Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 07-10 CCP Regular SessionProperty Address Dwelling Type Renewal or Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS * Final License Type ** Previous License Type *** 3318 Mumford Rd Single Family Initial Beng Thao 1 I N/A II Humboldt Courts 6807-13-19 Humboldt Ave N 3 Bldgs 36 Units Renewal Mindy Brummer 42 1.16/Unit II 5 (.14/Unit)II II Maranatha Place 5415 69th Ave N 1 Bldg 63 Units Renewal Center Park Senior Apts, Inc. 13 .20/Unit I 0 (0/Unit)I I 1100 69th Ave N 1 Bldg 7 Units Renewal Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master (Missing ARM, cpted) 19 2.71/Unit III 0 (0/Unit)III III 3306 65th Ave N Single Family Renewal Yahya Yusuf Osman 0 I 0 I IV 2119 70th Ave N Single Family Renewal Ronen Shayari 1 I 0 I IV 5024 71st Ave N Single Family Renewal Jarod Worth 1 I 0 I II 5857 Colfax Ave N Single Family Renewal Douglas Allen Wahl 4 II 0 II I 6607 Drew Ave N Single Family Renewal Jeffrey Davis 8 III 0 III I 5307 Penn Ave N Single Family Renewal Ben Cleve Dossman IV 4 II 0 II III 3801 Woodbine La Single Family Renewal Tom Prasky (No ARM)1 I 0 III III 6637 Xerxes Pl N Single Family Renewal Douglas G. Finch 0 I 0 I I * CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.) ** License Type Being Issued Type I = 3 Year Type II = 2 Year Type III = 1 Year *** Initial licenses will not show a previous license type All properties are current on City utilities and property taxes Rental Licenses for Council Approval on July 10, 2017 Property Address Dwelling Type Renewal or Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS * Final License Type ** Previous License Type *** 3318 Mumford Rd Single Family Initial Beng Thao 1 II N/A II Humboldt Courts 6807-13-19 Humboldt Ave N 3 Bldgs 36 Units Renewal Mindy Brummer 42 1.16/Unit II 5 (.14/Unit)II II Maranatha Place 5415 69th Ave N 1 Bldg 63 Units Renewal Center Park Senior Apts, Inc. 13 .20/Unit I 0 (0/Unit)I I 1100 69th Ave N 1 Bldg 7 Units Renewal Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master (Missing ARM, cpted) 19 2.71/Unit III 0 (0/Unit)III III 3306 65th Ave N Single Family Renewal Yahya Yusuf Osman 0 I 0 I IV 2119 70th Ave N Single Family Renewal Ronen Shayari 1 I 0 I IV 5024 71st Ave N Single Family Renewal Jarod Worth 1 I 0 I II 5857 Colfax Ave N Single Family Renewal Douglas Allen Wahl 4 II 0 II I 6607 Drew Ave N Single Family Renewal Jeffrey Davis 8 III 0 III I 5307 Penn Ave N Single Family Renewal Ben Cleve Dossman IV 4 II 0 II III 3801 Woodbine La Single Family Renewal Tom Prasky (No ARM)1 I 0 III III 6637 Xerxes Pl N Single Family Renewal Douglas G. Finch 0 I 0 I I * CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.) ** License Type Being Issued Type I = 3 Year Type II = 2 Year Type III = 1 Year *** Initial licenses will not show a previous license type All properties are current on City utilities and property taxes Rental Licenses for Council Approval on July 10, 2017 EVERTON SHOPS REDEVELOPMENT OF THE BROOKDALE CAR WASH SITE (5500 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2017 -004 SITE AND BUILDING PLAN WITH SPECIAL USE FOR CONVENIENCE FOOD RESTAURANT City Council Meeting July 10, 2017 Agenda Item No. 9a INTRODUCTION Trent Mayberry, Told Development is requesting review and consideration of a Site and Building Plan approval for the redevelopment of the Brookdale Car Wash Site, located at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard, for a 4,480 sf. retail building. The proposed retail building, identified as the Everton Shops will provide two retail units, one of which is identified as a 2.200 sf. coffee shop that includes a drive-up service window. The property is legally described as Tract E, Registered Land Survey 1419, Hennepin County, MN. This matter was presented as a public hearing item; and notices have been mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350- feet of the affected site. BACKGROUND The building file for this address, includes a July 7, 1966 Special Use application within a C-2 Commercial District for the initial car wash operation. The file included subsequent building additions in 1978, 1983, and in 1994 a 5,149 sf. addition expanded the car wash operation to a full size automated car wash of 8,936 sf. that was identified as having the capabilities of handling 50 + car washes per hour. Attached for a retail history reference of this general area are the site maps that accompanied the 66061 and 78051 Planning Applications. 1966 1978 SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS As part of the Planning Commission’s review of this application, the Commission considered this application in light of the following identified provisions related to the approval of a special use for the coffee – convenience food restaurant. City Code Section 35-220, Subdivision 2, Standards of Special Use Permits indicate that a special use permit may granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following [standards] are met: 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. 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. e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. SITE AND BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS SITE PLAN DEMOLITION PLAN PARKING AND ACCESS 15 required stalls for retail tenant 17 required stalls for coffee shop Total of 41 parking stalls provided GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES WATER & SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS LANDSCAPING LIGHTING/TRASH Motion to Adopt Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2017-004 Submitted by Trent Mayberry, Told Development, Approving the Site and Building Plans for the Redevelopment of the Brookdale Car Wash at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard with a Special Use Permit for a Coffee-Convenience Food Restaurant. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION Questions? City of Brooklyn Center July 10, 2017 Rebranding + Rollout Overview © 2017 vitalink® Agenda ► Review process + findings ► Logo, tagline + messaging ► Brand touchpoints + continuum ► Staff + leadership training ► Brand rollout + timeline vitalink® p. 2 Research + Collaboration vitalink® p. 3 vitalink® p. 4 Stakeholder Groups: 1. Residents 2. Work in BC 3. Own business in BC 4. City employee or elected official 5. Local, state or federal government 6. Other vitalink® p. 5 Competitive Research vitalink® p. 6 Brand Audit 1. Current logo 2. Strategies 3. Print materials 4. Website 5. Social media 6. Image impression assessment vitalink® p. 7 Brand Audit vitalink® p. 8 Brand Audit vitalink® p. 9 Stakeholder Engagement Sessions 1. Delve deeper + learn more 2. Same groups as PvR 3. Semi-structured format 4. Seven sessions (6 + 1) What We Learned vitalink® p. 10 vitalink® p. 11 The Themes City of Brooklyn Center Diversity Location Accessible Convenient Crime + Safety Parks Trails Nature Affordable / Housing Image Perception Reality Great People Opportunity vitalink® p. 12 Approved Logo vitalink® p. 13 Messaging Brand Touchpoints + the Continuum vitalink® p. 14 vitalink® p. 15 Brand Influence Continuum vitalink® p. 16 Brand Touchpoints Staff + Leadership Training vitalink® p. 17 vitalink® p. 18 Role of Brand Ambassadors Elevator Speech vitalink® p. 19 Brand Style Guide vitalink® p. 20 Policing the Brand Brand Rollout + Timeline vitalink® p. 21 Brand Rollout + Timeline ► Media unveiling, 7.11.17 @Noon ► Public rollout + open house, 7.11, 5-7pm ► Years 1 to 3 ► Continued promotion of brand vitalink® p. 22 vitalink® p. 23 Timeline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Business cards Brochures Water tower 3 Letterhead 1/2 signs Remaining signs Brochures 1/2 vehicles Remaining vehicles Street pole flags Water tower 2 Events Banners/trade show booth Events Street pole flags 1/2 signs Street pole flags 1/2 vehicles Promotional items Water tower 1 Events Website updates Social media vitalink® 919.850.0605 o | 704.773.0283 m | kathy@vitalinkweb.com questions? vitalink® p. 24 Troy Gilchrist, City Attorney July 10, 2017 Brief history of legal issues Review standards Highlights of Reed v. Town of Gilbert Implications of Reed Review of the issues raised in the City Manager’s Memo Long history of regulations related to soliciting, vagrancy, panhandling, etc. Attempt to require permits for the distribution of information struck down as violating the protections afforded under the First Amendment Vagrancy ordinances have also been struck down on the basis of being unconstitutionally vague as they criminalize innocent activities _______________________ * Portions of this review are based on 24 A.L.R. 7th Art. 6 (2017) However, the Court has upheld narrowly drawn regulations adopted to protect the public against crime without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms Guarding against unlawful infringement on First Amendment rights is the key consideration in the cases, together with other typical standards (vagueness, overbroad) When a regulation impacts a constitutionally protected right (fundamental right), it is subject to stricter scrutiny than other regulations The level of scrutiny applied depends on whether the regulation is content-based or content-neutral ◦Does the regulation depend on the message (subject or topic) of the speech? Content-based regulations pose a more direct threat to the First Amendment and so are subject to greater scrutiny Content-neutral regulations are subject to “intermediate scrutiny” and will be upheld if they address the time, place, or manner of speech: ◦Whose justification is not based on the content of the speech, is narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interest not related to suppression of free expression, and the restriction on First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to further the government’s interest Content-based regulations are subject to “strict scrutiny” and will not be upheld unless it serves a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved by any less restrictive measures ◦Substantial interest vs. compelling interest ◦Narrowly tailored vs. least restrictive Regulations subject to strict scrutiny are almost never upheld Prior to 2015, a regulation that considered content could be considered content-neutral if the government’s purpose was not based on disagreement with the message it conveys (Ward, 1989) In other words, consideration of content (what was being communicate) did not necessarily invalidate the regulation as long as not engaging in viewpoint discrimination Reed v. Town of Gilbert ◦Ordinance regulated signs, required a permit, and had exceptions for 23 categories of signs (political, ideological, temporary directional) The Court rejected the previous view of testing content-neutrality and held the ordinance, which varied its regulations based on what was printed on the sign, was on its face content-based and did not survive strict scrutiny If a regulation applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed, it is content-based on its face regardless of the government’s purpose Even a facially content-neutral regulation can be deemed content based if it cannot be justified without reference to the content of the speech or discriminates based on the speaker’s point of view Norton v. City of Springfield ◦Ordinance prohibiting panhandling in the downtown historic district ◦7th Circuit upheld the ordinance as it does not interfere with the marketplace for ideas and was not viewpoint discrimination – subject matter regulation rather than content or viewpoint regulation ◦Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court ◦Sent back to 7th Circuit to be decided in light of Reed ◦On remand, the same panel of judges held the ordinance was unconstitutional ◦“The majority opinion in Reed effectively abolishes any distinction between content regulation and subject-matter regulation. Any law distinguishing one kind of speech from another by reference to its meaning now requires a compelling justification.” Thayer v. City of Worcester ◦Ordinance regulating aggressive panhandling and prohibited use of traffic medians and roads ◦1st Circuit upheld the ordinance as an attempt to address public safety concerns and did not constitute an attempt by the government to suppress speech it did not agree with ◦Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court ◦Sent back to 1st Circuit to be decided in light of Reed The court indicated the Reed decision mandated the ordinance found to be “content based because it targets anyone seeking to engage in a specific type of speech, i.e., solicitation of donations.” The ordinance does not survive strict scrutiny and is, therefore, unconstitutional KKK v. City of Desloge, Missouri ◦Ordinance prohibiting the distribution of anything in roadways (does not refer to any communication) ◦“Reed is notable in that it clarified the content based inquiry and arguably expanded the universe of content discrimination.” ◦Prohibition on distribution found to be content- neutral and was reaffirmed after Reed If a regulation depends on, or differentiates based on, what is being communicated, it will likely be deemed a content-based regulation subject to strict scrutiny ◦The desire to distinguish between, or create exemptions for, certain types of speech is problematic The city has greater latitude regulating the time, place or manner of commercial speech Focus on conduct vs communications Consider the practical issues regarding enforcement a. Can we apply loitering regulations? -Focuses on lurking, lying in wait, or concealed in a house, building, yard, or street with intent to do mischief, pilfer, or commit a crime -Holding a sign or verbally asking for money does not satisfy the lurking element and does not constitute mischief or criminal activity under the section b.Can we apply vagrancy regulations? -Focuses on persons with no visible means of support and that live idly without employment or a settled abode being prohibited in a public place or elsewhere -Being poor is not a crime and the state of being poor in public is, itself, not a punishable offense -Overbroad and vagueness concerns as well c. Can we apply licensing regulations? -Licensing door to door solicitors may still be possible under Reed as previously decisions upholding such regulations were not expressly overturned -Must be content-neutral (apply to Girl Scouts as well as to seamless gutter sales people) -Must serve a sufficiently strong, subordinating interest that the government is entitle to protect and be narrowly drawn to serve the interest without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms (Village of Schaumburg, 1980) d. Can we prohibit “aggressive” panhandling? -Possibly, if the focus is on the conduct and not what is being communicated -If enforcement of the regulation is based on what is being communicated (asking for money vs. asking to vote for someone), then it would be facially a content-based regulation subject to strict scrutiny -We would need to make sure the regulation is not overly broad or vague e.Can we post signage discouraging the activity? -The only legal issues regarding the postage of such signs are the authority to make the expenditure and the city’s right to post the sign on a given structure f.Can we offer jobs/alternative to panhandling? -The city has the authority to help identify resources and to partner with outside groups that can provide assistance to homeless persons -Need to ensure any expenditure of public funds for this purpose is authorized Panhandling Consensus Questions •What are the most important concerns related to panhandling in Brooklyn Center? •Image •Safety •Needs of Panhandlers •Other •How significant of an issue is Panhandling? •Very significant •Significant •Not significant Panhandling •What should the policy objective(s) be regarding panhandling? •Eliminate panhandling •Make panhandling safe •For panhandlers •For the general public •For the traveling public •Minimize/discourage panhandling Panhandling •What options should we explore/implement •Aggressive panhandling restrictions •Safety focused restrictions •Panhandling discouragement through public education •Panhandling reduction through providing options to panhandlers •Other options/do nothing