SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AND WORK SESSION AGENDA #23

Transcription

1 Monday, May 21, 2018 Council Chambers and Steve Lampi Room 7:00 p.m th Avenue North SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AND WORK SESSION AGENDA #23 If due to a disability, you need auxiliary aids or services during a City Council Meeting, please provide the City with 72 hours notice by calling or faxing Our Vision: Brooklyn Park, a thriving community inspiring pride where opportunities exist for all. Our Brooklyn Park 2025 Goals: A united and welcoming community, strengthened by our diversity Beautiful spaces and quality infrastructure make Brooklyn Park a unique destination A balanced economic environment that empowers businesses and people to thrive People of all ages have what they need to feel healthy and safe Partnerships that increase racial and economic equity empower residents and neighborhoods to prosper Effective and engaging government recognized as a leader I. ORGANIZATIONAL BUSINESS II. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following items relate to the City Council s long-range policy-making responsibilities and are handled individually for appropriate debate and deliberation. (Those persons wishing to speak to any of the items listed in this section should fill out a speaker s form and give it to the City Clerk. Staff will present each item, following in which audience input is invited. Discussion will then be closed to the public and directed to the council table for action.) III. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECEIPT OF GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS 3B.1 Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Update Project Status and Station Design ***RECESS TO THE LAMPI ROOM FOR THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION*** C. DISCUSSION ITEMS/GENERAL ACTION ITEMS These items will be discussion items but the City Council may act upon them during the course of the meeting. C.1 Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Oak Grove Park & Ride Design C.2 Proposed West Broadway Residential Fence Program A. HISTORY OF WEST BROADWAY RESIDENTIAL FENCE MEMO B. METRO TRANSIT/HENNEPIN COUNTY FENCE LETTER C. COUNCIL FENCE SURVEY RESULTS D. VERBAL REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS D.1 COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS D.2 CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS E. ADJOURNMENT Since we do not have time to discuss every point presented, it may seem that decisions are preconceived. However, background information is provided for the City Council on each agenda item in advance from city staff and appointed commissions, and decisions are based on this information and past experiences. If you are aware of information that has not been discussed, please raise your hand to be recognized. Please speak from the podium. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated. Items requiring excessive time may be continued to another meeting.

2 City of Brooklyn Park Request for Council Action Agenda Item: 3B.1 Meeting Date: May 21, 2018 Agenda Section: Public Presentations/ Proclamations/Receipt of General Communications Originating Department: Community Development Resolution: N/A Ordinance: N/A Prepared By: Attachments: N/A Presented By: Jennifer Jordan, LRT Senior Project Manager Metropolitan Council Blue Line Extension project staff Item: Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Update Project Status and Station Design City Manager s Proposed Action: Metropolitan Council Blue Line Extension Project Office staff will update the City Council on the project status as well as station design. Overview: City staff work closely with the Metropolitan Council s Blue Line Extension Project office and Hennepin County Community Works to review and resolve technical and design issues related to the planning of the extension of the Metro Blue Line Light Rail Transit (BLRT) project into Brooklyn Park. For information on the project see The Corridor Management Committee (CMC) is advising the Metropolitan Council on design and construction issues. For more detailed information on the issues under discussion along the Blue Line Extension project in Brooklyn Park and other cities (including agendas, minutes and presentations), go to the Corridor Management Committee website at: Projects/METRO-Blue-Line-Extension/Committees/Corridor-Management-Committee.aspx. Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: N/A Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: N/A Attachments: N/A

3 City of Brooklyn Park Council Work Session Meeting Date: May 21, 2018 Originating Department: Agenda Item: C.1 Prepared By: Discussion Items/ Agenda Section: General Action Items Presented By: Community Development Jennifer Jordan, LRT Senior Project Manager Metropolitan Council Blue Line Extension project staff Item: Metro Blue Line Extension Light Rail Transit Oak Grove Park & Ride Design Summary: Metropolitan Council Blue Line Extension Project Office staff will give background on the Oak Grove Park & Ride design process and get the City Council s feedback on the current design. City staff work closely with the Metropolitan Council s Blue Line Extension Project office and Hennepin County Community Works to review and resolve technical and design issues related to the planning of the extension of the Metro Blue Line Light Rail Transit (BLRT) project into Brooklyn Park. Staff will update the City Council on the design resolution process and provide a brief overview of related issues under discussion at this time. For information on the project see

4 City of Brooklyn Park Council Work Session Meeting Date: May 21, 2018 Originating Department: Agenda Item: C.2 Prepared By: Discussion Items/ Agenda Section: General Action Items Presented By: Community Development Jennifer Jordan, LRT Senior Project Manager Kim Berggren, Director of Community Development Item: Proposed West Broadway Residential Fence Program Summary: This discussion item follows up on the February 26, 2018 Council discussion on the proposed uniform residential fence along West Broadway. The uniform fence is proposed as part of the reconstruction of West Broadway Avenue, which will be coordinated with the METRO Blue Line Extension LRT (BLRT) project. The attached memo from staff and letter from Met Council and Hennepin County provide information about the proposed fence. As requested, staff surveyed Council Members on their preferences in structuring a West Broadway fence maintenance program for residents. Four of seven Council Members took the survey and the results are attached. A possible program concept based on the Council input could be: Cost share: 30% cost covered by City and 70% by homeowner. First $500 forgiven, with the balance provided as a no interest loan that is assessed to the property for repayment. Funding source: EDA general fund o To keep administration simple, staff recommends not utilizing CDBG for this purpose because it will dramatically increase staff time needed to administer the program. Also, only a portion of recipients would be income eligible for CDBG funding. Responsibilities: Property owner to apply to the City for the program if his/her fence is damaged or needs replacement. City to contract with fence installer and oversee fence installation. Eligible recipients: All 80 homes and Maplebrook Homeowners Association Attachments: C.2A C.2B C.2C HISTORY OF WEST BROADWAY RESIDENTIAL FENCE MEMO METRO TRANSIT/HENNEPIN COUNTY FENCE LETTER COUNCIL FENCE SURVEY RESULTS

5 C.2A HISTORY OF WEST BROADWAY RESIDENTIAL FENCE MEMO Page 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and Council Members Kim Berggren, Director of Community Development Jennifer Jordan, LRT Senior Project Manager West Broadway Residential Fence History The purpose of this memo is to give background on how the concept of constructing a uniform residential fence along West Broadway came to be included as part of the METRO Blue Line Extension LRT (BLRT) project. At the February 26, 2018 Council meeting, staff indicated that this information would be provided to the City Council. BACKGROUND: The coordination of the BLRT project and the West Broadway reconstruction project dates back to the early stages of the Bottineau Alternatives Analysis Study process in Prior to 2015, this work was led by Hennepin County with City of Brooklyn Park participation; after 2015, the work has been led by Metro Transit and Hennepin County with City of Brooklyn Park participation. Sensitivity to adjacent property owners and property impacts has been an ongoing concern including, but not limited to, the consideration of residential fencing. As the BLRT project advanced through the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), public and partnering agency input led to a proposal to align the project implementation schedules of the West Broadway Roadway reconstruction and the BLRT projects to minimize impacts on adjacent property through integrated design and to minimize the duration of construction impacts. The DEIS included the study of noise and visual impacts associated with the BLRT project. Per the DEIS results, the West Broadway corridor does not warrant noise or visual screening mitigation. However, Metro Transit and Hennepin County recognized the community s desire for residential fencing for the purpose of desired visual screening.

6 C.2A Page On June 16, 2014, the City Council decided to table consideration of the West Broadway Avenue roadway reconstruction Layout No. 2 due to community concerns about the proposed project. Specifically, the City Council asked Hennepin County to: o Develop a roadway design that minimizes property takings or partial acquisitions in the community o Create a robust community engagement strategy for properties affected by the transit project o Articulate how the West Broadway roadway design project related to the Metro Blue Line Extension LRT project Subsequently, Hennepin County staff, the Metropolitan Council s BLRT Project Office (BPO) staff, and City of Brooklyn Park staff worked to redesign West Broadway Avenue in coordination with BLRT project planning. This coordinated approach resulted in preliminary design plans that significantly reduced the right of way impact. In response to City Council and community concerns, the two projects were proposed to be constructed simultaneously to reduce the duration of construction impacts to the community. While the redesign of the project greatly reduced the amount of property acquisitions along West Broadway, project construction will still impact some of the properties which currently have private residential fences along West Broadway. In cases like this, the property owner is typically compensated for both the temporary easement during construction as well as full replacement value of their fence through the acquisition process known as cost to cure. Below is a breakdown of impacted residential properties. Number of properties without fences 23 Number of properties where fences are not impacted by construction 7 Number of properties where fences are impacted by construction 51 Total residential properties adjacent to West Broadway 81 Notes: 1. Only counts residential properties directly adjacent to construction limits rd Avenue is a separate Hennepin County project and is not included in the calculations 3. Maplebrook properties are counted as one property because the land is held by a single owner the Maplebrook Association 2015 A robust community engagement effort was coordinated by the Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, and the City of Brooklyn Park. In 2015, more than 1,800 Brooklyn Park residents and stakeholders were informed and engaged about the proposed BLRT and West 2

7 C.2A Page 4 Broadway roadway project at various community meetings. A breakdown of that outreach and engagement is below. o General Public Open Houses and Community Meetings 885 contacts o Community and Targeted Outreach 739 contacts o Includes meetings with Church groups, North Hennepin Community College students, Avenues for Youth residents and staff etc. o Business owner/representative meetings 115 contacts o Property owner meetings 104 Hennepin County hosted five public meetings in Brooklyn Park for the roadway project in 2014, and five open house public meetings and ten other meetings of semi-public groups for the transitway project since June of Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, and the City of Brooklyn Park have also been diligent about updating project websites and notification listings for both projects in order to keep area residents informed. Items of note that also occurred in 2015 include: Impacted property owners and other community members requested a fence or noise wall along West Broadway to buffer residential properties from the train. Hennepin County and Brooklyn Park begin the station area planning process January 28, 2016 Hennepin County Transportation Department provided a letter identifying the project s commitment to the installation of a unified residential fence for Hennepin County s segment. The letter indicates that upon installation, the fence will be turned over to the property owner for ownership and maintenance responsibilities. February 1, 2016 Council Work Session on LRT included a discussion on the uniform fencing. February 15, 2016 Metro Transit letter identified the BPO s commitment to the installation of a unified residential fence for Metro Transit s portion of the roadway project from 74 th Avenue to Candlewood. February 22, 2016 Council action on Municipal Consent on LRT included discussion on the project partners installing uniform residential fencing. November 17, Metro Blue Line held an open house and residential fence meeting for affected residential property owners. Property owners provided their preferences in terms of height and material. The majority of property owners preferred 3

8 C.2A Page 5 a 6 or 8-foot, composite fence with an option to have a gate, if desired; residents expressed concern over long-term maintenance February 6, Council Work Session on the West Broadway residential fence strategy including: o Review of property owner fence preference in terms of height and material from 11/17/16 property owner meeting. o Review of Metro Transit and Hennepin County s proposed offer of design and construction of a 6-foot, composite fence with optional gate. If Brooklyn Park wanted to increase the height of the fence to 8 feet, the additional cost would be covered by the City of Brooklyn Park. o Discussed concept of city owning and maintaining the fence. Also discussed hybrid concepts in which the city could offer: maintenance of the private fence; matching grants to property owners for maintenance; a loan program to homeowners for fence maintenance; and/or a special assessments process. o At that time, Council identified a preference for a hybrid strategy that would include City staff going back and developing a matching grant or loan program. March 6, 2017 and March 27, 2017 Council Work Sessions to go over the details of each of the West Broadway streetscape enhancements to see which elements the Council supports and the degree of investment (i.e. corner treatments at Brooklyn Boulevard all corners or a couple of corners). o At that time, the staff-proposed residential fence strategy was for the BPO to design and install the residential fence and then turn it over to private property owners. City staff was to develop a matching grant/loan program to help property owners with long-term maintenance of the fence. April 3, 2017 Council Work Session to review the Council s level of investment support for West Broadway streetscape enhancements so that Brooklyn Park can keep advancing the project design with Metro Transit and Hennepin County. o At that time, the planned residential fence strategy was for the BPO to design and install the residential fence and then turn it over to private property owners. City staff was to develop a matching grant/loan program to help property owners with long-term maintenance of the fence. April 10, 2017 Council action directing staff to continue working on developing an investment level for West Broadway Streetscape and Maintenance. Brooklyn Park investment level is identified as $11,000,000 and includes corner treatments, pedestrian lighting, trees, landscaping, and street furniture. The City understood that Metro Transit and Hennepin County would cover the design and installation cost for the 4

9 C.2A Page 6 uniform residential fence that is part of the West Broadway Streetscape. It was unclear at that time whether or not Hennepin County / BPO would fund the cost differential between wood and composite. 2017/2018 Over the summer of 2017, Brooklyn Park staff researched options for ensuring that the residential fence would remain consistent over time as well as options for how to implement a matching grant/loan program to help homeowners with long-term fence maintenance. In order to ensure that the residential fence remain consistent over time, staff proposed a combination of two mechanisms. 1.) Place a restrictive covenant on the property that specifies that the fence must be kept consistent in material, height, and style over time and; 2.) Amend the fence requirements in the zoning code to call out that any replacement of fences along the West Broadway corridor must be 6-foot, composite fence panels that match the style originally installed. January 8, 2018 Council Work Session on proposed implementation options for longterm maintenance for the uniform residential fencing for properties along West Broadway. Options presented for Council direction included: Proposed Program Option #1 Matching Grant Reimbursement 1. City identifies an approved fence installer for residents to use if fence damage occurs. 2. Resident completes an application documenting the fence damage, estimated cost of materials, and evidence that the cost is personal and not covered by insurance. 3. City staff inspects damage. 4. Replacement fence panel is installed by either an approved installer or homeowner. 5. After installation, City staff will re-inspect and City reimburses homeowners 40% of cost of materials. Option #1 Pros and Cons Pros No outlay of resources upfront by City and no logistics to manage in terms of storing panels long-term. Cons Higher burden on homeowners. Homeowners must pay 100% up front and then get reimbursed by City. Proposed Program Option #2 Matching Grant Upfront 1. City manages the inventory of panels that can be sold to residents at 60% of cost. 5

10 C.2A Page 7 2. Resident completes an application documenting the fence damage with evidence that the cost is personal and not covered by insurance. 3. City staff inspects damage. 4. Replacement fence panel is installed by either an approved installer or homeowner. 5. After installation, City staff will re-inspect to ensure the work was completed properly. Option #2 Pros and Cons Pros Provides most flexibility for homeowners because they do not have to cover 100% of the cost of the fence panel upfront. Cons City must manage an inventory of fence panels. Proposed Program Option #3 Property Assessment 1. Resident completes an application documenting the fence damage, estimated cost of materials, and evidence that the cost is personal and not covered by insurance. 2. City staff inspects damage. 3. Replacement fence panel is installed by an approved installer. 4. After installation, City staff will re-inspect and assess the homeowner for the cost and installation of all of the material. Option #3 Pros and Cons Pros Provides most flexibility for homeowners because they do not have to cover 100% of the cost and installation of the fence panel upfront. Allows for gradual payback over time by homeowner. Lower level of City resources expended over time. Cons Homeowner bears 100% of the cost for the material and installation of replacement fence panels. The Council indicated support for an assistance program, but requested more options on program design. February 26, 2018 Staff sought Council direction on moving forward with Council s preferred implementation option for long-term maintenance for the uniform residential fencing. Council tabled the action item. o Some Council Members requested that the City renegotiate fence ownership and maintenance with Metro Transit and Hennepin County to require each entity to own and maintain their respective segment of the fence. Staff indicated background information would be provided for additional discussion. 6

11 C.2A Page 8 o Council also directed staff to develop an electronic survey of options on fence program implementation. May 14, 2018 As requested, staff surveyed Council Members on their preferences in structuring a West Broadway fence maintenance program for residents. Four of seven Council Members took the survey and the results are attached. A possible program concept based on the Council input could be: o Cost share: 30% cost covered by City and 70% by homeowner. First $500 forgiven, with the balance provided as a no interest loan that is assessed to the property for repayment. o Funding source: EDA general fund To keep administration simple, staff recommends not utilizing CDBG for this purpose because it will dramatically increase staff time needed to administer the program. Also, only a portion of recipients would be income eligible for CDBG funding. o Responsibilities: Property owner to apply to the City for the program if his/her fence is damaged or needs replacement. City to contract with fence installer and oversee fence installation. o Eligible recipients: All 80 homes and Maplebrook Homeowners Association 7

12 C.2B METRO TRANSIT/HENNEPIN COUNTY FENCE LETTER Page 9

13 C.2C COUNCIL FENCE SURVEY RESULTS Page 10

14 C.2C Page 11

15 C.2C Page 12

16 C.2C Page 13

17 C.2C Page 14

18 C.2C Page 15

19 C.2C Page 16

20 C.2C Page 17

21 C.2C Page 18

22 C.2C Page 19

23 C.2C Page 20

24 C.2C Page 21

25 C.2C Page 22