturn strikes are well documented—the Great Recession being the most recent. At some point, many citizens either have to or choose to utilize rental housing. When large- scale, city-wide rental restrictions come into play, it not only limits what private property owners can and cannot do with their property, it also revokes the power of choice from so many consumers— from younger citizens attending school or early on in their careers to aging adults seeking supportive housing. These restrictions often force vulnerable populations into sub- standard housing, force them to move farther and farther away from school or work, or may even drive people out of the city or region entirely. MAAR strongly encourages the City of Brooklyn Center to consider the many positive opportunities to improve neighborhood livability and resident interaction - these options (in stark contrast to a rental license moratorium) will better support all the citizens of Brooklyn Center economically and socially. March 14, 2016 Brooklyn Center City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 MINNEAPOLIS AREA Association of REALTORS Dear Mayor Willson and Members of the Council, On behalf of the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® and the more than 7,500 REALTORS® members in the Minneapolis area, many of whom live and work in Brooklyn Center, we respectfully oppose the proposed amendments to Brooklyn Center City Code Chapter 12, Section 12-901 regarding 'Limiting the Density of Rental Housing.' Specifically, REALTORS® oppose the addition of Section 12-901.10 that reads: Limitation of rental housing in low density neighborhoods. In Ri and R2 districts of the city, not more than 30 percent (rounded up) of the lots on any block shall be eligible to obtain a rental housing license. REALTORS® believe in homeownership and private property rights. REALTORS® believe the 'ability to buy, sell, or let for rent' is a fundamental right of private property ownership. While the city retains general 'police powers' with respect to land use, zoning, and other ordinances that protect health, welfare, and general order in their community, the city should also uphold the rights of property owners. Cities should not unfairly restrict homeowners' abilities to exercise their fundamental private property rights. REALTORS® are opposed to the Rental Density ordinance (a.k.a. "Rental Density Cap") because: . It confers rights to some homeowners while simultaneously denying those rights to others; It will create vacant property because an owner is unable to sell or rent the home; It damages housing affordability by limiting the supply of a variety of housing options; and REALTORS® seek to protect the private property rights of all Minnesota homeowners. Rental property is a critical part of the life and housing cycle for most people. REALTORS® seek to remind members of the public and the council about some important aspects of rental property. First, most current renters state that homeownership is among their future goals. However, those renters need to be able to obtain stable and affordable housing in the area of their choice in order to position themselves to be financially able to purchase a home. Rental density ordinances foster unaffordability by limiting the availability of housing within the city, and create an atmosphere that is unwelcoming to renters - many of whom are women and minorities. Second, the difference between owning and leasing a property is merely a difference in the financial instrument used to obtain one's home. The "use" of the property by a tenant is no different than that of an owner-resident. Heading off to work, living, sleeping, participating in local commerce, playing with and raising children - these are all aspects of everyday life regardless whether you own or rent. The city can regulate the use of properties, but not the user. Rental density ordinances can cause significant individual harm. Rental density caps can often have unintended consequences. Three out of four plaintiffs in Dean et al vs. City of Winona case were: 1) a forward-deployed (Afghanistan) U.S. Soldier who was attempting to not lose his home while 'in-country;' 2) a single-mother of three children, who sought to rent portions of her home to avoid foreclosure; and 3) a widowed senior citizen whom had previously been aging in place with changing health care and housing needs who was not inclined to sell her 'nest egg' in a depressed housing market. In the end, each of these plaintiffs were denied the right to a rental license because their neighbors had already received them. Benefits of rental density caps that are deemed only "potential" should not outweigh specific harm to constituents. Strong demand for rental property can be seen as a positive signal for Brooklyn Center. The Twin Cities, and indeed the state overall, are witnessing a healthy recovery with improving economic conditions. The economy is growing. The unemployment rate in Minnesota continues to best the national average. Minnesotans are back to work. Rental property and strong demand, when considered in a national context, are positive signs of more prosperous days ahead. Many communities nationwide would welcome the return of strong rental demand in their community. They know that quite simply, strong single-family rental demand today will very likely translate into strong single-family purchase demand in the future. It's also worth noting that non-homesteaded properties pay a higher property tax payment and therefore contribute more to county and municipal resources. We urge the council to oppose any rental density caps in Brooklyn Center. Resist the temptation to try to solve problems on residential properties with untenable regulations. Instead, strengthen existing ordinances that solve specific issues such as deferred maintenance, unhealthy conditions, criminality, etc. Embrace those seeking the opportunity to join your community. Seek to provide them with options, incentives, and homeownership opportunities within your city. On behalf of the more than 7,500 REALTOR® members of the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® and their clients who are current and future residents of Brooklyn Center, we stand ready to assist your community as you face housing challenges. We would welcome any opportunity to assist the city in finding equitable and effective solutions to property issues, especially regarding single-family rental trends. Sincerely,r6l" Julia Parenteau Vice President of Public Affairs Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS ® p. (952) 988-3124 e. juliap@mplsrealtor.com Cc: Curt Boganey, City Manager Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager MAAR Executive & Government Affairs Committees raiiii I {II[II FU si iI 11 I !1 1 F ts itiFh] 111i •i REALTOR® Associations of the Twin Cities Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS® Saint Paul Area Association of REALTORS® REALTORS® understand that rental housing is a vital segment of the real estate and housing markets. A vast majority of people will rent housing at some point in their lives. Rental property often serves as transitional housing for those saving and preparing for homeownership. Property conversion to rental can help stabilize housing markets and communities during economic downturns. Rental properties are also an important component of the state's property tax base, paying at a slightly higher rate than homesteaded properties. For residents and communities, it is important to make sure rental properties are safe and adequately maintained. REALTORS® certainly know the value of well-kept property. It is important to remember that a property's status as rental does not automatically imply deferred maintenance or blight. Many rental properties are very well maintained, just as many owner-occupied homes have deferred maintenance. The reasons for deferred maintenance are varied and the property's status as owner-occupied or rental is not the sole determining factor. Furthermore, an individual's status as a renter does not automatically imply they are any better or worse citizens than those who own and occupy their properties. Rental regulations come in many forms; we have written statements on the most common types of ordinances that municipalities may enact. Rental Density Caps - The REALTORS® Associations oppose rental density caps implemented city-wide or neighborhood-by-neighborhood. These caps restrict private property rights by limiting what property owners can do with their residences. Such policies are inherently unfair because they confer private property rights to a limited few while simultaneously denying the same rights to others. Rental density caps often result in vacant buildings, due to the inability of an owner to sell or to rent the property to tenants. Density caps may even result in discriminatory feelings or actions toward certain populations, such as students or young families. Density caps can also have the undesired impact of damaging housing affordability by limiting the availability of housing units within a neighborhood or city. Rental Property Management - Accurate recording of residential occupancy types for the purposes of resident and general public safety is acceptable, as long as such requirements do not add financial burden to property owners or tenants. Rental Inspections - We oppose any type of city-mandated property inspections without due cause to believe problems exist on the property. Every effort should be made to enforce existing municipal property maintenance codes equally upon all properties, regardless of occupancy type. Tenant and Landlord Education - We support incentive programs that encourage good landlord and tenant behavior rather than punitive systems. We support programs to educate both tenants and landlords about proper property maintenance and code requirements, their rights and recourse in cases where maintenance is necessary or where other disagreements exist, and on positive landlord-tenant relationships. We seek compliance with all applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the duties of landlords and tenants. This education may come in such forms including but not limited to: classes, written information printed and/or online, counseling, or community outreach programs. The REALTORS® Associations of the Twin Cities believe that rental housing should be viewed through the lens of private property rights, similar to other types of housing. As cities see a rise in rental units, both built and converted, there may be some push to add rules and regulations to those properties. The REALTORS® Associations want to ensure that all property and occupancy agreements can be handled freely, while keeping in mind the safety and security of residents and the surrounding neighborhoods. Rental Property Census Bock Density (Excluding Rentals with 2 or more units) (Only includes RI and R2 Parcels) EP \ Q;: -DL I -'L—' ±rn-ii r' 1I I -i A 3:i> i -m != IPrc--=+4 r.\.A I 1Ef:c/ & r -ii:it ki _ fl jA A * 'L ___7__I i— U I ZLfJ+ li t 4 9—1 EET _ _j__ E'T!t ji \2T V \,. j) " r t \ iiiri-- , -Center - - ___ 7 T R? - \ \ _ lt \ iAA --- - =TL:r =-=e]Legend Single Family Rentals in RI & R2 Only U RentaLDuplex _Active Percent of Rental A \ (1ii( Ii LIII____ j J —'- jii0000000 0999999 1a - h- -i t /lj1) A • —t—lI I ! DJ 10000004 -_ LL JJLHk± 5000000 9999999 •-- ' - , - ltiii - — ft J__jL -t __ -I - - 1r I 10000000 14999999 IL \ :::: :::::::xi 25000000 29999999 )) (' ir — L' ___ 3 IUA0000000 34999999 — --- -1 it a::::: ::::: - Parcels City Border World Street Map ( 0 6501,300 2,6003,900 5,2006,5007,8009,10010,40011,70013,000Feet Map Note: This map is for illustrative purposes only. --- - --- - ----- L i -i Information contained in this map is aCCUrate to the best of our knowledge. ffh; _.-- Work Session Agenda AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 13, 2016 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. Surly Darkness Day Event PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.Resident Economic Stability Update Including Diverse Businesses Opportunities 2.Fire Department Structure 3.Use of Hearing Officer Policy 4.Centennial Park Improvements 5.Solar Energy Options 6.Paperless Packets Report 7. Civic Group Policy - Mayor Willson : AL I - - r - Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 MEMORANDUM COUNCI[L WORK SESSJION DATE: June 13, 2016 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director SUBJECT: Surly Darkness Days Event Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding the Surly Darkness Days Event. Background: Surly Brewing Company has approached the City about hosting their annual "Darkness Days" event at Centennial Park. This is a one day event to be held on a Saturday in October. The event anticipates drawing upwards of 4,000 people. The event will include food trucks, a beer garden and bands from approximately 11am until 5pm on Saturday. The event will be free to the public. BC Liquor would open a liquor store at the community center for this one day to sell Surly's "Darkness" product. For those who are interested in purchasing the product, wrist bands will be provided for various times slots. The bottle sales would be sold at the Community Center (Constitution Hall). The line to purchase the wristbands will be allowed to begin formation no earlier than 5pm the night before the event. Attendees will be allowed to drop off people, chairs, etc. and then park their vehicles at designated locations. Everyone entering the line will be required to provide age identification prior to entering a fenced in area of the park. We have attached a rough idea of the layout for the event. Policy Issues: After an initial review by the City Attorney this event could be possible through the following actions: 1.A temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license under Section 11-107.6 and Minn. Stat. 340A.404, subd. 10. to a charitable or non-profit organization that has been in existence for at least three years. 2.Special permission/permits to allow the park to serve as the premises for the event, allow liquor in the park, and any other permission that would be required in order to deviate from current policy. Special permission must be in writing from the City Manager and will provide any conditions. 3. Request a change of address, from the State, on the BC Liquor buyer's card to allow for bottle sales at the Community Center. Mission: Ensuring an ((i-tI .(icije, clean, safe, iiiciiisii'e COiil/111111111' that enhances Me qiiahii' of life for all people and preserves the public titist k I Mh'A [I] 1I IIDJ EI]JJ[iJ I !&'LI) ti J F'fi (iJl Does City Council support the change of venue for Darkness Days to Centennial Park? Strategic Priorities: Enhanced Community Image Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive con,n,unitv that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 1T iç; J1:i __ \\\ : I Mn V I' Shingle Ceçk J 4 Surly Darkness Days - Event Description Surly Darkness Day is proposed to take place on Saturday in October (prior to October 29th) at Centennial Park. The event anticipates that it could draw upwards of 4,000 people. Attendees who would like to purchase a bottle of Darkness would be permitted to begin forming a line at 5pm the night before the event. They will be allowed to drop off people, chairs, etc. and then park at designated locations. Signage and volunteers, provided by Surly would be available to instruct and answer questions. Security offices and two contracted police officers would be staffed throughout the events entirety. Attendees will be carded and wrist banded (age identification) prior to entering a fenced in area where the line will begin forming. Alcohol consumption and glass containers would not be allowed outside the fenced in area of the park. Smoking will not be permitted in the park. On that Saturday morning, wristbands with time slots will be provided to customers that will identify the time slot they would be able to purchase up to a 6 pack of the Darkness product from BC Liquor's off sale store set-up in Constitution Hall of the Community Center. On Saturday, no alcohol consumption or glass containers would be allowed on City property with the exception of inside the beer tent. Customers can purchase Darkness at the Community Center (Constitution Hall) based on the time slots of their wristbands. Left over sales will commence following the last time slot. The beer tent would open from approximately 11am until approximately 5pm and will be in a fenced in area. Attendees would be carded and wrist banded upon entering the beer tent. Food trucks will be provided and band(s) will utilize the amphitheater. Surly will be providing portable restrooms and responsible for trash removal and the restoration of the park to the conditions prior to the event. The event itself will be free to the public. City Requirements Overall Event Requirement 1.Review submitted detailed plan for the event 2.Review submitted security plan 3.Issue a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license under Section 11-107.6 and Minn. Stat. 340A.404, subd. 10. to a charitable or non-profit organization that has been in existence for at least three years. 4.Provide written permission/permits to allow the park to serve as the premises for the event, allow liquor in the park, and any other permission that would be required in order to deviate from the current policy. This would include limitations on the period of time, location and provide conditions. 5.Adjust staffing schedules for the additional police officers contracted during the event 6.Identify emergency operation procedures in the case of severe weather. 7. Ensure the availability of the park amenities (i.e. do not schedule other activities in the park for this period of time) Bottle Sales 1.Utilize Community Center (Constitution Hall) for bottle sales 2.Provide adequate staffing ( employees selling alcohol must have completed required training on how to identify intoxicated individuals) 3.Request a change of address, from the state on the BC Liquor buyer's card to allow for bottle sales at the Community Center 4.Obtain liquor liability insurance for the location that covers the bottle sales 5.Contract two police officers during the bottles sales time period 6.Dispose of cardboard boxes from the event. Surly Requirements Overall Event Requirement 1.Submit a detailed plan for the event (including dates and time, event assumed to be held prior to Saturday, October 29th) 2.Submit a security plan (We believe the event would require 2-6 police officers, assuming it's supplemented by a number of uniform and identifiable security officers. The police officers contracted will vary based on the time of day and the contracted rate is $75 per hour). 3.Identify locations of parking areas 4.Provide signage directing traffic for parking and event signage 5.Provide volunteers for directing people and traffic 6.Marketing and promotion of the event 7.Encourage patrons to follow park rules (no smoking) 8.Sufficient portable toilets must be provided 9.Provide cash machine available to public during the event 10.Responsible for returning the park to current operating conditions. This would include providing trash and/or recycling receptacles and clean-up following the event. 11.Dispose of glass containers and broken glass properly 12.Event will remain free to the public Line 1.Provide fenced in areas for the line 2.Verify age and provide wristbands as attendees enter the line. Age verification must be completed by individuals with training in fake identifications 3.Hours of the line must be limited to 5pm the Friday before the event and lOam the day of the event. 4.Request a special event permit that allows liquor in the park. The permit would be restricted to the area that is fenced in and during the hours of 5pm and 2am the Friday before the event. Although alcohol and glass containers would be allowed in this area, however Surly should refrain from promoting this aspect of the event. 5.Grills and fires must be appropriately contained (fire pits and grills) and only allowed on asphalt or on the "dirt" of the softball fields. Ashes must be safely disposed. 6.Provide wristbands to attendees with various time slots for bottle sales Beer Tent 1.Submit an application for a temporary intoxicating liquor license by a charitable or non-profit organization that has been in existence for three years. 2.Provide fenced in area for the beer tent 3.Verify age and provide wristbands as attendees enter the line. Age verification must be completed by individuals with training in fake identifications 4.Employees selling alcohol must have completed required training on how to identify intoxicated individuals 5.Provide hours of operation for beer tent (we are assuming it will be approximately 11am until 5pm) 6.Certificate of liquor liability insurance must be provided to the City with the City named as an additional insured. Insurance must be a minimum of $5 million. 7.Certificate of general liability insurance must be provided to the City with the City named as an additional insured. Insurance must be a minimum of $2 million. 8.Contract with food trucks, identify the areas where they will be parked and communicating with these vendors. ,*,Ol 'r -f (0 o Cl) ci) -) 0 Cl)Cl)U) 0 Co - !"i • VA - U)-o U) Ir i c -i•- I• I p - I IWL . - Co L cr _a > . g _c__- -o-__LLLEL s 7 1 Mq ail Ise - = >.0 rT- ca LAI— 'a-- ----- -•: '•-- 0- fix - _ 4 2AL - !d-'- = - = m -m 0 (I '• 7, % in• .: '•-• .;fr •• wf*L' fir 0 Hk I. .J • 7 I •,• : L • + Shingle Creek takW Al • • •••; / 4SlPtPac - 1* IUD )_ 4Ib -q co wtlI!__Du liii rUI j!.:IF OR -- rn h ai rn - -I- • - • - J4 RE 4 co 'JL1 00 FO), -o •. I. )• -o w -- City Council Work Session June 13, 2016 Darkness Days Background Surly release Darkness in 2007 BC Liquor began selling the Darkness product as part of the event in 2009 Event held in October Attracts nearly 4,000 visitors What Changed Surly opened up destination brewery Cass Screw expansion Increasing popularity of the event Opening of the Community Amphitheater Darkness 2016 The “line” allowed to form beginning Friday before the event (5pm) Wrist bands allocated for time slots BC Liquor bottles sales at the Community Center (Constitution Hall) Event would include food trucks, beer garden and live music Event would be free to the public Surly Requirements Obtain proper licenses and permissions Submit a detailed plan for the event Identify parking areas Volunteers and signage Submit a security plan Provide a controlled area for the “line” Provide controlled area for the beer tent Portable toilets Responsible for clean-up Marketing and promotion of the event Contract food trucks and bands How do we make this happen? 1.Issuance of a temporary intoxicating liquor license to a charitable or non- profit organization (Beer Tent) 2.Special permission in writing from the City Manager to allow the park to serve as the premise for the event (would include conditions) 3.Change BC Liquor buyers card to the Community Center for bottle sales City Council Question 1.Does City Council support the change in venue for Darkness Days to Centennial Park? 2.What concerns regarding the event would City Council like to see addressed?