Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 09-14 CCPCouncil S tudy S ession V I RT UA L meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota S tatutes, section 13D.021 P ublic portion available for connection by dialing 1-312-535-8110 A ccess C ode: 1337911584 S eptember 14, 2020 AGE NDA 1.C ity C ouncil Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m. 2.M iscellaneous 3.D iscussion of Work Session Agenda Item as T ime P ermits 4.Adjourn C IT Y C O UNC IL M E E T I NG V I RT UA L meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota S tatutes, section 13D.021 P ublic portion available for connection by dialing 1-312-535-8110 A ccess Code: 1337911584 S eptember 14, 2020 AGE NDA Meeting Mute Testing: The host will place all attendees on mute and ask that all attendees unmute themselves before starting the meeting. 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the C ounc il 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 presenter. Questions from the C ounc il will be for c larific ation only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the c omments made but, rather, for hearing the presenter for informational purposes only. I will first c all on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak during open forum, and then I will ask if any one else c onnected to this meeting would like to speak. W hen I do, please indicate y our name and then proc eed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking. 2.Invocation - 7 p.m. (Lawrence-Anderson) 3.Call to Order Regular Business M eeting This meeting is being conduc ted electronic ally under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D .021 due to the pandemic. For those who are connec ted to this meeting, please keep your microphone muted. I f there is an opportunity for public c omment, y ou may unmute and speak when called upon. Please do not talk over others and any one being disruptive may to ejec ted from the meeting. The packet for this meeting is on the City's website, whic h is linked on the calendar or can be found on "City Council" page. 4.Roll Call 5.P ledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda The following items are c onsidered to be routine by the C ity Council and will be enac ted 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 c onsent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration I tems. a.Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve minutes for the following meetings: August 14 -Canvass Primary Election Results August 17 - Work Sessi on August 24 - Study Session August 24 - Regular Session August 24 - Work Session b.Approval of L icenses - Motion to approve licenses as presented. c.Resolution Rejecting the I nstallation of the P roposed Noise Walls along Brooklyn B oulevard between B ass L ake Road and I nterstate 94 as part of the Brooklyn B oulevard Corridor P roject P hase 2 I mprovements, Project No. 2021-05 - Motion to approve a resolution rejecting the i nstal lati on of the proposed noise walls along Brookl yn Boulevard between Bass Lake Road and Interstate 94 as part of the Brookl yn Boulevard Corri dor Project Phase 2 Improvements, Project No. 2021-05. 7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a.Police Collected Racial Stop Data -No Council action requested at this time b.Housing P olicy Study Presentation 8.P ublic Hearings The public hearing on this matter is now open. I will first call on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak to this matter, then I will ask if anyone else on this meeting would like to speak during this hearing. W hen I do, please indic ate your name and then proceed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking. a.An Ordinance A mending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain L ands L ocated A long Brooklyn Boulevard - Motion to open publ ic hearing, take public comment, and close public hearing. - Motion to approve a second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain lands located along Brooklyn Boulevard. 9.P lanning Commission Items a.Planning Commission A pplication No. 2020-007, Submitted by Wayne B rown of W K Brown, L L C for Site and B uilding Plan and P lanned Unit Development Amendment Approvals for the Subject Property L ocated at 2590 F reeway Boulevard and K nown Commonly as J ammin' W ings Restaurant - Motion to adopt a resolution to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2020-007 for approval of a site and building plan and Planned Unit Development Amendment for the Subject Property located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard and known commonly as Jammin’ Wings Restaurant, based on the findings of fact and submitted documentati on, as amended by the conditions of approval in the resolution. 10.Council Consideration Items 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes B ackground: I n accordance with M innesota S tate S tatute 15.17, the official records of all mee5ngs must be documented and approved by the governing body. B udget I ssues: -None. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera5onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip5on U pload D ate Type A ugus t 14, 2020 C anvass of P rimary Elec5on 9/2/2020 Backup M aterial A ugus t 17, 2020 Works ession 9/2/2020 Backup M aterial A ugus t 24, 2020 S tudy S ession 9/2/2020 Backup M aterial A ugus t 24, 2020 Regular S es s ion 9/2/2020 Backup M aterial A ugus t 24, 2020 Work S ession 9/2/2020 Backup M aterial 08/14/20 -1- 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 SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 14, 2020 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Special Meeting called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Kris Lawrence-Anderson and Dan Ryan. Councilmember April Graves was absent and excused. Mayor Elliott explained that Councilmember Marquita Butler would not be joining the meeting as she is on vacation. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey and City Clerk Barb Suciu. 2020 MUNICIPAL PRIMARY ELECTION Mayor Elliott stated the purpose of this meeting is to canvass the results of the 2020 Municipal Primary Election. City Clerk Barb Suciu stated the Primary Election was held August 11, 2020. There were 7 candidates on the ballot and the field must be narrowed to 4 candidates. Due to Covid-19, election laws were modified to allow 2 extra days for officials to process absentee ballots, which were received on August 13, 2020. She reviewed the Election Statistics as follows: Marquita Butler – 1,498 votes Kris Lawrence-Anderson - 1,401 votes Alfreda Daniels – 1,269 votes Sizi Goyah 841 - votes Ms. Suciu stated these 4 candidates will be placed on General Election Ballot on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Other Statistics: In-Person votes – 1,798 Absentee Ballots – 2,528 Total Votes: 4,324 Ms. Suciu stated this represents a 27% voter turnout which is high compared to 2016 and 2018. She added tonight’s meeting packet contains data regarding in-person, absentee ballot and total votes for each precinct. She noted City Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution to accept the election results. 08/14/20 -2- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated there were reports from residents who tried to vote but they were not on the list of registered voters. He asked whether the City Clerk has any insight into that issue, and whether any other issues arose. Ms. Suciu stated the voter roll is updated every 4 years. She added, if a resident has not voted in 4 years, they automatically drop off the roll. She noted she was not aware of any other issues other than those raised by Mayor Elliott. Mayor Elliott asked whether City Staff are working on an absentee ballot drive-up location, similar to the City of Minneapolis. Ms. Suciu stated she initiated the drive-up ballot box process in Minneapolis. She added there is a drop box in City Hall where residents can deposit their ballots. She noted there is a possibility that CARES Act funding can be used to get a big ballot box, although that can be problematic if it is permanent, as people put other things in the ballot box. Ms. Suciu stated the big ballot box could be outside only during elections, but there would have to be 2 election judges monitoring it at all times, and it must be brought into City Hall at night, and it is very heavy. Mayor Elliott asked whether the drive-up ballot box would only be available on certain days or at certain times. Ms. Suciu stated City Staff is looking into it, and it will depend upon how many election judges are available. She noted a drive-up ballot box will require additional election judges. Mayor Elliott requested that City Staff determine what additional barriers there are to a drive-up ballot box that can be cleared up so this revision can be made. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff will do whatever is necessary to make voting as easy as possible, especially with respect to the pandemic. He added City Staff will look into the possibility of a drive-up ballot box and provide information to the City Council. He noted it is certainly something that City Staff would want to do. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-63 Regarding the Canvass of the 2020 Municipal Primary Election held on August 11, 2020. Motion passed unanimously (3-0). Mayor Elliott requested that the City Clerk call his name last during a roll call vote. 2021 Budget Meeting Mr. Boganey stated a budget meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2020 but given the nature of this year’s budget process, City Staff will not have enough information available to hold a budget meeting. He added the City Council has three work session items that 08/14/20 -3- DRAFT need to be addressed. He asked the City Council to allow City Staff to present the work session items on Monday August 17, 2020 in lieu of a budget meeting. Mayor Elliott stated he would have liked the City Manager to check in with him before the meeting to discuss this issue. He added he has been trying to contact City Councilmembers to check their availability and schedule work sessions. He noted two City Councilmembers were not able to join this evening’s meeting, and he would like to discuss potential work sessions with all the Councilmembers. Councilmember Ryan stated he is amenable to the suggestion of the City Manager to hold a work session on Monday. He expressed concern that the City Council has not been able to complete enough of their business in a timely manner, although the last Regular Session meeting was disrupted. He noted he is available on Monday, August 17, 2020 to revisit work session items. Mayor Elliott stated he is reaching out to the Councilmembers to schedule two separate work sessions regarding the issues of housing policy and public safety. ADJOURN Mayor Elliott stated he would like to make a motion to adjourn. He called for a second. Mr. Boganey asked to be acknowledged. Mayor Elliott stated there is a motion on the floor. Mr. Boganey stated there was no second. Mayor Elliott stated Mr. Boganey interrupted the meeting. Councilmember Ryan seconded the motion. Mayor Elliott requested that Mr. Boganey proceed. Mr. Boganey stated the CARES funding is a time-sensitive issue which could be addressed at a work session on Monday, August 17, 2020. He added the meeting is already posted and City Councilmembers are scheduled to be available on Monday. Mayor Elliott agreed that the CARES funding should be addressed at Monday’s work session. He added he will work to contact Councilmembers to schedule the other work sessions. Vote on the motion to adjourn passed unanimously (3-0). The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 08/17/20 -1- 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 WORK SESSION AUGUST 17, 2020 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Barb Suciu. CARES ACT FUNDING APPROPRIATIONS Mayor Elliott stated this meeting is to review appropriation of federal funding that the City of Brooklyn Center will receive through the CARES Act. He added funding is proposed to be used to reach residents to provide much-needed health information related to Covid-19. He added the Brooklyn Center community is one of the few that have been the most impacted by Covid-19, and it is necessary to act to protect the public health. City Manager Curt Boganey thanked the City Council for joining the meeting. He added this meeting is an opportunity for City Staff to gauge the City Council’s reactions to CARES funding allocations, which is time-sensitive, and offer modifications or suggestions. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff did a lot of brainstorming, connecting with community partners and reviewing survey data and information from the “Beyond Covid-19” project. He added City Staff are mandated to recommend only initiatives that meet statutory requirements. He noted the City of Brooklyn Center has been allocated $2.433 million of the $841 million allocated to the State of Minnesota. Mr. Boganey stated CARES funding can be used for necessary expenditures incurred between March 1-December 30, 2020, due the Covid-19 health emergency and not accounted for in the previously approved budget. He added cities are required to complete incurrence of funds by November 15, 2020. He noted federal legislation may result in an extension of this date. Funds that are not spent by November 15, 2020, must be returned to a medical facility located in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Boganey stated City expenses to date include personnel costs, unemployment costs, forgivable loans to date, the nonprofits grant program, food shelf contributions, supply costs/equipment costs 08/17/20 -2- DRAFT and other supplies. He added City Staff estimates that the City has incurred $1.2 million in costs that may be reimbursed through CARES funding. He noted the City Council has supported prioritization of federal funding to help cover the anticipated General Fund deficit. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff have identified estimates in broad categories related to anticipated emergency response and health-related costs. He added, if the City Council supports these recommendations, City Staff will come back to the City Council with specific resolutions for actual spending within these categories. He noted City Staff has determined that these costs would be eligible for CARES funding. Mr. Boganey reviewed the categories for consideration for application of CARES funding, including $50,000 for food security, as well as small business forgivable loan program, for which $96,000 has already been set aside, as well as an estimated $200,000. He added funds could be used to cover health-related facility upgrades and improvements, IT system upgrades and equipment; emergency response systems upgrade; and personal protective supplies and equipment. He noted the issue is whether the City can accomplish these things by mid-November, and whether what is proposed meets federal regulations. Mr. Boganey stated the “Beyond Covid-19” initiative identified projects related to Covid-19, including iPads or tablets for seniors and Wi-Fi in neighborhood parks. He added Deputy City Manager Dr. Reggie Edwards has reviewed the criteria and projects related to Covid-19, and it is believed that these projects fit into the federal guidelines. He added iPads would be distributed to seniors on which apps are installed to help them connect with services they need as well as community and family. He noted Wi-Fi in the parks has been suggested to provide internet access to students and their families in Brooklyn Center who do not have it at home, for school, work and socialization. Mr. Boganey stated recommended programs for CARES funding would address health, education and economic impacts. These include food security and the EDA-funded community service grants. Dr. Edwards reviewed recommended programs that may be eligible for CARES funding: -Health-on-the-Go, a mobile health response unit to get services out to the community, engage residents that are hard to reach and that have been most affected by the pandemic. This initiative, which would be a partnership between Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, in cooperation with Hennepin County and the School District, would be staffed by County health officials and the bus would be shared by the two cities. -Back to school safety kits, providing school supplies for the City’s most economically challenged students, as well as safety items. -Public art transit/mental health initiative. A partnership with the Metro Transit hub is being pursued. They have allocated two monitors in the transit hub ongoing messaging related to Covid- 19, public health, and art in general, and conveying the message of working together as a community. City Staff applied for a national grant, competing with over 100 communities, to address the juxtaposition of art, artists and transit, proposing that local artists would work with 08/17/20 -3- DRAFT local youth to provide public art in transportation areas. This initiative would be a partnership with Metro Transit, local School Districts, private and charter schools, and artists in the community. This partnership can also be utilized to address the City’s recently reviewed trash issue. Mr. Boganey stated community partners are also being sought who may have an identified need that can be met between now and November 15, 2020. He added some City-related projects may come in less than that which is allocated. He noted City Staff are open to discussing partnerships with community colleges, schools, churches and other non-profits, to find meaningful projects that can be completed within the limited time frame. Mr. Boganey stated the proposals that City Staff have are recommending would result in total estimated CARES spending of $2,433,415, with no remaining balance. Mr. Boganey requested feedback and comment from the City Council regarding the proposed plan for utilizing CARES funding. Mayor Elliott stated it is a big opportunity for the City to have this amount of money to be able to reduce the effects of the pandemic on the community. He added the City should be looking at maximum funding for direct impact items, like food security, as residents have been hit hard by the pandemic. He noted his initial reaction was that $250,000 should be allocated to food security and community service grants, as those are the highest need areas. He noted, if the City is getting $2 million and only spending $50,000 on food security and community service grants, then he does not know what we are doing, and he feels strongly there should be a more significant investment in that area. Mayor Elliott stated the forgivable loan program for businesses and nonprofits should be increased from $96,000 to $500,000, to sustain small businesses. He added his thought was to have a big impact in these areas first, and then determine where the remaining funds can be allocated. He added he would like to increase allocations for additional partnerships to $100,000. Mayor Elliott stated he is interested in hearing what Councilmember Graves has to say about the Health-on-the-Go initiative, as the City does not have a Health Department. He added this initiative could be a health connectors program, connecting residents with the support they need. He stressed the importance of reaching communities that are heavily impacted by the pandemic and may not have the ability to get support and information. Mayor Elliott asked whether there would be a separate bus for each City, or if it would be a shared bus. He added he would like to see more information and assessments about the impact that this spending will have on the community. Councilmember Ryan stated he is confident that City Staff has worked through the prioritization process, looking at the needs of the community, how to better identify them, and balancing that with the requirements of the CARES funding. He asked whether the proposal has been guided by the strategic goals of the City Council, in light of the Mayor’s funding suggestions. 08/17/20 -4- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated the categories for funding that were selected are based on the City Council’s strategic priorities, specifically resident economic stability and the use of CARES funding to address the anticipated General Fund deficit. He added the proposal addresses City expenses incurred due to the pandemic and utilizing federal guidelines for the funding. He stressed the importance of funding initiatives or uses that would be accepted by the federal auditor, and in line with changing federal requirements. He noted the funding must be clearly eligible, reimbursing the City for unexpected costs and supporting resident economic stability as a broad strategic goal. Mr. Boganey stated, unless the deadline is extended, the most significant hurdle is to ensure that the funds are distributed and spent by November 15, 2020. He added the money must be spent by that date to meet federal guidelines. He noted that might help to explain why City Staff is not recommending larger amounts of funding for some of the partnerships. Councilmember Ryan asked whether City Staff has determined which actions can be initiated and implemented by the deadline. He added to arbitrarily load up funds into a certain category might not be prudent in light of limited capacity. Mr. Boganey stated the funds must be distributed and used by that date, and not simply allocated. Councilmember Ryan stated, as indicated on federal websites, the City will be responsible for returning the funds if the federal guidelines are not met. Mr. Boganey agreed, adding the City will be held accountable for how the funds are used. He added if an allocation does not meet federal criteria, the City is responsible. Councilmember Ryan stated, however worthy our aspirations might be, under the determined constraints, the allocations could widely miss the mark. Mayor Elliott stated the point of this evening’s meeting is to give feedback and direction on these items. Councilmember Graves stated the comments from Mayor Elliott and Councilmember Ryan are in alignment with the thoughts she has had on this issue. She added she is intrigued with some of the newer programs. She asked how often Health-on-the-Go would take place, which communities would they interact with, and how initiatives could collaborate with each other and other organizations. She added she is happy to hear that there will be collaboration with local schools. She noted organizations could be included, like adult group homes, who might be interested in additional touchpoints around their well-being. She noted the Health-on-the-Go initiative could also be tailored to groups like immigrant communities and senior communities, through collaboration with the County and School District. Councilmember Graves stated she is confident that City Staff is providing sufficient guidance with consideration for federal criteria and realistic funding amounts. Councilmember Graves stated everything on the list is important, although she is on the fence about facilities upgrades, although some are important for Covid-19 prevention. She added there are a few areas that could be readjusted if a greater community need is realized, and it is determined 08/17/20 -5- DRAFT that funding should be made available. She expressed the importance of being smart stewards of this funding, to best serve the City of Brooklyn Center within the time frame and federal guidelines. Mr. Boganey stated, with respect to Health-on-the-Go, the way Councilmember Graves has described it is exactly how City Staff would like it to work. He added Brooklyn Bridge Alliance is coordinating the design. The capital cost of buying a bus is a high cost item, and something that can be implemented in relatively short order. He added Brooklyn Park is committing $300,000, and Brooklyn Center’s share is $100,000. He noted it is anticipated that partnerships with the School District and County, as well as Brooklyn Park, will be necessary to get programming up and running fairly quickly. Dr. Edwards stated he believes the funding is for one bus, but he would have to confirm. Mr. Boganey stated his recollection is that it is one bus. Councilmember Graves stated the Health-on-the-Go initiative could expand on the city’s community engagement and outreach, as there are not a lot of community engagement staff out there right now. She added the mayor mentioned community health connectors, but that level of case work is handled at the County level. Councilmember Graves stated she would support doing Health-on-the-Go as a pilot, to determine how it can be incorporated into the City’s ongoing community engagement and outreach strategy, in terms of case management or tailored outreach workers in the community. Mayor Elliott stated he would support consideration of having a second bus as it will be difficult to share one bus between two cities. He added, to Councilmember Graves’ point, this initiative could be incorporated into the City’s community outreach efforts. He noted having a bus would be a way to make a greater positive impact on the community in terms of programming. Councilmember Graves stated Mr. Boganey mentioned that the Health-on-the-Go program is being designed by the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance and Youth Council, and she trusts in the Alliance’s ability to be a truly youth-led organization. She added she does not want to impose on their decisions or have the City Council’s comments overshadow what they think is the best approach. She noted this is a unique opportunity to reach some of the City’s most vulnerable and marginalized community members, with the potential to have a larger impact. Councilmember Graves stated she would support having the Health-on-the-Go program go to the transit center, to connect with people there. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she is grateful that these funds are available, and City Staff have done a nice job of spreading the funding across various programs. She added she concurs that an additional Health-on-the-Go bus would be helpful as it will be difficult to share one bus with Brooklyn Park. She noted she agrees with the idea of putting more funding into basic needs like food security. She asked about the greenhouse food collective, as no details were provided. She thanked City Staff for their time and efforts in putting this information together, and additional information would be beneficial. 08/17/20 -6- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated the food collective and greenhouse was determined to be ineligible for CARES funding. He added it is hoped that project may be eligible for EDA funding. Mr. Boganey stated guidance from the federal government changes from day to day. He added the legislative timelines may be extended, which would open up additional funding opportunities. Mayor Elliott asked why the November 15, 2020 deadline was decided upon. Mr. Boganey stated the CARES Act was focused on economic stimulus, so he speculates that the tight deadlines are an attempt to get funding out quickly and stimulate the economy. Councilmember Graves stated she would like to acknowledge the difficult position that the City Council and City Staff find themselves in, coping with uncertainty and responsibility, and ever- changing dynamics. She thanked City Staff and expressed her appreciation, along with the City Council, and other community members who are listening and supporting, but also questioning and challenging. She added she feels blessed to share this space with the City Council, as they strive to do their best day by day. She noted it is not an easy place to be, but everyone is doing their best during difficult times. Councilmember Ryan echoed the sentiments expressed by Councilmember Graves, expressing appreciation for the efforts of City Staff during a difficult time filled with uncertainty. He stated a principle goal of the CARES Act is to ensure health and safety in communities with an emphasis on improvements in public spaces operated by the City. He added this is the beginning of a very difficult decision-making process that will continue to evolve and change, depending upon how long the pandemic continues. He noted, if there is additional federal funding, that could open up a greater discussion, but at this point he has faith in City Staff to bring back recommendations moving forward, and he supports the plan put forward by City Staff at this meeting. Mayor Elliott stated the purpose of tonight’s conversation is to provide feedback and comment so City Staff can come back with recommendations. He added having money to spend is a good problem, and the City Council does a good job of balancing the work that has already been done by City Staff. He noted he supports reviewing the recommendations and identifying ways that the funding can be better used to help the community. Mr. Boganey stated the City Council has indicated an interest in putting as much funding directly into the community as possible, including food security. He added City Staff are seeking community partners who will be able to work within the CARES funding parameters. He added there are ways to do that without significantly diminishing the City’s need for reimbursement and improvements. Mayor Elliott asked whether the City Council is willing to hold off on deciding about Wi-Fi in the parks, to honor the comments that have been received. He added ways to increase available Wi- Fi in public spaces can be explored until this can be discussed further. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that can be discussed further, and the validity of the resident’s concerns reviewed. She added she supports supplying internet access in City parking lots, at the community center, library, and Earle Brown Heritage Center (EBHC). She stressed the 08/17/20 -7- DRAFT importance of finding out whether the resident’s concerns are valid, and how they compare to the sentiments of other residents. Councilmember Graves stated she has power lines on three sides of her home on Brooklyn Boulevard. She added she does not know if there is a scientific basis or not, but there is some reality, both scientifically and spiritually, related to the potential effects of frequencies. She noted, however, access to reliable Wi-Fi is especially important right now, and the City has an obligation to provide some Wi-Fi for residents who do not have internet access. Councilmember Graves stated she supports expansion of Wi-Fi in the community center parking lot, in Centennial Park, by the amphitheater and surrounding areas, which are a beautiful yet under- utilized space. She added it would be a good idea to talk to residents who live near the City’s parks to get their opinions. Mr. Boganey requested the City Council’s input on using CARES funding to acquire equipment for Wi-Fi in parking lots and external City spaces. He stated some CARES funding should be available for that, and the General Fund would not bear the burden. He added this equipment would need to be ordered as soon as possible, due to the November 15, 2020 deadline, as there is some lead time required in terms of acquiring equipment. He noted this would not cover Wi-Fi in City parks. Mayor Elliott agreed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson concurred. Councilmember Ryan stated he concurs that CARES Act funding should be leveraged for Wi-Fi. He added, in terms of including Wi-Fi in the parks, it could create a logistical opportunity to get internet access out to the community. He noted environmental factors can be considered, as requested by a resident at a recent City Council meeting, but added it is important to remember that there could be other residents who probably do not share that opinion. Councilmember Graves stated this has been a very productive meeting. She added she is supportive of moving forward with internet access in more easily expandable places like parking lots and Centennial Park and being more inclusive about deciding on Wi-Fi in City parks. She noted she would not want to see too much CARES funding go into that process. Mr. Boganey requested consideration of a date next week to hold the budget meeting that was cancelled in lieu of tonight’s work session. There was a majority Consensus to hold the Budget Work Session on August 27, 2020, with an alternative date of August 25, 2020. Mayor Elliott stated there seemed to be a consensus to reevaluate funding to see if there should be two buses. Mayor Elliott asked whether there is consensus on getting safety kits out to the School District right away. The City Council agreed. Councilmember Ryan stated he would be interested in seeing a follow-up on that item. 08/17/20 -8- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated he is unsure, due to the funding restraints, whether there will be enough money for a second bus. Mayor Elliott stated the proposed $400,000 covers much more than just the cost of the bus, and there may be other proposed costs that can be leveraged. Mr. Boganey agreed the memo states that the cost of the bus will be $150,000-200,000. Councilmember Ryan stated a second bus should only be considered if there is additional outside funding, considering all the other stresses on City funds. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded adjournment of the City Council at 8:15 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 08/24/20 -1- 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 STUDY SESSION AUGUST 24, 2020 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS -None. MISCELLANEOUS Use of Shipping Containers Councilmember Butler stated she forwarded an article to the City Council about an initiative in downtown Cleveland using shipping containers as affordable spaces for small businesses. She added she would support looking at using shipping containers for small businesses and entrepreneurs in Brooklyn Center. She asked if the City Council has had a chance to look at the article. Mayor Elliott stated he reviewed the article briefly, and the container shops in Cleveland looked nice. He added he did not read the article in depth. Councilmember Ryan stated he read the article and it is an interesting concept. He added, like similar innovative concepts, it would require execution and oversight. He noted often the containers themselves are rough and unattractive, and would require exterior treatments, but their robust structure would be appropriate for the uses suggested in the article. Councilmember Ryan stated this concept would require some research and vetting by City Staff, and right now their time is stretched very thin, but he would be interested in looking into it. Webex Access Mayor Elliott stated he has received inquiries from the general public who are having difficulty logging in to the meeting, as there are two separate Webex meeting notices on the online City 08/24/20 -2- DRAFT Calendar. City Clerk Barb Suciu agreed to forward the meeting information to Mayor Elliott via Webex chat function. Use of Shipping Containers - continued Councilmember Graves stated the shipping containers concept is interesting. She asked City Staff for the cost of building the additional commercial space next to the liquor store, as a point of reference. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated the shell space was constructed at a cost of $330,000. She added City Staff are working on a plan for a build-out, which would be an additional cost. She noted there are many different potential models for that space, and one concept is to provide an incubator for food entrepreneurs in a community kitchen-based model. Councilmember Graves stated she is excited about that idea, and she is not opposed to it if it is a good fit for the City and its businesses. Mayor Elliott stated it is an appealing idea that should be reviewed, to see if it can be done at a reasonable cost and provide access for small businesses. Councilmember Butler stated, in response to Councilmember Ryan’s comment, the containers do look rough in their regular state. She added there is a container outside the Brooklyn Park library that has been painted and decorated by a local artist. City Manager Curt Boganey stated City Staff has reviewed the shipping container concept. He added the issue is timing and location, and when it would be appropriate to present something like that to the City Council, with all the other issues facing the City right now. He noted City Staff would be happy to bring back additional information in the future. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS HIGHWAY 252 PROJECT UPDATE Mr. Boganey requested that the Highway 252 Presentation be moved to the first item on the Work Session agenda as Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) representatives have joined the meeting and are available and ready to proceed. Mayor Elliott agreed. Mr. Boganey stated this is a follow-up presentation from the MnDOT staff presentation a few months ago. City Staff and MnDOT representatives felt it was important to communicate with the City Council about how the process is going and get further direction on issues, including goals and the engagement process. He introduced April Crockett, Chris Hoberg and Jerome Adams from MnDOT. Ms. Crockett stated the purpose of this presentation is to provide a brief update on the Highway 252 project, and request discussion regarding project goals and engagement efforts. 08/24/20 -3- DRAFT Mr. Hoberg stated the environmental impact statement (EIS) process focused on four key milestones: establishing the purpose of the project and transportation needs; evaluation criteria; a scoping document to define alternatives and evaluate them for inclusion in the draft EIS to be further evaluated to a single recommended alternative; and formal documentation of the decision- making process and determination of acceptance or rejection of that alternative and the overall project. Mr. Hoberg stated there will be a lot of evaluation in the EIS, which is scheduled for publication in 2023. He added, once the decision-making process is complete, planning and development will begin with a target of 2025 for potential construction. He noted the goals are to improve safety, mobility, walkability and bike-ability across Highways 252 and I-94, and to ensure that whatever is proposed is consistent with local guidelines. Mr. Hoberg stated the guidelines are focused on minimizing the need to acquire additional property, and to complete the project with as little social and economic impact as possible. He added any impacts that do occur must be balanced, and not disproportionately affect groups or resources. Mr. Hoberg stated another area of focus is transportation issues to be addressed in the environmental assessment. He added the intent is to broaden the language to allow for additional evaluation of transit and multiple modes rather than specific modes, which is how it is laid out right now. He noted MnDOT representatives intend to come back and give the City Council an update when a purpose statement has been prepared. Mr. Hoberg stated factors for consideration include environmental needs; driver safety; pedestrian and bike safety; and vehicle mobility. He added the “purpose and need” evaluation with partners will be under review during fall 2020, followed by a formal “purpose and need” presentation and a scoping document in October 2020. He noted the representatives plan to meet with city councils in December 2020 to review developments and alternatives. Mayor Elliott asked whether the improved safety factors are a new addition to what was previously proposed. Mr. Hoberg stated they are working from the base line of existing conditions. Mayor Elliott asked whether there will be a review of potential multiple transportation modes on Highway 252. Mr. Hoberg stated this is the beginning point of evaluations, and the EA will provide opportunity to review pedestrian and bike safety. He added there will be opportunity in the process to expand those aspects of the plan. He noted the project goals are not a fully inclusive list, and MnDOT is looking for feedback from the City Council to ensure that project goals are in line with what the City has as its goals for the project. Mayor Elliott stated walkability and multi-modal transportation are important project goals, and he is happy to see they are included as they are key goals for the City. He added what he does not see on the list is a goal around the health impacts of car emissions. 08/24/20 -4- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated data from the Minnesota Department of Health shows that the zip codes that encompass Highway 252 have the highest asthma rates among children and adults. He added a recent report in the Star Tribune showed that Brooklyn Center has the highest Covid-19 cases. He noted people with respiratory illnesses like asthma are more susceptible to diseases like Covid-19. Mayor Elliott stated the community of Brooklyn Center suffers disproportionately because of pollution due to the multiple highways that run through the City. He added there is a real overlap in high daily vehicle counts, traffic, Covid-19 cases and deaths, and asthma. He noted there is a real question about the fact that Brooklyn Center is where all the highways are located, and the City needs to put the health of its residents front and center of this project. Mayor Elliott stated reducing air pollution and improving the health of the City’s residents has to be one of the main goals of the Highway 252 project. Councilmember Butler stated it is time to start the Informal Open Forum. Mayor Elliott stated he would like to invite the MnDOT representatives to come to a City Council Regular Session meeting and be placed on an upcoming Agenda to give a presentation. He added this is a very important discussion, and he does not want to make the MnDOT representatives wait until after later that night to resume their presentation. Jerome Adams, MnDOT, stated they would be happy to meet with the City Council at an upcoming meet. He added they can also stay on tonight. He noted they want to accommodate whatever the City Council wants to do. Mayor Elliott stated the best thing would be for the MnDOT representatives to come back to another meeting. Councilmember Ryan stated the MnDOT representatives have indicated they are fine with staying on tonight’s meeting and continuing the discussion after the Regular Session and EDA meetings. He added one of his frustrations has been that the City Council’s meetings run unnecessarily long. He noted the City Council can continue this discussion later with MnDOT representatives and move forward with regard to Highway 252 goals. Councilmember Ryan stated this project discussion has been marked by delays. He added he would not want the City Council to suffer from the appearance that there is obstruction or delay in terms of moving forward on safety improvements for Highway 252. Councilmember Graves stated the City Council needs to start the Informal Open Forum as it is 6:51 p.m. Mayor Elliott stated he would like to address Councilmember Ryan’s comments. He agreed to start the Informal Open Forum. Discussion of this item continued at the August 24, 2020, Work Session. 08/24/20 -5- DRAFT ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott adjourned the Study Session at 6:52 p.m. 08/24/20 -1- 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 AUGUST 24, 2020 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 Mike Elliott at 6:52 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Economic Development Coordinator Jimmy Lloyd, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Melissa Carey thanked City Staff for responding to her email about the profanity and racial slurs that occurred at the City Council’s recent meeting. She added she was distressed by it, as the meetings should be inclusive and not harmful to City Staff, the City Council, and residents of Brooklyn Center. She thanked the Police Department for investigating the incident and taking quick action. Ms. Carey encouraged people to speak up when something like that happens, as it is not only the responsibility of people of color to speak up. She stressed the importance of speaking up and interrupting so silence does not come across as approval. Ms. Carey stated she is member of the Multi-Cultural Advisory Committee (MAC), and the Star Tribune recently ran an article about the role the MAC plays in Brooklyn Center. She added the MAC is a good tool to bridge the gap between the Police and the community, and has come up with some good solutions, but she does not consider it a way to enact police reform. She noted the City should appoint a police oversight committee, as so many other communities are doing. Ms. Carey urged the City Council to consider a police oversight and reforms committee, to continue to be ahead of the curve. She added she would also support a review of the City’s immigration policies, to ensure that Brooklyn Center is an inclusive, immigrant-friendly community. Mayor Elliott thanked Ms. Carey for taking the time to join the meeting. He added he appreciates her comments. 08/24/20 -2- DRAFT Tara McCarthy stated she would like to address the issue of safety on Highway 252. She added it is confusing to determine whether there are delays or if more in-depth research is being done, to make the project safe for the environment and people’s health. She noted transparency about new information is important. Mayor Elliott stated the City will follow up on that issue and ensure that any new information is available to the Task Force. Ms. McCarthy stated she would also support transparency regarding information that was previously made available, as well as new information that the Task Force has not seen y et. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 7:02 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Councilmember Butler read the following quotes as an Invocation: “The greatness of a community is most accurately measured by the compassionate actions of its members.” -Coretta Scott King “There is no power for change greater than a community discovering what it cares about.” -Margaret J. Wheatley 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 7:03 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Economic Development Coordinator Jimmy Lloyd, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA 08/24/20 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Butler moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 3, 2020 – Work Session with Financial Commission 2. August 7, 2020 – Continuation Work Session with Financial Commission 3. August 10, 2020 – Study Session 4. August 10, 2020 – Regular Session 5. August 10, 2020 – Work Session 6b. LICENSES Garbage Hauler License Sanimax USA LLC 505 Hardman Ave S South St Paul 55075 RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE IV – one-year license) 6207 Chowen Ave Doreen Kalema / Butterfly Bound Care INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 5301 France Ave N Lance Rosenberg / Juniper Land Trust 5350 Logan Ave N Matthew Forster / Elbrus MgT INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 2800 67th Ave N Curtis Griffin 5325 70th Cir Boukary Kabore 6712 Drew Ave N Adam Hardy RENEWAL (TYPE IV – one-year license) 5432 Dupont Ave N Xiangming Guan ‐ Met Mitigation Plan RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 904 53rd Ave N Moshe Vorotinov 3000 64th Ave N Infinite Property 1323 67th Ave N Ali Sajjad / 786 Homes LLC 5348 70th Cir Xin Zhou 5707 Bryant Ave N Lin Shuang LLC 5214 Drew Ave N Paris & Nicole Fadden 5416 Fremont Ave N Luisa Narvaez ‐ met requirements 7137 Grimes Ave N Shawn Banks 6761 Humboldt Ave N Li‐Chwen Su 3813 Janet La Abdirahman Dhunkal 5332 Knox Ave N Ira Kovalsky 2812 Ohenry Rd Mains'l Properties 6800 Orchard Ave N Prosperous Property 08/24/20 -4- DRAFT 3213 Quarles Ave N Infinite Property 6143 Regent Ave N Patricio Angamarca‐Romero ‐ Missing CPTED follow up & CFH 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-064 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, PROJECT NO. 2020-06, 2020 POND MAINTENANCE 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-065 AUTHORIZING XCEL ENERGY TO RECOVER COST OF UNDERGROUNDING BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES BY A SURCHARGE TO BROOKLYN CENTER XCEL RATEPAYERS – BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT PHASE 2, PROJECT NO. 2021-05 6e. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE 2020-05 AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING WATER CONSERVATION RESTRICTIONS 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-066 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, PROJECT NO. 2019-15, 70TH AVENUE STORM SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 6g. ANNUAL REPORT ON FRANCHISE FEES Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS -None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS -None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-067 RELATED TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-004 FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVALS, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE 6000 BLOCK OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 6025, 6031, 6037 AND 6045 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD). City Planner Ginny McIntosh reviewed requests from C-Alan Homes to develop multi-family triplex units at two different locations: the 6000 block of Brooklyn Boulevard, or the south site, and the 6900 block of Brooklyn Boulevard, or the north site. She added the requested approvals 08/24/20 -5- DRAFT include a first reading of the proposed rezoning of the properties to Planned Unit Development – Neighborhood Mixed Use (PUD-NMU). The second reading and public hearing for both would be scheduled on September 14, 2020. Ms. McIntosh stated the development sites are located on two different sets of EDA-owned properties. The City was approached by the developer, C-Alan Homes, a local builder and remodeler specializing in single-family high-end homes, with personal ties to Brooklyn Center. The developer is proposing a series of triplexes on each site, with 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom units, for which rents of approximately $1,850-2,200 would be affordable to 70-80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The developer has committed to setting aside 20% of the units for Section 8 tenants. Ms. McIntosh stated the recently adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of available, diverse housing stock as well as safe, stable and accessible housing options for all residents. She added the majority of the City’s rental stock were constructed prior to 1979, and no multi-family residential developments have been constructed since the 1970s. She noted the majority of the City’s housing stock falls within a very narrow affordability band. Ms. McIntosh stated, during the 2040 Comprehensive Plan engagement process, residents expressed a need for larger rental units, so they can continue to live in Brooklyn Center as their family’s needs change. She added the number of households with families is approaching 40% since 2010, which is higher than Hennepin County averages and the surrounding region. Ms. McIntosh stated 7 new parcels would be created at the south site, and 6 new parcels at the north site. An outlot is shown at the south site containing a section of drive aisle and parking lot, that is requested to be incorporated into the southernmost parcel. The City Engineer provided comments on the plans, which have been included in the meeting packet. Ms. McIntosh stated the second request for both sites relates to the establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Mixed Use District. The PUD would grant flexibility in the Zoning Code to encourage development that would not normally be allowed. The PUD would address front yard setbacks and percentage of 3-bedroom units. Ms. McIntosh stated the triplex units on the south site would have more of a traditional look, while the north site units would have a modern appeal. Both sites would have the same quality fixtures and amenities, as well as concrete patios behind the units. Ms. McIntosh stated a drive aisle from 61st Avenue is proposed for the south site, with a right-out only onto Brooklyn Boulevard, as approved by Hennepin County. She added the north site falls within the Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 project area, which was taken into consideration. She noted the north site has the same aesthetics and layouts but a more modern appearance, with main entrance off of Lee Avenue, and additional parking in a separate lot. Ms. McIntosh stated, for the north site, access to Brooklyn Boulevard from the duplexes was not approved by Hennepin County. She added City Staff worked with the applicant to change the site layout and accommodate emergency access only from the site to Brooklyn Boulevard. 08/24/20 -6- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh stated parking at the south site provides the minimum required parking, or 2 spaces per dwelling unit. She added this is dependent upon relocation of the trash enclosure. She noted parking at the north site insufficient by they should be able to add at least 2 more spaces. Buffers would be required to screen surrounding residential properties from both sites, with sufficient parking lot lighting and external fixtures. Ms. McIntosh stated both sites have landscape plans that exceed minimum requirements, but there are additional opportunities for plantings. She added a tree on the corner of 61st Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard will most likely have to be removed. Ms. McIntosh stated the memos from the Assistant City Engineer, fire inspector and building official provided staff memos and outlined their comments and requirements. She added City Staff is requesting a final recommendation letter to confirm their determinations. Ms. McIntosh stated a public hearing notice was published June 25, 2020, and notices were sent out to property owners in the area. She added updated notifications were sent as the public hearing was continued to August 13, 2020, updated meeting notifications were sent out, and signage was added to both sites. She noted City Staff received some public comments and she was in touch with owner of Slim’s but did not receive any formal commentary back from Slim’s. Ms. McIntosh stated these items were reviewed at the Planning Commission’s August 13, 2020 meeting at which a public hearing was held, and public comment was received. Some comments related to buffers to provide screening for adjacent properties along the west. She added the applicant has indicated there will be a 6-foot opaque fence. She noted there were questions about how the properties would be managed, insufficient parking, and increased traffic. Ms. McIntosh stated the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval for both applications, with a request to amend the Resolutions to add a condition that the Section 8 units would be evenly distributed among all three floors of the units and not only in the garden level. She added the applicant was willing to comply with that request. Ms. McIntosh stated City Staff has worked with applicant’s consultants to determine right of way easements and the site plan’s impacts on setbacks. A meeting is scheduled with SRF consultants to review this issue in light of Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2. City Staff is requesting an amendment to the Resolutions to accommodate potential revisions and adjustments to right of way and setbacks. Ms. McIntosh stated City Staff recommends approval of Resolutions for both applications with the requested amendments to setbacks as necessary. She added a motion is also required to approve the first reading of the Ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code to rezone the properties to PUD-NMU. Councilmember Graves thanked City Staff for the presentation. She added it is good that they are willing to designate 20% of the development to Section 8 housing, and the Planning Commission’s amendment should officially be added to the Resolution. She noted her only other concern is 08/24/20 -7- DRAFT parking at the north site, but it sounds like that is still being reviewed. She also expressed concern that the AMI bracket is a little above what is the average in Brooklyn Center, but the concession of 20% for Section 8 housing makes the development more accessible to some residents. She expressed support of moving the developments forward. Councilmember Graves stated she is curious about why the south site will be given a traditional look, while the north site has a modern design. Terry Robertson, the developer, stated, after negotiations with City Staff, it was determined that since the north site is a little closer to commercial areas and the highway, a modern look would blend better. He added there is an additional minimum cost of $25,000 per building to do the modern, contemporary design. He noted City Staff worked very hard to ensure that the developer could provide 20% of the units for Section 8 housing, as requested by the Mayor. Councilmember Ryan stated Brooklyn Boulevard is challenged due to changes that have limited the depth of buildable parcels, impeding commercial development. He added the mixed use concept allows the City to move away from the completely auto-centric pattern of development. He noted this is a very exciting concept that will help set the scene for more appealing multi-modal transportation model for the future of Brooklyn Boulevard. He expressed his support for the development as it will help move the City forward in terms of development. Councilmember Ryan stated he was skeptical about the developer accepting income-limited units in this development, but their flexibility in setting aside 20% of the units for Section 8 housing will help address community needs as Brooklyn Boulevard is developed and improved. Councilmember Butler thanked City Staff for the presentation. She added she is not clear on the parking situation, which is a big concern, as there will be many instances of multi-generational families living in one household due to the current economy. She asked for clarification with regard to parking in the proposals. Ms. McIntosh stated the south site will have a minimum of 42 parking spaces which achieves minimum requirements. She added the parking requirement for the north site is 36 spaces, and they currently have 30 or 31 spaces, but City Staff believes another 2-3 spaces can be achieved in the off-site lot. She noted the units are near the transit stop which is a benefit. Councilmember Butler stated she is concerned that requirement of 2 parking spaces per unit is not being met. Councilmember Graves stated it sounds like they will be able to get 33 or 34 spaces, and she is open to having a conversation about additional on-street parking, or parking in designated City- owned lots. She noted removing medians and moving trash enclosures will free up some additional space. Ms. McIntosh confirmed this. Mayor Elliott stated he is in favor of this proposal, which helps the City move forward in terms of development, adds new housing and helps balance the affordability question. He stressed the importance of striking a balance in terms of affordability as numerous communities around the 08/24/20 -8- DRAFT country, including San Francisco and Denver, have found that they were not proactive enough in addressing the affordability question when they were developed. Mayor Elliott thanked City Staff for working closely with the developer, and he thanked the City Council for holding up the affordability question. He thanked the Planning Commission for their review, and all the work they did. He added, most of all, he wanted to thank the applicant, as it is great when you have a developer whose heart is in the community and who wants to improve the community and provide access to housing for people who would otherwise have a difficult time finding affordable housing. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO 2020-067 Regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2020-004, for Preliminary and Final Plat and Site and Building Plan Approvals, and the Establishment of a Planned Unit Development for Certain Properties Located in the 6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard (Commonly Known as 6025, 6031, 6037 and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard), based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, and as amended by the conditions of approval in the Resolution. Discussion during the motion: Mayor Elliott stressed the importance of affordability in the current economic crisis, with unemployment levels close to that of the Great Depression. He added affordability of housing is central to the stability of families and kids being able to go to school. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates all the comments of his colleagues earlier in this discussion, reinforcing the wisdom of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of a creative approach to mixed uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, to enhance future development of the City of Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to Approve the First Reading of an Ordinance 2020-05 Amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classifications of the Subject Property located at 6025, 6031, 6037, and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard, and set the second reading and public hearing for September 14, 2020. Motion passed unanimously. 9b. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-068 RELATED TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-005 FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AND SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVALS, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE 6900 BLOCK OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 6921, 6927, 6933, AND 6939 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-068 Regarding Planning Commission Application No. 2020-005 for Preliminary and Final Plat and Site and Building Plan Approvals, and the Establishment of a Planned Unit Development 08/24/20 -9- DRAFT for Certain Properties Located in the 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard (Commonly Known as 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard). Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve a first reading of an ordinance 2020-006 amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code of Ordinances regarding the zoning classifications of the Subject Property located at 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard, and set the second reading and public hearing for September 14, 2020. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-069 AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE BC BEYOND COVID COMMUNITY INNOVATION GRANT PROGRAM PILOT PROJECT, WHICH WILL BE FUNDED BY THE GENERAL FUND THROUGH THE USE OF AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS. Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards stated the City is proposing three “Beyond Covid” pilot projects that would be undertaken on behalf of its residents. He added one project would fall under CARES Act funding, and two projects are related to funding outside of the CARES Act. The three projects are Community Innovation Grant Program, Community Food Distribution Initiative, and Wi-Fi in the Parks. Dr. Edwards stated the community engagement process involved City Staff interviews with community members, individuals and businesses, to determine their experiences during the pandemic, challenges they have faced and positive aspects that can be leveraged by the City over the next year and a half. City Staff worked with residents to determine areas of focus in services that are new to the City as well as redesign of existing City services. Dr. Edwards stated the community engagement process identified needs in the community related to resources and life essentials, including access to services, job security, housing stability and mental health issues due to isolation. Economic Development Coordinator Jimmy Lloyd reviewed the proposed Neighborhood Innovation Grant program, to allocate funding for services that are not currently provided to Brooklyn Center residents. City Clerk Barb Suciu stated the grant program would provide solutions to challenges residents have experienced due to the pandemic, including mental health support, education, beautification and art projects, crime prevention, clean-up of parks and neighborhoods, election and voter registration, and health and safety resources. She added the program would provide support for an enhanced community image, increased resident economic stability, and creation of a safe and secure economy. She noted the proposal is for 26 grants to be made to the community with a maximum amount of $750 per grant. 08/24/20 -10- DRAFT Ms. Suciu stated the goal is to find a community group that would function as program administrator with support from City Staff. Mr. Lloyd stated the grant funding would be available to neighborhood groups, individuals and non-profit organizations in Brooklyn Center. He added it is hoped that the funding will be used for projects that will be useful to residents in terms of sustaining community and learning. He noted projects must be completed within 90 days and accompanied by a brief report. Extensions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Lloyd stated the deadline would be October 1, 2020 for submission of Request for Proposals (RFP) from community organizations who would like to apply for the administrative role, with an administrator chosen by November 16, 2020. He added City Staff will begin to market and prepare for incoming applications by January 6, 2021 with the first round of approved grants to begin implementation by March 1, 2021. Mr. Lloyd stated City Staff requests City Council approval of a Resolution authorizing staff to proceed with BC Beyond Covid Community Innovation Grant Program pilot project to be funded by the General Fund through the available use of contingency funds. Mayor Elliott asked how people can find out about the RFP. Mr. Lloyd stated the information will be on the City website and will be sent to organizations with whom the City has existing partnerships, asking them to apply. Councilmember Graves stated she would be happy to share the information on social media, in a few different outlets. Mr. Lloyd agreed. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-069 Authorizing Staff to Proceed with the BC Beyond Covid Community Innovation Grant Program Pilot Project, which will be Funded by the General Fund through the use of Available Contingency Funds. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves requested that City Staff provide the RFP in many different languages to communicate the program details to community members. Mr. Lloyd agreed. Mayor Elliott requested that City Staff connect with media sources that can reach different communities within Brooklyn Center. Mr. Lloyd agreed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson left the meeting at 8:21 p.m. 11. COUNCIL REPORT -None. 08/24/20 -11- DRAFT 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Mayor Elliott seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:23 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 08/24/20 -1- 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 WORK SESSION AUGUST 24, 2020 CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Mike Elliott at 8:46 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, and Dan Ryan. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. HIGHWAY 252 PROJECT UPDATE (CONT’D) Mr. Boganey stated Minnesota Department of Transportation staff were in the process of giving a presentation to the City Council regarding the Highway 252 project during the Study Session. He invited MnDOT staff to continue their presentation. April Crockett, MnDOT, stated a Policy Advisory Committee meeting was held in June 2020, and the Mayor and City Council provided comments and feedback on project goals established a few years ago, as well as community engagement. She requested the City Council’s feedback regarding the EIS phase. Councilmember Graves stated she looks forward to hearing more about the first goal, or updated vision, to see what changes were made. She added it is important to focus the transit-related community engagement on the people who need it, like the multi-family residential buildings along Highway 252. She noted there may not have been many residents from those communities who attended the initial outreach and engagement efforts. She stressed the importance of going out to the apartments to get feedback and input. Councilmember Graves stated she would support ensuring that impacts are equitable, rather than “balanced”. She added an equity lens should be used to ensure that residents are impacted by the project in an equitable way. Councilmember Ryan expressed his firm support for the draft goals, related to improving safety and mobility, as well as pedestrian and bicycle access for crossing both Highways 252 and I-94. He stated the agreement is far more consistent than what future specifics might be in disagreement, 08/24/20 -2- DRAFT as everyone works together toward developing a vision for the future of Brooklyn Center that is less auto centric and addresses health and safety issues. Councilmember Ryan stated the proposed solutions are consistent with planning and are compatible with improvements to existing roadways. He added the purchase of additional property for the project must be minimized as the City evaluates environmental, economic and social impacts. He noted 66th Avenue was being considered for a proposed interchange, with alternative interchanges at 70th Avenue or 73rd Avenue, and planning reviews have shown there would be serious and negative impacts in those 2 alternatives. He noted it would be fine to amplify or enhance the initial goals of the project, although he feels they have been well-defined from the beginning. Mayor Elliott asked whether the City Council would support the addition of a goal of reducing pollution and health impacts on Brooklyn Center, and doing this work through an equity lens. Councilmember Graves stated she is not opposed to adding new goals, but perhaps they could be covered under “health and safety”. She stressed the importance of ensuring that impacts to the community are “equitable” instead of balanced. She added she is not opposed to additional goals, but they are not necessary if they are included in the scope of the original goals. Mayor Elliott agreed that “balance” should be changed to “equitable”, and that the work must be done through an equity lens. He stated he would support proposing that language. He added it is important to focus on the environmental impact, and keep the word “environmental”, as the highway results in high levels of pollution. He noted, as mentioned by Councilmember Ryan, car emissions will hopefully be less of a problem in the future, but right now it needs to be a primary objective in the project because people are dying because of it. He asked whether the City Council supports adding environmental impact as one of the goals. Councilmember Ryan stated it is hoped that society will move toward a less auto centric economy and culture, but these outcomes are ultimately based on individual decisions and choices. He added it is unrealistic to think that a mandate based on project design will yield those kinds of benefits; however, laudable the objective may be. He noted the modifications that will be made to Highway 252 will be driven in part by the configuration of the metropolitan freeway system as it has evolved, and to believe otherwise is to disregard that geography. Councilmember Graves stated she agrees it is difficult to guide what is in some ways an organic output of the growth of society and population. She added she supports the addition of specific criteria related to pollution and its effects on the environment and on people, when considering whether to convert to an expressway. She noted the importance of thinking about the effects of pollution on communities of color, and the health and safety aspects that go along with it and ensuring that Highway 252 is not simply a conduit through Brooklyn Center for wealthy white suburbanites. Councilmember Graves stated she understands the Mayor’s concerns, and she shares them. But providing transparency by providing data regarding pollution, what happens when cars idle, and 08/24/20 -3- DRAFT what happens if we do nothing, that is important for building understanding and consensus around the issue. Councilmember Butler stressed the importance of making sure that all residents are being engaged in the process, and more specifically residents who will be the most impacted. She added she likes Councilmember Grave’s suggestion about going to the apartment complexes along Highway 252 to do outreach and engagement. She noted she agrees that equity should be made clear in the project goals, and she supports the mayor’s suggestion of adding a health component. Councilmember Ryan stated all potentially affected neighborhoods should be included in community engagement efforts. He added one neighborhood has been well-engaged and represented by a professional advocate, but that has not been the case for residents on the west side of Highway 252, who will be heavily impacted if the proposed interchange is moved from 66th Avenue to 70th Avenue or 73rd Avenue. He noted health and safety impacts are of great concern for everyone, and it is not realistic to dictate or mandate that fewer people will drive than use transit. Councilmember Ryan stated the best way forward is to offer better options for transit along the corridor, and hope to provide incentives for people who seek other transportation methods. He added the traffic volume will increase, whether Highway 252 is improved or not, and the longer the improvements are delayed, the greater the safety risks will be to all those who use the corridor. Mayor Elliott invited the MnDOT presenters to come back address the City Council again at another meeting. He requested that any new information be made available to the Task Force. Mr. Adams confirmed that any new information that is distributed to the City Councils will also be distributed to the Task Force. Mr. Holberg stated, as a community engagement process is begun, it is necessary to understand that the pandemic is affecting the way business is done. He added they were hopeful to be having meetings and pop-up events, but opportunities for engagement will not involve face-to-face or in- person meetings. Mr. Holberg stated he has heard the City Council mention proactive engagement at the multi-unit housing along the Highway 252 corridor, in communities that may not use the internet, or other traditional means of communication. He asked whether the City Council has ideas or suggestions for how to meet their expectations about engaging constituents. Councilmember Graves stated it might be best to utilize the different partnerships that the City already has in place to do community outreach. She added obviously it will be necessary to use best practices and do outreach in a safe way due to the pandemic. She noted there are ways of doing outreach and engagement in Covid times, as long as they are well-organized. Mr. Adams stated the Governor’s mandates stipulates that State employees may not meet face to face. He added this is definitely a roadblock. He noted the MnDOT team have taken notes throughout this session regarding ideas for engaging Brooklyn Center’s residents. 08/24/20 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Butler stated she would support utilizing the City’s current partnerships, including faith-based partners, as they have different ways of getting messages out to their congregations. Councilmember Ryan stated he is always interested in engaging other citizens and residents in this dialogue to the greatest extent possible. He added it is important to remember the large numbers of people who have already participated in this process. He noted he has heard resident concerns about why this project is not moving forward, why safety improvements have not been designed, and when a construction schedule will be made available. Councilmember Ryan stated he hopes that voices that have already expressed ideas and opinions will not be left behind as the engagement process is expanded. Councilmember Graves stated she appreciates the hard work of everyone involved in the Highway 252 corridor planning process. She added she hopes people can be included who have not been a part of the process so far. Mr. Adams stated the City Council mentioned the issue of old vs. new information. He added the environmental assessment process was concluded and presented to the City Council in February 2020. He added, as the schedule shows, there are still 2 years to work through the process, review alternatives and vet them. He stressed the critical importance of creating a project that works for Brooklyn Center’s residents, and not a project that is good for non-Brooklyn Center residents driving through. Mr. Adams stated the goals should be multi-modal, and the project team has had progress making the argument in purpose that pedestrian and bike safety and access is a primary need that is at least equal with vehicles. He added the project team heard about respiratory issues from the Mayor. He noted data and information will be reviewed to make comparisons between the alternatives, and how they would impact health issues. Mr. Adams stated the City Council mentioned using the equity lens. He stressed the importance of considering equity in every aspect of this project and reviewing definitions of equity in future sessions with the City Council. He stressed the importance of looking through an equity lens based on what equity means to the City Council. Councilmember Elliott asked whether MnDOT’s Department of Civil Rights is involved in this project. Mr. Adams confirmed this, adding that department focuses on contracts for predesign and construction for the project, and how to employ people. He added the alternative projects should be reviewed with equity in mind. Mr. Adams stated, with regard to engagement, the MnDOT representatives want to work with the City Council to ensure that they are engaging the population. He added outreach and direct engagement with apartment complexes along Highway 252 is important, even though it is not possible to meet face-to-face right now, this is a two-year process. 08/24/20 -5- DRAFT Mr. Adams stated the MnDOT team wants to ensure that impacts are equitable but not necessarily balanced, and that the whole community is engaged. He added residents at the alternative intersection locations will be contacted to provide information and get feedback and comments. He noted input will be sought from residents as far away as Humboldt and Dupont Avenues. Mr. Adams stated the City Council discussed utilizing community partnerships to get information out to residents. He added MnDOT representatives would like to understand how they can use those same contacts, and faith-based organizations. He noted there are two churches at the intersection with 73rd Avenue which could be impacted by the project. Mr. Adams stated the Office of Civil Rights is working on figuring out how to hire citizens who would be able to help get the message out and do community outreach. Mayor Elliott stressed the importance of understanding the entire region feeding into Highway 252, and how that will impact equity in Brooklyn Center, and the amount of transit the community bears in comparison to other communities. He added the consideration of equity in the connection between increased cars and increased negative health effects is incredibly important. He thanked the MnDOT representatives for their presentation. WI-FI IN THE PARKS Dr. Edwards stated City Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a Wi-Fi in the Parks initiative, to be undertaken with CARES Act funding. He introduced Carissa Goebel and invited her to address the City Council. Carissa Goebel stated City Staff have reviewed the Wi-Fi in the Parks initiative, which would provide internet access for residents during park hours, from 5:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. every day. She added there will be challenges in the winter months, and City Staff is determined to solve those issues. She noted this initiative will help residents overcome social isolation, use the City’s parks for enjoyment, and increase visits to City parks, as well as increasing connectivity between residents. She added the proposal includes charging stations for devices, and lighting for safety. Dr. Edwards stated City Staff wanted to pursue the idea of using CARES Act funding to expand internet access for residents of Brooklyn Center. The pilot project would be at Fire House Park due to its proximity to several apartment complexes and the high school. Additional locations for consideration are Centennial Park, Northport Park, Lions Park and Willow Lane Park. City Staff sought quotes from two companies who would provide equipment and maintenance, at an estimated cost of $70,000-85,000, to be covered by CARES Act funding, the deadline for which is November 15, 2020. Dr. Edwards stated, with regard to health risks associated with 5G internet access, opponents cite research claiming that high levels of use can cause cancer or brain damage through exposure to radioactive waves. He added City Staff is not proposing a significant installment in the parks, but rather a pilot project in one park to see if the needs of residents can be addressed. He noted it will not make a difference whether internet access is available in the parks or the parking lots, in terms of impact or damage. 08/24/20 -6- DRAFT Dr. Edwards stated there are many who believe technology should not be allowed in the natural environment. He added national research has shown that internet access, when used wisely and with great intent, can create value and add to the park experience. Councilmember Graves stated she needed to leave the meeting. She added she is in favor of moving this pilot project forward. She noted City Staff has indicated they intend to use community engagement as part of the process, and she would like to hear what the community has to say. Councilmember Graves left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Councilmember Butler asked whether the City Council’s approval is needed to do community engagement. Dr. Edwards stated the intent is to do the Wi-Fi in the Parks as a pilot, and City Staff would gather information during the pilot project. Councilmember Butler stated she is concerned about whether internet access in the parks will be utilized. She added she understands internet access is a significant issue for distance learning, especially for families with low income, but she is not sure that putting internet in the parks is the right idea. She noted a resident came forward and expressed concern about disrupting the peace and nature in parks with technology, and health concerns related to internet access. Councilmember Butler stated it is unclear whether this is the best way to get internet access to the residents who need it. She added people will not be interested in going to the park in the middle of winter when it gets cold. She noted she is not favor of this pilot project at this time, and she would support spending the funds to assist people get access to Wi-Fi rather than put it in the parks. Mayor Elliott stated it might be more effective, as suggested by Councilmember Butler, to help people buy internet access in their homes, and maybe there is a way the costs can be offset by the City. Mr. Boganey stated one advantage to Wi-Fi in the Parks is that City Staff believes it will be possible to implement this strategy within the CARES funding deadline, as opposed to creating a subsidy for residents on a year-round basis, which would require a different source of funding. Mayor Elliott stated he would like to apportion some of this funding for issues related to homelessness in the community. He added he would leave it up to City Staff to come up with some ideas. Dr. Edwards stated the parks pilot program would get the City started toward finding a solution and address the issue of how to create a year-round program. He added City Staff have met with many different groups, including the School District and internet providers, but many families have indicated that they cannot afford discounted rates. 08/24/20 -7- DRAFT Mayor Elliott thanked Dr. Edwards and City Staff for their hard work on these initiatives. He added the greenhouse idea is innovative and urged City Staff to continue working on that concept. He noted additional solutions should be sought for providing internet access in people’s homes. Dr. Edwards asked whether the City Council would be amenable to internet access in parking lots at City facilities. Mayor Elliott stated he believes the City Council is open to that. He added what he is interested in, and what Councilmember Butler has expressed an interest in, is how to help people get Wi-Fi in their homes, which is the better solution because it would be easier for residents. He noted he would like to see that option explored by City Staff, in terms internet access in residents’ homes. Mr. Boganey agreed that would be the ideal solution and City Staff did do some exploration but did not make the progress that they hoped for. He added City Staff can look into these options, but he hopes the choice to do one would not preclude the City’s ability to do the other. He noted the City Council’s points are well taken, but internet access in residents’ homes will not be achievable by November 15, 2020, which is the CARES funding deadline. Mr. Boganey stated the City could pursue the original concept of a pilot project in a single City park, to learn as much as possible from the experience, and it does not require four parks to do that. Councilmember Butler stated she understands the spending deadline. She asked whether the City could use the CARES funding to purchase hot spots that would be made available for resident who have demonstrated need and could apply for them. Mayor Elliot stated City Staff could contact internet providers about bulk purchase of internet access before the November 15, 2020 deadline. Mr. Boganey stated he is concerned about CARES funding limitations, but City Staff can look into it. Councilmember Ryan stated he would be interested in pursuing the pilot project in the park and see what can be learned from it. He added City Staff can continue to look at other options that would be available to the City’s households in terms of internet access. He noted he would like to see a solution that provides maximum flexibility for the City’s residents. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Butler seconded adjournment of the City Council Work Session at 10:05 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:A lix Bentrud, D eputy City Clerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Licens es B ackground: The following bus inesses /persons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Each bus iness/pers on has fulfilled the requirements of the C ity O rdinance governing respec5ve licens es, s ubmi6ed appropriate applica5ons, and paid proper fees. A pplicants for rental dwelling licens es are in compliance with C hapter 12 of the City Code of O rdinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the a6ached rental report. M echanical Licenses A rchitect M echanical I nc 2917 A nthony Ln N S t A nthony, 55418 P ronto H ea5ng & A ir Condi5oning 7415 C ahill Rd Edina, 55439 AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip5on U pload D ate Type Rental C riteria 7/7/2020 Backup M aterial 9-14-20 Rentals 9/8/2020 Cover Memo Page 2 of 2 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 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 Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category Impact 1-2 0-1 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 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 Categories 1-2 Greater than 3 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category (Based on Property Code Only) Number of Units Property Code Violations per Inspected Unit Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9 3+ units Greater than 3 Property Address Dwelling Type Renewal or Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS * Final  License  Type ** Previous  License  Type *** 2613 65th Ave N Single Initial Nicholas Pelle 4II N/A II 6231 Chowen Ave N Single Initial Cameron Hedlund 5 II N/A II 2001 54th Ave N Single Renewal Ying Que 4 II 0 II I 3807 61st Ave N Single Renewal IH3 Property Illinois LP ‐ met  requirements 7 III 0 III III 3813 61st Ave N Single Renewal Dhaneshwarie Himraj 21 IV 0 IV II 2824 67th Ln N Single Renewal Molly Collins Stuhr ‐ met requirements 0 I 0 I III 1605 68th Ln N Single Renewal Pervej Shazzaf Ul Alam 0 I 0 I I 1500 72nd Ave N Single Renewal Mai T Le 9 III 0 III II 5352 72nd Cir Single Renewal Denise Michaelides 0 I 0 I I 1706 Amy La Single Renewal Sesan Ogunniran / EE & J Investment 3 II 0 II I 6501 Beard Ave N Single Renewal FYR SFR Borrow LLC ‐ met requirements 5 II 0 II III 6221 Bryant Ave N Single Renewal Mark Edward Johnson ‐ met  requirements 7 III 0 III IV 6618 Colfax Ave N Single Renewal Chandrawatie Khemraj ‐ missing cpted  & cfh cert 1 I 0 I III 5160 Drew Ave N Single Renewal Chen Zhou 1 I 0 I II 6706 Drew Ave N Single Renewal Yang Yang Zheng / 6706 Drew Ave LLC 5 II 0 II II 5432 Dupont Ave N Single Renewal Xingming Guan ‐ met mitigation plan 17 IV 0 IV IV 6800 Dupont Ave N Single Renewal Yi Lin / Khai Hong Lim Properties 4 II 0 II 7018 France Ave N Single Renewal Brummer Realty LLC ‐ met requirements 7 III 0 III III 5808 Fremont Ave N Single Renewal Merlin Properties 3 II 0 II II 6777 Humboldt Ave N Single Renewal Andrey Ryvlin 1 I 0 I I 6319 Indiana Ave N Single Renewal Adegbola Ogundipe / Goodness and  Mercy ‐ did not meet requirements 0I 0 III 5518 Irving Ave N Single Renewal Tsongna Yang 0 I 0 I II 4201 Lakeside Ave N #212 Single Renewal Judith C Spanberger I I 0 I I 4207 Lakeside Ave N #236 Single Renewal Judith C Spanberger ‐ met requirements 2 I 0 I III 4207 Lakeside Ave N #339 Single Renewal Madeline & Nathan Greiner 0 I 0 I II 5312 Queen Ave N Single Renewal Renee Anoje 0 I 0 I II 5400 Sailor LA Single Renewal Infinite Property / Xian Qiang Lin 1 I 0 I I 6307 Scott Ave N Single Renewal Kin Chew 7 III 0 III IV Rental Licenses for Council Approval on September 14, 2020 Property Address Dwelling Type Renewal or Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS * Final  License  Type ** Previous  License  Type *** Rental Licenses for Council Approval on September 14, 2020 7085 Unity Ave N Single Renewal Yanhua Sun / Swendia LLC 3 II 0 II II 7217 Unity Ave N Single Renewal Ghulam Pyarali 4 II 0 II II 6637 Xerxes Pl N Single Renewal Douglas Finch 4 II 0 II I 5931 Zenith Ave N Single Renewal IH3 Property Illinois LP 4 II 0 II III * 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 *** Initial licenses will not show All properties are current on City utilities and property taxes Type 1 = 3 Year    Type II = 2 Year      Type III = 1 Year C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D oran M. Cote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works BY:M ike A lbers, P.E., C ity Engineer S U B J E C T:Res olu-on Rejec-ng the I ns talla-on of the P ropos ed Nois e Walls along Brooklyn Boulevard between Bass L ake Road and I nterstate 94 as part of the Brooklyn Boulevard C orridor P roject P hase 2 I mprovements, P roject No. 2021-05 B ackground: O n M arch 2 5 , 2019, the C ity Council dir ected staff to proceed w ith the preliminary des ign, environmental documenta-on, easement acquis i-on and final des ign w ork for the Brooklyn Boulev ard C or ridor P roject P has e 2 I mpr ovements (Bass L ake Road to I nters tate 9 4 ), P roj ect No. 2 0 2 1 -0 5 . This proj ect is s cheduled to be constructed in 2021. A s part of the Brookly n B oulev ar d Corridor P roj ect P hase 2 I mprov ements , the City of Brooklyn Center and H ennepin C ounty conducted a tr affic nois e s tudy as part of their env ironmental documenta-on. The proposed pr oject includes federal-aid funding; therefore, the proposed project mus t comply with the nois e requirements s et by the Federal H ighw ay A dminis tra-on (F H WA ) in 23 C F R 772 (P rocedures for A batement of H ighw ay Traffic N ois e and C ons truc-on N ois e). A traffic noise analy s is is required w ith the Brooklyn Boulev ard P hase 2 P r oject becaus e of the pr opos ed realignment of A dmiral L ane. T he propos ed realignment of A dmiral L ane halv es the distance to the near es t res idences on the wes t s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard. This is cons idered a s ubs tan-al horiz ontal altera-on and a traffic noise analysis is required. The res ults of this traffic noise analys is are documented in ADachment A and B: Traffic Noise A nalysis Memorandums and summarized below. N oise Wall A nalysis Traffic noise levels w ere modeled at residences, busines s es, s chools , and proposed tr ails along the eas t and w est s ides of Brook lyn Boulevard from I -94/694 to Bas s L ake Road. Traffic nois e lev els w er e determined to approach or exceed Federal nois e abatement cr iter ia at receptor loca-ons along Brooklyn Boulevard. Nois e w alls w er e evaluated at 13 loca-ons along Br ookly n Boulevard, s ee figure 2 in ADachment A . Nine of the modeled noise w alls did not meet MnD OT’s r eas onablenes s criteria (i.e., nois e reduc-on des ign goal and nois e w all cos t effec-venes s ) and are not proposed. Four modeled noise walls met the nois e reduc-on design goal and are cos t effec-ve; therefore, thes e four nois e walls are propos ed. Modeled traffic nois e lev els under future (2040) condi-ons w ith the propos ed proj ect would exceed the Federal nois e abatement criterion at pr opos ed tr ail r eceptor loca-ons along the wes t s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard (Nois e Walls 3 and 12), at res iden-al receptors along the w es t s ide of Br ookly n Boulevard near A dmiral L ane (N ois e Wall 11 B) and at res iden-al receptors long the eas t s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard near F rance Avenue (N ois e Wall 1 ). N ois e abatement meas ures (i.e., noise w alls) are considered at tr ail and res iden-al receptor loca-ons where predicted nois e lev els approach or exceed the Federal nois e abatement criterion. A ccording to M n D O T ’s Noise Requirements , noise w alls that are determined to be feasible (pr ovides at least a 5 d B A reduc-on at a minimum of one receptor adj acent to the nois e wall); meet nois e reduc-on goals (provides a minimum 7 dB A reduc-on for at leas t one benefited r eceptor adjacent to the nois e w all); and are cos t effec-v e (meets the cos t effec-venes s threshold of $78,5000 per benefited receptor) move on to the next step in the nois e wall r eas onablenes s determina-on is to s olicit the view points of benefited res idents and pr oper ty ow ner s . I nput receiv ed from benefited property ow ners , res idents, and/or trail authori-es is determined thr ough a v o-ng proces s if they are in favor of construc-ng the nois e w all or are oppos ed to the nois e w all. The Brooklyn Boulev ard C orr idor P hase 2 P r oject s olicita-on period began on July 27, 2 0 2 0 and w ill r un through A ugus t 25, 2 0 2 0 . The outcome of this s olicita-on proces s w ill determine if nois e walls are constructed as part of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor P has e 2 P roject. Noise Wall 1 Noise Wall 1 is in highw ay right of w ay adjacent to the s idewalk on the eas t s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and F r ance Avenue. T he modeled nois e w all length is 255 feet and would be 12 feet tall. The es-mated cost of the modeled w all is $1 1 0 ,160. T he vo-ng pr oces s included 3 pr oper ty ow ners . 2 of the property owners hav e voted not to ins tall the noise wall and 1 of the property ow ner has v oted to ins tall the w all. The noise w all has been voted out. Noise Wall 3 Noise Wall 3 is in highw ay right of way adjacent to the trail on the w est s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 6 5 th Avenue. The modeled nois e wall length is 980 feet. A ppr oximately 430 feet of the nois e w all s outh of I -694 w ould be 10 feet tall. The r emaining 550 feet of the noise wall would be 8 feet tall. The es-mated cos t of the modeled w all is $313,200. The v o-ng process includes the C ity of B rook lyn C enter and Metro Trans it. Metro Transit s taff has expr essed a concern about the nois e w all due to vis ual res tric-ons impac-ng poten-al riders hip and compromis ing security at the park-and-ride lot. S taff recommends vo-ng the wall out. Noise Wall 11 B Noise Wall 11 B is in highway right of w ay adjacent to the trail on the w es t s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard between A dmiral L ane and 150’ feet nor th of A dmiral L ane. T he modeled nois e wall length is 1 2 5 feet and w ould be 12 feet tall. T he es-mated cost of the modeled w all is $5 4 ,000. T he vo-ng process includes 2 property ow ners and 1 resident. A ll of the property ow ners have voted not to install the noise w all. Noise Wall 12 Noise Wall 12 is in highway right of w ay adjacent to the trail on the w est s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard between A dmir al L ane and Bas s L ake Road. The modeled nois e wall length is 7 0 0 feet. T he modeled nois e w all height is 8 feet. T he modeled nois e wall includes gaps to maintain access to adj acent proper-es. The es-mated cost of the modeled w all is $2 0 1 ,600. Vo-ng proces s includes the C ity of B rook lyn Center, H ennepin C ounty and 1 property ow ner. The property ow ner has voted not to ins tall the noise w all. S taff recommends vo-ng the wall out. The City of Brookly n C enter is either a pr oper ty ow ner and/or the trail authority for the tr ail along the w est s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard; therefore, the City has vo-ng rights for the Noise Walls 3 and 12. The ins talla-on of the modeled N ois e Walls 3 and 1 2 on the wes t side of Brooklyn B oulev ar d would pres ent s everal issues : • V isibility of proposed trail along Brooklyn Boulevard • V isibility of bus inesses along Brooklyn Boulevard • S now storage along Brooklyn Boulevard • L ong term maintenance of the w all (Brooklyn C enter would own and maintain) • I ns talla-on cost S ince there ar e concerns about the vis ibility of the proposed trail, v is ibility of bus inesses , s now s torage, long-term maintenance, and the ins talla-on cos t of the modeled Nois e Walls 3 and 1 2 , it is recommended that the C ity C ouncil r ej ect the ins talla-on of the propos ed nois e walls along B rook lyn Boulev ard between Bas s L ake Road and I nter s tate 9 4 as par t of the Br ookly n Boulevard C orridor P r oject P has e 2 I mprovements, P roject No. 2021-05. B udget I ssues: The Brookly n B oulev ar d Corridor P roj ect P hase 2 (Bass L ake Road to I nters tate 94) is iden-fied in the City ’s 2020 C apital I mprovement P rogram and the total project cos t is es -mated to be $1 5 ,000,0 0 0 w hich does not include the cos t of nois e walls for the project. The total es-mated cos t for all four proposed nois e walls is es -mated to be $6 7 8 ,960. N ois e Wall 1 appears to be v oted out by the benefiDed pr oper ty owners, this is a project savings of $1 1 0 ,160. N ois e Wall 11 B appears to be v oted out by the benefiDed property ow ners , this is a project s av ings of $5 4 ,000. I f the C ity Council decides to reject the ins talla-on of Noise Walls 3 and 1 2 then it would further reduce the cos t of nois e walls on the project by an addi-onal $514,800. S trategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta-on I nvestments AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip-on U pload D ate Type Res olu-on 9/4/2020 Cover Memo ADachment A 9/4/2020 Cover Memo ADachment B 9/4/2020 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION REJECTING THE INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED NOISE WALLS ALONG BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN BASS LAKE ROAD AND INTERSTATE 94 AS PART OF THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT PHASE 2 IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 2021-05 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (“City”) and Hennepin County (“County”) have been working cooperatively to advance the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements to provide streetscape, trail, lighting and general roadway improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152) from Bass Lake Road to Interstate 94 and the realignment of Admiral Lane; and WHEREAS, the City received a federal aid grant in the amount of $6,616,000 to participate in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements, programmed for a 2021 construction; and WHEREAS, the proposed realignment of Admiral Lane required that the traffic noise analysis include noise receptors along Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements must comply with the noise requirements of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); and WHEREAS, the City's consultant (SRF Consulting Group, Inc.) has completed a noise analysis for the project and determined that noise walls must be considered to possibly mitigate noise impacts to the proposed trails and to meet FHWA requirements; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is the owner and trail authority for determining voting points for the two trail receptors in Cahlander Park for noise wall 3; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is the trail authority for determining voting points for the two trail receptors in the park-and-ride property for noise wall 3; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is the trail authority for determining voting points for the proposed trail for noise wall 12; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center's Engineering Division has reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of providing the noise walls and recommends denial of the proposed noise walls. RESOLUTION NO. _______________ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it rejects the installation of proposed Noise Walls 3 and 12 along Brooklyn Boulevard between Bass Lake Road and Interstate 94 as part of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Project Phase 2 Improvements, Project No. 2021-05. September 14, 2020 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. Memorandum www.srfconsulting.com 1 Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 | Minneapolis, MN 55447-4453 | 763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364  An Equal Opportunity Employer SRF No. 11765.00 To: Mike Albers, PE, City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center Nathan Ellingson, PE, Project Manager Hennepin County From: Brett Danner, Senior Associate Jon McPherson, PE, Senior Associate Date: July 31, 2020 Subject: Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project State Project (SP) 109-020-014 Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Traffic Noise Analysis Why is a traffic noise analysis required with the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project? The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project includes federal-aid highway funding therefore, an environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required. The environmental review process includes consideration of traffic noise. A determination must be made if a project is a “Type I” or “Type III” project in accordance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 772. Projects that require a traffic noise analysis are referred to as Type I projects. All Type I federal-aid projects in Minnesota must follow the guidance and methodologies identified in the 2017 MnDOT Highway Noise Requirements1. There are eight criteria that are used to determine if a roadway improvement project is considered a Type I project. These criteria are identified in 23 CFR 772.5 and MnDOT’s noise requirements. One criterion is the physical alternation of an existing highway where there is either a substantial horizontal alteration or substantial vertical alteration:  Substantial Horizontal Alteration. A project that halves the distance between the traffic noise source and the closest receptor between the existing condition to the future build condition; or,  Substantial Vertical Alteration. A project that removes shielding, therefore exposing the line- of-sight between the receptor and the traffic noise source. This is done by either altering the 1 Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2017 MnDOT Noise Requirements available at https://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noise/policy/index.html. Mike Albers, PE July 31, 2020 City of Brooklyn Center Page 2 Nathan Ellingson, PE Hennepin County vertical alignment of the highway or by altering the topography (not including the addition or removal of vegetation) between the highway traffic noise source and the receptor. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project includes the realignment of Admiral Lane. The attached figure 1 illustrates Admiral Lane and distances from the existing roadway to the proposed alignment. The proposed realignment of Admiral Lane halves the distance to the nearest residences on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. This is considered a substantial horizontal alteration; therefore, the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project is considered a Type I Project and a traffic noise analysis is required. If a portion of the project is determined to be a Type I project, then the entire project area as defined in the environmental document is a Type I project and a noise analysis will be required. Therefore, a traffic noise analysis was prepared for the entire Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project from Interstate 94/694 (I-94/694) to Bass Lake Road. What were the findings of the traffic noise analysis? Traffic noise levels were modeled at residences, businesses, schools, and proposed trails along the east and west sides of Brooklyn Boulevard from I-94/694 to Bass Lake Road. Traffic noise levels were determined to approach or exceed Federal noise abatement criteria at receptor locations along Brooklyn Boulevard. Noise walls were evaluated at 13 locations along Brooklyn Boulevard. Modeled noise walls are illustrated in the attached layout figure 2. Nine of the modeled noise walls did not meet MnDOT’s reasonableness criteria (i.e., noise reduction design goal and noise wall cost effectiveness) and are not proposed. Four modeled noise walls met the noise reduction design goal and are cost effective; therefore, these four noise walls are proposed. The final step in the noise wall evaluation process is to determine the viewpoints of benefited residents and property owners behind the proposed noise walls. This involves a solicitation process where benefited residents and property owners are asked they are in favor of constructing the noise wall or are opposed to the noise wall. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project solicitation period began on July 27, 2020 and will run through August 25, 2020. The outcome of this solicitation process will determine if noise walls are constructed with the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project. H:\Projects\11000\11765\EnviPlan\Communications\Solicitation\109-020-014_BrooklynBlvd_NoiseMemo.docx EWING AVE A D M I R A L L N BROOKLYN BLVD 95' 240' 145' 6 0 T H A V E 100050 SCALE IN FEET 73' NOISE RECEPTOR NOISE RECEPTOR H : \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 1 0 0 0 \ 1 1 7 6 5 \ D e s i g n \ G r a p h i c s \ A d m i r a l L a n e _ \ 1 1 7 6 5 _ g r 0 1 _ A d m i r a l L n . d g n 10/22/2019 Job #10200 Admiral Lane Realignment SP 109-020-014 Brooklyn Boulevard - Phase 2 City of Brooklyn Center Figure 1 B A S S L A K E R D 5 9 T H A V E BROOKLN BLVD A D MI R A L L N 6 0 T H A V E 6 1 S T A V E 6 2 N D A V E 2000100 SCALE IN FEET R E F E R E N C E L I N E BROOKLN BLVD 6 3 R D A V E 6 5 T H A V E I - 9 4 H A L I F A X D R F R A N C E A V E R E F E R E N C E L I N E H : \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 1 0 0 0 \ 1 1 7 6 5 \ D e s i g n \ G r a p h i c s \ N o i s e w a l l s \ 1 1 7 6 5 _ g r 0 1 . d g n Figure 2 7/31/2020 Job #11765 City of Brooklyn Center SP 109-020-014 Brooklyn Bouelvard - Phase 2 - Modeled Noise Walls LEGEND MODELED NOISE WALL - DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA MODELED NOISE WALL - MEETS CRITERIA Traffic Noise Analysis 1 Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project SP 109-020-014 Brooklyn Boulevard Traffic Noise Analysis (Noise Wall 3 & 12) The City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County conducted a traffic noise study for the Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project (SP 109-020-014). The proposed project includes federal-aid funding; therefore, the proposed project must comply with the noise requirements set by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 23 CFR 772 (Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise). A traffic noise analysis is required with the Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project because of the proposed realignment of Admiral Lane. Modeled traffic noise levels under future (2040) conditions with the proposed project would exceed the Federal noise abatement criterion at proposed trail receptor locations along the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. Noise abatement measures (i.e., noise walls) are considered at trail receptor locations where predicted noise levels approach or exceed the Federal noise abatement criterion. Noise Wall Feasibility and Reasonableness The 2017 Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Noise Requirements for federal-aid highway projects describes the process for evaluating noise walls. Detailed information regarding MnDOT’s noise requirements and noise wall criteria can be found on MnDOT’s noise webpage at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noise/index.html. Noise Wall Feasibility Acoustic Feasibility For a noise barrier to be considered acoustically effective, it must achieve a noise reduction of at least 5 dBA. At least one receptor adjacent to the noise wall must meet the minimum 5 dBA reduction for a noise wall to achieve acoustic feasibility. Engineering Feasibility Engineering feasibility addresses if it is possible to design and construct a proposed noise wall. The traffic noise analysis for the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project assumes that noise walls are feasible with respect to engineering/constructability. Noise Wall Reasonableness Noise Reduction Design Goal A minimum 7 dBA reduction must be achieved for at least one benefited receptor behind the noise barrier to meet noise reduction design goals. Noise Wall Cost Effectiveness The cost of a noise barrier is calculated using an estimated construction cost of $36 per square foot of noise wall. This price is for an acoustically absorbent concrete post/concrete panel type noise Traffic Noise Analysis 2 Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project SP 109-020-014 wall. To be considered cost-effective, the cost per individual benefited receptor must be equal to or less than $78,500 per receptor. Noise Wall Solicitation Noise wall solicitation (i.e., voting) from benefited receptors is only conducted when a modeled noise wall: 1. Is feasible (provides at least a 5 dBA reduction at a minimum of one receptor adjacent to the noise wall); 2. Meets the noise reduction design goal (provides a minimum 7 dBA reduction for at least one benefited receptor adjacent to the noise wall); and 3. Is cost effective (meets the cost effectiveness threshold of $78,5000 per benefited receptor).1 If a modeled noise wall meets these three criteria, then the next step in the noise wall reasonableness determination is to solicit the viewpoints of benefited residents and property owners. Input received from benefited property owners and residents is expressed in a weighted vote. For benefited trail receptors, the owner of the land that the trail sits upon receives a total of 4 points if the trail is abutting the highway. The trail authority (i.e., entity that operates and maintains the trail) receives a total of 2 points. If the trail is not abutting the highway, the owner of the land that the trail sits upon receives a total of 2 points and the trail authority receives a total of 1 point. If 50.0 percent or more of all possible voting points from eligible voters are received after the first request for votes, the majority of points (based upon the votes received) determine the outcome of the noise wall. If less than 50.0 percent of the possible voting points for a wall are received after the first request, a second ballot will be provided to the eligible voters who did not respond. If 25.0 percent or more of all possible points for a wall are received after the second request for votes, then the outcome is determined by the majority of votes received. If less than 25.0 percent of total possible points for a noise wall are received after the second request for votes, then the wall will not be constructed. If there is a tie, where there are equal numbers of points for and against a noise wall, the noise wall will be constructed. Noise Wall Analysis Results Noise walls were evaluated along Brooklyn Boulevard from Interstate 694 (I-694) to Bass Lake Road (County State Aid Highway 10). Two modeled noise walls are feasible (provide at least a 5 dBA reduction at a minimum of one receptor behind the modeled noise wall), meet the noise reduction goal (provide a minimum 7 dBA reduction for at least one benefited receptor behind the modeled noise wall), and are cost effective (below the cost effectiveness threshold of $78,500 per benefited receptor). Information regarding the two modeled noise walls is provided on the following pages. 1 A receptor is considered “benefited” if it receives a minimum noise reduction of 5 dBA. Traffic Noise Analysis 3 Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project SP 109-020-014 Noise Wall 3 The proposed project includes a trail on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I-694 and 65th Avenue. Modeled receptors were placed along the trail in Cahlander Park and the Metro Transit park-and-ride property following MnDOT guidance for assigning noise receptors for trails (i.e., one representative receptor per 250 feet of trail). The segment of the Brooklyn Boulevard trail between I-694 and 65th Avenue is represented by Receptor 94, Receptor 95, Receptor 98, and Receptor 99. Modeled traffic noise levels at the trail receptors between I-694 and 65th Avenue are projected to exceed 67 dBA (Leq) under future (year 2040) conditions with the Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project. The 67 dBA (Leq) level is the noise abatement criterion for Federal Activity Category C, which includes trails. If modeled traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criterion, then noise walls must be evaluated. The only reason to evaluate a noise wall at this location is because of the impacted receptors on the trail along Brooklyn Boulevard. Noise Wall 3 is in highway right of way adjacent to the trail on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between I-694 and 65th Avenue. The modeled noise wall length is 980 feet. Approximately 430 feet of the noise wall south of I-694 would be 10 feet tall. The remaining 550 feet to the south to 65th Avenue would be 8 feet tall. The modeled noise wall is acoustically feasible. Four trail receptor locations receive a 5 dBA reduction or greater with the modeled noise wall. The modeled noise wall meets the noise reduction design goal. One trail receptor receives at least a 7 dBA reduction or greater with the modeled noise wall. The cost of the modeled noise wall is $313,200.2 The cost- effectiveness of the modeled noise wall is $78,300 per benefited receptor, below the cost effectiveness threshold of $78,500 per benefited receptor. The City of Brooklyn Center is the owner and trail authority for determining voting points for the two trail receptors in Cahlander Park (6 voting points per benefited receptor). The City of Brooklyn Center is the trail authority for determining voting points for the two trail receptors in the park-and- ride property (2 voting points per benefited receptor). Metro Transit is the owner for determining voting points for the two trail receptors in the park-and-ride property (4 voting points per benefited receptor). The total number of voting points for Noise Wall 3 is 24. Fifty (50.0) percent of voting points for Noise Wall 3 is 12. 2 Estimated cost of noise wall construction is $36/square foot for an acoustically absorbent concrete post/concrete panel noise wall type. Traffic Noise Analysis 4 Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project SP 109-020-014 Noise Wall 12 The proposed project includes a trail on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between Admiral Lane and Bass Lake Road. Modeled receptors were placed along the proposed trail following MnDOT guidance for assigning noise receptors for trails (i.e., one representative receptor per 250 feet of trail). The segment of the Brooklyn Boulevard trail between Admiral Lane and Bass Lake Road is represented by Receptor 112 through Receptor 117. Modeled traffic noise levels at the trail receptors between Admiral Lane and Bass Lake Road are projected to exceed 67 dBA (Leq) under future (year 2040) conditions with the Brooklyn Boulevard Phase 2 Project. The 67 dBA (Leq) level is the noise abatement criterion for Federal Activity Category C, which includes trails. If modeled traffic noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criterion, then noise walls must be evaluated. The only reason to evaluate a noise wall at this location is because of the impacted receptors on the trail along Brooklyn Boulevard. Noise Wall 12 is in highway right of way adjacent to the proposed trail on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between Admiral Lane and Bass Lake Road. The modeled noise wall length is 700 feet. The modeled noise wall height is 8 feet. The modeled noise wall includes gaps to maintain access to adjacent properties. The modeled noise wall is acoustically feasible. Two trail receptor locations and one business (Brooklyn Blvd. Dental, 5831 Brooklyn Boulevard) receive a 5 dBA reduction or greater with the modeled noise wall. The modeled noise wall meets the noise reduction design goal. One trail receptor location receives at least a 7 dBA reduction or greater with the modeled noise wall. The cost of the modeled noise wall is $201,600.3 The cost-effectiveness of the modeled noise wall is $67,200 per benefited receptor, below the cost effectiveness threshold of $78,500 per benefited receptor. The City of Brooklyn Center is the trail authority for determining voting points for the proposed trail (2 voting points per benefited receptor). Hennepin County is the owner for determining voting points for the trail (4 voting points per benefited receptor). The total number of voting points for Noise Wall 12 is 18. Fifty (50.0) percent of voting points for Noise Wall 12 is 9. 3 Estimated cost of noise wall construction is $36/square foot for an acoustically absorbent concrete post/concrete panel noise wall type. S P S P WALL 3 6 5 T H A V E BROOKLYN BLVD PARK & RIDE METRO TRANSIT PARK CAHLANDER H : \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 1 0 0 0 \ 1 1 7 6 5 \ D e s i g n \ L a y o u t s \ 1 1 7 6 5 _ l o a _ W a l l 3 . d g n Figure 1 Potential Noise Wall Brooklyn Center, MN LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS CONCRETE TRAILS & SIDEWALKS SP-109-020-014 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (CSAH 152) - PHASE 2 100050 SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED SIGNAL 7/6/2020 Job #11765 WALL 12 B A S S L A K E R D 5 9 T H A V E 6 0 T H A V E A D MI R A L L N BROOKLYN BLVD WALL 12 WALL 12 WALL 12 WALL 12 H : \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 1 0 0 0 \ 1 1 7 6 5 \ D e s i g n \ L a y o u t s \ 1 1 7 6 5 _ l o a _ W a l l 1 2 . d g n Figure 1 Potential Noise Wall Brooklyn Center, MN LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS CONCRETE TRAILS & SIDEWALKS 100050 SCALE IN FEET SP-109-020-014 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD (CSAH 152) - PHASE 2 PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED 7/6/2020 Job #11765 C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:Tim G annon Chief of Police S U B J E C T:Police Collected Racial S top D ata B ackground: I n early 2019, it w as recommended that the Police D epartment begin to collect race data related to s elf- ini2ated police-ci2zen s tops . At that 2me and con2nuing into 2020, w e began to collect that data. C urrently there is not a uniform County or S tate-wide s ystem in place to capture that data. The Brooklyn C enter Police D epartment developed a report mechanism that allow s officers to add race data as w ell stop dis pos i2on/ac2ons prior to clearing the stop. The determina2on of race is done by the officer and the ci2zen is not asked that informa2on nor is the stop extending in any w ay to collect the data. D is pos i2ons as w ell as s earch data is als o collected. The following pres enta2on details one year of data collected, which con2nues to this day. B udget I ssues: No budget issue S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip2on U pload D ate Type Power Point 8/24/2020 Cover Memo Brooklyn Center Police Department Proactive Stop Race Data Collection October 8, 2018 Review Council Meeting, 9/14/2020 Tim Gannon Chief of Police Introduction •Data included in this document was collected by the Brooklyn Center Police Department from 6/1/2019 to 8/7/2020. •Total number of individuals stopped: 2144 •1340 African American •530 White •126 Hispanic •107 Asian •37 Undetermined •4 Native American The race of an individual stopped was based on officers perception of the individual’s race during the stop. Individuals were not asked their race nor was the duration of a stop expanded in order for the officer to determine the race. 2 Definitions Frisk: A frisk allows officers only to conduct a cursory pat-down and to seize weapons (such as guns and knives), objects that feel like weapons, or objects that an officer can tell from a plain feel are contraband (Minnesota v. Dickerson,U.S. Sup. Ct. 1993).” Search: A search is more extensive than a frisk. An officer conducting a full search can probe extensively for any type of contraband or evidence. Examples of a search may include a custodial arrest for a warrant, DWI or to recover suspected evidence of a crime that may be concealed on an individual. Stop: For the purposes of this data collection a stop is defined as a proactive police-citizen encounter initiated by the officer. Examples may include a stop of a motor vehicle for a traffic violation or a stop of a pedestrian for suspicious activity or a possible curfew violation. No data from any 911 calls for police service were included in this collection. 3 Stops by Race 4 62% 25% 6% 5%2% 0% African American White Hispanic Asian Undetermined Native American Percentages of Search/Frisk by Race 5 4.0%2.6%6.5% 0.9% 88.9%90.2%84.6%91.6%93.5% 100.0% 7.1%7.2%8.9%7.5%6.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% African American White Hispanic Asian Undetermined Native American % Search % No Search % Frisk Total Searches by Type and Race 6 52, 72% 1146, 65%91, 64% 11, 15% 378, 21%30, 21% 8, 11% 104, 6%11, 8% 1, 1% 98, 6%8, 6%29, 2%2, 1%4, 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Frisk No Search Search Native American Undetermined Asian Hispanic White African American All Race and Stop Dispositions 7 18, 49% 131, 64%1108, 64% 13, 35% 51, 25%415, 24% 4, 11%13, 6%96, 6% 2, 5%7, 3%92, 5% 4, 2%26, 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Arrest Citation Other Native American Undetermined Asian Hispanic White African American Race and Stop Disposition 8 1.4%2.7%3.5%2.0%0.0%0.0% 10.4%10.6%11.5% 6.9%13.3% 0.0% 88.1%86.6%85.0% 91.1%86.7% 100.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% African American White Hispanic Asian Undetermined Native American % Other % Citation % Arrest Stops by Age 9 97% 3% Adult Juvenile Stops by Gender 10 68% 32% Male Female Stops by Race 11 62% 25% 6% 5%2% 0% 60% 28% 5% 3% 1% 3% African American White Hispanic Asian Undetermined Native American BC Arrests by Race from Non-SI CFS Questions 12 C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector S U B J E C T:H ous ing Policy S tudy P res enta.on B ackground: Background I n M arch, staff presented a hous ing policy w ork plan for comprehens ively addres s ing the City's hous ing policy needs. At that mee.ng the Council discussed a number of policy approaches and a .meline for addressing these items . C ouncil then directed s taff to move forw ard on a number of ac.on items related to hous ing. I n spite of the pandemic and the focus on emergency response efforts that has brought, s taff has made progres s on a number of aspects of the work plan. The checklist and tenta.ve .meline as it w as discussed w ith the C ity C ouncil in March was as follows: 1. Q 1 2020 Fair H ous ing Policy 2. Q 1 2020 H ousing S tudy and I mpact A sses s ment - G aps analysis and iden.fy bes t prac.ces for an.- dis placement 3. Q 2 2020 N O A H P reserva.on program 4. Q 4 2020 Tenant P rotec.ons 5. Q 1 2021 S ingle Family H ousing S tabiliza.on Fair H ous ing Policy The H ous ing C ommis s ion w as tas ked with dra<ing a Fair H ousing Policy, which they have been w orking on. A n ini.al dra< has been completed and the H ousing Commission has invited an a=orney from H omeline to come to s peak to them about the policy and provide ins ight and input. They an.cipate spending two to three more mee.ngs on the topic before having a dra< that is ready to s end to the City Council for cons idera.on. N O A H P reserva.on P rogram S taff has dra<ed a N O A H P res erva.on program and is working to iden.fy .me on an upcoming C ity Council work ses s ion agenda to pres ent the program and gather feedback. Tenant P rotec.ons S taff has met with the City A=orney to dis cus s the tenant protec.on ordinance. This includes a collec.on of ordinance amendments gathered from discussions with community members, local and regional hous ing advocates , and the city's rental inspectors, to unders tand the is s ues being experienced by the city's rental community. The City A=orney has cra<ed an ini.al dra< and is w orking on a s econd dra<. The next s teps w ill be to circulate this dra< w ith local and regional hous ing advocates as w ell as local landlords and the mul.family housing associa.on to gather input before bringing it to the H ousing Commission for addi.onal dis cus s ion. O nce the dra< has gone through the input gathering proces s it w ill be brought to the City Council for cons idera.on and discussion. H ousing S tudy and I mpact A sses s ment S taff developed a scope of w ork for this study and as s essment and reached out to s everal consultants to get feedback on the scope and .meline. S taff met w ith three consultants to dis cus s the project, gauge interes t, and iden.fy a consultant that would be able to deliver on the goals of the w ork. I n the end s taff invited one of the consultant groups to prepare a proposal for the w ork. Res earch in A c.on, led by D r. Bri=any Lew is and the Center for U rban and Regional A ffairs at the U niversity of Minnes ota provided a propos al and budget for the w ork. D r. Lew is has done a great deal of work in the areas of hous ing and an.-dis placement in her role as a profes s or and res earcher at the U niversity of Minnes ota. S he brings a unique human- centered res earch des ign model and equity lens to her work. D r. L ewis propos es to partner her research firm Research in A c.on with C U R A to provide a year-long hous ing study proces s , which will bring both qualita.ve and quan.ta.ve research methods . The goal of the s tudy is to develop a housing policy plan that addres s es policies and prac.ces that ensure that the current and future housing needs of the community are met. The C ity is seeking to provide s table and affordable hous ing op.ons for current and future residents w hile providing a balance of land uses that support a res ilient community. This hous ing study aims to help the City become more aware of the ways that future development could poten.ally widen the affordability gap and help to iden.fy meas ures that can be tracked to mi.gate gentrifica.on pres s ures . The D r. Lew is w ill be present at the S eptember 14 mee.ng to meet with the Council, dis cus s her proposal , and ans w er any ques.ons about the project. The project includes to support the C ity to do the follow ing: Understand exis.ng housing condi.ons and trends in the C ity of Brooklyn C enter. P rovide an analys is of the likely impact of forecas ted growth on property values and rents w ith a focus on the poten.al for gentrifica.on. S urvey res idents in the City of Brooklyn Center to unders tand their perspec.ves on current housing condi.ons, affordability, experience, preferences, and housing needs . Complete a bes t prac.ces literature review and analysis on impacts of major investment on property values and res iden.al rents (i.e., “opportunity s ite master plan”). Co-facilitate a convers a.on w ith the C ity C ouncil about gentrifica.on and the affordability crisis to present data and gain mutual understanding (Fall of 2020) F inal report and presenta.on of findings to local leaders hip. The consultant team will work in partnership with staff and Bolton & Menk to inform the O pportunity S ite mas ter planning w ork. This will include preparing ini.al analys is that can be included in the master plan and inform the housing goals of the plan. S imilarly, the hous ing study w ill look at the poten.al impact that a development such as the O pportunity S ite might have on the City's hous ing, and provide policy recommenda.ons on how to addres s is s ues of an.-displacement and gentrifica.on. The housing s tudy, how ever, will take a city-wide view becaus e the hous ing policy needs for the community are city-wide, and need addressing regardles s of w hat occurs on the O pportunity S ite. The housing s tudy will als o include an analysis of the City's exis.ng housing goals and policies w ith recommenda.ons on how they might be adjus ted or improved to be=er meet the long term needs of the community. The propos al, .meline, and budget are included. The project will span tw o budget years and will cost $150,000. F unding will come from the T I F 3 H ous ing fund. B udget I ssues: The project w ill s pan two budget years and w ill cos t $150,000. F unding will come from the T I F 3 H ous ing fund. S trategic Priories and Values: Resident Economic S tability AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip.on U pload D ate Type H ous ing Policy S tudy P roposal 9/8/2020 Backup M aterial Res earch in A c.on Budget P roposal 9/8/2020 Backup M aterial C ontract 9/8/2020 Backup M aterial Project Proposal for the Brooklyn Center Housing Study The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) University of Minnesota & Research in Action (RIA) Principal Researcher: Dr. Brittany Lewis The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) connects the resources of the University of Minnesota with the interests and needs of urban communities and the region for the benefit of all. The City of Brooklyn Center is ultimately looking to develop a housing policy plan that addresses policies and practices that ensure that the current and future housing needs of the community are met. The City is seeking to provide stable and affordable housing options for current and future residents while providing a balance of land uses that support a resilient community. This housing study aims to help the City become more aware of the ways that future development could potentially widen the affordability gap and help to identify measures that can be tracked to mitigate gentrification pressures.1 The City Council of Brooklyn Center is currently grappling with what it should do with its surplus of underdeveloped land and do it in a manner that does not directly displace or harm its current community members while also trying to create the most resilient community possible. The City of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock is incredibly homogenous with a majority of single-family homes built in the pre-1970s that are single level ramblers. The multifamily rental properties were also built primarily in the pre-1970s with 1- & 2-bedroom units primarily. Half or more of Brooklyn Center renters are paying more than they can afford in housing. The City of Brooklyn Center staff reported that a significant number of renters are on month to month leases. Further, through engagement, renters in the community have reportedly experienced 3 or 4 rent increases a year, and fear retaliation when they file complaints over rental conditions or issues with maintenance. The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) and Research in Action (RIA) submits this proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center to support its efforts to do the following: • Understand existing housing conditions and trends in the City of Brooklyn Center. 1 At the core of the debate over gentrification are the issue of displacement and the question of who benefits and who is harmed by the neighborhood changes induced by it. Gentrification describes a specific type of neighborhood change, that is, the upgrading of previously disinvested neighborhoods. Physical displacement was one of the defining characteristics of gentrification in its original usage. In Ruth Glass’s study of London published in 1964 in which she coined the term, she wrote of gentrification as the changing social status of neighborhoods occurring “as the middle class—or the ‘gentry’—moved into working-class space, taking up residence, opening businesses, and lobbying for infrastructure improvements.” She adds, “Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed” (Glass, Ruth. 1964. Introduction: Aspects of change. In Centre for Urban Studies (ed.) London: Aspects of change, London: MacGibbon and Kee.). • Provide an analysis of the likely impact of forecasted growth on property values and rents with focus on the potential for gentrification. • Survey residents in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand their perspectives on current housing conditions, affordability, experience, preferences, and housing needs. • Complete a best practices literature review and analysis on impacts of major investment on property values and residential rents (i.e., “opportunity cite master plan”).Co-facilitate a conversation with the City Council about gentrification and the affordability crisis to present data and gain mutual understanding (Fall of 2020) • Final report and presentation of findings to local leadership. CURA and RIA believe in the power and impact of mixed methodological research. The goal is to collect qualitative and quantitative data to provide a stronger and more comprehensive picture of the housing conditions and experiences in the City of Brooklyn Center with tangible policy and practice recommendations that aim to mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification. The strength of a mixed methods approach is that each method can provide different types of information and can minimize the limitations of the other method, which is critical in the study of an elusive and complex process such as the study of housing stability/instability, evictions, gentrification, and disinvestment. In addition, RIA believes there is power in defining research questions and in controlling the production of knowledge. When research is done in communities of color and low-wealth communities, a power imbalance often exists between researchers and community-based organizations that must be disrupted. Community-engaged action research values community knowledge and people’s lived experiences. It reflects meaningful collaboration between academics, advocates, policymakers, service providers, and impacted communities. It leads to more robust and holistic data, more effective policy solutions, and stronger community action. When we use a community-based action research model, community members are not the subjects of research—they are the co-producers of knowledge. Dr. Brittany Lewis employs an actionable research model that uses a mixed methodological research approach to: (1) build community power, (2) assist local grassroots campaigns and local power brokers in reframing the dominant narrative, and (3) produce community centered public policy solutions that are winnable. This model relies heavily on the development of reciprocal relationships across sectors that embrace an open process where the collective develops shared understandings for the purpose of creating social transformation. This actionable research model embraces a racial equity framework that asserts that we must: (1) look for solutions that address systemic inequities, (2) work collaboratively with affected communities, and (3) add solutions that are commensurate with the cause of inequity. Quantitative Analysis Research Approach/Design CURA will undertake the quantitative analysis portion of the Housing Study using a variety of data sources and methods relating to the key points of analysis outlined in the Proposed Scope of Work. This includes completing an inventory of current housing in Brooklyn Center that focuses on housing type, age and cost. Housing will be classified as either single- family or multi-family, rental or owner-occupied, and whether it is considered affordable. Affordability can be either naturally occurring (generally in older multi-family buildings) or subsidized (usually with income limits related to area median income) and will be noted as such. Current and historic rents will be examined for affordability and whether change (increases) in rent differs by housing type or geography. The cost of housing and its relationship to household income will also be analyzed with attention paid to cost-burdened households (>30% of income spent on housing) that are both owner-occupied and renter occupied, and the degree to which housing in the city is affordable to its residents. Particular attention will be paid to signs of gentrification or involuntary displacement. CURA completed a gentrification study of suburban Hennepin County in 2019 (using 200-2016 data) and found that all eight census tracts in Brooklyn Park were vulnerable to gentrification. This study will update that data and look for additional evidence of neighborhood change. Expected growth in both the housing market and the city’s population will be compared to existing housing stock and proposed developments in order to answer the question of whether gaps in housing types and affordability exist. The potential loss of affordability, especially the risk of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) units being sold, remodeled and upscaled will also be noted. A key component to this will be an examination of property tax rates and revenues for both residential and commercial/industrial properties. The disproportionate amount of revenue generated by existing residential property tax is of concern and efforts will be made to estimate the increase in development necessary to offset or reduce the burden on current homeowners and landlords, and to identify land uses which might help achieve this. In addition, this quantitative analysis will look at and assess what affordability goals and bands should be put into place around the “opportunity site” helping to identify affordability policies that the City of Brooklyn Center should adopt. This should also include the use of CoStar or HousingLink data on the average rents in the area overtime. Acknowledging that there is a huge gap in housing options in the City of Brooklyn Center and the need to identify the housing needs now and into the future. This might include a comparative analysis of the amount of rental housing in the City of Brooklyn Center compared to adjacent communities, looking at year built, its characteristics, and size. Lastly, the City of Brooklyn Center will make their rental licensing data available to the quantitative team to analyze. The CURA quantitative team will get access to a report on rental complaints, inspection reports, landlord rental types, who accepts section 8, and analysis of a recent landlord survey conducted by the City of Brooklyn Center for quantitative analysis. This portion of the analysis will also address health-related impacts of housing. Health can be affected by the age of housing stock (eg. presence of lead paint or asbestos) and the condition of rental housing (tenant complaints related to unhealthy living conditions.) Data Sources: • Hennepin County parcels - housing type / land use, tenure, year built, property tax • HousingLink Streams - subsidized housing (AMI limits, senior housing, expiration date) • HousingLink Rental Revue - rents asked on new openings (includes single-family rentals and duplexes) • CoStar - current and historic rents for 4+ unit properties • American Community Survey - housing costs, cost-burdened status, household income • Met Council - population and housing growth forecasts • City of Brooklyn Center rental license data Project Outputs: It is expected that tables, charts, graphs and/or maps will accompany the final report. These will provide a visual and easy to understand look at housing in Brooklyn Center. Qualitative Analysis Goals: (1) Better understand housing stability/instability and quality of life in the City of Brooklyn Center by engaging with up to 40 residents for in-depth analysis. (2) Conduct (online) surveys and brief (30 minute) semi-structured interviews with tenants for the purpose of helping to identify the conditions that often lead up to housing instability and eviction as well as to gain a clearer understanding of these tenants’ housing composition/stability overtime and the various income streams they rely on to help better inform the development of targeted interventions, needs, and policy prescriptions. (3) Conduct (online) surveys and brief (30 minute) semi-structured interviews with landlords to learn more about, a) there investment strategies and interests, b) what policies and procedures they have in place to determine that eviction is the best course of action for dealing with a tenant (during a regular rental context), b) how they determine the cost benefit of evicting a tenant and owning rental property more generally speaking, and c) what practices they employ once that decision is made and whether and why those practices are employed for certain rental populations to help better inform the ways that the city can work with landlords as partners in community building and help the city produce targeted incentives for landlords illustrating positive behaviors. A recent survey conducted by the City found that landlords during the pandemic were presently working with tenants on payment plans with 2/3 not planning to evict any tenants. (4) Ensure that multiple stakeholders will benefit from this research including, but not limited to academics, philanthropists, the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Multi Housing Association, the courts, tenant advocacy organizations, landlords and many others. CURA will make concrete policy and program recommendations for local government, housing practitioners and investors, and tenant advocacy organizations. Research Design: In preparing for the qualitative side of the project, the first step would be to connect with relevant stakeholders (elected and neighborhood leaders) and those most affected by housing instability (residents) in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand the landscape. The second step would be to convene an Advisory Council comprising of tenants, landlords, community organizers, community-based staff members, and staff members from the city of Brooklyn Center to inform the interview questions and outreach strategy. These engagements would frame the project and inform the scope of work, survey and semi-structured interview questions and methodology. Proposed Timeline: Fall 2020 • Solidify research partnerships with City of Brooklyn Center • Finalize research design and fiscal support. • Submit Institutional Review Board (IRB) application for University of Minnesota approval (application approving human subject research) • Begin Quantitative analysis and initial policy analysis. • Complete a “mini” quantitative report/analysis highlighting the affordability landscape, development possibilities, and areas for further exploration. • Begin literature review. • Complete early engagement process with Brooklyn Center City Council and solidify community research advisory council and community-based housing partners to establish collective outreach efforts and identify community interview sites. • Work with the advisory council to define survey and semi-structured interview questions and methods for interviews in the Spring of 2021. Spring 2021 • Complete expansive quantitative analysis. • Identify and make initial contact with tenants and landlords (20) • Conduct initial intake of all interviewee(s) • Begin interviews (complete 20 of 40 interviews) • Transcribe and analyze simultaneously • Complete literature review and finalize policy analysis. Summer 2021 • Complete remaining interviews (20) • Transcribe and analyze simultaneously • Meet with advisory council • Produce a working internal draft of data findings Fall 2021 • Write and deliver a final quantitative and qualitative based report with data findings with policy recommendations by October/November 2021 • Meet with advisory council & discuss the dissemination of findings Project Proposal for the Brooklyn Center Housing Study The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) University of Minnesota & Research in Action (RIA) Principal Researcher: Dr. Brittany Lewis The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) connects the resources of the University of Minnesota with the interests and needs of urban communities and the region for the benefit of all. Proposed One Year Project Budget Phase I Payment (Fall 2020) Description Expense Quantitative CURA Staff Supervisor $12,000 CURA 25% Quantitative Graduate Research Assistant $9,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant $9,000 Research in Action (RIA) Project lead and architect, methodological advisory, and qualitative technical professional. $30,000 Fall 2020 Payment Schedule CURA = $30,000 (Paid directly to the University foundation) RIA = $20,000 (paid directly to Research in Action) Total = $50,000 ***See payment instructions below*** Phase II Payment (Spring 2021-Fall 2021) Description Expense CURA 25% Quantitative Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) Spring 2021 $9,000 CURA Qualitative Junior Research Support Spring 2021 17,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) Spring 2021 $9,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) Summer 2021 $9,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant Fall 2021 $9,000 Research in Action (RIA) Project lead and architect, methodological advisory, and qualitative technical professional (Spring 2021-Fall 2021) $40,000 Translator Fee $1,000 Research/Staff Support/Food Parking/Software/Travel Costs $4,000 Participant Stipends $2,000 Spring 2021-Fall 2021 Payment Schedule CURA = $60,000 (Paid directly to the University foundation) RIA = $40,000 (Paid directly to Research in Action) Total = $100,000 Payment Instructions For Research in Action (RIA) Make checks to: Research in Action Send direct payments to the following address: 1222 Washburn Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55411. For the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) Make check out to: University of Minnesota Foundation Send direct payments to the following address: 200 Oak Street SE, Suite 500, Minneapolis MN 55455 ***Accompany CURA payment addressed to the University Foundation with a letter that states the following (required): Dr. Brittany Lewis Center for Urban and Regional Affairs 301 19th Avenue SE Minneapolis, MN 55455 Dear Dr. Brittany Lewis, Please find a check from the City of Brooklyn Center for your research endeavors in the area of housing stability and gentrification. We are happy to support your actionable research agenda in local and national urban contexts. Sincerely, XXX XXXXXXX Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 1 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING STUDY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA This Agreement, made this _______ day of September, 2020 by and between CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430, hereinafter referred to as CLIENT, and The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA), University of Minnesota and Research in Action (RIA), hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANTS. WITNESS, whereas the CLIENT requires professional services in conjunction with a housing study and policy plan whereas the CONSULTANT agrees to furnish the various professional services required by the CLIENT. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises between the parties hereto, it is agreed: SECTION I - CONSULTANT'S SERVICES A. The CONSULTANT agrees to perform the various Basic Services in connection with the proposed project as described in Exhibit I. B. Upon mutual agreement of the parties hereto, Additional Services may be authorized as described in Exhibit I or as described in Paragraph IV.B. SECTION II - THE CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CLIENT shall promptly compensate the CONSULTANT in accordance with Section III of this Agreement. B. The CLIENT shall place any and all previously acquired information in its custody at the disposal of the CONSULTANT for its use. Such information shall include but shall not be limited boundary surveys, topographic surveys, preliminary sketch plan layouts, building plans, soil surveys, abstracts, deed descriptions, tile maps and layouts, aerial photos, utility agreements, environmental reviews, and zoning limitations. The CONSULTANT may rely upon the accuracy and sufficiency of all such information in performing services unless otherwise instructed, in writing, by CLIENT. C. The CLIENT will guarantee access to and make all provisions for entry upon both public and private portions of the project and pertinent adjoining properties. D. The CLIENT will give prompt notice to the CONSULTANT whenever the CLIENT observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defect in the proposed project. E. The CLIENT shall designate a liaison person to act as the CLIENT'S representative with respect to services to be rendered under this Agreement. Said representative shall have the authority to transmit instructions, receive instructions, receive information, interpret and define the CLIENT'S policies with respect to the project and CONSULTANT'S services. Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 2 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) F. The CLIENT shall provide such legal, accounting, independent cost estimating and insurance counseling services as may be required for completion of the consultant services described in this agreement. G. The CLIENT will obtain any and all regulatory permits required for the proper and legal execution of the project. SECTION III - COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES A. FEES. 1. The CLIENT will compensate the CONSULTANT in accordance with the following schedule of fees for the time spent in performance of Agreement services. Schedule of Fees Phase I Payment (Fall 2020) Description Expense Quantitative CURA Staff Supervisor $12,000 CURA 25% Quantitative Graduate Research Assistant $9,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant $9,000 Research in Action (RIA) Project lead and architect, methodological advisory, and qualitative technical professional. $30,000 Fall 2020 Payment Schedule CURA = $30,000 (Paid directly to the University foundation) RIA = $20,000 (paid directly to Research in Action) Total = $50,000 Phase II Payment (Spring 2021-Fall 2021) Description Expense CURA 25% Quantitative Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) Spring 2021 $9,000 CURA Qualitative Junior Research Support Spring 2021 17,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) Spring 2021 $9,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) Summer 2021 $9,000 CURA 25% Qualitative Graduate Research Assistant Fall 2021 $9,000 Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 3 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) Research in Action (RIA) Project lead and architect, methodological advisory, and qualitative technical professional (Spring 2021-Fall 2021) $40,000 Translator Fee $1,000 Research/Staff Support/Food Parking/Software/Travel Costs $4,000 Participant Stipends $2,000 Spring 2021-Fall 2021 Payment Schedule CURA = $60,000 (Paid directly to the University foundation) RIA = $40,000 (Paid directly to Research in Action) Total = $100,000 B. Payments to CURA will be in the form of checks made out to: University of Minnesota Foundation Payments shall be sent directly to: 200 Oak Street SE, Suite 500, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Payments shall be made in two installments. One shall be made at the beginning of the contract for the Phase I amount. The second shall be made February 1, 2021, for the Phase II amount. C. Payments to RIA will be made by the CLIENT upon billing at intervals not more often than monthly at an amount proportionally divided from the beginning of the contract through the end of the contract. SECTION IV - GENERAL A. STANDARD OF CARE Professional services provided under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the Consultant's profession currently practicing under similar conditions. No warranty, express or implied, is made. B. CHANGE IN PROJECT SCOPE In the event the CLIENT changes or is required to change the scope of the project from that described in Section I and/or the applicable addendum, and such changes require Additional Services by the CONSULTANT, the CONSULTANT shall be entitled to additional compensation at a mutually agreed upon amount. Any expansion in the scope of services must first be authorized in writing by CLIENT and CONSULTANT shall give notice to the CLIENT of any Additional Services, prior to furnishing such additional services. The CLIENT may request an estimate of additional cost from the CONSULTANT, and upon receipt of the request, the CONSULTANT shall furnish such, prior to authorization of the changed scope of work. C. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CLIENT and its officials, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation) resulting from the negligent act or omission of CONSULTANT’S Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 4 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) employees, agents, or subconsultants. In no event shall CONSULTANT be liable to CLIENT for consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages. This indemnification requirement shall include defense of indemnified party, but only to the extent that defense is insurable under the indemnifying party’s liability insurance policies. CLIENT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CONSULTANT and its employees from any loss, claim, liability, and expense (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation) resulting from the negligent act or omission of CLIENT’S employees, agents, or consultants. In no event shall CLIENT be liable to CONSULTANT for consequential, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages. This indemnification shall include defense of indemnified party, but only to the extent that defense is insurable under the indemnifying party’s liability insurance policies. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the CLIENT or the CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT'S services under this Agreement are being performed solely for the CLIENT'S benefit, and no other entity shall have any claim against the CONSULTANT because of this Agreement or the performance or nonperformance of services provided hereunder. The CLIENT agrees to include a provision in all contracts with contractors and other entities involved in this project to carry out the intent of the paragraph. D. INSURANCE The CONSULTANT agrees to maintain, at the CONSULTANT'S expense, statutory worker's compensation coverage. The CONSULTANT also agrees to maintain, at CONSULTANT’S expense, general liability insurance coverage insuring CONSULTANT against claims for bodily injury, death or property damage arising out of CONSULTANT’S general business activities (including automobile use). The liability insurance policy shall provide coverage for each occurrence in the minimum amount of $1,000,000. During the period of design and construction of the project, the CONSULTANT also agrees to maintain, at CONSULTANT’S expense, Professional Liability Insurance coverage insuring CONSULTANT against damages for legal liability arising from an error, omission or negligent act in the performance of professional services required by this agreement, providing that such coverage is reasonably available at commercially affordable premiums. For purposes of this agreement, “reasonably available” and “commercially affordable” shall mean that more than half of the design professionals practicing in this state in CONSULTANT’S discipline are able to obtain coverage. The professional liability insurance policy shall provide coverage for each occurrence in the amount of $1,000,000 and annual aggregate of $1,000,000 on a claims-made basis. Upon request of CLIENT, CONSULTANT shall provide CLIENT with certificates of insurance, showing evidence of required coverages. E. OPINIONS OR ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COST Where provided by the CONSULTANT as part of Exhibit I or otherwise, opinions or estimates of construction cost will generally be based upon public construction cost information. Since the CONSULTANT has no control over the cost of labor, materials, competitive bidding process, weather conditions and other factors affecting the cost of construction, all cost estimates are opinions for general information of the CLIENT and the CONSULTANT does not warrant or Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 5 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) guarantee the accuracy of construction cost opinions or estimates. The CLIENT acknowledges that costs for project financing should be based upon contracted construction costs with appropriate contingencies. F. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES It is agreed that the CONSULTANT and its representatives shall not be responsible for the means, methods, techniques, schedules or procedures of construction selected by the contractor or the safety precautions or programs incident to the work of the contractor. G. USE OF ELECTRONIC/DIGITAL DATA Because of the potential instability of electronic/digital data and susceptibility to unauthorized changes, copies of documents that may be relied upon by CLIENT are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are signed or sealed by CONSULTANT. Except for electronic/digital data which is specifically identified as a project deliverable by this AGREEMENT or except as otherwise explicitly provided in this AGREEMENT, all electronic/digital data developed by the CONSULTANT as part of the PROJECT is acknowledged to be an internal working document for the CONSULTANT’S purposes solely and any such information provided to the CLIENT shall be on an “AS IS” basis strictly for the convenience of the CLIENT without any warranties of any kind. As such, the CLIENT is advised and acknowledges that use of such information may require substantial modification and independent verification by the CLIENT (or its designees). Provision of electronic/digital data, whether required by this Agreement or provided as a convenience to the Client, does not include any license of software or other systems necessary to read, use or reproduce the information. It is the responsibility of the CLIENT to verify compatibility with its system and long-term stability of media. CLIENT shall indemnify and hold harmless CONSULTANT and its Subconsultants from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting from third party use or any adaptation or distribution of electronic/digital data provided under this AGREEMENT, unless such third party use and adaptation or distribution is explicitly authorized by this AGREEMENT. H. REUSE OF DOCUMENTS Drawings and Specifications and all other documents (including electronic and digital versions of any documents) prepared or furnished by CONSULTANT pursuant to this AGREEMENT are instruments of service in respect to the Project and CONSULTANT shall retain an ownership interest therein. Upon payment of all fees owed to the CONSULTANT, the CLIENT shall acquire an ownership interest in all identified deliverables, including Plans and Specifications, for any reasonable use relative to the Project and the general operations of the CLIENT. CLIENT may make and disseminate copies for information and reference in connection with the use and maintenance of the Project by the CLIENT. However, such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by CLIENT or others on extensions of the Project or on any other project and any reuse other than that specifically intended by this AGREEMENT will be at CLIENT'S sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to CONSULTANT. I. DATA PRACTICES CONSULTANT shall manage all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with, and subject to the requirements of, the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 6 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) (“Act”). CONSULTANT shall immediately notify CLIENT if it receives a request for data related to the services and shall work with CLIENT to respond to the request in accordance with the Act. Any reports, information, or other data given to, prepared, or assembled by CONSULTANT under this Agreement which CLIENT requests be kept confidential must not be made available to any individual or organization without CLIENTS prior written approval unless disclosure is required by law or the information is already part of the public domain. J. PERIOD OF AGREEMENT This Agreement will remain in effect for the longer of a period of two years or such other explicitly identified completion period, after which time the Agreement may be extended upon mutual agreement of both parties. K. PAYMENTS If CLIENT fails to make any payment due CONSULTANT for services and expenses within thirty days after date of the CONSULTANT'S invoice, a service charge of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month or the maximum rate permitted by law, whichever is less, will be charged on any unpaid balance. In addition after giving seven days' written notice to CLIENT, CONSULTANT may, without waiving any claim or right against the CLIENT and without incurring liability whatsoever to the CLIENT, suspend services and withhold project deliverables due under this Agreement until CONSULTANT has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. L. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason or for convenience by either party upon seven (7) days written notice. In the event of termination, the CLIENT shall be obligated to the CONSULTANT for payment of amounts due and owing including payment for services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination, computed in accordance with Section III of this Agreement. M. CONTINGENT FEE The CONSULTANT warrants that it has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the CONSULTANT to solicit or secure this Contract, and that it has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from award or making of this Agreement. N. NON-DISCRIMINATION The provisions of any applicable law or ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. The CONSULTANT is an Equal Opportunity Employer and it is the policy of the CONSULTANT that all employees, persons seeking employment, subcontractors, subconsultants and vendors are treated without regard to their race, religion, sex, color, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, public assistance status or any other characteristic protected by federal, state or local law. Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 7 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) O. CONTROLLING LAW This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the State of Minnesota. P. DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLIENT and CONSULTANT agree to negotiate all disputes between them in good faith for a period of 30 days from the date of notice of dispute prior to proceeding to formal dispute resolution or exercising their rights under law. Any claims or disputes unresolved after good faith negotiations shall then be submitted to mediation using a neutral from the Minnesota District Court Rule 114 Roster, or if mutually agreed at time of dispute submittal, a neutral from the American Arbitration Association Construction Industry roster. If mediation is unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, then either party may seek to have the dispute resolved by bringing an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. Q. SURVIVAL All obligations, representations and provisions made in or given in Section IV of this Agreement will survive the completion of all services of the CONSULTANT under this Agreement or the termination of this Agreement for any reason. R. AUDIT CONSULTANT must allow CLIENT, or its duly authorized agents, and the state auditor or legislative auditor reasonable access to the Consultant's books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices that are pertinent to all Services provided under this agreement for a minimum of six years from the termination of this Agreement. S. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT shall be deemed an independent contractor. CONSULTANT’S duties will be performed with the understanding that CONSULTANT has special expertise as to the services which CONSULTANT is to perform and is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the same or similar services for others. The manner in which the services are performed shall be controlled by CONSULTANT; however, the nature of the services and the results to be achieved shall be specified by CLIENT. CONSULTANT is not to be deemed an employee or agent of CLIENT and has no authority to make any binding commitments or obligations on behalf of CLIENT except to the extent expressly provided herein. All services provided by the CONSULTANT pursuant to this agreement shall be provided by the CONSULTANT as an independent contractor and not as an employee of CLIENT for any purpose including, but not limited to, income tax withholding, workers' compensation, unemployment compensation, FICA taxes, liability for torts, and eligibility for employee benefits. T. NOT EXCLUSIVE This agreement does not constitute an exclusive contract between CLIENT and the CONSULTANT. CLIENT remains free to contract for similar services from other consultants and the CONSULTANT remains free to contract to provide similar services to others, provided that any such contracts do not interfere with the delivery of services under this agreement. Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 8 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) U. ASSIGNMENT Neither party will assign any part of this agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. V. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This document, including the above recitals, the attached exhibits, and documents expressly incorporated herein by reference, constitute the entire agreement between the parties and it supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties regarding the subject matter of this agreement. W. SEVERABILITY Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any law or regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon CLIENT and CONSULTANT, who agree that the Agreement shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. Public Agreement (Standard Form) Page 9 of 9 (Excluding Exhibits) SECTION V - SIGNATURES THIS INSTRUMENT embodies the whole agreement of the parties, there being no promises, terms, conditions or obligation referring to the subject matter other than contained herein. This Agreement may only be amended, supplemented, modified or canceled by a duly executed written instrument signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in their behalf. CLIENT: CONSULTANT: CONSULTANT: C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector BY:G inny M cI ntosh, City P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance A mending C hapter 35 of the City Code of O rdinances Regarding the Zoning C lassifica4on of C ertain L ands L ocated A long Brooklyn Boulevard B ackground: O n A ugust 24, 2020, C ity C ouncil appr oved P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica4 on Nos . 2020-004 and 2020- 005, which reques ted the approval of preliminary and final plat, s ite and building plan, and the establis hment of a P lanned Unit D evelopment to accommodate a series of triplexes and related improvements on tw o s eparate s ets of E DA -owned pr oper ty located along the w est s ide of Brooklyn Boulevard. The proposed developer is C A lan H omes , who is a local building and remodeling company s pecializ ing in high-end single family homes , but seeking to divers ify the focus of the company to include alternate types of housing. The s outher n s et of pr oper 4es (filed under P C A pplica4on N o. 2020-004), is located w ithin the 6000 Block of B rook lyn Boulev ar d and know n cur rently as 6025, 6 0 3 1 , 6037, and 6 0 4 5 Br ookly n Boulevard. I t proposed the cons truc4 on of s ev en (7) tr iplexes , for a total of 2 1 dw elling units . The northern set (filed under P C A pplica4on No. 2 0 2 0 -0 0 5 ), is located w ithin the 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard and known currently as 6921, 6927, 6 9 3 3 , and 6939 Brookly n B oulev ar d. I t propos ed the construc4on of s ix (6) triplexes, for a total of 18 dwelling units. City C ouncil ul4mately pr ovided unanimous approval for both applica4 ons at the A ugus t 24, 2020 mee4ng. A s par t of the reques t that ev ening, C ity C ouncil als o approv ed a firs t reading of the request to re-zone both s ets of proper4es to P U D -N /M U (P lanned Unit D ev elopment-Neighbor hood M ixed U s e) D is tr ict and a request to schedule the s econd reading and public hearing for s aid r e-zoning on S eptember 1 4 , 2 0 2 0 . Thes e requests are in line with the 2040 F uture L and U s e D es igna4ons of the aforemen4oned lands and allowable density ranges for residen4al development. A public hear ing no4ce was published in the Brooklyn C enter S un Post on S eptember 3, 2020 for an amendment to Chapter 35 of the City C ode of O rdinances that w ould result in the re-z oning of w hat is to be Roberts on & Brekke’s Brooklyn Boulevard F irs t A ddi4on, Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, als o known as the south s ite, and Rober ts on & Brekke’s Brooklyn B oulev ar d S econd A ddi4 on, L ots 1 thr ough 6, Block 1, als o known as the north site (s ee aEached). Per conversa4ons with the City AEor ney, the r eques ts to re-zone the two s ets of property can be handled as one public hearing w ith one ac4on, rather than two. B udget I ssues: None to cons ider at this 4me. S trategic Priories and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip4on U pload D ate Type P ublic H earing No4ce for S eptember 14, 2020 H earing.9/8/2020 Backup M aterial P C S taff Report - 6000 Block of Brooklyn Blvd - C A lan H omes , L L C 9/8/2020 Backup M aterial P C S taff Report - 6900 Block of Brooklyn Blvd - C A lan H omes , L L C 9/8/2020 Backup M aterial O rdinance-A mending C hapter 35 of the City Code of O rdinances Regarding the Zoning Clas s ifica4on of Certain L ands L ocated A long Brooklyn Boulevard 9/8/2020 O rdinance CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that an on-line public hearing will be held on the 14th day of Septem- ber, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as part of the regular City Council meeting to consider an Ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain lands located along Brooklyn Bou- levard. The WebEx meeting can be accessed electronically by https://logis.webex.com/logis/j. php?MTID=m4e2521c99a845 acbd144c753f56caf69 or by calling 1-312-535-8110 Access Code: 133 791 1584 Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon re- quest at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763- 569-3306 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-06 and 2020-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED ALONG BROOKLYN BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Rezoning. Chapter 35, Section 35-1240 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brook- lyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 35-1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following property is hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District Zoning Classification: 12. The following properties are designated as PUD-N/MU (Neigh- borhood Mixed Use) District: Robertson & Brekke’s Brooklyn Boulevard First Addition, Lots 1 through 7, Block 1. Robertson & Brekke’s Brooklyn Boulevard Second Addition, Lots 1 through 6, Block 1. Barb Suciu City Clerk Published in the Sun Post September 3, 2020 1071611 App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: August 13, 2020 Application No. 2020-004 Applicant: C Alan Homes Location: 6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard (6025, 6031, 6037, and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard) Requests: (1) Preliminary and Final Plat, (2) Site and Building Plan, (3) Establishment of a Planned Unit Development for the development of seven triplexes and related site improvements REQUESTED ACTION C Alan Homes (“The Applicant”) is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat, site and building plan, and establishment of a Planned Unit Development for a series of properties located within the 6000 block of Brooklyn Boulevard, south of the Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center and 61st Avenue North, and west of Brooklyn Boulevard (Exhibit A). These properties are all currently owned by the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center and encompass the following addresses: 6025, 6031, 6037, and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard. Due to the nature of the requests, including the establishment of a Planned Unit Development and preliminary and final plat approvals, a public hearing is required. A public notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on June 25th, 2020 (Exhibit B). Following City staff concerns regarding adjustments to the submitted site plan to account for additional easements required for the Phase II Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project, scheduled to begin in 2021, and questions surrounding driveway access off Brooklyn Boulevard from Hennepin County, City staff requested an extension to the application review period as granted under Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, Subd. 3 (f)—refer to Exhibit C. This request was intended to provide additional time for the Applicant to address the aforementioned items. Due to the continuance of the public hearing, City staff mailed updated public notices out to residents and/or taxpayers and incorporated a one page informational flyer on the project in the mailing. City staff also requested Public Works install a “Development Proposal Under Review” sign on site which provides a contact number for any questions regarding the proposal. Since the requested extension, the Applicant has revised the site plan to reflect the necessary easements along Brooklyn Boulevard and the City was provided with a recommendation from Hennepin County regarding driveway access off Brooklyn Boulevard, which is detailed in this report. BACKGROUND Developer The City was approached by Terry Robertson and Curt Brekke with C Alan Homes, a local builder and remodeling company specializing in high-end single family homes, in the spring of 2020. Mr. Robertson and Mr. Brekke are interested in diversifying the focus of C Alan Homes and are seeking to develop two • Application Filed: 6/15/2020 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 8/14/2020 • Extension Declared: 7/7/2020 • Extended Review Period Deadline: 10/13/2020 App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 2 sets of EDA-owned sites along Brooklyn Boulevard with a series of triplexes that would be available for rent. Each triplex would consist of three, three bedroom units. The anticipated rents would likely range between $1,850 and $2,200 per month, and the Applicant has committed to providing 20% of the units as set aside for Section 8 voucher holders. Due to the Applicant’s background in high-end single family home construction, the Applicant has indicated that each building would have the look and feel of a large, high quality single family home, with a combination of individual and shared on-site amenities. Conformance with City Policies and Property Background The EDA has been acquiring single family and undersized parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard for many years as part of a larger strategy to improve safety by reducing and consolidating access points, and assembling land for redevelopment into higher density land uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan created an overlay district along the corridor and re-guided most of the future land uses to “Neighborhood Mixed Use” or “NMU;” allowing medium density residential and/or neighborhood-serving commercial uses. As transportation and land use patterns along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor have changed, the EDA has strategically acquired property for redevelopment. With Phase II of the Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project scheduled to begin in 2021, land use patterns will be affected as access points are consolidated and the roadway altered to allow for a more walkable, neighborhood- oriented development pattern. As a result of the roadway reconstruction plans, as well as the re-guiding of most of the future land uses along the corridor, the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Chapter included a plan for a comprehensive land use study of the Brooklyn Center corridor, which is currently underway. The intended outcome of the land use study will result in the creation of a regulatory framework for development along the corridor as well as design guidelines to help facilitate the creation of a more walkable, neighborhood-oriented development pattern along Brooklyn Boulevard. The Brooklyn Boulevard land use study will include a health impact assessment as well as a market analysis of the area in terms of feasible land uses. One of the goals of the study is to look at EDA-owned sites, and particularly those that are only as deep as a single-family lot, to determine how they could be redeveloped in ways that puts them back into productive use without negatively impacting surrounding neighborhoods. The recently completed market analysis found that a mid-density residential product, such as row- homes or townhomes, or a low density office condo product, would be suitable along the corridor between controlled intersections given the access constraints that will exist after the roadway is reconstructed. The market analysis further indicated that higher intensity commercial/retail uses would be more suitable focused around signalized intersections where access is better. The market analysis also found the current market would likely not bear new low and mid-rise multi-family housing development without subsidy given low market rents. The findings of the market analysis are not unique to Brooklyn Center. The cost of construction, combined with the challenge of putting together financing for projects, make it difficult to complete multi-family developments without some form of gap financing or subsidy. As a result, the vast majority of multi-family housing that is built is either market rate and in locations that can achieve the highest rents, or alternatively, affordable housing, financed through federal sources and maintained at rents affordable to those making 50-60% area median income. Very little housing is constructed that is App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 3 considered affordable to those mid-income earners making between 80-120% area median incomes. So little, in fact, that in cities across the nation this type of housing is called “the missing middle”. The land use study found that the vacancy rate for apartments along Brooklyn Boulevard is 1.3%, with lower than average market rents. The study notes that there is an opportunity to add newer inventory of all unit types, including market-rate, workforce, affordable, and senior housing. With current rental rates in Brooklyn Center low compared to the rest of the market, increasing construction costs, and higher capitalization rates (which help indicate an anticipated “rate of return” on investments and overall risk), lower density multi-family developments, such as triplexes, duplexes, and perhaps townhouses, are outlined in the market analysis as a potentially more feasible option. The EDA currently owns four properties located at the southwest corner of 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, which total approximately 1.65 acres. These properties, in addition to a series of four properties on the west side of the 6900 block of Brooklyn Boulevard (0.98 acres), are both under consideration for the development of triplexes by C Alan Homes, and are identified under Planning Commission Application Nos. 2020-004 (6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard) and 2020-005 (6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard). Although these development proposals are for the same type of product and the same application requests, a separate staff report has been prepared for each of the sites. On May 11, 2020, C Alan Homes' concept plan for the 6000 and 6900 blocks of Brooklyn Boulevard, as contemplated under Planning Commission Application Nos. 2020-004 and 2020-005, was presented to the City Council for Concept Review. The proposal was to develop two separate sites along Brooklyn Boulevard into a combined 13 triplex buildings (39 total dwelling units). The proposal addressed the re- platting of eight (8) EDA-owned lots into two separate development sites to allow for said redevelopment. On June 22, 2020, City Council approved a Preliminary Development Agreement with C Alan Homes, LLC for the two sets of EDA-owned properties. The purpose of this agreement was to allow the Applicant time to review the property, obtain financing, and negotiate with the EDA of Brooklyn Center on an agreement for the purchase of the Subject Property and property to the north (6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard). This Agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2020 but also allows the time necessary to work through the land use approvals contemplated under this application. Should the Applicant receive approval for the proposed use, the EDA would need to negotiate a purchase agreement for the Subject Property, which would require a separate public hearing and approval from the EDA. Site Data 2040 Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Mixed Use (N-MU @ 15.01-31 DU/Ac.), High Density Residential (HDR @ 15.01-31 DU/Ac.), and Low Density Residential (LDR @ 3.01-5 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood: Kylawn Current Zoning: C1 (Service/Office), R5 (Multiple Family Residence), and R1 (One Family Residence) Districts Site Area: 1.65 acres App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 4 Surrounding Area Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential (LDR) C1 (Service/Office) District Vacant (EDA-owned) South Low-Density Residential R-1 (One Family Residence) SF Detached East Right-of-Way Right-of-Way (ROW) Brooklyn Boulevard West Low-Density Residential R-1 (One Family Residence) SF Detached Note: The Subject Property is located within the identified Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Map 1. Subject Property COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Subject Property is currently comprised of four properties with three different future land use designations: Neighborhood Mixed Use, High Density Residential, and Low Density Residential. As proposed, the Subject Property would be located within the identified Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District, which is a 1,200 foot wide corridor. The 2040 Plan stresses the creation of a walkable, transit connected, experience-based place that brings the City forward and offers new opportunities to existing and future residents. “The idea that the community will thrive with a more integrated land use pattern is fully accepted, and promoted through this Plan. The areas that are planned for this type of change are guided within this Plan for Neighborhood Mixed-Use, Commercial Mixed-Use, Business Mixed-Use and/or are designated in the Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District.” App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 5 The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also identifies the following Housing and Neighborhood Goals: • Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents. • Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. Approximately 37% of the City’s housing stock is comprised of rental housing, the vast majority as multi- family units. The majority of multi-family units in the City were constructed prior to 1979, with the bulk of units having been constructed between 1966 and 1969, making the majority of multi-family inventory between 51 to 54 years in age. With the exception of the two Real Estate Equities projects currently under construction at Northway Drive and County Road 10, there has been no new construction of multi-family units since the 1970s. With the exception of three rental townhome developments, all of the City’s multi-family rental housing is comprised of one and two-bedroom units. As a result of this highly homogenous housing stock, the cost of housing in Brooklyn Center fits within a relatively narrow affordability band. One of the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to provide a more diverse range of housing options and price points, which makes for a more economically resilient community. As part of the community engagement process for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan residents expressed a need for larger rental units. More diverse housing options would allow families to stay in Brooklyn Center if they chose as their housing needs change. In fact, the City sees a drop in population relative to Hennepin County in residents aged 45 to 65. This is due to residents moving out to find alternative housing options as their families grow. The proposed project would provide a housing type that would fulfill a segment of this current housing gap in the community. Since 2010, the number of households with children in both single-parent and married couple households has grown significantly, and the percentage of Brooklyn Center households with children is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the rate in Hennepin County and the metro area. Unlike the surrounding region, the median age of Brooklyn Center residents is younger, at 32.8 years old. This is largely due to a significant increase in residents aged 25 to 34, who oftentimes are starting families and having children. The Metropolitan Council projects that the City of Brooklyn Center will add nearly 2,000 new households to the community between 2020 and 2040. Given that the City is mostly built out, it is expected that a substantial portion of future housing would be provided in the form of multi-family units. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that were closer to supportive retail, commercial, and services so that they could walk, bike, or easily use transit to meet their needs. REQUESTS The nature of the Applicant’s requests would require approval of a preliminary and final plat to accommodate the anticipated site improvements and triplex buildings, the establishment of a Planned Unit Development to offer certain flexibility for the intended use and alignment with the recently adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and approval of a site and building plan, as all properties above an R2 (One and Two Family Residence) District use require one. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT The proposed preliminary and final plat for what would be known as ROBERTSON AND BREKKE’S BROOKLYN BOULEVARD FIRST ADDITION would subdivide four (4) existing Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Brooklyn Center lots into seven (7) new parcels and an outlot to accommodate the App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 6 seven (7) proposed triplexes at the Subject Property located south of 61st Avenue North and west of Brooklyn Boulevard. City staff is requesting that the plat be updated to absorb the proposed south outlot into lot #7. As all the new lots will contain segments of drive aisle and on-site parking, the Applicant should be consistent in combining lot #7 and the south outlot. This will also provide clarity in terms of maintenance should the Applicant ever sell the Subject Property. Per comments #44 through #48 provided in the memorandum by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg and dated August 4, 2020 (Exhibit D), the Applicant will need to address edits necessary to reflect vacated easements, proposed easements, existing and proposed utilities, and all associated easement documents for City review. A 10 foot drainage and utility easement is required for dedication around the entire perimeter of the Subject Property. An additional utility easement shall be dedicated on the plat to allow for any future maintenance of private water mains and sanitary sewer per Development Agreement requirements. The Applicant will need to submit legal descriptions and easement vacations for all existing easements and certain vacations of existing public easements, as determined by the City. The Applicant shall also provide and maintain a current abstract of title for City Attorney review. Following a review of the submitted final plat, the title block shall be updated to reflect “Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,” and “City Council of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.” The submitted plat currently displays “Bloomington” in the text. The title block should also contain an attest section for the City Clerk. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested approval of a preliminary and final plat for ROBERTSON AND BREKKE’S BROOKLYN BOULEVARD FIRST ADDITION for the Subject Property located on what is currently known as 6025, 6031, 6037, and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and the related requests for the approval of a site and building plan and establishment of a Planned Unit Development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The Subject Property is currently zoned a mix of C1 (Service/Office), R5 (Multiple Family Residence) and R1 (One Family Residence) Districts. The Applicant is requesting the property be re-zoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate the intended site improvements and housing product, which would offer three (3) dwelling units in each of the seven (7) proposed triplex buildings. PUDs grant flexibility within the Zoning Code to allow for developments which would not be allowed under the existing regulations. PUDs are often used to achieve a higher quality development, or achieve other City goals, in exchange for granting zoning flexibility from the City Code. Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City Zoning Code notes that upon the rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters “PUD” followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district, which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. Given that the major update to the City Zoning Code is currently underway and changes to districts are anticipated in order to align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the request would be to re-zone following guidance from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan future land use designations for the Subject Property. App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 7 PUDs may only contain uses consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities, and the approval of a land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them— essentially the City Council may approve plans that are not in compliance with the usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of residents or the City, although plans shall comply with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. Therefore, the proposed rezoning would be to PUD-NMU (Neighborhood Mixed Use). “Neighborhood Mixed Use” is a new future land use designation that guides surrounding key neighborhood intersections for a mix of residential, retail, and commercial/office uses. This designation plans for the redevelopment of existing uses and assumes that a minimum of 50% of the land within this designation would be used for residential purposes, at densities between 15.01 to 31 dwelling units per acre, and the remaining areas under this land use designation would be developed with neighborhood scale retail, service, and commercial uses. The designation allows for mixed uses on each parcel, but does not require it. The Subject Property is currently comprised of three different future land use designations (refer to Map 2 below), but the Applicant is requesting a re-plat of said properties to accommodate the requested triplex development. As such, City staff reviewed the density ranges allowed within each of the three (3) future land use designations: Neighborhood Mixed Use (15.01-31 DU/Acre), High Density Residential (15.01-31 DU/Acre), and Low Density Residential (LDR @ 3.01-5 DU/Acre). With 1.1 acres of the total Subject Property designated at 15.01-31 DU/Acre, there could be between 17 to 34 units on-site. The remaining 0.55 acres (3.01-5 DU/Acre) could support between 2 and 3 dwelling units for a range of 19 to 37 units on the entire Subject Property. As submitted, the proposal calls for the construction of 21 total units on the Subject Property, which falls within the lower end of the range noted above. Map 2. Future Land Use Designations (2040 Comprehensive Plan) App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 8 The front setbacks requested under the application are generally less than what is allowed by Code for residential properties along a major thoroughfare (50 feet), which would severely limit development of the Subject Property, and the proposed front porches would therefore encroach closer to the property lines than is typically permitted. However, the proposed setbacks align with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan to bring buildings closer to the corridor, provide parking in the rear, and create a more walkable, pedestrian friendly environment. A typical residential property not located on a major thoroughfare, be it single family or multi-family, requires a 35 foot front yard setback. The proposal also requests a higher percentage of three (3) bedroom units than is typically called for in the Zoning Code (no more than 10-percent); however, there are instances of multi-family dwelling units providing three (3) bedroom rental products at select multi-family properties in the City, such as Georgetown, Emerson Chalet, and Victoria Townhomes. The PUD proposal is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in that it would align with the City’s strategic goal of Targeted Redevelopment by providing a type of mid-market housing that would fill a need in the community for larger unit rental dwelling units. The type of product proposed within this development would feature three (3) bedroom units with an estimated rent of between $1,850 to $2,200 per month, although these numbers have yet to be finalized. The Applicant is not requesting any municipal subsidy at this time, and has indicated plans to set aside 20% of the total units for Section 8 Voucher holders. The anticipated rents are considered affordable to those making 70-80% Area Median Income (AMI). As approval of any development plan for the Subject Property shall constitute a rezoning to PUD, approvals to establish a PUD require the City Council to base its actions on the rezoning under the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes, and intent of this section (Section 35- 355); 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested establishment of a Planned Unit Development to allow for the re-zoning of the Subject Property, located on what is currently known as 6025, 6031, 6037, and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard, to be re-zoned to PUD-NMU (Planned Unit Development-Neighborhood Mixed Use) District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and the receiving approvals for the related preliminary and final plat and site and building plans. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN The Applicant submitted plans for review as part of their proposal, along with a stormwater management plan, landscape plan, architectural renderings, and civil set containing utility, grading, drainage, and site plans. City staff reviewed the plans that were submitted and have provided comments for this report below: Site Design The proposed south site, located within the 6000 block of Brooklyn Boulevard, just south of the App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 9 Sanctuary of Brooklyn Center and 61st Avenue North, and west of Brooklyn Boulevard, proposes construction of seven (7) triplexes on approximately 1.65 acres. Each unit would contain a garden (or basement unit), a ground (main) level unit, and an upper level unit. As proposed, each triplex building would be approximately 3,885 feet in size, and provide approximately 1,295 square feet of living space per unit. Setbacks All setbacks in the proposal are measured from the right-of-way (ROW), which will be altered as part of the Phase II Brooklyn Boulevard Project scheduled to begin in 2021. The Applicant worked with City consultant SRF to obtain the revised County right-of-way specifications in advance of the Phase II construction, as they will impact the Subject Property. The chart below compares the current setback requirements with the requested standards for the proposed PUD. The underlying “Neighborhood Mixed Use” designation is a new designation that is not currently reflected in the Zoning Code; however, a major update to the Zoning Code is underway. In reviewing the typical setbacks for a medium density residential product (R3 and R4 Districts under current Zoning Code), City staff finds the following: Table 1. Setback Flexibility Requests Current Standard Requested Flexibility Front Yard Setback 50 feet (major thoroughfares) 35 feet (from front wall) Note: Minimum 25 foot setback assuming maximum 10 foot porch encroachment under Zoning Code 23-31 feet (from front wall) 17-25 feet (from covered porch) Interior Yard Setback 10 feet -- Corner Yard Setback 25 feet -- Rear Yard Setback 40 -- The requested range of front yard setbacks is due to the uniqueness of the Subject property, which staggers in overall lot depth along Brooklyn Boulevard. The north portion of the Subject Property is able to retain greater front yard setbacks due to the existing lots being deeper, as the lots were formerly home to an office building and small apartment complex. The south portion of the Subject Property becomes shallower as the lots were previously the sites of two single family homes. Between the anticipated construction start of the Phase II Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project, scheduled to begin in 2021, and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, the intent has been to create a more walkable, transit connected, and experience-based place. Phase II of the Brooklyn Boulevard Project is intended to enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel by adding trail, improving sidewalks, transit stops, adding streetscaping and landscaping, and improving the overall functionality of intersections. As proposed, the existing sidewalk located along the eastern edge of the Subject Property would be converted from sidewalk to trail, which requires the acquisition of additional right-of-way. As the Subject Property is located within the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor and given the overarching desire to connect properties to the aforementioned amenities, City staff is comfortable with the App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 10 proposed setbacks, particularly as the Brooklyn Boulevard project is requiring additional right-of-way to accommodate the trail that would run adjacent to the proposed triplexes. Furthermore, the positioning of the triplexes closer to the roadway and trail enhances the walkability for residents who might potentially reside in one of the triplexes. This is as opposed to creating a more car-oriented feel by positioning a parking lot in front of the building, thus requiring potential residents to navigate the parking lot before entering their homes. Further, it is anticipated that the future Neighborhood Mixed Use zoning district will encourage shorter front yard setbacks along Brooklyn Boulevard to maximize setbacks from adjacent single family homes to the rear and encourage more walkability. Architectural Materials At this time, the City references a set of architectural design guidelines based off the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. To that end, the building materials referenced are typically intended for more commercial type projects (e.g. glazing, brick, stucco). Per the Applicant, the intent is to utilize James Hardie lap siding with aluminum soffits and fascia. The front stoops on each triplex would utilize cedar decking or similar and offer a concrete patio on the rear of each building. Each unit would be fitted with custom cabinetry with solid core doors and luxury vinyl tile flooring. The garden (basement) units would feature a large daylit window well running almost the entirety of the building width, while the main floor units would feature a front porch facing Brooklyn Boulevard. The Applicant also proposes to install a patio on the rear of each triplex building and provide grills. The Applicant has noted a desire to also offer community garden space on-site, and the proximity to neighboring Wangstad Park would offer residents with access to a playground, basketball court, and picnicking area. City staff indicated that the Applicant should strive to create a uniqueness about each building so as to create some vibrancy along the Boulevard through the use of differing roof pitches, siding colors, etc. The Applicant indicated that this was their intent. Image 1. Renderings of Proposed Triplex Buildings App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 11 Image 2. Example Main (1st) Floor Unit Access and Parking The Applicant proposes to install a driveway access off 61st Avenue North. Said access would run south along the western edge of the Subject Property before heading to a secondary right exit-only drive off Brooklyn Boulevard. As the driveway and parking will cross through all seven (7) new lots, the Applicant App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 12 will need to have cross access agreements in place. As proposed, the drive aisle would be 24 feet wide, which is the minimum required for two-way traffic and 90-degree parking. The Applicant notes 18 foot deep parking spaces, which is the minimum required, but will need to ensure each parking space is a minimum of 8.66 feet in width or the 9 foot typical width. Assuming a total of 21 dwelling units, the Applicant would need to provide a minimum of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit, or 42 on-site parking spaces. The Applicant initially provided for the minimum required on-site parking, but upon revising the site plan to incorporate trash enclosures the parking fell below minimum requirements. City staff is requesting the Applicant relocate the south trash enclosure to the west grassy median located at the rear of the southernmost triplex building. By relocating the trash enclosure, the Applicant will be able to recoup some parking spaces, and address City Code requirements that trash enclosures be located behind the front yard setbacks. The Applicant may also be able to achieve additional parking by removing a median or two in the rear parking area. Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, the recommendation is to relocate any medians so as to align with the proposed individual lot lines. Refer to Image 3. Image 3. Submitted Site Plan for 6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 13 The Applicant will need to install sidewalk along the parking areas to allow for access to the sidewalks leading to each respective triplex building. This will require the proposed landscaping to be shifted elsewhere on the site (e.g. between buildings) and the landscape plan updated. City staff participated in a series of conversations with Hennepin County regarding the proposed drive access off Brooklyn Boulevard, as the long term goals of Brooklyn Boulevard have included the limiting of access and consolidation of driveway curb cuts, which is a County road. As part of the EDA acquisition of these properties, existing curb cuts were taken off line. The request from the Applicant is to install an access off 61st Avenue North and another access off Brooklyn Boulevard. The County has indicated that a right only exit, rather than a full access onto Brooklyn Boulevard would be acceptable. By providing a right out only exit, garbage trucks and any potential emergency vehicles would be able to navigate the site without having to attempt a turnaround. Additionally, the right out only aligns with both City and County desires to limit turns on Brooklyn Boulevard. Both City and County staff indicated the preference of a raised concrete median, similar to a “porkchop” to guide motorists into the right out only exit onto Brooklyn Boulevard and requested signage be installed. The County noted that the preference would be to locate the proposed right out only further to the north (between 6031 and 6037 Brooklyn Boulevard); however, this alteration would have substantial impacts to the usability of the site as currently proposed (i.e. seven triplexes and all associated site improvements). Pending any approval of the application, the Applicant and City will need to work with the County to address the access needs. The Subject Property is located in proximity to an existing bus stop located at the northeast corner of the site, at 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. Said transit stop serves local bus route 723, which offers direct connections to the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, North Hennepin Community College, and Starlite Transit Center in Brooklyn Park. Trash, Screening, and Lighting As mentioned above, City staff is requesting that the south trash enclosure be pulled back from in front of the building line of the southernmost triplex building and relocated west, towards the grassy median at the junction of the driveway aisle. Said trash enclosure shall be fully screened per City Code requirements with opaque front doors. Refer to Image 4 below. Image 4. Current Location of South Trash Enclosure. App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 14 Given the higher intensity residential use on the Subject Property in relation to the adjacent single family homes located to the west and south, the Applicant will be required to install a buffer. The Applicant has indicated installation of a fence along the west and south portions of the Subject Property on their submitted site plan. Due to buffering provisions found in Section 35-410, which addresses the special requirements of medium and higher density multi-family residential districts (R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 Districts), City staff is requesting installation of a minimum 6-foot opaque fence that is in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood and provides sufficient screening of the triplexes and specifically drive aisles and parking, from the adjacent single family homes. A photometric/lighting plan was not provided as part of the submittal. Per the Zoning Code, “all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices.” Additionally, glare shall not emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Code further specifies that lighting shall not exceed ten (10) foot candles when measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties or three (3) foot candles for residentially zoned properties. Given the presence of single family homes along the west and south property lines, the Applicant should be cognizant to provide sufficient lighting for residents navigating the parking lot at night or accessing the trash enclosures. This might perhaps be achieved through pedestrian level lighting that can provide sufficient illumination for residents to navigate to their respective homes. Additionally, lighting should be provided for each exterior door. The Applicant may also want to work with the City to determine anticipated improvements, including lighting upgrades and plantings, along Brooklyn Boulevard. Landscaping The project submittal includes a detailed landscape plan, which illustrates the proposed planting schedule (i.e., trees, shrubs, annuals/perennials, mature size, planting size, root conditions). Although City Code does not have any specific requirements on plant species, the City has operated under and held new and redeveloped areas to complying with the City’s adopted Landscape Point System policy, which assigns points to a given site based on the acreage of a development. The point system requires Multi-Family Residential sites to provide a specific amount or number of landscaping units, and is based on the maximum percentage of certain materials (i.e., 50% shade trees; 40% coniferous trees; 35% decorative trees; and 25% shrubs). Table 2. Landscaping Point System Policy Calculations for Subject Property Planting Type Minimum Size Points Per Planting Maximum Points (%) Points Accrued Shade Trees 2 ½” diameter 10 50% or 45 points (6 trees x 10 = 60) Coniferous Trees 5’ height 6 40% or 36 points (5 trees x 6 = 30) Decorative Trees 1” diameter 1.5 35% or 31.5 points (1 tree x 1.5 = 1.5) Shrubs 12” diameter 0.5 25% or 22.5 points (42 shrubs x 0.5 = 21) Total 100% (90 point min.) 97.5 points Assuming a Multi-Family Residential use, the Subject Property would need to provide a minimum of 90 points under the City’s Landscape Point System Policy. As provided, the Landscape Plan provides for 97.5 App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 15 points, which is above and beyond the minimum requirements. City staff reviewed the proposed showy mountain ash tree, which is a decorative (or ornamental) tree, and found that it is native to the northern North American climates and does not appear to be susceptible to the Emerald Ash Borer, as it is not a “true” ash tree. This tree may need to be relocated outside the designated sight triangle due to its corner location. Although not indicated on the submitted Landscape Plan and not counted in the Landscape Point System Policy, the Applicant should look for opportunities to plant perennial grasses or flowers along the triplex buildings, particularly near the front covered porches and in-between buildings for curb appeal. Furthermore, there may be opportunities for some plantings within the five (5) foot green strip between the fencing and drive aisles. If the south trash enclosure is relocated to the west grassy median, some proposed plantings (i.e. Cupressina Norway Spruce, Techny Arborvitae) may need to be relocated elsewhere on site and an updated landscape plan provided. The Applicant should ensure that any plantings located near the two driveways do not block visibility off 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. All green areas on the site will be sodded except in areas where viable turf exists and is totally undisturbed by construction. The burden will be on the developer to prove at the time of a site inspection that the groundcover has been properly maintained and restored. The Planting Notes on the submitted Landscape Plan indicate that any existing boulevard trees would be fenced off and protected during construction. As noted in the Irrigation Notes on the submitted Landscape Plan, the contractor would be responsible for providing an irrigation layout plan to the City pending submittal of any building permits for the proposed project. Safety and Security The Applicant should work with the Brooklyn Center Police Department to identify opportunities to provide sufficient security measures for each of the proposed triplexes. In the cases of multi-family residential properties, the Zoning Code outlines special requirements under Section 35-410 (Special Requirements in R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 Districts). Such requirements include the installation of an approved security system to control access within each multiple family building, such as locked building entrances or foyer doors, and locked doors leading from hallways to individual units. Dead-latch type locks shall be provided with lever or door knobs on the inside of building entrance doors that can be locked from the inside and outside. Engineering Review Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed plans and provided a memorandum and a redlined set of plans, dated August 4th, 2020 (Exhibit D). All engineering comments must be addressed prior to the issuance of any permits for land disturbing activity. It should be noted that an as-built survey will be required upon project completion, and inspection for the private site improvements is to be performed by the Applicant’s design/project engineer with certification required upon project completion. The Applicant will need to work with the City and County to obtain and address any and all requirements and permitting prior to beginning work, including a cross access agreement, and Utility Facilities Easement Agreement. The final plat shall be recorded at the County prior to issuance of any permits. App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 16 Fire Inspection/Building Review Building Official Dan Grinsteinner and Fire Inspector Brandon Gautsch reviewed the submitted plans. Per Dan Grinsteinner’s memo, dated August 4, 2020 (Exhibit E), the Applicant will need to submit for a SAC (Sewer Accessibility Charge) determination to the Metropolitan Council. No building permits shall be issued until any SAC charges are determined and paid for upon release of building permits. In addition, a City SAC/WAC (Water Accessibility Charge) fee will be due. As the buildings are considered “Group R2,” the Applicant will need to provide for accessible units, and an accessible route shall be provided from any and all public transportation stops, accessible parking, accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks to any required accessible building entrances. Although each building is considered to be a “Group R2,” the buildings are not required to be sprinklered as they are under 4,500 square feet in size, so long as all Fire Code requirements relating to access are met. To that end, fire hydrants shall be provided in instances where they are not already in existence or in compliance with Fire Code. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested site and building plan for the Subject Property located on what is currently known as 6025, 6031, 6037, and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and the receiving of approvals for the related preliminary and final plat and establishment of a Planned Unit Development. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-004 for the Subject Property located within the 6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard and comprised of Anticipated Permitting 1. The Applicant shall apply for and receive a City Land Disturbance permit prior to commencing any grading or land clearance activities on the site. 2. The Applicant shall apply for and receive an NPDES permit from the MPCA. 3. The Applicant shall obtain any required permits from Hennepin County for work in the County right-of-way. 4. The Applicant shall meet all requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, as specified by the City. 5. The Applicant shall apply for and receive all applicable City building permits prior to commencing construction of any work. 6. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 7. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 8. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. Plat Review 9. Approval of the preliminary and final plats are contingent upon the addressing of comments by App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 17 Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated August 4, 2020, consolidation of the south outlot to proposed lot #7, and updating of the title block per City staff comments. 10. Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances (Platting). 11. Any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County. 12. Any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically regarding an updated certified abstract of title. 13. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County. PUD / Site Plan Review 14. Any significant changes or modifications made to this request can only be made by an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development as approved by the City Council. 15. The Applicant shall enter into a Purchase Agreement with the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 16. The Applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 17. The Applicant shall enter into a Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City shall be executed prior to the issuance of any permits. 18. The Applicant shall enter into a Construction Management Plan and Agreement, and a $5,000 escrow deposited, prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. 19. The Applicant shall enter into a Public Improvement Agreement prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. 20. The Applicant shall enter into a Utility Facilities Easement Agreement prior to the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. Engineering Review 21. The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memorandum, dated August 4, 2020. a. Final grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer for City site and building plan approval and prior to the issuance of permits. Fire Inspector/ Building Official Review 22. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable 2015 Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any plan approval. 23. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 24. The Applicant shall apply for a SAC determination from the Metropolitan Council. Said determination shall be forwarded to the City and paid for upon issuance of any City permits. 25. The Applicant shall work with the Building Official to address all minimum requirements for accessibility as they relate to units, parking, accessible routes, etc. 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. RECOMMENDATION The findings of fact, based on the staff’s review of the submitted plans support a recommendation for App. No. 2020-004 PC 08/13/2020 Page 18 approval of the application. Based on the findings and the above-noted conditions of approval, staff recommends the following motion: Motion to approve a Resolution recommending the City Council approve Planning Commission Application No. 2020-004 for Preliminary and Final Plat, and site and building plan approvals, and the establishment of a Planned Unit Development for the Subject Property located in the 6000 block of Brooklyn Boulevard and known as 6025, 6031, 6037, and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the conditions of approval in the resolution. Attachments Exhibit A-Planning Application No. 2020-004 and documentation, submitted by C Alan Homes, LLC, and dated June 15, 2020 Exhibit B- Public Hearing Notice, dated June 25, 2020, as published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and updated Public Hearing Notice and one page informational flyer. Exhibit C- 60 Day Review Extension Letter, dated July 7, 2020. Exhibit D- Memorandum and Exhibits, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, and dated August 4, 2020. Exhibit E- Memorandum, prepared by Building Official Dan Grinsteinner, and dated August 4, 2020. App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: August 13, 2020 Application No. 2020-005 Applicant: C Alan Homes Location: 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard (6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard) Requests: (1) Preliminary and Final Plat, (2) Site and Building Plan, (3) Establishment of a Planned Unit Development for the development of six triplexes and related site improvements REQUESTED ACTION C Alan Homes (“The Applicant”) is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat, site and building plan, and establishment of a Planned Unit Development for a series of properties located within the 6900 block of Brooklyn Boulevard, just north of 69th Avenue North and Slim’s, and west of Brooklyn Boulevard (Exhibit A). These properties are all currently owned by the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center and encompass the following addresses: 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard. Due to the nature of the requests, including the establishment of a Planned Unit Development and preliminary and final plat approvals, a public hearing is required. A public notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on June 25th, 2020 (Exhibit B). Following City staff concerns regarding adjustments to the submitted site plan to account for additional easements and questions surrounding driveway access off Brooklyn Boulevard from Hennepin County, City staff requested an extension to the application review period as granted under Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, Subd. 3 (f)—refer to Exhibit C. This request was intended to provide additional time for the Applicant to address the aforementioned items. Due to the continuance of the public hearing, City staff mailed updated public notices out to residents and/or taxpayers and incorporated a one page informational flyer on the project in the mailing. City staff also requested Public Works install a “Development Proposal Under Review” sign on site which provides a contact number for any questions regarding the proposal. Since the requested extension, the Applicant has revised the site plan to reflect the necessary easements along Brooklyn Boulevard and the City was provided with a recommendation from Hennepin County regarding driveway access off Brooklyn Boulevard, which is detailed in this report. BACKGROUND Developer The City was approached by Terry Robertson and Curt Brekke with C Alan Homes, a local builder and remodeling company specializing in high-end single family homes, in the spring of 2020. Mr. Robertson and Mr. Brekke are interested in diversifying the focus of C Alan Homes and are seeking to develop two sets of EDA-owned sites along Brooklyn Boulevard with a series of triplexes that would be available for • Application Filed: 6/15/2020 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 8/14/2020 • Extension Declared: 7/7/2020 • Extended Review Period Deadline: 10/13/2020 App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 2 rent. Each triplex would consist of three, three bedroom units. The anticipated rents would likely range between $1,850 and $2,200 per month, and the Applicant has committed to providing 20% of the units as set aside for Section 8 voucher holders. Due to the Applicant’s background in high-end single family home construction, the Applicant has indicated that each building would have the look and feel of a large, high quality single family home, with a combination of individual and shared on-site amenities. Conformance with City Policies and Property Background The EDA has been acquiring single family and undersized parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard for many years as part of a larger strategy to improve safety by reducing and consolidating access points, and assembling land for redevelopment into higher density land uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan created an overlay district along the corridor and re-guided most of the future land uses to “Neighborhood Mixed Use” or “NMU;” allowing medium density residential and/or neighborhood-serving commercial uses. As transportation and land use patterns along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor have changed, the EDA has strategically acquired property for redevelopment. Although the Subject Property lies just north of the area identified for the Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project, which ends around 65th Avenue North, land use patterns will be affected as access points are consolidated and the roadway altered to allow for a more walkable, neighborhood-oriented development pattern. As a result of the roadway reconstruction plans, as well as the re-guiding of most of the future land uses along the corridor, the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Implementation Chapter included a plan for a comprehensive land use study of the Brooklyn Center corridor, which is currently underway. The intended outcome of the land use study will result in the creation of a regulatory framework for development along the corridor as well as design guidelines to help facilitate the creation of a more walkable, neighborhood-oriented development pattern along the entirety of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Brooklyn Boulevard land use study will include a health impact assessment as well as a market analysis of the area in terms of feasible land uses. One of the goals of the study is to look at EDA-owned sites, and particularly those that are only as deep as a single-family lot, to determine how they could be redeveloped in ways that puts them back into productive use without negatively impacting surrounding neighborhoods. The recently completed market analysis found that a mid-density residential product, such as row- homes or townhomes, or a low density office condo product, would be suitable along the corridor between controlled intersections given the access constraints that will exist after the majority of Brooklyn Boulevard is reconstructed. The market analysis further indicated that higher intensity commercial/retail uses would be more suitable around signalized intersections where access is better. The market analysis also found the current market would likely not bear new low and mid-rise multi- family housing development without subsidy given low market rents. The findings of the market analysis are not unique to Brooklyn Center. The cost of construction, combined with the challenge of putting together financing for projects, make it difficult to complete multi-family developments without some form of gap financing or subsidy. As a result, the vast majority of multi-family housing that is built is either market rate and in locations that can achieve the highest rents, or alternatively, affordable housing, financed through federal sources and maintained at rents affordable to those making 50-60% area median income. Very little housing is constructed that is App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 3 considered affordable to those mid-income earners making between 80-120% area median incomes. So little, in fact, that in cities across the nation this type of housing is called “the missing middle”. The land use study found that the vacancy rate for apartments along Brooklyn Boulevard is 1.3%, with lower than average market rents. The study notes that there is an opportunity to add newer inventory of all unit types, including market-rate, workforce, affordable, and senior housing. With current rental rates in Brooklyn Center low compared to the rest of the market, increasing construction costs, and higher capitalization rates (which help indicate an anticipated “rate of return” on investments and overall risk), lower density multi-family developments, such as triplexes, duplexes, and perhaps townhouses, are outlined in the market analysis as a potentially more feasible option. The EDA currently owns four properties located at the northwest corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, which total approximately 0.98 acres. These properties, in addition to a series of four properties on the west side of the 6000 block of Brooklyn Boulevard (1.65 acres), are both under consideration for the development of triplexes by C Alan Homes, and are identified under Planning Commission Application Nos. 2020-004 (6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard) and 2020-005 (6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard). Although these development proposals are for the same type of product and the same application requests, a separate staff report has been prepared for each of the sites. On May 11, 2020, C Alan Homes' concept plan for the 6000 and 6900 blocks of Brooklyn Boulevard, as contemplated under Planning Commission Application Nos. 2020-004 and 2020-005, was presented to the City Council for Concept Review. The proposal was to develop two separate sites along Brooklyn Boulevard into a combined 13 triplex buildings (39 total dwelling units). The proposal addressed the re- platting of eight (8) EDA-owned lots into two separate development sites to allow for said redevelopment. On June 22, 2020, City Council approved a Preliminary Development Agreement with C Alan Homes, LLC for the two sets of EDA-owned properties. The purpose of this agreement was to allow the Applicant time to review the property, obtain financing, and negotiate with the EDA of Brooklyn Center on an agreement for the purchase of the Subject Property and property to the south (6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard). This Agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2020 but also allows the time necessary to work through the land use approvals contemplated under this application. Should the Applicant receive approval for the proposed use, the EDA would need to negotiate a purchase agreement for the Subject Property, which would require a separate public hearing and approval from the EDA. Site Data 2040 Land Use Plan: Neighborhood Mixed Use (N-MU @ 15.01-31 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood: Willow Lane Current Zoning: C1 (Service/Office) District Site Area: 0.98 acres Surrounding Area Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North High Density Residential (HDR) R5 (Multi-Family Residence) Apartment Building South Neighborhood- Mixed Use (NMU) PUD/C2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) Restaurant App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 4 East Right-of-Way Right-of-Way (ROW) Brooklyn Boulevard West Neighborhood- Mixed Use (NMU) R-1 (One Family Residence) SF Detached Note: The Subject Property is located within the identified Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Map 1. Subject Property COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Subject Property is currently comprised of four properties, all with an identified future land use designation of “Neighborhood-Mixed Use.” As proposed, the Subject Property would be located within the identified Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District, which is a 1,200 foot wide corridor. The 2040 Plan stresses the creation of a walkable, transit connected, experience-based place that brings the City forward and offers new opportunities to existing and future residents. “The idea that the community will thrive with a more integrated land use pattern is fully accepted, and promoted through this Plan. The areas that are planned for this type of change are guided within this Plan for Neighborhood Mixed-Use, Commercial Mixed-Use, Business Mixed-Use and/or are designated in the Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District.” The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also identifies the following Housing and Neighborhood Goals: • Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 5 of Brooklyn Center’s residents. • Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. Approximately 37% of the City’s housing stock is comprised of rental housing, the vast majority as multi- family units. The majority of multi-family units in the City were constructed prior to 1979, with the bulk of units having been constructed between 1966 and 1969, making the majority of multi-family inventory between 51 to 54 years in age. With the exception of the two Real Estate Equities projects currently under construction at Northway Drive and County Road 10, there has been no new construction of multi-family units since the 1970s. With the exception of three rental townhome developments, all of the City’s multi-family rental housing is comprised of one and two-bedroom units. As a result of this highly homogenous housing stock, the cost of housing in Brooklyn Center fits within a relatively narrow affordability band. One of the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to provide a more diverse range of housing options and price points, which makes for a more economically resilient community. As part of the community engagement process for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan residents expressed a need for larger rental units. More diverse housing options would allow families to stay in Brooklyn Center if they chose as their housing needs change. In fact, the City sees a drop in population relative to Hennepin County in residents aged 45 to 65. This is due to residents moving out to find alternative housing options as their families grow. The proposed project would provide a housing type that would fulfill a segment of this current housing gap in the community. Since 2010, the number of households with children in both single-parent and married couple households has grown significantly, and the percentage of Brooklyn Center households with children is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the rate in Hennepin County and the metro area. Unlike the surrounding region, the median age of Brooklyn Center residents is younger, at 32.8 years old. This is largely due to a significant increase in residents aged 25 to 34, who oftentimes are starting families and having children. The Metropolitan Council projects that the City of Brooklyn Center will add nearly 2,000 new households to the community between 2020 and 2040. Given that the City is mostly built out, it is expected that a substantial portion of future housing would be provided in the form of multi-family units. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that were closer to supportive retail, commercial, and services so that they could walk, bike, or easily use transit to meet their needs. REQUESTS The nature of the Applicant’s requests would require approval of a preliminary and final plat to accommodate the anticipated site improvements and triplex buildings, the establishment of a Planned Unit Development to offer certain flexibility for the intended use and alignment with the recently adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and approval of a site and building plan, as all properties above an R2 (One and Two Family Residence) District use require one. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT The proposed preliminary and final plat for what would be known as ROBERTSON AND BREKKE’S BROOKLYN BOULEVARD SECOND ADDITION would subdivide four (4) existing Economic Development Authority (EDA) of Brooklyn Center lots into six (6) new parcels to accommodate the six (6) proposed triplexes at the Subject Property located just north of 69th Avenue North and west of Brooklyn Boulevard. App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 6 Per comments #44 through #47 provided in the memorandum by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg and dated August 4, 2020 (Exhibit D), the Applicant will need to address edits necessary to reflect vacated easements, proposed easements, existing and proposed utilities, and all associated easement documents for City review. A 10 foot drainage and utility easement is required for dedication around the entire perimeter of the Subject Property. An additional utility easement shall be dedicated on the plat to allow for any future maintenance of private water mains and sanitary sewer per Development Agreement requirements. The Applicant will need to submit legal descriptions and easement vacations for all existing easements and certain vacations of existing public easements, as determined by the City. The Applicant shall also provide and maintain a current abstract of title for City Attorney review. Following a review of the submitted final plat, the title block shall be updated to reflect “Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,” and “City Council of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.” The submitted plat currently displays “Bloomington” in the text. The title block should also contain an attest section for the City Clerk. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested approval of a preliminary and final plat for ROBERTSON AND BREKKE’S BROOKLYN BOULEVARD SECOND ADDITION for the Subject Property located on what is currently known as 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and the related requests for the approval of a site and building plan and establishment of a Planned Unit Development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The Subject Property is currently zoned a C1 (Service/Office) District. The Applicant is requesting the property be re-zoned to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to accommodate the intended site improvements and housing product, which would offer three (3) dwelling units in each of the six (6) proposed triplex buildings. PUDs grant flexibility within the Zoning Code to allow for developments which would not be allowed under the existing regulations. PUDs are often used to achieve a higher quality development, or achieve other City goals, in exchange for granting zoning flexibility from the City Code. Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City Zoning Code notes that upon the rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters “PUD” followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district, which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. Given that the major update to the City Zoning Code is currently underway and changes to districts are anticipated in order to align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the request would be to re-zone following guidance from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan future land use designations for the Subject Property. PUDs may only contain uses consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities, and the approval of a land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them— essentially the City Council may approve plans that are not in compliance with the usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of residents or the City, although plans shall comply with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 7 Therefore, the proposed rezoning would be to PUD-NMU (Neighborhood Mixed Use). “Neighborhood Mixed Use” is a new future land use designation that guides surrounding key neighborhood intersections for a mix of residential, retail, and commercial/office uses. This designation plans for the redevelopment of existing uses and assumes that a minimum of 50% of the land within this designation would be used for residential purposes, at densities between 15.01 to 31 dwelling units per acre, and the remaining areas under this land use designation would be developed with neighborhood scale retail, service, and commercial uses. The designation allows for mixed uses on each parcel, but does not require it. All four parcels comprising the Subject Property hold a future land use designation of “Neighborhood Mixed Use” (refer to Map 2 below). With a total of 0.98 acres designated at 15.01-31 DU/Acre, there could be between 15 to 30 units on-site. As submitted, the proposal calls for the construction of 18 total units on the Subject Property, which falls within the lower end of the range noted above. Map 2. Future Land Use Designations (2040 Comprehensive Plan) The front setbacks requested under the application are generally less than what is allowed by Code for residential properties along a major thoroughfare (50 feet), which would severely limit the development of anything on the Subject Property, and the proposed front porches would therefore encroach closer to the property lines than is typically permitted. However, the proposed setbacks align with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan to bring buildings closer to the corridor, provide parking in the rear, and create a more walkable, pedestrian friendly environment. A typical residential property not located on a major thoroughfare, be it single family or multi-family, requires a 35 foot front yard setback. The proposal also requests a higher percentage of three (3) bedroom units than is typically called for in the Zoning Code (no more than 10-percent); however, there are instances of multi-family dwelling units providing three (3) bedroom rental products at select multi-family properties in the City, such as Georgetown, Emerson Chalet, and Victoria Townhomes. The PUD proposal is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in that it would align with the City’s strategic goal of Targeted Redevelopment by providing a type of mid-market housing that would fill a need in the community for larger unit rental dwelling units. The type of product proposed within this App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 8 development would feature three (3) bedroom units with an estimated rent of between $1,850 to $2,200 per month, although these numbers have yet to be finalized. The Applicant is not requesting any municipal subsidy at this time, and has indicated plans to set aside 20% of the total units for Section 8 Voucher holders. The anticipated rents are considered affordable to those making 70-80% Area Median Income (AMI). As approval of any development plan for the Subject Property shall constitute a rezoning to PUD, approvals to establish a PUD require the City Council to base its actions on the rezoning under the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes, and intent of this section (Section 35- 355); 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested establishment of a Planned Unit Development to allow for the re-zoning of the Subject Property, located on what is currently known as 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard, to be re-zoned to PUD-NMU (Planned Unit Development-Neighborhood Mixed Use) District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and the receiving approvals for the related preliminary and final plat and site and building plans. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN The Applicant submitted plans for review as part of their proposal, along with a stormwater management plan, landscape plan, architectural renderings, and civil set containing utility, grading, drainage, and site plans. City staff reviewed the plans that were submitted and have provided comments for this report below: Site Design The proposed south site, located within the 6900 block of Brooklyn Boulevard, just north of 69th Avenue North and Slim’s, and west of Brooklyn Boulevard, proposes construction of six (6) triplexes on approximately 0.98 acres. Each unit would contain a garden (or basement unit), a ground (main) level unit, and an upper level unit. As proposed, each triplex building would be approximately 3,885 feet in size, and provide approximately 1,295 square feet of living space per unit. Setbacks All setbacks in the proposal are measured from the right-of-way (ROW). As the City has requested the Applicant provide a 10 foot boulevard with a 5 foot sidewalk and maintenance strip to allow for the realignment of existing sidewalk along Brooklyn Boulevard, the Subject Property is fairly shallow and faces space constraints given that the Subject Property was formerly comprised of single family properties. The chart below compares the current setback requirements with the requested standards for the proposed PUD. The underlying “Neighborhood Mixed Use” designation is a new designation that is not currently reflected in the Zoning Code; however, a major update to the Zoning Code is underway. In App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 9 reviewing the typical setbacks for a medium density residential product (R3 and R4 Districts under current Zoning Code), City staff finds the following: Table 1. Setback Flexibility Requests Current Standard Requested Flexibility Front Yard Setback 50 feet (major thoroughfares) 35 feet (from front wall) Note: Minimum 25 foot setback assuming maximum 10 foot porch encroachment under Zoning Code 11 feet (from front wall) Interior Yard Setback 10 feet -- Corner Yard Setback 25 feet -- Rear Yard Setback 40 -- As the Subject Property was formerly the location of four (4) single family homes, the six (6) proposed triplexes are able to maintain a fairly consistent setback along Brooklyn Boulevard. Between the Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project, which ends just blocks south of the Subject Property, and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, the intent has been to create a more walkable, transit connected, and experience-based place. Phase II of the Brooklyn Boulevard Project, which will terminate near 65th Avenue North, is intended to enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel by adding trail, improving sidewalks, transit stops, adding streetscaping and landscaping, and improving the overall functionality of intersections. As proposed, the existing sidewalk located along the eastern edge of the Subject Property would be re-aligned per City requirements, which requires additional spacing for a boulevard and sidewalk maintenance strip. As the Subject Property is located within the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor and given the overarching desire to connect properties to the aforementioned amenities, City staff is comfortable with the proposed setbacks, particularly as the Brooklyn Boulevard project is requiring additional right-of-way to accommodate the re-aligned sidewalk that would run adjacent to the proposed triplexes. Furthermore, the positioning of the triplexes closer to the roadway and sidewalk enhances the walkability for residents who might potentially reside in one of the triplexes. This is as opposed to creating a more car- oriented feel by positioning a parking lot in front of the building, thus requiring potential residents to navigate the parking lot before entering their homes. Further, it is anticipated that the future Neighborhood Mixed Use zoning district will encourage shorter front yard setbacks along Brooklyn Boulevard to maximize setbacks from adjacent single family homes to the rear and encourage more walkability. Architectural Materials At this time, the City references a set of architectural design guidelines based off the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. To that end, the building materials referenced are typically intended for more commercial type projects (e.g. glazing, brick, stucco). Per the Applicant, the intent is to utilize modern James Hardie panels for siding with aluminum soffits and fascia to distinguish the north triplex project from the south triplex project, which has a more traditional appeal. Each unit would be fitted with custom cabinetry with solid core doors and luxury vinyl tile flooring, and the buildings would feature a concrete patio in the rear. App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 10 The garden (basement) units would feature a large daylit window well running almost the entirety of the building width, while the main floor units would feature a front porch facing Brooklyn Boulevard. The Applicant also proposes to install a patio on the rear of each triplex building with grills, and the proximity to neighboring Willow Lane Park would offer residents with access to a playground, basketball court, softball field, skating rink, and picnicking area. City staff indicated that the Applicant should strive to create a uniqueness about each building so as to create some vibrancy along the Boulevard through the use of differing roof pitches, siding colors, etc. The Applicant indicated that this was their intent. Image 1. Example Renderings of Proposed Triplex Buildings in 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 11 Image 2. Example Main (1st) Floor Unit Access and Parking The Applicant proposes to install a driveway access off Lee Avenue North. Said access would run south along the western edge of the Subject Property before heading to a right only access off Brooklyn Boulevard. This access is reserved for emergency vehicles only per Hennepin County’s recommendation. Per the submitted site plan, the access would feature lockable bollards positioned at the end of the drive to allow for efficient snow removal. As the driveway and parking will cross through all six (6) new lots, the Applicant will need to have cross access agreements in place. As proposed, the drive aisle would only be 18 feet wide, which is below the minimum required for two- way traffic and 90-degree parking. City staff is requesting the Applicant revise the plans to allow for a 20-foot drive aisle, which is the minimum required for a fire access road under the Fire Code. This may require alterations to the front covered porches and rear patios. The Applicant notes 18 foot deep parking spaces, which is the minimum required, and tighter parking spaces provided at the minimum 8.66 feet in width. Assuming a total of 18 dwelling units, the Applicant would need to provide a minimum of two (2) spaces per dwelling unit, or 36 on-site parking spaces. As proposed, the Applicant is providing 30 spaces, which is 6 spaces shy of the minimum requirements. City staff is requesting the Applicant revise the site plans to determine if additional parking can be accommodated for on the separate five (5) car lot noted at the north end of the Subject Property. If only the 30 parking spaces are provided, it would be at a parking ratio of 1.66 spaces per dwelling unit. If the Applicant were able to, for instance, accommodate two (2) App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 12 more parking spaces, it would be at a ratio of 1.78 spaces per dwelling unit. Refer to Image 3. Image 3. Submitted Site Plan for 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard The Applicant will need to install sidewalk along the parking areas to allow for access to the sidewalks leading to each respective triplex building. This will require some of the proposed landscaping to be shifted elsewhere on the site (e.g. between buildings) and the landscape plan updated. City staff participated in a series of conversations with Hennepin County regarding the proposed drive access off Brooklyn Boulevard, as the long term goals of Brooklyn Boulevard have included the limiting of access and consolidation of driveway curb cuts, which is a County road. As part of the EDA acquisition of these properties, existing curb cuts were taken off line. The request from the Applicant is to install an access off Lee Avenue North and another access off Brooklyn Boulevard. The County has indicated that, due to the higher volumes of traffic along this segment of Brooklyn Boulevard (over 30,000 Average Daily Traffic), three lanes of traffic, and the proximity of the proposed drive access to other nearby intersections, they would like to see no access off Brooklyn Boulevard; however, if not possible, the County would approve installation of an emergency exit only (e.g. reinforced gate with bollards). As proposed, there would be an emergency right-out only with a lockable bollard. Pending any approval of the application, the Applicant and City will need to work with the App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 13 County to address the access needs. City staff was able to work with the Applicant to identify a location on-site that allows garbage to be picked up off Lee Avenue North near the main proposed entrance, rather than requiring a garbage truck to enter the site and navigate back out. The Subject Property is located in proximity to an existing bus stop located at the northwest corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, just down the street and in front of Slim’s. Said transit stop serves local bus route 723, which offers direct connections to the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, North Hennepin Community College, and Starlite Transit Center in Brooklyn Park. Trash, Screening, and Lighting As mentioned above, City staff worked with the Applicant to identify a location for the proposed trash enclosure that would not require a garbage truck to navigate the site with the emergency exit in place. As proposed, the trash enclosure would be located just inside the main access to the site and would allow a garbage truck to pull straight in and back straight back out onto Lee Avenue North. Said trash enclosure shall be fully screened per City Code requirements with opaque front doors. Refer to Image 4 below. Image 4. Location of Trash Enclosure. Given the higher intensity residential use on the Subject Property in relation to the adjacent single family home to the southwest and across Lee Avenue North, the Applicant will be required to install a buffer. The Applicant has indicated installation of a fence along this portion of the Subject Property on their submitted site plan. Due to buffering provisions found in Section 35-410, which addresses the special requirements of medium and higher density multi-family residential districts (R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 Districts), City staff is requesting installation of a minimum 6-foot opaque fence that is in harmony with the surrounding residential neighborhood and provides sufficient screening of the triplexes and specifically drive aisles and parking, from the adjacent single family home. A photometric/lighting plan was not provided as part of the submittal. Per the Zoning Code, “all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 14 property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices.” Additionally, glare shall not emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Code further specifies that lighting shall not exceed ten (10) foot candles when measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties or three (3) foot candles for residentially zoned properties. The Applicant should be cognizant to provide sufficient lighting for residents navigating the parking lot at night or accessing the trash enclosures, but minimize illumination levels and glare to single family residential properties abutting the Subject Property and located across Lee Avenue North. This might perhaps be achieved through pedestrian level lighting that can provide sufficient illumination for residents to navigate to their respective homes. Additionally, lighting should be provided for each exterior door. Landscaping The project submittal includes a detailed landscape plan, which illustrates the proposed planting schedule (i.e., trees, shrubs, annuals/perennials, mature size, planting size, root conditions). Although City Code does not have any specific requirements on landscaping, the City has operated under and held new and redeveloped areas to complying with the City’s adopted Landscape Point System policy, which assigns points to a given site based on the acreage of a development. The point system requires commercial sites to provide a specific amount or number of landscaping units, and is based on the maximum percentage of certain materials (i.e., 50% shade trees; 40% coniferous trees; 35% decorative trees; and 25% shrubs). Table 2. Landscape Point System Policy Calculations for Subject Property. Planting Type Minimum Size Points Per Planting Maximum Points (%) Points Accrued Shade Trees 2 ½” diameter 10 50% or 45 points (5 trees x 10 = 50) Coniferous Trees 5’ height 6 40% or 36 points (5 trees x 6 = 30) Decorative Trees 1” diameter 1.5 35% or 31.5 points (1 tree x 1.5 = 1.5) Shrubs 12” diameter 0.5 25% or 22.5 points (41 shrubs x 0.5 = 20.5) Total 100% (90 point min.) 97 points Assuming a Multi-Family Residential use, the Subject Property would need to provide a minimum of 90 points under the City’s Landscape Point System Policy. As provided, the Landscape Plan provides for 97 points, which is above and beyond the minimum requirements. City staff reviewed the proposed showy mountain ash tree, which is a decorative (or ornamental) tree, and found that it is native to the northern North American climates and does not appear to be susceptible to the Emerald Ash Borer, as it is not a “true” ash tree. Although not indicated on the submitted Landscape Plan and not counted in the Landscape Point System Policy, the Applicant should look for opportunities to plant perennial grasses or flowers along the triplex buildings, particularly along Brooklyn Boulevard and in-between buildings for curb appeal. The Applicant may need to evaluate whether there is sufficient spacing for the two proposed Prairie Statesman Swiss Stone Pines located in proximity to the trash enclosure off Lee Avenue North. In addition, the Applicant will need to relocate at least some of the proposed Techny Arborvitae proposed along the northernmost triplex and the Cupressina Norway Spruce on the Lee Avenue North side as App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 15 there will need to be a sidewalk connection between the proposed five space parking lot on the north end of the site to the triplexes, assuming access towards the rear of the buildings. All green areas on the site will be sodded except in areas where viable turf exists and is totally undisturbed by construction. The burden will be on the developer to prove at the time of a site inspection that the groundcover has been properly maintained and restored. The Planting Notes on the submitted Landscape Plan indicate that any existing boulevard trees would be fenced off and protected during construction. As noted in the Irrigation Notes on the submitted Landscape Plan, the contractor would be responsible for providing an irrigation layout plan to the City pending submittal of any building permits for the proposed project. Safety and Security The Applicant should work with the Brooklyn Center Police Department to identify opportunities to provide sufficient security measures for each of the proposed triplexes. In the cases of multi-family residential properties, the Zoning Code outlines special requirements under Section 35-410 (Special Requirements in R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 Districts). Such requirements include the installation of an approved security system to control access within each multiple family building, such as locked building entrances or foyer doors, and locked doors leading from hallways to individual units. Dead-latch type locks shall be provided with lever or door knobs on the inside of building entrance doors that can be locked from the inside and outside. Engineering Review Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed plans and provided a memorandum and a redlined set of plans, dated August 4th, 2020 (Exhibit D). All engineering comments must be addressed prior to the issuance of any permits for land disturbing activity. It should be noted that an as-built survey will be required upon project completion, and inspection for the private site improvements is to be performed by the Applicant’s design/project engineer with certification required upon project completion. The Applicant will need to work with the City and County to obtain and address any and all requirements and permitting prior to beginning work, including a cross access agreement, and Utility Facilities Easement Agreement. The final plat shall be recorded at the County prior to issuance of any permits. The Applicant will be responsible for removing any remaining driveways and sidewalk adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard and installation of a re-aligned sidewalk south towards Slim’s. As mentioned previously, the Applicant is responsible to provide a 10 foot boulevard with a 5 foot sidewalk and maintenance strip to accommodate this. The Applicant will also need to install sidewalk along the proposed parking lot off Lee Avenue North as well as a connection between the proposed five space parking lot and the triplexes. Fire Inspection/Building Review Building Official Dan Grinsteinner and Fire Inspector Brandon Gautsch reviewed the submitted plans. Per Dan Grinsteinner’s memo, dated August 4, 2020 (Exhibit E), the Applicant will need to submit for a SAC (Sewer Accessibility Charge) determination to the Metropolitan Council. No building permits shall be issued until any SAC charges are determined and paid for upon release of building permits. In addition, a City SAC/WAC (Water Accessibility Charge) fee will be due. App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 16 As the buildings are considered “Group R2,” the Applicant will need to provide for accessible units, and an accessible route shall be provided from any and all public transportation stops, accessible parking, accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks to any required accessible building entrances. Although each building is considered to be a “Group R2,” the buildings are not required to be sprinklered as they are under 4,500 square feet in size, so long as all Fire Code requirements relating to access are met, including a minimum 20 foot wide drive aisle. To that end, fire hydrants shall be provided in instances where they are not already in existence or in compliance with Fire Code. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested site and building plan for the Subject Property located on what is currently known as 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and the receiving of approvals for the related preliminary and final plat and establishment of a Planned Unit Development. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-005 for the Subject Property located within the 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard and comprised of Anticipated Permitting 1. The Applicant shall apply for and receive a City Land Disturbance permit prior to commencing any grading or land clearance activities on the site. 2. The Applicant shall obtain any required permits from Hennepin County for work in the County right-of-way. 3. The Applicant shall meet all requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission, including incorporation of water quality measures, as specified by the City. 4. The Applicant shall apply for and receive all applicable City building permits prior to commencing construction of any work. 5. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 6. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 7. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. Plat Review 8. Approval of the preliminary and final plats are contingent upon the addressing of comments by Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated August 4, 2020. 9. Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances (Platting). 10. Any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County. 11. Any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically regarding an updated certified abstract of title. 12. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County. App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 17 PUD / Site Plan Review 13. Any significant changes or modifications made to this request can only be made by an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development as approved by the City Council. 14. The Applicant shall enter into a Purchase Agreement with the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 15. The Applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 16. The Applicant shall enter into a Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City shall be executed prior to the issuance of any permits. 17. The Applicant shall enter into a Construction Management Plan and Agreement and provide a separate deposit for any non-compliance. Engineering Review 18. The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memorandum, dated August 4, 2020. a. Final grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer for City site and building plan approval and prior to the issuance of permits. Fire Inspector/ Building Official Review 19. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable 2015 Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any plan approval, including installation of a minimum 20-foot wide drive aisle. 20. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 21. The Applicant shall apply for a SAC determination from the Metropolitan Council. Said determination shall be forwarded to the City and paid for upon issuance of any City permits. 22. The Applicant shall work with the Building Official to address all minimum requirements for accessibility as they relate to units, parking, accessible routes, etc. 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. RECOMMENDATION The findings of fact, based on the staff’s review of the submitted plans support a recommendation for approval of the application. Based on the findings and the above-noted conditions of approval, staff recommends the following motion: Motion to approve a Resolution recommending the City Council approve Planning Commission Application No. 2020-005 for Preliminary and Final Plat, and site and building plan approvals, and the establishment of a Planned Unit Development for the Subject Property located in the 6900 block of Brooklyn Boulevard and known as 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the conditions of approval in the resolution. App. No. 2020-005 PC 08/13/2020 Page 18 Attachments Exhibit A-Planning Application No. 2020-005 and documentation, submitted by C Alan Homes, LLC, and dated June 15, 2020 Exhibit B- Public Hearing Notice, dated June 25, 2020, as published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and updated Public Hearing Notice and one page informational flyer. Exhibit C- 60 Day Review Extension Letter, dated July 7, 2020. Exhibit D- Memorandum and Exhibits, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, and dated August 4, 2020. Exhibit E- Memorandum, prepared by Building Official Dan Grinsteinner, and dated August 4, 2020. o O I< L 'b \\ ,,,,...... '+ For Office Use Only · -"="• I -�-C..,._..E,....N �l'E.R .· I ·. ·. AT }HE t,E�TER Date Received: Date Application Complete: Letter of Completeness: PC App No. 2020 Planning Commission Application Applicant Information: Name: C Alan Homes Address:5215 Terraceview Ln N Plymouth MN 55446 Office Phone: ________________ Cell: 763-228-1785 Email: nationalchamp55442@yahoo.com FAX:------------------ Property Owner Information* (if different from Applicant): Name: Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center Property Owner Address: ________________________________ _ Office Phone: __________________ Cell: _________________ _ Email: FAX: ________________ _ Project Information: Provide a general description of your project and request(s): Construction of Six Tri Plex Units and Associated Site Improvements. Address/Location of Property: 6900 Brooklyn Blvd north Addresses. See attachment sheet Legal Description of Property: ------------------------------- ✓ Application Type (Mark all that Apply) Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,050 Rezoning $1,050 Special/Interim Use Permit $250 Site and Building Plan Review $750 Planned Unit Development $1,800 Preliminary Plat $400 LW ' 1; ,;, � - ll I· • 1-.,. ll,; ,., Appeal Zoning Code Text Amendment Special/Interim Use Permit Amendment Variance Planned Unit Development Amendment ✓Final Plat $200 $500 $150 $200 $700 $200 IMPORTANT: All applications may be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of costs incurred by the City for filing, reviewing, and processing applications in the form of an escrow to the City. Application Fee: $3,150 Escrow Amount: $ 1000 Receipt No: 2020-005 06/15/2020 Exhibit A COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BENCHMARKS (BM) PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : Be n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 0 0 0 - C O V R . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 1 9 P M BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C000 CIVIL COVER SHEET BJL BJL PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR PROJECT CONTACTS OWNER CURT BREKKE C. ALEN HOMES 5215 TERRACEVIEW LANE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 (612) 282-7546 OFFICE CIVIL ENGINEER BENJAMIN LUCAS, PE SOLUTION BLUE, INC. 444 Cedar Street Saint Paul, MN 55101 (651)294-0038 OFFICE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS CONCERNING TYPE AND LOCATION OF UTILITIES HAS BEEN DESIGNATED UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL 'C'. THESE QUALITY LEVELS WERE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02. ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA". VICINITY MAP PROJECT LOCATIONS PROJECT LOCATION GENERAL SITE WORK NOTES 1. ALL STOCKPILES SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS OR DESIGNATED STAGING AREAS. 2. ALL CONTROL OF WATER AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE SEQUENCED, INSTALLED, AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 3. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANS FOR THE PROJECT. SEE EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN AND NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 4. ALL PUBLIC ROADWAYS AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS INSIDE THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL REMAIN OPEN FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 5. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHOWN IS BASED ON A SITE SURVEY PERFORMED BY W BROWN LAND SURVEYING IN 2020. GENERAL EARTHWORK NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF TREES/SHRUBS NOT MARKED FOR REMOVAL, INCLUDING MINIMIZING DISTURBANCE OF SOILS WITHIN THE TREES' DRIPLINE ZONES. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STOCKPILE MATERIAL INSIDE THE TREE DRIPLINES. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES NOT BEING MARKED FOR REMOVAL. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL DEMOLITION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORK WITH OWNER. 4. NO CONCRETE OR RUBBLE SHALL BE BACKFILLED ONSITE. BURNING OF DEBRIS ON SITE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED. 6900 BROOKLYN BLVD TRI-PLEX DEVELOPMENTBROOKLYN CENTER, MN SITE, GRADING, DRAINAGE, EROSION CONTROL, AND UTILITIES FOR 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H SHEET INDEX SHEET NO.DESCRIPTION C000 CIVIL COVER SHEET C100 EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALS C200 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS C210 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL - PHASE I C211 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL - PHASE II C300 CIVIL SITE PLAN C400 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C500 UTILITY PLAN C900 SITE DETAILS C901 UTILITY DETAILS C902 UTILITY DETAILS | | | | | | | | | 2.4 0. 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | REMOVE TREE (TYP.) CLEAR AND GRUBWOODED AREA DO NOT DISTURB NEIGHBORINGPROPERTIES DURING CLEARING &GRUBBING ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTORSHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE INFLICTEDTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. PROTECT POWERPOLE IN PLACE REMOVE 39 LF± CURB &GUTTER AND SAWCUTPAVEMENT 2' FROM CURB REMOVE & REPLACE 526 SF±PAVEMENT FOR UTILITYCONNECTION REMOVE 2,550 SF± SIDEWALK.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDEPROTECTED ACCESSIBLEPEDESTRIAN ROUTE APPROVEDBY THE CITY DURING PUBLICSIDEWALK DISTURBANCE PROTECTELECTRICAL MHIN PLACE PROTECT POWERPOLE IN PLACE PROTECT POWERPOLE & GUY WIREIN PLACE PROTECT BORDERFENCE IN PLACE REMOVE 32 LF± CURB &GUTTER AND SAWCUTPAVEMENT 2' FROM CURB REMOVE 64 LF± CURB &GUTTER AND SAWCUTPAVEMENT 2' FROM CURB COORDINATE AND CONFIRMDEMOLITION LIMITS IN ROWWITH CITY BEFORESTARTING WORK PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 1 0 0 - E C & R E M . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 1 9 P M ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE SBI N Know what's below.before you dig.Call R BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C100 EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALS BJL COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BENCHMARKS (BM) GENERAL SITE DEMOLITION AND CLEARING NOTES: LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY LINE REMOVALS LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR TOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR 802 800 CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN | DRAINTILE GAS LINE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE SWALE SPOT ELEVATION FLARED END SECTION OUTLET 800.00 RIP RAP SIGN & BOLLARD ADA PAVEMENT MARKING BUILDING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC FLARED END SECTION INLET CO LIGHT POLE SOIL BORINGS PARKING STALL COUNT CURB AND GUTTER REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT BUILDING REMOVAL SAWCUT REMOVE PIPE TREE PROTECTION REMOVAL REMOVAL CONCRETE REMOVAL BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 2 0 0 - E R O S . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 0 P M BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C200 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL DETAILS BJL COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H GENERAL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES: EROSION CONTROL EROS-01 EROSION CONTROL EROS-02 EROSION CONTROL 6" MINIMUM DEPTH EROS-06 EROSION CONTROL EROS-07 EROSION CONTROL EROS-08 EROSION CONTROL EROS-16 EROSION CONTROL EROS-22 EROSION CONTROL EROS-29 | | | | | | | | | 4.0 2.4 0. 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | CB INSERT TREE PROTECTIONRING CB INSERT CB INSERT SF SF SF SF S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F S F COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BENCHMARKS (BM) PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 2 0 0 - E R O S . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 0 P M ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE SBI N Know what's below.before you dig.Call R BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C210 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL - PHASE I BJL LEGEND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR TOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR 802 800 802 800 CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER DRAINTILE SWALE FLARED END SECTION OUTLET RIP RAP CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INLET PROTECTION BUILDING FLARED END SECTION INLET GUTTER OUT CURB SILT FENCE SF SOIL BORINGS DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW BIO-ROLL ITEM SILT FENCE UNIT LINEAR FEET QUANTITY 552 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQUARE FEET XXX CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE EACH 1 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE EACH 3 TREE PROTECTION RING EACH 1 PHASE I EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIES BIO LOG LINEAR FEET 370 BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H | | | | | | | | | 2.4 0. 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | 868 | CO | CO | CO | | | | | | | CO -4.5% -5.0% -4.8% -4.3% -4.9% -2.5% -1.2% -1.3% -0.9% -0.9% -2.6% 866 86 5 867 867 868 868 868 868 // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //// // // // // // // // CB INSERT TREE PROTECTIONRING CB INSERT CB INSERT CB INSERT CB INSERT SF S F S F S F S F S F S F S F PERIMETER CONTROL CAN BEREMOVED ONCE PROPERTY FENCEIS INSTALLED AND PERMANENTCOVER IS ESTABLISHED PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 2 0 0 - E R O S . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 0 P M ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE SBI N Know what's below.before you dig.Call R BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C211 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL - PHASE II BJL COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BENCHMARKS (BM) LEGEND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR TOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR 802 800 802 800 CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER DRAINTILE SWALE WETLAND FLARED END SECTION OUTLET RIP RAP CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INLET PROTECTION BUILDING FLARED END SECTION INLET GUTTER OUT CURB SILT FENCE SF SOIL BORINGS DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW BIO-ROLL ITEM SILT FENCE UNIT LINEAR FEET QUANTITY 450 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SQUARE FEET XXX CONSTRUCTION ROCK ENTRANCE EACH 1 INLET PROTECTION DEVICE EACH 5 TREE PROTECTION RING EACH 1 PHASE 2 EROSION CONTROL MATERIALS QUANTITIES BIO LOG LINEAR FEET 480 BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H PAVEMENT AREA 0.25 AC BUILDING AREA 7,050 SF SEEDING AREA 0.38 AC PRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 0.00 AC POST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS 0.55 AC AREA SUMMARY DISTURBED AREA 0.98 AC | | | | | | | | | 2.4 0. 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | CO CO CO CO // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //// // // // // // // // REMOVE AND REPLACE LEEAVE PAVEMENT SECTION INKIND FOR UTILITY WORK 10' BOULEVARD AND5' SIDEWALK INPUBLIC ROW TO BECONSTRUCTED BYOTHERS EMERGENCY EXITONLY SIGNAGE DO NOT ENTERSIGNAGE PROPERTY FENCE TOBE INSTALLED ALONGPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY FENCE TOBE INSTALLED ALONGPROPERTY LINE SEE REINFORCEDCONCRETE SECTIONFOR TRASH PAD SEE TRASHENCLOSURE DETAILON SHEET C900 LOCKABLE BOLLARDSFOR EMERGENCYVEHICLE TRAFFIC ONLY COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BENCHMARKS (BM) PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 3 0 0 - S I T E . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 0 P M ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE SBI N Know what's below.before you dig.Call R BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C300 CIVIL SITE PLAN BJL LEGEND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION CURB & GUTTER SWALE SIGN & BOLLARD ADA PAVEMENT MARKING STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONCRETE PAVING BUILDING LIGHT POLE SOIL BORINGS PARKING STALL COUNT GENERAL GEOMETRIC AND PAVING NOTES: SIGNAGE AND MARKING NOTES: SITE DATA BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H | | | | | | | | | 2.4 0. 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | 868 | CO | CO | CO | | | | | | | CO -4.5% -5.0% -4.8% -4.3% -4.9% -2.5% -1.2% -1.3% -0.9% -0.9% -2.6% 866.91 866.83 866.33 866.41 866.41 866.91 867.46 866.96867.46 866.96 867.38 866.88 867.41 866.67 866.54 867.32 866.76 866.02 865.53 867.52 867.63 867.13 867.20 867.70 867.70 867.20 867.80 867.30 867.30 867.22 867.72 867.80 867.58 866.93 867.16 867.55 867.21867.21867.19 867.21 867.35867.38 867.65 867.86 867.36 867.44 867.94 867.94 867.44 867.61 867.61 867.53 867.03 867.11 867.11 867.37 867.09 866.47 867.40 866.97 866.70 865.02 864.30MA 864.25± MA 864.50± MA 865.50± 866.64 MA 866.76± MA 867.00± 866.88 MA 864.82± MA 865.1± MA 867.66± MA 867.73± MA 867.70± MA 867.66± MA 867.27± MA 866.76± 866 86 5 867 867 868 868 868 868 // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //// // // // // // // // CB 02RE: 867.66IE: 862.93 2 1 7 L F 1 2 " S T M @ 1 . 5 % CONNECT TO EX STM CBIE: 859.50±FIELD VERIFY PIPE INVERT A B A B A B A B A B A B 12 LF 12" STM @ 1.5% CBMH 01RE: 867.20IE: 859.67 B B COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BENCHMARKS (BM) PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 4 0 0 - G R A D . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 1 P M ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE SBI N Know what's below.before you dig.Call R BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T 07/23/20 BJL C400 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN BJL LEGEND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR TOPOGRAPHIC INDEX CONTOUR 802 800 802 800 CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER DRAINTILE SWALE SPOT ELEVATION DRAINAGE SLOPE FLARED END SECTION OUTLET 1.0%800.00800.00 RIP RAP BUILDING FLARED END SECTION INLET GUTTER OUT CURB EOFEMERGENCY OVERFLOW SOIL BORINGS 800.00 BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H GENERAL GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES: KEY NOTES: | | | | | | | | | 2.4 0. 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | CO | CO | CO | | | | | | | CO // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //// // // // // // // // SAN MH 01RE: 867.47IE: 856.31 (NE)OE: 856.21 (W) 2" SAN SERVIE: 859.015' FROM HOUSE (TYP.) 2" WM SERVIE: 859.115' FROM HOUSE (TYP.) SAN CO 03RE: 866.97IE: 858.85 (NW)IE: 858.97 (SE)OE: 858.75 (SW) 8 LF 2" SAN SERV @ 2.0%5' FROM HOUSE 2" GV 8" x 2" TEE &8" 45° BEND CONNECT TO EX.SAN MHIE: 855.98±FIELD VERIFY INVERT 42 LF 2 " S A N @ 3 . 1 % 61 LF 2 " W M S E R V 1 9 2 L F 8 " S A N @ 0 . 5 % 8 " D I P W M WET TAP INTOEXISTING WATER MAIN 8" GV SAN CO 04RE: 867.59IE: 859.59 (NW)IE: 859.55 (SE)OE: 859.45 (SW) SAN CO 06RE: 867.87IE: 859.87 (NW)IE: 859.83 (SE)OE: 859.73 (SW) 2 LF 2" SAN SERV @ 2.0%5' FROM HOUSE 2" SAN SERVIE: 859.675' FROM HOUSE (TYP.) 4 LF 2" SAN SERV @ 2.0%5' FROM HOUSE 6 LF 2" SAN SERV @ 2.0%5' FROM HOUSE 2" SAN SERVIE: 859.055' FROM HOUSE (TYP.) 4 LF 2" SAN SERV @ 2.0%5' FROM HOUSE 6 LF 2" SAN SERV @ 2.0%5' FROM HOUSE 2" WM SERVIE: 859.775' FROM HOUSE (TYP.) 2" WM SERVIE: 860.055' FROM HOUSE (TYP.) 63 LF 2 " W M S E R V 63 LF 2 " W M S E R V 76 LF 2 " S A N @ 3 . 5 % 76 LF 2 " S A N @ 3 . 1 % 2" 45° BEND 2" GV 8" x 2" TEE 2" GV 8" x 2" TEE SAN MH 05RE: 867.43IE: 857.37 (NE)OE: 857.27 (NW) WYEIE: 856.77 SAN CO 02RE: 867.90IE: 857.47 (NE)OE: 857.37 (SW) 35 LF 2" SAN@ 3.1% 27 LF 8" SAN@ 0.9% COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N BENCHMARKS (BM) PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 5 0 0 - U T I L . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 1 P M ( IN FEET ) GRAPHIC SCALE SBI N Know what's below.before you dig.Call R BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C500 UTILITY PLAN BJL LEGEND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN || DRAINTILE GAS LINE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TELEPHONE SWALE FLARED END SECTION OUTLET RIP RAP BUILDING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC FLARED END SECTION INLET CO CO LIGHT POLE EOFEMERGENCY OVERFLOW SOIL BORINGS ELEV BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 9 0 0 - D E T L . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 1 P M BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C900 SITE DETAILS BJL BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H CIVIL SITE SITE-01 HEAVY DUTY (TRUCK ROUTE) NORMAL DUTY CIVIL SITE SITE-04 REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CIVIL SITE SITE-05 SITE-16 CIVIL SITE SITE-17 CIVIL SITE OUTFALL CURB & GUTTER INFALL CURB & GUTTER SITE-30 CIVIL SITE SECTION A-A A ISOMETRIC A SITE-33 CIVIL SITE SITE-31 CIVIL SITE EXPAN S I O N JOINT EXPAN S I O N JOINT SITE-37 CIVIL SITE PERSPECTIVE ADA-06 ACCESSIBLITY REQUIRED VEHICLE ID PARKING FOR VIOLATION UP TO $200 FINE VAN ACCESSIBLE SITE-51 CIVIL SITE COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 9 0 0 - D E T L . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 1 P M BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C901 UTILITY DETAILS BJL BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H SANITARY SEWER SAN-01 SECTION PLAN SANITARY SEWER SAN-09 SANITARY SEWER SAN-10 SANITARY SEWER SAN-11 SANITARY SEWER SAN-14 SANITARY SEWER SAN-16 WATER MAIN WAT-03 WATER MAIN WAT-04 WATER MAIN WAT-05 WATER MAIN WAT-06 WATER MAIN WAT-09 WATER MAIN WAT-13 COPYRIGHT © 2020 BY SOLUTION BLUE INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOLUTION BLUE PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION XX/XX/2019 XXXX # XX DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N PRELIMINARY CA D D U S E R : B e n j a m i n L u c a s F I L E : C : \ U S E R S \ B L U C A S \ D R O P B O X \ P R O J E C T S \ 2 0 0 5 0 3 - 6 9 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D 6 U N I T S - C A L L E N H O M E S \ W O R K I N G F I L E S \ C A D \ D W G \ P L A N S H E E T S \ C 9 0 0 - D E T L . D W G P L O T S C A L E : 1 : 1 P L O T D A T E : 7 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 2 1 P M BENJAMIN LUCAS XX.XX.2020 54265 200503 07/23/20 BJL C902 UTILITY DETAILS BJL BJL 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 69 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H STORM SEWER STM-03 STORM SEWER STM-04 STORM SEWER STM-05 STORM SEWER STM-08 STORM SEWER STM-12 STORM SEWER STM-18 B A B A 1 4 RIPRAP AT RCP OUTLETS CLASS II d50=6" CLASS III d50=9" CLASS IV d50=12" DIA. ROUND PIPE (IN.)L (FT.) 12" DEPTH RIPRAP (CU.YD.) 18" DEPTH RIPRAP (CU.YD.) 24" DEPTH RIPRAP (CU.YD.) 12 8 1.3 2.1 2.6 15 8 1.7 2.9 3.5 18 10 2.2 3.6 4.4 21 10 2.8 4.6 5.6 24 12 3.5 5.8 6.9 27 12 4.1 6.9 8.3 30 14 5.0 8.3 9.9 36 16 6.6 11.0 13.2 42 18 8.2 13.6 16.4 48 20 10.1 16.8 20.1 STORM SEWER STM-19 Scale:01 1/16" = 1' LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN EV-2 01 EV-1 04 SH-1 03 OR-1 01 L100 PLANTING PLAN NOTE: 1. ONLY PLANTS THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY'S POINT SYSTEM ARE SHOWN IN THIS PLAN. 2. THIS LAYOUT SHOULD EQUATE TO 102 POINTS, EXCEEDING THE REQUIRED 90 POINTS. EV-3 02 ST-1 01 SH-1 03 SH-1 03 SH-1 03 SH-1 03 SH-1 03 EV-1 03 EV-1 03 ST-2 01 EV-1 03 ST-3 03 EV-1 03 ST-1 03 EV-1 03 ST-2 03 EV-1 04 EV-3 02 PEBL PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION 07/27/20 PRELIM LANDSCAPE # 01 DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N PRELIM JONATHAN BLASEG 07.27.2020 56714 2023 07/23/20 JB JB JB 60 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 60 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H PEBL DESIGN 3243 Winpark Drive New Hope, MN 55427 t: 763.544.8002 www.pebl.design TREE, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES, SIZE AND LOCATION DOUBLE STRAND 14 GA. WIRE (3) PER TREE @ 120 DEGREE INTERVALS, TYPICAL 8' STEEL STAKE DOUBLE SHREDDED HW MULCH @ 3" DEPTH. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH ROOT FLARE 2"x2" WOOD STAKE SET AT ANGLE PREPARED PLANTING SOIL ROOT BALL, REMOVE CAGE AND PULL BACK TOP 13 OF BURLAP AND TWINE SUBGRADE EDGE CONDITION VARIES NOTE: TWO ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREE STAKING ARE ILLUSTRATED: IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION TO STAKE TREES. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING TREES IN A PLUMB POSITION THROUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING 2 x DIA. OF BALL MIN. FLAGGING, 1 PER WIRE 2 x DIA. OF BALL MIN. SHRUB, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES, SIZE AND LOCATION SUBGRADE EDGE CONDITION VARIES PREPARED PLANTING SOIL NOTE: HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL, SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING PIT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION DOUBLE SHREDDED HW MULCH @ 3" DEPTH. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH SHRUB STEM PRIMARY EDGE OF PLANTING BED SE C O N D A R Y E D G E O F P L A N T I N G B E D D DD D 12 D 12 D PERENNIAL OR GRASS, REFER TO PLANTING PLAN FOR SPECIES, SIZE AND LOCATION SUBGRADE EDGE CONDITION VARIES PREPARED PLANTING SOIL NOTE: HAND LOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINERIZED MATERIAL AND REMOVE ALL WIRE, PLASTIC, TAGS AND/OR SYNTHETIC MATERIAL FROM PLANTS PRIOR TO PLANTING D= TYPICAL ON CENTER (O.C.) SPACING AS INDICATED IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE DOUBLE SHREDDED HW MULCH @ 3" DEPTH. DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH PLANT STEM PLANT CENTER, TYPICAL 12 " M I N Scale:01 NTS PLANTING DETAIL: TREE Scale:02 NTS PLANTING DETAIL: SHRUBS Scale:03 NTS PLANTING DETAIL: FORB/GRS GENERAL NOTES 1. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING, UTILITIES, EROSION CONTROL, HARDCOVER/PARKING LAYOUT, PROJECT EXTENTS/ BOUNDARIES AND DISTURBED SOIL RESTORATION AREAS. 2. REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFORMATION. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATERIALS SUPPLIED. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS, WALKWAYS, TREES, LAWNS, AND OTHER SITE FEATURES DESIGNATED TO REMAIN DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. 9. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. 10. EXISTING CONTOURS, PAVEMENT, VEGETATION, UTILITIES AND OTHER FEATURES ARE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT MATERIAL SELECTIONS AND OTHER SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE PLANT MATERIAL SELECTIONS OR SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. 12. ALL PLANTING BEDS NOT CONTAINED BY STRUCTURES, CURB OR PAVING MUST BE EDGED WITH COMMERCIAL GRADE STEEL EDGING (5" H x 3 16"). 13. ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE SAVED AND PROTECTED (SEE L000) (EXISTING TREES ARE DRAWN AT NORMAL MATURE CROWN DIAMETER AND THIS DOES NOT REFLECT EXISTING CROWN SIZES, SEE SURVEY). PLANTING NOTES 1. PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO 'V' CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' FEET ABOVE THE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGING BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. 2. EXISTING BLVD TREES TO BE FENCED OFF AND PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION 3. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WARRANTIED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER OWNER/ARCHITECT'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 4. NO PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA 5. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL FOR ALL TURF AND SEEDED AREAS. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF 1/3 TOPSOIL, 1/3 SAND, AND 1/3 COMPOST IN ALL SHRUB AND PERENNIAL BEDS. 6. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE STAKED AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND/OR AS DIRECTED IN THE FIELD BY THE ARCHITECT. THE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING LOCATIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS. 8. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES FROM THE GROUND TO THE FIRST BRANCH. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE QUALITY, HEAVY WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1ST AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER MAY 1ST. 9. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (COMMON OR LATIN NOMENCLATURE) WITH A PLASTIC TAG WHICH SHALL NOT BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL. 10. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQ) IN ALL PLANTING BEDS FOLLOWED BY 3" OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TOPPING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 11. ALL SEEDED AREAS AND PLANTINGS WITHIN THE PROJECT SCOPE MUST BE IRRIGATED OR WATERED VIA TEMPORARY HOSE BIBS THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD. TURF/SOD NOTES 1. SOD ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND GRADING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 2. WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB ETC. 3. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR DRAINAGE SWALES, SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER SOD THOROUGHLY IMMEDIATELY AFTER INSTALLATION. THEN WATER SOD DAILY FOR THE FIRST 30 DAYS FOLLOWING INTALLATION. IRRIGATION NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN SPECIFICATIONS AS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT SODDED/SEED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. 2. SHRUBS AND PERENNIAL BEDS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH DRIP IRRIGATION. SOD TO BE IRRIGATED WITH SPRAY. RAIN GARDENS NOT TO BE IRRIGATED. 3. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIALS GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. 4. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROPER SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. 5. COORDINATE IRRIGATION SLEEVING LOCATIONS WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR. 6. RAIN SENSORS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN. 7. IRRIGATION LIMITS TO EXTEND TO STREET BACK OF CURB. IRRIGATION SHALL NOT OVER SPRAY PUBLIC SIDEWALKS OR PAVED SURFACES. L200 PLANTING DETAILS PEBL PROJECT NO: REVISION HISTORY DATE DESCRIPTION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE:REG. NO. CERTIFICATION 07/27/20 PRELIM LANDSCAPE # 01 DESIGNED: REVIEWED: PHASE: SUMMARY DRAWN: INITIAL ISSUE: NOT F O R CONS T R U C T I O N PRELIM JONATHAN BLASEG 07.27.2020 56714 2023 07/23/20 JB JB JB 60 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D , B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R , M N 60 0 0 B R O O K L Y N B L V D T R I - P L E X DE V E L O P M E N T C. A L E N H O M E S 52 1 5 T E R R A C E V I E W L A N E N O R T H PEBL DESIGN 3243 Winpark Drive New Hope, MN 55427 t: 763.544.8002 www.pebl.design Exhibit B City of Brooklyn Center | 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 | (763) 569-3300 | www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center will hold an on-line public hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2020, at approximately 7:00 p.m. Meeting materials can be accessed by visiting the City of Brooklyn Center’s website at: https://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/index.aspx?NID=255. A definite time for this application to be considered cannot be given as it will depend on the progression of the agenda items. This public hearing was originally scheduled for July 9, 2020; however, the public hearing was continued to allow additional time to address necessary easements along Brooklyn Boulevard and access off Brooklyn Boulevard. TYPE OF REQUEST: Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Site and Building Plan, and Preliminary and Final Plat Approvals PETITIONER: C Alan Homes PROPERTY OWNER: Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6921, 6927, 6933, and 6939 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 PROPERTY ID: 27-119-21-33-0014, 27-119-21-33-0013, 27-119-21-33-0012, and 27-119-21-33-0011 BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF PETITION: Consideration of requests that would allow for four EDA- owned lots to be developed into six triplexes and associated site improvements. As City Hall is currently closed to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we strongly encourage you to forward your comments and questions to gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us up until noon on the day of the meeting, or contact Ginny McIntosh at (763) 569-3319. Your comments will be included in the record and addressed as part of the meeting. Alternatively, you may participate in the Planning Commission meeting via Webex at: logis.webex.com Meeting Number (Access Code): 141 666 5172 Password: BCPC08132020Mtng By Phone: 1 (312) 535-8110 (Enter Access Code) Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at (763) 569-3300 to make arrangements. Respectfully, Ginny McIntosh City Planner/Zoning Administrator B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d 69th Avenue North Le e A v e n u e N o r t h Ma j o r A v e n u e N o r t h 70th Avenue North Ky l e A v e n u e N o r t h B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d 70th Avenue North C Alan Homes Triplex Project (6900 Block of Brooklyn Blvd) Applicant: C Alan Homes Request: Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Site and Building Plan, and Preliminary and Final Plat Approvals PROPOSED BROOKLYN BOULEVARD TRIPLEXES A series of new triplexes along Brooklyn Boulevard are being proposed for construction by C. Alan Homes (https://www.c-alanhomes.com/), a Minnesota based home design and construction company. Triplexes in each of the two locations will be arranged in a row and face the Boulevard. • Two locations totaling 39 new residential units, each proposed to have three bedrooms • Pedestrian access directly onto Brooklyn Boulevard and parking in the rear • Rents are estimated at $1850-$2200 per three-bedroom unit • 20% of the units will be Section 8 eligible 6900 Brooklyn Blvd (north of Slim’s) • .98 Acres • 6 buildings proposed • 18 total units • Each unit approx 1295 sq ft 6000 Brooklyn Blvd (south of the Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center) • 1.65 Acres • 7 buildings proposed • 21 total units • Each unit approx 1295 sq ft PROJECT LOCATIONS CO N T A C T Ginny McIntosh City Planner and Zoning Administrator City of Brooklyn Center 763.569.3319 gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us Renderings courtesy of C. Alan Homes LLC VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING Brooklyn Center Planning Commission Meeting Thursday, August 13th 7:00PM Visit https://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/ index.aspx?NID=255 July 7, 2020 C Alan Homes Attn: Terry Robertson and Curt Brekke 5215 Terraceview Ln N Plymouth, MN 55446 RE: City of Brooklyn Center, MN Planning Commission Application No. 2020-005 Request for Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Site and Building Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat Approvals for the 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard Mr. Robertson and Mr. Brekke, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to approve or deny a written request for certain land use actions within sixty (60) days from receipt of an application. Community Development Department records indicate the City received the above-referenced application and documentation on June 15, 2020, which means the City’s 60-day time limit would expire on August 14, 2020. By allowances granted under Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, Subd. 3(f), the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby providing official notice that the review period has been extended an additional sixty (60) days to allow the time necessary for City staff to prepare a resolution, including proposed conditions of approval, for review and action by City Council. The new deadline for completing the review and final action on this application is now October 13, 2020. As the public hearing has already been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post for the July 9, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the intent is to table the public hearing to provide sufficient time for you, the Applicant, to reconcile any adjustments to the site plan as relating to the additional easements necessary and determine the ability for driveway access off Brooklyn Boulevard from Hennepin County. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at (763) 569-3319 or email gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us. Sincerely, Ginny McIntosh City Planner and Zoning Administrator Exhibit C M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 17, 2020 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Site Plan & Plat Review – Brooklyn Boulevard 6900 Brooklyn Blvd Tri-plexes (Revised) Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed 6900 Brooklyn Blvd Tri-plexes (Planning Commission Application No. 2020-005): Preliminary Plans and plat submitted 07/23/2020 Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit. C000 Title Sheet 1. No comments. C100 Removals Plan 2. Right of Way along Brooklyn Blvd is owned by Hennepin County. Obtain necessary permits prior to work with in Hennepin County Right of Way. 3.Removal for utility connections in street shall extent curb to curb or to drive lane, no partial width removals. 4.Remove driveways and existing sidewalk adjacent to Brooklyn Blvd. 5. Protect existing bus stop sign along Brooklyn Blvd. Coordinate with Metro Transit to maintain bus service. 6. Remove existing service stubs to back of curb. 7.Missing existing street light in front of Lot 2, review/adjust location as required. C200, 202 and 202 – SWPPP Plans 8. Silt fence line type is hidden under property line type. C210 and 211 – Erosion Control Plans 9. No comments. C300 – Site Plan 10.Overall some of the linetypes/thickness makes text hard to read. 11.Site triangles at entrance/exits of development shall be free and clear of any obstructions. 12.Use City Detail for City driveway aprons. 13. Developer to provide 10’ boulevard with a 5’sidewalk and maintenance strip, matching the properties to the north and south. Review site ensure grades and site feature still fit. 14. Install signage to discourage residents/guest from trying to access Brooklyn Blvd. 15.Verify clearance from curb to existing street light at south exit. 16. Provide parallel sidewalk along back side of new curb if possible 17. Add sidewalk to proposed parking stalls along Lee. 18.All utilities to be within a drainage & utility easement. 19. Add No Right Turn sign on Brooklyn Blvd for south emergency access. 20. Show location of ADA stalls & access routes. Exhibit D PC Review Memo (Revised), August 17, 2020 21. Only 30 stalls shown on plans for 18 units (1.7/unit) – should provide 2.5 stalls per unit 22. 18’ wide drive lane is inadequate for 2-way traffic or meeting fire code. Work with Fire Inspector and Planning to establish lane width. Minimum fire access lane width is 20’ per code 23. Add bollards to west end of access lane and sign to prevent traffic from heading down dead end. C400 – Grading and Drainage Plan 24. All city roadway embankment material installed within pavement patching areas of existing roadways shall be placed in lifts not to exceed 8-inches and compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of maximum density regardless of depth below the final pavement surface. The Engineer shall take a minimum of three (3) compaction tests at varying elevations within the pavement patch area. 25. Applicant will coordinate with Hennepin County for road embankment material installed within Brooklyn Blvd Right of Way. 26. Storm sewer to be privately owned & maintained. 27. Incorporate permanent water quality BMP’s. 28. No catch basin manhole on Lee at location shown – install new catch basin manhole. 29. Can storm sewer be installed without encroaching on adjacent property? 30. Review SW corner of access drive for slopes & drainage. 31. Provide 1.0% minimum slope on bituminous pavement. 32. Add missing spot elevations. C500 – Utility Plan 33. 8” watermain to be looped out to Brooklyn Blvd. 34. Provide separate service line to each bldg. or provide joint maintenance agreements for service lines. 35. They don’t make 2” DIP, adjust notes accordingly. 36. Existing watermain on Lee Ave is 6”, adjust wet tap note accordingly. 37. All on-site utility lines to be privately owned and maintained. 38. Verify water service sizes. 39. Provide on-site fire hydrant. 40. No sanitary sewer manhole on Lee at location shown – install new manhole. 41. Minimum sanitary sewer service pipe size to be 4”. C900, 901, 902 and 903 – Details 42. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details must be included in the plan. 43. Update to use current City plates. Preliminary Plat/Final 44. Drainage & Utility easements shall be adjusted to cover all shared/common utility lines (sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer) along with any storm water management features. 45. City & County will review permanent rights of way and easement needs along Brooklyn Blvd (Plats to be reviewed by Hennepin County Engineer). 46. Provide required separate cross access/cross parking easements. 47. Provide required separate trail & sidewalk easements. PC Review Memo (Revised), August 17, 2020 48. Change Bloomington to Brooklyn Center in signature areas. 49. It appears that all property is Torrens, adjust Document block and signature blocks accordingly 50. Need working copy of the preliminary plat to show all vacated easements, proposed easements, existing and proposed utilities and provide all easement documents for the City for review. A 10’ drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on the plat around the entire perimeter of the site. An additional utility easement must be dedicated on the plat for the private water main and sanitary to allow for maintenance access per the Developers Agreement. 51. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing easements. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated, and proposed easements must be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final platting process. The formal vacation document must contain an easement vacation description and depiction exhibit signed by a professional surveyor. 52. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Planner and City Attorney for review at the time of the preliminary plat application (within 30 days of preliminary plat application). Additionally, this will need to stay current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of the release of final plat. 53. The applicant is responsible for coordinating site development plans with Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications and other private utility companies. Any further easements necessary to provide utility service to the proposed site development shall be dedicated to the public for public use with the final plat. Miscellaneous 54. See redlines for additional site plan comments. 55. Provide landscape and irrigation plan. 56. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 57. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision.(see attached template letter) The engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). 58. The total disturbed area is less than one acre; an NPDES permit is not required. In addition, the total disturbed area is less than 1 acre, per Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission rules, the applicant should incorporate water quality measures. 59. Provide traffic memo highlighting a review sight lines and site distances for exiting the site. Documenting the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed site and a discussion on the parking needs on a daily use and for guest parking for events and holidays. PC Review Memo (Revised), August 17, 2020 60. The City has submitted the plans to Hennepin County for review. Applicant must meet requirements from Hennepin County’s review. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 61. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended by the City Engineer. 62. A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 63. During construction of the site improvements, and until the permanent turf and plantings are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $2,500 that the City can draw upon on a monthly basis. 64. A construction management plan and agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibilit y p rovisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non-compliance provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting: 65. A City of Brooklyn Center Land Disturbance Permit is required. 66. Applicant to obtain required permits to work in County right-of-way. 67. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 68. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 69. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. 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. City of Brooklyn Center | 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 | (763) 569-3300 | www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Community Development 763-569-3330 Direct August 4, 2020 C Alan Homes Development Building/Fire comments Upon review of documents provided for the development of multi-family dwelling units located at 6000 Brooklyn Blvd & 6900 Brooklyn Blvd. Items that are listed below need to be addressed: 1)A SAC determination shall be provided by MET Council with a determination letter presented to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. 2)City SAC /WAC fee is based on a determination of MET Council. If any MET Council SAC fee is applied to a structure. City SAC/WAC is applied on the Sewer and Water permit application as per Fee table located on back. Multi-family “Less than 5 acres” $4500 per multi-family structure in addition to state surcharge. 3)The buildings are considered a group R2. Per Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI A117.1-2009 with MN Amendments 1107.6.2.2.1. In Group R2 occupancies containing more than seven (7) dwelling units, at least 2 percent but not less than one of the units shall be a Type A unit. All group R2 units within a contiguous parcel of land development, irrespective of lot lines and public rights-of-way within the development, shall be considered to determine the total number of units and the required number of Type A units. a.Each development shall be provided with (1) Type A unit. b.The remaining units are NOT required to be Type B units as there is not (4) four or more dwelling units in a single structure per Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI A117.1-2009 with MN Amendments 1107.6.2.2.2. 4)At least (1) one accessible route within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking, accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalk to the accessible building entrance served Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI A117.1-2009 with MN Amendments 1104.1. An exterior accessible route with a slope not steeper than 1:20 that are part of an accessible route shall be (48”) forty-eight inches minimum in width per Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI A117.1-2009 with MN Amendments 403.5.4. a.Both sites that are to be provided with an accessible Type A unit shall have an exterior accessible route be provided to the main entrance of the dwelling unit. Exhibit E City of Brooklyn Center | 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 | (763) 569-3300 | www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org 5) Accessible parking requirements and space for Group R2 occupancies shall be provided with not less than 1 accessible parking space and access aisle. 6) Buildings are NOT required to sprinklered per the Special Fire Protection systems subp. 2 adopted by the City of Brooklyn Center or by MNBC & MNFC 903.2.8 when a group R2 building area is less than 4,500 square feet. 7) Fire Department access roads that have a dead end shall not be in excess of (150’) one hundred-fifty feet or shall be provided with an approved area for turning around per MNFC 503.2.5. Exception where a dead-end road serves a Group R building that are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with NFPA, the maximum dead-end length distance is permitted to be increased up to (300’) three hundred feet. 8) Fire hydrants shall be provided, if not already existing and compliant if a building within the jurisdiction is more than 300 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road as measured by and approved route around the exterior of the facility or buildings. On site fire hydrants and mains shall be provide where required by the fire code official per MNFC 507.5.1. Dan Grinsteinner Building Official City of Brooklyn Center 763-569-3313 1 583218v1BR291-4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ____ day of __________, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as part of the regular City Council meeting to consider an Ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain lands located along Brooklyn Boulevard. 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. 2020- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LANDS LOCATED ALONG BROOKLYN BOULEVARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Rezoning. Chapter 35, Section 35-1240 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 35-1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following property is hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District Zoning Classification: 12. The following properties are designated as PUD-N/MU (Neighborhood Mixed Use) District: Robertson & Brekke’s Brookyln Boulevard First Addition, Lots 1 through 7, Block 1. Robertson & Brekke’s Brookyln Boulevard Second Addition, Lots 1 through 6, Block 1. Adopted this day of , 2020. _____________________________ Mike Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication 2 583218v1BR291-4 Effective Date (Note: Strikeout text indicates matter to be delete, double underline text indicates new matter.) C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector BY:G inny M cI ntosh, City P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator S U B J E C T:P lanning Commission A pplica0on No. 2020-007, S ubmi6ed by Wayne Brown of W K Brown, L L C for S ite and Building P lan and P lanned Unit D evelopment A mendment A pprovals for the S ubject P roperty L ocated at 2590 F reew ay Boulevard and Know n C ommonly as Jammin' W ings Res taurant B ackground: Wayne Brown of W K Brown, L L C (“the A pplicant ”) is reques 0ng rev iew and considera0on of s ite and building plan and P lanned Unit D evelopment amendment approvals that would allow for the re-branding and expansion of an exis0 ng restaurant s pace into a new three story, approximately 14,000 s quare foot res taurant with ev ent center and r elated s ite improvements at 2590 F r eew ay Boulev ar d (“the S ubject P roperty ”). The A pplicant propos es to cons truct two addi0onal levels on top of the exis0ng J ammin’ W ings Restaurant. A s outlined in the s ubmi6ed narra0 ve, the propos al would res ult in the cons truc0on of the Palm G rove Entertainment Center and the re-branding of J ammin’ W ings Res taur ant to Johnny ’s I talian S teakhous e and Lounge. The propos ed E ntertainment Center w ould include event room s pace, a w edding chapel, rooFop terrace, and a year-round greenhous e. A s proposed, the ev ent rooms would be available for us e between the hours of 7 a.m. and 2 a.m. A public hearing no0ce w as published in the Brooklyn C enter S un Post on July 30th, 2 0 2 0 . Mail no0 ces w ere also sent out to the neighboring proper0es and C ity s taff ins talled a “D evelopment P ropos al U nder Review ” s ign on the S ubject P roperty for addi0onal no0fica0on to the public. City s taff ini0 ally receiv ed no public comment; how ever, j us t prior to the public hear ing on A ugus t 1 3 , 2020, City s taff received email communica0on fr om the Country I nn and S uites , w hich is connected to the S ubject P roperty by breezew ay. A lthough management noted that they like the A pplicant and s hould like to have the addi0onal bus iness of the event center and new restaurant, the exis 0 ng restaurant (J ammin’ W ings ) has res ulted in numerous complaints from hotel guests and police calls that they noted have “ruined their bus iness.” A s s uch, they s tated that they are unable to support the plans as propos ed. S ee a6ached for a copy of the email received and a s eries of complaints s ubmi6ed fr om gues ts between M ay 2 0 1 9 and March 2020. A v ideo was als o forwarded to C ity s taff and has been noted for the r ecor d. C heri S ingleton, A s s is tant G eneral M anager at the B rook lyn Center C ountry I nn and S uites w as at the vir tual P lanning Commission mee0ng and noted that, w ith the new development, parking w ould be ev en 0ghter than it is curr ently, and there would be no w ay to control noise and disturbance to hotel guests. Kris0ne Week s , r es ident, stated that the email pr ovided by C ountry I nn and S uites w as well-w ri6en, and as a resident, she agrees with the hotel’s v iewpoint. S he added that it w ould be great to have an event center, but nois e and drinking in the parking lot w ill con0nue to happen no ma6er w hat kind of precau0ons are taken. S he noted she agrees that this w ill ruin the hotel’s busines s . The P lanning C ommis s ion engaged in a lengthy convers a0on w ith A pplicant Way ne Brow n (W K Brow n, L L C), and as ked him to addres s the allega0ons noted in the email from C ountr y I nn and S uites regarding the night club environment. M r. Br ow n noted that there is no inten0 on of having a night club, as the new proposal would be an ev ent and mee0ng space. H e added that the new us e w ould s olv e any current problems, and becaus e of the plans to br ing in a new res taurant and event center, he does not w ant to jeopardiz e his investment with more problems. A ddi0onal ques 0ons were pos ed regarding the mus ic and nois e that w ould come off the proposed rooFop terrace, and the dis turbance of hotel gues ts , as w ell as people loitering in the parking lot aFer func0ons . Q ues0ons w ere further pos ed regarding any proposed D J nights, and, s hould the ev ent center bus iness model change (e.g. mov e aw ay from w eddings , mee0ng room r entals ), what might trans pire. The A pplicant w as als o as ked to addres s concerns about safety and nois e in the parking lot and w hat resolu0 on might be provided to addres s thos e problems to be6er rela0ons with the adjacent Country I nn and S uites . The P lanning C ommis s ioners also inquired as to w hether the City w as prov iding any s ubs idy, and w hat impacts there might be to the Earle Brown H eritage C enter and future development at the O pportunity S ite. T h e P lanning C ommis s ion ul0 mately made a recommenda0on to r ecommend approval (5-2) of P lanning Commission A pplica0on N o. 2020-007 for approval of a s ite and building plan and P lanned Unit D evelopment amendment to allow for the re-branding of J ammin’ W ings to J ohnny ’s S teakhous e and Lounge and expans ion of the space to allow for the crea0 on of the Palm G r ove Entertainment C enter at 2590 F reeway Boulevard. Following the P lanning C ommis s ion M ee0ng and w ith res pect to the comments provided concer ning the involvement and input of the Police D epartment, C ity staff r eached out and obtained a formal s afety and s ecurity as s es s ment memorandum from Becky B oie, Crime P rev en0 on S pecialis t, and dated S eptember 3, 2020. S ee a6ached. A s a res ult of the comments prov ided, an addi0onal condi0on has been included in the a6ached C ity C ouncil Resolu0on, noted as condi0on #2.f. A6ached for addi0onal r ev iew and cons idera0 on are copies of the A ugus t 13, 2020 s taff report, an excerpt of the draF P lanning Commission minutes, and a draF copy of the Council resolu0on. B udget I ssues: None to cons ider at this 0me. S trategic Priories and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip0on U pload D ate Type P C S taff Report and Exhibits - 2590 F reeway Boulevard - J ammin' W ings - Palm G rove Expansion 9/8/2020 Backup M aterial Res olu0on - D is pos i0on of P lanning Commission A pplica0on No. 2020-007 9/8/2020 Resolu0on Le6er D raF Excerpt of A ugust 13, 2020 P lanning C ommis s ion M inutes (P C A pplica0on No. 2020-007)9/8/2020 Backup M aterial C P T E D A s s essment M emo-Becky Boie-Palm G rove Expansion (09.03.2020)9/8/2020 Backup M aterial C ountry I nn and S uites Email-A6achment (08.13.2020)9/8/2020 Backup M aterial C ountry I nn and S uites - G uest C omplaints (05.2019 - 03.2020)9/8/2020 Backup M aterial ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: August 13, 2020 Application No. 2020-007 Applicant: Wayne Brown of W K Brown, LLC Location: 2590 Freeway Boulevard Request: (1) Planned Unit Development Amendment and (2) Site and Building Plan INTRODUCTION Wayne Brown of W K Brown, LLC (“the Applicant”) is requesting consideration of site and building plan and Planned Unit Development amendment approvals that would allow for the expansion of an existing restaurant space into a new three story, approximately 14,000 square foot restaurant with event center and related site improvements at 2590 Freeway Boulevard (“the Subject Property”). Refer to Exhibit A. Although the site and building plan request does not require a public hearing, the request for issuance of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development requires that a public hearing be scheduled. A public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on July 30th, 2020. Mail notices were also sent out to neighboring properties (Exhibit B) and City staff installed a “Development Proposal Under Review” sign on the Subject Property for additional notification to the public. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Site Data Map 1. Subject Property • Application Filed: 07/14/2020 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 09/12/2020 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 2 2040 Land Use Plan: Commercial Neighborhood: Shingle Creek Current Zoning: Planned Unit Development-Industrial Park (PUD-I1) District Site Area: 3.96 acres Surrounding Area Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Parks, Recreation, Open Space Public Open Space (O1) District Shingle Creek South Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Interstate 94/694 East Commercial Planned Unit Development- Industrial Park (PUD/I1) District Country Inn and Suites (Hotel) West Industrial/Utility Industrial Park (I1) District Shingle Creek Corporate Center Setback Standards: The typical minimum building setback requirements for an I1-zoned property are as follows: Front Yard: 50 feet Rear Yard: 25 feet Side Interior Yard: 10 feet Corner Side Yard: 50 feet The submitted proposal contemplates the vertical expansion of the existing Jammin’ Wings Restaurant space, located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard (“the Subject Property”) to accommodate what would be known as the Palm Grove Event Center. Said expansion would also result in a small 40 foot expansion to the west, which would absorb the footprint of an existing outdoor patio area. As proposed, the approximate identified setbacks are as follows: Front Yard: ~90 feet Rear Yard: ~82 feet Side Interior Yard: ~276 |~54 feet Corner Side Yard: N/A Comprehensive Plan The future land use designation for the Subject Property is “Commercial.” Per the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, these planned commercial uses are generally located along the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, on the frontage of I-94, and along Highway 252. Uses in these areas include hotels, restaurants, auto sales, and other small retail uses. The Plan further notes that there are several major roadway corridors that provide additional opportunities for retail and commercial service users. As the City is bisected by Highway 100 and Interstates 94 and 694, which runs due south of the Subject Property, there are greater opportunities to offer destination type developments given the exceptional regional access near key interchanges. A recent example is the development of TopGolf, which opened in 2018. TopGolf is a regional entertainment/service destination off Interstates 94 and 696 and Trunk Highway 252 that provides opportunities to meet, play golf, eat, and enjoy a drink. BACKGROUND Development of the Subject Property was originally approved under Planning Commission Application No. 96012 and memorialized under City Council Resolution No. 96-155 (Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 96012 Submitted by T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc.). Said application requested the re-zoning of a 13.09 acre site from I-1 (Industrial Park) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 3 Development-Industrial/Park) District, and the approval of a site and building plan to develop a Country Inn and Suites Hotel, along with a T.G.I. Fridays (the Subject Property), and another restaurant that was never constructed. The Planning Commission Information Sheet prepared for Application No. 96012 provided a detailed analysis of restaurant and hotel uses in the I-1 zoning district and noted that these were not acknowledged uses in the I-1 zoning district. Up until 1990, restaurants and hotels were acknowledged as special uses in the I-1 zoning district. A concern of the City around this time was that convenience food restaurants and some other uses were inappropriate for development on particular properties within the I-1 zoning district, and while the City was not necessarily opposed to restaurant and hotel uses at this location, there were concerns that the Special Use Permit process would not provide sufficient protection of the interests and concerns of the City. As the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) process was also established around this time, it was determined that the PUD process would be appropriate for considering anything other than light industrial or service/office land uses for I-1 District zoned properties (Exhibit C). REQUESTS SITE AND BUILDING PLAN The Subject Property, located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard, and currently known as Jammin’ Wings Restaurant, was originally developed as a 299 seat, 6,880 square foot T.G.I. Friday’s Restaurant and is attached via breezeway to an 85-room Country Inn and Suites hotel. A second, 250 seat, 6,400 square foot restaurant was originally proposed to be attached to the east side of Country Inn and Suites; however, it was never constructed and currently serves as an overflow lot for BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir (Hindu temple), which is located to the east on Freeway Boulevard. Building The Applicant proposes to construct two additional levels on top of the existing Jammin’ Wings Restaurant. As outlined in the submitted narrative, the proposal would result in the construction of the Palm Grove Entertainment Center and the re-branding of Jammin’ Wings Restaurant with Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse and Lounge (https://johnnysitaliansteakhouse.com/), which is based out of Des Moines, Iowa, and has other locations throughout the Midwest, Texas, and Colorado. The proposed addition would include event space, a wedding chapel, rooftop terrace, and a year round greenhouse. The existing main floor would house a 7,000 square foot kitchen, bar, and restaurant catering and service areas. The proposed Johnny’s Steakhouse would operate between the hours of 11 a.m. and 10 p.m. and have a seating capacity of 200 patrons, which would be almost 100 less patrons than the current Jammin’ Wings Restaurant seats for. As proposed, an existing 40-foot wide outdoor patio would be absorbed into the proposed expansion of the facility and would house one of the event rooms, two sets of stairwells, and an elevator. As proposed, there are also plans to install solar panels on the roof of the existing restaurant space that would not be consumed by the proposed two-floor addition. The newly proposed second floor would be approximately 5,000 square feet and offer event rooms for gatherings such as business conventions, corporate meetings, trade shows, weddings, bar mitzvahs, bridal and baby showers, and the like. As the Subject Property is directly connected to the Country Inn and Suites, the hope is that the Applicant and neighboring hotel would form a symbiotic partnership in allowing guests to book at the hotel and walk over to the event center without ever going outside. As proposed, the event center would be available for use between the hours of 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. The second floor would also feature a year round greenhouse where farm to table fresh herbs would be grown. ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 4 The approximately 2,300 square foot third floor would provide an approximately 1,900 square foot rooftop terrace with an approximately 450-square foot area for indoor seating, a bar, and an office. This floor would also offer space to hold year round weddings and commitment ceremonies. Although unofficial, the City does reference a set of design guidelines when reviewing site and building plan applications. These guidelines are based on the Shingle Creek Crossing Architectural Design Guidelines, which were approved in 2011. These guidelines strive to have at least 50-percent of all four sides (wall surfaces) of new buildings constructed with Class I materials, with the remaining surfaces to be constructed of Class II materials. Given that the building was constructed in 1997, it is not expected of the Applicant to entirely achieve these minimum requirements; however, it is stressed that the Applicant be thoughtful in the redesign and expansion of the existing restaurant space. The Applicant should also be cognizant of the neighboring Country Inn and Suites to ensure that the two uses, which are connected by breezeway, are complementary to one another. Class I materials include: brick or acceptable brick-type material, marble; granite; other natural stone or acceptable natural looking stone; textured cement stucco; copper; porcelain, glass; architectural textured concrete pre-cast panels; and other materials including masonry units with enhanced detailing such as patterns, textures, color, dimension, banding, and brick inlay, as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Class II materials include: exposed aggregate concrete panels; burnished concrete block; integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block; cast-in-place concrete; artificial stucco (e.g., E.I.F.S., Drivit); artificial stone; fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch; canvas or vinyl awnings; prefinished metal; and other materials not listed elsewhere, as approved by the City Planning Commission and City Council. The adjacent Country Inn and Suites is constructed with a neutral vinyl lap siding and wood front entrance. The Subject Property was constructed with a combination of brick and Drivit, which is an insulating finishing system typically used as cladding on building exteriors. It is often known as “synthetic stucco” or generally, EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish System). As proposed, the Applicant intends to continue the existing design with brick and EIFS (stucco panels). The main floor façade would feature new vinyl awnings to reflect the re-branding of the restaurant into an Italian steakhouse. Refer to Image 1 below. Image 1. Architectural Renderings of Proposed Event Center and Restaurant. ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 5 City staff did request that the Applicant seek opportunities to break up any blank walls (e.g. north wall) with other textures or windows where possible. The Applicant should submit a breakdown of Class I and Class II materials for each building elevation as part of any permit submittal should the requests be approved. Access and Parking The Planned Unit Development approved in 1996 for the Subject Property, adjacent Country Inn and Suites hotel, and restaurant pad site (BAPS overflow lot) initially required a minimum of 381 parking stalls across all three lots within the PUD. The Subject Property was originally approved with 157 on-site parking spaces for the T.G.I. Friday’s (299 seats and 13 employees at maximum shift—one space for every two seats and two employees). To staff knowledge, the existing Jammin’ Wings Restaurant has since maintained the 299 seats. The Country Inn and Suites was approved with 94 spaces (85 units and 9 employees—one space for each unit and one space for each employee on any one shift), and the restaurant pad site required 130 spaces (250 seats and ten employees—one space for every two seats and two employees). The site plan initially called for the installation of 493 parking spaces, which was well above the minimum parking requirement. The proposal for the Palm Grove Event Center and restaurant would require a minimum of 285 parking spaces assuming a maximum of 730 occupants (this assumes the restaurant, and all event room space is fully occupied). An anticipated maximum number of employees was not provided and would need to be provided at time of any permit application to determine overall maximum seating occupancy. Refer to Table 1 below. ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 6 Table 1. Minimum Parking Requirements for Subject Property by Use/Employees on Shift Room Occupancy (per Seating Plan) Maximum # on Shift Minimum Parking Restaurant 206 (1 space for every 2 seats) TBD 103 Event Room #1 190 (1 space for every 3 seats) TBD 64 Event Room #2 162 (1 space for every 3 seats) TBD 54 Roof Terrace 136 (1 space for every 3 seats) TBD 46 Indoor Seating (Roof Terrace) 36 (1 space for every 2 seats) TBD 18 TOTAL PARKING NEEDS: 285 spaces The Subject Property currently has 198 parking spaces on-site, which is obviously less than the minimum required on-site parking if the entirety of the building were at maximum seating occupancy; however, the likelihood of that happening seems rare, and even so, it is likely that at least some of the event center and restaurant guests would be guests of the adjacent Country Inn and Suites hotel as well. As a condition of approval for the aforementioned PUD, a Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement was recorded between the Country Inn and Suites and former T.G.I. Fridays (Subject Property). Refer to Exhibit D. This Agreement outlined non-exclusive rights to utilize the areas of its lots that have been improved for vehicular access and parking purposes. Said Agreement also outlined which party was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the aforementioned parking and access areas, and noted that the Agreement runs with the land. This Agreement cannot be amended or terminated without the express written approval of the City of Brooklyn Center. This Agreement expressly notes that the vehicular access and parking areas of each lot may be jointly used by others. With that said, and given that the third lot contemplated under the approved PUD (restaurant pad site owned by BAPS) is not contemplated in the Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement, City staff reviewed the current parking situation for the adjacent Country Inn and Suites to ensure that, should the proposed Palm Grove Event Center and restaurant ever be at maximum seating occupancy, the Country Inn and Suites would have sufficient on-site parking. In reviewing the submitted site plan, City staff realized the third property line for the restaurant pad site (BAPS overflow lot) was not identified. City staff compared aerials and property lines to determine the available on-site parking for Country Inn and Suites. Per staff review, the Country Inn and Suites has 133 parking stalls on site—their use requires a minimum of 94 parking spaces, leaving them with an overage of 39 parking spaces. Based on the breakdown of spaces and assigned uses, the proposed Palm Grove Event Center and restaurant would be able to provide no more than 237 parking spaces if the 39 additional parking spaces on the Country Inn and Suites property were utilized. This calculation does not account for guests of the Country Inn and Suites who might be in attendance at a Palm Grove Event Center event or dining at the proposed new restaurant. The BAPS lot (restaurant pad site) has sufficient dimensions to provide 152 parking spaces; however, they are not included in the Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement and their lot appears to be in need of re-striping as their parking lines are faded. ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 7 Lighting | Trash |Screening The submitted application did not provide a photometric plan for the Subject Property. The Applicant will need to provide lighting fixture specifications and a photometric plan for any anticipated new lighting. The Applicant will need to comply with Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Code, which requires “all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices.” Additionally, glare shall not emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Code further specifies that lighting shall not exceed ten (10) foot candles when measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties. There are no residential properties in proximity to the Subject Property. The Applicant should ensure that any lighting provided that faces the Country Inn and Suites is concentrated downwards and minimized where possible to ensure there are not conflicts with those staying in the hotel rooms facing the proposed roof terrace, etc. City staff will require sufficiently spaced and functional lighting throughout the parking lot to ensure the safety of patrons of the restaurant and event center. All entrances and exits shall be provided with adequate wall pack or pedestrian level lighting. In the Planning Commission Information Sheet for the original approval, it was noted that a trash enclosure area was indicated to the rear of the former T.G.I. Friday’s Restaurant (Subject Property), but no trash enclosure area was indicated for the Country Inn and Suites. Per City staff review, the enclosure still exists in this location and on the Subject Property. Per the Applicant, it appears the Subject Property (Jammin’ Wings Restaurant) and Country Inn and Suites share trash facilities. The Applicant should work with Country Inn and Suites to determine if the existing trash enclosure will be sufficient given the proposed expansion of their operation and additional trash needs due to food waste, etc. Additional garbage and recycling pickups or revisions to the existing enclosure may be required. The Applicant will also want to ensure that the top of the trash enclosure is not visible to patrons of the proposed event center or hotel room guests located on the upper levels of either facility. Any trash enclosures or other ground mounted equipment (e.g. transformers, mechanical) shall be effectively screened from adjacent pubic rights-of-way and properties by a solid wall or fence constructed of wood, masonry, or other durable materials that are complementary to the materials used on the primary building. Per Chapter 12 (Building Maintenance and Occupancy) of the City Code, roof-mounted equipment shall also be screened from view through use of parapets, wall/fencing materials, or paint to match surrounding colors when visible from the public right-of-way. Landscaping No landscape plan was submitted as part of the application; however, a landscape plan was submitted under Planning Commission Application No. 96012 and called for 763.6 points across the entire 13.09 acre PUD site, which encompasses three (3) lots. City staff requests that the Applicant review the on-site landscaping for any missing and dying plants and replace as needed. City staff will require an updated landscape plan as part of any permit submittal that identifies any missing plantings and plans to replace with like plantings or replacements. All new plantings will need to meet minimum caliper and height ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 8 requirements as outlined in the City’s Landscape Point System Policy. ENGINEER REVIEW Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg conducted a review of the application submittal and documents. Comments regarding this application can be found in the memorandum to city staff dated July 31, 2020 and attached hereto (Exhibit E). It should be noted that some of the outlined conditions may be applicable at time of approval for future land disturbance (alteration) or building permits. Per the memo, City staff is in need of more information on the plans regarding the storm pond and the proposed installation of a fountain. The Applicant is responsible for the storm water pond and any ongoing/future maintenance the pond may require per an existing maintenance agreement on file. Additional detailing, such as an ADA accessible route to the proposed overlook, location of fountain power and controls, and structural engineer certified plans, are required should plans for the fountain and overlook move forward. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the Applicant will need to verify the existing pond, and specifically, the area proposed for improvements, is not in the wetlands. This would require coordination with the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission’s engineer to ensure the application meets all requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act for work within the pond. Per the information sheet provided with the original approvals, it was noted that the Subject Property is affected by both wetland and floodplain in the areas adjacent to Shingle Creek, which may impact the viability of having a fountain and overlook. At the time of report, it was noted that 4.84 acres of the proposed 13.09 acre site was wetland and a storm drainage and water management plan was submitted to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission at that time. BUILDING OFFICIAL | FIRE INSPECTOR REVIEW Building Official Dan Grinsteinner provided a series of comments in a memo on August 5, 2020 (Exhibit F). Per the memo provided, the Applicant will need to submit for a SAC (Sewer Accessibility Charge) from the Metropolitan Council. No permits will be issued until a determination is received and any applicable charges paid for upon issuance of permits. A structural engineering assessment of the existing roof is required to ensure it is capable of supporting the proposed two floors per Minnesota Building Code Chapter 16, and any additions to the existing building (if not already sprinklered) will be required to sprinkler per Special Fire Protection Systems, Subpart 2 adopted by the City of Brooklyn Center. The Applicant will need to ensure sufficient accessible parking is provided with not less than the minimum required spaces and access aisles. This is particularly important as the addition of the outdoor patio some years ago resulted in the removal of all on-site accessible parking, with the exception of what appears to be one (1) space. The curb located at the southwest corner of the building and around the proposed addition shall be painted yellow and marked with signage indicating “No Parking-Fire Lane” as required by the Fire Code Official to prevent any obstructions to emergency vehicle fire apparatus. SIGNAGE The Applicant has indicated a desire to install a 200 square foot dynamic (digital) message sign on the south elevation of the building, as well as a new wall sign and canopy sign for the restaurant. Detailed plans and dimensions, with the exception of the dynamic sign, were not provided; therefore, City staff is ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 9 unable to provide a comprehensive review of the requests. The dynamic sign would provide advertising for the event center and Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse. City staff is not necessarily opposed to said dynamic sign, although it may be slightly larger than the maximum allowed sign area noted below; however, it is requested that the Applicant work with the City to allocate a certain percentage of screen time for public messaging (e.g. City specific, public/emergency alerts) due to its visibility off Interstates 94 and 694. It should be noted that off-premise advertising, defined as “a sign that directs attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment not exclusively related to the premises on which the sign is located or to which it is affixed,” is currently prohibited in the City of Brooklyn Center. In addition, dynamic signage cannot provide any flashing or the like to display messaging, and messages must remain constant for a minimum of two (2) seconds. The Applicant should review the proposed 200 square foot sign size to ensure it fits the scale of the building. Chapter 34 (Signs) permits dynamic messaging in the C2 (Commercial), I1 (Industrial Park), and I2 (General Industry) Districts of the City. As the Subject Property has an underlying zoning of I1 District, any wall signage, including the proposed dynamic messaging and restaurant wall sign, would be subject to Section 34-140.3.A (Permitted Signs Requiring a Permit-Commercial (C2) and Industrial (I1 and I2) Districts). Wall signage in these instances would be permitted on each wall of a building, provided the aggregate area of signage does not exceed 15% of the area of the wall supporting the signs. Canopy signage is also permitted under Chapter 34 of the City Code and is considered a type of wall sign assuming the canopy structure is attached to the building wall, deemed by the Building Official to be an integral part of the building, and its primary function is to provide shelter for pedestrians (as opposed to automobiles). The maximum area of the canopy sign cannot exceed 30% of the canopy face or elevation which is parallel to the wall to which it is attached. The Applicant will need to file a separate Building Permit application for any proposed signage and receive approval of said permits prior to installation. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested site and building plans for the Subject Property located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard; subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and the receiving approval for the amendment to the Planned Unit Development. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PUDs grant flexibility within the Zoning Code to allow for developments which would not be allowed under the existing regulations. PUDs are often used to achieve a higher quality development, or achieve other City goals, in exchange for granting zoning flexibility from the City Code. Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City Zoning Code notes that upon the rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters “PUD” followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district, which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In this particular case, the Subject Property is zoned Planned Unit Development-Industrial Park (PUD-I1) District. PUDs may only contain uses consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the uniqueness of each ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 10 PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities, and the approval of a land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them— essentially the City Council may approve plans that are not in compliance with the usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of residents or the City, although plans shall comply with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. It was determined in the evaluation policy and review guidelines for the original re-zoning in 1996 that, while the site was not necessarily unsuited for development as an I-1 (Industrial Park) use, it was long believed that this particular site should be used for a more intense development than a light manufacturing type use and specifically a type of use that requires good visibility along the freeway. At the time, the proposed two restaurants and hotel use were believed to be an appropriate use of the property. In this particular case, the Applicant intends to continue use of the Subject Property as a restaurant, but expand the property’s functionality to include an event center with roof terrace. At time of original PUD approval, a representative of T.G.I. Friday’s noted that the proposed development would offer community services through the creation of jobs and additional tax base, and that the image of the hotel and restaurants from the freeway strengthened the belief that the Subject Property (and adjacent properties under the PUD) would be much better suited for restaurants and hotels than factories or industrial development. It is thus reiterated that that the re-branding of the restaurant and expansion of the building to accommodate an event center would provide additional jobs and tax base in the community. At time of initial Applicant submittal, it was assumed that the Applicant would require issuance of a Special Use Permit for the event center; however, upon review of the Planning Commission Information Sheet provided as part of the Subject Property’s original approvals (Planning Commission Application No. 96012), City staff determined that the event center use would be conditioned upon granting of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development. As mentioned in the Background section above, “Up until 1990, restaurants and hotels were acknowledged as special uses in the I-1 zoning district. A concern of the City around this time was that convenience food restaurants and some other uses were inappropriate for development on particular properties within the I-1 zoning district, and while the City was not necessarily opposed to restaurant and hotel uses at this location, there were concerns that the Special Use Permit process would not provide sufficient protection of the interests and concerns of the City. As the City’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) process was also established around this time, it was determined that the PUD process would be appropriate for considering anything other than light industrial or service/office land uses for I-1 District zoned properties (Exhibit C).” In addition to the required approvals of a site and building plan and an amendment to the Planned Unit Development, the Applicant may be required to apply for and receive approval for an Entertainment License through the City Clerk. The Applicant will need to, as part of any approval, submit all information as detailed within Chapter 23 of the City Code (General Licensing Regulations) for Entertainment Licenses. To staff knowledge, the Subject Property has operated as a restaurant since the building’s construction in 1997. The building was formerly home to T.G.I. Friday’s and Oak City Sports Tavern before the ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 11 Applicant opened Jammin’ Wings in 2013, which has been in operation since. Jammin’ Wings has regularly held events via a public dance license (now Entertainment License) through the City. It is hoped that the proposed event center and re-branded restaurant will serve as an amenity to not only the Country Inn and Suites, but other nearby hotels as well. Due to the proximity of the Subject Property to the Country Inn and Suites and its hotel rooms, the Applicant will need to be cognizant of any noise generated by entertainment at the restaurant or event center. As is outlined in the Entertainment License requirements under Chapter 23, the sounds generated by an entertainment event shall not be audible from outside the licensed premises after 10 p.m. at a level that unreasonably annoys or disrupts those in the area, and in particular, guests staying in the hotel next door. In addition, the Applicant will need to provide additional information regarding maximum seating occupancy to ensure sufficient parking is available for the event center and restaurant uses. Should the event center book out, the Applicant may need to close the restaurant or proactively avoid booking certain event rooms to ensure there are no issues in providing sufficient parking, and parking shall not block fire hydrants or emergency access lanes. As the BAPS overflow lot (restaurant pad site) to the east of Country Inn and Suites is not included in the Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement, the Applicant should ensure that their use doesn’t result in their customers or Country Inn and Suites guests shifting their parking to the BAPS lot, as it could have negative consequences on their approval to operate the event center. It is not anticipated that the proposed event center will be injurious to the use of properties in the immediate vicinity, nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood so long as the Applicant adheres to the Entertainment License requirements outlined under Chapter 23 of the City Code. It is up to the Applicant to ensure the event center and restaurant are well-managed and the relationship with the Country Inn and Suites remains strong so that there might be a symbiotic relationship between the two. With the exception of the proposed restaurant pad site to the east of Country Inn and Suites, all properties in proximity to the Subject Property have been developed and to City staff knowledge, typically operate during daytime hours. The Country Inn and Suites would be the most affected by the proposed use, and specifically with regards to noise and parking. Per the submitted plans, the proposed expansion of the existing restaurant would result in the addition of a second and third floor, which would be constructed over where an existing outdoor patio is now. This should provide some separation from the hotel rooms located on the west side of the Country Inn and Suites given that there is existing rooftop mechanical equipment located on the existing rooftop of the restaurant that the Applicant would like to keep in place due to cost. The areas of the proposed expansion that would be located closest to the hotel would be a proposed 500 square foot greenhouse on the second floor. Although there is a Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement in place between the Subject Property and Country Inn and Suites, the Applicant will want to work with the hotel to clearly define parking needs and ensure their use does not cause parking non-conformities for either business. As the outlined seating occupancy exceeds parking available on both sites, the Applicant will need to work with the City to address how they will ensure they are not exceeding their available parking. ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 12 The Applicant will also be required to apply for a second City liquor license for the proposed event center. This is noted in the Applicant’s application submittal. To that end, any amendments to the previously approved Planned Unit Development should be based upon the following criteria with which Planned Unit Developments are approved under: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the Subject Property located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard; subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and receiving approval for the site and building plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Application No. 2020-007 for 2590 Freeway Boulevard (Subject Property): 1. Building and Site Plan Review: The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits; and the final location or placement of any fire hydrants or other fire-related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Inspector. a. Any major changes or modifications made to this Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to the approved Site and Building Plan as approved by the City Council. i. The site plan shall be updated to reflect building setbacks, the inclusion of the property line for the BAPS overflow lot located at 2500 Freeway Boulevard, a revised parking count, and the removal of spaces from the BAPS overflow lot for clarity, as the property is not included in the Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement. b. The Applicant shall comply with any and all conditions as outlined by Building Official in the memorandum dated August 5, 2020. c. A pre-construction conference shall be held with City staff and other entities designated by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. d. Applicant shall revise architectural renderings to reflect breakdown of Class I and Class II building materials per each elevation. e. All conditions of approval as addressed under City Council Resolution No. 96-155 (Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 96012 Submitted by T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc.), and approved on August 12, 1996, are to remain in effect. 2. Agreements: a. The Property Owner/Applicant shall execute a separate Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City, which ensures the Subject Property ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 13 will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards comprehended under this site and building plan approval. b. The Applicant shall work with the City and City Attorney’s office to amend any PUD/development agreements on file for the Subject Property. Any required amendments shall be addressed and recorded prior to the release of any building permits. c. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the Subject Property, as well as any improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the Performance Agreement financial guarantee. d. The Applicant shall apply for and maintain a second City liquor license. e. The Applicant and City shall determine necessity of a separate Entertainment License as outlined under Chapter 23 of the City Code. Irrespective of the necessity for said license, the Applicant shall provide documentation as required for issuance of an Entertainment License as part of any building permit submittal and as a stipulation of approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, and operate subject to the same standards and regulations. 3. Engineering Review: The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memorandum, dated July 31, 2020 (Exhibit E), including: a. Final grading, drainage, utility, irrigation, erosion control, and as-built plans, and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. b. Provide a traffic memo highlighting and documenting anticipated traffic generated by the proposed site and discussion of the parking needs on a daily use and parking for events. Said plan should also outline operational strategies to ensure maximum available parking is not exceeded and does not negatively impact adjacent uses and properties. c. A construction management plan and agreement is required with a separate deposit required to address any non-compliance. d. No work shall be conducted on the proposed pond overlook until the Applicant provides sufficient documentation to the City and Shingle Creek Watershed Commission to ensure said improvements will not impact existing wetlands and meet all requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act for work within a pond. 4. Facilities and Equipment: a. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view per City Code requirements. b. Any outdoor enclosures shall be constructed with materials that are complementary to the principal building. c. The Applicant shall furnish fixture specifications and a photometric plan as part of the Building Permit submittal and comply with all City Code provisions as addressed under Section 35-712 (Lighting). Applicant shall ensure adequate lighting is present throughout the parking lot and in proximity to all points of entrance and exit, and ensure any lighting is not in conflict with the adjacent hotel use. 5. Landscaping: a. The Applicant shall furnish an updated copy of the landscape plan approved under Planning Commission Application No. 96012. Said plan shall address any missing, ________________ App. No. 2020-007 PC 08/13/2020 Page 14 required plantings and proposals for replacement. All new plantings shall meet the minimum caliper and height requirements as outlined in the City’s Landscape Point System Policy. 6.Signage: The Applicant shall submit a Building Permit application for any proposed signage, including the dynamic messaging sign, wall, and canopy signage. Signage is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance); however, the Applicant shall be allotted up to 200 square feet for a dynamic messaging sign subject to providing a certain percentage of screen time for public messaging and alerts. No off-site advertising is permitted. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above noted findings and conditions above, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested site and building plans and amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the Subject Property located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard; subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval. Should the Planning Commission accept this recommendation, the Commission may elect to adopt the draft resolution which memorializes the findings in granting the site and building plan and PUD amendment approvals, subject to the Applicant complying with the above-mentioned conditions of approval. Attachments Exhibit A- Planning Commission Application No. 2020-007 and documentation, submitted by Wayne Brown of W K Brown, LLC, and dated July 14, 2020. Exhibit B- Public Hearing Notice and Location Map. Exhibit C- Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 96012, and dated July 25, 1996. Exhibit D- Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement, and recorded March 20, 1997. Exhibit E- Review Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, and dated July 31, 2020. Exhibit F- Review Memorandum, prepared by Building Official Dan Grinsteinner, and dated August 5, 2020. PALM GROVE Business Plan JULY 1, 2020 PALM GROVE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER 2590 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Exhibit A Executive Summary: Palm Grove Entertainment Center located at 2590 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 is where I94 and I694 meets a 3 story, sophisticated 14,000 square foot entertainment facility. It will house Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse and lounge, wedding chapel and all year round, rooftop greenhouse. Business background: Outdoor Landscaping (parking lot level) • Our outdoor landscaping will offer a picturesque bridge with water fountain and private, fenced in flower garden with security cameras in the valeted parking lot Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse (1st floor) • 7000 square foot Kitchen, Bar, Restaurant catering and services areas, the Restaurant will operator between the hours of 11am-10pm with a seating capacity 200 patrons. • Delicious meal options and a wide selection of wine and custom crafted beverages will be on the menu. Integration of local grown produce and goods will be important not only to appeal to customers but also for effective cost management. • Satisfied customers are important the profitability and success of the business. The center’s patronage can only grow through customer satisfaction. • Behind creating satisfied customers are the center’s employees. Our goal is to provide the best working environment with the best benefits that we can provide for our staff. • Community involvement. Businesses that support their community get supported by the community. Business alliances and local community public relations are key. Banquet Rooms (2nd floor) • 5000 square foot banquet rooms are intended for gatherings such as business conventions, corporate meetings, tradeshows, weddings, bar mitzvahs, bridal showers, baby showers and more. • Our building is conveniently attached to the Country Inn Suites via enclosed corridor. Our guest are welcome to book lodging and walk to our center without ever being exposed to the elements. The hours for our banquets rooms are 7am-2am billed per event or 4 hour increments. Rooftop Greenhouse (3rd floor) • eco-friendly solar panels. • Farm to table fresh herbs • All year round weddings/Commitment ceremonies Marketing Plan: We will be using our 10 x 20 electronic billboard/marquee for personalized ads for our guests and meal specials for Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse. Our beautiful building can be viewed from I94 and I694 highway. There will be a grove of 18-foot lighted palm trees. We plan to utilize tv commercials, local radio stations, social media. Due to our existing great relationship with the 8 hotels in the vicinity, we will partner to create wedding/event packages to advertise on their brochures and websites as well. Financial Plan: •Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse, which is an established franchise, based in Iowa, will offer lunch and dinner time meals, catering and liquor sales for revenue. • The spacious banquet rooms billed by event or 4 hour increments •Wedding Chapel will be open all year round with packages starting at $4000 on peak days. We will offer a discounted rate on non-holiday weekdays From:wayne brown To:Ginny McIntosh Cc:Hal Pierce; wayne brown Subject:Re: Follow-up: Jammin" Wings/ Palm Grove Expansion Date:Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:31:26 PM Hi Ginny, 1. Is the application intended as a co-application with Johnny’s Steakhouse, or are you the sole applicant? `-WK Brown LLC owns the land and building that currently houses Jammin' Wings, which is owned by Wayne Brown. WK Brown LLC will house Johnny'S Italian SteakHouse and Palm Grove Entertainment Center. All companies will be owned and operated by Wayne Brown 2.Will Johnny’s be a tenant of yours? -No, Wayne Brown will be the Franchisee . 3. Has Johnny’s officially signed on to replace Jammin’ Wings? -We have verbal agreement and unsigned contract drawn contingent upon approval from the City of Brooklyn Center. 4. How long is the lease for Johnny’s? - Unsigned lease for 3 years. 5. If Johnny’s were to go out of business, what would be the Plan B for the restaurant space? -Not applicable, however I am confident in my experience of owning and operating several restaurants in the past 7 years. 6.I know you said you spoke to Country Inn & Suites, but I do not have any official response from them. Is this something they are intending to provide? We will want to know any comments they might have as they are connected by breezeway to you, share parking, and appear to share trash facilities. -I will forward the parking agreement to you again. I have met with the District Manager and there is excitement regarding a quality restaurant and the banquet spaces of Palm Grove so they can attract more guests. Also, we have promoted together in the past regarding Jammin Wings specials. 7.As mentioned previously, the submitted site plan shows improvements to the far east parking lot, which is owned by BAPs. Are you intending to make improvements to their lot (e.g. stripe the lot, etc.)? We will want to know this. We also need clarification on if you are allowed to make improvements to their lot given that it is one PUD, but separate properties. -We have no intentions to develop on BAP's property. Please clarify as Hall Pierce, our architect and I aren't finding on our site plans the said far east parking lot improvement. 8. We will want a Parking Management Plan that clearly outlines how you intend to handle traffic on the lots. I know you made mention of valet in your business plan, but there was no detailing. How does the event space and restaurant space intend to function and manage circulation and parking on-site? We will want to have a breakdown on how these operations would be handled during events, during times the restaurant and even spaces are simultaneously open, functionality of parking with Country Inn & Suites next door, etc. -Between 11am-3pm will be open parking - Valet parking: 3pm-2am (Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun): Far Northwest parking lot, near bridge will be designated for valet parking - 2 person to 1 car ratio for restaurant and 3 person to 1 car for event space has been established at our last meeting with the City of BC. - Indoor capacity will be 550 patrons, so we should have plenty of parking 9.We will need a more detailed breakdown of the intended building materials for the project. As this property is a PUD, we typically strive to follow the attached guidelines. Specifically, we request that a minimum of 50% percent of each elevation utilizes Class I building materials, with remaining Class II. From what I’m seeing, it appears EIFS (“stucco panel”) might be used. Could you or Hal confirm? If so, this is a Class II material. There also appears to be a significant amount of blank walls, which are frowned upon. We will be wanting to identify opportunities to introduce more texture, windows, etc. into the space. Whatever the case may be, will want to have a plan that breaks down the materials for each elevation. -Hal Pierce will address question 9 pertaining to building materials. a.To that note, it appears the Palm Grove expansion would have architecture that is not complementary to the attached Country Inn & Suites. Do you have additional examples to provide? As a general question, how do you intend to incorporate a palm tree/tropical theme with an Italian Steakhouse (as proposed). - Palm Grove Entertainment and Johnny's Steakhouse will be 2 separate companies operating out of the same facility. -Johnny's Steakhouse Franchise will replace any existing signage of Jammin' Wings restaurant. - We will be applying for a new liquor license for Johnny's Steakhouse -Palm Grove Entertainment Center will use Jammin' Wings LLC existing liquor license. Please do contact me with any questions you may have. Thank you so much for your time GInny. Wayne, 612-817-2085 SITE PLAN A-90 2590 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 HPA Architecture PH: 763-331-5025 hpa-arch@comcast.net SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/32"=1'-0" PALM GROVE Event Center NORTH 2590 FREEWAY BLVD. 3.96 ACRES 172,682 SQ. FT. DEMO PLAN A-100 2590 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 HPA Architecture PH: 763-331-5025 hpa-arch@comcast.net DEMO PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Event Center PALM GROVE FIRST FLOOR PLAN A-101 2590 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 HPA Architecture PH: 763-331-5025 hpa-arch@comcast.net PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Event Center PALM GROVE SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-102 2590 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 HPA Architecture PH: 763-331-5025 hpa-arch@comcast.net PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Event Center PALM GROVE ROOF PLAN A-103 2590 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 HPA Architecture PH: 763-331-5025 hpa-arch@comcast.net PROPOSE ROOF TERRACE PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Event Center PALM GROVE Johnny's Electronic Event Sign Johnny's Italian Steakhouse Italian Steakhouse 20'x10' ELEVATIONS A-201 2590 Freeway Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 HPA Architecture PH: 763-331-5025 hpa-arch@comcast.net EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" Event Center WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" PALM GROVE 3-D PERSPECTIVES G-100 PALM GROVE PALM GROVE 2590 FREEWAY BLVD. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 HPA Architecture PH: 763-331-5025 hpa-arch@comcast.net SOUTH EAST VIEW 2590 FREEWAY BLVD. BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430 Event Center Event Center SOUTH WEST VIEW NORTH WEST VIEW City of Brooklyn Center | 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 | (763) 569-3300 | www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please take notice that the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center will hold an on-line public hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2020, at approximately 7:00 p.m. Meeting materials can be accessed by visiting the City of Brooklyn Center’s website at: https://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/index.aspx?NID=255. A definite time for this application to be considered cannot be given as it will depend on the progression of the agenda items. TYPE OF REQUEST: Site and Building Plan and Planned Unit Development Amendment Approvals, Issuance of Special Use Permit PETITIONER/PROPERTY OWNER: Wayne Brown of W K Brown, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2590 Freeway Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 PROPERTY ID: 35-119-21-24-0007 BRIEF STATEMENT OF CONTENTS OF PETITION: Consideration of requests that would allow for the expansion of an existing restaurant space into a new three-story, approximately 14,000 square foot restaurant with event center and related site improvements. As City Hall is currently closed to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we strongly encourage you to forward your comments and questions to gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us up until noon on the day of the meeting, or contact Ginny McIntosh at (763) 569-3319. Your comments will be included in the record and addressed as part of the meeting. Alternatively, you may participate in the Planning Commission meeting via Webex at: logis.webex.com Meeting Number (Access Code): 141 666 5172 Password: BCPC08132020Mtng By Phone: 1 (312) 535-8110 (Enter Access Code) Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at (763) 569-3300 to make arrangements. Respectfully, Ginny McIntosh City Planner/Zoning Administrator Exhibit B F r e e w a y B o u l e v a r d Interstat e 9 4 Xer x e s A v e n u e N o r t h Interstat e 9 4 SHINGLE CREEK 2590 Freeway Boulevard Applicant: Wayne Brown of W K Brown, LLC Request: Site and Building Plan and Planned Unit Development Amendment Approvals, Issuance of Special Use Permit Planning Commission Information Sheet PPA lication No. 96012 Applicant: T.G.I.Friday's, Inc Location: North Side of Freeway Boulevard, Westerly of Schmitt Music Request: Rezoning /Site and Building Plan- PUD /I -1 The applicant is requesting Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the development of a hotel and two restaurants on the vacant property located on the north side of Freeway Boulevard between the Schmitt Music site and the Shingle Creek Plaza II office /industrial building. The rezoning would be from the current I -1 (Industrial Park) zoning designation to PUD/I- 1(Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park). The property in question is a vacant 13.09 acre site currently zoned I -1. It is bounded on the north by Shingle Creek and the Shingle Creek greenstrip easement area; on the east by the Schmitt Music property; on the south by Freeway Boulevard with I -94 right -of -way on the opposite side; and on the west by the Shingle Creek Plaza 11 office /industrial building. T.G.I.Friday's, Inc. has reached an agreement with the owner of this property to purchase the property for development of a County Inn and Suites Hotel along with a T.G.I.Friday's Restaurant and another yet undetermined restaurant on the site. Restaurant and hotel uses are not acknowledged uses in the I -1 zoning district. Up until 1990, restaurants and hotels were acknowledged special uses in the I -1 zoning district and could be authorized through the granting of a Special use Permit. In 1990, the City rezoned property in this area to C -2 and removed the special use provisions from the I -1 zoning district uses. Also, about the same time, the City established the Planned Unit Development process to, among other things, promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment. A concern on the part of the City at that time was that convenience food restaurants and some other uses were inappropriate for development on particular properties within the I -1 zoning district. The City was not necessarily opposed to restaurant or hotel uses at this location, but was concerned that the Special Use Permit process would not protect the interests and concerns of the City. The PUD process was considered appropriate for considering anything other than light industrial or service /office land uses for I -1 zoned property. It should be noted that the City has recently rezoned property east of Shingle Creek to PUD/I -1 to acknowledge the interrelated development and parking concerns of various uses in the area. That PUD/I -1 zoning designation also authorizes a hotel use on part of that property. Also, the City Council in 1994 approved a Planned Unit Development rezoning to PUD/I -1 for the development at the northwest corner of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway for a Country Harvest Buffet Restaurant. That proposal has not gone forward, however, the PUD /I -1 zoning designation has been established for such a use and authorized under that PUD approval A Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying 7 -25 -96 Page 1 Exhibit C zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing that district ( in this case I -1) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the City's rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35 -203. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review. Mr. Phillip Trice on behalf of T.G.I.Friday's has submitted a letter describing the proposal and generally commenting how they believe the proposal meets the City's rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. In summary, Mr. Trice, indicates that they believe their proposed development offers community services in the creation of jobs and additional tax base associated with their proposed development. He notes that the restaurants will provide a fun, friendly atmosphere in which residents can dine at a reasonable price and the hotel will bring in additional people into our community. He notes that the development will accommodate sufficient parking to meet all zoning requirements and the plan will not disturb the flood plain or protected wetland areas at the rear of the site. He notes that all watershed requirements and storm water retention as well as grading and site plans will meet City requirements and other jurisdiction requirements prior to building permits. He also notes that the image of the hotel and restaurants projected to the freeway will be a better image given to passersby of the City and that the subject property is better suited for restaurants and a hotel than for factories or industrial development. He believes the proposed development is compatible with adjacent properties and the surrounding area and will blend in and mix well with surrounding properties. He concludes that the T.G.I.Friday's and Country Inn Suites Hotel would be a project in the best interest of the community. The following is a staff review of the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to the applicant's comments and their proposal. A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? We believe the public benefit of such a development is the utilization of this land in a manner consistent with the development criteria established by the City. It is not anticipated that this development will be a detriment to the community but, on the other hand, be a positive factor providing restaurant and hotel services to the business and people in the immediate Brooklyn Center area. 7 -25 -96 Page 2 B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? We believe, as will be noted later in this report, that the development of the T.G.I.Friday's and Country Inn and Suites Hotel can be considered consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications. This area does have other restaurants and hotels and there is a large employment base surrounding this area that can make use of such facilities. We believe the site layout, landscaping, parking and other physical features are compatible with surrounding land uses. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for the development of the subject property? We believe that all permitted uses and proposed uses can be contemplated for development in the proposed Planned Unit Development zoning district if this proposal is accepted. It should also be noted that the development of this site as proposed will not have adverse affect on developing the remaining parcels in the industrial park zone. We look for a compatible development, as a possible Planned Unit Development, for the triangular shaped parcel that is vacant and across Freeway Boulevard from this property. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? As mentioned previously, zoning classification changes were made in order to rule out some land uses that the City believed were inappropriate for the industrial park area and this site. The uses being proposed in this Planned Unit Development are not considered inappropriate and, therefore, can be considered. The PUD process is believed to be an appropriate vehicle for considering such uses. E. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This evaluation criteria is not applicable. F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? We believe the subject property should bear fully the ordinance development 7 -25 -96 Page 3 restrictions for this PUD/1 -1 proposal based on findings which will need to be made by the City and a development agreement between the City and the developer which will address any issues and will acknowledge the site plan as part of this development agreement. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size configuration, topography or location? The site in question is not unsuited for development as an I -1 (Industrial Park) use. It has, however, long been believed that this particular site should be used for a more intense development than a light industrial manufacturing type use and a type of use that needs good visibility along the freeway. The proposed two restaurants and hotel use is believed to be an appropriate use of the property. The likelihood of service/office or light industrial development in this area in the next few years is remote. H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive planning; 2. Lack of developable land in a proposed zoning district; 3. The best interests of the community? It is believed that the creation of a PUD/I -1 zoning district in this area provides for the necessary flexibility in dealing with development issues for this site. The proposed development, in our opinion, is in the best interest of the community and is not in conflict with the City's comprehensive plan. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interest of the particular property owner and will lead to an upgrading in the site and the physical characteristics in this area as well. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The proposed plan calls for a 299 seat, 6,880 sq. ft. T.G.I.Friday's Restaurant and a future 250 seat, 6,400 sq. ft. restaurant that would be attached to and located on either side of a three store, 85 unit Country Inn and Suites Hotel. The hotel would have an approximate 16,400 sq. ft. footprint and be approximately 45,000 sq. ft. in total area. ACCESS/PARKING Access to the site would be gained via two direct accesses located off Freeway Boulevard, one 7 -25 -96 Page 4 close to the main entrance to the hotel and the future restaurant site and the other somewhat westerly of the T.G.I.Friday's Restaurant. A shared access with the Shingle Creek Plaza II building is located along the west property line for this site. The buildings will be generally located in the center of the site with parking surrounding the buildings. The plan provides 493 parking spaces. The required parking for this site is 157 spaces for Friday's (299 seats and 13 employees at the maximum shift - one space for every two seats and two employees); 94 spaces for the Country Inn (85 units and 9 employees - one space for each unit and one space for each employee on any one shift); and 130 spaces for the future restaurant (250 seats and ten employees - one space for every two seats and two employees). A total of 381 stalls are required by the ordinance. A surplus of parking will, therefore, exist. There are 24 handicap parking spaces shown on the plan, which are located close to the main entrances to the various buildings. Handicap spaces are also located to the rear of the hotel building as well. GRADNG/DR.ANAGE/UTILITIES The site is affected by both wetland and flood plain in areas adjacent to Shingle Creek. The wetland has been identified and is delineated on the plan. The 100 year flood elevation is also shown on the plan and is at 844.5 ft. in this area. The applicant's revised drainage plan does not contemplate any encroachment into the wetland area. A ponding area is proposed northerly of the proposed parking lot over the westerly half of the site. It should be noted that 4.84 acres of this 13.09 acre site is wetland. A storm drainage and water management plan has been submitted to and approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Drainage from the site will be through 16 catch basins at various locations on the site and then conveyed via storm sewer to the holding pond. B -612 curb and gutter is required around all driving and parking areas and should be so noted on the plan. Currently there is a 20 ft. wide sanitary sewer easement, containing a 15 inch sanitary sewer running through the approximate center of the site. This sewer will be relocated and the existing easement vacated. A new 20 ft. sanitary sewer easement will be located next to the Freeway Boulevard right -of -way and along a portion of the westerly property line where the new 15 inch sanitary sewer line will be installed. The easement area will encompass most of the 15 ft. greenstrip required along Freeway Boulevard. Sanitary sewer will be provided separately to the three buildings. An 8 inch water line will loop around the outside of Friday's and the Country Inn buildings and then go between the Country Inn and the future restaurant site. Connections will be made separately to the three buildings at various locations. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system. The plan indicates a variety of plantings including shade trees, decorative trees, coniferous trees and 7 -25 -96 Page 5 shrubs with a point value of 763 landscape points. The point requirement for this 13.09 acre site is 763.6 points. The applicant asks for additional consideration for ground cover plants which no points are allocated for and existing trees to the north of the site which will remain. This appears to be a reasonable request. The plantings that are to be provided include eight Emerald Queen Norway Maples located on either side of the entrances to the site and at the southeast and southwest corners. Eight Marshall's Seedless Ash are provided on the northerly portion of the property. Fourteen Greenspire Linden are provided in the Freeway Boulevard greenstrip and along the easterly property line. Eight Shademaster Honeylocust are located closer to and surrounding the buildings. Eight River Birch and twelve Amur Maple are decorative trees located around the perimeter of the buildings. The plan calls for 50 Black Hills Spruce at various locations around the building, the greenstrip and parking lot island areas but only 40 are shown on the plan. The plan should, therefore, be modified to indicate the location of the other ten required Black Hills Spruce. The plan also calls for over 100 shrubs generally around the perimeter of the building. These shrubs include Compact American Cranberry, Seagreen Juniper, Anthony Waterer Spirea, Grow Low Fragrant Sumac, and Variegated Hosta. The plan calls for sod in the greenstrip areas and to the north of the parking lot. Sod is also to be provided in the grassy landscape areas around the perimeter of the building. Underground irrigation is required for all landscaped areas and the plan so notes this requirement. BUILDINGG The building elevations indicate the exterior of the County Inn and Suites Hotel to be vinyl lap siding. An approximate 10 ft. by 50 ft. wood porch is located at the front entrance to the building and the rear of the building features an enclosed pool area with aluminum store front type windows. The roof is asphalt shingles. The T.G.I.Friday's building exterior is a combination of brick and a drive -it material. Aluminum store front windows are provided on all sides but the rear of the building and a vinyl canopy is over the windows. The exterior for the connecting link between Friday's and the County Inn is made up of aluminum store front windows and a metal roof. No building elevations are available for the future restaurant and that plan will have to be submitted for future review by the Planning Commission. The main floor of the County Inn will include a porch as previously mentioned and a carport canopy drop off area. The lobby includes a front desk, office areas and a breakfast room. A pool area with whirlpool is located to the rear of the building on the main floor. LIGHTING /TRASH The site plan does not indicate site lighting for the development. Our main concern, as always, is that lighting comply with the provisions of Section 35 -712 of the Zoning Ordinance which 7 -25 -96 Page 6 requires that all exterior lighting be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades so as to concentrate illumination on the property. This section of the ordinance also requires that no glare shall emanate from, or be visible beyond, the boundaries of the p remises. Trash enclosure areas are indicated to the rear of the Friday's restaurant and the future restaurant. No trash enclosure area is indicated for the Country Inn. No material is indicated with respect to the screening device for the trash enclosure. Such a device should be compatible with the building exterior. The applicant should respond by indicating the type of material to be provided. PROCEDURE This PUD/I -1 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Generally, rezonings are referred to a Neighborhood Advisory Group. In this case, the Planning Commission is the Advisory Group for this industrial park area. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post and have been sent to neighboring property owners. It appears that with some clarification, the Planning Commission should be able to make a recommendation with respect to this plan at Thursday evening's meeting. All in all, the staff believes the plans are in order and a draft Planning Commission Resolution will be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at Thursday evening's meeting. This resolution will outline the Planning Commission's consideration of this matter and also cite recommended considerations for recommending approval of the PUD rezoning as well as a set of conditions which will be included with the approval. Any recommendatin should cite the rationale for the rezoning approval and should include at least the following conditions of approval: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7 -25 -96 Page 7 5. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The plans shall be modified to provide the following: a. The location of ten additional Black Hills Spruce trees on the landscape plan. b. The location of parking lot and building exterior lighting to be in compliance with Section 35 -712 of the City Ordinances. c. A detailed plan indicating the screening for the trash facilities including materials to be utilized. 12. All work performed and material used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center' current standard of specifications and details. 13. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, prior to the issuance of building permits. 7 -25 -96 Page 8 N rr 1 ti III RUN IVA WIN GENE®login UNION milli Ilti mss'mite ;. i ' i i i on OEM y Ila NiG•'.uswiiuvx Section 35 -355 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aestheticallysignificantandenvironmentallysensitivesitefeatures, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; ApplicableRegulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters PUD" followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs, the City Council shall,whenever reasonably practicable,specify underlying zoningclassificationsforthevariouspartsofthePUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to PUD - MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district s:.bject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. 2. Regulations are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD- HLXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. C. For purposes of determining applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD - KIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3 Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, acludng land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights -of -way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: r 35 -355 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different lard uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. C. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35 -40.0 to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. Subdivision 4. General Standards. a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a. PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. C. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. SJ - 355 e. The uniqueness o_= each PUD requires thathat spec_cat_ons and standardsforstreets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council gay, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City. Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City CouncilafterevaluationbythePlanningCommission.Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following: I. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; 3. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; 8. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. 5 -355 b - The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the developmentplan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant andadjacentpropertyovrersasrequiredbySection35 -210 of thisordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the planwithinthetimelimitsestablishedbySection35 -210 of this ordinance C. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regardingthematter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan withinthetimelimitsestablishedbySection35 -210 of this ordinance.Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section 35 -208 of this ordinance,the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon thefollowingcriteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent ofthissection; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities,circulation, parkingfacilities, public Facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it maydeterminetobenecessarytobetteraccomplishthepurposesofthePUDdistrict. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary orconvenientbytheCitytoreviewtheconsistencyoftheproposed development with the approved development plan. The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development elan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same Location as previously aporoved• the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design. or use, and lot coverage of any individual buildinghasnotbeenincreasedordecreasedbymorethan10percent. 3 353 e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required forbothsimultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval re b Section 35 -230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have beer. obtained or, if within12monthsaftertheissuanceofbuildingpermitsnoconstructionhas commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the CityCouncilfollowingthesamenoticeandhearingproceduresspecifiedinthissection. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves anychangegreaterthan. that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Planning Commission of ter such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.r Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 46 Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes tothisZoningOrdinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the CityCouncilhasestablishedarezoningevaluationpolicyandreviewguidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: A. Zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, B. Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot zoning ", defined as a zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of thesubjectproperty? D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? E. In the case of City-initiated rezonin proposals, g p posals, is there a broad public purpose evident? F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoningdistricts? G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1. Comprehensive planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3. The best interests of the community? I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Section 35 -208 Revised 2 - 95 EVERYONE LOOKS FORWARD TO FRIDAYS 14 June 1996 Mr. Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -3494 RE: TGI Friday's Restaurant #0204, country Inn and Suites #02810 Rezoning Evaluation Ronald: TGI Friday's has reached an agreement with the owner of Tract C, Parcel 4, Registered Land Survey No 1377, Hennepin County MN to purchase said property for development of a hotel and 2 restaurants. Present zoning of the property is industrial 1. In order to finalize our Agreement with the property owner, the property will need to be rezoned for hotel and restaurant use. As I understand, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) will allow such uses with alcohol service. It is our intent to apply for and be added to the docket for the 25 July Planning Commission Meeting. While closing depends on our being able to receive a building permit for the development - Rezoning is critical to that need. Our proposed development offers community services for your city in the creation of jobs and additional tax bases. While the restaurants will provide a fun, friendly atmosphere in which your residence can dine at a reasonable price, the hotel will bring additional people into your community whom may not have come to Brooklyn Center otherwise. The proposed development will accommodate sufficient parking to meet all zoning for specified uses. It does not disturb the flood P lane protects the wetlands at the rear of the site will meet all watershed requirements and storm water retention. All grading and site plans will meet with city requirements prior to receiving a building permit. The present industrial zoning allows construction of factories and industrial buildings that can be seen from such a heavily traveled highway and may not be the image you want to give all passersby of your city. The subject property is better suited for PUD which would allow restaurants and hotels than for factories. The proposed development is compatible with adjacent properties and surrounding area and will blend in and mix well with the hotels on surrounding properties. We, here at TGI Friday's and Country Inn and Suites Hotels feel the rezoning would be in the best interests of the community and respectfully request your help in presenting our case to the Planing Commission and City Council. Sincerely, I.LL c , U•Gu .. Philip , eJ Project Manager C.C. Donald Brundage / Architect PC 1-cty2 TGI FRIDAY'S INC. 7540 LBJ Freeway, Sui[e IN, P.O. Box 80906 Dallas, Texas 4 .0-54W rEl D. 166UE BENCHMARK 1: TOP NUT Of ME ISI HYDRANT WESI Of SCIIMIDI MUSrC 011 HORRI SrDE Of t / fRECWAY 9"1 VARD CEEVAnaN 65001 If1A'1f 66 BCNCIIMARK 7: TOP NU 849 I Of DoE ] NO HIDRAH7 j WEST or SCIMOT MUSrC ON NORM 90E Of HF3F3aSIIJIML'S FREEWAY BOUIEVARO ELLVADON- 650.64 77 404 r7 1p Lj 1 r v. j MA: LJfZL_ • — i F l AVIAIll aM111.A'1 Irll C INN wan tofu" V . 1 r I N 68'45 J4 "_ W 378.10 lr BOU - EV4R0 z r ,. .... r. 1 v INTERSTATE NIGNWAY No. . b94 R` u L... C1 A rua In nn rLD.'66UE ruw0 m RJrll'111t'lY 7 84966 7iai it3lt9Wl(lE9 f y 4-4.r fl F Dai i ,_ _ I e_ a r•• tAS A7 I L, v < I w w w q 7 f0 w1... fIYIIAM A A c e LLL raA1ti AEt r ..•..._ a r 4. a......... N 68'45 W 378.10 BOULEVARD INTE R9TATE HIGHWAY N. 694 A11W nA .1 M IIrt l rLD. IlAU! allniI j1§XMM 1 I llp l i. xi .•. J.,. I rl MY1 01f1 li Kd i; 1 il.r rwa.,. wvn..rtr wu.a I t. l nnr 11'.t ul 1.1 Ilu I ' M I{tFjj11' siil 1. y ,', I lll`JJl ti soov.:al r 1 IM v A e It r u IIIII,Ia DArl AUTMRAX n'RO s Ie wsa -.: f y >: Y:•f may j 13OULEVARD INTE o. A 1 AlI1wNr M.pwO y hZBTATE HIGHWAY No..b94 w.ua In nn i rua stESinrus r HUM 1 HAAW 111 aa Mtn f Gl \. - p i , i I_ I cl I a Tmm i f 1 0. : s f e: f i f c : . 1 E 1, e t 1. pro,pr awci IUrW ff IinINtlMn wnr s1T>< srxsaa t :: J rt Z. r ' I , a L - 1 11 Y 110JLCT 1 r vTUtY msou n ; ss l it COU u l CAS Mnll/ , t l n r.,.w. v warns l I - aA 4.! 4 tMd1 i>A l+. C,^wa, 1 Oe ..r ._. ^ ice 1 n . t 1 N n I vram n.n INTERSTATE HIGHWAY No, 694 y 1 4. ua a nrr l NEW FACKAY FOR' a FRIDAY'S P L A N T I N G SC H E D U L E COUNTRY COMMON NAME / Botanical name INN & SUITES CI \ I < r„• / ` Af.cAua 1 OAACrq I-T r 1 B A i Y1• YAApuLL7 . EFDLIaf waN i...•u• M...I"'•.s. ur....ri i.'•• ti/ OAEENaTI LEOlN/ lw . vW1• 4..nw. iawDwc I D ulenfsolA e..rn• ` ,' tu.ADEUwaru IErE ntwnva..vw wwnac. n..m. v.E.m.n.r c J -- I Er u B - r lF 7 r- I r n r... rE".. A.•E1 was A.. o.,.r U LMf K_ //` WO( tali a/RJCT/fc.. V•wr•. .. n co...m AAencAW w•e...lvrw.... nw... o• c { lI 1 y / / 1r \ I / E f 1 ifA O TN . 1" i IA'sArt.v< dv.nJ< 1.• W..n' b ' wYfliOYr WATiIC]1 Ov.va<'M :• vr W•Iw. lip, v r I E I ITT M . DHOW LOW - A- - . D / 1•". rwvw r/ _ I9 h VME MO.IAI 1<• n <. v^N. E I F Xl t7ll ' l t/ N O T E' L E.• CIr1 O•wIp•, r.E MWI.cvJ En< Mn Iw <. UU°nJ Mam...on C F TfifiiCAtY C`0lYf9 SPfS- I L.,—, { Fll11AE} I I Han .<,.•. LANDSCAPE C ._ r <. Ji F PLAN r mocx ` / b LO l \ ii 1. h IIp J p a Ycaw a > a MY.. A.00AAn•C L IFi EJ+ Mw aa A T~ r , flLro It_/ 5 r 1._ w u.+n a. Iw .. e o a . f .- L. "n .. : 1.. n.w + a.mn « a < . ww a < ..° n ...° I.<t . ii• vl v L l._ • ;_. I' , i. ice.`.. saw..i: ip l . r..w «, M.i N.n la u r . • . c.mu.c. I ' f I1, TT V C ... M.c.flc. wn wv.WJ la . ar.wW hlanu u°n A ca.JL.,v wh,« • 1 w a.<. u..•.ro f..a,.. th,. Wnu aO. W. 1: ' = Af.. • Anne 111. O.u i • wfw,.nJ..n: .. W . a.J a E rar T••E•V um, • na. . r E Ain rorol o D - c."..W r."..q ti • r+........... fEEWAr fO-TVY THTIItu " af.EOwAUI PLANTING SUMMARY SATE AA" 11 AUES P A _ 0 P_0 -_ S_E_ D runrno o.{n AeasleD LANDSC PLAN Itai D.O - a.a. ,D.IANI.q / OMa TOVOED: r CO as TPLEt 6". - 3W DECOAATwf 7_ft aOm LD - r0 TOTAL' ra IDIIIa IAOVOfO. L 1 ADCrDONAL OOWOEAAiq OAOtAD VM K X fa w...n ua..., ELaTMO TI 3 TO AT— IDCATID TO " T14A A 3 Of IAACEL: 011ANIRY NOr vtlf ro, O i l l 111111111111 ifl) l L.I L.L l..l L.I l••l f l•.i I l '..; i••l _ l..l a.rl.. 1. I - l..l I i Jim i err > ii; r u r ._ I- 11\1111111 \ 11111 ' rrl: r( r. lrrl r r sr l.rl j . l lr i l..j ;.. _ . i I - 1 I I I I I 1' I 1 ; iil_ iliil i i' i liii i Ir rl_a..l._a . l• I. L.l 1- lii r - I ir•l_Lrl L.I L.I Lrl irrrri FRIsurm HOTEL raL rRLD RESTAURANT BROO KLYN SIDE An Wtu IDS I ww..w'Y e e) lee'- _ erl wei I we4lI.Ieel I REAR , ai -; Iiil . li ._ lw - - liil ii Iww lrrl Ierl ' Iii l rl r ee re s ee r, i1 11, _ Teel - lee T T ` I = e 1111111 ' I1 ; IIIIIiI ee Ire) leek. l : leelr lew- • -. II'1II!; ELEVATI r SHINGLE CREEK POOL ARIA k na I a' COUNTRY INN k tr SUITES HOTEL arK Rtarnoa ReT. H FRIDAYS Roo d T.G.L FRIDAYS c t ortct A42 RESTAURANT sutra SURD smn 1 aunt a ° m i i ACCW®ri 7 LAUnRT sUrrs surd IUITr BROOKLYN CENTER 3Urrl I Roots stmt sutra surrr MINNESOTA MAW. rrA" Rood Rood siscr. FIRST FLOOR Rood Ym comma worms Mrs aTOltAOt LA•TT C°RRmo FITCMM ti 1 f Sf. r T1' 4 a uvn i• A tit t nua * jr aura+ umr. omct ACCLS31BL3 BRrAF/A?T ROOM Guilt/ acrd ma outs» utrd Gunn und 3rAlX ' A PO10Cd VE"• PORCH HOTEL UNITS rum yr Dian la. wr . ccteauu rmas Aocwu4 aurrt 23 awr su Ewa" noon mrist ly 12. aaer . ALCMAGC4. r.aaa lua:n 1 soar C LORAMN aufral . . . . 2 aver Xn M IM RAT. sans . . . L Aeor 31 aeon trmrp woa surm . .lUtiR 12. soar . FIRST FLOOR PRE IIn4mD= "" " SENTATION R Rr uffl . . . 2 awr Elo FREEWAY BOULEVARD Dm TOTAL Ud)T3 rj SHINGLE CREEK COUNTRY INN d POOL HOTEL B O ELOW RIDAYS T.G.I. FRIDAYS RESTAURANT U BROOKLYN CENTER,IdINNESOTA svm sum svm 3m sum sum sum um mm sum sum aura sum sum avrt• 7 77 77 l MAO SECOND FLOOR LOBBY M can=& n aarowumoa rs roe p pp. V 4l n Y • y QUM Quml QUm Qum QVm Quml nra Y Qum Qum Qum Qum QvM Qum 2 m+gunog ms•axma nw v sum s sm AOC•'JOG>la 4Ua>JI usus Quasa TOP TF rO Cll 71 CAR PORT BELOW V 9800tl SECOND FLOOR PRESENTATION FREEWAY BOULEVARD 1/8 . A1., SHINGLE CREEK O .11 1 POOL BELOW COUNTRY INN k SUITES HOTEL O F RIDA EL L i T.O.L FRIDAYSRESTAURANTBROOKLYN CENTER c. c. c:c. urvmm 1(fNNESOTA nm. tum RM s sm. ms sm gym. rrtn rRn nm rom nm. rvm THIRD FLOOR n.n rm mmco. LOBBY u+r amno. c D w 0 opT7 E Rk Vml gum Qum qv m VVQ. qvm 4 Em Qum a avm um vm wm cam"Mm CMAM X FM met r tlwz Luce gum Qum POR H R I I CAR PORT BELOW 9800E THIRD FLOOR PRESENTATION FREEWAY BOULEVARD 6,880 sQ. F-r. 00UNTIty .. N 4 BUILDING ( 6,080 6Q. FT.) 6LrTU6 HotmL KITCHEN AREA 1,882 SQ. FT. FRIDAYS AREA 4,748 SQ. FT. VESTIBULE AREA 182 SQ. FT. Tdl PRIDAY4 1.1ECH. / ELEC.ROOM - 108 SQ. FT. RlrM AUMANT MISCELLANEOUS ( 1,049 & Q. Pr.) M4400TA COOLER AREA 412 SQ. FT. OUTDOOR PATIO 837 SQ. FT. DINING 2 — Tops IB = 38 Seats 4 — Tops • • • • • 12 48 Seats 6 — Tops • • • . • • . . 4 24 Seats 8 — Tops • • • • • . . . 1 8 Seats TOTAL 36 118 Seats BOOTHS 2 — Tops • • . • • • . • 6 = 10 Seats 4 — Tops • • • • • • • • 13 = 62 Seats TOTAL 18 62 Seats TOTAL DINING 6BAT6 • • • . • . . . . 180 Seats BAR DINING 2 — Tops ( TABLE) 6 = 12 Seats 4 — Tops ( BOOTII) 6 20 Seats f TOTAL 11 32 Seats I:i GRAND TOTAL 66 212 Seats e BAR SATING Island Bar Only) 36 Seats 248 seats i BAR STANDING .. ........... . 51 Persons TOTAL OCCUPANCY 2 9 9 AZ i o _ FRONT tG.L FRIDAY'S RESTAURANT BROOKLYN CENTER. am EMIL YJ.ur.sr t+uTvwn.v asrl+.••..y.Y.rlwww.w i 11,E 1111 iT .." SIDE ELEVATIO UAR I aw f---Q 7E36 T' r 11,11 11 Ili i i A- ;; o• f', Nn, 3 r 111 o t1 1//1 11.11 C 11. / 1 11.11 11.11 OII 11.11 11.11 1: G I) tiII 11 / i 1111 11.111 11O 1 / / 1 q I O 111111{ { I IIII,I { III 11161 { III,• x ,, I! ill 1 O I II Iiil ii,ll illilll) ll{I . • i linl li' ° iiii'ilt ° Ier' i 11 1 i•i Y I u VIII I I +"•- iA + 1VA1 11 11 adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 96012 SUBMITTED BY T.G.I. FRIDAY'S, INC. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 96012 submitted by T.G.I. Friday's, Inc. proposes rezoning from I -1 (Industrial Park) to PUD /I -1 of a 13.09 acre parcel of land legally described as Tract C, RLS 1377, located north of Freeway Boulevard between the properties addressed as 2400 and 2700 Freeway Boulevard; and WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the Rezoning of the above mentioned parcel and Site and Building Plan approval for a hotel and two restaurants on the aforementioned site; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on July 25, 1996 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the Rezoning and Site and Building Plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 96012 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 96 -1; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 96012 at its August 12, 1996 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Rezoning and Site and Building Plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City Zoning Ordinance, provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 96012 submitted by T. G. L Friday's, Inc. be approved in light of the following considerations: 1.The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2.The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3.The utilization of the property as proposed under this Rezoning and Site and Building Plan will conform with city ordinance standards and is considered a reasonable use of the property. 4.The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered compatible with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City. 5.The Rezoning and Site and Building Plan appear to be a good long range use of the existing land and an asset to the community. 6.In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to approve Application No. 96012 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on- ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed on all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The roP e Y owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenanceP and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The plans shall be modified to provide the following: a. The installation of ten additional Black Hills Spruce Trees on the landscape plan. b. A detailed lan indicating the screening for the trash facilities including materials to be utilized. 12. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center current standard specifications and details. 13. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. 14. Stop signs shall be installed at the entrances /exits to the site as prescribed in the Uniform Manual for Traffic Control Signs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to execute said development agreement on behalf of the City. Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 1996 at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding the zoningi classification of certain land. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities area vailable upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND. (T. G. L FRIDAY'S /COUNTRY INN AND SUITES). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35 -1200. INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (1 -1). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (I -1) Industrial Park District zoning classification: Tracts A, B, [C,] D and E, R.L.S. No. 1377. Section 5- 40.I DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PUD . Thei312PLANNEDUNITDO following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development zoning classification: 3.The following properties are designated as PUD/I -1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park): Tract C. R.L.S. No. 1377 Tracts A, B, and C, R.L.S. No. 1564. Tracts A, B, C, and G, R.L.S. No. 1572. Tracts A and B, R.L.S. No. 1619. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 1996. Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted MEMORANDUM DATE:July 23, 1996 TO:Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM:Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED SITE PLAN - FREEWAY BOULEVARD - COUNTRY INN AND FRIDAY'S RESTAURANT A review of the proposed site plan has been conducted. The plans reviewed were prepared by the firm of Landform Engineering Company, dated June 27, 1996. A revised grading plan, dated July 8, 1996 was also received and reviewed. The following review comments are offered: 1.The proposed project involves the construction of a Country Inn Hotel, a TGI Friday's Restaurant, and an additional restaurant on a site of approximately 13 acres. Because of the property size and its adjacent location to Shingle Creek and a protected wetland, the plan has been reviewed and approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, subject to the following conditions: A.Submittal of a revised outlet detail with corrected elevation references. B.Submittal of a legal document granting easements to the City over ondin areasIItYQ1'L wetlands, and the 100 -year flood plain. C.Submittal of an Operation and Maintenance Plan which will maintain the outlet control structure and permanent pool in the storm water treatment pond. The plan shall be provided to the City in the form of a recordable agreement that assures the designated operation and maintenance procedures will be faithfully executed. 2.The grading limits of the plan have been revised to avoid any impacts to wetland areas. The plan does propose some amount of filling to occur within the 100 year flood plain. However, it appears that compensating storage volume has been adequately provided for by the proposed detention and ponding area. 3.A 16 inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer currently traverses through the center of the site. In order for the proposed building plan to occur, this sewer must be relocated. The plans and references indicate that the relocation has already been completed. No sewer relocation work has been performed or even commenced at this time. It is likely that the sewer could be relocated to an alignment along the right of way of Freeway Boulevard. The property owner /applicant would be required to grant an easement for this relocation to occur. 4.Two access driveways to Freeway Boulevard have been proposed, along with an additional access to the adjacent private driveway along the west side of the property. The applicant shall be responsible for acquiring any access easements as required. 5.A utility plan has been submitted for the site. Adequate looping of an 8 inch diameter water main through the site has been proposed from existing main on Freeway Boulevard. All 90 de water bends should be revised to be two 45 degree bends. Domestic and fire service needs and requirements, including hydrant locations must also be reviewed and approved by City Fire and Building officials. All hydrants shall be Waterous WB59 in accordance with City standards. Sanitary sewer service is also shown, and proposed to be connected to the proposed relocated sanity sewer main along Freeway Boulevard previously describedscribed above.g Y P Y The connections and invert elevations provided on the plan do not appear to be correct and should be revised accordingly. The applicant/property owner will be responsible for all utility connections, relocations, and hook ups as needed. Storm sewer is also provided on the plan and appears to provide adequate drainage for the site. An erosion control plan has also been provided and must be established and adhered to at all times throughout construction. 5.The applicant /property owner will be responsible for any subgrade /geotechnical issues that may exist or arise during the course of grading and /or construction. 6.Landscaping, and si nage t eonheproperty must consider appropriateriate st ht li e visibilitiessight-line safety istPgPPrtYPPPtY as required. 7.All curbing on the proposed plan shall be concrete curb and gutter, iVln/Dot B612. 1 1 adoption: Member DebraHilstromintroducedthefollowingresolutionandmovedits RESOLUTIONNO. 96 -155 RESOLUTION REGARDINGDISPOSITIONOFPLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONNO. 96012SUBMITTED BY T.G.I. FRIDAY'S. INC. WHEREAS, PlanningCommissionApplicationNo. 96012submittedbyT.G.I. Friday's, Inc. proposesrezoningfromI -1 (IndustrialPark) toPUD /I -1ofa13.09acreparcel oflandlegallydescribedasTractC, RLS1377, locatednorthofFreewayBoulevardbetween theproperties addressed as2400and2700FreewayBoulevard; and WHEREAS, thisproposalcomprehendstheRezoningoftheabovementioned parcel andSiteandBuildingPlanapprovalforahotelandtworestaurantsonthe aforementioned site; and WHEREAS, thePlanning CommissionheldadulycalledpublichearingonJuly 25, 1996whenastaffreport andpublictestimonyregardingtheRezoningandSiteand BuildingPlanwerereceived; and WHEREAS, thePlanningCommissionrecommendedapprovalofApplication No. 96012byadoptingPlanningCommissionResolutionNo. 96 -2; and WHEREAS, theCityCouncilconsideredApplicationNo. 96012atitsAugust 12, 1996meeting; and WHEREAS, theCityCouncilhasconsideredtheRezoningandSiteand BuildingPlanrequestinlightofalltestimonyreceived, theguidelinesforevaluatingrezonings containedinSection35 -208oftheCityZoningOrdinance, provisionsofthePlannedUnit Development ordinancecontainedinSection35 -355andtheCity'sComprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVED bytheCityCounciloftheCityof BrooklynCenterthatApplicationNo. 96012submittedbyT. G. I. Friday's, Inc. beapproved inlightofthefollowingconsiderations: 1. TheRezoningandPlannedUnitDevelopmentproposalarecompatible withthe standards, purposesandintentofthePlannedUnitDevelopmentsectionofthe City'sZoningOrdinance. 2. TheRezoningandPlannedUnitDevelopmentproposalwillallowforthe utilizationofthelandinquestioninamannerwhichiscompatible with, complimentary toandofcomparableintensitytoadjacentlandusesaswellas thosepermittedonsurroundingland. RESOLUTIONNO.96 -155 3. TheutilizationofthepropertyasproposedunderthisRezoningandSiteand BuildingPlanwillconformwithcityordinance standardsandisconsidered a reasonableuseoftheproperty. 4. TheRezoningandPlannedUnitDevelopmentproposal areconsidered compatiblewiththerecommendationsoftheCity'sComprehensivePlanforthis areaoftheCity. 5. TheRezoningandSiteandBuildingPlanappeartobeagoodlongrangeuseof theexistinglandandanassettothecommunity. 6. Inlightoftheaboveconsiderations, itisbelievedthattheguidelinesfor evaluatingrezoningsascontained inSection35 -208oftheCity'sZoning Ordinancearemetandthattheproposalis, therefore, inthebestinterestofthe community. BEITFURTHERRESOLVEDbytheCityCounciloftheCityofBrooklynCenterto approveApplicationNo. 96012besubjecttothefollowing conditionsandconsiderations: 1. Thebuildingplansaresubjecttoreviewandapproval bytheBuildingOfficial withrespecttoapplicablecodespriortotheissuanceofpermits. 2. Grading, drainageandutilityplansaresubjecttoreviewandapproval bythe CityEngineerpriortotheissuanceofpermits. 3. Asiteperformance agreementandsupporting financial guaranteeinanamount tobedeterminedbasedoncostestimatesshallbesubmittedpriortotheissuance ofpermits. 4. Anyoutsidetrashdisposalfacilitiesandrooftoporon- groundmechanical equipmentshallbeappropriately screenedfromview. 5. Thebuildingsaretobeequippedwithanautomatic fireextinguishingsystemto meetNFPAstandardsandshallbeconnectedtoacentralmonitoringdevicein accordancewithChapter5oftheCityOrdinances. 6. Anunderground irrigationsystemshallbeinstalled onalllandscapedareas to facilitatesitemaintenance. 7. Planapprovalisexclusiveofallsignery, whichissubjecttoChapter34ofthe CityOrdinances. 8. B -612curbandguttershallbeprovidedaroundallparkinganddrivingareas. 1 1 RESOLUTIONNO. 96 -155 9. Theapplicant shallsubmitanas -builtsurveyoftheproperty, improvements and utilityservicelinespriortoreleaseoftheperformanceguarantee. 10. Thepropertyownershallenterintoaneasement andagreementformaintenance andinspection ofutilityandstormdrainagesystems, priortotheissuance of permits. 11. Theplansshallbemodifiedtoprovidethefollowing: 12. Allworkperformed andmaterialsusedforconstructionofutilitiesshall conformtotheCityofBrooklynCentercurrentstandardspecifications and details. 13. TheapplicantshallenterintoadevelopmentagreementwiththeCity of BrooklynCentertobereviewed andapproved bytheCityAttorneyprior tothe issuanceofbuildingpermits. 14. Stopsignsshallbeinstalledattheentrances /exitstothesiteasprescribed inthe UniformManualforTrafficControlSigns. BE :ITFURTHER RESOLVEDbytheCityCounciloftheCityofBrooklynCenterto authorizetheMayorandtheCityManagertoexecutesaiddevelopment agreementon behalfof theCity. August12, 1996 Date a. TheinstallationoftenadditionalBlackHillsSpruceTreesonthe landscapeplan. b. Adetailedplanindicatingthescreeningforthetrashfacilitiesincluding materialstobeutilized. ATTEST: Clerk Mayor o Themotionfortheadoptionoftheforegoing resolutionwasdulysecondedby member KathleenCarmody anduponvotebeingtakenthereon, thefollowingvotedin favor thereof: MyrnaKragness, KathleenCarmody, DebraHilstrom, KristenMann, andCharlesNichols; andthefollowingvotedagainstthesame: none, whereuponsaidresolutionwasdeclareddulypassedandadopted. Exhibit D M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 31 , 2020 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Site Plan – 2590 Freeway Ave Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed 2590 Freeway Ave (Planning Commission Application No. 2020-007): Preliminary Plans and plat dated 07/14/2020 Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit. C2.1 Site Plan 1. Staff needs more information on the plans regarding the storm pond and the proposed installation of a fountain. The applicant is responsible for the storm water pond and any ongoing/future maintenance the pond may require per the existing maintenance agreement. 2.Applicant shall restripe existing park stalls. 3. Show tree removals for proposed sidewalk 4. Provide ADA accessible route to proposed overlook 5. Provide plans for overlook certified by a structural engineer 6. Show location for fountain power & controls C400 – Grading and Drainage Plan 7. Plan shall show proposed construction and grading limits for proposed work with in the pond. 8. Show grading/grades for proposed sidewalk. 9.Verify existing pond is not within existing wetlands. Applicant shall work with Shingle Creek Watershed Commission’s engineer to ensure the application meet all requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act for work within the pond. Miscellaneous 10. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 11. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision.(see attached template letter) The engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). 12.The total disturbed area is less than one acre; an NPDES permit is not required. In addition, the total disturbed area is less than 1 acre, per Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission rules, the applicant should incorporate water quality measures to the site to the best extent possible. Exhibit E PC Review Memo, July 31 , 2020 13. Provide traffic memo highlighting, documenting the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed site and a discussion on the parking needs on a daily use and parking for events. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 14.Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended by the City Engi neer. 15.A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of up to 100% of the estimated site improvement costs as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 16.During construction of the site improvements, and until the permanent turf and plantings are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $2,500 that the City can draw upon on a monthly basis. 17.A construction management plan and agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non-compliance provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting: 18. A City of Brooklyn Center Land Disturbance Permit is required. 19. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 20. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 21. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. 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. City of Brooklyn Center | 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 | (763) 569-3300 | www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org Community Development 763-569-3330 Direct August 5, 2020 Palm Grove Addition Building/Fire comments Upon review of documents provided for the development of an addition located at 2950 Freeway Blvd. Items that are listed below need to be addressed: 1)A SAC determination shall be provided by MET Council with a determination letter presented to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. 2)With the addition of the bar areas on the main floor, second floor and roof top or IF any equipment/appliance changes in the kitchen will require plans being submitted to the Hennepin County Health department for review and approval prior to the building permit being issued. 3)Structural Engineering assessment of the existing roof to ensure that it is capable of supporting the addition of dining/assembly area above per MNBC Chapter 16. 4)Accessible parking requirements for Group A2 occupancies shall be provided with not less than the required accessible parking space and access aisle per Chapter 11 and ICC ANSI A117.1-2009 with MN Amendments 1106.1. 5)Buildings addition and the existing building IF not already sprinklered will be required per the Special Fire Protection systems subp. 2 adopted by the City of Brooklyn Center. 6)The curb located on the SW corner where parking starts following around the addition to the north corner of parking shall be painted yellow and “NO PARKING-FIRE LANE” signs installed as required by the Fire Code Official to prevent obstruction of the Fire Apparatus road per MNFC 503.3. 7)Separate permits required for this addition which may include Mechanical permit, Plumbing permit (plans to be reviewed by State), Elevator permit (required by State), Fire Sprinkler permit & Sign permits required by zoning. Dan Grinsteinner Building Official City of Brooklyn Center Exhibit F Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-007 FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT APPROVALS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2590 FREEWAY BOULEVARD AND KNOWN COMMONLY AS JAMMIN’ WINGS RESTAURANT WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2020-007, submitted by Wayne Brown of W K Brown, LLC (“the Applicant”), requests review and consideration for approval of a site and building plan and amendments to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the property located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard and known commonly as Jammin’ Wings Restaurant (“the Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is currently zoned PUD/I1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) District; and WHEREAS, the submittal contemplates the expansion and re-branding of an existing restaurant space to accommodate a new three story, approximately 14,000 square foot restaurant with event center and related site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property was originally developed under Planning Commission Application No. 96012, which approved the re-zoning of a 13.09 acre site from I1 (Industrial Park) District to PUD/I1, and approved a site and building plan to develop an 85-room Country Inn and Suites Hotel (2550 Freeway Boulevard), a TGI Friday’s restaurant (“the Subject Property”), and a second restaurant on the east side of the Country Inn and Suites that was never constructed (2500 Freeway Boulevard), and which currently serves as an overflow lot for BAPS, located to the east at 2300 Freeway Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the original approvals noted that, up until 1990, restaurants and hotels were acknowledged as special uses in the I1 zoning district; however, due to concerns relating to the Special Use Permit process and its ability to protect the interest and concerns of the City, the Planned Unit Development process, which was established during this time, was determined to be the appropriate process for considering any uses other than light industrial and/or service and office land uses within the I1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, it was acknowledged in the original approval process for the Subject Property and two adjacent PUD properties that, while the aforementioned properties were not necessarily unsuited for light industrial use, it was long believed that these properties would be better suited for a more intense development due to its visibility and access off the freeway; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property has functioned as a TGI Friday’s (restaurant), Oak City Sports Tavern (restaurant), and since 2013 as Jammin’ Wings (restaurant); and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota received and reviewed a planning report for the proposed expansion and re-branding of the existing restaurant space into a new restaurant concept and event center with related site improvements on the approximately 3.96 acre Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota held a duly noticed and called public hearing on August 13, 2020, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding the proposal were received. Notice of such public hearing was published in the official newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners as required by City Code, and notification signage was installed on the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the existing Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement between the Subject Property and adjacent Country Inn and Suites to determine whether sufficient parking was available under the agreement, which allows for reciprocal use of parking and access facilities between properties, but does not include the third property under the PUD (2500 Freeway Boulevard), and found that the Applicant will need to either reduce the overall seating occupancy, or provide an operational plan to ensure minimum parking needs are met for the Subject Property and adjacent Country Inn and Suites (2550 Freeway Boulevard); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota considered the requests in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans under Chapter 35 (Zoning) and specifically Section 35-230 (Plan Approval), and Planned Unit Developments as contained in Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City’s Zoning Code, including compliance with the guidelines for PUDs, and the request generally complies with the general goals and objectives of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota to recommend that Planning Commission Application No. 2020-007, submitted by Wayne Brown of W K Brown LLC, be approved based upon the findings of fact in the August 13, 2020 planning report and submitted plans, as amended by the following conditions of approval: 1. Building and Site Plan Review: The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits; and the final location or placement of any fire hydrants or other fire-related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Inspector. a. Any major changes or modifications made to this Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development and Site and Building Plan as approved by the City Council. i. The site plan shall be updated to reflect building setbacks, the inclusion of the property line for the BAPS overflow lot located at 2500 Freeway Boulevard, a revised parking count, and the removal of spaces from the BAPS overflow lot for clarity, as the property is not included in the Joint Access and Parking Easement Agreement. b. The Applicant shall comply with any and all conditions as outlined by Building Official in the memorandum dated August 5, 2020. c. Applicant shall revise architectural renderings to reflect breakdown of Class I and Class II building materials per each elevation. d. All conditions of approval as addressed under City Council Resolution No. 96-155 (Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 96012 Submitted by T.G.I. Friday’s, Inc.), and approved on August 12, 1996, are to remain in effect. e. A pre-construction conference shall be held with City staff and other entities designated by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Agreements: a. The Property Owner/Applicant shall execute a separate Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards comprehended under this site and building plan approval. b. The Applicant shall work with the City and City Attorney’s office to amend any PUD/development agreements on file for the Subject Property. Any required amendments shall be addressed and recorded prior to the release of any building permits. c. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the Subject Property, as well as any improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the Performance Agreement financial guarantee. d. The Applicant shall apply for and maintain a second City liquor license for the separate uses. e. The Applicant and City shall determine necessity of a separate Entertainment License as outlined under Chapter 23 of the City Code. Irrespective of the necessity for said license, the Applicant shall provide documentation as required for issuance of an Entertainment License as part of any building permit submittal and as a stipulation of approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, and operate subject to the same standards and regulations. f. The Applicant shall work with the Brooklyn Center Police Department to address comments and recommendations outlined in the safety and security assessment memorandum prepared by Becky Boie, Crime Prevention Specialist, on September 3, 2020. 3. Engineering Review: The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer’s Review memorandum, dated July 31, 2020, including: a. Final grading, drainage, utility, irrigation, erosion control, and as-built plans, and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. b. Provide a traffic memo highlighting and documenting anticipated traffic generated by the proposed site and discussion of the parking needs on a daily use and parking for events. Said plan should also outline operational strategies to ensure maximum available parking is not exceeded and does not negatively impact adjacent uses and properties. c. A construction management plan and agreement is required with a separate deposit required to address any non-compliance. d. No work shall be conducted on the proposed pond overlook until the Applicant provides sufficient documentation to the City and Shingle Creek Watershed Commission to ensure said improvements will not impact existing wetlands and meet all requirements under the Wetland Conservation Act for work within a pond. 4. Facilities and Equipment: a. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view per City Code requirements. b. Any outdoor enclosures shall be constructed with materials that are complementary to the principal building. c. The Applicant shall furnish fixture specifications and a photometric plan as part of the Building Permit submittal and comply with all City Code provisions as addressed under Section 35-712 (Lighting). Applicant shall ensure adequate lighting is present throughout the parking lot and in proximity to all points of entrance and exit, and ensure any lighting is not in conflict with the adjacent hotel use. 5. Landscaping: a. The Applicant shall furnish an updated copy of the landscape plan approved under Planning Commission Application No. 96012. Said plan shall address any missing, required plantings and proposals for replacement. All new plantings shall meet the minimum caliper and height requirements as outlined in the City’s Landscape Point System Policy. 6. Signage: The Applicant shall submit a Building Permit application for any proposed signage, including, but not limited to the dynamic messaging sign, wall, and canopy signage. Signage is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance); however, the Applicant shall be allotted up to 200 square feet for a dynamic messaging sign subject to providing a certain percentage of screen time for public messaging and alerts. No off-site advertising is permitted. September 14, 2020 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. PC Minutes 08-13-20 -12- DRAFT Vote on the motion to amend Resolution No. 2020-006: Voting in favor: Chair Omari and Commissioners Daniels, Goyah, Hmong, and Daniels. Voting against: Commissioners Koenig, and MacMillan. Motion passed (5 in favor and 2 against). Vote on the motion to approve Resolution No. 2020-006 as amended: Voting in favor: Chair Omari and Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Daniels, Goyah, Hmong, and Daniels. Motion passed unanimously. Chair Omari called for a 5-minute recess. 6b) Planning Commission Application No. 2020-007 (Public Hearing) Applicant: Wayne Brown of W K Brown, LLC Property Address: 2590 Freeway Boulevard Summary: The Applicant is requesting review and consideration of requests for site and building plan and Planned Unit Development amendment approvals that would allow for the expansion of an existing restaurant space into a new three-story, approximately 14,000 square foot restaurant with event center and related site improvements. Ms. McIntosh reviewed an application from Wayne Brown LLC for site and building plan approval and PUD amendment for expansion of an existing restaurant space into a new 3-story, 14,000 square foot restaurant and event center with related site improvements. She added the subject property, Jammin Wings Restaurant, connected by breezeway to the Country Inn & Suites, would be converted to Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse and Lounge, with event center space on the main and upper floors. Ms. McIntosh stated the site plan was originally approved in 1996, as part of a 13-acre site development that was rezoned from I1 Light Industrial District to PUD-I1. This included the hotel, a T.G.I. Fridays, which is the subject property, and another restaurant to the east that was never developed. The current proposal is to construct 2 additional levels above Jammin Wings to include event and conference space, a wedding chapel, rooftop terrace, and year-round green space. The applicant is proposing that the 2nd and 3rd floors be situated to the west to avoid the costly relocation of rooftop utilities. Ms. McIntosh stated, with regard to exterior building materials, the proposed expansion would be complementary to the existing restaurant building, with a brick and stucco panel façade as well as awnings for the Italian steakhouse feel. PC Minutes 08-13-20 -13- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh stated parking was approved in the 1996 PUD for 381 parking stalls across the 3 lots, figuring in restaurant patrons and employees as well as hotel guests and employees. She added the applicant has not provided information on the total combined numbers of employees for the restaurant and event center uses. She noted parking would need to be reviewed as part of the building approvals process, but based on current seating occupancy, 285 parking spaces would be required. Ms. McIntosh stated the original approval included a joint parking and access agreement that allows reciprocal parking use between the subject property and the hotel but does not include the 3rd undeveloped property into the agreement; therefore, that parking cannot be counted towards additional spaces. Ms. McIntosh stated exterior lighting is covered in the original PUD and must continue to meet those requirements. Any new or additional lighting would need to meet City Code requirements with special consideration given to lighting on the side of the building that faces hotel rooms, and sufficient lighting for patrons in the parking lot. Ms. McIntosh stated that, whether a City entertainment license is required or not, as this is a PUD, City staff is requiring the applicant to comply with all provisions of said entertainment license under Chapter 23 of the City Code of Ordinances. This means the applicant would need to comply with all provisions, including noise restrictions after 10:00 p.m. Ms. McIntosh stated the hotel and restaurant currently share a trash enclosure that is located mostly on the Jammin Wings property. The applicant would need to review whether the current trash enclosure and trash collection is sufficient, and whether a cover or additional screening is required, as it may be visible from above. The existing enclosure has an opaque wood fence. The applicant will need to comply with all City Code requirements. Ms. McIntosh stated a landscape plan was approved in 1996, and the applicant will need to review that plan to ensure that they are in compliance, as well as meet the City’s landscaping and plants points policy, as part of the building permit process. There are currently overgrown plants and weeds on the property that will need to be addressed. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant is proposing a 200-square foot digital dynamic messaging sign on the building’s south elevation which faces the freeway. Other signage is requested with the steakhouse name and logo and canopy signage. City Code allows up to 15% wall signage on an adjacent wall surface for each elevation of a building. City Staff is comfortable with the messaging sign but will require that sign can be used for public messaging and alerts due to visibility from the freeway, and no off-site advertising. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant has indicated an intention of making improvements to the stormwater pond on the north end of the site but did not provide detailed plans. She added City Staff will not allow that to proceed until plans have been received, including necessary approvals related to wetland delineation. She noted the proposed building will need to meet all building Code and fire Code requirements, as well as provide a structural assessment to ensure the existing structure can support two additional floors. Compliance with ADA requirements and emergency access will also be required. PC Minutes 08-13-20 -14- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh stated notification of the public hearing was posted in the Sun Post on July 30, 2020, and notification was sent to nearby properties. A sign was posted on the site by Public Works, stating that the site is under review for redevelopment. And providing contact information for comments or questions. No public comments were received, but City Staff were contacted by Country Inn & Suites management just prior to the meeting. The hotel’s Regional Manager sent an email, which indicated that, while they like the applicant and should like to have such a use, the current business operation and complaints on file indicate that the plan is unacceptable due to the current noise, garbage, and incidents of violence that occurs in the parking lot until at least 2:00 a.m., disturbing hotel guests. The Regional Manager indicated the business concept is a great idea, but without customer control, it will be a further threat to the safety of their guests. The Regional Manager provided video footage and a list of complaints. Ms. McIntosh stated, based on City Code, City Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the application from Wayne Brown LLC for site and building plan approval and Planned Unit Development for Jammin Wings, subject to compliance with Conditions of Approval. OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2020-007 There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2020-007. The motion passed unanimously. Shari Singleton stated she is the Assistant General Manager at Country Inn & Suites. She added she does not have any questions about the proposal. She noted, with the new development, parking would be even tighter than it is currently, and there would be no way to control noise and disturbance to the hotel guests. Kristine Weeks, 6018 Ewing Avenue N, stated the email from Country Inn & Suites was well- written, and as a resident, she agrees with the hotel’s viewpoint. She added it would be great to have an event center, but noise and drinking in the parking lot will continue to happen no matter what kind of precautions are taken. She noted she agrees that this will ruin the hotel’s business. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING) There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2020-007. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Omari called for questions and comments from Commissioners. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant, Wayne Brown, joined the meeting. Chair Omari asked the applicant to provide responses to the allegations listed in the email from Country Inn & Suites, regarding the night club environment. Mr. Brown stated there is no intention of having a night club, as this will be an event and meeting space. He added the new use will solve that problem. He added the amount of required parking will depend upon occupancy, which can be reduced to accommodate parking. PC Minutes 08-13-20 -15- DRAFT Mr. Brown stated they are not planning on having a night club. He added he has been at Jammin Wings for 7 years, and he has upgraded the building and given it curb appeal. He added he has worked with Country Inn & Suites to reduce tensions. He noted there will not be a night club anymore, because the 5-star restaurant, weddings, and meetings will improve the quality of the atmosphere, and he plans on putting a lot of money into the building, which he will not jeopardize. Mr. Brown stated he plans to give back to the community, including an event called “grand market”, to be hosted by the event center, doing community development with the Police and Fire Departments, and bring the community together. Chair Omari stated music and noise from the rooftop open space will disturb hotel guests. Mr. Brown stated the open space will be moved 70-100 feet further away from the hotel, and he plans to do sound insulation. He added there is currently no music on the patio after 10:00 p.m., and that will be the same with the rooftop bar. Chair Omari stated people loitering in the parking lot after functions could continue to be a problem and was expressed as an issue by the hotel management. Mr. Brown stated people who go to weddings and meetings will not stay in a parking lot to party after the event, and most of the event center guests will be staying in the nearby hotels. He added security cameras are planned in the parking lot and a fence on the far side near the pond. He noted the pond area will be very expensive, with a beautiful bridge and aeration sprinkler, and they want to put a fence around it to prevent homeless people from sleeping in that area. Commissioner Jones stated, to confirm, Mr. Brown is saying there will not be a nightclub environment anymore. She asked whether there will be DJ nights. She asked whether the space will only be available for weddings and events. Mr. Brown confirmed that is what is being planned. Commissioner Jones asked whether the event center that is planned, if approved, can be changed by the applicant at any time. She asked whether the applicant could move away from the proposed events center model. Mr. Brown stated that is not in the plans. He added he is putting a lot of money into remodeling and bringing in a 5-star restaurant, and it will not be a night club, which is a scenario that he is trying to move away from. Commissioner Koenig stated the original 1996 PUD stresses the importance of providing public benefit. He asked whether another events center is in the public’s best interests, competing with Earle Brown Heritage Center, and future development at the Opportunity Site. He asked whether the Police Department has weighed in on this application. He asked whether the City is participating in financing the project. He added Mr. Brown has stated the business will not be a night club anymore, which seems to indicate that Jammin Wings is a night club, but that is not its current use. Mr. Brown confirmed that Jammin Wings is not a night club. He added the City is not providing financial assistance. PC Minutes 08-13-20 -16- DRAFT Commissioner Koenig asked City Staff whether Public Safety has given this application any consideration. He added the staff report indicated that there is only a verbal agreement with the restaurant franchise, and the possibility that the plan could fall through after three years, and lack of Plan B if that happens. Mr. Brown stated he has run Jammin Wings for 7 years, and if the plans fall through, he will continue to run a restaurant. He added he decided to go with Johnny’s because a friend of his knows the CEO, and they are a high-quality restaurant. He noted he is unable to sign an agreement with them until he has City approvals. Mr. Brown stated Johnny’s will be able to do catering for the weddings and conferences at the events center. He added this will be a successful venture for Johnny’s. He noted it will be a benefit to have fine dining in Brooklyn Center, instead of going downtown or to Maple Grove. Commissioner Koenig stated he agrees that the possibility of a good restaurant is a positive aspect. He added, however, Mr. Brown will be operating three separate entities. He asked how the rooftop space and events only modelled on bookings will be self-sustaining. He noted Jammin Wings currently has difficulty sustaining on days other than Friday and Saturday. Mr. Brown stated there will be a lot of people looking to book weddings, and businesses who will want to have events and conferences. He added there is a generous market, and they plan to have unique models like the 200-sq ft message board, that can be used to convey wedding messages. Mr. Koenig asked Ms. McIntosh whether Public Safety has weighed in. He added there are legitimate concerns and what hotel management is saying has shown itself to be true. He requested clarification on why the City would compete against itself, with Earle Brown Heritage Center. Ms. McIntosh stated she contacted one of the Code Enforcement Inspectors in her department and forwarded the plans and the Police are aware of the proposed project. She added she did not receive a formal response back from the Inspector or Police yet. She noted she is aware that there have been issues with people being outside in the parking lot after hours, and some issues with over occupancy. Mr. Brown stated he is aware of Country Inn & Suites’ comments, and he wants to be done with that. He added he is trying to move the project forward, so that will not be consistently going on. He noted he would like to move on, and elevate the business, and move forward in a positive way. Chair Omari stated Mr. Brown’s business neighbor has indicated they have had issues with people in the parking lot and loud music disturbing their hotel guests. He added this is a business neighbor that Mr. Brown plans to do business with, and their complaints have not been resolved. PC Minutes 08-13-20 -17- DRAFT Mr. Brown stated the events center will bring business to nearby hotels and other businesses in the area. He added there is a lot of history, including repeated requests for police assistance that he never received. He noted these are not issues that should be addressed at this meeting. Commissioner Daniels stated she has visited Jammin Wings and enjoyed the amenities. She added she feels this is a really good business idea for the community. She noted, from her perspective, it will uplift the hotel. Commissioner Daniels asked whether Mr. Brown will address concerns about safety and noise in the parking lot, and what resolution there will be to those problems. She asked whether Mr. Brown is willing to work with the City to address these issues. Mr. Brown stated there are more security measures that would have to be taken in cooperation with the Police Department. He added, as a business owner, it is difficult to disrespect your customers and throw them out of your business. Commissioner Daniels stated she has seen security personnel at Jammin Wings. She asked whether Mr. Brown plans to continue to have security personnel at the events center to enforce the rules and not utilize police support. Mr. Brown confirmed there will be additional security personnel, as this will be a very expensive project with an elaborate bridge and flower gardens, and it will be necessary to prevent vandalism. He added there is no doubt in his mind about the location of Brooklyn Center and where he is putting a business. He noted there will be security cameras and security personnel so that the events center will be a safe place for patrons. Commissioner Goyah stated he has been at Jammin Wings many times and he has seen good things and he has seen not so good things, but he is okay with Mr. Brown’s plans. He added he has questions about the noise issue. He added he looks forward to having a nice restaurant in Brooklyn Center. Commissioner Daniels stated she would like to clarify that people who want to make public comment are not required to share their address. She added this was addressed at the Supreme Court level. Mr. Gilchrist stated it is standard practice to ask members of the public to identify themselves for the record, but if they refuse to do so they will not be prohibited from providing their comments. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-007 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-007 SUBMITTED BY WAYNE BROWN OF W K BROWN LLC There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Hmong, to approve Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 2020-007, disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-007 for site and building plan and PUD amendment approvals for the subject property located at 2590 Freeway Boulevard, known commonly as Jammin Wings Restaurant. PC Minutes 08-13-20 -18- DRAFT Voting in favor: Chair Omari, Commissioners MacMillan, Daniels, Goyah, and Hmong. And the following voted against the same: Commissioners Koenig and Jones. The motion passed (5 in favor to 2 against). 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS 7a) CITY COUNCIL UPDATE Ms. McIntosh stated City Council meetings were previously conducted via Webex, and recently they switched to Zoom. She added, beginning with the next Regular Session, City Council meetings will be going back to Webex. 7b) NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Ms. McIntosh stated the Planning Commission’s next meeting will include a review of an application from Nompeng Academy at 63rd Avenue and Noble Avenue to consolidate two properties purchased by the Academy for green space to the Nompeng Academy property. This is a requirement under the Zoning Code in situations of properties under common ownership that are adjacent to one another. 8. OTHER BUSINESS There were no Other Business items. 9. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. _______________________________ _______________________________ Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Peter Omari, Chair MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Gannon, Chief of Police FROM: Becky Boie, Crime Prevention Specialist DATE: September 3, 2020 SUBJECT: Jammin Wings Proposed Building Addition/CPTED of Property On September 2, 2020, I met with the owner of the current Jammin’ Wings, Mr. Wayne Brown, to review his proposed new event center and restaurant for a safety and security assessment. Parking Lot Safety First, we discussed the current appearance of the parking lot as there are weeds/tall grass and graffiti on the current building. Mr. Brown assured me that it would be cleaned up this weekend. The future plans for the parking lot include re-surfacing/striping to accommodate the approved occupancy of his proposed new event center. There will be an area for valet parking and stated he was still working out the details for how the valet option for patrons would work. He would like to add a fence to the far west parking lot that is adjacent to the neighboring businesses. I concur with that idea based on his plans for the parking area located behind the building (to be discussed further under landscaping). Cameras I recommended a minimum of twelve (12) exterior cameras be added to light poles that would encompass the entire parking lot, to include cameras on the adjacent Country Inn and Suites Hotel, as he will be using their parking lots for his patrons. There should be additional cameras added to the front of the building to ensure the safety at the entrance of the establishment. He currently has interior cameras; however, we did not enter the interior of the current building. Lighting The current parking lot lights meet the minimum standard. I do recommend replacing the single light heads with dual heads. Mr. Brown and I discussed adding an additional light at the far west entrance off Freeway Boulevard, including a camera located on the light pole. He also informed me that he will be adding palm trees that light up, which will also assist in keeping the sightlines visible. Landscaping We discussed at great length his plans for the back of the parking lot in the heavily, currently overgrown, landscaping. The plan for that area is to place a decorative fountain, gazebo and seating area outside. He will be removing all of the overgrown brush and trees to expose the area by the pond. Part of the plan for that area will include a fence that will divide the area between his property and the businesses on the west side. I would recommend a wrought iron fence, at least six (6) feet in height. He plans to also add esthetically pleasing landscaping as well. Pass-through between Jammin’ Wings/Country Inn Mr. Brown stated that the area, which is currently dimly lit and cluttered with garbage, will be a designated smoking area. I recommend additional lighting and a camera that covers this area; the alcove is set back and he will need to ensure the safety of patrons using that area. Event Planning Mr. Brown has multi-use plans for the event center; once it is open, to include weddings, conventions, corporate meetings, etc. Mr. Brown stated that he would hire security for large scale events, but not weddings. However, Brooklyn Center City Ordinance 23-306 (G), in part states: G. Security. The licensee shall provide such private security as may be needed to ensure the entertainment events it conducts do not produce disorderly conduct, constitute an unreasonable risk to public safety, or place an undue burden on police resources. This will need to be discussed further when the establishment is completed. If you have any questions please let me know. cc: Mr. Wayne Brown Meg Beekman Ginny McIntosh From:CX-Bloomington, MN (Jodie Grannes - Regional General Manager) To:Ginny McIntosh Cc:CX-Brooklyn Center, MN (Cheri Singleton - Front Office Manager) Subject:FW: Follow-up: Staff Report for the Proposed Palm Grove Expansion (Jammin" Wings / 2590 Freeway Boulevard) Date:Thursday, August 13, 2020 5:33:44 PM Attachments:A Jammin Wings Video.MOV Jammin Wings Noise Complaints as of 03.23.2020.docx Dear Ginny, Thank you for connecting with Cheri regarding the hearing tonight. The documents you sent were very helpful. We at the Country Inn & Suites would like nothing better than to have the fantastic restaurant, as described by Wayne, attached our hotel. Unfortunately, the nightclub environment that goes along with the plan is completely unacceptable due to the noise, garbage and violence that goes on in the parking lot all night until 2 or 3am. People not wanting to pay the cover charge drink in the parking lot, play loud music, smash liquor bottles and fight amongst themselves 30 feet away from our guest bedroom windows. There were gunshots fired directly next to guest rooms before Covid. The police aren’t interested or equipped to break up crowds of hundreds of people and feel it’s they rightfully feel it’s the restaurant’s responsibility. The DJs the restaurant books are not receptive if we ask them to turn the music down and, if fact, they will turn it up louder. A 10pm stop on music has not been the case. The music goes until 1am and then the party moves out into the parking lot. This has ruined our business. Adding an open air venue does sound lovely, it just means the music will carry that much easier into the attached guest rooms. Our parking lot is already overrun with people coming to Jammin Wings to party and I can’t imagine it could get any worse. We like Wayne a lot and the business itself is a great concept, but without parking lot control, it’s disastrous for our business and the safety of our guests. Thank you for your consideration. Jodie Grannes · Regional General Manager Country Inn & Suites® by Radisson Brooklyn Center, MN Country Inn & Suites® by Radisson Mall of America p: +1 (763) 561-0900 f: +1 (763) 566-2921 d: +1 (763) 656-5154 e: jodie.grannes@countryinn.com 2550 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN, 55430, US www.countryinn.com/brooklyncentermn From: Ginny McIntosh <gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 12:50 PM To: CX-Brooklyn Center, MN gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us (Cheri Singleton - Front Office Manager) <Cheri.Singleton@countryinn.com> Subject: RE: Follow-up: Staff Report for the Proposed Palm Grove Expansion (Jammin' Wings / 2590 Freeway Boulevard) Thanks for the update, Cheri, and I’m sorry you received the triplex notification—I’m not sure what all happened, but I emailed our Admin with an inquiry. We have three public hearings on board, so it’s sounding like you received notice for one of the other projects on for tonight. I would appreciate it if you could join in and provide any comments you might have by then. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. -Ginny Ginny McIntosh | City Planner and Zoning Administrator City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org | 763.569.3319 | gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us From: CX-Brooklyn Center, MN (Cheri Singleton - Front Office Manager) [mailto:Cheri.Singleton@countryinn.com] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 12:46 PM To: Ginny McIntosh Subject: RE: Follow-up: Staff Report for the Proposed Palm Grove Expansion (Jammin' Wings / 2590 Freeway Boulevard) Ginny, Thank you for this information. We did not receive any notice regarding the Palm Grove Expansion proposal (although we did get a written notice in the mail about the two triplex locations proposed). I plan to attend the online hearing tonight. The information you sent was forwarded on when I received it yesterday, but I haven’t heard yet if our corporate team has any questions or response to the proposal. “See” you tonight! Cheri Singleton · Assistant General Manager Country Inn & Suites® by Radisson Brooklyn Center, MN p: +1 (763) 561-0900 f: +1 (763) 566-2921 d: +1 (763) 656-5154 e: cheri.singleton@countryinn.com 2550 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center, MN, 55430, US www.countryinn.com/brooklyncentermn From: Ginny McIntosh <gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 3:30 PM To: CX-Brooklyn Center, MN (Cheri Singleton - Front Office Manager) <Cheri.Singleton@countryinn.com> Subject: Follow-up: Staff Report for the Proposed Palm Grove Expansion (Jammin' Wings / 2590 Freeway Boulevard) Importance: High CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click on a link or open an attachment unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Cheri, Sorry for the game of phone tag! You can access the staff report for the proposed “Palm Grove Expansion” (2590 Freeway Boulevard) here: https://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/DocumentCenter/View/7933 We have three Planning Commission items on board for review tomorrow (https://www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org/index.aspx?NID=255), so if you’d like to join in to listen to the presentation and perhaps provide commentary during the public hearing for 2590 Freeway Boulevard, you can access the meeting online or by phone below: Meeting number (access code): 141 666 5172 Meeting password: BCPC08132020Mtng Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:00 pm | (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) | 4 hrs Start meeting Tap to join from a mobile device (attendees only) +1-312-535-8110,,1416665172## United States Toll (Chicago) +1-415-655-0001,,1416665172## US Toll Join by phone +1-312-535-8110 United States Toll (Chicago) +1-415-655-0001 US Toll Global call-in numbers Join from a video system or application Dial 1416665172@logis.webex.com You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number. The Planning Commission meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. tomorrow (it’s noted as 6 p.m. above because we have a work session before). The request from Wayne Brown will likely not be on until perhaps around 8 p.m. at the earliest. This is a complete guess, but the first two requests are to construct a series of triplexes along Brooklyn Boulevard by a developer on two separate sites and I’m guessing it will take some time to walk through those items. You are always welcome to log on to the meeting and leave yourself on mute so you know when the item is up. If you have any questions or would like to provide any comments in advance of the meeting (particularly as you are attached and share parking through an agreement), please let me know. Thanks, Ginny Ginny McIntosh | City Planner and Zoning Administrator City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org | 763.569.3319 | gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us Jammin Wings Noise Complaints Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 14-May-2019 9:54am We need to track noise complaints related to Jammin Wings. Please reply to this to log any complaints about noise from their music, bar in general, or noise outside. Be specific about the source/typs of noise, and include the date/time of the complaint. This information will be going to our BCPD liaison for action! :-) Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 18-May-2019 10:29am 5/18/19 room 310 Had window open for fresh air ( due to allergies) and was kept awake all night due to loud yelling and screaming from parking lot last night after bar close. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 19-May-2019 7:49am 5/19/19 Guest in 309 said after about 1:30 - 3 a.m. the parking lot was crazy loud bumping music, police etc. He wanted a discount on his room I told him I couldn't do that but to feel free to call Cheri on Monday a.m. I also explained to him that there is nothing we can do about the bar next door, he didn't want to hear it. I thanked him for letting us know and told him I would document his complaint. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 19-May-2019 7:51am 5/19/19 While at the front desk I over heard a convo between several guests talking about the loud music next door, the police in the parking lot after bar hours and the ruckus in the parking lot, I am sure I will have more complaints before the day is over. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 20-May-2019 7:45am 5/20/19: Guest in 224 complained about the noise from the bar last night while he was checking out. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 03-Jun-2019 12:57pm Guests this weekend only complained 2 x that I remember. About the base being loud. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 04-Jun-2019 12:44pm Guest Sara Brenhaug (night of Friday 5/34) - survey comments: We love this hotel, this was the second time we stayed here. The only problem is that this time was a weekend and the bar next door fills the parking lot and it is very loud until the early morning making it difficult to sleep. Improvements comments Close down the bar next door! It really takes away from the family experience when the parking lot is so crazy cuz of the bar next door and the noise from the crowd there makes it difficult to sleep. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 09-Jun-2019 8:24am 6/9/2019 Room 211 came to me at check out and told me they were woke up at @ 2:30 am to a loud fight and noise from the bar. She said that the security from the bar came out and sprayed something at the crowd. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 09-Jun-2019 8:25am 6/9/2019 A guest came and told me there was loud engine revving late last night for about 10 minutes straight as well as loud noise in the parking lot. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 11-Jun-2019 8:29am Guest Minto Porter 6/7 and 6/8 - from survey: Very loud outside at night, Very loud when bar next door closed (scored 5/10 NPS) Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 11-Jun-2019 8:54am Guest posted on TripAdvisor 6/10: The restaurant is even filthier than the hotel and has the worst service on the planet. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 16-Jun-2019 6:10am 6/16 @609am A guest came down and complained about the loud noise @ 100 ppl in the parking lot late at night honking horns yelling etc. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 17-Jun-2019 3:28pm 6/7 and 6/8: From guest survey (Shannon Wentzel) : Was woke up in the middle of the night from a bar fight from the bar right next door. Went on long enough to also wake the kids up. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 17-Jun-2019 5:40pm 6/14 and 6/15: From guest survey (Janelle Barnier): Because of what went on in the parking lot in the middle of the night. I was terrified. There were so many people outside around all of the cars laughing, drinking, screaming, honking horns, etc. for a LONG, LONG time. We had just bought a new car as well the day before and I was sure it would be getting damaged. We didn't know if we were even safe to leave our room. We considered calling 911 but just waited it out. The front desk the next morning told us it was a common problem from the bar next door. Seriously?! It's your parking lot! Your private property! If they're not a guest of yours, they have no business being there and the police should be called for their trespassing every single time it happens. We were told you're working on the problem, but obviously this needs to be taken care of immediately. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 23-Jun-2019 1:02pm 6/23/19 room 307 stated there was loud yelling and fighting in parking lot late last night. They were scared. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 23-Jun-2019 1:03pm 6/23/19 room 329 stated from @1am-@2:15 am there were several cop cars in the lot a fight and a lot of yelling. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 01-Jul-2019 8:23am 7/1/2019 AT @ 2:20 am. a man came to the door asking for water for a friend who was sprayed in the face w/ pepper spray at Jammin wings. The police showed up and had him and his friend outside. They told us they were dealing with an issue from the bar next door. They came in and let us know there was also a man sleeping in a chair out there and they gave him 30 minutes to leave in a cab. He was also from Jammin wings. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 01-Jul-2019 4:54pm 7/1/19, received on booking.com: Negative: It was right beside a Wing/Music Bar that a was very loud and a bit rowdy until 3:00am. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 09-Jul-2019 8:54am Guest survey from 7/6-7: Later that night when we got back to the hotel all the parking lot spots were taken and we had to park way in the far lot because the "wings" restaurant turns into a night club at night. Luckily we were on the other side of the hotel and not next to the club/restaurant. The next day the whole parking lot including the hotels was filled with chicken wings, garbage and plastic cups. Didn't make you feel like your hotel was a nice getaway or place to stay. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 09-Jul-2019 8:55am Guest survey, night of 7/6: Hopefully the restaurant next door doesn't hurt the hotel. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 09-Jul-2019 6:44pm TripAdvisor Review submitted 7/9: We arrived back to our hotel at midnight and came back to see the restaurant next door, which was a Chicken Wings type restaurant, jammed pack like a club with a line with security checking in at the door. Pull into the drive way and searched for a parking lot spot and didn’t find any till the way far back side as the parking lot was being parked by guest of the club next door. We were all glad our room wasn’t on the side of where the party was happening. Wake up the next morning and check out and walk into a disaster of the hotel parking lot with to go bags from the restaurant/club next door all over the hotel parking lot (the restaurants parking lot looked far worst). Didn’t make the hotel look good. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 19-Jul-2019 9:40am From Jessica Halverson (7/12 and 7/13): Saturday night the restaurant attached had a DJ and the parking lot was filled with noise, cars racing, music, Harley’s revving, etc. needless to say we saw every hour on the clock until 4am. The noise level outside in the middle of the night was like nothing I have experienced at a hotel. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 19-Jul-2019 9:41am TripAdvisor Review posted 7/18: The attached restaurant had DJ night and the noise level outside was extravagant from Midnight to 4 am. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 19-Jul-2019 3:11pm Guest survey - stay was 7/11-14: the bar next door was very loud after 2am and music could be heard from 3rd floor with air running very loudly. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 20-Jul-2019 8:01am 7/20/19 room 201 came down and asked for a discount due to noise in lot etc after bar closed last night into morning. He is pre paid thru price line so I told him to contact them. I offered to move his room and he refused. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 22-Jul-2019 4:06am 7/21 Guest from 211 at check out said there was loud yelling and horns honking and loud music in parking lot after bar close on Sat/Sun. He contacted 3rd party and wants a discount on his room. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 22-Jul-2019 4:34am 7/22/19 103 wants to move rooms, Jammin wings kept her and her children up all night. Also can hear every step room above makes, they got no sleep at all. Until after bar close. I promised to move her to another QND2 this evening. Ross Vee wrote this entry on 28-Jul-2019 5:41am 7/27/19 Room 105 Noise there was a fight out side at around 130 am. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 28-Jul-2019 10:31am 7/28/19 room 107 at check out mentioned the loud night club next door. The noise in the parking lot and revving of engines in parking lot. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 29-Jul-2019 2:00pm 7/29: Two rooms cancelled due to online reviews noting noise from the establishment next door. Each were 5 night stays, total revenue lost $1328. (Dustin Elliott and Irvin McCoy) Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 30-Jul-2019 4:42pm 7/28 - Survey by Heather Kuss: a crowd coming out of the restaurant next door woke me up around 2am. Pavek Josh wrote this entry on 10-Aug-2019 10:04pm 8/09 - room 109 complained about loud music and fighting outside their window around 2am. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 11-Aug-2019 7:08am 8/11 early a.m. 302 called NA asking if we had a band playing she was awoken by loud music 12:45a.m. NA told her it was from the club next door she had an early flight and was not happy. Lainy Borchert wrote this entry on 11-Aug-2019 8:55pm 8/11 guest asked to move out of room 301 due to the band playing next door last night. She said she couldn't sleep until 3:30am Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 04-Sep-2019 10:16am 9/1, room 207, from survey: During the night very loud music until probably 2am could not get any sleep! Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 04-Sep-2019 11:06am 9/4/19 Room 104 dog found many chicken bones in lot, a lot of broken glass and beer bottles in lot as well. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 27-Sep-2019 8:56am Survey for 103, Night of 9/20: Most times I'm there they place me towards the night club, loud music and people, no sleep. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 01-Oct-2019 9:35am Expedia review, last weekend in September: If you are on the end of the hotel next to the restaurant, it is very loud! We stayed on a Saturday night and could hear people from the bar and the music until 2:30am. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 01-Oct-2019 3:16pm Review Pro Survey night of 9/28: 2nd time staying here and this time Jammin Wings next door was bumping the music too loud and had customers outside arguing loudly. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 01-Oct-2019 6:11pm Review Pro Survey night of 9/28: 2nd time staying here and this time Jammin Wings next door was bumping the music too loud and had customers outside arguing loudly. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 25-Dec-2019 11:27am 12/25/19 Guest at check out stated that the club next door was so loud she could hear it in her room 301 as clear as day. She called FD and was told it should stop soon and was left like that, no offer of a room move etc. She is very upset. I explained to her that we are not affiliated with them in any way and apologized for the poor behavior of the club and for no offer of a room move. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 31-Dec-2019 2:26pm 12/28, Rm 103: Also, there is jaminwing restaurant next door that kept me up until 3am. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 25-Jan-2020 8:18am 1/25/20 7:19am guest approached FD stated that the noise in the lot was very bad in the early morning hours (bar close 2am'ish) she asked if we had a park and ride back there because there were so many people and it was so loud. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 25-Jan-2020 8:19am 1/25/20 room 305 said the noise out front was so loud, there was a fight. he was afraid there would be gun fire, I didn't inform her that there was in the back around that same time. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 25-Jan-2020 8:20am 1/25/20 Police activity due to fight and gun shots in back lot. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 25-Jan-2020 11:36am 1/25/20 Derek Johnson party came to FD stated she heard a lot of yelling etc in back lot around 2 am, she looked out and saw a fight and then gun shots. She was very scared, I assured her that this kind of thing has never happened before and that she is safe. Fatu Konneh wrote this entry on 03-Feb-2020 8:34am 2/03/20 Tommy Carroll, Didn't get much sleep over the weekend due to music/noise he works early morning drivers. States starting next year Group One Inc. Will no longer be doing business with Country Inn because of noise. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 16-Feb-2020 7:42am 2/16/20 Guest in 214 was very upset about the loud noise yelling horn honking in parking lot at bar close. Wants 1/2 of her stay refunded Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 16-Feb-2020 7:43am 2/16/20 109 Guest said his stay was great except for the noise from the bar next door. Cheri Singleton wrote this entry on 28-Feb-2020 5:28pm Brett Howard - 2/13-2/16 - this guest left one night early AND we refunded $112+tax for one of their nights due to extreme noise complaint. He specifically stated that parking lot noise, including cars peeling out around 2am was a factor. He noted that Jammin Wings was packed and that "they must close around 2am." Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 14-Mar-2020 7:17am 3/14/20 NA was called by room 313 bc the music was so loud they could feel it and hear it all the way in this room. Tina Sanford wrote this entry on 14-Mar-2020 7:44am 3/14/20 324&326 Guest came to me @ 7:40am said they did not sleep most of the night due to loud base/music coming from a car in the parking lot right out front from @ 11pm- 2am. I awarded them 10,000 pts as their stay was prepaid. Council/E D A Work S ession V I RT UA L meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota S tatutes, section 13D.021 P ublic portion available for connection by dialing 1-312-535-8110 A ccess C ode: 1337911584 S eptember 14, 2020 AGE NDA AC T I V E D IS C US S I O N IT E M S 1.Continuation of T H 252 D iscussion with MnD O T 2.S A C Credit Policy P E ND I NG L IS T F O R F UT URE WO RK S E S S IO NS 1.P ending I tems Council Policy f or City C harter requirement of Mayor's signature on all contracts Tobacco R egulations B eautif ication and Public A rt S trategic Plans f or years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 Council's R etreat F ollow up NO A H Preservation P rogram Review S pecial A ssessment Policy E arle B rown name Vehicle Tow P olicy Citizen's R eview Committee O rganic Recycling M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ounc il F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A B Y:C o urnelius L. Boganey, C ity Manager S UBJ E C T:C o ntinuation of T H 252 Dis c us s ion with MnDO T Recommendation: Dis cus s io n and direc tion to Minnes o ta Department of Transportation regarding Hwy 252/94 P lanning P ro c es s . B ackground: W hen the C ity C ounc il met in wo rk s es s io n with MN DO T representatives on Augus t 24th, the C o uncil expressed an interes t in rec eiving ad d itional p ro jec t traffic d ata. T he MNDO T p ro ject team will be at the C o uncil works es s ion to respond to this reques t. In additio n, the team would like to continue d is cus s io ns to p ro vide clarity around the C ounc il's exp ectatio ns fo r equity within the c o ntext o f the anticipated transportatio n p ro ject. S trategic Priorities and Values: Key Transportatio n Investments M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ounc il F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Meg Beekman, C o mmunity Development Directo r B Y:Jimmy Lo yd, Ec o nomic Development C o o rd inato r S UBJ E C T:S AC C redit P olic y B ackground: T he Metropo litan C ounc il manages the sewer s ys tem for the seven county metro p o litan area. T he s ewer treatment sys tem is p aid for thro ugh s ewer ac c es s connec tion (S AC ) fees that are c harged on a p er unit b as is . T he units are c alc ulated o n es timated sewer us age bas ed o n the type and s ize o f us e. F o r examp le, o ne ho us ing unit eq uals one S AC unit. A S AC unit is $2,485. T he fees are charged b y the Metro p o litan C ounc il to the c ity o n new or exp anding d evelopment at the time b uilding p ermits are issued . C ities in turn pass the fees o n to the p ermit holders . S AC units run with the land. O nc e issued , if a bus ines s ceases o p eration o r a hous ing unit is vac ated the S AC units remain with the p ro p erty until a new bus ines s or hous ehold o cc upies the p remis es . If the new user need s fewer S AC units than the previo us user the exc es s c red its can be captured by the city to b e us ed c itywide by o ther bus iness es . S imilarly, if a build ing is demolis hed , the S AC units s it on the p ro p erty unus ed unless the city captures them to b e us ed c itywide b y other b us ines s es . T he Metropo litan C ounc il only allo ws S AC c redits to be collec ted at the time b uilding p ermits o r demolition p ermits are iss ued. Brooklyn C enter is well p o s itioned for a pro gram to capture and reuse citywide S AC c red its. T his is due to the large numb er of vac ant and underutilized properties . F o r the las t s everal years the C ity did not c o llect citywid e S AC c red its fro m properties that were d emo lis hed. T his means that there are dozens of unused S AC units o n p arcels s uc h as the former C racker Barrel s ite, the fo rmer O live gard en s ite, the fo rmer Bro o kdale S q uare, and the former Brookd ale F ord to name a few. W hile the Metro politan C o uncil won't allo w thes e units to b e c o llected as c red its until p ermits are iss ued o n thes e sites , having a polic y in p lace will ensure that the credits are co llec ted and us ed in a way that s upports the C o uncil's p rio rities . T he C ity currently has 31.99 S AC credits fro m exces s units that were collec ted when the C as ey's convenienc e s tore was d evelo p ed on a fo rmer restaurant s ite. S taff is seeking direc tion o n a polic y fo r the use o f these credits . P rop osed S AC C red it P olicy W hile the Metropolitan C o uncil d o es no t regulate ho w the c red its must be us ed , s taff has p rep ared a p ropos ed S AC C redit P o lic y that sup p o rts new and expand ing s mall b usines s es in the c o mmunity. T he C ity c urrently has tools in plac e to incentivize new d evelop ment, s uc h as T I F ; ho wever, there are fewer tools to s upport s mall bus iness es . O nce a build ing is cons truc ted, it is not unc o mmo n fo r tenants to be res p o nsible fo r tenant imp ro vements s uc h as b athro o ms and kitc hen fixtures . T hese typ es of p ermits often are ac companied by S AC fees , which c an be cos tly to s mall bus inesses and add up q uic kly. T he proposed polic y would provid e half of an eligib le bus inesses S AC units , up to a maximum of 3 units , as an inc entive to opening or expand ing their bus ines s in Brooklyn C enter. T he p ro gram fo cus es on small b usines s es with an emp hasis o n female, b lac k, ind igeno us, person of color (BI P O C ), and lo cally-o wned b usines s es . T he full p o licy is attached to this memo. S taff is seeking d irectio n fro m C ounc il on the propos ed p o licy. Policy Issues: - Do es the C ity C o uncil/E DA have ques tions o r c o nc erns ab o ut the p ro pos ed S AC C redit polic y? - Is the C ity C ounc il/EDA c o mfo rtable with the p ro p o s ed S AC C red it polic y? S trategic Priorities and Values: Targeted R edevelo p ment AT TAC HME N T S : Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e S AC C red it Written P olic y 9/9/2020 Bac kup Material Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Reduction Policy Purpose: This policy aims to reduce the barriers to starting and expanding a business and completing strategic development or redevelopment projects in the City by reducing the number of Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) fees a qualified business or project is obligated to pay. It is the policy of the City of Brooklyn Center to pool paid SAC credits from demolished buildings where another use on the property is not planned within one year of demolition. The pooled credits can act as an economic development tool which can be offered to businesses and other qualified projects looking to start or expand in Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Center Pooling Credit Policy A. Demolished properties that will not be rebuilt upon: If a property is demolished and there is no plan for development such as, but not limited to, property used for a roadway project, then the City will pool the SAC credits (when available) at the time the demo permit is issued. B. Demolished property that could be rebuilt upon: If a property is demolished and development is not anticipated to occur or does not occur within one year, then the City will pool the SAC (when available) credits at the time the demolition permit is issued or within a year from the issuance of demolition permit by appealing to the Met Council. Business Fee Reduction The program will credit up to half of the SAC units incurred by an eligible project as assessed by the Metropolitan Council with a maximum of three (3) credits issued by the City of Brooklyn Center. For example, if a business is assessed 5 SAC units it would be eligible for a SAC fee reduction of 2.5 credits. With approval from the EDA, more credits can be awarded if the project demonstrates a financial need. An eligible business must: a. Have been assessed at least 3 SAC units for a new business or assessed 1 SAC credit for an expanding business and b. Be owned (at least 25% stake) by a resident(s) of the seven-county metro area and meet at least one of the criteria below c. Be an independently owned restaurants or other commercial business d. Meet at least ONE of the additional requirements below: i. Businesses currently operating in the city and are planning to expand in order to add more capacity for employment (same or new location in Brooklyn Center) ii. Small businesses (25 or fewer full-time equivalent employees); iii. Business owned (at least 25% stake) and/or operated by women, or persons of color. Program Administration: Awards of credits through track one of the program will be administered by EDA staff with the Executive Director of the EDA signing-off on all final awards. M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION DAT E:9/14/2020 TO :C ity C ounc il F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A B Y:C o rnelius L. Bo ganey, C ity Manager S UBJ E C T:P ending Items Recommendation: C o uncil P olic y fo r C ity C harter requirement o f Mayor's s ignature on all c ontrac ts Tobac co R egulatio ns Beautific atio n and P ublic Art S trategic P lans fo r years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 C o uncil's R etreat F o llo w up NO AH P res ervation P rogram R eview S pec ial As s es sment P o licy Earle Bro wn name Vehic le Tow P olic y C itizen's R eview C ommittee O rganic R ec yc ling B ackground: