Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 06-28 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 via telephone Dial: 1-312-626- 6799 Meeting I D: 92710125463# P asscode: 7635693300# J une 28, 2021 AGE NDA 1.C ity C ouncil Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m. 2.M iscellaneous a.Chat F eature b.Resume I n-Person Council Meetings c.Review Dates f or Council Retreat 3.D iscussion of Work Session Agenda Item as T ime P ermits 4.Adjourn C ouncil Study Session DAT E:6 /28/2 0 2 1 TO :C ity Council F R O M:D r. Reggie Edw ards , A c#ng C ity M anager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:Barb S uciu, City Clerk S U B J E C T:C hat Feature B ackground: C ouncil Study Session DAT E:6 /28/2 0 2 1 TO :C ity Council F R O M:D r. Reggie Edw ards , A c#ng C ity M anager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:Barb S uciu, City Clerk S U B J E C T:Res ume I n-Pers on Council M ee#ngs B ackground: C ouncil Study Session DAT E:6 /28/2 0 2 1 TO :C ity Council F R O M:D r. Reggie Edw ards , A c#ng C ity M anager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:D r. Reginald Edwards, A c#ng C ity M anager S U B J E C T:Rev iew D ates for C ouncil Retreat B ackground: I n the June 18th week ly update the follow ing dates w er e provided for pos s ible mee#ng dates w ith Common S ens e. They were as follows: S aturday, J uly 10, 9 :00 A M – 11:30 A M S aturday, J uly 24, 9 :00 A M – 11:30 A M S aturday, J uly 31, 9 :00 A M – 11:30 A M P lease be prepar ed to dis cuss a pos s ible date for the retreat. 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 via telephone Dial: 1-312-626- 6799 Meeting I D: 92710125463# Passcode: 7635693300# J une 28, 2021 AGE NDA 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 - Ryan - 7 p.m. 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 - Approve the minutes from: June 14 - Study Session June 14 - Regular Session b.Resolution A pproving an A mendment to the Brooklyn Center F ire Department Relief A ssociation B y-L aws - Motion to approve a resolution approving an amendment to the Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association By-Law 7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations 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. 9.P lanning Commission Items a.Planning Commission A pplication No. 2021-002, for Site and B uilding Plan Approval, Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, and a Z oning Map Amendment for Certain P roperty L ocated at 6221 S hingle Creek P arkway, and a Recommended Amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to A llow for I ncreased Densities within the Commercial Mixed-Use Future L and Use Designation (i) Motion to adopt a resolution to approve Pl anni ng Commission Application No. 2021-002 for Site and Building Plan Approval, Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, and a Zoni ng Map Amendment for the Subject Property l ocated at 6221 Shi ngle Creek Parkway and commonly known as the Crest Apartments, and a recommended amendment to the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for increased densities withi n the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, and as amended by the conditions of approval in the resolution. (ii ) Moti on to approve a fi rst readi ng of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code of Ordi nances regardi ng the zoni ng classi fi cation of the Subject Property l ocated at 6221 Shi ngle Creek Parkway and set the second reading and publ ic heari ng for Jul y 26, 2021. 10.Council Consideration Items a.Resolution A uthorizing a Community Engagement Pilot P rogram with Community P artners for the Opportunity Site – Motion to approve a resoluti on authorizing a community engagement pilot program with community partners for the Opportunity Site b.City Manager Appointment 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:6/28/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes Requested Council A con: - A pprove the minutes from: June 14 - S tudy S ession June 14 - Regular S ession B ackground: B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type 06.14 S tudy S es s ion 6/21/2021 Backup M aterial 06.14 Regular S ession 6/23/2021 Backup M aterial 06/14/21 -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 JUNE 14, 2021 VIA ZOOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers April Graves, and Dan Ryan. Councilmembers Marquita Butler and Kris Lawrence Anderson were excused. Also present were Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards noted that Councilmembers Butler is out this evening and Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson is out with a family medical matter so neither will be in attendance. Dr. Edwards stated he would like to modify the Regular Session agenda to get dates and times for Listening Sessions. He reported that Common Sense is no longer available on June 26, 2021, for the Council retreat so another date and time is needed. Dr. Edwards suggested that Regular Session agenda Item 10b., Resolution Authorizing a Community Engagement Pilot Program with Community Partners for the Opportunity Site, and Work Session Item 2., Community Engagement Framework Discussion, be removed from the agenda as a result of only three Council Members being present. He explained the purpose of these items was to build consensus with the entire City Council, which cannot be achieved with the full City Council not being present. Dr. Edwards stated Regular Session agenda Item 10e, City Manager Appointment, was brought forth by Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson at the special meeting, and with only three members present tonight, the City Council may want to move that item to the next meeting. Councilmember Ryan stated in light of what Dr. Edwards has shared with the City Council, he thinks it is appropriate to move those items to the next meeting agenda. Councilmember Graves concurred. Mayor Elliott recommended also moving Work Session agenda Item 1, Commission Appointment, 06/14/21 -2- DRAFT to a meeting when the full City Council is in attendance. Councilmember Ryan referenced Regular Session agenda Item 10d, Commission Appointments, and asked Mayor Elliott if he will be making appointments tonight. Mayor Elliott stated he will be making reappointments tonight, not appointments. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates that as it was discussed earlier and coincides with the Work Session agenda Item 1, Commission Appointments. He stated he does not have a problem if it is reappointments but if they are new appointments, he would very much like to see a resume and application. Mayor Elliott stated yes. Councilmember Ryan stated he is fine with moving forward with reappointments to keep the Commissions staffed. The consensus of the City Council was to approve the agenda revisions as recommended by Dr. Edwards and Mayor Elliott. MISCELLANEOUS NEXT BUDGET MEETING Mayor Elliott noted next budget meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 5, which is the observance of Independence Day. He asked the City Council whether there is another day that same week that would work for this joint budget meeting. Councilmember Ryan stated he would be fine with Tuesday, July 6, as he wants to get things rolling promptly. Mayor Elliott asked if Wednesday, July 7, would work as well. Councilmember Ryan replied that either would work as his schedule is pretty flexible. Councilmember Graves stated she is not 100% sure but Wednesdays are usually better than Tuesdays in the evening. Mayor Elliott noted two members are not present but asked staff to look tentatively on the evening of Wednesday, July 7, 2021. He asked the City Clerk if she would confirm that date with the other two Council Members. City Clerk Barb Suciu stated she will do that. Mayor Elliott stated if Wednesday, July 7, does not work, maybe they will look at Thursday, July 8. He asked Council Members to check their calendars. Dr. Edwards stated he will ask Finance Director Mark Ebensteiner to communicate with the Financial Commission, as this is a joint meeting, to make sure Wednesday, July 7, 2021 works for 06/14/21 -3- DRAFT them as well. LISTENING SESSIONS WITH CITY STAFF Councilmember Ryan asked who would have the preferred dates for the two upcoming Listening Sessions with City staff. Dr. Edwards stated he put the dates in the last Weekly Update but there has not been much feedback from staff. He noted this week will not work but he would like to propose Monday, June 21, 2021, from 4:30 to 6 p.m. or Wednesday, June 23, 2021, from 4:30 to 6 p.m. He also asked the City Clerk to verify that no other meetings are occurring during these two times. Councilmember Graves stated her preference for June 23, 2021. Councilmember Ryan stated he could make either of the dates work as his schedule is flexible. Mayor Elliott stated June 23, 2021 works for him as well. Dr. Edwards stated the second date would be Thursday, June 24, 2021, from 8 to 9:30 a.m. He explained he would like to offer staff a morning opportunity and an evening opportunity. Mayor Elliott stated he has another commitment on June 24, 2021, at 9 to 11 a.m. so he would need to leave by then at 9 a.m. He stated if that date works for everyone else, then we should make it work. Otherwise, that Friday morning works for him as well. Councilmember Graves stated on either day, she has a 9 a.m. work-related commitment. Dr. Edwards suggested using a timeframe of 8 to 9 a.m. Councilmember Graves stated she would be available earlier and if they could be done by 9 a.m., that would work for her. Dr. Edwards asked about a timeframe of 7:30 to 9 a.m. Mayor Elliott stated that would work for him. Councilmember Graves stated that will work for her but she would appreciate a reminder. Councilmember Ryan stated June 24 from 7:30 to 9 a.m. works for him. Dr. Edwards stated he will work with Councilmembers Butler and Lawrence-Anderson to determine if these two dates and times will work for them. DISCUSS CHAT FEATURE ON ZOOM REMOTE MEETINGS Councilmember Ryan asked if the City Council reached a consensus on what it wanted to do about the chat feature on Zoom remote meetings. 06/14/21 -4- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated the City Council had that discussion a few times now and it is probably one that should be revisited. Councilmember Ryan noted it may be better to revisit when all on the City Council are present. Mayor Elliott concurred. Councilmember Ryan stated he was unclear about this and appreciates Mayor Elliott verifying it is still an open issue that can be pursued at another time. Dr. Edwards stated staff will bring this topic back as well as a conversation as it relates to when the City Council will go back to meeting in person, and how that will be structured. These two topics will be on the next meeting agenda. Mayor Elliott stated they are looking at a hybrid system so members who have to be remote can still participate. Dr. Edwards stated on that issue, working and operating virtually was permitted primarily during the COVID state of emergency but State Statute prohibits the City Council and Boards from operating virtually. He explained the meetings can be offered virtually as it relates to public accessibility so more can access and participate at City Council meetings. However, it would not serve as a means for Council Members to regularly participate without being present. He advised that State Statute is fairly strict around that as it relates to emergencies or vacations but it is very limited in being able to conduct Council business from a distance. Mayor Elliott thanked Dr. Edwards for that important clarification. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS Mayor Elliott noted the City Council had determined to reschedule the two items on the Work Session agenda to a time when there is a full City Council. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott adjourned the Study Session at 6:23 p.m. 06/14/21 -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 JUNE 14, 2021 VIA ZOOM 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 6:23 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers April Graves and Dan Ryan. Councilmembers Marquita Butler and Kris Lawrence-Anderson were excused. Also present were Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards, Acting Police Chief Tony Gruenig, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the Informal Open Forum at 6:23 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for Informal Open Forum. City Clerk Barb Suciu stated Diane Sannes sent her information today to read and restate the request for a reply about the new City of Brooklyn Center’s website and when the obsolete, outdated, and incorrect data and spelling corrections are made. Ms. Suciu recalled at the last meeting, Acting City Manager Edwards indicated the City did a soft launch on May 24, the same day, and some information put out that day was outdated because it was the first-day staff could start correcting from the static page. Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards stated the new website is up and staff will look at the information to determine what is dated. He explained that some dated information needs to be posted as it may still be relevant. Dr. Edwards stated he does not know specifically what Ms. Sannes has identified as being dated but will reach out to her and ask for that information. He stated staff will work on these issues to assure spelling and technical corrections are made. Mayor Elliott stated Ms. Sannes has also reached out to him directly and she has a list of items she identified on the website that need to be updated or is out of date. Lori Barton stated she wanted to comment on the appointment of Dr. Edwards. She felt the meeting last week was a little uncomfortable and without a doubt, Dr. Edwards is strong in his 06/14/21 -2- DRAFT ability to navigate our City through a crisis. She stated Dr. Edwards has a profound sense of empathy, knows how to connect with the community, is knowledgeable on budget issues, and has the drive to get things done. His resume and experience speak volumes in itself and let’s face it, he may even be overqualified for the position. Ms. Barton stated as a resident of Brooklyn Center, she feels lucky Dr. Edwards chose us as he has proven his commitment to our City and there should be no further question or process in moving forward. She stated the City Council should accept him into a permanent position as City Manager. Ms. Barton stated she would like to add that she sees a sense of scrutiny like never before when it comes to decisions made by Mayor Elliott. She found Mayor Elliott’s decisions are calculated and never done without proper research and insight from others. She believes in City Council as a checks and balances system but at some point, we need to empower our leaders by giving them our utmost confidence that the decisions they are making are for our benefit and taking us in a direction that some of us may not have thought possible. Ms. Barton stated thinking outside the box is what brings greatness and it is expected to ask questions but we also need to embrace change if we are going to make a move in the direction of progressiveness. Ms. Barton applauded the City Councilmembers who voted in favor of the resolution and Councilmember Butler’s focus on community engagement. She appreciates Councilmember Graves’ insight regarding the resolution and making sure it is successful in its entirety. She thanked Councilmember Ryan who she normally does not see eye-to-eye with but acknowledged his going out of his comfort zone and taking the time to listen to the people. Ms. Barton stated Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson, who seemed to feel threatened by the whole process and for whatever reasons, chose not to be present during our City’s most difficult time. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson has not been fully present at most City Council meetings in the past year and she questions her commitment to our community and whether or not this position is a good fit for her. Ms. Barton stated she appreciates Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson’s years of service but there may be a time when it is time to step down. Ms. Barton stated moving forward, she would like to know where we are at with the implementation process. At this time, we still have at least two killer cops on the force who, in her opinion, need to be investigated by the Department of Justice. She had requested their use of force records, and just today received a response from the City Clerk that it is still pending. Ms. Barton stated our City deserves to know who the ‘bad apples’ are because they are a threat to our families and our neighbors. With the upcoming budget under review, she felt the City Council needed to examine the 40% going to the Police Department and assess how it can be better used to serve our community. She stated she looks forward to the City Council’s comments. Mayor Elliott thanked Ms. Bertle for her comments. Melissa Carey stated tonight she would like to discuss two issues. The first is the appointment of Dr. Edwards to become the permanent City Manager and she would like to start by telling Dr. Edwards that she is incredibly grateful at how he has stepped up to work tirelessly for our City. She stated while it has not gone perfectly, his efforts do not go unseen and she is grateful for his leadership, noting right now he is playing key roles in moving our City forward with public safety, 06/14/21 -3- DRAFT grants, and funding, City building planning, and community engagement. Ms. Carey stated she believes he is the best fit for our City Manager position at this time. Ms. Carey stated how his appointment was brought up in the last Work Session is the part she is not comfortable with because it ended up putting Dr. Edwards in a very awkward situation. It appears that not all City Council Members knew the plans and the conversations happening about his appointment before the Work Session and if any told Dr. Edwards to sacrifice his other opportunities after the City Council said there should be a candidate and hiring process for the City Manager position, this is not right. She stated we should not put Dr. Edwards in a position where he has to sacrifice for us more than we are willing to sacrifice for him. Ms. Carey stated she agrees with Councilmember Butler that we should have had a hiring process that is transparent to our residents. At this point, however, knowing that Dr. Edwards has committed to our City and because he is in the middle of so many major projects, she is asking that he be given the position for the three-year term, just like it was discussed during the Work Session. Ms. Carey stated to Dr. Edwards that she believes his words, that he did not attempt to manipulate the situation. She asked Dr. Edwards, as he pursues a permanent position with us, to foster a culture of truthfulness and forthrightness with our City management, City Council, and all our departments and with no behind the scene deals but with a commitment to transparency. She believes Dr. Edwards is committed to Brooklyn Center and becoming the best that we can be. She asked Dr. Edwards to also demand this commitment from all department heads and not allow developers to come before us to make it their goal to settle. This means our Public Works leaders treat our streets and parks and crosswalks as if their children lived here too, and doing everything humanly possible for us that they would do for their own families. Ms. Carey stated she knows that this is Dr. Edward’s heart and she is asking him to keep his folks accountable to this level of commitment. Ms. Carey stated she is asking the City employees and staff to come, move in with us, be our neighbors, noting being planted and rooted together matters so that we may become a more tight- knit and beloved community. She stated she will continue to ask this request because she wants City employees and staff to be her neighbors. Ms. Carey stated the second issue that she is bringing to the City Council is attendance and absences, lack of interaction and engagement, missing voting times during City Council meetings, and not being present until the adjournment roll call. She noted this is the second time she is bringing this issue to the City Council’s attention. The first time was through an e-mail where she asked for accountability. She stated she knows our City has been through a crisis and policy changes and this specific area has gone to the back burner, which she understands. Ms. Carey felt it had become glaringly obvious that there is a City Council Member who is consistently missing meetings, rarely engages in any discussion, and often is not at meetings to the end. She wants to be conscious that we are all humans and in need of grace. Life is hard and messy sometimes and she wants to be gracious in those situations. But it feels like the issues she mentioned are not the exception. They have now become the rule and the lack of accountability in this matter has stepped over the line of grace and into allowing someone to not be fully committed to such an important 06/14/21 -4- DRAFT situation by someone who has such an important role. Ms. Carey stated in 2019, this Council Member missed 38% of the Work Sessions and meetings. In 2020, when meetings went virtual, it made attendance easier but still 14% of the meetings were missed, and already into 2021, not including today, 20% of the meetings have been missed. Ms. Carey stated this does not count all of the missed votes or adjournment roll calls. She explained that to count these absences as excused, all our Council Members have to do is call in two hours before a meeting to excuse themselves. She stated the City needs to raise that bar. Ms. Carey stated as a resident she is asking the City Council to require more than that and come up with an attendance policy that includes staying to the end and not missing votes. In such a critical time, our City needs City Council Members who are present and engaged, and committed to moving our City forward. She knows the majority are and thanked them for that and showing up at community events and listening sessions and is committed to be engaged. She stated she appreciates that work so much and finds the sacrifices they are willing to make are amazing. But, we need this of all Council Members so she is asking each today to look at their current level of commitment before any new rules or regulations might ever be implemented. And, if they are not willing or able to consistently be at City Council meetings and Work Sessions, be present and stay through, she kindly asks them to step down from their position so someone else who can fulfill these responsibilities would take this very important role on. Ms. Carey asked Mayor Elliott to assign this task to the City employees, to study other city’s attendance policies for the city council, and figure out a more robust and fair attendance policy that would be required of the City Council. Mayor Elliott thanked Ms. Carey for her comments and asked Dr. Edwards to come back with recommendations on attendance policies and how the City Council can improve and make sure there are options in how to move forward and ensure we have better attendance and participation. Mayor Elliott stated he will work with Dr. Edwards to do that. No one else wished to address the City Council. Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:41 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECESS AND RECONVENE Councilmember Ryan requested a recess until 6:55 p.m. Mayor Elliott recessed the meeting at 6:42 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 6:48 p.m. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM – REOPENED Mayor Elliott stated he realized that while taking an early recess, people may have come in at 6:45 p.m. for Informal Open Forum, which he reopened at 6:48 p.m. 06/14/21 -5- DRAFT Julie B. acknowledged the City Council has other priorities right now but asked if there has been any update or changed with the water. She stated they are still buying water as they can’t drink the water in their house due to a strong chlorine smell and taste, which has been that way since the water plant changed. She asked if anything is being looked at with this matter. Mayor Elliott stated amid everything that is going on, it has fallen off but the City Council will put it back on the agenda and come back to that question as many in the community are still concerned about it. He noted water is fundamental so it is important for the City to continue to look at the water so it is not in a position that later on, there is an issue but it was overlooked. Mayor Elliott stated he heard about this issue across the board from people. Mary Ann Perpich Japs, representing Fairfield Inn & Suites of Brooklyn Center, stated when the time is right, she would like to share her input on the decision about whether to withdraw from the Minneapolis Northwest Tourism Board. Mayor Elliott stated that the item will be addressed during the upcoming Regular Session agenda. 2. INVOCATION Mayor Elliott shared the following Nelson Mandela quote as the Invocation: ‘Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is manmade and it can be overcome and irradicated by the actions of human beings. In overcoming poverties, it is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life. While poverty persists, there is no true freedom.’ Mayor Elliott noted this quote is apt for this time with all of the changes relating to equity around many different spheres in terms of public safety but also terms of economics. He stated the 1968 Kerner Report headed by the Governor of Illinois and commissioned by President Johnson, recognized that the root causes of the so-called ‘riots of the 60s,’ which were rebellions and uprisings in our country, were sparked by moments of police violence, just like in our day in age. The report recognized that what was in the back of it was deep economic inequities that were systemic where communities were intentionally left out of housing, access to FHA and the GI Bill, and other government-sponsored wealth-building systems. This caused a segment of our country to suffer deep economic equities and in many ways, the actions of the 70s were in protest to those inequities. Mayor Elliott stated we still have those inequities today, including deep levels of poverty and this quote has, for him, be impactful. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 7:00 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL 06/14/21 -6- DRAFT Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers April Graves and Dan Ryan. Councilmembers Marquita Butler and Kris Lawrence-Anderson were excused. Also present were Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Acting Police Chief Tony Gruenig, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Ryan moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, to remove Regular Session agenda Item 10b., Resolution Authorizing a Community Engagement Pilot Program with Community Partners for the Opportunity Site; Item10e., City Manager Appointment; Work Session Item 1, Commission Appointment; and, Item 2., Community Engagement Framework Discussion, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. May 15, 2021 - Special Council Meeting 2. May 24, 2021 - Study Session 3. May 24, 2021 - Regular Session 4. May 24, 2021 - Work Session 5. June 7, 2021 - Work Session 6. June 7, 2021 - Joint City Council/Financial Commission Meeting 6b. LICENSES AMUSEMENT DEVICES Metro Coin Sales 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Theisen Vending Company 2335 Nevada Ave Golden Valley MN 55427 Family Dollar 2105 57th Ave N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Jammin Wings 2590 Freeway Blvd Brooklyn Center MN 55430 FIREWORKS PERMANENT Diamond Lake 1994 LLC dba Cub Foods 3245 Co Rd 10 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 FIREWORKS TEMPORARY American Promotional Events dba TNT Fireworks 3245 Co Rd 10 Brooklyn Center MN 55429 06/14/21 -7- DRAFT GARBAGE HAULER Ace Solid Waste, Inc 6601 McKinley St NW Ramsey MN 55303 Curbside Waste 4025 85th Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55443 Darling Ingredients Inc 9000 382nd Ave N Blue Earth MN 56013 Farmers Union Industries dba Midwest Grease PO Box 319 Redwood Falls MN 56013 Walz Brothers Sanitation PO Box 627 Osseo MN 55369 HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS Quality Inn 600 James Cir Brooklyn Center MN 55430 MECHANICAL LICENSES BWS Plumbing Heating 7251 Washington Ave S Edina MN 44439 Bettin Inc Ecowater Systems 3208 1st S Waite Park MN 56387 HVAC Doctor 2863 S Coon Creek Dr Andover Mn 55304 Professional Mechanical Services 19640 200th Ave NW Big Lake MN 55309 Schadegg Mechanical Inc 225 Bridgepoint Dr South St Paul MN 55075 RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 6012 York Ave. N. Empire Care Systems INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 7018 Brooklyn Blvd. Dawn Valerius/ Mains’l Communities 5325 Knox Ave. N. Maria Collaguazo INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 5336 Sailor La. Toni Agene RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 3218 63rd Ave. N. My Truong/Madison Ave. Homes LLC 5510 France Ave. N. Kin Chew / Iasis LLC – met requirements 5618 Hillsview Road Bobbie & Nita Morelock – met requirements 7148 Morgan Ave. N. Fred Hanus – met requirements 06/14/21 -8- DRAFT RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 3401 47th Ave. N. BMW Holdings c/o HBG Ryan Lake Apartments 6101 Beard Ave. N. B&M Wallman/BMW Holdings c/o Beard Ave. Apartments Halverson Blaiser Group 6915 Humboldt Ave. N. Steve Scott Management Lynwood Pointe Apartments 3141 49th Ave. N. Mark Colville/CCF3 LLC 3224 62nd Ave. N. Michael Mills 3501 62nd Ave. N. Doreen Kalema 2925 69th Ln. N. Best Management Co – waive CPTED 5432 Dupont Ave. N. Xiangming Guan – met requirements 5214 Ewing Ave. N. My Trong & My Lam – met requirements 7001 Fremont Ave. N. HPA Borrower 2018-1 ML LLC – waive CPTED 6749 Humboldt Ave. N. Patrick Nguyen – missing CFH cert 5301 Logan Ave. N. MNSF II LLC – missing CPTED follow up RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 1300 67th Ave. N. Roger & Elizabeth Family Properties 5400-02 Russell Ave. N. Tai Pham 6018 Admiral Pl. Lutheran Social Services 6000 Bryant Ave. N. Shirzad Raimi 5448 Dupont Ave. N. Paul Gathumbi 5921 Ewing Ave. N. Manuel Bonete 6436 Fremont Ave. N. Excel Properties, LLC 6912 Logan Ave. N. HPA Borrower 2017-1 LLC 5218 Paul Dr. Oyejola Azum RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 3305 53rd Ave. N. Lake Pointe Apartments LLC 1701 69th Ave. N. Earle Brown Farm Investment 6100 Summit Dr. James Soderberg/Lux Apartments LLC 4225 66th Ave. N. Sesan Ogunnran/EE&J Investments LLC 2006 Brookview Dr. MNSF II LLC 6831 Drew Ave. N. David Gardner 5201 Ewing Ave. N. Xian Lin / Infinite Property 6014 Girard Ave. N. RIFIVE Investments / Douglas Sahl 5720 Logan Ave. N. Jennifer Kuria 3019 Mumford Rd. Morris Matthews 50000 Zenith Ave. N. Xian Lin / Prosperous Property LLC SIGNHANGER Indigo Signworks Inc 4133 Iowa St Ste 100 Alexandria MN 56308 06/14/21 -9- DRAFT 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-76 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-07, WATER TOWER NO. 1 REHABILITATION 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-77 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2018-08 AN 2019-05, BELLVUE AND SOUTHEAST AREA MILL AND OVERLAY IMPROVEMENTS 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-78 RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONDUIT REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE COSTS OF A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (THE CREST APARTMENTS PROJECT) 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-79 ADOPTING ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2021 Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. UPDATE FROM OUR SISTER’S KEEPER Dr. Edwards stated Our Sister’s Keepers (OSK) has been contracted by the City to do extensive work with residents within apartments and on Humboldt Avenue. He invited Ms. Beekman to introduce the item. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated this agenda item is a follow-up to the City’s work with residents who live in the vicinity of the police station. Early on, the City engaged with OSK to assist in providing resources and navigation and connecting with services at the County and other service providers. They also provided relief to meet the needs of residents on a one-on-one basis. OSK has been doing this work for the last couple of months and now is a good time to update the City Council on this work and what is left to do as we move forward. She introduced Ms. Turk from OSK who was in attendance to present on their activities and provide an update on outcomes. LaToya Turk, Executive Director and Cofounder of Our Sister’s Keeper, stated they are a nonprofit BIPOC organization created by a woman with a unique approach to community crisis management. They were contracted to be Brooklyn Center’s community resource navigators with an emphasis on trauma treatment and community empowerment. Ms. Turk stated they initially got involved through a resident community crisis call on April 25, 2021, with concerns about the Police Department, building security, nutritional deficit, fear and anxiety over what was happening, and what would continue to happen. The caller was also concerned with communication with City officials, property management, and other residents and businesses in 06/14/21 -10- DRAFT the area. There was an extreme concern over tear gas usage and heightened financial burdens due to civil unrest, housing concerns, and disruption of academic resources during distance learning. Ms. Turk stated as resource navigators, through surveying and calling residents and City officials, OSK decided the best response would be community engagement events focused around safety, health, life essentials, resources, and local businesses. One of the issues residents were concerned with related to building security so, through City officials, W&W Protection was contracted with on-site intervention, locks on the doors were repaired, additional trash canisters and trash removal were handled, and communication and assisting with dialogue with City officials to assure processes were put in place to assist residents. Parking and towing of vehicles were also issues they worked on with property management and W&W Protection to create a process for parking in designated parking areas. OSK is now working with business leaders in the area, community residents, and the Police Department to address fencing and traffic lanes in front of the Police Department. Ms. Turk stated the nutritional deficit concern was addressed by forging community partnerships including Community Church for the weekly distribution of culturally appropriate food and meals to families afraid to go out in the community or without access to grocery stores. Those relationships continue with the City’s local food shelves to assure accessibility of all residents. That piece is ongoing and food distributions are now bi-weekly at Community Church. Ms. Turk stated they addressed resident’s fear and anxiety and acute trauma by holding weekly community events, collaboration with City officials to speak to residents at the weekly community meetings about events that occurred, as well as plans going forward. They were also invited to upcoming community engagement events. Ms. Turk stated they activated the mental health reserve to provide mental health professionals for adults and children each week on Sundays for May and that will continue at upcoming community events. OSK also hosted youth community activities through REC on the Go to provide fun activities. Ms. Turk explained their initial interaction with children showed they were very afraid, there were tanks on their front yards, and over the three-week course of being able to work with REC on the Go, they saw kids start to smile again. She stated they continue to have community engagement events that focus on mental support for residents. Ms. Turk stated the ability to communicate with residents and City leaders and get accurate information was a concern addressed at the community events when information is also given on opportunities for residents to be part of community engagements. Last week they hosted a dialogue between Brooklyn Center police officers and community residents regarding traffic control in front of the police station with school letting out. There was concern about the gate taking over the sidewalk and how kids would walk safely in the area. OSK is also canvassing and talking to residents and business owners to determine their needs. Ms. Turk stated there are a lot of kids in this area so getting activities for them that allow them to continue to grow as young adolescents are vital. She invited anyone who knows how to Double Dutch to join them. 06/14/21 -11- DRAFT Ms. Turk stated tear gas usage was another concern so they have been talking with Ms. Beekman who has been collaborating with other entities on the composition of the tear gas. She stated some families are experiencing residual effects to the tear gas usage and she also has had dialogue with the medical community to figure out the direction they can take to support the community. Ms. Turk stated the majority of residents in this area live below the poverty level so having to leave their home and the host of other expenses during the 14 days of unrest placed a financial burden on some of the families. In collaboration with City officials and surveys completed to assess needs, the City reimbursement plan was disbursed. They are finishing up on priority area 1 at this time and will continue to have community partnerships and utilize community resources to address the financial disparities in the community. Ms. Turk explained the housing and academic resources issue was addressed by collaborating with City officials, assessing needs, and utilizing community partnerships such as Whathelp.com and ACER, which have been a big help in providing housing resources to the community and connect residents with already available resources. She stated OSK will continue those partnerships and have them present at community engagement events to address those disparities as well. Ms. Turk displayed pictures of OSK events and stated this is a summary of their work over the past five weeks. Mayor Elliott thanked Ms. Turk for the presentation, noting OSK has done a good job. Councilmember Ryan expressed his appreciation to OSK for stepping up and assisting in helping folks who were caught up in the unfortunate situation where they faced so many challenges and a truly unprecedented situation for the City. He stated it was something the City with its resources was not prepared to respond to and our hearts go out to those who have suffered by being in the unfortunate position to have experienced all the ill effects of the civil unrest. Councilmember Ryan offered kudos to OSK and stated he greatly appreciates their well-directed, well-organized efforts to assist our residents who live across the street from the police station. Ms. Turk thanked Councilmember Ryan for his comments. Councilmember Graves thanked OSK for their work with the community and Ms. Turk for the presentation tonight. She asked Ms. Turk if OSK has an estimate on the individuals or families they have worked with and would comment on one challenge and one success story. She stated she would like to think about this work, what has worked well, what can be improved upon, and ways to continue to support the community moving forward. Ms. Turk explained that as of today, they have worked with 54 families and there are about 80 families in the priority 1 area they will be working with, so they are about halfway. The largest challenge would be the amount of need for mental health resources and the second biggest challenge would be the ongoing medical concerns related to tear gas. She explained the mental health needs are not due only to the recent unrest but also a concern before that time and finding appropriate mental health providers to address one of the most diverse communities. So, having brown bodies in brown spaces is helpful to open that dialogue for potential treatment. 06/14/21 -12- DRAFT Ms. Turk stated the success seen is that when they started five weeks ago, those residents did not trust anyone so having a resource navigator with a familiar face to help processes has resulted in follow-up calls from residents about accomplishments they are having. Also, just getting back to some normalcy. She could not say an area that could be improved as they are now writing the ‘blueprint’ for this type of situation. She applauded the City Council and City staff of Brooklyn Center for their quick response, noting a debrief will be needed at the end of all of this. Councilmember Graves stated she hopes Ms. Turk considers her as a potential resource in the community as a BIPOC woman, Yogi, meditation, and mindfulness practitioner. She stated she would be happy to talk with Ms. Turk about potential activities she could help with around mental health as well. Ms. Turk thanked Councilmember Graves for that offer. Mayor Elliott again thanked Ms. Turk for the update from OSK. Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to accept the presentation from Our Sister’s Keeper. Motion passed unanimously. 7b. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-80 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION FOR THE DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE OF CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST BECKIE BOIE Dr. Edwards introduced the item and stated he did have the privilege, during his tenure with Brooklyn Center, to work with Ms. Boie and in particular around the neighborhood meetings, National Night Out, and other work with community organizations on behalf of the City on crime prevention efforts. He stated it has been a joy to work with Ms. Boie over that period and wished her the best and many years ahead as she retires to the lake. Dr. Edwards invited Acting Police Chief Gruenig to present the staff report followed by Mayor Elliott reading the resolution into the record. Acting Police Chief Tony Gruenig reviewed that Crime Prevention Specialist Becky Boie was hired by the city of Brooklyn Center to serve the community as Neighborhood Liaison, on May 8, 2002. She served the Brooklyn Center Community in two other roles throughout her career, including Police Administrative Coordinator from 2005-2008 and Crime Prevention Specialist from 2008-2021. Mr. Gruenig stated Ms. Boie has been instrumental in working with rental properties throughout the City and building longstanding relationships with Neighborhood Watch Captains. She has also been a vital part of National Night Out, youth safety courses offered through Recreation, and Neighborhood Area Meeting initiatives. Ms. Boie is a statewide Crime Prevention leader and throughout her career, she has defined the department’s Crime Prevention position. Mr. Gruenig noted that Ms. Boie also spearheaded an ‘adopt a family’ effort brought forth by a local elementary school, annually since 2005. Brooklyn Center Police staff “adopt” a Brooklyn Center family in need that is nominated by a local faith organization or the Community Corner. 06/14/21 -13- DRAFT Money is raised, gifts (often necessities) are purchased, wrapped by police staff, and delivered. This effort was extended to all City staff involvement in 2015. Mr. Gruenig stated Ms. Boie has represented the Brooklyn Center Police Department as an active member of the Minnesota Crime Prevention Association Board of Directors for over 15 years. She has assisted with numerous training and various efforts throughout the State and her dedicated public service and civic effort for the betterment of the community merit gratitude of the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Gruenig stated Ms. Boie sort of created this role and had to spearhead all of the events she was a part of, created and worked on the kick-off party that was not part of the normal protocol for National Night Out, and spearheaded and successfully expanded the ‘adopt a family’ to several families. He stated for all of those reasons, he respectfully asked the City Council to adopt a resolution recognizing Ms. Boie’s years of dedicated service. Mayor Elliott read the resolution recognizing and honoring the service of Ms. Boie’s service in full. Councilmember Ryan stated he regrets seeing Ms. Boie leave the service of the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-80 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation for the Dedicated Public Service of Crime Prevention Specialist Becky Boie. Councilmember Graves stated when she started on the City Council, Ms. Boie was one of the first staff members she got to know as initially she was assigned to the Crime Prevention Commission as a liaison. That gave her a first opportunity to get into the community and know community members. She stated Ms. Boie was very welcoming and had a way about her that was upbeat and spread positivity to others she encountered. Councilmember Graves stated she appreciates everything Ms. Boie has done with the City in her years of dedicated work and the initiatives she spearheaded. She stated she hopes Ms. Boie had an understudy who can step into her big shoes. Mayor Elliott stated he also had the pleasure of working with Ms. Boie who, over the years, has connected very well with the community and served us very well, particularly in her work with the Neighborhood Captain Program and National Night Out. He thanked Ms. Boie for her service. Councilmember Ryan echoed the sentiments of Councilmember Graves and Mayor Elliott. He reminded all that the efforts of the Crime Prevention Specialist have been integral to the Brooklyn Center Police Department’s efforts to exemplify the community policing model. He stated that should not be overlooked and he supports the passage of the resolution. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 06/14/21 -14- DRAFT None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-81 AUTHORIZING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM MINNEAPOLIS NORTHWEST TOURISM Dr. Edwards introduced the item and stated since the last City Council discussion, he, Mayor Elliott, Councilmember Ryan, and Community Development Director Meg Beekman spoke with the Executive Director of the Minneapolis Northwest Tourism Board (MNTB). The MNTB also met to discuss their future since Maple Grove withdrew from the organization and similar action was going to be considered by Brooklyn Center as well as Brooklyn Park. Dr. Edwards stated this item is now before the City Council to consider options. He reminded the City Council that any resolution or change requires a majority (3 affirmative votes) of the City Council to act on this matter. He invited Ms. Beekman to make the staff presentation. Ms. Beekman explained that Brooklyn Center has been part of the MNTB for several decades. The primary purpose of the organization is to jointly market the northwest metro area, specifically Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Maple Grove. They focus on tourism markets, largely targeting markets outside of the region and State to bring tourism events to the northwest metro utilizing several methods. Their services also include attending trade shows to elevate the visibility of our region, develop relationships with trade organizations that may host or hold events, connect targeting marketing of the area using social media, websites, event marketing, and promotions for specific venues within the three-member cities. She reviewed events the MNTB has sponsored or more actively participated in. Ms. Beekman stated in 2020, Maple Grove provided notice they would spend one year evaluating their future participation in the MNTB. In May of 2021, Maple Grove provided notice they would not continue participation with MNTB after December 2021. A one-year notice is required so Maple Grove will withdraw at their earliest possibility, which is December 2021. Ms. Beekman stated last month, Brooklyn Park held a work session to discuss this topic and that the city council directed their staff to provide notice they will withdraw from the MNTB as well. Ms. Beekman explained that Brooklyn Park and Brookl yn Center have a different notification period than Maple Grove and need to provide an 18-month notice. Brooklyn Park will submit their notice by the end of this month, which means they will exit the organization in December 2022. Brooklyn Center is in a similar position at this point to decide how it wants to proceed. Ms. Beekman stated at May 24, 2021, Work Session, the Brooklyn Center City Council discussed this item and directed staff to prepare a notice for withdrawal and also to meet with the Executive 06/14/21 -15- DRAFT Director and have a conversation about the options and how the City might move forward. Ms. Beekman stated the options were discussed in detail at the May 24, 2021, Work Session. Ms. Beekman explained the MNTB is funded through a State-authorized 3% lodging tax on hotel room rentals so guests staying in hotels in these three cities pay an additional 3% tax on their room. That 3% is collected by the hotel and remitted back to the cities through a State law that allows cities to do that. Brooklyn Center also received special legislation to impose a 6% lodging tax, half of which is transferred to the general fund. State law requires the base 3% collected must go to fund a convention and visitors bureau, which can take different forms. Ms. Beekman stated in the MNTB, Maple Grove has over half the hotel rooms between the three participating cities and therefore contributes over half the budget to the organization. Removal of 50% to 100% of Maple Grove’s lodging tax revenue will significantly alter the MNTB budget moving forward. So, short-term decisions will need to be made on how that organization will continue to function, if it will continue to function, as well as conversations for the City to think, long-term, how it wants to address tourism. Ms. Beekman noted on June 9, 2021, the MNTB held a Board meeting and determined to create a separate committee that includes Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park participants to determine the future of tourism in these cities and manage the transition starting January 1st. This recognizes the near-term need to figure out what to do with the organization over the next 18 months and also thinking more long-term about what tourism will look like in the future. Ms. Beekman stated next steps include Brooklyn Center providing notice by June 30, 2021, to be able to withdraw by December 31, 2022. That action is before the City Council tonight. She noted the MNTB contract does not allow for rescinding the letter once submitted. However, in talking with the Executive Director and Brooklyn Park, it was clear that simply providing a notice to withdraw does not necessarily mean the organization will come to an end on December 31, 2022. She stated more conversations and decision-making need to be made about how the organization will function over the next year and beyond if it will continue to function. So, there is still room to have that conversation. Ms. Beekman explained one option on the table would be for Brooklyn Center to retain the MNTB organizational structure and reshape it in ways that suit the City and our purposes around tourism with Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove exiting the program. Other options are to terminate that organization and have Brooklyn Center create something entirely new or partnering with Brooklyn Park on a joint tourism board. However, it is known that if the City does not provide this notice to withdraw, then the options become more limited since exiting the organization won’t be possible until the end of 2022. Ms. Beekman stated next steps also include thinking about forming the committee and likely partnering with Brooklyn Park during that exploration. This is not to say they will necessarily form an organization on their own or even continue to partner but there is logic to working together as they explore paths and options and pros and cons of different outcomes. There is also the need to manage the transition of the MNTB starting January 1st when Maple Grove will be exiting. Another step is implementing a path forward for Brooklyn Center specifically beyond 2022. Ms. 06/14/21 -16- DRAFT Beekman stated the action before the City Council is to approve a resolution to authorize the withdrawal from MNTB. She offered to answer questions of the City Council. Mayor Elliott reviewed the City Council’s past discussions on this item, noting he, Councilmember Ryan, and staff met with the MNTB Executive Director to discuss issues surrounding the current state of the organization, potential of Brooklyn Center withdrawing in light of actions taken by Maple Grove, and what that future might look like. It was a very informative meeting and Brooklyn Center is in an advantageous position because it can levy twice as much lodging tax. He stated this presents a great opportunity and he supports exploring jointly and working with Brooklyn Park. He is also interested in a process that explores what it would be like for Brooklyn Center to create its bureau, much like the cities of Plymouth and Maple Grove. Mayor Elliott noted the City will have a year to make a final determination as to whether to remove itself from the organization. Mayor Elliott stated at this point, all options are on the table and the City can determine what would be best for Brooklyn Center. He stated the City is unique in many ways from surrounding cities and is creating a unique brand in being forward-thinking, forward-leaning, transformational, and inclusive with a focus on equity. He stated pairing that with economic transformation to create a unique economy that can offer an inclusive offering of food and redesigning what that looks like, the City will be in a position to promote Brooklyn Center as the destination. For him, that is where the conversation about the former Sears site evolves, creating a destination that is truly unique and built on the rich diversity of our cultures. Councilmember Ryan stated he participated in the meeting that the Community Development Director referred to and the action tonight, to approve the resolution authorizing a withdrawal from MNTB, will preserve the range of options to the City where the City Council, at the advice of staff, can come up with the best future model to pursue those goals. He stated he supports approving that resolution tonight. Councilmember Graves noted a caller would like to speak to this issue. Mary Ann Perpich Japs, representing Fairfield Inn & Suites of Brooklyn Center, stated they are coming up on their first anniversary of opening. She thanked the City Council for the opportunity to speak, noting she has spoken to a few Brooklyn Center area hoteliers and they feel whatever decision is reached, the hoteliers should have a voice in it and all options should be explored. Ms. Perpich Japs stated she realizes the City Council is considering withdrawal from the MNTB but as she looks at the four options, she truly believes that it makes more sense for Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park to partner as they will be stronger together. She noted Ms. Beekman had mentioned retaining and reshaping the staff and resources of MNTB, which she thinks is the best option going forward. Ms. Perpich Japs clarified there had been discussion whether only the larger hotels pay the 3% but of all 10 hotels, they all pay the 3% regardless. She stated they are only an 82-room property and pay the 3% tax in addition to the neighboring Embassy Suites with 175 rooms and the Radisson at 174 rooms. She sees some fun branding ideas with the two Brooklyns. In addition, the MNTB is already well established and regarded in the outstate area with associations, meeting planners, and 06/14/21 -17- DRAFT the ability to bring out state meetings to us. Ms. Perpich Japs stated rather than having 10 hotels, Brooklyn Park brings 14 hotels plus the Marriott Northwest, a large venue with 60,000 square feet of meeting space, which is a strong draw. She stated the Earle Brown Heritage Center also has large capacity meeting spaces. She stated regardless, whatever a decision is made, it would make financial sense for all of the hotels in Brooklyn Center and she would like to be involved with the committee formed with Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center to discuss the options. Mayor Elliott asked the City Council to consider the resolution, noting it is important for the City to keep its options open even if in the end, the organization is retained, a new organization is formed, or a partnership is created with Brooklyn Park. They need to study why the organization wasn’t working, citing a comment from the Earle Brown Heritage Center saying they hadn’t seen the benefit from the organization. He stated whether or not the name MNTB is a successful brand is an opening question, or whether they just retain the assets, are some of the options to explore with an open mind. He felt considering whether to partner with Brooklyn Park is premature at this time. Mayor Elliott stated he has visited other visitor bureaus in other cities and thinks the City has an opportunity so he doesn’t want the City to have only one approach. Mayor Elliott opened the floor for comment. Laurie B. stated she has been in the travel industry for 26 years, does not see the value in the program, and thinks 3% is a hefty charge for the City when they could be using travel agents as a resource for free. She supported marketing through travel agents to do this work in this community, noting they are close to Minneapolis and in a position the City could profit from the hotels in this area. She did not feel paying 3% was offering any advantages over what a travel agent could do at no cost. Mayor Elliott stated that underscores the need to stay open and think about how the City is collecting the tax and ultimately spending the resources in the City. No other public comments were offered. Mayor Elliott read in full the resolution before the City Council for consideration. Councilmember Ryan moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-81 Authorizing Withdrawal from Minneapolis Northwest Tourism. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PILOT PROGRAM WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY SITE This item was removed from the agenda upon its adoption. 10c. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19 ALLOWING THE REGULATING OF NATIVE PRAIRIE GRASS AND NATURALISTIC VEGETATION 06/14/21 -18- DRAFT Dr. Edwards introduced the item, noting this item had been scheduled before the City Council but due to COVID and other things, pushed back. Tonight, it is before the City Council for presentation and discussion. He invited Ms. Beekman to make the staff presentation. Ms. Beekman stated staff has been working on this item for quite some time but due to schedules and agendas, it has been pushed back a few times. She stated the City has a Noxious Weeds Ordinance that requires property owners to destroy noxious weeds and grass that is at a height of 8 inches or greater or has gone or is about to go to seed. The ordinance allows natural preserves in publicly owned land designated as a park or open spaces but it prohibits natural preserves on private properties. Ms. Beekman explained the current ordinance does not allow for natural prairie grass, which is typically taller than 8 inches in height and native Minnesota grasses are typically much taller than that. The City’s code does allow for flower gardens but there are no clear guidelines on maintaining them so it is a gray area with enforcement and it does not come up frequently so it is addressed on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Beekman advised that several surrounding communities have adopted ordinances that allow the installation of native prairie grass plantings in gardens and this has been an increasing trend for a few years. This is not a new phenomenon and these types of ordinances typically address setbacks from neighboring properties, some require a landscaping permit, and size maximums or percentage of the total yard that can be contained in native prairie grasses. Sometimes requirements are also included for edging, fencing, or some kind of management plan. She stated staff looked at a number of those ordinances and used some of that information as a template for the City. Ms. Beekman noted the City did adopt an ordinance to allow residents to keep honey bees in February of 2019 and that ordinance lays out specific rules on how to obtain a license to keep bees. There are also setbacks for the hives and minimal screen requirements, but it is a fairly simple process to obtain a license and the intention is to track where bees are kept in the event the City receives any complaints. Ms. Beekman explained the rules in the bee-keeping ordinance do not include or regulate bee or other pollinator-friendly plants. The ordinance under consideration would provide guidelines on the requirements of these types of gardens. It asks residents to obtain a permit under an administrative process similar to the bee-keeping license. The intention is more to track locations so the City can address complaints right away. The draft ordinance includes setback requirements, that they are maintained (mowed) at least one time per year, and located in a clearly defined area with a sign indicating it is a native or natural vegetation area. It cannot be grown in the right-of- way or extend more than three growing seasons, which speaks more to the maintenance and when it has to be reseeded. Ms. Beekman stated staff worked with the City Attorney to draft the ordinance, which was brought to the Housing Commission on May 18, 2021, for review and discussion. The Housing Commission was generally supportive and recommended several changes. The ordinance lists specific plant materials, plant materials that are prohibited, and references State and local 06/14/21 -19- DRAFT organizations. The Housing Commission requested more clarity and reference to best practices that are readily available to be named within the ordinance. They also requested additional clarification on how the approval or denial process would be handled, specifically the denial process and when that might be the case. Staff worked with the City Attorney to address the Housing Commission’s concerns. Ms. Beekman stated the recommendation this evening would be to approve the first reading of the ordinance and accept the changes recommended by the Housing Commission, which staff will incorporate into the ordinance language. The second reading and public hearing would be held on July 12, 2021. Ms. Beekman offered to answer questions of the City Council. Mayor Elliott thanked Ms. Beekman for the presentation and stated he thinks this is a giant step in the right direction. He asked about the three-year requirement for reseeding. Ms. Beekman stated she will need to get back to the Mayor on that question. Mayor Elliott stated the No Mow May initiative was championed by the University of Minnesota and asked whether they have been asked for comment or recommendation on this ordinance to promote native grasses and plants. Ms. Beekman stated part of the discussion held by the Housing Commission related to best practices and the University of Minnesota has done substantial work on native grasses but they do not have a sample ordinance per se related to this particular item. They do have information on best practices around maintenance and tips on how to promote and maintain native vegetation. And, for it to be successful and functional, it is important to keep out noxious weeds that are not native or may overtake native plantings. The Housing Commission wanted to strengthen the language that referenced outside resources. Ms. Beekman stated the University of Minnesota has not provided comment on this draft ordinance and they would probably be silent on issues such as setbacks and structure of the ordinance. Mayor Elliott asked about the process to obtain a permit and whether the process is onerous and yet another permit you have to get or if the resident can plant native grasses and then the City follow up should there be a violation. Ms. Beekman stated the Housing Commission discussed this as well and weighed the pros and cons, similar to the beekeeping discussion. She explained the City does not want to create a process that is burdensome or costs money or takes a lot of time. But, balancing that, in code enforcement, long grass is the number one call in terms of complaint received and something enforcement officers spend an exorbitant amount of time on, particularly in the May-June timeframe growing season. Recognizing if there is a process in place, such as a registration instead of a permit, would save time in having to verify it by going out to the property compared to being able to look it up at the time of the call. Mayor Elliott stated he can see having a registry but a full-blown permit would be onerous. He stated he would like to see a process with a registry to reduce the burden. Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve first reading of an Ordinance 06/14/21 -20- DRAFT amendment to Chapter 19 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding Regulating Native Prairie Grass and Naturalistic Vegetation as amended to include the Housing Commission’s recommendation and calling for a public hearing and second reading to be held on July 12, 2021. Motion passed unanimously. 10d. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Mayor Elliott requested ratification of the following reappointments to the Financial Commission: Taneshia Kragness and David Dwapu. Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to ratify Mayoral reappointments of Taneshia Kragness and David Dwapu to the Finance Commission with terms expiring on December 31, 2023. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves stated a couple of people have applied for reappointment on the Park & Recreation Commission and there are still two seats open. She asked that those members who have reapplied for reappointment be brought forward at an upcoming meeting. Mayor Elliott stated he will follow up on those appointments. Councilmember Ryan noted that Financial Commissioner Dean Van Der Werf has served since 2015 despite his term expiring at the end of 2018. He asked if Mr. Van Der Werf had requested a reappointment. Mayor Elliott stated Mr. Van Der Werf has already been reappointed. Councilmember Ryan thanked Mayor Elliott for that clarification. Councilmember Ryan stated he concurs with Councilmember Graves that Park and Recreation Commissioners be brought up for reappointment. Mayor Elliott stated he wants to have some conversations on the appointment process, noting one of the findings on the current commission report about political uprisings is lack of political voice in political processes from communities of color and particularly from the black community. He stated he is taking a real look at these commissions to make sure there is diversity and representation from these communities. Mayor Elliott stated this has slowed the process but they are ramping back up and have the postings available that are being translated into different languages so there is more diversity on the commissions. He stated some people want to be reappointed and he is making some but with others, he needs to appoint other people to those seats. Mayor Elliott stated he feels the pressure and the easy thing to do is to reappoint but he knows there is something else we need to do to make sure we are being more inclusive as a community. He explained there have been some interruptions to do the type of engagement needed to get applications but he has gone to St. Alphonsus to recruit from that community and tried to go to the Hmong Alliance Church but could not get there due to road construction. He stated he is trying to make sure the City recruits from some of these communities for the open seats and he wants to be 06/14/21 -21- DRAFT intentional and not succumb to the pressure of reappointing people who have reapplied. Councilmember Graves stated she hears Mayor Elliott and appreciates the efforts he is making to reach out to our more diverse community members. She also believes she is not succumbing to pressure; she is thinking about having functioning Commissions and recognizing the time commitment, expertise, and institutional knowledge that many of our members bring. She stated even if they are white, they are still adding to the diversity of the Commission. To her, she is thinking specifically about Arvid Sorenson who served as the Chair of the Park and Recreation Commission for many years and does an excellent job of it, is very organized, and consistent. Also, two of the longer-term members passed away and one resigned, which was a loss to the Commission. She noted that Travis Bonovsky is also up for reappointment and has done a lot with Boy Scouts and connected with the wildlife at Palmer Lake. Councilmember Graves stated there needs to be a focus too on what areas of the City are covered by the Commissioners, not just diversity of race or gender or age, but also diversity of location within the City, experience level, and knowledge about how the Commission works. Councilmember Graves stated those are all diversity points and the City Council needs to be thinking about that as well as more demographic diversity levels. She restated she appreciates Mayor Elliott’s efforts and agrees with him, but does not want him to become so narrowly focused that he is not seeing the diversity of other components beyond race, age, or gender. Mayor Elliott stated he appreciates that perspective and we need experience on these Commissions and institutional knowledge. That is the point of some of the reappointments, to find that balance. He clarified he was referring to himself succumbing to the pressure of reappointments. Mayor Elliott commented on the need to strike a balance in all areas including geographic location in the City. Mayor Elliott stated he will bring up some for reappointments and has had a conversation with staff to ramp up recruitment. He will also talk with the Commissioners and hopefully, some can continue to serve. He stated some Commissioners have reached out to him and say, ‘I think you should appoint someone to my seat that represents the increasing diversity of our community in terms of race.’ Councilmember Ryan stated he concurs with Councilmember Graves. He noted when this is brought back before all five Council Members, we should look at a process that does not place just the Mayor in the hot seat on this and come up with a process that both facilitates the broad-based recruitment and answers those concerns just expressed. At the same time, the City Council should try to reinforce that institutional memory that legacy Commissioners can bring and assist in the process. Councilmember Ryan stated he thinks the City Council should terminate the current discussion but keep those issues in mind for the next time this comes up. 10e. CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT This item was removed from the agenda upon its adoption. 06/14/21 -22- DRAFT 11. COUNCIL REPORT None. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:29 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:6/28/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:M ark Ebens teiner, F inance D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu#on A pproving an A mendment to the Brooklyn Center F ire D epartment Relief A ssocia#on By-L aws Requested Council A con: - Moon to approve a resoluon approving an amendment to the Brookly n C enter F ire D epartment Relief A ssociaon By -Law B ackground: Currently the City pays a lump s um of $8,500 to F ire F ighters for each year of s ervice on the D epartment once they have s erved 10 cons ecu#ve years . The funding for this benefit is largely derived from annual payments received by the C ity from the S tate of Minnes ota along with investment earnings derived from pension fund investments. Rarely has the C ity been required to contribute to the fund to meet funding requirements . Bas ed on the actuarial report from Van I w aarden and A ssociates as of D ecember 31, 2020 the fund had a balance of $3,545,920 in as s ets and $2,572,996 in liabili#es. This res ults in a funding level of 138% from the 31 current members . The target policy of the relief as s ocia#on is to retain at leas t 110% of the fund requirements . Bas ed on this report the A ssocia#on reques ted that the C ity C ouncil cons ider increasing the lump s um payment of $1,500 to $10,000. This reques t w as made at least in part to a@ract and retain fire fighters for the department. The C ity ’s financial advis or, Baker Tilly, reviewed the Van I w aarden projec#ons of the impact of the proposed $1,500 increas e. The projec#on shows that based on a 5% annual investment return the funded s tatus of the pension fund would remain over 100%. Baker Tilly concluded that the as s ump#ons and res ul#ng projec#ons are accurate in concluding that the City w ill not be required to make contribu#ons to maintain the 110% funding levels through 2036. B udget I ssues: A pproval of this resolu#on s hould have no impact on the City budget. H ow ever, as noted in the memo provided by Baker Tilly there is no guarantee of future inves tment interest rates . The City s hould unders tand that it may be called upon to make a contribu#on to support an increas e in annual benefits to $10,000. I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type B C F R A Pension I ncrease Reques t 6/22/2021 Backup M aterial F R A A nalys is - Baker Tilly 6/22/2021 Backup M aterial Pens ion I ncreas e Res olu#on 6/22/2021 Resolu#on Le@er 1 May 4, 2021 Reggie Edwards, Acting City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: $1500 Increase to Fire Service Benefit Dear Mr. Edwards, Enclosed please find information relative to a request to increase the current firefighter pension benefit amount from the current $8,500 per-year-of-service to $10,000 per-year-of-service. At its meeting on May 2, 2021, the Brooklyn Center Firefighters Relief Association (BCFRA) membership approved this increase and directed the board to make a formal request for city approval. Background of the Association Relief associations are governmental entities that receive and manage public money to provide retirement benefits for individuals providing the governmental services of firefighting and emergency first response. Relief associations are required under Minnesota Statutes, chapters 356 and 424A, to report annually financial, investment, and plan administration information to the Office of the State Auditor (OSA), and the State Auditor is required to provide a detailed report to the Legislature under Minnesota Statutes, sections 6.72 and 356.219. The BCFRA is made up of the active paid-on-call members of the Brooklyn Center Fire Department. The purpose of the association is to provide retirement, disability and death benefits to the members or beneficiaries of members of the department. The pension benefit is not only a recruitment tool, but also a way to encourage the part-time/paid-on-call members to "stay on the job" and supports retention. The State of Minnesota has provided the major share of funding for the association through distribution of the money collected from a gross earnings tax on fire insurance premiums sold in the state, also known as "2% Money". The funds are allocated back to the departments based on the population and property values in the area served by that department. There is a strong relationship between state fire aid and the number of fire-related calls a fire department responds each year. The state fire aid was established in 1885 and has been the most stable source of funding. The City has not needed to financially support the Relief Association in many years and does not normally need to do so. State law requires that a relief association be governed by a nine-member board of trustees. The BCFRA is directed by six trustees elected by members of the relief association, the fire chief, the city Finance Director, and the Mayor. Type of Pension The members of the BCFRA are covered by a defined benefit plan. A defined-benefit retirement plan provides a retirement benefit that is predetermined based on a formula. The unknown variable for a defined-benefit retirement plan is the amount of funding needed to support the predetermined benefits. Benefits are funded through a combination of fire state aid, municipal contributions, and investment earnings. The City of Brooklyn Center has never added an ongoing municipal contribution. 2 Most defined-benefit relief associations in Minnesota are lump-sum plans (including the BCFRA plan), meaning they pay benefits as a one-time lump-sum payment to members upon their retirement. In lump-sum plans, benefits are paid to members based on an annual benefit level in effect at the time of the member’s separation from active service and membership. Lump-sum plans are the most common plan type because they are generally easier to administer and have fewer associated administrative costs. Investments The relief association's assets are invested through The Parr-McKnight Wealth Management Group, of Wells Fargo Advisors. The relief association has adopted an Investment Policy Statement for the investment for our pension fund. Our target investment allocation is sixty percent in stocks, thirty-five percent in bonds and five percent in cash. We rebalance to our target allocation annually. The BCFRA Board believes in long-term investing and has resisted attempting to time market moves. Action Requested The BCFRA is requesting to increase in our pension amount from $8,500 to $10,000 per-year-of-service. This is an excellent way to increase the fire fighter compensation package without impacting the city budget. The last pension increase was $800 in 2018, which brought us to the current $8,500 per-year-of- service. Enclosed please find the January 2021 actuarial report from Van lwaarden Associates as well as a supplemental report from March 2021 specifically regarding this potential increase. The supplemental study includes increase scenarios of $9,000, $9,500 and $10,000; all using a 5% investment return and a constant 40 active firefighters. More specifically, it shows that an increase to $10,000 requires no contribution needed from the City throughout the entire length of the benefit study and it allows us to remain funded in excess of our goal of 110%. Please note that the fire department has not been at the full complement of 40 members for many years. However, the study used the authorized number of 40. In addition, we feel strongly that a 5% investment return is an appropriate rate to use in this analysis, and was also used in the last analysis. This request is in line with our guideline to remain at least 110% funded, as well as our goal of pursuing increases in the per-year-of-service pension amount with monies above 110%, to continue to move toward the state allowed maximum of $15,000. The BCFRA board believes that it has fiduciary responsibilities to both the membership and to the Council. The responsibility to the membership is to seek the highest financially sound benefit level. The responsibility to the Council is to not expose the city to any financial risk which could lead to mandatory contributions. Based on the analysis, there does not appear to be a financial risk. We respectfully request that the City of Brooklyn Center approve this increase and suggest it be instituted on the 1st of the month following its adoption. Thank you in advance for your consideration and support. Sincerely, President Chris Kummer February 19, 2021 612.596.5960 toll free:888.596.5960 WWW.VANIWAARDEN.COM VAN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES ONE HUNDRED SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 1900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation of Statutory Funding Requirements Introduction and summary Introduction and Actuarial Certification ............................... Valuation of the Current Plan .................................... Funding basis results Reconciliation of Plan Assets .................................... Changes in the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability ......................... Average Available Financing .................................... Valuation data Summary of Changes in Membership ................................. Summary of Participant Data .................................... Supplementary information Summary of Plan Provisions ..................................... Summary of Actuarial Methods .................................... Summary of Actuarial Assumptions ................................. Selection of Economic Assumptions ................................. Selection of Non-Economic Assumptions ............................... Assessment and Disclosure of Risk ..................................15 9 7 11 13 14 10 4 8 5 6 3 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Table of Contents Page 1 This report presents the results of the January 1, 2021 statutory funding valuation for the Brooklyn Center Firefighter's Relief Association. Its sole purpose is to determine the annual municipal obligation to the plan and should not be used for any other purpose. Computations for other purposes, such as plan accounting, may differ significantly from the results shown in this report. Summary of valuation results Sources of data Changes from the previous valuation The Relief Association supplied the January 1, 2021 data for all active, terminated, and retired members, and asset data for the special fund. We have relied on that data in preparing this report. The prior actuarial valuation of the plan was prepared as of January 1, 2019.Changes to the plan provisions and actuarial assumptions reflected in this valuation are described at the end of each of those sections in this report. These changes include: •The lump sum benefit multiplier was increased from $7,700 to $8,500 per year of service. This report may not be used for any other purpose, and Van Iwaarden Associates is not responsible for the consequences of any unauthorized use. Its content may not be modified, incorporated into or used in other material, or otherwise provided, in whole or in part, to any other person or entity, without our permission. •Mortality rates were changed to those used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. 1BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Introduction and Actuarial Certification Purposes of the valuation The State Aid amount is not yet known, but if the amount stays at the level paid in 2020 ($180,079), the remaining municipal obligation would be $0 annually for fiscal years ending 2022 and 2023. The actuarial accrued liability used for determining the minimum required contribution decreased from $2,809,184 as of January 1, 2019 to $2,572,996 as of January 1, 2021 primarily due to benefits paid from the plan. Special Fund assets increased from $3,405,643 as of January 1, 2019 to $3,545,920 as of December 31, 2020.As a result, the plan's funded status increased from 121.23% to 137.81%. The annual statutory contribution based on the results of this report before any offset for State Aid is $48,372, down from $67,773 determined by the 2019 valuation. Actuarial certification February 19, 2021 v.12/29/2020 Consulting Actuary 2BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Introduction and Actuarial Certification (continued) To the best of our knowledge, this report is complete and accurate and all Relief Association liabilities were determined in accordance with generally accepted actuarial principles and practices. Upon receipt of the report, the Relief Association should notify us if you disagree with any information contained in the report or if you are aware of any information that would affect the results that has not been communicated to us. The report will be deemed final and acceptable to the City and the Relief Association unless you notify us otherwise. Emily M. Knutson, FSA, EA, MAAA Chapter 356.216 of Minnesota Statues requires that an actuarial valuation of the fund be conducted periodically. The State Auditor has determined that a valuation must be conducted at least every two years.An actuarial valuation is a calculation to determine the normal cost and accrued liability of the fund and includes a determination of the payment necessary to amortize the unfunded liability over the stated period. The actuarial assumptions and methods are the responsibility of the plan sponsor with the exception of the discount rate which is set by statute and is only appropriate to comply with statutory funding.We have reviewed the other assumptions and believe that they are reasonable estimates of future plan experience, both individually and in the aggregate. We are available to answer questions on the material contained in this report or to provide explanations or further details on the results. The undersigned credentialed actuary is a consulting actuary for Van Iwaarden Associates and meets the Qualifications Standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained herein.In addition, the undersigned actuary meets the requirements of an “approved actuary”under Minnesota statutes, Section 356.215, Subdivision 1,Paragraph (c).We are not aware of any direct or material indirect financial interest or relationship that could create a conflict of interest or impair the objectivity of our work. Respectfully submitted, L/D/C/R: 4/ctl/emk/bkh $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ H.Funded Status 3. Estimated State Aid Estimated municipal contribution (3. + 4., not less than zero) 4. 5. 67,773 (159,147) 00 Annual contribution (1. + 2.)48,372 (180,079) 0 30,715 111,161 N/A 121.23%137.81% 88,155 178,628113,815 106,445 17,657 (972,924) (59,646)(97,292) N/A (596,459) 0 16,258 51,515 128,007 2022, 2023 2020, 2021 2. Preliminary contribution (D. + E. + F.) Administrative expense (previous year x 1.035) Spouses receiving benefits Disabled members receiving benefits Total actuarial accrued liability Annual contribution payable: Credit for surplus 5. 6. Special fund assets Unfunded actuarial accrued liability Amortization payment 1. B. C. A.Actuarial accrued liability (AAL) 1. 3BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Valuation of the Current Plan 20192021 1,506,1721,286,836Active members G. Normal cost 2. Amortization period Payment F. 3,545,920 3,405,643 2. 3. 1. Vested terminated members Retired members D. E. 4. 1,017,9391,084,190 0 2,809,1842,572,996 0 Additions Contributions $$ Member contributions Total contributions Investment income Net investment income Other additions (e.g. receivables) Total additions Deductions Other deductions (e.g. payables) Total deductions Net increase in net position Net position restricted for pensions Beginning of year End of year $$ Investment return for the measurement year 165,652 0 3,703,161 0 180,079 0 165,652 (350,222) (21,707) 503,214 180,079 297,518 0 145,515 468,283 101,136 4BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Reconciliation of Plan Assets 20192020 State aid Municipal contributions 5.8% 379,984 (157,241) (17,060) 199,905 3,545,920 0Outside donations and other income By year 0 Net appreciation in fair value of investments Interest and dividends Less investment expense Two year period 669,447 Benefits paid during the year Administrative Expense (537,225)(371,929) (520,165) 10.7% 3,405,643 3,703,161 16.2% 0 0 86,470 (46,746)(51,539) 0 581 $ f. Expected value of assets Asset gain or loss 3,545,920 Value of assets on January 1, 2019 B. 1. 2,572,996 2,451,881 3. a. Interest to December 31, 2020 on a. through e. Expected AAL on December 31, 2020 (sum of a. through f.) Actual AAL on January 1, 2021 Before any assumption, method or plan changes 20,804 4,503 b. c. 2. Due to changes in actuarial assumptions and methods (2.b. - 2.a.) d. e. 2. 5BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Changes in the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability 265,455 2,426,574 345,731 321,556 Benefit payments Contributions Interest to December 31, 2020 on a., b. and c. 2,809,184 111,161 111,161 A.Liability gain or loss c. e. Normal cost 2020 Benefit payments 2019 Benefit payments 2020 (350,222) (520,165) Total (a. + b. + c.) 1. a. b. d. Expected actuarial accrued liability (AAL) AAL as of January 1, 2019 Normal cost 2019 3,405,643 (870,387) g. a. c. d. 121,115 146,422 After assumption and method changes, but before plan changes After assumption, method and plan changes Difference from the expected AAL (Gain) or loss due to plan experience diff from that expected (2.a. - 1.g.) a. b. Due to plan changes (2.c. - 2.b.) 2,447,378 b. c. Expected assets on December 31, 2020 (sum of a. through d.) Actual assets as of December 31, 2020 3,202,543 Changes in the unfunded actuarial accrued liability Unfunded AAL on January 1, 2019 (A.1.a. - B.1.a.)(596,459) (343,377)3.(Gain) or loss due to plan experience different from expected (1.e. - 2.) C. 1. (972,924) 2. 3. a. b. Expected unfunded AAL on December 31, 2020 (A.1.g. - B.1.e.) Changes Actuarial (gain) or loss (A.3.a. + B.3.) Changes in actuarial methods and assumptions (A.3.b.) Changes in plan provisions (A.3.c.) (775,969) (322,573) 4,503 121,115 (196,955)Total change Unfunded AAL on December 31, 2020 c. d. 4. $$$$$ $ Minimum Average Available Financing required for $8,500 lump sum multiplier: • • • 277,371 Maximum lump sum multiplier permitted: Notes: The State Aid and City Contributions shown are those made during the calendar year indicated. The number of active members is provided by the Relief Association for the year indicated, that is,the number as of December 31. The average available financing for 2021 is the average for the three years preceeding 2021 (2018 to 2020). See Minnesota Statutes §424A.02. Average available financing for 2021:8,546 4,587 15,000 City Contrib Members Credit for Surplus 165,652 180,079 7,219 9,472 Total 223,793 265,230 28 3159,646 99,578 0 0 0 3197,292 6BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Average Available Financing 8,947 State Aid Average Financing Active 2018 2019 2020 164,147 New active members Retirements Separation, deferred lump sum Separation, not vested Separation, disability benefit Deaths Lump sum distributions Rehire Total changes 58 7BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Summary of Changes in Membership 0 0 9 (4) (4) 2 0 0 (4) 0 (4) (4)(1) 8 Retired 5 9 0 5 (4) 5 (2) 3 Total 59 Disabled 0 Beneficiaries 12 31 Terminated Vested 11 Active 31 (2) 2 0 (5) 14 A.Members on January 1, 2019 B.Changes in the member group C. 8. 9. Members on January 1, 2021 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Active Members 1. Number 2. Average Age 3. Average years of service Vested terminated members 1. With deferred benefits a. Number b. Total annual deferred benefits c. Average annual benefit d. Total lump sum benefits e. Average lump sum benefit Retirees and beneficiaries 1. Number a. Retirees b. Beneficiaries c. Disabled retirements d. Total 2. Total annual benefits being paid 3. Average annual benefit being paid Total number of participants (A.1. + B.1. + C.1.) 41.539.5 00 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 8 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Summary of Participant Data January 1, 2019January 1, 2021 3131 A. B. 8.16.4 1114 C. 1,251,4711,321,850 113,77094,418 $0$0 55 128 1713 00 D. $47,556$36,084 5958 2,7972,776 Plan Changes Since Prior ValuationG.The lump sum benefit multiplier was increased from $7,700 to $8,500 per year of service. The deferred lump sum pension payable at age 50 is based on the lump sum pension formula and service at date of termination reduced for less than 20 years of service. If a deferred vested member dies before payment, the benefit will be paid to the participant's beneficiary. F.Survivor Benefit Years of service times the lump sum rate in effect at the time of death with regard to vesting, payable to named beneficiary plus a Supplemental Survivor Benefit in the amount of 20%of the total benefit paid, but not more than $2,000. E.Disability Lump Sum Pension The disability pension payable immediately is based on the lump sum pension formula and service at date of disability without regard to vesting. The lump sum pension is based on completed months of service. The current lump sum pension is based on $8,500 per year of service plus a Supplemental Benefit of 10%of the regular lump sum distribution, but not more than $1,000. If a member is both age 50 and has completed 10 years of service, but not 20 years of service, the lump sum pension will be reduced by 4% for each year of service less than 20 years. D.Deferred Lump Sum Pension Termination prior to age 50 with at least 10 years of service. B.Service Completed months. C.Lump Sum Pension The later of age 50 or after completion of 20 years of service. 9BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Summary of Plan Provisions A.Eligibility Active or probationary member of the Relief Association. 1.Information inputs including the data, assumptions, methods, and plan provisions outlined in this report, 2.Processing by the ProVal® software developed by Winklevoss Technologies, and 3.Our report template which translates the ProVal® output into valuation results. The model is intended to convert the information input above to usable actuarial valuation results.We have reviewed the ProVal® software's output for reasonableness, and have independently checked sample one-person output where appropriate, but have otherwise relied on it. E.Models Used The results in this report are based on an actuarial valuation model with three components as outlined in Actuarial Standard of Practice No.56 - Modeling (ASOP 56): To the extent that census data was collected as of a date later than January 1, 2021,we have assumed that it is reasonably representative of the plan census on the valuation date and used it with only minor adjustments. BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 10 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Summary of Actuarial Methods The actuarial value of assets is equal to the market value of assets. All benefits summarized in the plan provisions section of this report with the exception of the supplemental lump sum benefits. The State reimburses the Special Fund for those benefits,so these payments and reimbursements will be recognized in plan assets as they occur. Actuarial Value of AssetsB. D.Data Methods The Relief Association provided census and financial information for the valuation and we have relied on this data in preparing the results in this report. The data was reviewed for reasonableness and consistency, but we have not performed a complete audit. Benefits Valued C. A.Actuarial Cost Method The Entry Age Normal level percent of pay cost method. Under this method, the service cost for an individual participant is the level percentage of pay required to accumulate the funds needed to pay the participant's projected benefits by their assumed retirement age, beginning on the date of entry and ending at last age with any future benefits. 50 0.00%0.00% 40 1.25%1.25% 45 1.25%1.25% 3.00%3.00% Healthy Pre-retirement:RP-2014 employee generational mortality table projected with mortality improvement scale MP-2019, from a base year of 2006. Disabled:RP-2014 annuitant generational mortality table projected with mortality improvement scale MP-2019 from a base year of 2006.Male rates are adjusted by a factor of 0.96. First through Third Years 3.0% Ultimate Rates Healthy Post-retirement:RP-2014 annuitant generational mortality table projected with mortality improvement scale MP-2019 from a base year of 2006. Male rates are adjusted by a factor of 0.96. 30 40 0.29% 60 0.00% 50 1.04% 55 2.03% 35 0.19% 11BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Summary of Actuarial Assumptions 45 0.54% 0.16% 20 0.11% 25 0.13% D.Disability Age-related rates used in the July 1, 2020 Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. All incidences are assumed to be duty-related. Select Rates are as follows: Age Rate A.Discount Rate 5% as required by Minnesota statutes B.Mortality Rates used in the July 1, 2020 Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation as described below. 2.10% 35 1.60% C.Withdrawal Select and ultimate rates used in the July 1, 2020 Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Select rates are as follows: 25 2.60%2.60% 1.60% 30 2.10% Age Male Female 20 Active members Vested terminated The later of current age and age 50. BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 12 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Summary of Actuarial Assumptions (continued) E.Retirement 50-64 0%50%100% 65 100%100%100% We have assumed 50%of active members will retire when reaching retirement eligibility (later of age 50 and 20 years of service); then 50%retire each subsequent year until 100%retirement at the earlier of age 65 or 30 years of service. Age Less than 20 years of service With 20-29 years of service With 30 years of service F.Beneficiary information 100%of members are assumed to have a beneficiary who will receive survivor benefits. J.Changes since prior valuation Mortality rates were changed to those used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. I.Supplemental benefits We have not valued the liability associated with supplemental lump sum benefits in this funding valuation since the State reimburses the Special Fund for those benefits. These payments and reimbursements will be recognized in plan assets as they occur. G.Spouse age difference Wives are assumed to be 3 years younger than husbands. H.Form of payment All future retirees are assumed to elect a lump sum payment. BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 13 Selection of Economic Assumptions The Actuarial Standards Board (ASB) provides coordinated guidance for measuring pension and retiree group benefit obligations through a series of Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs).ASOP No.27,Selection of Economic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations, requires that the actuary disclose the rationale used in selecting each non-prescribed economic assumption and any changes to non-prescribed economic assumptions. There are no non-prescribed economic assumptions used in this valuation. The discount rate is the only economic assumption and it is prescribed by State statute.It is only appropriate for complying with statutory funding requirements. January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Non-Economic Assumptions (non-prescribed) Assumption Rationale for Selecting Assumption The table below summarizes the rationale for selecting the non-prescribed non-economic assumptions. The rationale for assumption changes, along with a description of the assumptions themselves,is included in the Actuarial Assumption and Methods section of the report. BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 14 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Selection of Non-Economic Assumptions The Actuarial Standards Board (ASB) provides coordinated guidance for measuring pension and retiree group benefit obligations through a series of Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs).ASOP No.35,Selection of Demographic and Other Noneconomic Assumptions for Measuring Pension Obligations, requires that the actuary disclose the rationale used in selecting each non-prescribed non-economic assumption and any changes to non-prescribed non-economic assumptions. Rates used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Percentage Married and Spouse Ages Based on standard pension plan assumptions. These assumptions have an insignificant impact on plan costs. Due to limited plan-specific data, based on plan's earliest retirement age with allowance for some delayed retirement. Rates used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Rates used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Mortality Retirement Termination of Employment Disability Plan Maturity Measures Retiree liability divided by total plan liability Number of retirees divided by total participants Liability Maturity Ratio (LMR) Participant Maturity Ratio (PMR) Identification/Definition ASOP 51 requires that actuaries qualitatively or quantitatively assess the potential effect of these risks on the plan’s future financial condition. Methods to assess the risks include scenario tests, sensitivity tests, stress tests, and calculation of actuarial liabilities using a discount rate based on minimal-risk investments. Practical considerations include the usefulness, reliability, timeliness, and cost efficiency of the risk assessment measurements. Risk Investment risk Asset/liability mismatch risk This report contains basic risk assessment information for the plan in accordance with ASOP 51.However,we recommend that employers consider additional pension risk analyses to better understand retirement plan volatility and the potential impact on the organization.We would be glad to discuss potential additional analyses upon request. Maturity measures describe how much plan liability is attributable to current employees vs.former employees (e.g., retirees) and the size of plan assets and liabilities relative to overall payroll. These measures include: Interest rate risk In addition to the risk assessment parameters above,ASOP 51 requires that actuaries (1) calculate various plan maturity measures and (2) disclose relevant historical information that are significant to understanding plan risks. Longevity and other demographic risks Contribution risk The potential that state aid or municipal contribution rates are different than what is ultimately required to fund plan benefits The potential that mortality or other demographic experience will be different than expected The potential that interest rates will be different than expected The potential that changes in asset values are not matched by changes in liability values The potential that investment returns will be different than expected BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 15 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Assessment and Disclosure of Risk Actuarial Standard of Practice Number 51,Assessment and Disclosure of Risk Associated with Measuring Pension Obligations and Determining Pension Plan Contributions (ASOP 51), requires actuaries to identify and assess certain risks that may affect a plan’s future financial condition. Some of the primary risks are summarized and defined in the table below. Observations: • BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 16 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Assessment and Disclosure of Risk (continued) A recent history of maturity measures is shown below. Some of the primary risks are summarized and defined in the table below. The retiree counts and liabilities are steadily decreasing while vested terminated counts and liabilities are steadily increasing as a percent of the plan’s totals. This is because lifetime annuities have been replaced with lump sum payments. 39%36%34%34%34%29%22% 14%13%13%10%15%19%24% 47%51%53%56%52%53%53% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 Participant Maturity Ratios Active participants Vested terminated Receiving payments 19%16%13%14%11%10%8% 14%13%18%13%21%36%42% 67%71%69%73%68% 54%50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 Liability Maturity Ratios Active participants Vested terminated Receiving payments Historical Plan Information Observations • BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 17 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Assessment and Disclosure of Risk (continued) 2021 2,572,996$ 3,545,920$ 137.81%5.81% Actuarial Accrued Liability Market Value of Assets Funded Percent Actual Investment Return Historical plan information can provide insight about evolving pension risks, especially as plans mature. Below are historical values for some relevant plan results. Historical Funded Status Information 5.00% -6.22% 2017 3,287,811 3,673,474 111.73%15.28% 2019 2,809,184 Assumed Investment Return 2010 3,113,981 2,916,962 93.67%N/A 5.00% 2011 3,253,686 3,303,595 101.53%11.80%5.00% 2013 3,279,231 121.23% The plan’s funded status has steadily increased in recent years. Liabilities have remained relatively stable. 5.00% 5.00% 3,282,317 100.09%8.30%5.00% 2015 3,084,717 3,508,210 113.73%4.20%5.00% 3,405,643 Risk Assessment The table below provides analysis of some potential plan risks. Please note that the list of risks and the risk assessments shown are not exhaustive. We would be glad to provide a more detailed risk assessment upon request. BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION 18 January 1, 2021 Actuarial Valuation Assessment and Disclosure of Risk (continued) Defined benefit plans like this one are subject to statutory minimum funding rules. These impose stringent requirements on when and how much money must be contributed to the plan trust. This means that many pension risks are less applicable to Relief Association defined benefit plans. The plan demographic assumptions reflect best estimates of future plan experience. However, retirees receiving monthly payments may live longer than expected which would change plan liabilities. Longevity and other demographic risks Contribution risk Statutory minimum funding rules are relatively conservative and statutorily- mandated,so there is less risk that the plan sponsor will not make the necessary contributions than in other types of plans. Investment risk If future investment returns are higher or lower than assumed, then future contributions may need to be increased or decreased to compensate. The plan currently uses an investment return assumption based on statutory requirements of 5%. Asset/liability mismatch risk Per state statues, plan funding liabilities are determined using a 5%interest rate. Since plan assets are invested in a mix of equity and fixed income securities, there is a risk that changes in assets values are not matched by changes in liability values. Interest rate risk There is a risk that interest rates could be different than expected under current statutory minimum funding rules. Statutory funding interest rates are currently “stabilized” at 5%. VAN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES ONE HUNDRED SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 1900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 612.596.5960 toll free:888.596.5960 WWW.VANIWAARDEN.COM VAN IWAARDEN Retirement planning for employers March 24, 2021 Mr. Chris Hughes Treasurer-Brooklyn Center Firefighter’s Relief Association 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Re: Pension Plan Projections with Benefit Increase Dear Chris: We have prepared a projection of the pension plan assets and liabilities at the following benefit levels: $9,000, $9,500, and $10,000. Estimated future municipal contributions are not required under these scenarios. The projections reflect a constant active membership of 40 firefighters. Background We were hired by the Relief Association to prepare a projection of the pension plan’s liabilities, assets and funded status under five different benefit levels. The projections include a constant active membership of 40 firefighters to provide results comparable to the 2019 projections dated April 4, 2019. This letter documents the results of the projections. Projection and Assumptions The actuarial accrued liability and normal cost for each year of the projection were calculated using the discount rate, mortality, retirement, disability and withdrawal assumptions stated in the January 1, 2021 valuation report dated February 19, 2021. When a member died, retired or terminated, a new firefighter was added. Each new firefighter was assumed to be 33 years old. The Special Account asset balance for each year of the projection was calculated using the benefit payments generated from the liability projection, a constant State Aid contribution of $180,079 (the 2020 actual State Aid contribution), expenses increasing at 3.5% per year, and an assumed rate of return of 5%. All transactions (contributions and distributions) were assumed to occur mid-year. The municipal contribution, if any, was determined as the normal cost for the year plus/minus the amortization of any unfunded accrued liability/surplus plus expenses less the State Aid contribution. March 24, 2021 Page 2 of 2 VAN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES ONE HUNDRED SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 1900 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 612.596.5960 toll free:888.596.5960 WWW.VANIWAARDEN.COM Results  Estimated future municipal contributions are not required under the $9,000, $9,500, and $10,000 scenarios. The attached exhibits for each benefit level show the details of the calculations. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there are other projections you’d like us to run. Sincerely, Emily M. Knutson, FSA, EA, MAAA Consulting Actuary L/D/C/R: 3/ctl/emk/bkh BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION PROJECTION $9,000 Lump Sum Pension Valuation Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Lump sum multiplier 8,500 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 A. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 1. AAL $2,572,996 $2,158,967 $2,417,314 $2,404,943 $2,298,956 $2,234,997 $2,214,889 $2,428,323 $2,678,881 2. Normal Cost 128,007 186,418 186,426 185,617 185,425 184,339 184,695 184,877 184,108 B. Special Fund Assets 1. Investment return 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 2. Assets at valuation date 3,545,920 3,174,019 3,453,665 3,469,820 3,396,218 3,364,690 3,377,956 3,619,779 3,898,594 3. Expected Benefit Payments (698,224) (43,809) (313,874) (401,569) (356,245) (310,297) (87,227) (62,174) (71,121) 4. Expected Contributions 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 5. Expected Expenses (17,657) (18,275) (18,915) (19,577) (20,262) (20,971) (21,705) (22,465) (23,251) 6. Interest to end of val year 163,901 161,651 168,865 167,464 164,900 164,455 170,676 183,375 197,072 7. Assets at end of val year 3,174,019 3,453,665 3,469,820 3,396,218 3,364,690 3,377,956 3,619,779 3,898,594 4,181,373 C. Unfunded AAL (A.1 - B.2.)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Credit for surplus (B.2. - A.1) x 10%97,292 101,505 103,635 106,488 109,726 112,969 116,307 119,146 121,971 E. Amortization Payment 1. Amortization Period 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Annual Contribution Payable 1. Preliminary Contribution (A.2.+E.-D.)30,715 84,913 82,791 79,129 75,699 71,370 68,388 65,731 62,137 2. Administrative Expense 17,657 18,275 18,915 19,577 20,262 20,971 21,705 22,465 23,251 3. Annual Contribution (1.+2.)48,372 103,188 101,706 98,706 95,961 92,341 90,093 88,196 85,388 4. Estimated State Aid (180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079) 5. Estimated Municipal Contribution (3.+4.)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Funded Status (B.2. / A.1.)138% 147% 143% 144% 148% 151% 153% 149% 146% Assumptions •5% investment return •Contributions and distributions occur mid-year •Expenses increase at 3.5% per year •Constant 40 active firefighters for years 2022 and later; 2021 based on current membership as of 1/1/2021 •State Aid remains constant at $180,079 •Lump sum multiplier of $9,000 effective 1/1/2022 L/D/C/R: 4/ctl/emk/bkh 3/24/2021 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION PROJECTION $9,000 Lump Sum Pension Valuation Year Lump sum multiplier A. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 1. AAL 2. Normal Cost B. Special Fund Assets 1. Investment return 2. Assets at valuation date 3. Expected Benefit Payments 4. Expected Contributions 5. Expected Expenses 6. Interest to end of val year 7. Assets at end of val year C. Unfunded AAL (A.1 - B.2.) D. Credit for surplus (B.2. - A.1) x 10% E. Amortization Payment 1. Amortization Period 2. Payment F. Annual Contribution Payable 1. Preliminary Contribution (A.2.+E.-D.) 2. Administrative Expense 3. Annual Contribution (1.+2.) 4. Estimated State Aid 5. Estimated Municipal Contribution (3.+4.) G. Funded Status (B.2. / A.1.) Assumptions •5% investment return •Contributions and distributions occur mid-year •Expenses increase at 3.5% per year •Constant 40 active firefighters for years 2022 and later; 2021 based on current membership as of 1/1/2021 •State Aid remains constant at $180,079 •Lump sum multiplier of $9,000 effective 1/1/2022 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 $2,931,725 $3,123,066 $3,278,163 $3,519,088 $3,649,310 $3,880,175 $3,835,467 184,318 183,570 183,128 178,577 182,386 182,233 181,012 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 4,181,373 4,404,897 4,594,811 4,870,020 5,042,929 5,311,535 5,312,479 (141,912) (184,763) (109,940) (222,268) (136,406) (409,676) (389,373) 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 (24,065) (24,907) (25,779) (26,681) (27,615) (28,582) (29,582) 209,421 219,505 230,850 241,779 252,548 259,122 259,652 4,404,897 4,594,811 4,870,020 5,042,929 5,311,535 5,312,479 5,333,255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124,965 128,183 131,665 135,093 139,362 143,136 147,701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59,353 55,387 51,463 43,484 43,024 39,097 33,311 24,065 24,907 25,779 26,681 27,615 28,582 29,582 83,418 80,294 77,242 70,165 70,639 67,679 62,893 (180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 143% 141% 140% 138% 138% 137% 139% L/D/C/R: 4/ctl/emk/bkh 3/24/2021 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION PROJECTION $9,500 Lump Sum Pension Valuation Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Lump sum multiplier 8,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 A. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 1. AAL $2,572,996 $2,214,277 $2,485,496 $2,486,504 $2,389,813 $2,337,879 $2,326,782 $2,552,450 $2,817,206 2. Normal Cost 128,007 196,775 196,783 195,929 195,726 194,581 194,956 195,148 194,336 B. Special Fund Assets 1. Investment return 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 2. Assets at valuation date 3,545,920 3,174,019 3,452,915 3,468,150 3,388,988 3,353,844 3,359,845 3,596,728 3,871,663 3. Expected Benefit Payments (698,224) (44,540) (314,736) (406,911) (359,421) (316,855) (91,164) (64,834) (74,380) 4. Expected Contributions 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 5. Expected Expenses (17,657) (18,275) (18,915) (19,577) (20,262) (20,971) (21,705) (22,465) (23,251) 6. Interest to end of val year 163,901 161,633 168,806 167,247 164,459 163,749 169,673 182,156 195,644 7. Assets at end of val year 3,174,019 3,452,915 3,468,150 3,388,988 3,353,844 3,359,845 3,596,728 3,871,663 4,149,756 C. Unfunded AAL (A.1 - B.2.)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Credit for surplus (B.2. - A.1) x 10%97,292 95,974 96,742 98,165 99,918 101,596 103,306 104,428 105,446 E. Amortization Payment 1. Amortization Period 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Annual Contribution Payable 1. Preliminary Contribution (A.2.+E.-D.)30,715 100,801 100,041 97,764 95,808 92,985 91,650 90,720 88,890 2. Administrative Expense 17,657 18,275 18,915 19,577 20,262 20,971 21,705 22,465 23,251 3. Annual Contribution (1.+2.)48,372 119,076 118,956 117,341 116,070 113,956 113,355 113,185 112,141 4. Estimated State Aid (180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079) 5. Estimated Municipal Contribution (3.+4.)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Funded Status (B.2. / A.1.)138% 143% 139% 139% 142% 143% 144% 141% 137% Assumptions •5% investment return •Contributions and distributions occur mid-year •Expenses increase at 3.5% per year •Constant 40 active firefighters for years 2022 and later; 2021 based on current membership as of 1/1/2021 •State Aid remains constant at $180,079 •Lump sum multiplier of $9,500 effective 1/1/2022 L/D/C/R: 4/ctl/emk/bkh 3/24/2021 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION PROJECTION $9,500 Lump Sum Pension Valuation Year Lump sum multiplier A. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 1. AAL 2. Normal Cost B. Special Fund Assets 1. Investment return 2. Assets at valuation date 3. Expected Benefit Payments 4. Expected Contributions 5. Expected Expenses 6. Interest to end of val year 7. Assets at end of val year C. Unfunded AAL (A.1 - B.2.) D. Credit for surplus (B.2. - A.1) x 10% E. Amortization Payment 1. Amortization Period 2. Payment F. Annual Contribution Payable 1. Preliminary Contribution (A.2.+E.-D.) 2. Administrative Expense 3. Annual Contribution (1.+2.) 4. Estimated State Aid 5. Estimated Municipal Contribution (3.+4.) G. Funded Status (B.2. / A.1.) Assumptions •5% investment return •Contributions and distributions occur mid-year •Expenses increase at 3.5% per year •Constant 40 active firefighters for years 2022 and later; 2021 based on current membership as of 1/1/2021 •State Aid remains constant at $180,079 •Lump sum multiplier of $9,500 effective 1/1/2022 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 $3,084,283 $3,286,356 $3,450,093 $3,704,351 $3,841,686 $4,085,189 $4,044,321 194,558 193,768 193,302 188,498 192,518 192,357 191,069 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 4,149,756 4,364,232 4,542,123 4,808,895 4,966,481 5,223,826 5,203,747 (149,196) (194,509) (115,602) (234,236) (143,663) (425,907) (407,407) 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 (24,065) (24,907) (25,779) (26,681) (27,615) (28,582) (29,582) 207,658 217,228 228,074 238,424 248,544 254,331 253,765 4,364,232 4,542,123 4,808,895 4,966,481 5,223,826 5,203,747 5,200,601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106,547 107,788 109,203 110,454 112,479 113,864 115,943 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88,011 85,980 84,099 78,044 80,039 78,493 75,126 24,065 24,907 25,779 26,681 27,615 28,582 29,582 112,076 110,887 109,878 104,725 107,654 107,075 104,708 (180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135% 133% 132% 130% 129% 128% 129% L/D/C/R: 4/ctl/emk/bkh 3/24/2021 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION PROJECTION $10,000 Lump Sum Pension Valuation Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Lump sum multiplier 8,500 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 A. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 1. AAL $2,572,996 $2,269,587 $2,553,678 $2,568,065 $2,480,670 $2,440,761 $2,438,674 $2,676,577 $2,955,531 2. Normal Cost 128,007 207,132 207,140 206,241 206,028 204,822 205,217 205,419 204,564 B. Special Fund Assets 1. Investment return 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 2. Assets at valuation date 3,545,920 3,174,019 3,452,166 3,466,480 3,381,759 3,342,998 3,341,735 3,573,676 3,844,733 3. Expected Benefit Payments (698,224) (45,271) (315,598) (412,253) (362,596) (323,414) (95,101) (67,494) (77,640) 4. Expected Contributions 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 5. Expected Expenses (17,657) (18,275) (18,915) (19,577) (20,262) (20,971) (21,705) (22,465) (23,251) 6. Interest to end of val year 163,901 161,614 168,747 167,030 164,018 163,042 168,669 180,937 194,216 7. Assets at end of val year 3,174,019 3,452,166 3,466,480 3,381,759 3,342,998 3,341,735 3,573,676 3,844,733 4,118,137 C. Unfunded AAL (A.1 - B.2.)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D. Credit for surplus (B.2. - A.1) x 10%97,292 90,443 89,849 89,841 90,109 90,224 90,306 89,710 88,920 E. Amortization Payment 1. Amortization Period 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2. Payment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F. Annual Contribution Payable 1. Preliminary Contribution (A.2.+E.-D.)30,715 116,689 117,291 116,400 115,919 114,598 114,911 115,709 115,644 2. Administrative Expense 17,657 18,275 18,915 19,577 20,262 20,971 21,705 22,465 23,251 3. Annual Contribution (1.+2.)48,372 134,964 136,206 135,977 136,181 135,569 136,616 138,174 138,895 4. Estimated State Aid (180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079) 5. Estimated Municipal Contribution (3.+4.)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G. Funded Status (B.2. / A.1.)138% 140% 135% 135% 136% 137% 137% 134% 130% Assumptions •5% investment return •Contributions and distributions occur mid-year •Expenses increase at 3.5% per year •Constant 40 active firefighters for years 2022 and later; 2021 based on current membership as of 1/1/2021 •State Aid remains constant at $180,079 •Lump sum multiplier of $10,000 effective 1/1/2022 L/D/C/R: 4/ctl/emk/bkh 3/24/2021 BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION PROJECTION $10,000 Lump Sum Pension Valuation Year Lump sum multiplier A. Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) 1. AAL 2. Normal Cost B. Special Fund Assets 1. Investment return 2. Assets at valuation date 3. Expected Benefit Payments 4. Expected Contributions 5. Expected Expenses 6. Interest to end of val year 7. Assets at end of val year C. Unfunded AAL (A.1 - B.2.) D. Credit for surplus (B.2. - A.1) x 10% E. Amortization Payment 1. Amortization Period 2. Payment F. Annual Contribution Payable 1. Preliminary Contribution (A.2.+E.-D.) 2. Administrative Expense 3. Annual Contribution (1.+2.) 4. Estimated State Aid 5. Estimated Municipal Contribution (3.+4.) G. Funded Status (B.2. / A.1.) Assumptions •5% investment return •Contributions and distributions occur mid-year •Expenses increase at 3.5% per year •Constant 40 active firefighters for years 2022 and later; 2021 based on current membership as of 1/1/2021 •State Aid remains constant at $180,079 •Lump sum multiplier of $10,000 effective 1/1/2022 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $3,236,842 $3,449,647 $3,622,022 $3,889,614 $4,034,063 $4,290,204 $4,253,175 204,798 203,966 203,476 198,419 202,651 202,481 201,125 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 4,118,137 4,323,567 4,489,434 4,747,767 4,890,029 5,136,113 5,095,012 (156,480) (204,256) (121,264) (246,205) (150,920) (442,137) (425,441) 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 180,079 (24,065) (24,907) (25,779) (26,681) (27,615) (28,582) (29,582) 205,895 214,951 225,298 235,068 244,540 249,540 247,877 4,323,567 4,489,434 4,747,767 4,890,029 5,136,113 5,095,012 5,067,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88,130 87,392 86,741 85,815 85,597 84,591 84,184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116,668 116,574 116,735 112,604 117,054 117,890 116,941 24,065 24,907 25,779 26,681 27,615 28,582 29,582 140,733 141,481 142,514 139,285 144,669 146,472 146,523 (180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079)(180,079) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127% 125% 124% 122% 121% 120% 120% L/D/C/R: 4/ctl/emk/bkh 3/24/2021 Memo To: Mark Ebensteiner City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota From: Patty Kettles, Director Date: June 17, 2021 Subject: Fire Relief Association Pension Increase Impacts The City has requested Baker Tilly evaluate the potential fiscal impacts on the City’s contributions for increasing the Fire Relief Association retirement benefits from their current level of $8,500/year of service to $10,000/year of service. The goal was to evaluate if the annual benefit could be increased to $10,000 while keeping the relief association funded at 110%. The review was developed based on financial projections based on actuarial analyses. They are intended to provide the City with a context for considering these changes to the pension b enefit. The assumptions used in this analysis included the following: • The current active membership, retired members, surviving spouses, and deferred vested members as listed in the Brooklyn Center Firefighter’s Relief Association January 1, 20 21 Actuarial Valuation of Statutory Funding Requirements report (“Report”) and the supplemental analysis letter dated March 24, 2021 • Retirement at the later of 20 years of service or age 50 • An increase in the number of active members to 40 • When an active member retires, a new member is added to maintain active membership at 40 • Contributions from the State will remain at their 2020 level of $180,079 • Expenses will increase at 3.5% per year • City contributions (if any) will be projected to maintain funding at 110%. 110% is a “goal” of the BCFRA and not included in their by-laws. Minnesota State Statue 424A.092 defines when a City must provide financial support to the FRA to be when the FRA does not have a surplus over full funding. Therefore, should funding fall below 100%, City contributions may occur. We have reviewed the data provided by the Actuary and have used their annual Actuarial Accrued Liability and Expected Benefit Payments amounts in our analysis. Based on our review of the Report, we believe increasing the annual benefit to $10,000 will not result in additional City funding over the 15-year planning period. However, the Report assumes, as allowed per Minnesota State Statues, a 5% return on investments. Should the annual return on investments fall below City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota June 17, 2021 Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC is a registered municipal advisor and controlled subsidiary of Baker Tilly US, LLP, an accounting firm. Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, is a member of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. ©2021 Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC 4.35%, the City may be required to contribute funds in the later years. Information on the Office of the State Auditor website indicates that as of February 2021, those FRA plans administered by the PERA with investments managed by the State Board of Investments, assume a long-term expected return of six percent. The State Auditor Report, Financial and Investment Report of Volunteer Fire Relief Associations for the year ended December 21, 2019, indicates the following investment returns for the BCFRA: 5-year – 5.1% 10-year – 5.9% 20-year – 4.8% A rate of return on investments of 5.0%-6.0% provides a certain level of confidence that the City may not be required to make a contribution at the $10,000 annual benefit level. However, projecting forward interest rates is an uncertain science as many factors affect these rates. If economic conditions cause investment rates to decline the City may be required to make a contribution. Our determination that an annual investment rate of return below 4.35% indicates the City may be required to make a contribution. Another indication of the volatility of investment rates of return is the investment rate of return for each of the past seven years for the Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association as shown below: • 2020 5.8% • 2019 16.2% • 2018 -6.2% • 2017 15.3% • 2016 8.3% • 2015 -5.2% • 2014 4.2% The important take away is that there is no guarantee of future investment interest rates. The City should understand that it may be called upon to make a contribution to support an increase in annual benefits to $10,000. However, the current funded status of 138% is very strong and a good indication of stability of the fund in the near future. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION BY-LAWS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association has requested City approval of a benefit increase for retirees; and WHEREAS, such benefit increase would require an amendment of the City of Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association By-laws; and WHEREAS, Van Iwaarden and Associates has conducted an actuarial valuation and benefit study and determined that the anticipated assets available for benefits would be sufficient to support an increase in the annual benefit due to the fact cash and contingency funding balance exceeds the recommended balance of 100% of anticipated needs; and WHEREAS, BakerTilly public finance advisors for the City has reviewed the assumptions and projections used in the report prepared by Van Iwaarden and Associates and has compared those assumptions and projections with information from their detailed analysis performed in 2021 and believe the information to be accurate; and WHEREAS, the actuarial analysis completed by Van Iwaarden and Associates and reviewed by BakerTilly conclude an increase of $1,500 to the lump sum benefit from $8,500 per year to $10,000 per year of qualified service would not likely have an adverse effect on the fund viability. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that an amendment to the By-laws of the City of Brooklyn Center Fire Department Relief Association to increase the lump sum benefit to $10,000 per year. June 28, 2021_____________ _______________________________ 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: RESOLUTION NO. _________________ and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:6/28/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng 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 pplica#on No. 2021-002, for S ite and Building P lan A pproval, Establis hment of a P lanned Unit D evelopment, and a Zoning Map A mendment for C ertain P roperty Located at 6221 S hingle Creek Parkw ay, and a Recommended A mendment to the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan to A llow for I ncreased D ens i#es w ithin the C ommercial M ixed- U s e F uture L and U s e D esigna#on Requested Council A con: (i) Moon to adopt a resoluon to appr ove P lanning C ommission A pplicaon N o. 2021-002 for S ite and Building P lan A ppr oval, Establishment of a P lanned U nit D evelopment, and a Zoning Map A mendment for the S ubject P roperty located at 6221 S hingle C reek Par kway and co mmo nly know n as the C rest A partments, and a r ecommended amendment to the C ity ’s 2040 C omprehensive P lan to allow for increased densies w ithin the C ommer cial Mixed-Use futur e land use designaon, based on the findings of fact and submi2ed plans, and as amended by the condions of approval in the resoluon. (ii) Moon to approve a first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code of O rdinances regarding the zoning classificaon of the Subje ct Prope rty located at 6221 S hingle Creek Parkway and set the second reading and public hearing for J uly 26, 2021. B ackground: A eon/The C res t A partments L L C (“The A pplicant”) is reques #ng review and considera#on of a proposal to cons truct a new five story, 48-unit apartment building at 6221 S hingle Creek Parkw ay (“The S ubject P roperty ”). The proposed new building w ould focus on providing housing for families in 1, 2, and 3- bedroom units and be phys ically connected to the exis #ng 13-s tory, 122-unit Crest A partment building, w hich w ould be renovated as part of the overall project. A s ingle s tudio unit w ould be added to the exis#ng Crest A partment building in an exis #ng office s pace for a combined total of 171 units betw een both buildings. D ue to the nature of the reques t, approval of a s ite and building plan and es tablishment of a P lanned U nit D evelopment (P U D ) is required. A z oning code text/map amendment is als o required to remove the S ubject P roperty from the Central Commerce O verlay D is trict, in addi#on to a comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate addi#onal density needs w ithin the C ommercial M ixed-U s e future land us e des igna#on. The Metropolitan Council will make final determina#on on any amendments to the C ity's 2040 Comprehensive P lan. O n A pr il 26, 2021, A eon’s concept propos al for construc#on of the 48-unit addi#on, conv er s ion of an exis#ng office space in the exis#ng 122-unit C res t A partment building to a s tudio unit, and proposed s ite improvements was pr es ented befor e the C ity Council. B as ed on the feedback prov ided, the A pplicant s ubmiGed an applica#on for rev iew and cons ider a#on under P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica#on No. 2021- 002. The P lanning C ommis s ion held a public hearing for the aforemen#oned applica#on at their mee#ng on J une 10, 2021, and w ere generally suppor#ve of the propos ed improvements to the S ubject P roperty. W ith the excep#on of a ques #on regarding the propos ed exterior material compos i#on of the building, no other comments w ere prov ided by members of the public at the public hearing. Repres enta#ves from A eon and architectural firm, B K V G roup, were in aGendance. Following clos e of the public hearing, the P lanning C ommis s ion elected to unanimously (4-0) recommend City C ouncil approv al of the reques ted s ite and building plan, establis hment of a P lanned U nit D evelopment, and amendments to the City Zoning M ap to r emove the S ubject P roperty from the C entr al C ommerce O verlay D is trict, and 2040 C omprehens ive P lan, which would allow for an increased density range of 10.01 to 60 dw elling units per acre within the C ommercial M ixed-U s e future land us e des igna#on. The amendment to the dens ity range would also addres s an oversight iden#fied by C ity staff dur ing comple#on of the 2 0 4 0 C omprehens iv e P lan pr oces s , as there ar e exis #ng res iden#al proper#es w ith the C ommercial Mixed-Use des igna#on that do not cur rently fall within the exis #ng 10.01 to 2 5 dw elling units per acre range. A copy of the P lanning Commission Report for P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica#on N o. 2021-002, dated J une 10, 2021, and City C ouncil resolu#on regarding the requested site and building plan, establis hment of a P lanned Unit D evelopment, and amendments to the C ity Zoning M ap and 2040 Comprehensiv e P lan are included with this memorandum. I n order for the proposal to proceed, an approval of all requests is ul#mately required. As the request by the Applicant includes a request to re-zo ne the Subject Pro perty from R -7 (Mul#ple Family Residence) D istrict to Planned U nit D evelo pment-N eighbo rhood/C o mmercial Mixed-U se (P U D /M X-C ) D istrict, C ity C o de dicta tes that the C ity Zoning O rdinance be amended to refl ect the re-zo ning. A draO copy o f the ordinance language is included for review. Should the C ity C ouncil proceed with the re-zoning, a mo#on to approve a first reading of an o rdinance amending C hapter 35 of the Zoning C o de of O rdinances regarding the Subject Property lo cated at 6221 Shingle C reek Parkway wo uld be needed. Following the mo#on, a second reading and public hearing would be scheduled for J uly 26, 2021. T he request for a C omprehensive Plan Amendment will require a separate submiGal to the Metro politan C ouncil for review and any fi nal approval; however, a recommenda#on f ro m the loca l planning body and local governing body authoriza#on is required to proceed with a submiGal. B udget I ssues: None to cons ider at this #me. I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: S trategic Priories and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type Res olu#on-D is pos i#on of P lanning Commission A pplica#on No. 2021-002 6/19/2021 Resolu#on LeGer O rdinance-Rezoning of 6221 S hingle Creek Parkw ay (1s t Reading)6/19/2021 O rdinance S taff Report with Exhibits - C res t I I Expansion 6/19/2021 Backup M aterial Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING CO MMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2021-002 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S ZONING MAP AND 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 -UNIT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 122-UNIT CREST APARTMENTS BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS (6221 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002, submitted by Aeon/The Crest Apartments LLC (“the Applicant”) requests review and consideration for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development and an amendment to the City’s zoning map that would allow for the construction of a 48-unit building addition to the existing 122-unit Crest Apartments and related site improvements to the property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway (“the Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the Central Commerce Overlay District and pursuant to a determination by City staff, this District does not permit residential uses and therefore re quires removal from said District; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota received and reviewed a planning report on the requested site and building plan, establishment of a Planned Unit Development, which would re-zone the Subject Property from R7 (Multiple Family Residence) District to Planned Unit Development-Commercial Mixed-Use District, and an amendment to the City’s zoning map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District for the proposed new construction and related site improvements on the approximately 4.37-acre Subject Property; and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 also addresses a request to amend the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use,” of which the Subject Property is designated as, to allow the density range to increase from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, which would accommodate the density needs required to move forward with the proposal and address oversights during completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan regarding the densities of existing multi-family residential uses within this designation and the anticipated future density needs as this land use designation anticipates 50-percent of the land use for residential development at densities slightly lower than the adjacent TOD land use designation, but only comprises 1.64 percent of the City’s total land area; and WHEREAS, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan outlines that the majority of forecasted growth within the City is anticipated to occur within the major redevelopment areas guided primarily as Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Commercial Mixed-Use; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota held a duly noticed and calle d public hearing on June 10, 2021, whereby a planning report was presented and public testimony regarding the proposal were received. Notice of such public hearing was published in the offic ial newspaper and mailed to the Applicant and adjacent property owners as required by the City and Minnesota State Statute ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota considered the application requests in light of all testimony received, and the guidelines and standards as outlined under Sections 35-202 (Comprehensive Planning ) 35-208 (Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines ), 35-210 (Rezoning Application Procedures and Reconsideration ), 35-230 (Plan Approval), and 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and the request complies with the general goals a nd objectives of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, with exception to the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to provide the increased density range required to move forward with the project, and of which requires final determination by the Metr opolitan Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002, submitted by Aeon/The Crest Apartments LLC, be approved based upon the findings of fact in the June 10, 2021, planning report, and submitted documents and plans as amended by the following conditions of approval: 1. Site and Building Plan Review: a. Any significant changes or modifications made to this request can only be made by an amendment to the approved plans and documents as approved by the City Council. b. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. c. The Applicant shall provide elevation drawings demonstrating compliance with the City’s architectural guidelines, which specify a minimum of 50-percent Class I and remaining Class II building materials per elevation (face). d. The Applicant shall update all existing ground trash and equipment enclosures to comply with City code requirements with regard to screening. e. The Applicant shall provide any final site and building plans to City staff for a CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) review and make alterations as necessary prior to permit release. f. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable 2020 Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any site and building plan approval. i. A fire sprinkler system is required to be installed per Section 903 of the 2020 Minnesota Fire Code and 2020 Minnesota State Building Code and shall be maintained on a consistent basis in the proposed 48-unit addition and enclosed garage. RESOLUTION NO. ii. The Applicant shall comply with riser room access and improvement requirements, FDC connection, and fire access aisle requirements. g. The Applicant shall install irrigation systems where necessary to facilitate site maintenance, and irrigation shop drawings for review and approval shall be provided prior to installation. h. The Applicant shall provide a lighting or photometric plan that identifies all existing and proposed lighting for the parking lots and buildings and in conformance with the City’s code and architectural guidelines requirements . Fixture specifications shall be provided prior to issuance of any building permits. i. The Applicant shall submit a Sign Permit Application for any proposed signage (e.g., wall, freestanding) and receive issuance of a pe rmit prior to any installation. All signage shall conform to City requirements. 2. Agreements: a. The Applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center. This agreement is to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. b. A Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City shall be executed upon any approval of the to-be submitted building permit for site and building improvements, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards. c. An as-built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines shall be submitted prior to release of any Performance Agreement financial guarantee. d. A Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required for submittal to the City prior to issuance of any permits. e. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement and associated escrow are required for submittal prior to the City prior to issuance of any permits. f. A pre-construction meeting is required prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Engineering Review: a. The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Assistant City Engineer’s review memorandum, dated June 4, 2021. b. 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. RESOLUTION NO. June 28, 2021 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. 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ____ day of __________, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider an Ordinance a mending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain land located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway. City Council meetings are being conducted by electronic means under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 via Zoom: https://zoom.us/j/92710125463?pwd=dkdZUTJOaU5sN0hJaHluSlh4eTJmQT09 or by dialing 1 (312) 626-6799, Meeting ID: 927 1012 5463, Passc ode: 7635693300#. Please notify the City Clerk at (763) 569-3306 if there are any questions about how to connect to the meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-__ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF LAND LOCATED AT 6221 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Rezoning. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended as follows: Section 35-2240. CENTRAL COMMERCE OVERLAY DISTRICT (CC). The following property is hereby removed from the (CC) Central Commerce Overlay District zoning classification: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1359. 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: 11. The following properties are designated as P UD/MX-C (P lanned Unit Developme nt/Commercial Mixed-Use): Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1359. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following this ordinance’s legal publication. 2 Adopted this day of , 2021. _____________________________ Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Note: (Strikeout text indicates matter to be delete, while underline indicates new matter. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Application No. 2021-002 Applicant: Aeon | The Crest Apartments LLC Location: 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway (The Crest Apartments) Requests: Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow construction of a second 48-unit multi-family residential building and related site improvements, an amendment to Zoning Map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District, and an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for increased densities within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation Requested Action Aeon/The Crest Apartments LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of a proposal to construct a new five story, 48-unit apartment building at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway (“Subject Property”). The proposed new building would focus on providing housing for families in 1, 2, and 3- bedroom units and be physically connected to the existing 13-story, 122-unit Crest Apartment building, which would be renovated as part of the overall project. A single studio unit would be added to the existing Crest Apartment building in an office space for a combined total of 171 units between both buildings. Due to the nature of the request, approval of a site and building plan and establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is required. A zoning code text amendment is also required to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District, in addition to a comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate additional density needs within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation. Refer to attached Exhibit A for the provided project narrative and plans. As part of the application process, a public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on May 27, 2021 (Exhibit B), and notices were mailed to property owners within vicinity of the Subject Property, including those single family homes located along Brooklyn Drive, just west of the Subject Property. To date, the City has not received any comments regarding the proposal. The City also installed a sign on the Subject Property, indicating a development proposal was under review and to contact the City with any questions. Background Aeon purchased what is now known as the Crest Apartments in July 2012 through a HUD foreclosure process to ensure the long-term affordability of residents. In 2014, some initial renovations were completed, including work on the building systems. It was during this time that initial discussions were held regarding a future build out on the 4.37-acre Subject Property. In November 2017, these discussions were revisited and some initial meetings and concept proposals were provided to City staff to weigh in on. • Application Filed: 05/11/2021 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/10/2021 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 2 In 2020, these discussions were reignited and a concept proposal was presented to the City Council on April 26, 2021. Based on the feedback provided by City Council, the Applicant subsequently submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 for consideration. The 122-unit apartment building currently on the Subject Property was originally approved under Planning Commission Application No. 72083 in 1972, which had been authorized under the Federal Housing Administration’s “236” housing program. The Section 236 program was originally established by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and combined Federal mortgage insurance with interest reduction payments to the mortgagee for the production of low-cost rental housing, and was one of the methods used at that time to boost the nation’s existing housing supply. As proposed, the new five-story addition would provide a unit mix of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two- bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. The existing Crest Apartment building is currently comprised of 78 one-bedroom units and 44 two-bedroom units, with plans to convert an existing office space into a studio apartment for a combined total of 171 units. Site Data: 2040 Land Use Plan: Commercial Mixed-Use (10.01-25 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood: Centennial Current Zoning: R7 (Multiple Family Residence) | Central Commerce Overlay District Site Area: 4.37 Acres Surrounding Area: Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North CM-U R1 (One Family Residence) District and Central Commerce Overlay Institutional South PSP/Institutional C1A (Service/Office) District and Central Commerce Overlay Institutional East CM-U C2 (Commerce) District and Central Commerce Overlay Office West Parks, Recreation, Open Space R1 (One Family Residence) District and Central Commerce Overlay Park, Recreational, or Preserve App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 3 Map 1. Subject Property Location (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway) REQUESTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A comprehensive plan amendment is required anytime a community changes any part of a municipality’s adopted comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to: • Changes resulting from neighborhood or small area planning activities • Land use changes to allow a proposed development • Proposed forecast changes to proposed MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) changes in service or staging • Text changes to revise a policy or land use category • Routine updates to incorporate new information or update a public facilities agreement These requests are ultimately submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and final approval; however, they require a recommendation from the local planning body, and local governing body authorization for the amendment. In certain cases, an adjacent jurisdictional review is also required to allow for other affected municipalities and districts to weigh in on any potential impacts. The Subject Property currently has a future land use designation of Commercial Mixed-Use (10.01-25 Dwelling Units per Acre) under the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Assuming a total of 171 units, the 4.37-acre Subject Property would have a proposed density of 39.1 dwelling units per acre. This would be an increase in density of 11.2 dwelling units per acre, as the 122-unit Crest Apartment building has a current density of 27.9 dwelling units per acre. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 4 Map 2. 2040 Future Land Use Plan and Subject Property (highlighted in black). In reviewing properties affected by the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation, City staff determined there was an oversight during completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process, as there are existing residential properties with densities above the outlined 25 dwelling units per acre threshold. The City recognizes that in addition to the potential conversion of existing office uses to residential, which might result in higher densities, the Commercial-Mixed Use designation, more than any other designation outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, allows for a vast range of potential uses, including office, hotel, multi-family residential, single-story commercial, and event center uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan notes that much of the forecasted growth within the City of Brooklyn Center is anticipated to occur within the major redevelopment areas guided primarily as Transit Orientated Development (TOD), and Commercial Mixed-Use, which the Subject Property is designated as. “Commercial Mixed-Use” is a new land use designation and guides for a mix of commercial, office, retail, service, and residential uses. This designation is guided for areas adjacent to the TOD and is planned to have a more significant proportion of the land use designated for the aforementioned uses, including supporting residential uses. An anticipated 50-percent of the land use is planned for residential development at densities slightly lower than the adjacent TOD land use designation, which allows for a density range of 31.01-130 dwelling units per acre. It should be further noted that the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation as outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan accounts for only 1.64 percent (88.06 acres) of the total land area within the City of Brooklyn Center (5,360.75 acres). The Commercial Mixed-Use designation has a focus on providing both walkable and bikeable connections to adjacent TOD land uses and the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, located off Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). City staff feels the essence of the Commercial Mixed-Use land use designation is captured in the Subject Property due to its relationship to the adjacent park, and its proximity to the Three Rivers Park District Shingle Creek Regional Trail, which winds around the Subject Property. The Subject Property is serviced by a Route 722 bus stop just off the property, and the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, which is less than one mile away and accessible via sidewalk, trail, and bus, if necessary. Given the location of the Subject Property and its adjacency to the City’s Centennial Park, the Applicant App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 5 notes in their narrative (Exhibit A) that construction of the new 48-unit, 5-story building on the western end of the Subject Property and the increased density would have minimal impacts on the neighboring properties and ample open space and outdoor amenities for existing and new residents. Following a review of existing residential properties falling within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation and with respect to potential future redevelopment in the adjacent lands, City staff requests that the City of Brooklyn Center’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” to allow for a density range of 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, which would capture existing multi-family residential uses that fall within this designation, as well as any potential future redevelopment within this designation. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for a density range increase of the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, approval of the related site and building plan, Planned Unit Development, and Zoning Code amendment requests, and contingent upon final approval from the Metropolitan Council. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Overlay districts generally apply an extra level of regulations or development criteria above the standard underlying zoning district. The Central Commerce Overlay District is an area roughly bounded by I-694 on the north, Highway 100 on the south and east, Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, and Shingle Creek on the north, and includes a specific list of permitted uses. Residential uses are not listed, which means they are not permitted within the overlay district. It should be noted, however, that there are multi- family residential properties in the Overlay District today that pre-date the establishment of this District. As part of the ongoing Zoning Code update, the Central Commerce Overlay District will be revised or removed; however, since that work is not yet complete, the proposal includes the removal of this property from the overlay district. In 2019, a similar request was made and approved by City Council as part of the redevelopment of the former Jerry’s Foods site (5801 Xerxes Avenue North) into a combined 270-units of housing across two multi-family residential buildings, now known as Sonder House and Sonder Pointe. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code and associated map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District in order to allow for additional dwelling units to be constructed on the Subject Property. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for Commercial Mixed-Use, with approximately 50-percent of this designation anticipated for residential use. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 6 Map 3. Central Commerce Overlay District and Subject Property (highlighted in black). Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested amendment to the City’s Zoning Code to allow for the removal of the Subject Property, located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, from the Central Commerce Overlay District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related site and building plan, Planned Unit Development, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City’s 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. This allows for flexibility within the Zoning Code 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 zoning flexibility from the City Code. 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. As proposed, the request would be to re-zone from R-7 (Multiple Family Residence) District, which is the City’s highest density residential district (maximum of 31 dwelling units per acre), to Planned Unit App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 7 Development-Commercial Mixed Use. As approval of any development plan for the Subject Property shall constitute a re-zoning to PUD, approvals to establish a PUD require the City Council to base its actions on the re-zoning 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, 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 at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, to Planned Unit Development- Commercial Mixed-Use District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related site and building plan, Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN Site Design The proposed development would result in the construction of a 48-unit, five story addition intended to serve families (family focused units). The proposed addition would be located just west of the existing 13-story Crest Apartment building and be oriented north to south. The new addition and existing apartment building would share a lobby, amenities (e.g. community room, fitness room, learning center, laundry rooms), and be physically connected via a pedestrian walkway. The lobby would serve as the new primary entrance and leasing center for all 171 units. The proposal also contemplates the installation of a children’s play structure, garden boxes for residents, and an outdoor patio off the proposed community room. Images 1 and 2. Existing Site and Proposed New 5-Story Addition and Site Improvements (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 8 Setbacks The proposed five-story addition identifies a front yard setback of approximately 300 feet from the property line abutting Shingle Creek Parkway, approximately 93 feet to the rear (or west) of the Subject Property, which abuts Centennial Park, and approximately 65 feet at its closest interior setback along the north end of the Subject Property, which abuts City Hall. No new construction is anticipated for the existing 13-story Crest Apartment building. Architectural Materials The City’s Architectural Design Guidelines require at least 50-percent of each elevation (face) of a building to be constructed of Class I materials, with the remainder constructed of Class II materials. The proposed five-story addition anticipates installation of Hardie Board siding in a vertical orientation, and metal paneling in both vertical and horizontal orientations. An elevation by elevation breakdown of Class I and Class II building materials was not provided. City staff requests that the Applicant forward an exhibit to determine conformance pending approval of the application requests. Image 3. Rendering of New Five-Story Addition (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Access and Parking Image 4. Proposed Parking Layout of Subject Property (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 9 The Subject Property is currently served by two access points: a right-in/right-out driveway off the southbound lane of Shingle Creek Parkway, and a private drive access located to the south of the Subject Property that provides shared access to the Subject Property and Hennepin County Service Center (6125 Shingle Creek Parkway). This access is controlled by a traffic light at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and the terminus of Summit Drive. The Applicant proposes to maintain these access points; however, the Applicant will need to determine if any amendments to a previously recorded ingress and egress easement (Document No. 1429165), or Maintenance Easement (Document No. 1723923) are required. Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg in his memorandum dated June 4, 2021 (Exhibit C), detailed vehicle turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, buses, etc. are to be provided demonstrating proposed and actual routing throughout the Subject Property. A narrative and plans would also be required outlining any temporary parking or access constraints during the course of construction. As proposed, the updated parking lot would provide 24-foot wide drive lanes, which is the minimum width required to allow for two-way traffic. Two areas appear to be set back near the existing entrance to the Crest Apartment building and the proposed new entrance, which would offer a space for drop- offs, pick-ups, and deliveries. There are a total of 171 dwelling units proposed between the two buildings. Section 35-704 (Minimum Parking Spaces Required) of the Zoning Ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit, or 342 total on-site parking spaces. As part of the original site and building plan approvals for the 122-unit Crest Apartment building in 1972, the project was approved with the understanding that less parking would be required due to evidence provided at the time indicating that subsidized housing relied less heavily on on-site parking. Pursuant to City records, it appears the Subject Property was approved with allocations for a total of 244 on-site parking spaces, and based on a completed parking lot of 123 parking spaces and a “proof of parking” for 121 additional spaces located westerly of the existing parking area and in the location of the proposed new five-story addition. While the majority of the parking lot is proposed for surface lot parking (164 spaces and 14 “proof of parking”), an additional 31 parking spaces would be available at the ground floor level of the proposed new addition. Assuming the existence of 130 stalls for 122 units in the existing parking lot, on-site parking is currently provided at 1.06 spaces per unit. The Applicant indicates in their narrative (Exhibit A) that the current parking lot is underutilized, and the proposal is to rebuild the parking lot with a storm management system below. A total of 195 on-site parking spaces would be constructed for the proposed 171 dwelling units for 1.14 spaces per unit, with an option to increase parking by 14 spaces for a total of 209 spaces or 1.22 spaces per unit if a need is determined in the future. The Applicant should note any considerations with regard to controlled access via the proposed garage structure. It is understood that the Applicant held some initial discussions with other City staff regarding safety and security considerations with regard to their building plan, but a CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) was not completed. Pending approval of the requests, City staff requests that the Applicant follow up with City staff for a more formal review of the proposed site and building improvements. As proposed, the new five-story addition would be constructed on top of the existing 121-space “proof of parking.” Per City staff request, a Parking Study (Exhibit D) was completed by Alliant Engineering to App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 10 determine whether sufficient on-site parking would be provided with the proposed improvements. Their study was conducted on Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021 between the hours of 5 a.m. and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and midnight. At peak, the provided Parking Study indicated that a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles was observed in both of the early morning and late evening hours of Thursday, May 6th, with a slightly lower peak demand observed on Saturday, May 8th. A peak parking rate of 98 vehicles on-site for the 117-units currently occupied at the Crest Apartment building, which equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit. The above rate was then used to calculate a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles that could be expected to utilize the existing parking lot under a scenario in which all 122-units in the existing Crest Apartment building were occupied. Under this scenario, and assuming a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit, it is assumed there would be a surplus of 30 parking stalls utilizing the existing surface parking lot. Assuming construction of an additional 48-units of housing within the proposed five-story addition and the conversion of an existing office space in the existing Crest Apartment building to a studio apartment, Alliant Engineering estimated a peak parking demand of 145 vehicles assuming full occupancy of both buildings (171 total units). Assuming construction of 195 parking stalls, it is anticipated there would be a 50-stall surplus (34.5 percent) of on-site parking, and that the proposed 14-space “proof of parking” to the east of the existing Crest Apartment building would not be required. It should be noted that the above calculations assume a 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit peak parking rate, and that the existing Crest Apartment building is comprised of 78 one-bedroom and 44 two- bedroom units. The proposed 48-unit addition proposes a mix of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. As the intent is for the proposed addition to offer family-focused units, there is also the reality that there may be more cars per unit given the increased unit size. A 2018 survey of available parking spaces at other multi-family rental properties by City staff revealed few properties in the City meet the current requirement of two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. The lack of parking citations issued at apartment complexes with fewer than two parking spaces per unit in the City comparable to this proposed development seems to indicate a lack of parking may be minimal. It is anticipated that both existing and future residents of the Subject Property will utilize the adjacent bus stop off Shingle Creek Parkway, as well as the nearby Brooklyn Center Transit Center. The Subject Property is currently serviced by sidewalks and trails to the east and west of the property, but proposes the addition of new sidewalks and connections to the adjacent Centennial Park and trails, as well as exterior bike parking near the main building entrances. Lighting The Zoning Code notes, “all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination of the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices.” The submitted photometric plan proposes an average of 2.75 foot-candles across the site with a maximum concentration of 7.4 foot-candles towards the center of the site and parking lot. As proposed, 11 luminaires would be distributed throughout the surface parking lot, along with 11 bollard-style pedestrian lights placed around the perimeters of the new and existing apartment buildings, and pendant style down-lighting and wall-packs. Per the City Zoning Code, lighting shall not exceed three (3) foot candles measured at property lines App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 11 abutting residentially zoned property, or 10 foot candles measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties. As is specified, no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. The photometric plan indicates the fixtures are generally consistent with the Zoning Code requirements. The Applicant should ensure sufficient lighting is provided and distributed over all entrances and exits, walkways, and near site amenities (e.g. playground, trash enclosure). The Applicant should also ensure sufficient lighting is provided near pedestrian access points off Shingle Creek Parkway and with consideration to potential travel routes to the new five-story addition (i.e. path of least resistance). Trash As proposed, the new five-story addition would have access to a trash enclosure on the southeast corner of the new building, to the east of the proposed garage doors. Per a review of the existing building and submitted plans, it appears the plan is to retain the existing trash enclosure located just west of the existing entrance to the Crest Apartment building for those residents. Assuming this, City staff requests that the existing trash enclosure be updated to comply with City requirements, including but not limited to a full screening of the trash enclosure with opaque doors, and walls high enough to completely contain any dumpsters. Given the current location of the trash enclosure, City staff is also requesting that the Applicant entertain options for screening trash from top view (i.e. the apartments above). The Applicant should provide a proposal for frequency of trash pick-up and determine the need for garbage and recycling containers to be placed throughout the site (e.g. near building entrances, near proposed community amenities). Images 5 and 6. Proposed New and Existing Trash Enclosure Locations (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Screening All ground mounted equipment (e.g., transformers, mechanical) shall be effectively screened from adjacent public 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. In reviewing the Subject Property, City staff noted there is current ground-mounted equipment at the northeast corner of the existing Crest Apartment building and visible from Shingle Creek Parkway that is not in compliance with the aforementioned code requirements, as the enclosure is too short to provide any screening. As part of any approval, City staff is requesting this enclosure be updated to comply. See Image 7 below. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 12 Image 7. Non-Compliant Ground Mounted Equipment (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Landscaping The project submittal includes a landscape plan and planting schedule, Although City Code does not have any specific requirements on the species of landscaping, and 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 and type of 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). Given a “Multi-Family Residential” use and assuming an approximately 4.37 acre site, the Subject Property would have to accrue 358 points. (2 acres * 90 + 2.37 acres * 75 = 357.75 points). Planting Type Minimum Size Points Per Planting Maximum Points (%) Points Accrued Shade (Deciduous) Trees 2 ½” diameter 10 50% or 179 points 179 points (67 trees * 10 points) Coniferous (Evergreen) Trees 5’ height 6 40% or 143 points 0 points (0 trees * 6 points) Decorative (Ornamental) Trees 1” diameter 1.5 35% or 125 points 9 points (6 trees * 1.5 points) Shrubs 12” diameter 0.5 25% or 90 points 172.5 points (345 shrubs * .5 points) Total 360.5 points Based on a review of the submitted Landscape Plan, dated May 11, 2021, the plan meets and exceeds the minimum requirements under the Landscape Point System Policy at 360.5 points achieved. The Applicant may want to identify potential coniferous trees for planting as none were identified on the submitted plan. As proposed, the Applicant desires to plant native plantings where possible to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. City staff is supportive of this particularly given the Subject Property’s location next to Centennial Park and Shingle Creek. Signs No specific signage requests were made regarding new or revised signage for the Subject Property, although a sign is indicated in the submitted architectural plans on top of the proposed new main App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 13 entrance. The City is currently underway with an update to multiple City codes, including the Sign Code. Any signage will need to comply with the allowances as outlined in the adopted City signage regulations, and the Applicant will need to apply for and receive issuance of a sign permit prior to any installation. Engineering Review Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed plans and provided a memorandum, dated June 4, 2021 (Exhibit C). Most of the comments pertain to the need for plan corrections and additional details. Many of the provided comments relate to the proposed stormwater details and systems and the ability to capture and route surface run-off from parking areas through soil medium prior to discharge in the proposed underground stormwater system. Assistant City Engineer Hogg also requests that detailed turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, etc. be provided. In addition an NPDES permit is required as the total disturbed area would exceed one acre, and a Construction Management Plan and Agreement, and Utility Facilities Easement Agreement shall be submitted to the City in advance of any permit release. The Applicant will also require a watershed plan review and conform to watershed rules. A stormwater report dated May 11, 2021 and attached as Exhibit E was also completed by Pierce Pini & Associates per City staff request as the Subject Property abuts Shingle Creek and is located at least partially in the 100-year floodplain. The City has record of an approved Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) on file that indicates the existing Crest Apartment building is outside the 100-year floodplain and located in Flood Zone B (also known as Zone X), which is considered to be a moderate flood hazard area located between the limits of the base flood and 0.2 percent annual change (or 500-year) flood. Per the report provided, the identified peak elevation for a 100-year storm event was 842.37 feet. This would provide more than two feet of separation between the 100-year peak elevation and the low floor opening of the existing and proposed buildings. Fire Inspection/Building Review Pending approval of the requests, the Applicant will need to submit full construction plans, including but not limited to: architectural, structural, mechanical, civil, landscaping, and photometric plans to the City for review. A fire sprinkler and monitoring system is required for installation and is to be maintained at all times in the new five-story addition and enclosed garage. The Applicant will also need to meet any minimum ADA requirements with regard to the building and site improvements. All building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. CPTED Review City staff is requesting the Applicant forward any final site and building plans to City staff for CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) review and commentary. City staff is to the understanding that initial discussions were held regarding the building plans, but no formal recommendations were provided by City staff. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested site and building plans for the proposed new five-story addition, building and site improvements for the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related Planned Unit Development, Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 14 APPROVAL CONDITIONS Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 for the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway: 1. Site and Building Plan Review: All requested alterations will need to be approved by City staff with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits, and fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. a. Any significant changes or modifications made to this request can only be made by an amendment to the approved plans and documents as approved by the City Council. b. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. c. The Applicant shall provide any final site and building plans to City staff for a CPTED review and make alterations as necessary prior to permit release. d. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any site plan approval. e. A fire sprinkler system is required to be installed and shall be maintained on a consistent basis in the proposed five-story addition and enclosed garage. f. The Applicant shall install irrigation systems where necessary to facilitate site maintenance, and irrigation shop drawings for review and approval prior to installation. g. The Applicant shall provide a lighting plan that identifies all existing and proposed lighting for the parking lots and building. The lighting plan shall include a site wide photometric plan that is in conformance with the lighting provisions as noted under the City Zoning Ordinance and in consideration of the City’ s Architectural Design Guidelines. Fixture specifications shall be provided prior to issuance of any building permits. h. The Applicant shall submit a Sign Permit Application for any proposed signage (e.g., wall, freestanding) and receive issuance of a permit prior to any installation. All signage shall conform to City requirements. 2. Agreements: a. The Applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center. This agreement is to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. b. A Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City shall be executed upon any approval of the to-be submitted building permit for site improvements, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards. c. The Developer shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of any Performance Agreement financial guarantee. d. A Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required for submittal to the City prior to issuance of any permits. e. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement and associated escrow are required for submittal prior to the City prior to issuance of any permits. 3. Engineering Review: a. The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Assistant App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 15 City Engineer’s review memorandum, dated June 4, 2021. b. 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. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above-noted findings, staff recommends the following motion: Motion to approve a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve (1) the submitted site and building plan, (2) establishment of a Planned Unit Development, (3) an amendment to the Zoning Code and associated Map to remove the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway from the Central Commerce Overlay District, and (4) an amendment to the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for a density range increase of the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, as amended by the Conditions of Approval in the June 10, 2021 Planning Commission Report, and subject to final approval by the Metropolitan Council for the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 Plans and Documents, submitted May 11, 2021. Exhibit B – Public Hearing Notice, as published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and dated May 27, 2021. Exhibit C – Review Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, and dated June 4, 2021. Exhibit D – The Crest Apartments Parking Study, prepared by Alliant Engineering, and dated May 18, 2021. Exhibit E – Stormwater Calculations for Aeon Crest II Apartments, prepared by Pierce Pini & Associates, Inc. and dated May 11, 2021. Applicant Information: Name: Address: Office Phone: Cell: Email: FAX: Property Owner Information* (if different from Applicant): Name: Property Owner Address: Office Phone: Cell: Email: FAX: 2021 Planning Commission Application Project Information: Provide a general description of your project and request(s): Address/Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Application Type (Mark all that Apply) Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,050 Appeal $200 Rezoning $1,050 Zoning Code Text Amendment $500 Special/Interim Use Permit $250 Special/Interim Use Permit Amendment $150 Site and Building Plan Review $750 Variance $200 Planned Unit Development $1,800 Planned Unit Development Amendment $700 Preliminary Plat $400 Final Plat $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: $ Escrow Amount: $ Receipt No: For Office Use Only Date Received: Date Application Complete: Letter of Completeness: PC App No. For Office Use Only Exhibit A Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned acknowledges that they understand that before a Planning Commission application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. By signing and submitting this application, the Applicant agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center the actual costs incurred for expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the review, filing, and processing of the application. Such costs will be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application will not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Any administrative fees paid as part of the submission of this application are nonrefundable. ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Applicant Signature (If different than Property Owner) Date Memorandum TO: City of Brooklyn Park City Council, Planning Commission & Planning Staff COPY: Leslie Roering, Beth Shogren, Jen Small -Aeon & Joe Brown, Ellie Ziaie – BKV Group FROM: Chris Palkowitsch, AIA – BKV Group DATE: 05/11/2021 RE: Crest Apartments – Site and Building Plan Review & PUD Aeon with BKV Group is proposing to add additional development and renovations to the Crest Apartments at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway. This site is 4.37 acres (190,483 SF) and houses the 13 story Crest Apartments with 122 existing affordable units, constructed in 1972. The new proposal adds 48 housing units in a five-story building and 1 unit to the existing building for a new site total of 171 units. The new building addition is connected to the existing building with a shared first level lobby, amenities, and enclosed link. The new units will focus on providing affordable units for families. The proposed addition unit mix consists of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom units. The existing building will be renovated, primarily focusing on maintaining the current use of the building for years to come, additionally one studio unit will be added to the existing building replacing an existing office space. The remainder of the existing building unit mix consists of 78 one-bedroom units and 44 two-bedroom units. Aeon Aeon’s mission is to create and sustain quality affordable homes that strengthen lives and communities. Over the past 35 years, we have successfully developed, redeveloped, or preserved more than 5,650 apartment homes in 59 properties, providing homes to more than 15,000 people in Minnesota. Aeon is a non-profit owner and manager. The name ‘Aeon’ is from the Latin word ‘eon’ meaning ‘forever’, demonstrating our focus on providing long-term, quality, homes. Aeon purchased The Crest Apartments in 2012 through a HUD foreclosure process to ensure the long-term affordability for existing and future residents. In 2014, initial renovations were completed on many of the building systems. The proposed project will complete renovations to the main building systems and enhance the feeling of home for our residents with interior upgrades. The Crest Apartments is a mix of one- and two-bedroom units. The proposed project will preserve and expand on those units and add much needed three bedrooms units to the mix. The Twin Cities has a severe need for more affordable homes. There are currently only 37 affordable homes available for every 100 extremely low- income families in need (MN Housing). And without stable housing, people cannot properly address their health, education, employment, and social needs. Given the unusual time we face with the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an even greater need for affordable housing. Renters have lost income, childcare, and social supports. Significant disruptions to the pipeline of new affordable housing could mean fewer new units coming online in the upcoming months or years. Aeon is confident we can navigate this uncertainty. Together, we can ensure our community’s most vulnerable families have access to stability during this national crisis. Site & Zoning The site is located on Shingle Creek Parkway. The buildings to the east, across Shingle Creek Parkway are two office buildings and Shingle Creek Center. The northern border of the site is Shingle Creek and Brooklyn Center City Hall. The west site boundary is immediately adjacent to Centennial Park, the park amenities, and a vast trail system. Additionally, the Hennepin County Service Center and Library are located to the south. The site is on bus line 722 with bus stops in close proximity. The site is zoned R7 Multiple Family Residence. This project is being submitted as a Planned Unit Development, (PUD). With the addition of the new 48 units and the 1 unit added to the existing building, the project will total 171 units. The site will have 39.1units per acre, the existing building is at 27.9 units per acre. Base zoning allows for a density of 31 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, we are proposing a reduction in the base zoning site parking requirement of 2 stalls per unit, to 1.14 stalls per unit. Additional Units per Acre - The additional 48-unit building uses underutilized land on the site to add additional affordable units to the city. With the addition, the site still provides ample open space and new outdoor amenities to the residents. The site also has immediate access to Centennial Park and its trails. The positioning of the 5-story building has minor impacts to the neighboring properties, with almost no impact in the spring, summer, and autumns months. Parking Reduction - The existing parking lot has 130 stalls for 122 units, 1.06 Stalls per Unit. The current parking lot has been underutilized for a number of years. We are proposing to rebuild the parking lot with a robust storm management system below it. The new parking layout for the site will include 31 enclosed stalls within the new building and 164 surface stalls for a total of 195 stall for the 171 units, 1.14 Stalls per unit. Additionally, the site has 14 proof of parking sites in the north east corner. Aeon has completed a parking study that shows the peak vehicle demand to be .84 stalls per unit of need for the completed development. Project Design The current site and building underutilize the land by preserving a large amount of space on the west side of the site as proof of parking. The newly proposed 5 story addition seeks to better utilize the site while providing family focused units. The addition is I-shaped and runs north to south, connecting to the existing building with a new shared lobby, amenities, and enclosed building link (Pedestrian Walkway in MN Building Code terms). The new lobby will become the primary entry and leasing center for all the units. Additionally, the amenities shared by all residents will include a community room, fitness room, learning center, and laundry rooms. The site amenities will feature updated landscaping including a children’s play structure, garden boxes for residents, and an outdoor patio off the community room. Furthermore, the landscaping will include new trees and drought resistant plantings that change seasonally providing a mix of colors. The existing site parking lot is aged and needs to be reconstructed. We are proposing a more efficient parking layout, and the first floor of the new building will include 31 structured parking stalls. Parking cannot go below grade on this site due to the high ground water level and proximity to Shingle Creek. Vehicles access into parking garage is on the south side of the new building. The new surface parking lot will have 164 surface stalls with 14 additional proof of parking stalls. Storm water management will be handled by a below grade pipe system, located in the parking lot. Sustainability is integrated into the design and the project will meet Enterprise Green Community Standards. These standards focus on making sustainable design choices and positive impacts on the health of the residents. Some of the sustainability features include: · Solar ready - Roof top photovoltaic array for onsite energy production. · Improved site storm water management through treatment and rate control, current site is uncontrolled. · Native plantings and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. · Limited extents of irrigated turf grass to reduce the need for irrigation and maintenance. · On site garden beds for residents. · New sidewalks and enhanced landscaping, improving and promoting the walking experience around the site and connections to the park. · Exterior bike parking near the housing entries. · LED light fixtures. · Energy Star appliances. · High efficiency water heaters. · Recycling collection and chute in the new addition. · Durable exterior materials on the addition. · Efficient doors and windows, with Low -E coating on the addition. · Construction waste recycling. · Smoke free building. The exterior design of the apartment building has been influenced by the existing building and incorporates the concepts of the original building into an updated and refined design look with a retro feel. The existing tower is formed by two tall masses connected by the center blue recessed space. The primary window banding also creates a strong horizontal rhythm on the main elevations. The new 5 story addition has strong corner masses and a recessed center of the building, responding to the existing massing but creating something unique. The corner masses have a vertically stacked window look, in order to give the corners a taller appearance. The windows and banding in the center of the building are positioned horizontally, responding to the existing window banding. The building materials feature a dark brown burnished block at the first level, entry and at the link. The burnished block was selected to complement brick on the existing building. Informed by the existing building buff color, champagne metallic metal panels are utilized on the building corner masses creating a contemporary interpretation. The center recessed area is a blue painted cement panel from levels 2-5. Stormwater Management - PPA Project #20-046 The City of Brooklyn Center and the Shingle Creek Watershed District stormwater management rules and requirements apply to any site that disturbs more than one acre during development or redevelopment. Projects are required to meet the following standards: a. Rate Control – proposed runoff shall not exceed pre-development runoff rates for the 2-year, 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events. b. Water Quality – 80% total suspended solids and 60% total phosphorus shall be removed. c. Water Quality Volume – 1.0” over the new impervious area shall be abstracted from the impervious surfaces on the site Because the site is located within a floodplain, infiltration is not viable for this site because the 3’ separation from the bottom of a treatment system to the high-water level is not feasible. The site stormwater system needs to be a filtration system rather than an infiltration system. The site area is 4.38 acres. The new and redeveloped areas will be collected via catch basins and storm sewer and routed to the underground filtration system. This drainage area includes the new apartment building, reconstructed and new parking lot and sidewalks throughout the site. The approximate drainage area treated by the underground system is 3.35 acres. To meet city and watershed requirements the new filtration system consists of 2,540 lineal feet 48” diameter HDPE pipe beneath the reconstructed parking lot to control the runoff rates. The pipe system connects to a 5’x10.5’ Bioclean Water Polisher Filtration vault to meet water quality and volume control. Since the site stormwater cannot infiltrate, approximately 8,000 cubic feet of stormwater needs to filter through the filtration vault to meet volume requirements. The system will discharge to a 21” RCP pipe that connects to the existing 72” RCP city storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. Specific Design Items that Meet the Intent of the City’s Goals a) Creating a walkable community – This project is walkable to Centennial Park and the County Library b) The project supports the City's goal for additional affordable housing. c) Incorporate increased diversity of units within new redevelopment areas from micro-apartments to three- and four-bedroom units. – This project will add family focused units to diversify the mix at the Crest, creating more housing options. d) Stabilizing the existing owner/ renter occupied units – The renovation of this project will improve the longevity of the existing 122 units. e) Residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with more than two (2) children. This new project unit mix directly address the resident comments. f) Sustainability and Green Energy - The project will be designed to meet Enterprise Green Community standards. Additionally, the roof will be designed to be solar ready. g) The City will explore polices and ordinances, including incentives and standards, that encourage the construction of new affordable housing Affordability and Financing The Crest currently has an existing HUD Risk Share mortgage on it, with additional funds from Hennepin County and Minnesota Housing. The total existing funding equates to about $2,440,000 – some of which will remain with the project in a new limited partnership and some of which will be replaced with new financing. HDPE Pipe Gallery (picture from ADS website) Bioclean Water Polisher Filtration Vault (picture from Bioclean website) Property Lender Program Principal Maturity Crest, The Hennepin Co NSP $995,645 10/01/44 Assumed Crest, The MN Housing FFCC $575,000 09/01/44 Repaid Crest, The MN Housing First Mortgage, HRS $872,245 02/01/45 Repaid Total $2,442,890 In partnership with the City of Brooklyn Center, the project aims to request approximately $18,200,000 in tax exempt bonds in Summer 2021. The project will secure a first mortgage and retain the NSP funds from Hennepin County. The general partner is expected to make a contribution to round out the capital stack for the project. The anticipated total development cost for this project is roughly $35,500,000. ** Sources and Uses are subject to change during underwriting. Construction Financing: Construction Sources Tax Exempt Bond Loan $18,245,275 Taxable Loan $6,943,806 $25,189,081 As Underwritten**: Uses Sources Acquisition/Existing Debt $10,297,000 First Mortgage $7,960,000 Construction $17,434,161 Low Income Housing Tax Credit $15,649,675 Professional Fee $1,861,070 Hennepin County (assumed) $995,645 Developer Fee/Consultants $3,000,000 Interim Income $300,000 Financing Costs $1,909,304 Return of Forward Commitment $121,680 Reserves $1,081,639 General Partner Contribution $1,377,064 Seller Loan $7,779,110 TIF Request $1,400,000 Total $35,583,174 Total $35,583,174 Aeon is committed to providing quality affordable homes for individuals and families with the greatest barriers to housing. The proposed Crest will provide affordable homes to 171 households. The Crest Apartments is proposed to be a mix of affordability from 30% area median income (AMI) to 60% AMI. The mix of affordability is spread throughout all unit types. This mix allows households of a variety of sizes and incomes an opportunity to call The Crest Apartments home. As Underwritten: Rent Range 30% AMI 11 Section 811 Project Based Rental Assistance for households with disabilities 40% AMI 36 1bd: $668; 2bd: $832 50% AMI 98 0bd: $735 $1bd: $830; 2bd: $1048-1056; 3bd: $1250 60% AMI 26 1bd: $1103; 2bd: $1322; 3bd: $1523 TIF REQUEST $1,400,000 Average Affordability 48.12% By providing an average affordability of 48.12%, the project ends up with a financial gap of $1,400,000. The Crest Apartments would not be feasible without the assistance of TIF due to the impact that deep affordability has on the income generated for the project. The Crest Apartments will be seeking TIF assistance from the City of Brooklyn Center as part of this request. Schedule To date, the development team has had preliminary meetings with City staff and a Concept Review with the City Council. This submission is for site and building plan review and PUD, for the project to complete the entitlement process. If this project is selected to receive funding in July from the Minnesota Management and Budget office, we anticipate construction to begin in October of 2021. Construction would last approximately 13 months, with the project completed in October of 2022. Contact Info Leslie Roering Aeon Senior Real Estate Developer Mobile: 612-708-0915 Chris Palkowitsch BKV Group Architect, Partner Mobile: 612-598-8808 [End of Memo] The Crest Apartments Plan and Building Plan Review 5.11.21 2 Site 3 Site context 6200 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SUITE LIBRARY & SERVICE CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTERSHINGLE CREEK & CREST APARTMENTS EMBASSY SUITES BY HILTON FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES BY MARRIOTTBROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTER CENTENNIAL PARK 4 Existing 5 Project Information 4.37 acres (190,483 SF) Site 13-Story Crest Apartments Renovation 122 Existing Affordable Housing Units Unit mix -44 one-bedroom units and 78 two-bedroom units + One new studio unit. Constructed in 1972 The existing building will be renovated, primarily focusing on maintaining the current use of the building for years to come. Addition –New Lobby, Link Amenities & Units: New main entry to both buildings & shared amenities 48 housing units in a five-story building Unit Mix –4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom units. Zoning The site is zoned R7 Multiple Family Residence, with allowance of 31 dwelling units per acre. The site will have 171 Total Units at 39.1 units per acre, the existing building is at 27.9 units per acre. Parking A parking study was completed recommending .84 stalls per unit. Project proposes 195 stall at 1.14 stalls per unit, + 14 proof of parking stalls. 6 Site Plan PARKING TOTALS SURFACE 164 STRUCTURED 31 TOTAL 195 PROOF OF PARKING +14 ALTERNATE TOTAL 209 Existing Addition (For reference see plans for updates) 7 Site Vision and Sustainability Sustainability Features 1.Project will meet Enterprise Green Communities requirements. 2.Solar ready -Roof top photovoltaic array for onsite energy production. 3.Improved site storm water management through treatment and rate control, current site is uncontrolled. 4.We will plant native and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. 5.We will limit the extents of irrigated turf grass to reduce the need for irrigation and maintenance. 6.On site garden beds for residents. 7.New sidewalks and enhanced landscaping, improving and promoting the walking experience around the site and connections to the park.. 8.Exterior bike parking near the housing entries. 9.LED light fixtures. 10.Energy Star appliances. 11.High efficiency water heaters. 12.Recycling collection and chute in the new addition. 13.Durable exterior materials on the addition. 14.Efficient doors and windows, with Low-E coating on the addition. 15.Construction waste recycling. 16.Smoke free building. 8 Renderings –Existing & Addition 9 MP-1 Una Clad Firestone –UC-600 (Corrugated Metal Panel -Vertical) Finish:Champagne Metallic MP-2 Una Clad Firestone –Delta CFP-12 (Horizontal Panel -Flat) Finish:Champagne Metallic MP-3 Una Clad Firestone –Flat Finish:Dark Grey Materials FCP-1 Fiber Cement Panel James Hardie Vertical Siding Panels Field Paint –Softer Tan FCP-2 Fiber Cement Panel James Hardie Vertical Siding Panels Field Paint –Blue Decorative CMU-1 Amcon Concrete Products -Burnished Size: Half High, 3 5/8" x 3 5/8" x 16" Finish:Color Series, 310 Walnut Pella Impervia -Fiberglass Function Style –Awning Finish: Brown 0'6"1'2'3' N SHADOW STUDY 2283-04AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 A3.0 1 9 AM SS A3.0 2 11AM SS A3.0 3 1 PM SS A3.0 4 3 PM SS SU M M E R S O L S T I C E WI N T E R S O L S T I C E A3.0 5 11 AM WS A3.0 6 9 AM WS A3.0 7 1 PM WS A3.0 8 3 PM WS CHICAGO 209 South LaSalle Street The Rookery, Suite 920 Chicago, IL 60604 P 312.279.0470 DALLAS 1412 Main Street Adolphus Tower, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202 P 469.405.1196 HANOI, VIETNAM No 1 Dao Duy Anh Street Ocean Park Building, Suite 15, Room 1508 Phuong Mai Ward, Dong Da District Hanoi, Vietnam P 469.405.1240 MINNEAPOLIS 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Building, Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 P 612.339.3752 WASHINGTON, DC 1054 31st Street NW Canal Square, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20007 P 202.595.3173 WWW.BKVGROUP.COM ENRICHING LIVESANDSTRENGTHENINGCOMMUNITIES G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2021 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 4:35:46 PM Author Checker 2283-04 G100 COVER SHEET AEON - CREST APARTMENTS AEON -CREST APARTMENTS 6221 Shingle Creek Crossing, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 AEON PROJECT LOCATION RENDERING PROJECT TEAMPROJECT SUMMARY (UNIT MATRIX) Architect: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Chris Palkowitsch OWNER / APPLICANT: Aeon,TBD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 901 North 3rd Street, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-746-4853 Contact: Leslie Roering Civil: Pierce Pini + Associates 9298 Central Avenue NE, Suite 312, Blaine, MN 55434 Phone: 763.537.1311 Contact: Rhonda S. Pierce Landscape: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Brady K. Halverson Structural Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Structural Engineer's Name Mechanical Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Alex Sawka Electrical Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Chad Kurdi SITE SHEET LIST - SITE PLAN REV NUMBER SHEET NAME 20 2 1 / 0 2 / 1 7 S D S E T 20 2 1 / 0 5 / 1 1 S I T E R E V I E W GENERAL G100 COVER SHEET X X G120 CODE SUMMARY & OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION PLANS X X CIVIL 000 SURVEY X X C100 GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND X C200 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN X X C300 SWPPP NARRATIVE X X C301 SWPPP SITE LAYOUT X X C302 SWPPP DETAILS X C400 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN X X C500 UTILITY PLAN X X C550 STORMWATER DETAILS X C600 SITE LAYOUT PAVING PLAN X X C700 CIVIL DETAILS X LANDSCAPE L100. OVERALL SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN X L101. SITE PLANTING PLAN X ARCHITECTURE A1.01 1ST 2ND FLOOR PLAN X A1.02 3-6 & 7-12TH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN X A1.03 ROOF X A2.01 NORTH & EAST ELEVATION X A2.02 SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION X ARCHITECTURE A010 SITE PLAN X X A101 LEVEL 1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A102 LEVEL 2 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A103 LEVEL 3 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A104 LEVEL 4 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A105 LEVEL 5 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A140 ROOF PLAN X X A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X X A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X X A501 BUILDING SECTIONS X X ELECTRICAL E015 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS X SITE PLAN REVIEW ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW -EXISTING UP DN B 3678.19 SF OCCUPANCY CLASSIFCATION A-3 B S-2 S-2 12375.12 SF A-3 1095.23 SF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO EXISTING BUILDING R-2 14955.84 SF OCCUPANCY CLASSIFCATION R-2 R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF LIFE SAFETY AREA TAG: INDICATES AREA NAME INDICATES AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE INDICATES AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE PER OCCUPANT INDICATES OCCUPANT LOAD CODE PLAN NOTES: 1. CODE PLANS ARE INTENDED TO BE PRINTED IN COLOR FOR CLARITY. 2. HIGHEST REQUIRED HOURLY RATING FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WALL WILL BE SHOWN WHERE MULTIPLE REQUIRED RATINGS OCCUR. 3. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE PER IBC 1016.1 IS 250 FEET AT R-2, 400 FEET AT S-2. 4. MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE TO FIRE EXTINGUSHER PER IFC 906.3 IS 75 FEET. 5. SEE SHEET G120 FOR COMPLETE CODE SUMMARY 6. PROVIDE 2-WAY COMMUNICATION AT ELEVATOR LANDINGS PER IBC 1007.8. 7. ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE MN STATE ACCESSIBILITY TYPE B PER CODE, CHAPTER 1341 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION TO RATING INDICATED ON CODE PLANS FOR STEEL COLUMNS, BEAMS & BEARING ANGLES SUPPORTING BUILDING ELEMENTS PER IBC 704 (SEE STRUCTURAL) 9. ASSEMBLY OCCUPANT LOADS SHALL BE POSTED BY SIGNAGE AT TIME OF FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION 10. PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS ON ALL WALLS REQUIRED TO HAVE PROTECTED OPENINGS OR PENETRATIONS PER MBC 703.7. SF/OCC OCC Name 150 SF 20 20 CODE LEGEND 30 MIN FIRE PARTITION 1 HR FIRE PARTITION 1 HR FIRE BARRIER 3 HR FIRE WALL 2 HR FIRE BARRIER 2 HR FIRE WALL ## OCCUPANT LOAD 30 MIN CORRIDOR, 20 MIN DOORS, 45 MIN WINDOWS FIRE EXTINGUISHER: SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHER TYPES AND LOCATIONS FE FEC EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCE ##NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING STANDPIPESP SEPARATED OCCUPANCY SMOKE PARTITION 1 HR SMOKE BARRIER G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:52 PM Author Checker 2283-04 G120 CODE SUMMARY & OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION PLANS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS G120 1" = 30'-0" 3 LEVEL 1 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 4 LEVEL 2 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 5 LEVEL 3 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 6 LEVEL 4 -OCCUPANCY PLAN *GSF AREA BY BUILDING BY... Occupancy Classification Area B 3678.19 SF A-3 1095.23 SF S-2 12375.12 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET G120 1" = 30'-0" 2 LEVEL 5 1 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" 2345678 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINTP2BLUE PAINT FB FACE BRICK FB FACE BRICK FB FACE BRICK 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" A 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" B C D 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 2' - 0 " A3.05 6 A3.05 8 A3.05 7 FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT P2 BLUE PAINT TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_EXIST_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:03:08 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A2.01 NORTH & EAST ELEVATION Aeon - Crest I ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION A2.01 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION A2.01 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" A 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" BCD 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT 1 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " A3.05 3 A3.05 1 A3.05 4 A3.05 2 A3.05 5 FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT P2 BLUE PAINT TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_EXIST_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:03:22 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A2.02 SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION Aeon - Crest I ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION A2.02 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ELEVATION A2.02 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW UP Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 EXISTING MAIN ENTRY 164 TOTAL PARKING SPACES + 14 PROOF OF PARKING= 178 NEW MAIN ENTRY LOADING AREA TRASH PICK UP 171714 17 1514 12 13 8 17 31 PARKING SPACES CREST APARTMENT I (EXISTING) SHINGLES CREEK PARKWAY CREST I -AREA SCOPE CREST II -AREA SCOPE CREST I -AREA SCOPE CREST II -AREA SCOPE GENERATOR PLEASE SEE LANDSCAPE FOR OUTDOOR AMENITY FEATURES SIGNAGE SIGNAGE 20 7 7 35' - 1" 24' - 0" 20' - 4 1/2" LOBBY 100B TRASH 113 ELEC 112 WATER ROOM 114 TRANSFROMER SCREENING SET BACKS BUILDING SET BACKS BUILDING SET BACK 40' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" PARKING SET BACK 15' - 0" BUILDING SET BACK 50' - 0" PROOF OF PARKING 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:19:32 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A010 SITE PLAN AEON - CREST APARTMENTS SITE PLAN KEYNOTES ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. SITE ELEVATION 100' -0" CORRESPONDS TO CIVIL ELEVATION 849' 2. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR SITE DEMOLITION & EROSION CONTROL, SITE GRADING, UTILITIES, EASEMENTS & SETBACKS, SITE PAVING, & PARKING DETAILS 3. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTINGS & STREETSCAPE 4. SEE CODE PLANS FOR BUILDING EXITING 5. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SITE LIGHTING & POWER 5. SEE MECHANICAL FOR DRAIN & HOSE BIB LOCATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FCP1 FIBER CEMENT SOFT TAN FCP2 FIBER CEMENT BLUE MP-1 CORRUGATED CHAMPAGNE METALIC MP-3 DARK BRONZE MP-2 FLAT CHAMPAGNE METALIC ? ? LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" W2 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2 W2 W2 W4 W4 W4 W4 MP-1 FCP1 VTAC LOUNVER DECORATIVE LIGHTING CMU-1 FCP-2 MP-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING MP-2FCP1 CMU-1 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 21 ' - 4 " 2' - 0 " CREST I 7' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2W3 W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W2 W3 W3W2 W2 W3 W4W4 W4 W4 W4 LINK TO CREST I 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " PREFINISHED METAL COPING, DARK BRONZE FINISH FCP1 FCP-2 MP-2 MP-1 VTAC LOUNVER, PAINT TO MATCHVTAC LOUNVER MP-1 FCP1 FCP1 DECORATIVE LIGHTING EXIT LIGHTING W4 W4 W4 W3 7' - 8 " G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:27 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 2 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET A401 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION A401 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW THE CRESTTHE CREST CMU-1 BURNISHED BLOCK EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FCP1 FIBER CEMENT SOFT TAN FCP2 FIBER CEMENT BLUE MP-1 CORRUGATED CHAMPAGNE METALIC MP-3 DARK BRONZE MP-2 FLAT CHAMPAGNE METALIC ? ? LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 0 " W4 W4 W4 W4 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3W3 W3 W3 W3W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 MP-1 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 57 ' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 12 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 3' - 0 " W4 W4 W4 W4 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3W3W2 W2 W3 W3W2W3 W3 W3W3W2W3 W3 W2 W3 W3W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 2' - 0 " FCP1 FCP-2 MP-1 MP-2 W2 W3 W2 W3 W2 W3 W3W2 CMU-1 W5 7' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" FCP-2 MP-2 CMU-1 MP-1 G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:44 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 12 1 A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 2 B A C D ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW CMU-1 BURNISHED BLOCK LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" PLANTERS, SEE LANDSCAPE ENL C 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " UNIT - B1 208 UNIT - B1 207 UNIT - B1 307 UNIT - B1 308 UNIT - B1 407 UNIT - B1 408 UNIT - B1 507 UNIT - B1 508 CORRDIOR 200 CORRIDOR 300 CORRIDOR 400 CORRIDOR 500 DF LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 1 - G2 102' - 0" LEVEL 1 - G2 102' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 1 4 9 146 UNIT - B2 204 UNIT - A1 206 UNIT - B1 208 UNIT - B3 210 UNIT - C1 212 FITNESS 105 UNIT - C1 312 UNIT - B3 310 UNIT - B1 308 UNIT - A1 306 UNIT - B5 (TYPE A) 304 UNIT - C1 412 UNIT - B3 410 UNIT - B1 408 UNIT - A1 406 UNIT - B2 404 UNIT - C1 512 UNIT - B3 510 UNIT - A1 506 UNIT - B2 504 UNIT - B1 508 G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:46 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A501 BUILDING SECTIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS A501 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING SECTION 1 A501 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION 2 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW T R A C T A SH I N G L E C R E E K P A R K W A Y FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE AE FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE X(OTHER FLOOD AREAS) Project Location Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issued: Client AEON THE CREST APARTMENTS 6221 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA LCC CEJ 12/22/2020 22447 To The Crest Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company and Commercial Partners Title, a division of Chicago Title Insurance Company This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 7(a), 8, 9, 10a, 11, 18 and 19 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 12/22/2020. Dated this 21st day of December, 2020. Sambatek, Inc. Craig E. Johnson, LS Minnesota License No. 44530 1. The bearing system is based on Registered Land Survey No. 1359. 2. Subject property's address is 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, its property identification number is 35-119-21-34-0004. 3.This survey was prepared utilizing the Commercial Partners Title, a division of Chicago Title Insurance Company Title Commitment No. 57529, bearing an effective date of October 12, 2020. 3.The vertical datum is based on NAVD88. BENCHMARK #1 TNH @ northwest corner of survey. Elev.= 847.33 BENCHMARK #2 Rim of water manhole @ northeast corner of survey. Elev.= 843.00 4.Field work was completed on 12/17/20. FOUND MONUMENT SET MONUMENT MARKED LS 47481 ELECTRIC METER LIGHT POLE SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FLARED END SECTION ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER AIR CONDITIONER GUY ANCHOR HANDICAP STALL UTILITY POLE BOLLARD SIGN TELEPHONE PEDESTAL GAS METER OVERHEAD WIRE WOOD FENCE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE RESTRICTED ACCESS BUILDING LINE BUILDING CANOPY CONCRETE CURB BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE LANDSCAPE SURFACE DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE 0 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 30 60 VICINITY MAP LEGENDSURVEY NOTES Description from title commitment: Parcel 1: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1359, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Parcel 2: Common driveway and pedestrian use easement contained in Quit Claim Deed dated March 19, 1981, filed June 19, 1981, as Document No. 1429165. Parcel 3 Common driveway and pedestrian use easement contained in Agreement Between Adjoining Owners Creating Common Easement for Driveway Purposes and Pedestrian Use dated November 30, 1973, filed February 11,1974, as Document No. 1098796. The following notes correspond to the reference numbers listed in Schedule B, Section 2 of the title commitment. 20.Private reservation of mineral and mineral rights, as set forth in prior deeds by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. (Shown as a recital on the Certificate of Title). Affects property and is blanket in nature. 21.Easement for storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, contained in Easement Grant dated June 7, 1971, filed June 23, 1973, as Document No. 1000599. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 22.Easement for water main purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, as contained in Easement Grant dated April 3, 1973, filed May 28, 1973, as Document No. 1071235. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 23.Terms and conditions of and easement for ingress and egress driveway and pedestrian purposes contained in Agreement Between Adjoining Owners Creating Common Easement for Driveway Purposes And Pedestrian Use dated November 30, 1973, filed February 11, 1974, as Document No. 1098796. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 24.Terms and conditions of and easement for sidewalk and related purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, contained in Easement Grant and Maintenance Agreement dated May 1, 1986, filed May 15, 1986, as Document No. 1723923. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 25.Easement for electrical and related purposes in favor of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, contained in Underground Easement dated September 28, 1971, filed October 1, 1971, as Document No. 1011148. Affects property and is blanket in nature. 26.Terms conditions, covenants and restrictions contained in Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated September 7, 2012, filed September 11, 2012, as Document No. T4991564, by Aeon and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 27.Terms and conditions of and easement for ingress and egress and driveway purposes contained in Quit Claim Deed dated March 19, 1981, filed June 19, 1981, as Document No. 1429165. Affects property and is depicted hereon. SUBJECT PROPERTY 1.The surveyor has depicted the property corner monuments, or the witness to the corner that were found during the field work, and set property corner monuments, or witnesses to the corner, at the locations where there did not appear to be any evidence of an existing monument. 2.The property address is shown on the graphical portion of the survey. 3. The subject property lies within Flood Plain Zones X, X(other flood areas) and AE, per FEMA, FIRM Map No. 27053C0208F dated 11/04/16. Per Letter of Map Amendment Determination Document (Removal), dated October 15, 2002, the structure on the subject property has been removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area. 4. The gross area of the subject property is 4.376 Acres or 190,629 Square Feet. 5.The vertical relief is shown on the graphical portion of the survey. 6a. Per Zoning Letter dated May 31, 2013, prepared by the City of Brooklyn Center, the subject property is currently zoned R-7 (Multiple Family Residence), and is subject to the following setbacks: Building:Parking: Front yard: 50 feet From street right of way:15 feet Rear yard: 40 feet Side yard: 20 feet 7a. The building and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall. 8.Visible substantial features observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork are shown hereon. 9. The parking areas and striping on the subject property are shown. There are 6 handicapped parking stalls, and there are 127 regular parking stalls for a total of 133 parking stalls. 10a.There were no division or party walls designated by the client to be shown on the survey. 11.The names of adjoining land owners according to the current county tax records are shown on the survey. 18.Wetlands were delineated by MFRA, Inc., on July 10, 2012, and are shown hereon. 19.Plottable off site easements and servitudes disclosed in the provided title documents and/or observed during the field work that appear to benefit and/or affect the subject property are shown hereon. "TABLE A" NOTES CERTIFICATION Dec 22, 2020 - 10:19am - User:LCAPISTRANT L:\PROJECTS\22447\CAD\Survey\Sheets\22447-ALTA.dwg 1/1 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY SUMMIT DR N SH I N G L E C R E E K PA R K W A Y 94 N.T.S. BUILDING DETAIL GROUND LIGHT FIRE HOOKUP WATERVALVE MH ELECTRIC OUTLET TRAFFIC LIGHT SITE N.T.S. SUMMIT DR N SH I N G L E C R E E K PA R K W A Y 94 UP Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L1 L1 L3 L1 L11 L13L12 L11 L13 L14 L21 L4 L6 L15 L22 L2 L1 L3 L19 L9 L10 L5 L5 L2 L5 L5 L5 L7 L8 L8 L8 L23 L23 L7L8 L14 L16 L20 L17 L18 L18 L18 L18 L16 L18 L18 L18 L18 L1 L1 KEY NOTES:GRAPHIC LEGEND: SURFACE TREATMENT 1; PLAIN BROOM FINISH CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 4; DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE TREATMENT 2; INTEGRALLY COLORED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARDWOOD MULCH, SHREDDED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 6; ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX; "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_LAND_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 4:29:12 PM Author Checker 2283-04 L100 OVERALL SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN Aeon - Crest II ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05-11-2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 20'-0"L100 1 OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN L0 BUILDING ENTRY L1 SURFACE TREATMENT 1: CAST IN PLACE PLAIN BROOM FINISH CONCRETE PAVING L2 SURFACE TREATMENT 2: CAST IN PLACE INEGRALLY COLORED CONCRETE PAVING; COLOR TBD L3 SURFACE TREATMENT 3: BITUMINOUS PAVING; SEE CIVIL L4 SURFACE TREATMENT 4: DECOMPOSED GRANITE L5 SURFACE TREATMENT 5: EXISTING WALK OR PATIO TO REMAIN L6 SURFACE TREATMENT 6: ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA; BY PLAY EQUIPMENT PROVIDER L7 NATURAL TURF LAWN, IRRIGATED SOD ON 3" MIN. DEPTH OF TOPSOIL L8 NATIVE SEED MIX 1, BASIS OF DESIGN "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES; PLANT AT MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED RATE WITH 2" PLUGS AT A RATE OF 1 PER SF; SEE CIVIL FOR SOIL PROFILE L9 RETAINING WALL; BASIS OF DESIGN "STANDARD" BY VERSALOK, SIZE 6"H X 16"W X 12" DEEP, FULL RANGE OF ENDS AND CAPS INCLUDED; COLOR TBD.; SEE CIVIL FOR TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATIONS; SEE 5/L300 L10 DECORATIVE WOOD SCREEN FENCE; 8' TALL WITH STEEL POSTS, FASTENERS AND CAPS L11 BENCH; "HARPO" BY LANDSCAPE FORMS, 69" LENGTH; MATERIAL: POWDER COATED ALUMINUM FRAME, THERMALLY MODIFIED ASH SEAT AND BACK SLATS L12 BIKE RACK; "ICON HITCH" BY DERO L13 TRASH AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLE; "SELECT" DOUBLE BY LANDSCAPE FORMS; "STORM CLOUD" POWDER COAT FINISH L14 DOGIPOT DOG WASTE BAG DISPENSER L15 PLAY EQUIPMENT; FINAL DEISIGN BY PLAY EQUIPMENT VENDOR L16 CUSTOM WOOD AND STEEL PERGOLA; 16' SQUARE X 10' TALL L17 MOVEABLE FURNISHINGS; BY OWNER L18 MASS PLANTING BED; 12" MIN. PLANTING SOIL, 3" MIN. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH; STEEL EDGER WHEREVER MASS PLANTING BEDS MEET SOD OR SEEDED AREAS L19 IRRIGATION WATER SOURCE; COORDINATE WITH MECH. L20 SQAURE FIRE PIT; "CABO" BY WOODLAND DIRECT, SIZE 48" SQUARE, NATURAL GAS, ELECTRONIC IGNITION, COLOR NATURAL GRAY, WITH TIMER SWITCH AND EMERGENCY SHUTOFF L21 RAISED GARDEN BEDS; 3'X 5' X 18"H GALVANIZED STEEL TROUGH WITH 4 WEEP HOLES DRILLED IN BOTTOM OF EACH L22 6" WIDE X 18" TALL CONCRETE RIBBON CURB L23 MONUMENT SIGN UP Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 PROPOSED PLANT SCHEDULE: GRAPHIC LEGEND: SURFACE TREATMENT 1; PLAIN BROOM FINISH CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 4; DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE TREATMENT 2; INTEGRALLY COLORED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARDWOOD MULCH, SHREDDED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 6; ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX; "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES 50 Dl 7 QW 16 Dl 12 ha 1 AG 3 Dl 4 ha 3 Dl 3 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 3 Dl 2 ha 4 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 1 Dl 4 ha 2 Dl 6 nf 4 lb 6 nf 4 lb 1 PS 1 AS 8 Am 10 Am 9 nf 16 Sm 12 Jc 50 Dl 2 QB 1 QB 2 QB 2 QB 6 Ss 9 Dl 16 Am 1 QB 8 Jcs 7 Jcs 1 QB 1 AS 1 AS 1 PS 1 PT 1 CO 9 Cs 7 Cs 1 BN 1 BN 1 QB 6 ed 7 Ss 9 Am 1 PS 4 Dl 6 lb 8 Ss 31 nf 5 Am 5 Ss 1 PT 5 ed 5 ed 1 BN 13 ed 9 ed 7 ed 9 ed 15 ed 5 Ss 13 Jcs 1 Jcs 6 Dl 5 Dl 1 AS 1 AS 9 lb 7 Cs 1 QB 1 AS 1 QB 1 BN 1 BN 1 AS 1 AS 5 Dl 6 Dl 1 Jcs 6 Dl 0 Jcs 1 AS2 CO 5 CO 4 QB 2 CO 7 AS 1 CO 1 CO 1 AS1 AS 1 AS 1 CO 1 QB 1 QB 1 CO 1 QB 1 CO 1 CO 37 lb 14 nf 15 lb 6 lb 16 lb 1 QB 6 Ss 3 Jc TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_LAND_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 4:29:20 PM Author Checker 2283-04 L101 SITE PLANTING PLAN Aeon - Crest II QTY SYM COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANTING SIZE COMMENTS PERENNIALS/GROUNDCOVERS/GRASSES 69 ed BABY JOE PYEWEED Eupatorium dubium 'Baby Joe' #1 CONT. 38 ha AUGUST MOON HOSTA Hosta 'August Moon' #1 CONT. 95 lb STANDING OVATION LITTLE BLUESTEM Schizachyrium scoparium 'Standing Ovation' #1 CONT. 66 nf WALKERS LOW CATMINT Nepeta faassenii 'Walkers Low' #1 CONT. DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES 1 AG AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchir x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' 3 PS PINK FLAIR CHERRY Prunus sargentii 'JFS-KW58' 1.5" CAL. 2 PT PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN Populus tremuloides 'NEArb' 1.5" CAL. DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES 19 AS FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE Acer saccharum 'Bailsta' 2.5" CAL. 5 BN RIVER CLUMP BIRCH Betula nigra 8' CLUMP 16 CO COMMON HACKBERRY Celtis occidentalis 2.5" CAL. 20 QB SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor 2.5" CAL. 7 QW REGAL PRINCE OAK Quercus warei 'Long' DECIDOUS SHRUBS 48 Am IRIQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY Aronia melanocarpa 'Morton' #5 CONT. 175 Dl DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE Diervilla lonicera #5 CONT. 16 Sm DWARF KOREAN LILAC Syringa meyeri 'Palibin' #5 CONT. CONIFEROUS EVERGREEN SHRUBS 15 Jc MANEY JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis 'Maney' #5 CONT. 31 Jcs SPARTAN JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis 'Spartan' 6' B&B 23 Cs CARDINAL DOGWOOD Cornus sericea 'Cardinal' #5 CONT. 37 Ss SEM FALSE SPIREA Sorbaria sorbifolia 'Sem'(PP16,336) #2 CONT. ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05-11-2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 20'-0"L101 1 OVERALL SITE PLANTING PLAN PARKING LOT Illuminance (Fc) Average = 2.75 Maximum = 7.4 Minimum = 0.1 Avg/Min Ratio = 27.50 Max/Min Ratio = 74.00 PARKING LOT Illuminance (Fc) Average = 2.75 Maximum = 7.4 Minimum = 0.1 Avg/Min Ratio = 27.50 Max/Min Ratio = 74.00 Luminaire Schedule Tag Symbol Qty Description Lum. Watts LLF XB 11 LUMIERE EON 303-B1-LEDB1-3000-120-T2-X-BK-42-EDGE-LAB 24 0.900 XW1 10 HINKLEY LIGHTING HIN221094 15 0.900 XP1 3 LUMARK PREVAIL PRV-C40-D-UNV-T3-SA-BK 131 0.900 XP2 8 LUMARK PREVIAL PRV-C40-D-UNV-T3-SA-BK 131 0.900 XW2 6 SYRIOS SY300-L1L10-13W-924-80-3500 13 0.900 XW 7 LUMARK XTOR-2A 18 1.000 XP2XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2XP2 XP2 XP2 XP1XP1 XB XB XB XB XB XB XW1XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1XW1XW1XW1 XB XB XB XB XB XW2XW2 XW2XW2 XW2XW2 XP1 XW XW XW XW XW XW XW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.7 4.1 3.1 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.5 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.5 2.5 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.3 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 2.8 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.1 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.9 2.7 3.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 3.6 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.5 3.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.4 3.2 2.2 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.3 3.8 5.9 7.3 6.3 6.5 7.4 5.5 3.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.0 4.7 6.9 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.8 4.7 2.8 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.0 3.3 4.9 5.9 5.4 5.4 5.9 4.7 3.1 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.7 3.8 5.5 5.9 5.5 5.7 5.4 3.9 2.5 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.0 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.4 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.6 4.5 1.1 3.7 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.5 4.4 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.7 4.4 4.5 4.4 3.5 2.7 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.2 5.0 6.0 5.7 5.9 5.9 4.9 3.4 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.9 4.2 6.0 6.2 5.7 6.1 5.8 3.9 2.6 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.1 3.5 5.6 6.9 6.5 6.5 7.2 5.7 3.8 2.6 2.0 2.2 3.0 4.7 6.6 7.0 5.6 6.3 6.6 4.7 2.8 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 2.9 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.9 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.1 3.1 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.0 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.6 3.9 3.7 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.8 3.9 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.5 3.8 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.2 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.3 3.9 6.1 7.2 6.2 6.7 7.2 5.6 3.8 2.7 2.6 3.3 4.7 6.5 7.1 6.4 7.0 7.0 4.5 2.9 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.0 3.3 5.1 5.8 5.5 5.8 6.0 4.7 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.8 5.3 6.2 5.5 5.8 5.5 4.1 2.4 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.9 4.4 4.5 3.9 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.6 4.3 4.4 4.2 3.5 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.5 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.6 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.5 4.2 3.6 3.4 4.2 5.4 5.6 5.2 5.5 5.0 3.7 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.8 4.6 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.1 7.4 5.6 4.2 4.2 5.3 7.4 7.2 6.3 6.9 7.2 4.6 2.9 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.4 4.5 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.7 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.4 3.2 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.6 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 3.2 3.0 0.8 1.4 0.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 3.7 4.6 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 2.5 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.8 4.2 3.4 2.7 2.0 1.5 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 5.7 3.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 2.7 3.4 3.6 4.1 4.9 4.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.8 5.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 2.7 3.2 4.5 7.7 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.1 3.5 4.7 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.2 3.3 5.9 2.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.2 3.8 1.7 4.1 0.8 2.1 8.7 11.0 4.6 2.4 2.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.9 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.2 4.7 5.7 3.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 8.1 8.3 9.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.5 5.5 7.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture TRUE NORTH 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2021 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_MEP_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 10:20:32 AM ALR CSK 2283-04 E015 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS 2283-04 Aeon Crest II NOT TO SCALEE015 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05/11/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit B M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 4, 2021 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Site Plan – Crest Phase II Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed Crest Phase II: Preliminary Plans dated May 11, 2021 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. C200 – Removals Plan 1.Protect existing sidewalk and utilities along Shingle Creek Blvd. C300, 301, 302 – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans 2. Clean up text/Turn off conflicting layers C400 – Grading Plan 3. Provide calculations for flood plain mitigation. 4. Clean up text/Turn off conflicting layers C500, C550 – Utility Plan & Stormwater Details 5. Explain the purpose of leaving the existing storm sewer as shown on plan. It appears that it is not tied in to any proposed structure. 6.At the underground storm sewer tie-in to storm in Shingle Creek Bvld show pavement and sidewalk removals. Remove pavement to nearest lane line. Protect existing utilities within Right- of-Way. 7. Engineer should attempt to capture and route surface run-off from parking areas through soil medium prior to discharge in to underground storm water system. Watershed rules require the abstraction of run-off in accordance to Watershed Rule D.3 (h). 8.Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required. Developer must submit O&M Plan for the underground treatment system and filter system as a part of the Utility Facilities Easement Agreement. C600 – Site Plan 9. Show location of trash enclosure. 10. Provide bike Racks. Exhibit C Crest Phase II Site Plan Review Memo, June 4, 2021 C700 – Detail Sheets 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of public utilities must conform to the City standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details must be included in the plan. 12. Update to use current City plates. Miscellaneous 13. See redlines for additional Site Plan comments. 14. Provide narrative and plans laying out staging and phasing of site throughout construction. Highlight temporary parking and access for residents during course of construction. 15. Provide irrigation plan. 16. Provide detailed vehicle turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, bus, etc. demonstrating specific and actual routes. 17. Applicant should address the recommendations of the parking study, conducted by Alliant Consulting dated May 18, 2021. 18. 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. 19. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). 20. The total disturbed area exceeds one acre, an NPDES permit is required. The total disturbed area is less than five acres; the City of Brooklyn Center will review the plans per the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission rules. Applicant must meet requirements from the watershed’s rules review. 21. Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit. Prior to Issuance of a Land Alteration 22. 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, as required by the City Engineer. 23. A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100 percent of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 24. 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. Crest Phase II Site Plan Review Memo, June 4, 2021 25. 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 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 26. A City Land Disturbance permit is required. 27. Watershed plan review is required. 28. A MPCA NPDES permit is required. 29. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 30. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 31. 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 b y the City. *Protect existing sidewalk *Provide flood plain mitagation cacluations *Clean up points/text conflicts * Obtain temporary construction easement for wet tap on adjacent property Remove Pipe? What is pipe tying into? Show extents of road pavement removal and side walk Remove and replace to lane line Protect existing utilites *Provide O&M Manual for stormwater system, Preserver & BioClean filter *Utilities Facilities agreement required *Provide turning templates and traffic movements for delivery trucks, bus and garbage trucks Trash Enclosure? Provide Bike Racks MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2021 TO: Leslie Roering, Aeon FROM: Jordan Schwarze, PE, Alliant Engineering SUBJECT: The Crest Apartments Parking Study Introduction Alliant Engineering, Inc. has completed a parking study for the proposed The Crest Apartments expansion project located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, MN (see Figure 1: Project Location). The Crest Apartments site is currently comprised of a 122-unit affordable housing apartment building and an accompanying surface parking lot providing approximately 134 stalls. The proposed expansion will include additional affordable housing apartment units and parking stalls, though concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of the proposed parking supply. Therefore, the following evaluation was prepared to estimate the maximum daily parking demand under future conditions and compare it to the proposed parking supply to determine an anticipated parking surplus or deficit. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to show that the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the parking demand of The Crest Apartments expansion proposal. The following goals have been established for this parking study: •Document parking characteristics at The Crest Apartments site under existing conditions. o Determine a peak parking rate (vehicle/occupied unit) based on observed existing parking characteristics. o Compare the observed existing parking demand against parking demand estimates developed from rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition. •From the comparison of observed and estimated parking demand, determine an appropriate maximum daily parking demand estimate for the proposed expanded development site. o Compare the estimated maximum daily parking demand against the proposed parking supply to determine a parking surplus or deficit. Exhibit D ALLIANT Project Location Figure 1The Crest Apartments Parking Study 964 94 100 Shingle Creek Parkway 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway The Crest Apartments & Community Center Brooklyn Center City Hall Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 3 Existing Conditions As of May 2021, The Crest Apartments site exhibits the characteristics documented in Table 1. Table 1. The Crest Apartments – Existing Site Characteristics Land Use 1 Capacity Occupancy Apartment Building 122 Units 117 Units 2 Surface Parking Lot Approximately 134 Stalls Variable 1. The Crest Apartments property is located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, MN 2. Apartment occupancy as of May 2021 Parking Observations To document typical current parking demand at The Crest Apartments development site, parking occupancy data was collected on Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021. Considering that residential parking demand peaks during the late evening/overnight/early morning hours, parking data was collected during the following timeframes: • 5:00 AM – 8:00 AM • 9:00 PM – 12:00 AM The Crest Apartments existing parking counts, documented in Table 2, indicate that a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles was observed in both the early morning and late evening hours of Thursday, May 6, 2021. However, a slightly lower peak parking demand was observed on Saturday, May 8, 2021. Given an apartment occupancy of 117 units at the time of parking data collection, the observed peak parking demand of 98 vehicles equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicle/occupied unit. At this observed peak parking rate, a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles could be expected to utilize the existing surface parking lot under a scenario in which all 122 apartment units are occupied. Under this hypothetical full occupancy scenario, a parking surplus of approximately 30 stalls would be anticipated within the existing surface parking lot. ITE Estimates The observed peak parking demand at The Crest Apartments was also compared to peak parking demand estimates based on applicable rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition (ITE PGM). The ITE PGM is an industry standard resource for estimating parking demand based on studies of numerous land uses. Table 3 documents the ITE PGM based estimated peak parking demand for apartment occupancies of both 117 units and 122 units. Results of the ITE PGM based parking demand estimates indicate that The Crest Apartments would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 91 vehicles at an apartment occupancy of 117 units or a hypothetical peak parking demand of 95 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 122 units. The ITE PGM based peak parking demand estimates equate to a peak parking rate of 0.78 vehicle/occupied unit. This rate is lower than the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit). Therefore, parking demand estimates for the proposed conditions will be based on the observed peak parking rate. Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 4 Table 2. The Crest Apartments – Existing Parking Observations Table 3. The Crest Apartments – ITE Existing Parking Demand Estimates Weekday Saturday 5:00 - 5:15 AM 98 89 5:15 - 5:30 AM 97 89 5:30 - 5:45 AM 96 89 5:45 - 6:00 AM 95 91 6:00 - 6:15 AM 94 91 6:15 - 6:30 AM 93 90 6:30 - 6:45 AM 88 88 6:45 - 7:00 AM 86 87 7:00 - 7:15 AM 86 87 7:15 - 7:30 AM 83 87 7:30 - 7:45 AM 78 92 7:45 - 8:00 AM 77 90 9:00 - 9:15 PM 86 82 9:15 - 9:30 PM 86 83 9:30 - 9:45 PM 86 78 9:45 - 10:00 PM 89 78 10:00 - 10:15 PM 90 84 10:15 - 10:30 PM 90 87 10:30 - 10:45 PM 90 87 10:45 - 11:00 PM 92 90 11:00 - 11:15 PM 94 93 11:15 - 11:30 PM 96 92 11:30 - 11:45 PM 98 93 11:45 PM - 12:00 AM 97 94 Peak observed parking rate: 98 vehicles / 117 occupied units = 0.84 vehicle / occupied unit 1. Parking observations completed Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021 Observation Period 1 Parked Vehicles Early Morning Late Evening Land Use (ITE Code)Size (Occupied Dwelling Units) Weekday Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) Saturday Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) 117 2 91 77 122 3 95 81Affordable Housing (223) 1 3. Apartment capacity Peak ITE parking rate: 91 vehicles / 117 occupied units = 0.78 vehicle / occupied unit 2. Apartment occupancy as of May 2021 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition 1. Parking Generation Assumptions: Income limits affordable housing in a general urban/suburban setting Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 5 Proposed Conditions The currently proposed The Crest Apartments expansion project, shown in Figure 2, is expected to consist of the following: • Modified existing affordable housing apartment building o Office space within the existing apartment building will be repurposed to include one additional apartment unit for a total of 123 units • New 48-unit affordable housing apartment building o New 31-stall parking garage beneath the new apartment building • Expanded 164-stall surface parking lot o New 14-stall surface “proof of parking” lot (if necessary) Hypothetical Peak Parking Demand Utilizing the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit), hypothetical peak parking demand estimates were made for the proposed expanded development site. The parking demand estimates shown in Table 4 indicate The Crest Apartments site could be expected to exhibit a hypothetical peak parking demand of 145 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 171 units under proposed conditions. With a total proposed parking supply of 195 stalls, a 50-stall (34.5 percent) parking surplus would be expected under the estimated hypothetical peak parking demand. Therefore, the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate in accommodating parking demand generated by both the modified existing and new apartment buildings onsite. Consequently, no impacts to surrounding properties and/or roadways are anticipated. Furthermore, the 14-stall “proof of parking” lot is not expected to be necessary. Table 4. The Crest Apartments – Proposed Conditions Parking Demand Estimates Land Use Size (Occupied Dwelling Units) Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) 123 2 104 48 3 41 145 195 50 34.5% 4. Proposed total parking stalls = 164 surface parking stalls + 31 garage parking stalls 1. Peak parking rate based on existing parking observations = 0.84 vehicle / occupied unit Affordable Housing 1 2. Modiefied existing apartment building capacity 3. New apartment building capacity Total Peak Parking Demand Proposed Total Parking Stalls 4 Parking Surplus/Deficit Percent Parking Surplus/Deficit ALLIANT Proposed Site Plan Figure 2 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway The Crest Apartments The Crest Apartments Parking Study S h in g le C r e e k P a r k w a y 164 surface lot stalls surface stalls 14 proof of parking 31 garage stalls 48 units 123 units Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 7 Summary and Conclusions The following summary and conclusions are offered for consideration: • Existing parking observations at The Crest Apartments documented a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles. Given an apartment occupancy of 117 units at the time of parking data collection, the observed peak parking demand of 98 vehicles equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicle/occupied unit. o At this observed peak parking rate, a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles could be expected to utilize the existing surface parking lot under a scenario in which all 122 apartment units are occupied. Under this hypothetical full occupancy scenario, a parking surplus of approximately 30 stalls would be anticipated within the existing surface parking lot. • Parking demand estimates were also completed based on applicable rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition (ITE PGM). The ITE PGM based parking demand estimates indicate that The Crest Apartments would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 95 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 122 units. The ITE PGM based peak parking demand estimates equate to a peak parking rate of 0.78 vehicle/occupied unit. This rate is lower than the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit). Therefore, parking demand estimates for the proposed conditions were based on the observed peak parking rate. • Upon completion of The Crest Apartments expansion project, the property is expected to consist of a total of 171 apartment units (123 in modified existing building + 48 new) and 195 parking stalls (164 surface + 31 garage). • Utilizing the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit), hypothetical peak parking demand estimates were made for the proposed expanded development. At a full apartment occupancy of 171 units, The Crest Apartments development site could be expected to exhibit a hypothetical peak parking demand of 145 vehicles under proposed conditions. With a total proposed parking supply of 195 stalls, a 50-stall (34.5 percent) parking surplus would be expected under the estimated hypothetical peak parking demand. o Therefore, the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate in accommodating parking demand generated by both the modified existing and new apartment buildings onsite. Consequently, no impacts to surrounding properties and/or roadways are anticipated. Furthermore, a 14-stall “proof of parking” lot is not expected to be necessary. P I E R C E P I N I & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M STORMWATER CALCULATIONS FOR AEON CREST II APARTMENTS Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 May 11, 2021 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. 41333 05/11/2021 Name: Rhonda S. Pierce Reg. No. Date Exhibit E – 2 – 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M INDEX 1. DRAINAGE NARRATIVE 2. STORMWATER CALCULATIONS a. DRAINAGE AREA SUMMARY b. STORMWATER RATE SUMMARY 3. DRAINAGE MAPS a. EXISTING CONDITIONS b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 4. HYDROCAD REPORTS a. EXISTING CONDITIONS b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 5. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Aeon Crest II Apartment Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #20-046 Page 1 of 2 STORMWATER MANGEMENT NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The existing site is located along Shingle Creek. It has an apartment building, surface parking lot and trails currently on-site. A portion of the site is located in the flood plain. Currently no stormwater management exists on-site with all drainage going into the City storm sewer that flows into Shingle Creek. The approximate disturbed area (including future parking) is 146,051 SF with 60,473 SF of impervious area. The existing soils on-site consist of sands, silty clays and organics. Groundwater was found in the borings between 833.50 and 839.50. Infiltration will not be used as the project does not meet the minimum 3’ of separation between the bottom of the stormwater system and the groundwater elevation requirement. Proposed Conditions The proposed project consists of constructing a second apartment building to the West and reconstructing the parking lot. This will require a flood plain analysis to determine the extent that the floodplain will be modified. The floodplain calculations will be finalized going forward. The proposed impervious area for the entire site is approximately 96,755 SF which is an increase of 36,282 SF. This number includes the area for future parking of 4,604 SF that is counted as impervious in the stormwater calculations. Stormwater Management The Local Governing Unit for stormwater is the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the City of Brooklyn Center. The city requirements match those of the watershed. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Requirements: 1. Rate Control – Runoff rates for the project site area shall not exceed existing rates for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events using Atlas 14 precipitation events. 2. Water Quality – 85% Total Suspended Solids Control (TSS) Removal and 60% Total Phosphorus (TP) Removal. 3. Water Quality Volume – 1.0” rain event runoff generated from impervious surface area. 4. The 100 High Water Elevation of the BMP must have at least two vertical feet of separation between low openings of structures Aeon Crest II Apartment Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #20-046 Page 2 of 2 5. Drawdown Time – When using infiltration for volume reduction, runoff must be infiltrated within 48 hours using accepted BMPs for infiltration. The proposed building and the reconstructed parking lot will be collected and sent to an underground stormwater storage system consisting of 48” Duromaxx pipe. This system then connects to a media filter vault that treats the water to remove 85% TSS and 70% P. The volume treated is equal to 1.3” over all disturbed impervious surfaces including the future parking area. An external bypass is used to allow storms larger than the water quality volume to flow downstream without impacting the media filter vault. The outlet then connects to the 72” City storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. This system will reduce the existing rates from the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events. See the following page for existing and proposed rates and water quality volume calculations. The peak elevation for the 100-year storm event is 842.37’. This provides more than two feet of separation between the 100-year peak elevation and the low floor opening of the existing and proposed buildings. See the following pages for the stormwater calculations. Sediment and Erosion Control Silt fence, catch basin inserts and bio-logs will be placed within the site and along the perimeter of the disturbed construction area prior to construction to prevent sediment displacement from the site into the city street and storm sewer. A rock construction entrance will be established and site street sweeping performed throughout construction to address tracking from the site. Soils stockpiles will be covered when not used for more than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to prevent windblown sediment from transporting off-site. Permanent erosion control will consist of sod and pavement. Slopes and swales will be stabilized with a heavy-duty erosion control mat designed for the intended area. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared and will be implemented for the project. EX1 21750 80 56500 98 78250 93 EX2 59580 80 3617 98 63197 81 EX3 4248 80 356 98 4604 81 Total 85578 80 60473 98 146051 87 EX1 5.91 9.48 17.39 EX2 3.02 5.92 12.82 EX2 0.22 0.43 0.93 P1 16647 80 67559 98 84206 94 P2 32649 80 6852 98 39501 83 P3 0 80 17740 98 17740 98 P4 0 80 4604 98 4604 98 Total 49296 80 96755 98 146051 92 1P (P1,P3,P4)0.60 1.47 8.69 P2 2.09 3.95 8.28 CN ValueDrainage Area Impervious Area [SF]CN Value 100-Year Event (cfs) Proposed Conditions Rates CN Value Total Area [SF] 10-Year Event (cfs) Proposed Conditions 100-Year Event (cfs) Existing Conditions Rates CN Value Drainage Area 2-Year Event (cfs) Drainage Area 2-Year Event (cfs)10-Year Event (cfs) Pervious Area [SF] Aeon Crest II Stormwater Calculations PN: 20-046 Date: 05/11/21 Drainage Area Pervious Area [SF] Existing Conditions Impervious Area [SF]CN Value Total Area [SF]CN Value 2-Year Event 9.15 2.69 10-Year Event 15.83 5.42 100-Year Event 31.14 16.97 1P 85,299 9,241 UG 48" CMP 11923 2,682 11923 10482 1441 Excess Volume Total Site Provided Volume (CF)= Total Site Required Volume (CF)= Total Site Excess Volume (CF)= Treatment System Impervious Area (SF) to System Required Volume* (CF)Stormwater Management BMP Treatment Volume (CF) Water Quality Volume Treatement Amount Total Site Impervious Area (SF)Total Site Required Volume (Imp. Area * (1.3"/12)96755 10482 Total Runoff Rate Summary Table Stormwater Event Existing Conditons (cfs) Proposed Conditons (cfs) Existing Conditions EX1 Parking Lot EX2 Green Space EX3 Future Parking 1R Total Runoff Routing Diagram for Stormwater Model Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 5/10/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.965 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (EX1, EX2, EX3) 1.388 98 Paved parking, HSG D (EX1, EX2, EX3) 3.353 87 TOTAL AREA Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 3.353 HSG D EX1, EX2, EX3 0.000 Other 3.353 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.10"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=5.91 cfs 0.315 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=3.02 cfs 0.144 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.22 cfs 0.010 af Inflow=9.13 cfs 0.469 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=9.13 cfs 0.469 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.469 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.68" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 5.91 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af, Depth= 2.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 3.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.144 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.68" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 9.13 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.469 af Outflow = 9.13 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.469 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.47"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=9.48 cfs 0.520 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.34"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=5.92 cfs 0.283 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.34"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.43 cfs 0.021 af Inflow=15.78 cfs 0.824 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=15.78 cfs 0.824 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.824 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.95" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 9.48 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.520 af, Depth= 3.47" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 5.92 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.283 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.021 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.95" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 15.78 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.824 af Outflow = 15.78 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.824 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.63"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=17.39 cfs 0.992 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.23"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=12.82 cfs 0.633 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.23"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.93 cfs 0.046 af Inflow=31.02 cfs 1.671 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=31.02 cfs 1.671 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 1.671 af Average Runoff Depth = 5.98" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 17.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.992 af, Depth= 6.63" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 12.82 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.633 af, Depth= 5.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.93 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Depth= 5.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.98" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 31.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.671 af Outflow = 31.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.671 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Proposed Conditions P1 Parking Lot P2 West Site P3 Building P4 Future Parking 2R Total Runoff 1P 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Routing Diagram for Stormwater Model Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 5/10/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.132 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (P1, P2) 2.221 98 Paved parking, HSG D (P1, P2, P3, P4) 3.353 92 TOTAL AREA Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 3.353 HSG D P1, P2, P3, P4 0.000 Other 3.353 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.20"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=6.57 cfs 0.354 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.32"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=2.09 cfs 0.100 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.61"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=1.52 cfs 0.089 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.61"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=0.39 cfs 0.023 af Inflow=2.69 cfs 0.565 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=2.69 cfs 0.565 af Peak Elev=840.85' Storage=9,498 cf Inflow=8.48 cfs 0.465 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=0.60 cfs 0.465 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.565 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.02" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 6.57 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.354 af, Depth= 2.20" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 2.09 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.100 af, Depth= 1.32" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 1.52 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Depth= 2.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 0.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.023 af, Depth= 2.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.565 af Outflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.565 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault [87] Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt or Finer Routing (severity=11) Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.28" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 8.48 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af Outflow = 0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 840.85' @ 13.17 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 9,498 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 124.4 min ( 899.1 - 774.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs HW=839.51' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.60 cfs of 1.54 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.58"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=10.39 cfs 0.577 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.51"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=3.95 cfs 0.190 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.02"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=2.30 cfs 0.137 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.02"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=0.60 cfs 0.035 af Inflow=4.55 cfs 0.939 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=4.55 cfs 0.939 af Peak Elev=841.48' Storage=15,741 cf Inflow=13.29 cfs 0.749 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=1.47 cfs 0.749 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.939 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.36" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 10.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.577 af, Depth= 3.58" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 3.95 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.190 af, Depth= 2.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 2.30 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.137 af, Depth= 4.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 0.60 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth= 4.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.36" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 4.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.939 af Outflow = 4.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.939 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault [87] Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt or Finer Routing (severity=14) Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.67" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 13.29 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af Outflow = 1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 30.5 min Primary = 1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 841.48' @ 12.67 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 15,741 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 170.7 min ( 937.0 - 766.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs HW=841.48' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.47 cfs of 18.39 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.87 cfs @ 2.09 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.75"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=18.85 cfs 1.087 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.46"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=8.28 cfs 0.413 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.22"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=4.05 cfs 0.245 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.22"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=1.05 cfs 0.064 af Inflow=11.87 cfs 1.808 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=11.87 cfs 1.808 af Peak Elev=842.37' Storage=24,527 cf Inflow=23.96 cfs 1.395 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=8.69 cfs 1.395 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 1.808 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.47" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 18.85 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.087 af, Depth= 6.75" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 8.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.413 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 4.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.245 af, Depth= 7.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 1.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Depth= 7.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.47" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 11.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.808 af Outflow = 11.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.808 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.84" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 23.96 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af Outflow = 8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 10.7 min Primary = 8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 842.37' @ 12.34 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 24,527 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 128.3 min calculated for 1.395 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 128.3 min ( 884.3 - 756.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs HW=842.37' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 8.69 cfs of 23.29 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.09 cfs @ 3.84 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 4.00 0.05 0 839.50 0.05 6.00 0.14 0 839.50 0.14 8.00 0.24 0 839.50 0.24 10.00 0.56 2 839.51 0.56 12.00 10.46 9,683 840.87 0.60 14.00 0.68 15,426 841.45 1.33 16.00 0.34 12,733 841.18 0.64 18.00 0.27 10,567 840.96 0.60 20.00 0.20 7,921 840.69 0.60 22.00 0.12 4,755 840.33 0.60 24.00 0.05 1,071 839.80 0.60 26.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 28.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 32.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 34.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 36.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 38.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 42.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 44.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 46.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 48.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 52.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 54.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 56.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 58.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 62.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 64.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 66.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 68.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 72.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 839.50 0 839.55 75 839.60 212 839.65 389 839.70 597 839.75 831 839.80 1,088 839.85 1,365 839.90 1,661 839.95 1,974 840.00 2,303 840.05 2,646 840.10 3,002 840.15 3,371 840.20 3,752 840.25 4,143 840.30 4,544 840.35 4,956 840.40 5,376 840.45 5,804 840.50 6,240 840.55 6,684 840.60 7,134 840.65 7,591 840.70 8,054 840.75 8,522 840.80 8,995 840.85 9,473 840.90 9,956 840.95 10,443 841.00 10,933 841.05 11,426 841.10 11,923 841.15 12,422 841.20 12,923 841.25 13,426 841.30 13,931 841.35 14,437 841.40 14,944 841.45 15,451 841.50 15,959 841.55 16,467 841.60 16,975 841.65 17,482 841.70 17,988 841.75 18,493 841.80 18,996 841.85 19,497 841.90 19,996 841.95 20,492 842.00 20,986 842.05 21,476 842.10 21,963 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 842.15 22,445 842.20 22,923 842.25 23,397 842.30 23,865 842.35 24,328 842.40 24,785 842.45 25,235 842.50 25,678 842.55 26,115 842.60 26,543 842.65 26,963 842.70 27,374 842.75 27,776 842.80 28,167 842.85 28,547 842.90 28,916 842.95 29,273 843.00 29,616 843.05 29,944 843.10 30,257 843.15 30,553 843.20 30,831 843.25 31,088 843.30 31,322 843.35 31,530 843.40 31,706 843.45 31,842 843.50 31,919 843.55 31,919 843.60 31,919 843.65 31,919 843.70 31,919 843.75 31,919 843.80 31,919 843.85 31,919 843.90 31,919 843.95 31,919 844.00 31,919 IOWA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation: Proposed Crest Apartments 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota CVT# 18020.21.MNT Prepared for: Ms. Leslie Roering Senior Real Estate Developer Aeon Certification: I hereby certify that this 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. Matthew J. Reisdorfer, PE Geotechnical Engineer License Number 52032 Date: April 7, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Testing • 245 Roselawn Ave. E., Suite #29, St. Paul, MN 55117 • Telephone (651) 756-7384 • stpaul@cvtesting.com Ms. Leslie Roering April 7, 2021 Senior Real Estate Developer Aeon 901 North 3rd Street, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55401 lroering@aeon.org Re: Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN CVT Project Number: 18020.21.MNT Dear Ms. Roering: We have completed the design phase geotechnical evaluation authorized for the proposed Crest Apartments in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. This letter briefly summarizes the findings and analysis detailed in the attached geotechnical report. Summary of Boring Results Borings: At the surface, the borings encountered about ½ to 1 foot of topsoil. The topsoil consisted mostly of slightly organic sand with silt. Sand fill was met below the topsoil in the northeast, east-central and southern building borings, while silt fill and clay fill were met within the west-central and center building borings. The fill materials were encountered to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet. Buried topsoil was met below the sand fill in the east- central boring to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill sand was met below the topsoil in the northwest building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. The material was judged to be possible fill as they varied in color and characteristics to that of the native soils encountered at the site, but lacked any obvious indicators, such as debris and organics. Below the topsoil layer in the north-central building boring and stormwater borings as well as below the fill, possible fill and buried topsoil layers, the borings were dominated by clean sand and sand with silt, to depths of about 9 to 24.9 feet below the surface. Silty sand and silty clayey sand was met below the clean sand and sand with silt layers in the southeast building boring and the stormwater borings. These borings terminated in silty sand and silty clayey sand at depths of about 11 to 24.9 feet below the surface. The remaining borings terminated in clean sand and sand with silt at depths of about 24.9 feet below the surface. Crest Apartments April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Groundwater: Water was observed in all of the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The water levels observed corresponds to elevations of about 833 ½ to 839 ½ feet on the datum used to locate the borings. Water levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal weather patterns, along with water levels in nearby streams and rivers. Summary of Analysis and Recommendations The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. Frost-depth footings are expected to bear upon native sands or engineered fill overlying native sands. With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. Based on this design bearing pressure, total post-construction settlements are expected to be 1 inch or less, and differential settlement is expected to be ½ inch or less between footings that are similarly loaded. Crest Apartments April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Remarks For more details of our analysis and recommendations, please see the attached report. We appreciate the opportunity to help you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us at (651) 756-7384. Sincerely, Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Hannah Fischer Graduate Geological Engineer Matt Reisdorfer, PE General Manager/Geotechnical Engineer _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 2 A.1. Purpose ______________________________________________________________________ 2 A.2. Scope ________________________________________________________________________ 2 A.3. Boring Locations _______________________________________________________________ 2 A.4. Geologic Background ___________________________________________________________ 2 B. Exploration Results _________________________________________________________ 3 B.1. Stratification __________________________________________________________________ 3 B.2. Penetration and Laboratory Test Data _____________________________________________ 4 B.3. Ground Water Data ____________________________________________________________ 4 C. Design Information _________________________________________________________ 5 D. Analysis __________________________________________________________________ 5 E. Building Recommendations __________________________________________________ 6 E.1. General Grading Recommendations _______________________________________________ 6 E.1.a. Over-Excavations _____________________________________________________________________ 6 E.1.b. Geotechnical Review of Bearing Materials _________________________________________________ 6 E.1.c. Oversizing ___________________________________________________________________________ 6 E.1.d. Filling and Compaction ________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2. Building Design ________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.a. Foundation Design ____________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.b. Bearing Capacity and Settlement ________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.c. Vapor Barrier and Drainage _____________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.d. Slab Design __________________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.e. Seismic Design _______________________________________________________________________ 7 F. Paved Area Recommendations ________________________________________________ 8 F.1. Stripping and Grading ___________________________________________________________ 8 F.2. Pavement Design ______________________________________________________________ 8 F.3. Pavement Maintenance _________________________________________________________ 8 G. Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations ______________________________________ 9 H. Construction Recommendations ______________________________________________ 9 H.1. Excavation ___________________________________________________________________ 9 H.2. Groundwater/De-watering ______________________________________________________ 9 H.3. Filling and Compacting __________________________________________________________ 9 H.4. Construction Testing and Documentation _________________________________________ 10 I. Level of Care ______________________________________________________________ 10 Appendix ___________________________________________________________________ 11 Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN CVT Project Number: 18020.21.MNT April 7, 2021 A. Introduction The intent of this report is to present our findings and describe the means used to collect the data. The data was collected for a specific purpose and may not be suitable for other purposes. We should be consulted before attempting to use the data for other uses. A complete and thorough review of the entire document, including its assumptions and its appendices, should be undertaken immediately upon receipt. A.1. Purpose This geotechnical report was prepared to aid design and construction of the proposed Crest Apartment in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Our services were authorized by Ms. Leslie Roering, Senior Real Estate Developer for Aeon. A.2. Scope To provide data for analysis, a total of 10 penetration test borings were authorized. The borings were drilled to depths of about 14 ½ to 24 ½ feet. Our scope included geotechnical recommendations for design of foundations, slabs, and pavements as well as recommendations for earthwork corrections and stormwater design. A.3. Boring Locations The boring locations were indicated to Chosen Valley Testing based on a site plan provided to us by the client. The boring location sketch in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the soil borings as drilled, and was based on plotting GPS coordinates for the borings onto a satellite view of the site using Google Earth software. Ground surface elevations at the borings were measured using a laser level. The finished floor of the existing building was used as a benchmark and had an understood finished floor elevation of 846.16 feet based on the ALTANSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated December 22, 2020. A.4. Geologic Background A geotechnical report is based on subsurface data collected for the specific structure or problem. Available geologic data from the region can help interpretation of the data and is briefly summarized in this section. Geologic maps of the area indicate that the dominant soils in the area are terraced deposited sands overlying glacial till deposits of clays, silts and sands. The uppermost bedrock is commonly Jordan Sandstone and Prairie du Chien dolomite and is expected to be on the order of 100 to 150 feet below the surface. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N B. Exploration Results The borings were performed using penetration test procedures (Method of Test D1586 of the American Society for Testing and Materials). This procedure allows for the extraction of intact soil specimen from deep in the ground. With this method, a hollow-stem auger is drilled to the desired sampling depth. A 2-inch OD sampling tube is then screwed onto the end of a sampling rod, inserted through the hole in the auger's tip, and then driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped repeatedly from a height of 30 inches above the sampling rod. The sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil, unless the material is too hard. The samples are generally taken at 2½ to 5-foot intervals. The core of soil obtained is classified and logged by the driller and a representative portion is then sealed and delivered to the soils engineer for review. B.1. Stratification At the surface, the borings encountered about ½ to 1 foot of topsoil. The topsoil consisted mostly of slightly organic sand with silt. Sand fill was met below the topsoil in the northeast, east-central and southern building borings (Boring B- 3, B-6 through B-9), while silt fill and clay fill were met within the west-central and center building borings (Borings B-4 and B-5). The fill materials were encountered to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet. Buried topsoil was met below the sand fill in the east-central boring (Boring B-6) to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill sand was met below the topsoil in the northwest building boring (Boring B-1) to a depth of about 4 feet. The material was judged to be possible fill as they varied in color and characteristics to that of the native soils encountered at the site, but lacked any obvious indicators, such as debris and organics. Below the topsoil layer in the north-central building boring (Boring B-2) and stormwater borings (Borings B-10 and B-11) as well as below the fill, possible fill and buried topsoil layers, the borings were dominated by clean sand and sand with silt, to depths of about 9 to 24.9 feet below the surface. Silty sand and silty clayey sand were met below the clean sand and sand with silt layers in the southeast building boring (Boring B-9) and the stormwater borings (Borings B-10 and B-11). These borings terminated in silty sand and silty clayey sand at depths of about 11 to 24.9 feet below the surface. The remaining borings terminated in clean sand and sand with silt at depths of about 24.9 feet below the surface. The soil boring data has been summarized in the following cross-section. Please refer to the individual log of boring sheets for more detailed information. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N 815 820 825 830 835 840 845 850 855 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 Ap p r o x i m a t e E l e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Boring Number Topsoil Silt/Clay Fill Sand Fill Poss. Sand Fill Buried Topsoil Terrace Sand Silty/Clayey Sand Below Boring Apartment Building Borings North to South Desgin FFE = 849.0 feet Stormwater Borings B.2. Penetration and Laboratory Test Data The number of blows needed for the hammer to advance the penetration test sampler is an indicator of soil characteristics. The number of blows to advance the sampler 1 foot is called the penetration resistance or “N”-value. The results tend to be more meaningful for natural mineral soils, than for fill soils. In fill soils, compaction tests are more meaningful. Penetration resistance values ("N" Values) of 3 to 15 blows per foot (BPF) were recorded in the possible fill sand, terrace sand and glacial sand, indicating they were very loose to medium dense. A key to the descriptors used to qualify the relative density of soil (such as soft, stiff, loose, and dense,) can be found on the Legend to Soil Description in the Appendix. B.3. Ground Water Data Methods: During drilling, the drillers may note the presence of moisture on the sampler, in the cuttings, or in the borehole itself. These findings are reported on the boring logs. Because water levels vary with weather, time of year, and other factors, the presence or lack of water during exploration is subject to interpretation and is not always conclusive. Water was observed in all of the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The water levels observed corresponds to elevations of about 833 ½ to 839 ½ feet on the datum used to locate the borings. Water levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal weather patterns, along with water levels in nearby streams and rivers. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 5 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N C. Design Information Each structure has a different loading configuration and intensity, different grades, and different structural and performance tolerances. Therefore, the geotechnical exploration will be construed differently from one structure to another. If the initial structure should change design, we should be engaged to review these conditions with respect to the prevailing soil conditions. Without the opportunity to review any such changes, the recommendations may no longer be valid or appropriate. The project consists of constructing a 5-story, slab-on-grade apartment building. The apartment building is assumed to consist of frost-depth, cast-in-place concrete foundations with the superstructure consisting of wood framed walls, joists and trusses. Loading information was not available to us at the time of this report. The maximum wall loads are assumed to be on the order of 6 kips per linear foot or less. The maximum column loads are assumed to be on the order of 250 kips or less. Grading information was provided to us by Aeon. The finished floor elevation of the apartment building is understood to be near elevation 849.0 feet. Based on the design finished floor elevation, new fill on the order of 5 to 8 feet above existing elevations is expected to be required D. Analysis The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. Frost-depth footings are expected to bear upon native sands or engineered fill overlying native sands. With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. Based on this design bearing pressure, total post-construction settlements are expected to be 1 inch or less, and differential settlement is expected to be ½ inch or less between footings that are similarly loaded. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 6 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N E. Building Recommendations E.1. General Grading Recommendations E.1.a. Over-Excavations: The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. The following table provides further detail regarding the anticipated depths of over-excavations below the structure. Boring # Approx. Ground Surface Elev. (Feet) Approx. Depth of Over-Excavation below Ground Surface (Feet) Approx. Elev. at Bottom of Over-Excavation (Feet) B-1 841 ½ 1(4*) 840 ½ (837 ½*) B-2 840 ½ 1 839 ½ B-3 844 ½ 4 840 ½ B-4 841 ½ 6 835 ½ B-5 843 6 ½ 836 ½ B-6 843 ½ 1 ½ 842 B-7 843 4 839 B-8 843 ½ 4 839 ½ B-9 843 ½ 1 ½ 842  (x*) indicates depth of over-excavation if possible fill soils are judged to be uncontrolled fill. E.1.b. Geotechnical Review of Bearing Materials: After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. E.1.c. Oversizing: Any corrective excavations should be oversized at least 1 foot beyond the foundations for each foot of fill needed below footing grade. This over-sizing can be reduced by up to 50% if rather precise staking is present during grading, and the excavation limits can be rather precisely confirmed relative to the foundations. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 7 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N E.1.d. Filling and Compaction: For ease in compaction, we recommend using clean sand or gravel having less than 15% particles passing a number 200 sieve, as engineered structural fill below all foundations and basement slabs. The on-site native terrace sands encountered in the borings would be suitable for use as engineered fill. Furthermore, the on-site sand fill would likely meet this requirement, provided they are free of debris and organics. We recommend the upper 6 inches of engineered fill placed below slabs consist of clean sand or gravel having less than 5% particles passing a number 200 sieve. The clean sand will act as a moisture barrier to prevent moisture from coming in contact with the slab. All fill below building and oversizing areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). E.2. Building Design E.2.a. Foundation Design: For frost protection, we recommend that exterior foundations for heated structures bear on soils at least 42 inches below the exposed ground surface. Interior footings for heated structures can be placed directly below slabs. Footings for unheated structures should be placed 60 inches below the surface. E.2.b. Bearing Capacity and Settlement: With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. This capacity includes a safety factor of at least 3 against shear failure. Based on the loading information provided and implementation of our recommendations, total settlement of footings is expected be 1 inch or less. Differential settlement is expected to be on the order of ½ inch or less between similarly loaded footings. E.2.c. Vapor Barrier and Drainage: If the slab will receive coverings that are less permeable than concrete, a vapor barrier should be placed below the slab. Some contractors prefer to place this barrier below sand, to limit the potential for curling. E.2.d. Slab Design: The completed slab subgrade is expected to consist primarily of engineered granular fill overlying native sands. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction of up to 250 pounds per cubic inch for these conditions. E.2.e. Seismic Design: In accordance to the 2020 International Building Code (IBC), the site profile is considered to rate as Site Classification D. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 8 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N F. Paved Area Recommendations F.1. Stripping and Grading We recommend completely stripping the topsoil and pavement materials from areas to receive pavements. The topsoil was about ½ foot thick at the locations explored. After surface removals, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of fairly clean sand. These soils are judged to be suitable for supporting pavements. We recommend scarifying, moisture conditioning and re- compacting the subgrade with a vibratory smooth drum compactor prior to placement of new fills. If granular fill is needed, the surface receiving the granular materials should be sloped to provide positive drainage out from under the paved areas. This is intended to prevent water from ponding below the pavements and causing localized weak areas, frost boils or “bird baths.” All subgrade and subbase materials encountered within 3 feet of the bottom of pavements should be compacted to at least 98% of the soil’s standard Proctor density and should be able to pass a test roll using a fully-loaded, tandem-axle dump truck. Any fill placed below this zone should be compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s standard Proctor density. F.2. Pavement Design As mentioned, sands are expected to be the dominant materials present at subgrade elevations. These soils would be expected to have a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The proposed parking areas are assumed to receive light duty traffic. We recommend a pavement section consisting of 3 inches of bituminous (PCC) underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base for light duty traffic. These pavement sections should be considered preliminary and subject to review by the project civil engineering consultant, based on more specific traffic loading information. The above pavement sections also assumes that the subgrade has been sufficiently scarified and compacted to pass a test roll. Observation of the test roll should be documented by qualified geotechnical personnel. The necessity of scarifying and recompaction of the subgrade would be determined by the test roll. F.3. Pavement Maintenance Routine maintenance is recommended for improved pavement performance and to increase pavement life. Some thermal shrinkage cracks may develop over time; therefore, pavements should be sealed with a liquid bitumen sealer to mitigate water intrusion into the base course and subgrade sections. Localized patch failures may also develop, which should be cut out and repaired. Periodic seal coating would also help preserve and assure a longer pavement life. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 9 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N G. Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations Infiltration rates were estimated for the various materials encountered at the site. The infiltration pond borings dominantly encountered clean sand followed by silty sand and silty clayey sand. The following table presents the recommended infiltration rate per soil type from the MPCA Minnesota Storm Water Manual (updated from Version 2X). Please see the individual Log of Boring sheet in the Appendix for soil classification details at each location and depth. Unified Soil Classification System, USCS Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) Clean Sand (SP) 0.8 Silty Sand (SM) 0.45 Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM) 0.06 Double-ring infiltrometer testing could be performed to provide site specific infiltration values but was not part of our initial work scope and would need to be performed at the bottom of the infiltration structure. H. Construction Recommendations H.1. Excavation Tracked equipment is expected to be needed to complete the site stripping and corrective excavations. The backhoe with a smooth lip shovel should be used for deeper excavations, to limit disturbance to those materials left in place. H.2. Groundwater/De-watering Water was encountered in the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The majority of the corrections are expected to occur above the water levels observed in the borings. We would expect that sump pits would likely be adequate to control any moisture in the excavations. Well points will likely be required for excavations extending below the water levels observed. H.3. Filling and Compacting Fill should be placed in lifts adjusted to the compactor being used and the material being compacted. We recommend limiting lifts to no more than 12 inches for the recommended fill materials – assuming large, self-propelled or tow behind compactors are used. Compaction of the silty clays may require use of static rollers or vibratory rollers operating in static mode, due to vibration effects on soil stability. If site grading is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on soils that have frozen or contain frozen material. Frozen soils should not be used as fill. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 10 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N H.4. Construction Testing and Documentation The bottom of all excavations should be evaluated and documented by geotechnical personnel, after the unsuitable soils are removed from the building site, and before filling. Fill placed below building and paved areas should be evaluated for conformance to the project gradation recommendations and should be tested for compaction. If the filling proceeds during periods of freezing weather, full-time testing should be considered to help confirm that imported fill is thawed prior to and during compaction, and that all snow has been removed before placement of the fill. Although our firm offers testing services relating to civil and structural components of the building (such as concrete testing, reinforcement observations, etc.) specification of such services is beyond our work scope and the designer should be consulted as to such requirements. I. Level of Care The services provided for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area, under similar budget and time constraints. This is our professional responsibility. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 11 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Appendix Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring # 1-11 Legend to Soil Description N Soil Boring Location Sketch Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 18020.21.MNT Legend Boring Locations Benchmark B1 B2 B3 B6 B5 B4 BM B8 B7 B10 B9 B11 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SP SM SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 4.0 24.9 840.3 837.3 832.3 816.4 9.0 OL 1.0 11 10 10 4 6 7 11 5 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF POSSIBLE FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, fine-to-medium grained, brown, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, grayish brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-01 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-01 841.3 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 839.8 OL SP CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 0.9 24.9 7 9 815.8 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 5 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) Below 7 feet, fine grained, no Gravel, gray. Below 12 feet, fine-to-course grained, trace Gravel. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 7 8 6 7 6 7 See attached sketch. Tests and NotesElev.USCS SymbolDepth DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL BORING:B-02 18020.21.MNT 0.0 PROJECT: 840.7 L O G O F B O R I N G CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota B-02 page 1 of 1 End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. OL SP SM SP SM CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 0.5 4.0 843.8 840.3 819.4 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine grained, brown and dark brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) 24.9 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 6 9 8 9 10 10 9 8 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesElev. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL 18020.21.MNT B-03 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: Depth B-03 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING PROJECT: 844.3 L O G O F B O R I N G SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF OL OL SP SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 6.0 24.9 Below 10 feet, grayish brown. 840.7 835.7 816.8 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Slightly Organic Silt, trace Wood debris, black, wet. At 5 feet, layer of Poorly Graded Sand. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) 5 6 6 7 9 8 6 5 1.0 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 8 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-04 B-04 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 841.7 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING OL OL SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 6.5 24.9 Below 10 feet, gray. 842.0 836.4 818.0 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Slightly Organic Lean Clay, black, wet. At 5 feet, Slightly Organic Silty Sand, fine-to-medium grained, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) 9 9 8 6 7 6 8 7 0.9 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-05 B-05 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 842.9 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.3 0.4 24.9 SP SP SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 842.8 818.6 829.5 14.0 842.2 SP 843.1 834.5 SP 5 6 9.0 OL 7 7 7 15 11 10 OL 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota PROJECT: 0.7 Tests and NotesElev.USCS Symbol BPF SCALE: 1" = 3' CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING L O G O F B O R I N G 843.5 See attached sketch. LOCATION:LOCATION: Depth WL Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) DATE: 3/26/2021 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, brown. At 12 feet, no Gravel. BURIED TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt. End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. Below 7 feet, trace Gravel. At 20 feet, layer of Silty Sand. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, grayish brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. B-06 18020.21.MNT BORING: 0.0 B-06 page 1 of 1 Below 7 feet, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel. OL SP SM SP CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.0 4.0 842.1 839.1 818.2 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, dark brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine grained, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) 24.9 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 9 6 15 6 7 8 5 6 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-07 B-07 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 843.1 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SM SP SM SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 4.0 24.9 842.7 839.6 834.6 818.7 9.0 OL0.9 5 7 8 13 8 10 10 8 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown and dark brown mixed, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-08 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-08 843.6 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SP SM SC SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.7 24.9 842.7 842.0 832.2 818.8 11.5 OL 1.0 5 3 13 4 9 11 9 9 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, brown, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-09 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-09 843.7 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 825.7 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 0.4 9.0 14.9 CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 SM TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 5 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) SILTY SAND to SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. 840.2 4 7 831.6 5 9 9 11 OL SP Tests and NotesDepthElev.Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WL LOCATION:LOCATION: See attached sketch. BORING:B-10 DATE: 3/26/2021 USCS Symbol B-10 page 1 of 1 0.0 18020.21.MNT 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota BPF PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING L O G O F B O R I N G 840.6 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 0.5 9.0 14.9 CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) At 7 feet, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel. SILTY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. 833.3 5 7 827.4 7 9 10 OL SP SM Tests and NotesDepthElev.Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WL LOCATION:LOCATION: See attached sketch. 841.8 BORING:B-11 DATE: 3/26/2021 USCS Symbol B-11 page 1 of 1 0.0 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 842.3 L O G O F B O R I N G CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING PROJECT: 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota BPF GROUP SYMBOL SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR BLOWS/FOOT* CONSISTENCY SAMPLE TYPES Job No. 18020.21.MNT GRAVELS WITH FINES >12% FINES 2.0 - 4.0 OVER 4.0 TERM Trace With Modifier 0.50 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC CL ML OL CH MH OH PT CLEAN GRAVELS <5% FINES WATER LEVEL (WITH TIME OF) MEASUREMENT 0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50 OVER 50 LIQUID LIMIT (%) CH 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X ( % ) SIZE < 12 in. 3 in. - 12 in. #4 sieve to 3 in. #200 sieve to #4 sieve Passing #200 sieve TERM Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt or Clay SAND & GRAVEL CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES - - - MC OC CN DD PP RV SA P200 >50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES ON NO 4. SIEVE RELATIVE DENSITY (RECORDED AS BLOWS / 0.5 FT) CL SILT & CLAY NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D. (1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE (ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST). * BLOWS/FOOT* WELL-GRADED GRAVEL POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL WELL-GRADED SAND POORLY-GRADED SAND SILTY SAND CLAYEY SAND LEAN CLAY SILT ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT FAT CLAY ELASTIC SILT ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT PENETRATION RESISTANCE Hollow Stem LEGEND TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONS FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75 PI PLOTS >"A" LINE PI PLOTS <"A" LINE LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TSF) Chosen Valley Testing - CLEAN SANDS <5% FINES SANDS AND FINES >12% FINES INORGANIC MOISTURE CONTENT ORGANIC CONTENT CONSOLIDATION DRY DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R-VALUE SIEVE ANALYSIS % PASSING #200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT PLASTISITY INDEX SWELL TEST Unconsolidated Undrained triaxial LL PI SW UU PERCENT < 5 5 - 12 > 12 Relative Proportions of Fines Standard Penetration Test VERY SOFT SOFT RATHER SOFT MEDIUM RATHER STIFF STIFF VERY STIFF HARD UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487/2488) ML MH - - - - - - - - TEST SYMBOLS PERCENT < 15 15 - 29 > 30 ORGANIC Relative Proportions of Sand and Gravel 0 - 1 2 - 3 4 - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 30 OVER 30 INORGANIC TERM Trace With Modifier Grain Size Terminology Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3 Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3 FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH ORGANIC VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE GRAVELS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 MATERIAL TYPES Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3 Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3 CV T 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J 4 / 6 / 2 1 PEAT SANDS SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT>50 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT<50 >50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO 4. SIEVE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS CO A R S E - G R A I N E D S O I L S >5 0 % R E T A I N E D O N NO . 2 0 0 S I E V E FI N E - G R A I N E D S O I L S >5 0 % P A S S E S NO . 2 0 0 S I E V E PLASTICITY CHART "A " L I N E CL-ML C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:6/28/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng 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:Res olu#on A uthoriz ing a Community Engagement P ilot P rogram with C ommunity Partners for the O pportunity S ite Requested Council A con: – M oon to appr ove a r esoluon authorizing a community engagement pilot pr ogram with community partners for the Opportunity S ite B ackground: I n A pril 2018, the City of Brooklyn Center awarded a P reliminary D evelopment A greement to A latus for 35 acres of E DA -owned property w ithin the O pportunity S ite. I n 2019, the s cope of A latus ’ focus narrow ed to a smaller 15-acre area known as Blocks 11, 12, and 13 of the O pportunity S ite. At the s ame #me, the City took the lead on an effort to update the 2006 O pportunity S ite Mas ter plan that w ould provide an implementa#on s trategy for the full 80-acre area. The mas ter planning effort included a a public engagement process centered on developing and refining a Mas ter P lan for the en#re 80-acre area that aligns with and reflects the desires and needs expressed by local community members . The engagement proces s w as kicked-off by a s eries of workshops facilitated by L I S C that produced a final report, w ri@en by community members, outlining guiding principles for the development of the O pportunity S ite as w ell as a list of outcomes that the development might achieve. The consultant team then took the res ults of that work and w ent out into community through a series of pop-up and in-person open hous es des igned to verify and priori#z e that w ere produced in the L I S C w orks hop s eries. I n an effort to deepen engagement with underrepresented communi#es, an engagement w orking group w as formed. The group w as comprised of organiza#ons and agencies w ithin the community that were able to reach specific targeted communi#es. The goal was to co-create an engagement s trategy that w ould allow greater repres enta#onal input from the community. The goal was to enter into individual contracts with par#cipa#ng organiza#ons to have them assist with the engagement work itself. W hile this work began w ith groups like Brooklyn Bridge A lliance for Youth and individuals such as Jude Nnadi comple#ng focus ed and targeted engagement w ith the community. The pandemic dis rupted the process and engagement efforts w ere put on hold in A pril 2020. I n addi#on, there w as not agreement by all par#cipants about what the role of the working group and their responsibili#es. This caused a breakdow n in communica#on and a percep#on that there w as lack of transparency and accountability in the proces s . The City learned from this experience and endeavors to do be@er in the future. A complete summary of the master planning process and engagement w ork to date is a@ached to this report. The inten#on is to now kick-off a reboot of that work and provide an engagement strategy that addres s es the shortcomings of the ini#al engagement efforts while ensuring that thos e mos t impacted by development on the O pportunity S ite have the ability to s hape the outcomes of the project. Par#cipants of the las t Engagement Working G roup, along with community partners and council members w ere consulted as part of crea#ng this engagement framew ork. I n J anuary 2021, staff began a discussion with the City Council about w hat that engagement process might look like. At that mee#ng, the City Council and community members expressed points of par#cular concern related to the O pportunity S ite Mas ter P lan public engagement process to date, and the corresponding A latus development of Blocks 11, 12, and 13. These concerns are outlined below. O pportunity S ite M aster P lan C oncerns : Q uality and quan#ty of engagement done to date Poten#al gaps in the targeted groups and individuals included and/or informed in the public engagement process Lack of trus t in the process and the people involved Lack of clarity regarding w here the City Council is leading and/or making decis ions in the M aster P lan proces s A latus D evelopment (Blocks 11, 12, and 13) Concerns: Lack of informa#on on the preliminary development plan Confla#on of the Mas ter P lanning process and A latus site approval proces s Lack of clarity about where there are City Council touchpoints in this development approval process I n order to address thes e concerns, City engaged N EO O Partners, a firm par#cularly skilled in place-bas ed community driven development strategies , to develop a public engagement s trategy that w ill provide 1) tools for deeper levels of trans parency between the public, C ity staff, and the C ity C ouncil, and 2) clarity of the roles and res pons ibili#es of City Council, City s taff, s elected C ommunity Partners, the public, and any prospec#ve development partners . The goal for this higher level of transparency and a shared vision is to ensure that a robus t, comprehensive, and meaningful public engagement proces s happens , and that res idents, s takeholders , and the C ity C ouncil are all aware of the an#cipated community benefits from private inves tment on the O pportunity S ite. Engagement S trategy I n M arch 2021, N EO O Partners presented to the City Council a community-bas ed engagement s trategy (a@ached) that w ould empow er community partners to define the engagement tools and s trategies that w ork best for reaching their par#cular communi#es, w hile clearly defining the role and responsibility of the City Council, its s taff and consultant team in this effort. A s part of their engagement strategy, N EO O Partners iden#fied different methods of engagement, which would require different levels of investment in terms of staff #me, resources, and process #meline. N EO O Partners provided a range of engagement strategies that correlate with varying cost and #me op#ons in the table below. T he N EO O team proposed engagement efforts, which would focus on the exis#ng draG Master Plan, but more specifically the planned development along blocks 11,12, and 13 by Alatus and their development partners. T his would allow people to focus the engagement process on tangible projects, with prospec#ve partnerships and real- #me community benefits. I n addi#on, this approach allows the engagement process to func#on as a pilot, assis#ng the C ity to learn and adjust as the process unfolds, seHng benchmarks and precedents for public engagement on the en#rety of the O pportunity Site Redevelopment, as well as other future development projects in the C ity of B rooklyn C enter. T he inten#on is to do engagement in new and more community-driven ways, that has not been done before, and to learn from the process to inform future engagement efforts the C ity will undertake. Community Partner Response N EO O Partners on behalf of the C ity of Brooklyn C enter released a Request for Q ualifica#ons to solicit interested community partners to provide community engagement ac#vi#es for its O pportunity S ite. Eleven community partners responded to the reques t. N EO O Partners, the C ommunity Engagement M anager for the project, reviewed the propos als submi@ed and interview ed ten community partners who expres s ed interest in moving forward aGer learning more about the project. C ommunity partners were then as ked to s ubmit a detailed scope and itemized budget reflec#ng how they would engage the community. A total of s even organiz a#ons s ubmi@ed proposals w ith ranges from $10,000- $229,000 to provide various community engagement ac#vi#es in target communi#es. P ropos als included s trategies in all three ranges, light touch, medium touch and deep dive.= The total ask from the propos als was $553,000. D es crip#ons of each community partner organiz a#on, and a summary budget of the work, is included as an a@achment to this report. A Ger review ing the proposals N EO O Partners developed a scope of s ervices for community engagement that streamlined and structured the process. This w ould allow the Community Partners to deliver community engagement more efficiently, and eliminate duplica#ve efforts. N EO O Partners is advis ing the City of Brooklyn Center to contract w ith up to 10 community partners who are representa#ve of the divers e community w ithin the city. N EO O Partners is further as king the C ity C ouncil to cons ider a total engagement budget of $300,000 to be dis pers ed contractually to community partners to perform certain engagement ac#vi#es over a five month period occurring J uly 1- D ecember 1. This w ill allow flexibility to deliver community engagement in an itera#ve w ay, and make adjus tments as the proces s unfolds to ensure there are no gaps. A C E R has submi@ed a proposal to assist N EO O Partners and the C ity with coordina#on of the process, and to fill in the gaps related to demographic targeted groups, as they become apparent. They will als o convene the C i#zen A dvisory Tas kforce as part of their role. A separate contract w ould be provided to A C E R to conduct this w ork. At least one contract w ill be issued to a community partner to develop, design, and market the engagement ac#vity in coordina#on with the other community partners. This w ill ensure consistent mes s aging and branding, and eliminate the need to duplicate this task among the community partners. This s cope of work is a@ached to this report. The balance of the organiz a#ons w ill fall under a Community Partner s cope of work (a@ached). The average engagement contract for each community partner organiz a#on w ould be $25,000 to $40,000 and is w ithin the range of standard for this level of engagement work. A@ached are draG engagement scopes that list the community engagement ac#vi#es that the community partners w ill be expected to perform. A ddi#onally, here is the propos ed #meline of engagement ac#vi#es from J uly 1 to D ecember 1, 2021. This is an extended #meline from that which was pres ented by N EO O Partners in M arch, which had the engagement wrapping up in A ugust. The process has been delayed due to the recent civil unres t, and community partners reques ted addi#onal #me to do their work. the development team has agreed that the engagement is a cri#cal process and has in turn delayed their land use s ubmission #meline to align with the engagement #ming. Recommendaon N EO O Partners is recommending that the City Council authorize a budget of up to $300,000 to contract w ith up to 10 community partner organiz a#ons in order to deliver the community engagement s trategy. The authoriz a#on w ould allow flexibility to work in an itera#ve w ay w ith the community partners to ensure that the process is broad sweeping, yet efficient. B udget I ssues: S taff is s eeking up to $300,000 from the T I F 3 fund to support this community engagement s trategy. I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: The purpos e of this reques t is to deliver a deep and meaningful community engagement proces s w hich focus es on those res idents mos t likely to be impacted by the development. A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: S trategic Priories and Values: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type D escrip#on of C ommunity Partners 6/9/2021 Backup M aterial Budget Range 6/8/2021 Backup M aterial M arke#ng C ommunity Partner S cope of Work 6/8/2021 Backup M aterial C ommunity Partner S cope of Work 6/8/2021 Backup M aterial Engagement Narra#ve 3/4/2021 Backup M aterial 190004 P ublic Engagement 3/4/2021 Backup M aterial Res olu#on 6/14/2021 Resolu#on Le@er Description of Community Partners Brooklyn Center Opportunity Site Mwanyagetinge Org. is a 501c3 organization that aims to provide services to the Kenyan immigrant community in Minnesota. A significant number resides within Brooklyn Center. We strive to significantly improve the well-being of all members through education, economic development, social and welfare programs, sustainable partnerships, and advocacy. Minnesota Africans United operates within community engagement work by collaborating with sub-contractors that represent different African nations that are represented in Minnesota. For this particular work, we will sub-contract with the following groups: Off the Blue Couch, Peace Global Health Foundation, Ignite Business Investment Women’s Group, Christ United Methodist Church, Twin Cities African Center of Influence/Kenya Community, Cavalla Travel and Tour, MBJ Fashion, MJ Accent, Saint Alphonsus Catholic Church, Brooklyn Center, and Triumph Graphics. Minnesota Institute for Nigerian Development (MIND) is the umbrella organization representing all Nigerians in the State of Minnesota. In other words, MIND is the representative of many other Nigerian ethnic cultural organizations. The organization draws its membership from all Nigerian ethnic cultural groups living in Minnesota MAC Minnesota African Coalition has evolved to be a reliable partner to the city of Brooklyn Center and fierce advocate of the marginalized communities in the city. MAC has hands-on experience working with African immigrant community groups that have been historically marginalized, and left out of traditional community engagement and public planning processes. We have built trust with these communities through continuous collaboration and interactions with community organizations, businesses, individuals, troubled youths, concerned mothers, single moms, leaders, and involvement in small and big community-based projects. MAC wil also be partnering with PAADIO to provide engagement activities. LIBA-Diaspora was founded to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of Liberian-owned and minority business in the diaspora while working to preserve free competitive enterprise. We engage in advocacy, partnerships and projects that promote entrepreneurship, build business capacities and foster dialogue on economic development and private sector issues and challenges; with the goal of promoting solutions and best practices that lead to sustained economic growth and private sector empowerment. Empire Smile as a culturally responsive media agency that educates, informs, and promotes community events/news using three major formats. Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth will focus and center young adults (aged 15 – 25 years old) who live or attend school in Brooklyn Center. Additionally, we plan to hire at least four students (Youth Organizing Team [YOT]) to help lead, design, facilitate, coordinate, and organize youth. These students will be local and be a mix of high school and college-aged youth. Paadio Consulting is a social enterprise focused on economic inclusion programs for racial equity. We specialize in community engagement, micro business development, and wealth building, specifically for underrepresented communities - African immigrants and the larger BIPOC population. Our presence is embedded in Brooklyn Center, which gives us a local perspective within one of the most diverse communities in the midwest. Breakdown of Activities and Costs Per Community Partner Study Area Map $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Community Profile $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Flyers Design and Dissemination $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Surveys Design and Disseminaton $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Questionanaires Design and Dissemination $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 Video Content for Advertising $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Audio Content for On-Air advertising $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Conduct Community-wide Meetings (range 2-4) $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $8,000.00 Conduct Focus Group Meetings (range 2-5) $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $13,000.00 Engagement at one Community Event $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 Pictures taken at event $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 Attend four monthly partner check in meetings $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 Total $25,000.00 $32,500.00 $36,000.00 $2,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $2,500.00 $200.00 $800.00 $40,000.00 The City of Brooklyn Center is partnering with a pool of qualified community partners to lead and implement a variety of community engagement activities from targeted demographic groups. Feedback solicited through the engagement process will inform and shape the Opportunity Site Pilot Project. The community engagement activities will also inform future public and private investments and shape a Community Benefits Plan, which will outline how the Opportunity Site can achieve identified metrics that will support a local thriving community. In order to ensure that the Opportunity Site benefits existing and future residents it is imperative that a diverse and representative cross section of the community is able to provide input on the plan. The following scope outlines the tasks and deliverables. Project Details The Pilot Project consists of the proposed development of approximately 15 acres located within the 85 acre Opportunity Site. The Pilot Project Development Team is led by the development company, Alatus working in partnership with Project for Pride in Living and Resurrecting Faith World Ministries. The proposed plan for the Pilot Project includes a mix of housing, small business incubator space, and community amenities, such as an event center, public plaza, and public art. The purpose of the community engagement activities is to provide input on the proposed development strategy to ensure it meets the current and future community needs and influence additional potential uses of the site. Scope Task 1: Develop and Disseminate Collateral Materials Community Partners will develop content and design for the Brooklyn Center Opportunity Site for distribution across social media platforms, email, city website, and for print. Community Partners will also post and/or distribute content and materials across its social media platforms and by email. Community Partnerswill provide materials to the city and other community partners for dissemination. Deliverable: Flyers, Surveys, Questionnaires in an electronic file compatible for upload to instagram, Facebook, whats app, website, email and for print. Timeframe: July 1, 2021 Task 2: Coordinate and Manage Marketing Across Various Local Platforms Community Partners will work with local media agencies to market projects. This includes providing audio or video content to local broadcast stations, spotify or other identified podcast/radio productions, and youtube channels. Deliverable: Microsoft Word Document Timeframe: Ongoing Monthly/ Bi-weekly throughout the project period Task 3: Develop Video and Audio Content for distribution Community Partners will develop video and audio content for distribution across various platforms. The content will be used to increase community engagement and create excitement surrounding the pilot project. Community Partners will develop one audio file and two video files. The video file will include content about the opportunity site and a call to action for community engagement. The second video file will include content reflecting the actual engagement activities such as footage from town hall meetings and feedback. Deliverables: Audio file, Video files Timeline: November 1, 2021 Task 4: Solicit community input and feedback pertaining to the development of the Pilot Project Site Community Partners will solicit community input and feedback from targeted demographic groups during community engagement activities and additional engagement activities where applicable such as comments left under videos posted on youtube, facebook, or during podcasts. Community Partners will capture input and compile into a written report, summarizing engagement activities and results of input. Deliverable: Report compiling data (template will be provided)collected. A report must be submitted following each community engagement activity. Timeline: November 1, 2021 Task 5: Reporting and Administration Community Partners will provide monthly status reports that include milestones reached, challenges encountered, and next steps. Community partners will also provide a monthly itemized invoice. Community partners are required to attend the Project Kickoff Meeting to discuss the project and scope of work in detail. Meeting attendees are the Project Development Team including the Community Engagement Manager and City Staff. Community Partners are encouraged to come with questions. Community partners must also attend partner check-in meetings with the Community Engagement Manager, NEOO Partners. It is anticipated that three partner check-in meetings will be held throughout the project period. However, additional meetings may be required including those with city officials. Deliverable: Progress report in Microsoft Word, Itemized Invoice Timeline: Tentative dates: Kickoff July 7, Partner Check-In August 10, Partner Check-In September 14, Partner Check-In October 12 City Council/Public Release December 2021 The City of Brooklyn Center is partnering with a pool of qualified community partners to lead and implement a variety of community engagement activities from targeted demographic groups. Feedback solicited through the engagement process will inform and shape the Opportunity Site Pilot Project. The community engagement activities will also inform future public and private investments and shape a Community Benefits Plan, which will outline how the Opportunity Site can achieve identified metrics that will support a local thriving community. In order to ensure that the Opportunity Site benefits existing and future residents it is imperative that a diverse and representative cross section of the community is able to provide input on the plan. The following scope outlines the tasks and deliverables. Project Details The Pilot Project consists of the proposed development of approximately 15 acres located within the 85 acre Opportunity Site. The Pilot Project Development Team is led by the development company, Alatus working in partnership with Project for Pride in Living and Resurrecting Faith World Ministries. The proposed plan for the Pilot Project includes a mix of housing, small business incubator space, and community amenities, such as an event center, public plaza, and public art. The purpose of the community engagement activities is to provide input on the proposed development strategy to ensure it meets current and future community needs and influence additional potential uses of the site. Scope Task 1: Identify Neighborhood Engagement Targeted Study Area Community Partners will provide a targeted neighborhood map and/or neighborhood street boundaries that clearly identifies where community engagement activities will take place. Deliverable: Neighborhood map, written street boundaries of engagement area Timeframe: July 1, 2021 Task 2: Develop Community Profile that is reflective of the Neighborhood Study Area Community Partners will develop a community profile of the targeted demographic group that includes neighborhood population, age profile grouped in the following categories (> 25, 25-55, 56-70, >70 year old), race/ethic group. Deliverable: Microsoft Word Document Timeframe: November 1, 2021 Task 3: Facilitate Community Engagement Activities Community partners will engage in and lead four community engagement activities and at least one additional engagement activity throughout the course of the project. The goal is to solicit input from at least 10 percent of the targeted demographic group. Community Partners will engage in the following activities: A. Two Neighborhood-wide meetings a. One neighborhood-wide meeting will be held to introduce the project, goals, and process b. One neighborhood-wide meeting will be held to solicit community input B. Two Focus Group Meetings a. Two focus group meeting will be held to solicit comments using surveys and questionnaires C. Additional Engagement Activities such as dissemination of surveys, flyers, and questionnaires at community events, such as festivals, churches, and through online forums Deliverables: Pictures taken at event, sign-in sheets, agenda, and powerpoint presentations Timeline: November 1, 2021 Task 4: Solicit community input and feedback pertaining to the development of the Pilot Project Site Community Partners will solicit community input and feedback from targeted demographic groups during community engagement activities and additional engagement activities. Community Partners will capture input and compile into a written report, summarizing engagement activities and results of input. Deliverable: Report compiling data (template will be provided) using surveys and questionnaires. A report must be submitted following each community engagement activity. Timeline: November 1, 2021 Task 5: Reporting and Administration Community Partners will provide monthly status reports that include milestones reached, challenges encountered, and next steps. Community partners will also provide a monthly itemized invoice. Community partners are required to attend the Project Kickoff Meeting to discuss the project and scope of work in detail. Meeting attendees are the Project Development Team including the Community Engagement Manager and City Staff. Community Partners are encouraged to come with questions. Community partners must also attend partner check-in meetings with the Community Engagement Manager, NEOO Partners. It is anticipated that three partner check-in meetings will be held throughout the project period. However, additional meetings may be required including those with city officials. Deliverable: Progress report in Microsoft Word, Itemized Invoice Timeline: Tentative dates: Kickoff July 7, Partner Check-In August 10, Partner Check-In September 14, Partner Check-In October 12 City Council/Public Release December 2021 Additionally, below is the scope of work to be performed by ACER. ACER will fill in the present gaps in communities that are not represented. Recruit additional organizations from the SE Asian and Latinx communities. • Provide technical assistance to these community groups in conducting community engagement. Convene Citizen Advisory Taskforce • Design process for Citizen Advisory Taskforce • Recruit members of the CAT through open community process • Level set the CAT on the Opportunity Site Development • Apply iterative process between the CAT and the community engagement to ensure that the voices of community are being heard and are accurately represented at this table • Receive engagement reports • Distill engagement reports to provide informed options on: - equity development scorecard - Community Benefits Plan • Provide options for ongoing engagement / oversight processes after September Community Engagement • Conduct 4 focus groups Pools of people to engage: • Residents – Renter community • Local Business owners • Local organizations • Regional Stakeholders Recruitment, level setting of organizations and providing technical assistance and tools: Recruitment – 40 hours @ $35/hr Level setting & Technical assistance – 40 hours @ $50/hr Community Engagement: Outreach – 30 hours @ $35/hr Facilitation – 12 hours @ $70/hr Citizen Advisory Taskforce: Design – 30 hours @ $50/hr Recruitment – 30 hours @ $35/hr Meeting preparation, documentation & Reporting – 50 hours @ $50/hr Facilitation – 40 hours @ $70/hr 1 BROOKLYN CENTER MASTER PLAN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT NARRATIVE 1. Problem Statement In April 2018, the City of Brooklyn Center awarded a Preliminary Development Agreement to Alatus for 35 acres of EDA-owned property within the Opportunity Site. In 2019, the scope of Alatus’ focus narrowed to a smaller 15-acre area known as Blocks 11, 12, and 13 of the Opportunity Site. Additionally, since early 2019, the City, along with its consultant team, have spearheaded a public engagement process centered on developing and refining a Master Plan for the entire 80-acre area known as the Opportunity Site that aligns with and reflects the desires and needs expressed by local community members. In January 2021, the City Council expressed points of particular concern related to the Opportunity Site Master Plan public engagement process to date, and the corresponding Alatus development of Blocks 11, 12, and 13. These concerns are outlined below. Opportunity Site Master Plan Concerns: ● Quality and quantity of engagement done to date ● Potential gaps in the targeted groups and individuals included and/or informed in the public engagement process ● Lack of trust in the process and the people involved ● Lack of clarity regarding where the City Council is leading and/or making decisions in the Master Plan process Alatus Development (Blocks 11, 12, and 13) Concerns: ● Lack of information on the preliminary development plan ● Conflation of the Master Planning process and Alatus site approval process ● Lack of clarity about where there are City Council touchpoints in this development approval process 2 2. Macro Strategy In order to address these concerns, City staff is working in consultation with NEOO Partners to develop a public engagement strategy that will provide 1) tools for deeper levels of transparency between the public, City staff, and the City Council, and 2) clarity of the roles and responsibilities of City Council, City staff, selected Community Partners, the public, and any prospective development partners. The goal for this higher level of transparency and a shared vision is to ensure that a robust, comprehensive, and meaningful public engagement process happens, and that residents, stakeholders, and the City Council are all aware of the anticipated community benefits from private investment on the Opportunity Site. The following pages outline a proposed Master Plan Public Engagement Framework developed and led by NEOO Partners, the Engagement Manager, to guide the City through a process and enable concrete decisions to be made about the appropriate engagement process, timeline, and monetary investment. Additionally, this framework seeks to aid the City Council in establishing specific parameters regarding the content for engagement and the goals related to the metrics that will measure robust community input in the Master Plan process. 3. Role of the Engagement Manager NEOO Partners is a burgeoning local MBE with a growing national practice at the intersection of community engagement, commercial real estate development, and urban planning. The firm uses a Racial Equity and an Environmental Restorative Development framework to center their work on people through a place-based strategy lens. A core element of their work is community engagement. The NEOO Partners team believes that community engagement is best done through a capacity building framework called “Raise the B.A.R.R.'' This framework builds upon the idea that community members are the best people to engage their communities. The NEOO Partners team also holds that community engagement has traditionally been done in an extractive manner where community members give all sorts of information to organizations and in return they receive little value or personal capacity building in the process. This is why the B.A.R.R. model represents a shift in thinking about community engagement. B. = Balance: In almost every community the aspirations for “what could be?” typically outpace the availability of financial resources or technical expertise to make it happen. In this portion of work, the NEOO team focuses on creating balance in the mind of community members and community partners between Reality and Aspirations. 3 A.= Awareness: Secondly, most community members tend to have affinity towards certain programs, event spaces, and places of commerce. This preference has the tendency to impair individuals’ ability to see other locations which provide amenities, resources, or options for commerce as valuable, or “for them”. The work is truly focused on understanding community member preferences while also supporting an increased awareness of existing assets to prevent the dilution of resources for items that are already provided in the community. R&R. = Relationships and Resources: Lastly, capacity building as community engagement would be remiss without intentional relationship building and resource allocation in support of community members / partner organizations in leading the engagement in their community. 4. Role of Community Partners / RFQ The Public Engagement Framework begins with the understanding that empowering trusted Community Partners to lead the public engagement process is a critical avenue for convening strong, rich and meaningful dialogues that value and respect stakeholder feedback. Developing transparent and authentic dialogues between community members and City leadership will result in actively shaping the priorities not only for the Opportunity Site Master Plan but also the direct community benefits residents can expect from private investment. In light of this, the public engagement strategy involves working with the Engagement Manager, to identify trusted Community Partners that will work alongside the City Council in reaching different pockets of the Brooklyn Center community. These Community Partners would be tasked with the important work of developing community engagement tools, messaging, and methods for engaging the targeted community groups; some of which are the hardest to reach through traditional planning engagement processes. Along these lines, City Staff will work with the City Council to outline the specific engagement content, a clear list of preferred engagement methods / priorities, and target populations for engagement. These conditions will inform a Request For Qualifications process which will allow for community members, including individuals, churches, for-profit and nonprofit organizations to apply to be a community partner for the next phase of public engagement on the Opportunity Site Master Plan. The RFQ process provides transparency around what the City intends to get out of a community engagement process, and the roles and responsibilities of all parties. 4 The respondents will be evaluated, and selected respondents to this RFQ will be entered into a Pre-Approved Community Engagement Pool. The City then would have the ability to select targeted respondents based upon their ability to reach hard to reach communities. The Engagement Manager would work with each respondent to right size scopes and responsibilities during the engagement process, and ensure the progress made by the selected Community Partners is done in a timely manner. 5. Engagement Content / Education An important aspect of the Public Engagement Framework involves the Public Education component mentioned in NEOO Partners’ Balance and Awareness phases of the B.A.R.R model. Ultimately, the City Council would set the parameters, boundaries, and limits of the engagement to take place. To prepare for the larger engagement framework process, the Engagement Management Team has created three focus areas for public education. 1. History: This content will involve educating the local community on the engagement work done to date, particularly related to the land uses and the processes of engagement already achieved to inform the current draft of the Master Plan and the initial concepts presented in the Alatus preliminary site plan for Blocks 11, 12, and 13. This component will likely involve a centralized website managed by the Engagement Manager that serves as a clearinghouse of information related to prior work done around community engagement, as well as draft stages of the Master Plan and preliminary development plans for Blocks 11, 12, and 13. 2. Master Plan: This content will be focused on continuing to identify and refine the desired and prioritized uses and goals for the Opportunity Site Master Plan in alignment with expressed community values, additional shaping and programming of the public spaces in accessible and equitable ways, and further determining the scale and impact of the Master Plan goals within the broader community. 3. Community Benefits: This content will work to provide direct linkages between the Master Plan’s goals and priorities and how these are operationalized to meet tangible outcomes/benefits for residents in the Brooklyn Center community. Content focus areas within community benefits might include jobs, housing, parks, infrastructure, amenities, revenues, tax disparities, and opportunities for entrepreneurial catalyzation. City staff anticipate working with the City Council to develop a prioritized list of content areas for focused public education and engagement as it relates to each of these outlined focus areas. NEOO Partners will synthesize the community feedback gathered from Community Partners and create shareable summary documents for community stakeholders and the 5 City Council to see their engagements reflected in tangible results, and, furthermore, how those tangible results are reflected in the strategies for achieving community benefits. 6. Methods of Engagement There are varying degrees of public engagement to be addressed through the outlined Public Engagement Framework. These fall into three categories, which have been termed as light touch, medium touch, and deep dive. 1. Light touch: This level of public engagement is the least involved and represents a methodology for generally informing the public through trusted messengers while providing opportunities for voluntary response. This approach does not ask for direct input or feedback from targeted community representatives or in relationship to specific components of the process or plans. Examples of light touch methods could include: a. City-controlled Master Plan website as a clearinghouse of information related to work done to date, drafts of the various plans / benefits, and options for submitting comments and questions via email or a website form. b. Facebook Live events as a means for sharing City staff presentations or Council work discussions with the broader public and allowing for public comments during the event that could be collected to inform the Master Plan. c. Mailers delivered to constituents that include information such as: i. Overview of the Master Plan ii. Link to the City Master Plan website iii. QR code for general survey questions 2. Medium touch: This level of public engagement involves proactive and targeted sharing of information with particular groups / community constituents with specific requests for constituent input related to particular components of the Master Plan. Examples of medium touch methods could include: a. Online forums for specific resident / business groups within an identified geography that address: i. Overview of the Master Plan ii. Opportunities for gathering individual comments / feedback related to specific components of the Plan iii. Follow up link to targeted survey questions b. Door knocking within specific geographies to discuss Master Plan and ask targeted questions to gather constituent input. c. Targeted surveys with most impacted target groups. 3. Deep Dive: This level of engagement involves highly focused conversations with specific groups of community representatives. These conversations are meant to be directive in shaping the goals and priorities established in the Master Plan, as well as setting the appropriate guidelines and metrics for how the goals and priorities are 6 operationalized and achieved through specific Community Benefits standards set forth in individual development projects pursued within the Opportunity Site. Examples of deep dive methods could include: a. Convene working groups with most impacted target groups that involve deliberate discussions and asking detailed questions to shape the Master Plan and Community Benefits. b. Attend specific community task force meetings to share information, lead deliberate discussions and ask detailed questions around the Master Plan and Community Benefits. This might include venues such as school board, chamber of commerce, neighborhood associations, rotary, and others. c. Developing a Citizen Advisory Engagement Task Force that consists of community voices tasked with receiving and distilling the reports from the Community Partners in order to provide the Council and City staff with a series of informed options related to a Community Benefits Plan and an equitable development scorecard. Engagement Level Light Touch Medium Touch Deep Dive Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Defer Community Engagement Goals Provide community with relevant information Gather input from the community Ensure community needs and assets are integrated into process and inform planning Ensure community capacity to play a leadership role in implementation of decisions Foster democratic and equity by placing full decision-making in the hands of the community; bridge divide between community and governance Potential Activities Flyers / Mailers, Fact sheets, City Council presentations, Facebook Live community meetings, Explainer videos, Website updates Public comment, Community forums, Surveys, Other House meetings, Interactive workshops, Polling, Focus groups, Other Working groups, Community Organizing, Citizen Advisory Committees, Open Planning Forums, Other Community-driven planning, Consensus building, Participatory action research, Cooperatives, Other Oversight / Support City Staff & Consultants, NEOO Partners City Staff & Consultants, NEOO Partners City Staff & Consultants, NEOO Partners City Staff & Consultants, NEOO Partners City Staff & Consultants, NEOO Partners Timeline 8-12 weeks w/ ongoing updates 10-16 weeks 16-20 weeks 16-24 weeks 24+ weeks / ongoing Budget / Contract Max Per Community Partner $15,000 $25,000 $25,000 $50,000 $50,000 *Adapted from From Community Engagement to Ownership, An Urban Sustainability Directors Network Innovation Fund Project conducted by Facilitating Power, Movement Strategy Center, and the National Association of Climate Resilience Planners 7 7. Implementation Implementation of the Public Engagement Framework will be directed by City staff in accordance with the processes, timeline, and costs approved by City Council. Furthermore, in support of City staff, NEOO Partners will serve as the Engagement Manager. Initially, in consultation with City staff, NEOO Partners will develop and lead the Community Partners RFQ process. Following the selection of Community Partners by the City, NEOO Partners will directly manage the Community Partners and public engagement master task list to ensure the engagement efforts are coordinated, well- implemented, and reported clearly to the City. The Community Partners selected through the RFQ process will take the lead in identifying the appropriate methods of engagement that align with the City’s established parameters for public engagement standards. Each Community Partner will be tasked with designing the necessary engagement tools and materials as well as implementing the specific engagement work particular to their target groups for engagement. Additionally, the Community Partners will be responsible for collecting and collating the response data to provide clear reports on the process, responses, and metrics they have achieved with their public engagement work. NEOO Partners will provide a comprehensive document that synthesizes the public engagement work led by each of the Community Partners, highlighting the goals and priorities that should inform the Master Plan as well as providing recommendations for operationalizing Community Benefits in regard to particular developments. Citizen Advisory Task Force Option: In addition to the on-the-ground engagement work led by the Community Partners, a Citizen Advisory Task Force could be convened to play a role in distilling the community engagement reports produced by the Community Partners into a series of informed options that help guide the City Council and City staff in the formulation of a Community Benefits Plan and an equitable development scorecard. A successful Citizen Advisory Task Force will need to have a clear definition of and direction on their role, specific mechanisms for group management and/or touchpoints with City staff and NEOO Partners, and expectations related to any deliverables. 8. Timeline The proposed timeline for implementing this Public Engagement Framework is as follows: March 2021 - City staff presents Master Plan Public Engagement Framework strategy / process 8 - City Council approves Master Plan Public Engagement process, budget, timeline - City staff and NEOO Partners develop and issue RFQ for selecting Community Partners to lead public engagement - City staff and NEOO Partners develop selection process and issue RFQ for Citizen Advisory Task Force (option) April 2021 - City approves pool of Community Partners - NEOO Partners coordinates master engagement strategy and supports Community Partners in identifying appropriate engagement strategies and tools - Community Partners begin public engagement work with NEOO technical assistance - City Council selects / approves Citizen Advisory Task Force members (option) May - Sept 2021 - Community Partners implement public engagement work with NEOO technical assistance - City staff and NEOO Partners support Citizen Advisory Task Force with technical assistance related to Master Plan and frameworks for Community Benefits Plan and equitable development scorecards (option) Sept 2021 - Community Partners report on engagement work - Citizen Advisory Task Force distills engagement reports into a set of informed options related to the Community Benefits Plan and equitable development scorecard, which are presented to City Council (option) - City Council makes decisions on the parameters of the Community Benefits Plan and equity development scorecard - NEOO Partners collates results of engagement work and compiles a comprehensive report that outlines goals and priorities for the Master Plan along with the proposed Community Benefits Plan for operationalization with particular development work - City staff share drafts with City Council for discussion and approval - NEOO collaborates with Community Partners and Citizen Advisory Task Force (option) to determine the requisite scope for the next phase of community engagement October 2021 - City drafts / incorporates community feedback into Master Plan 9 During March - September 2021, City staff will share relevant reports and discussion points every 2 weeks at City Council work sessions to review corresponding components of the Opportunity Site Master Plan and the engagement work being accomplished. 9. Pilot Project Approach Community Engagement, especially within the context of capacity building can be very nebulous during a Master Planning process. Oftentimes, we have found it to be more beneficial to ground the community engagement efforts in tangible and more present programs or development scenarios. In the City of Brooklyn Center, the Opportunity Site represents a minimum of 10 years of visioning, planning, recalibrating, and implementation. It is not realistic to engage the public in the present with forecasted minds for ten years. The present needs are too great, the pressure from civil unrest, America’s collective racial consciousness, and tremendous downward pressure on “normal” social interactions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, will cause blockages in all relative ability for rational residents to “dream, forecast, or plan.” The NEOO team is proposing to use the existing Master Plan, but more specifically the planned development along blocks 11,12, and 13 by Alatus, along with Project for Pride in Living (PPL), and Resurrecting Faith World Ministries (RFWM), to focus the engagement process on tangible projects, with prospective partnerships and real-time community benefits. Not only will this ground the community with real projects and partnerships, but it will also intentionally assist City Council along with the City’s Planning and Development Staff to set benchmarks and precedents for public engagement on the entirety of the Opportunity Site Redevelopment, as well as forthcoming Community Development and Planning projects in the City of Brooklyn Center. 10. Role of Community Partners Similar to the community engagement process prescribed for the Opportunity Site Master Plan, NEOO Partners, the Engagement Manager will work with the City to determine the appropriate Community Partners from the Pre-Approved Community Engagement Pool to help reach most impacted target groups for engagement. These selected Community Partners will work alongside the City and Alatus, PPL, and RFWM to maintain an open and transparent dialogue related to the development of Blocks 11, 12 and 13. NEOO Partners will provide technical review of the team’s plan for community engagement and ensure the plan and processes align with the City’s standards. Additionally, oversight by NEOO Partners will make sure that the appropriate feedback loops are being captured and considered for refining the Alatus, PPL, and RFWM development along with operationalizing the corresponding community benefits to be achieved. 10 11. Engagement Content / Education The content specific to the Alatus, PPL, and RFWM development will be centered on Blocks 11, 12, and 13. In particular this will include providing information and collecting input on the proposed housing components, business incubator, community theater, public spaces, public art, parking, and connectivity of the blocks. This process will include creating mutual understanding for the development of a Community Benefits Plan that will ensure accountability and be included into the Development Rights Agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and Alatus. The Development Agreement will serve as a template for future development phases and projects on the Opportunity Site. 12. Methods of Engagement Particular methods of engagement will be decided upon in collaboration and consultation with Alatus, PPL, and RFWM, selected Community Partners, City staff, and NEOO Partners. NEOO Partners will provide oversight and direction to ensure that acceptable levels of participation and engagement are achieved according to the standards set forth by City staff and City Council. These might include components of light touch, medium touch, and deep dive methods as described in the Opportunity Site Master Plan Public Engagement framework. 13. Implementation The Community Partners will lead the implementation of this engagement work in partnership with Alatus, PPL, and RFWM , with oversight from NEOO Partners and City staff. The engagement will result in a formal report back to the City Council as well as direct improvements and alterations to the Master Plan blocks 11,12 and 13. 14. Timeline The proposed timeline for implementing this Pilot Project engagement strategy in relationship to the Master Plan Engagement Strategy is as follows: 11 March 2021 - City staff presents Master Plan Public Engagement Framework strategy / process - City Council approves Master Plan Public Engagement process, budget, timeline - City staff presents Pilot Project Approach for Blocks 11, 12, & 13 - City Council approves Pilot Project Approach - City staff and NEOO Partners develop and issue RFQ for selecting Community Partners to lead public engagement April 2021 - City approves pool of Community Partners - NEOO Partners manages the selection of Community Partners and the corresponding engagement strategies and tools to guide Pilot Project community engagement with Alatus, PPL, and RFWM May - Aug 2021 - Alatus, PPL, and RFWM work with Community Partners to implement public engagement work with oversight by NEOO Partners and the City August 2021 - Alatus submits for Entitlements Aug - Sept 2021 - Alatus, PPL, and RFWM refine development plan for Blocks 11, 12, and 13 and presents corresponding draft of the Pilot Project Community Benefits for discussion, review, and approval by City staff and City Council Sept/Oct 2021 - Entitlements received for Blocks 11, 12, and 13 BC City Council Master Plan Public Engagement Framework –Proposed Draft 03.03 NEOO Partners Engagement Manager •Develop master engagement strategy and RFQ in consultation with City staff •Track master timeline / tasks •Train the trainers •Orient community partners to desired goals / metrics •Provide technical assistance and support to community partners •Collate master process / info for City staff to report to Council Community Partners (identified via RFQ Process)•Identify appropriate engagement methods •Design engagement tools and materials •Develop timelines for particular engagement work within the overall process identified by City Council •Implement engagement work •Collect / collate response data •Report on process, responses, and metrics Pools of Engagement (TBD) •Approve engagement process, timeline, and costs •Define roles and responsibilities •Identify goal metrics for the process o % of pop reached with light touch, medium touch, deep dive o # of representatives from targeted demographics •Specify content for engagement o Elements of Master Plan o Operationalizing Community Benefits Plan o Blocks 11, 12 & 13 o Other? Residents Local Business OwnersLocal AgenciesBIPOC YouthOther Community Leaders Membership Orgs Advocacy Groups Religious Leaders BC City Staff •Guide the public engagement implementation strategy in accordance with the City Council’s identified goals. •Provide feedback loops between public engagement, Council sessions, and development of the Master Plan •Inform Council on specific interaction points and policy making decision points 1 Citizen Advisory Task Force (option) •Receive engagement reports •Distill engagement reports to provide informed options on: -equity development scorecard -Community Benefits Plan •Provide options for ongoing engagement / oversight processes after September 16Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 03/03/21 Downtown Brooklyn Center : Public Engagement Activities In Person 12 Engagements ### people attended On Line name and results Youth Engagement 81 participants ages 14-18 yrs * Working Committee ACER, CAPI, OLM, LIBA, Alliance for Metropolitan Stability, Brooklyn Bridge Alliance 2019 2020 2021 Fall 2021 January 2020 Draft Master Plan LISC Corridor Initiative Sessions 4 Workshops 150 people attended PAADIO Meetings 300 people attended 117 Surveys Created by Deemak Daksinafrom the Noun Project Created by Deemak Daksinafrom the Noun Project RESULTS AND OUTCOMES RESULTS AND OUTCOMES COVID R O U N D 1 E NGAGEMENT RO U N D 2 E NGAGE M E N T R O U N D 2 R E B O OT ENGAGEMEN T On Line Project Website WORKING COMMITTEE* BROOK BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH JUDE NNADI > 1000 direct engagements > 30 meetings 2500 direct engagements 140,000 website hits »Trechnical studies »Community Benefits Plan »EAW »Development Agreement Fall 2021 Master Plan Pool of Community Partners Engagement Manager Phase 1 PilotPhase 1 Pilot Master Plan Master Plan 1 BR291-4-726955.v1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PILOT PROGRAM WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY SITE WHEREAS, in 2018 the City of Brooklyn Center (“City”) entered into a preliminary development agreement with Alatus regarding the development of the 35 acre Opportunity Site and in 2019 the focus of the agreement was narrowed to a 15 acre area known as Blocks 11, 12, and 13 (“Reduced Development Area”); and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (“City”) has also been engaged in a process to update the 2006 Opportunity Site Master Plan (“Plan”) originally developed for the entire 80 acre Opportunity Site; and WHEREAS, the process to update the Plan involved community engagement, but the City Council determined that additional public engagement was needed before moving forward with the development of this critical community asset ; and WHEREAS, the City formed a engagement working gr oup among various community groups to co -create an engagement strategy with greater community representation; and WHEREAS, an updated engagement strategy was presented to the City Council in March 2021; and WHEREAS, the City sought interest from community organizations to provide assistance in implementing the revised engagement strategy and several organizations responded with proposals; and WHEREAS, the City would like to move forward with a pilot project to engage up to 10 organizations that would serve as community partners to assist the City in its enhanced community engagement process, particularly with respect to the Reduced Development Area, with a budget for this pilot project not to exceed $300,000; and WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to having a more inclusive and transparent process to gather community input regarding the development of the Opportunity Site and determines the proposed pilot project to contract with community partners to carry out a more effective community engagement process is in the best interests of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. The proposed pilot project to contract with community partners to carry out an enhanced community engagement strategy for development of the Opportunity Site is approved. 2 BR291-4-726955.v1 2. The City Council approves a not to exceed budget for the pilot project of $300,000. 3. The Acting City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into contracts with community partners to undertake the enhanced community engagement process and to take such other actions, and to execute such additional documents as may be needed, to carry out the pilot project on behalf of the City. 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. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:6/28/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:C ity C ouncil S U B J E C T:C ity M anager A ppointment Requested Council A con: B ackground: The issue of appointment of the A c#ng City Manager w as discussed at the June 7, 2021, Work S es s ion and a3er much dis cus s ion there was a consens us of the C ouncil to bring it to the J une 14, 2021 City Council mee#ng which was then tabled to the June 28, 2021 C ity C ouncil mee#ng due to the number of councilmembers present at the June 14, 2021 mee#ng. Timeline to date: June 28, 2021 - C ons idera#on of A ppoin#ng D r. Edw ards as C ity M anager June 14, 2021 - Tabled due to the number of councilmembers present June 7, 2021 - D is cus s ion of City Manager appointment May 10, 2021 - A pproved D r. Edwards' pay adjustment for du#es as A c#ng C ity M anager May 3, 2021 - I ni#al discussion A pril 12, 2021 - D r. Edw ards appointed A c#ng City Manager B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: 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 via telephone Dial: 1-312-626- 6799 Meeting I D: 92710125463# P asscode: 7635693300# J une 28, 2021 AGE NDA AC T I V E D IS C US S I O N IT E M S 1.Commission Appointments 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 C ouncil/E DA Work Session DAT E:6 /28/2 0 2 1 TO :C ity Council F R O M:D r. Reggie Edw ards , A c#ng C ity M anager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:D r. Reginald Edwards, A c#ng C ity M anager S U B J E C T:C ommis sion A ppointments Requeste d C ouncil A con: B ackground: Currently, the C ity C ouncil has no formal w r i0en policy regarding the method and pr ocedures for making appointments to adv is ory commis s ions . H istorically, the C ouncil's approv ed prac#ce has r equir ed staff to provide public no#ce when a commis s ion vacancy occur red. The primary means of public no#ce has been through the S un Pos t, C ity Web S ite, S ocial Media and public announcement at community and C ouncil mee#ngs. A ll applica#ons hav e been directed to and receiv ed by the C ity C lerk who has for w ar ded said applica#ons to the M ayor and C ouncil members for review. H istorically, the M ayor has interv iewed candidates and made a recommenda#on to the City Council for Council consent. Most recently, names were s ubmi0ed to the C ity C ouncil for cons idera#on by the M ay or and they w ere approved by the C ity C ouncil. A 9er the mee#ng it w as determined that tw o of the approv ed individuals had not s ubmi0ed an applica#on to the O ffice of the C lerk . A s a res ult the C ouncil r eceived no w ri0en applica#on informa#on to cons ider in advance. T his a significa#on depar ture from previous C ouncil dir ec#on and therefor e w e ar e s eeking C ouncil direc#on. I n addi#on, the is s ue of #mely appointments has been rais ed by s everal C ommis s ion members and Councilmembers . T he enabling res olu#ons for mos t of our C ouncil advis or y commis s ions say that commis s ioners w ho have not been reappointed at the end of their term s hall con#nue to serv e un#l there replacement has been appointed and qualified. T he ques #on rais ed by Commissioners has been how long s hould they be expected to con#nue to serve a9er their ter m has expir ed. Policy Q ues #ons 1. A s w ay of promo#ng cons tancy and trans par ency does the Council des ir e the dev elopment of policy that more clearly codifies the method and proces s for C ommis s ion appointments ? 2. D oes the C ouncil hav e specific recommenda#ons to res olve the ques #ons regarding the applica#on proces s or the #melines s of appointments and or reappointments ? 3. D oes C ouncil wis h to con#nue with the s tatus quo? B udget I ssues: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on Upload D ate Ty pe C ity C ommis s ion 5/27/2021 Backup M aterial C harter Commis s ion le0er 5/27/2021 Backup M aterial Commission Serving with Expired Terms Financial Commission – Total of 7 seats and currently 2 vacancies Name Last Appointment Date Term Ending Date Teneshia Kragness 1/8/18 12/31/20 * David Dwapu 1/8/18 12/31/20 * Taofeek Ishola 6/10/19 12/31/21 Emmanuel Kpaleh 6/9/20 12/31/23 Dean Van Der Werf 12/14/15 12/31/18 (*) Term expired and application on file for reappointment Resolution 99-110 Members' Term of Office: Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the Council. The terms of office shall be staggered three-year terms, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. Upon expiration of his or her term of office, a member shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed and shall have qualified. Terms of office for members of the Commission shall expire on December 31 of respective calendar years. In the event an appointed Commissioner suffers from an extended illness, disability, or other activity preventing proper fulfillment of duties, responsibilities, rules and regulations of the Commission, the Commissioner may be temporarily replaced by an interim Commissioner appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the City Council. Housing Commission – Total of 7 seats and currently 2 vacancies Name Last Appointment Date Term Ending Date Paul Oman 3/12/18 12/31/18 * Kathie Amdahl 1/17 12/31/19 * Mark Goodell 1/8/18 12/31/20 * De’Ja Carter 3/8/21 12/31/23 Michael Donnelly 3/8/21 12/31/23 (*) Term expired and application on file for reappointment Resolution 2006-47 Members' Term of Office: Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the Council. The terms of office shall be staggered three-year terms, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. Upon expiration of his or her term of office, a member shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed and shall have qualified. Terms of office for members of the Commission shall expire on December 31 of respective calendar years. In the event an appointed Commissioner suffers from an extended illness, disability, or other activity preventing proper fulfillment of duties, responsibilities, rules and regulations of the Commission, the Commissioner may be temporarily replaced during the temporary leave by an interim Commissioner appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the City Council. Park & Recreation Commission – Total of 7 seats and currently 2 vacancies Name Last Appointment Term Ending Date Travis Bonovsky 1/1/17 12/31/19 * Gail Ebert 1/1/17 12/31/19 * Bud Sorenson 1/1/18 12/31/20 * Tanisha Lungelow 6/8/20 12/31/23 Natalie Branch 3/8/21 12/31/24 (*) Term expired and application on file for reappointment Resolution 98-13 Members' Term of Office: Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the Council. The terms of office shall be staggered three-year terms, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. Upon expiration of his or her term of office, a member shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed and shall have qualified. Terms of office for members of the Commission shall expire on December 31 of respective calendar years. In the event an appointed Commissioner suffers from an extended illness, disability, or other activity preventing proper fulfillment of duties, responsibilities, rules and regulations of the Commission, the Commissioner may be temporarily replaced during the temporary leave by an interim Commissioner appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the City Council. Planning Commission – Total of 7 seats and currently 3 vacancies Name Last Appointment Term Ending Date Peter Omari 3/9/20 12/31/21 Alexander Koenig 1/1/18 12/31/21 Alfreda Daniels 6/8/20 12/31/22 Stephanie Jones 6/8/20 12/31/22 (*) Term expired and application on file for reappointment Resolution 95-82 Members' Term of Office: Members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the Council. The terms of office shall be staggered two-year terms, except that any person appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such term. Upon expiration of his or her term of office, a member shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed and shall have qualified. Terms of office for members of the Commission shall expire on December 31 of respective calendar years. In the event an appointed Commissioner suffers from an extended illness, disability, or other activity preventing proper fulfillment of duties, responsibilities, rules and regulations of the Commission, the Commissioner may be temporarily replaced during the temporary leave by an interim Commissioner appointed by the Mayor with majority consent of the City Council. Sister City Commission – Total of 5 seats and currently 1 vacancy Name Last Appointment Term Ending Date Issa Mansaray 3/12/18 12/31/22 Fatu Magassouba 8/26/19 12/31/21 Jacob Saffert 3/12/18 12/31/19 Sheku Samba 3/18/18 12/31/18 Tashawna Williams 3/12/18 12/31/20 (*) Term expired and application on file for reappointment Resolution 2015-159 ARTICLE III. MEMBERSHIP. Section 1. The Commission shall consist of five (5) members who shall be appointed by the City Council upon recommendation of the Mayor. Section 2. The initial appointments to the Commission shall be for one, two, three, four, and five year terms, and thereafter all appointments shall be for a term of five years or until a successor is qualified. Section 3. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment. BROOKLYN CENTER HOME RULE CHARTER COMMISSION April 10th, 2021 Brooklyn Center City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Inquiry about open commission positions and the appointment process Dear distinguished members of the Brooklyn Center City Council: At the last two meetings of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission concerns were raised about the large number of open city commission positions and lack of transparency around the appointment process. It was reported that across all the council sanctioned commissions there are currently 17 open positions which includes 11 positions for commissioners whose terms have expired. At the same time there are 25 open applications for these positions which includes those from 8 serving commissioners whose terms have expired. Some of these applications were submitted over 2 years ago without any feedback to the applicants on when or if they should expect an appointment. After the January meeting the commission researched the appointment policies for several neighboring home rule charter cities. None of them had similar numbers of open positions and many of them have their commission appointment processes documented either on their web site or in city code. At the last meeting held on April 8th the commission unanimously passed a motion to send an inquiry to the council about this issue which resulted in the drafting of this letter. Specifically, the commission is requesting feedback about the following questions: • Does the council expect to fill the open positions or if not, will the council communicate the reasoning for keeping them open? • Will the council consider establishing procedures to ensure that applicants are informed of the status of their application in a timely fashion? • What steps can the council take to make the appointment process more transparent and ensure full participation in the commissions? In closing there is concern that the large numbers of vacancies are limiting the involvement of local citizens in the government and that the lack of transparency and timeliness in the appointment process is affecting the quorum and discouraging some current and potential commissioners from serving. The commission would welcome any feedback or dialog with the council on this important topic. Thank- you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mark A. Goodell Chairperson, Brooklyn Center Charter Commission C ouncil/E DA Work Session DAT E:6 /28/2 0 2 1 TO :C ity Council F R O M:D r. Reggie Edw ards , A c#ng C ity M anager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:D r. Reginald Edwards, A c#ng C ity M anager S U B J E C T:Pending I tems Requeste d C ouncil A con: Earle B row n N ame C hange for P ublic P r oper ty Council Policy for City Charter requirement of Mayor's s ignature on all contracts S trategic P lans for years 2018-2020 and 2 0 2 1 -2 0 2 3 Review S pecial A s s essment Policy Tobacco O rdinance Emerald A s h B oer Policy Review Civilian D is cipline Rev iew C ommi8ee Community-W ide S urv ey A8orney R F P P roces s B ackground: B udget I ssues: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: