Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 07-12 CCPCouncil Study Session 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: 99398068818# Passcode: 7635693300# J uly 12, 2021 AGE NDA 1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m. 2.M iscellaneous a.Retreat Dates - Confirm the date for the upcoming city council retreat 3.Discussion of Work S ession Agenda Item as T ime P ermits 4.Adjourn C IT Y C O UNC IL M E E T I NG V I RT UA L meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota S tatutes, section 13D.021 P ublic portion available for connection via telephone Dial: 1-312-626- 6799 Meeting I D: 99398068818# P asscode: 7635693300# J uly 12, 2021 AGE NDA 1.Informal Open F orum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the Counc 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 attac ks, to air personality grievanc es, to make politic al endorsements, or for political c ampaign purposes. C ounc il Members will not enter into a dialogue with presenter. Questions from the Council will be for clarific 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 call on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak during open forum, and then I will ask if anyone else connec ted to this meeting would like to speak. W hen I do, please indic ate your name and then proc eed when I call on you. P lease be sure to state your name and address before speaking. 2.Invocation - B utler - 7 p.m. 3.C all to Order Regular Business M eeting This meeting is being c onduc ted electronically under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D .021 due to the pandemic. For those who are connec ted to this meeting, please keep your mic rophone muted. I f there is an opportunity for public comment, y ou may unmute and speak when called upon. P lease do not talk over others and anyone being disruptive may to ejec ted from the meeting. The packet for this meeting is on the C ity's website, whic h is linked on the c alendar or can be found on "C ity Council" page. 4.Roll Call 5.P ledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and C onsent 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 C ounc ilmember so requests, in whic h event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and c onsidered at the end of C ounc il Consideration I tems. a.A pproval of Minutes - Approve the minutes from: June 7, 2021 Work Session June 28 - Study Sessi on June 28 - Regular Session June 28 - Work Session b.A pproval of L icenses - Motion to approve the li censes as presented. c.Resolution E stablishing I mprovement Project Nos. 2022-01, 02, 03 and 04, Woodbine A rea S treet and Utility I mprovements - Motion to approve a resolution establishing Improvement Project Nos. 2022-01, 02, 03 and 04, Woodbine Area Street and Uti li ty Improvements. d.Resolution Approving and A uthorizing E xecution of a J oint Powers A greement with the City of Minneapolis for the maintenance of 53rd Ave N (f rom X erxes Ave N to Mississippi D r N) and X erxes Ave N (from 49th Ave N to 53rd Ave N) - Motion to approve a resoluti on approving and authori zing execution of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Mi nneapolis for the maintenance of 53rd Ave N (from Xerxes Ave N to Mississippi Dr N) and Xerxes Ave N (from 49th Ave N to 53rd Ave N) e.Resolution Authorizing the Dedication of Temporary and Permanent E asements at 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard - Motion to approve a resolution authorizing the dedi cation of temporary and permanent easements at 6250 Brookl yn Boulevard pertaining to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corri dor Project Phase 2 Improvements. f.Resolution E nding the L ocal Emergency Declaration - Motion to approve the resoluti on ending the local emergency declaration g.A mendment to the 2021 C ity C ouncil Meeting Schedule - Motion to approve the amendment to the 2021 City Council Meeting Schedule 7.P resentations/P roclamations/Recognitions/D onations 8.P ublic Hearings The public hearing on this matter is now open. I will first call on those who notified the C lerk that they would like to speak to this matter, then I will ask if any one else on this meeting would like to speak during this hearing. W hen I do, please indic ate your name and then proceed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking. a.O rdinance A mendment to C hapter 19 A llowing and R egulating Native Prairie G rass and Naturalistic Vegetation - Motion to open public heari ng, take publ ic comment, and close public heari ng - Motion to approve the second readi ng and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding Regulating Native Prai rie Grass and Natural istic Vegetation - Motion to approve the resol ution for a Summary Publi cation in the Sun Post 9.P lanning C ommission Items 10.C ouncil Consideration Items a.Resolution Adopting an Opportunity S ite I nf rastructure F ramework to Guide the Opportunity S ite Master P lan - Motion to approve a resol ution adopting an Opportuni ty Site Infrastructure Framework to guide the Opportunity Site Master Pl an b.City Manager A ppointment - Motion to approve the appointment of Dr. Edwards as the City Manager c.B rooklyn C enter Community Center State C apital B onding Request - Approve a resolution supporting and authorizing the City's application for MN State Capital Bonding (Year 2022) to design and construct of a new Brooklyn Center Community Health, Culture, and Recreation Center (Community Center). 11.C ouncil Report 12.Adjournment C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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:A pprov al of M inutes Requeste d C ouncil A con: - A pprove the minutes fr om: June 7, 2 0 2 1 Wor k S ession June 28 - S tudy S ession June 28 - Regular S ession June 28 - Work S ession B ackground: B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe 6.7 Work S es s ion 7/7/2021 Backup M aterial 6.28 S tudy S es s ion 7/7/2021 Backup M aterial 6.28 Regular S es s ion 7/7/2021 Backup M aterial 6.28 Work S es s ion 7/7/2021 Backup M aterial 06/07/21 -1- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION JUNE 7, 2021 VIA ZOOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Mike Elliott at 5:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Mike Elliott and Councilmembers/Commissioners Marquita Butler, April Graves (arrived at 5:50 p.m.), Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. OPPORTUNITY SITE INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards explained this item has been on the agenda several times and rescheduled. He invited Ms. Beekman to present the staff report. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated staff has been working with consultants since the beginning of this process and on the master plan. The intention tonight is to go over a framework for the physical infrastructure that will ultimately comprise the master plan. The focus will be four infrastructure elements related to mobility, access, transportation; parks and open space; stormwater; and, land use. She noted there are discussion points around land use that will also be presented. Ms. Beekman introduced Andrew Dresdner, an urban designer, and architect with Cunningham Group who has been leading the urban design component of the master planning work. She also introduced Haila Maze, Bolton & Menk, who is the project lead on the Opportunity Site master planning process, has been facilitating this process, overseeing community engagement, distilled all those pieces, and drafted the master plan. Haila Maze, Bolton Menk, reviewed the background of the master plan and implementation process, noting in 2019, a preliminary development agreement was renewed with Alatus, the developer, and with the nontraditional process of the City taking the lead on master planning work and Alatus focusing on implementation to assure the City took ownership of the process and result, which was the vision of the community. At that time, the City engaged with consultants to address the initial scope, engagement, look at the condition of the area, physical infrastructure, land use concepts, and implementation framework. Alatus was a partner during this time even though the 06/07/21 -2- development agreement is no longer in force. She explained this planning process was impacted by a development moratorium as well as development agreements with the idea of making some space in the process to have a stay of development on the site to allow for the framing process to occur in advance of development applications. Ms. Maze stated the initial plan was to complete that master planning process in 2019, a quick turnaround, to allow development to move forward on a fast-track process. That was slowed down because of the desire for a more robust public engagement process to assure it was thoughtful and grounded in what was important to the community and because of the COVID pandemic. The City Council/EDA also took other actions during that time to secure its position on the site and prepare it for development, including the addition of Target after its closure. That assured control of the major sites on the property. There were also adjustments to the Central Commerce Overlay District at that time. Ms. Maze explained that during the process, a concern has been raised about what is being approved and the relationship between what the developer is proposing and the overall master plan for the site. There is a lack of clarity in terms of what the approval would even mean. She explained the slide being displayed shows that these are two distinct pieces. Approving the plan document will create a framework for the site and adopt policy guidance that sets the stage for what comes next. However, it is not the same thing as approving a development, which all on the City Council/EDA know. She stated there will still be opportunities for the public to weigh in on the details of the project that come forth. Ms. Maze stated the physical aspects of the master plan include a physical infrastructure plan that addresses what the built environment looks like and sets the guidance to make sure it is consistent with an overall vision of mobility, supports the community, and benefits that will come from this project. The focus is on access and mobility (streets, sidewalks, trails, how people walk and travel and move around the site), open space (parks, open green spaces, trails, connectivity where people can gather and recreate); the stormwater plan (how stormwater is managed both underground and more visible); and, land use concepts (what will be built, scale, type, character). Ms. Maze stated the implementation plan components will follow later and is not really the focus tonight but is an important part of the package overall. It will include the financial analysis (City’s participation, TIF District, sources and uses); zoning and land use regulations (policy document closely paired with the zoning update and in sync with the policy to assure there is consistency); and, development goals and parameters (more details on what developers are asked to bring to the table). Ms. Maze explained the goal is to have a plan that provides more guidance than would otherwise be to make sure things get done according to plan. Ms. Maze noted one question may be why advance the infrastructure piece first and ahead of the others. The idea is to make sure that as incremental decisions are made, all of the pieces match up and are in sync, which is the unique challenge of urban development. Ms. Beekman offered to create context on where we are at today and what speaks to the current conditions that are driving the conversation and urgency around this plan. She explained the goal of the master plan process is to have better results than to let the market do what it wants to do on its own. As part of that, it is important to assure the project is technically and economically 06/07/21 -3- feasible. To support that process, there have been some technical studies and conversations over the last year. A transportation study was completed based on the January 2020 draft master plan. That transportation study helps to understand the impact this development could have on surrounding roadways and intersections and was shared with Hennepin County. Depending on the land use, and as that shifts, it will affect transportation so more intense land uses will have greater transportation impacts and lower impact and density developments will have a lower transportation impact. Ms. Beekman asked the City Council/EDA to keep this in mind as conversations continue about land use. In addition, it is partnered with some conversations with Mn/DOT as it relates to transportation. Ms. Beekman stated the City has also completed a regional stormwater plan that is critical and tied directly into physical infrastructure since the plan is to complete a regional stormwater plan to serve all of the development. The key benefits are that it creates much more efficient use of land so higher value development can occur in a more compact area and stormwater can be addressed through a regional system instead of individual ponds. Planning for that is complex as space is needed to carry and treat water so it is an important early piece as it critically sets the table for other land uses and roadways. Ms. Beekman stated staff has also had conversations with Three Rivers Park District who has committed to providing a four-acre mini regional park within the development area. Three Rivers Park District has amended their parks and trail plan to include this project and it is in their 2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). As a result, the Three Rivers Park District will begin an engagement and planning process for that park later in 2021. Ms. Beekman used a site map to point out the intended location. She explained why it is important to have the Three Rivers Park District as a partner because of the funding opportunities it has opened up and it recognizes that as regional trails are rerouted, it is done in partnership with the Three Rivers Park District. Ms. Beekman stated about staff’s conversations with Mn/DOT, one piece that came up as part of transportation and land use planning, is that Mn/DOT holds five acres of right-of-way for John Martin Drive adjacent to Highway 100 in the middle of a highly visible area of this Opportunity Site Development Plan. She explained the draft master plan calls for the closure of the John Martin Drive access and bridge and for Mn/DOT to vacate that right-of-way. That would allow it to be incorporated into a future redevelopment area. Ms. Beekman noted that Mn/DOT has approached the City about that access as a related topic with their 2026 Highway 100 improvement project. In those conversations, the City talked about the desire to have this right-of-way vacated and Mn/DOT expressed hesitation to move ahead with the review of that right-of-way, in part due to their 2026 Highway 100 improvement project as they know they will need space for stormwater capacity. Mn/DOT has indicated it is too early to consider declaring excess land or to vacate right- of-way until their stormwater needs are identified. Staff worked hard with Mn/DOT to assure they understand the highest and best use of this land is not for stormwater ponding and given the City’s position and planning of this site, it is also not appropriate to wait to determine the appropriate use for this land into 2026. The staff has pushed Mn/DOT to further substantive conversations to look at this land sooner. Ms. Beekman addressed the idea of the market and private property interest, noting the EDA controls approximately 44 acres of the Opportunity Site, which is an 80-acre area. The balance of 06/07/21 -4- the site is owned privately by various parties with most of those properties being for sale or owned by willing sellers. Regularly, staff receives inquiries from parties interested in acquiring these parcels for redevelopment concepts, reuse concepts for existing buildings, and generally, the theme is for uses that do not align with the draft master plan. She stated this is not a surprising thing as the draft master plan calls for a very significant revisioning of this area, an intensification of land uses, bringing in new infrastructure and amenities, and delivering outcomes that the market is not going to deliver on its own without the City guiding and supporting that process. The concern is that absent a vision for the site, the City is limiting the ability to ensure that the reuse/redevelopment of these properties aligns with what the City wants to achieve. So, without an adopted framework for future redevelopment, it becomes more difficult for staff to convey the City’s vision, provide direction to property owners, and move along the regulatory components that will ensure the City gets what it wants on the site. Ms. Beekman stated the City adopted a moratorium on development that expired last August and is not in a position to enact another moratorium. Ms. Beekman stated another pertinent piece is the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which supports the vision of the site and called for transit-oriented development and commercial mixed uses on this site. However, the Zoning Code does not align with the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning for the site focuses more on historic land-use patterns, allows for auto-oriented retail and commercial uses, which are not in alignment with the vision. As a result, regulatory processes need to move along during visioning to ensure the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code are in alignment. Ms. Maze provided an overview of four guiding principles and values that provide the basis. She stated that staff heard over and over again from the community that it was important to be clear on the core values, they were centered and used as touchpoints moving forward. That has now been the intent in building out the plan that includes specifics and details of the design/implementation but does not lose track of what the City is trying to accomplish – community benefit for the people of Brooklyn Center. Ms. Maze stated one guiding principle is: creating a vibrant and distinctive destination for the community and region. This is about serving the community first but at the same time, it is a unique location and opportunity, which all appreciate. So, it needs to be special and a point of pride that people connect with. Another guiding principle is: embracing the growing diversity of this community. She stated the intent is to manifest that in the design, development, and programming that this is truly a space for everyone here and it celebrates that as a strong asset of the community. Another guiding principle is: considering sustainability in design and development. She stated this addresses sustainability in all sorts of ways including green and efficient, thinking long term for the people here, and it has to work economically. The intent is that this will be a place that all in the community can gather, meet, work, shop, live, play, and worship. Ms. Maze presented a series of values and vision which relate to and are grounded in the engagement to date. Diversity and inclusivity are front and center to recognize this is for all people who are from different communities and have different perspectives, cultures, preferences, and to create an intentional welcoming space. Affordability has come up many times for housing and commercial spaces and other considerations to assure the project does not price people out of their 06/07/21 -5- neighborhood where they want to live, work, and grow up. This means providing different ranges of affordability as input was received on the need for subsidized housing and move-up housing for people to stay in the community. With health and wellness, it assures this space is vibrant and encourages an active and healthy lifestyle, and may include medical facilities. Fiscal responsibility recognizes this property is a big investment for the City and showing value to the taxpayers is certainly part of this consideration. The issue of flexibility relates to the length of time it will take to build out the site, which will certainly last years so the plan has to be flexible enough so as things change, it is adaptable. The value of community pride addresses the site being something that people can be proud of, a place residents can take visitors. Environmental sustainability considers ways the site can be green and sustainable. Local benefit gets back to the site benefiting people who are here and not just the folks who move in from out of town and counteracts displacement through gentrification, which is not the intent and being proactively addressed through studies. Ms. Maze stated these values reflect a narrative and are the centerpieces for the City’s approach to this plan. Ms. Maze displayed a map depicting publicly owned properties in the vicinity of the Opportunity Site, noting this is a major investment and has taken years to secure the property in support of the vision for the area. She noted that while there was some opposition before the great recession, causing a delay in planning, now is the opportunity to move forward when there is developer interest. In addition, this City-owned property reflects a drain on the tax rolls as they are currently tax-exempt, which keeps the tax burden on the remaining properties within the City. Ms. Maze noted that Ehlers, the City’s financial consultant, has shown in their analysis that there is a fairly substantial burden, not just specifically from these properties, but from the City overall to residents and homeowners, property owners, and renters in this area so thinking about how this property can be put into private sector development certainly considers that. Andrew Dresdner, Cunningham Group, provided detail on the physical framework of this plan, which takes into account all of the systems and layers needed to ensure this plan can be implemented. These layers/frameworks can relate to physical frameworks such as muscular, skeletal, cardio, and neurological systems. In a City, the individual systems have to be strong and adaptable, intact, have integrity, and well-integrated with each other. The framework plan will adjust the four systems built for a previous time to accommodate a new pattern of development that is healthier, more sociable, more sustainable, and more in alignment with the current goals and today’s marketplace. The four systems of land use, open space, stormwater, and access need to be adjusted to meet today’s needs. Mr. Dresdner stated the land use layer is the horizontal arrangement of how land is developed. Today’s land-use system on this site is relatively automobile-oriented and commercial and retail- based. It was set out for a different time with the buildings spread out and the existing land uses don’t generate much use from being next to each other. Proof that the land uses don’t work well with each other is the fact that many are vacant today. The main goal of the land use framework is to create a place that is more equitable, affordable, and accessible to more people in Brooklyn Center. In effect, this new land-use plan will allow the City to open its ‘tool box’ for community gain, spaces for community events and activities, local entrepreneurs, living-wage jobs, local goods and services for residents, and housing at multiple house points for people in multiple stages of their lives. Depending on how those land uses are arranged, it can be done so people are less 06/07/21 -6- reliant on an expensive car so they can live a more prosperous and healthy life and feel more connected to their community. Mr. Dresdner stated in general, the land use plan proposes two land uses: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as well as business mixed-use. He displayed a map showing three-quarters or two-thirds of this site is TOD and one-quarter to one-third is business mixed-use. With TOD, the land use is defined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and supported by the Met Council’s significant investments in its C & D line that comes up next to the site. TOD is often associated with housing but the outcomes of TOD development patterns are as much about creating neighbors and center of the community as they are about creating just housing. Mr. Dresdner noted there is great demand for housing so they have created a framework that will allow the City to leverage its stake in its properties to pursue these important housing goals. The TOD land use will also support gathering spaces, community amenities, retail, and services for residents, which are other essential elements to a healthy neighborhood and a vibrant center to the community. Mr. Dresdner displayed a proposed TOD land use map of the subject site, noting it is primarily housing with uses mixed in such as neighborhood parks (one being the Three Rivers Park District’s park) as well as smaller areas for small commercial. The main street in the middle of the site would be John Martin Drive and a little retail would surround the Three Rivers Park District’s park. He explained these uses for walkable and healthy mixed-use neighborhoods can be codified into the Zoning Code as the City moves into the implementation portion of this plan. Mr. Dresdner stated they evaluated three different and possible TOD land use outcomes for the southeast segment that is 20 acres in size. The first option is a concept to attract a large regional recreation. Before the pandemic, it was a promising proposition but also an expensive option that would no doubt have required a regional and potentially State lift to get it done. Since then, the pandemic put a damper on this option due to economic uncertainties, so while it is still a possibility, they don’t believe it is a near-term possibility. Mr. Dresdner stated the second alternative is business mixed-use. He noted the City receives regular inquiries from potential developers on locating employers and jobs to the site. This may be due to its central location in the region, access to regional roadways, and probably and most importantly, its proximity to the nearby workforce. They think this segment could become a business mixed-use area; however, not in the way that business parks were and currently are built around many suburban areas in the region. They think it would support the creation of a strong neighborhood because it could attract jobs for the people who live in the community and Opportunity Site. If done correctly, this type of land use will help support additional goals related to sustainability, entrepreneurship, and access to living-wage jobs all indirect and immediate proximity to the TOD area. Instead of being separated like many business parks, they think it can be done close and still achieve certain sustainability goals. For example, if done correctly, the rooftops of the buildings can be green rooftops or solar rooftops to help power the entire area and lower the cost of energy for everyone in a clean way. This concept can also work well with stormwater systems. Mr. Dresdner stated design is really important with this concept. They think that business mixed- use and TOD don’t need to be separated by distance and buffers but can come together and create 06/07/21 -7- a seam in the neighborhood that pulls together both living and working uses. He displayed and explained a diagram depicting this concept, noting care and concern have to be given to scale design and transitions. He stated if done correctly, it can bring living-wage jobs to the neighborhood approximate to transit and housing. Mr. Dresdner stated the third option is to extend TOD into the remaining 20 acres of the site, which would ensure uniformity of urban form but would decrease the opportunity to create a unique activity center, true downtown to Brooklyn Center, community gathering, and access to jobs as it would be dominated by housing. He stated this is not necessarily a bad thing, just a different thing and there is a tremendous demand for housing so, over time, the entire site could be used for housing. Mr. Dresdner stated the goal with open parks and space is to create an inside-out city where the life and pulse of the city are outdoors and shared by all who live and visit here. That means creating high-quality all-season parks, plazas, and gathering spaces that support the broader goals of this City. The park components include the 3–4-acre park funded by the Three Rivers Park District that would be a bridging or gateway park, a way to provide access to regional parks to inner-ring communities where they have none. The open space plan also has neighborhood parks for the area comprised of smaller green spaces for playgrounds, passive space, sitting, and gentle spaces for the community to come together. Another element of this Plan is a garden street that runs through the development sites and links the different neighborhoods and parks. Mr. Dresdner noted the regional greenway trail and stormwater greenway through the site. He explained this is where City life happens with high-quality public spaces where residents as well as visitors come together, mix, and mingle. Mr. Dresdner addressed stormwater and explained it is an important framework since the site is currently out of compliance and a paved over the impervious site where rainfall causes sediments and oils to be flushed into Shingle Creek. He stated stormwater is oftentimes an underground and functional layer of the City that people may not pay attention to. But they see great value in daylighting the stormwater system so it is showcased on the surface and uses rainwater and stormwater as a resource as opposed to a waste product. This framework allows the City to harness rainwater and stormwater and use it in park spaces and greenways for irrigation, habitat, and to replenish the aquifer. Stormwater would be a shared and stacked infrastructure where you can have recreation comingling with the stormwater system, which also allows parcels to develop one by one without individual and uncoordinated stormwater systems. Mr. Dresdner stated the final framework is accessing and connectivity, noting the goal of streets is not necessarily to move but to get places and provide access and connections between places. This framework establishes the pattern of streets and pedestrian ways through the site. There are currently two or three streets through the site that result in large superblocks that worked for a development pattern of 40 years ago but not today. They want to create a development pattern that is easy to get to and pleasant to be in as well as regionally accessible with locally oriented streets for those who live there and are using the spaces. Ultimately, they want to create and establish a network that enables people to get around easily without the use of a car, if they choose. He noted the access and connectivity plan has a couple of interesting features including the garden street he described that may be lined with townhouses, and a series of other streets to break the 06/07/21 -8- sale down so it is easier to walk around. Mr. Dresser explained when you have fewer streets, they may be very wide but when you have a lot of streets, they may be very narrow. That tradeoff is one they think is worthwhile if developing a walkable and healthy type of neighborhood or center to a community. He stated a traffic study has been started to ensure traffic works and as the City moves into implementation, an official mapping process would take place with some level of flexibility to direct property owners as to where new streets should be located as they develop sites one by one. Mr. Dresdner recapped his presentation by noting the four systems work together, work separately, and are timed for today’s market and the City’s goals. Ms. Beekman stated the purpose of tonight’s discussion in terms of the value of the infrastructure framework, is that it does a lot of things and the timing is fairly critical. This work will not preempt additional engagement and on June 14, 2021, the City Council will discuss how the community partners and that work will continue through a robust engagement process through the summer and fall. She stated it will address community benefits and managing displacement risks. Staff is also working with the City’s partners at KIRA and the University of Minnesota on the housing study as well as working to understand how to best develop the community benefits for this site. All of that work is ongoing and will be built into the final master plan. Ms. Beekman stated the infrastructure framework provides framing for conversations to move forward as it will guide interagency coordination (i.e., Mn/DOT, Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County) on what the City needs to advocate for this site. It also helps guide early discussions and negotiations with interested parties and property owners since much of the site is privately owned and there has been significant interest but maybe for land uses that don’t quite align with the City’s vision. The infrastructure framework also positions the City to pursue grant funding through Hennepin County, the State, and Metropolitan Council and because this vision aligns with their goals, this project will be competitive. It also continues to inform the planning and design for the physical infrastructure. Once the framework is in place, the next step will be to refine and design those systems in a way that allows us to identify the costs, exact locations, and move the project forward. She explained it will help focus the community engagement efforts and those conversations. Ms. Beekman stated staff continues to work on updating the Zoning Code that will include the creation of new zoning districts, including TOD, to encompass this site. She explained that getting a regulatory framework around the physical component of the development is important too. Next steps include the City Council/EDA adopting the infrastructure framework at a future meeting based on tonight’s conversation, staff continuing with community engagement efforts focused on implementation components, and how the vision gets delivered, (i.e., through a community benefits plan, a regulatory framework, a financial plan). Staff will continue with the planning and designing of the physical infrastructure systems, building them into the implementation section, and focus on how things such as the regional stormwater system will be paid for if installed over time as the property develops, and how the City can recoup expenses or cover expenses by the private sector. The next step is also to complete the zoning for physical development. 06/07/21 -9- Ms. Beekman stated tonight’s discussion is focused on the infrastructure framework and specifically the elements presented by Mr. Dresdner and to get direction from the City Council/EDA. She noted Mr. Dresdner had laid out three options for the southeast segment of the site in terms of land uses that have already been explored and detailed in the meeting packet. Ultimately, the question is around the City Council’s/EDA’s level of comfort with proceeding with the infrastructure framework and moving forward. Mayor/President Elliott thanked staff and the consultants for the presentation, noting the City Council/EDA has been engaged in this work for some time. He stated this is the biggest project the City has had in a while so it is important and needs to be developed in a way to support Brooklyn Center and its residents and driven by that vision so the City is the best place to live in the State. Mayor/President Elliott stated there are a lot of moving parts and he thinks there are good aspects of this plan that speak to many things the City Council/EDA have said over the past few years including the green aspect, energy sustainability, affordability, and access. He stated before a plan is approved, he wants to see community engagement come back as he views it as making sure the community is informing the vision for this site and if that is not done, it is putting the ‘cart before the horse.’ Mayor/President Elliott stated tonight has been a good meeting to get information and see the possibilities but before approving the plan, it is critically important to center equity. He noted several systems were pointed out and discussed, including land use and various layers, looking at outcomes and framework and features, but one system not looked at is one of systemic inequity that is one of the sticky parts of our society and more destructive. Mayor/President Elliott stated unless the right people are at the table and we are intentionally and well integrating that into this outcome framework and features in a way driven by members of our diverse community, then it is missing a very important opportunity that the City cannot afford to miss. He stated this is a once in a lifetime/generation type of project and a historic one for Brooklyn Center to build for the generation of young people at the high school that the City Council met the other day because, in a couple of years, those young people will be the adults in this community. Mayor/President Elliott stated this was a good presentation but he thought community engagement would shape the vision for the site and then the City Council/EDA would move forward. He stated it is incredibly important to get the housing study, since housing is fundamental to everything else, and so there is a good understanding of the overall vision of the site. This study will indicate the level of need and at what levels, what proportion in the plan in terms of single-family versus multi- family versus townhomes, or is it something different. He stated he is not ready to vote on a plan until he sees the engagement portion. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan referenced the three options for the southeast segment: regional recreational, business mixed-use, or extend TOD. He stated if it were the consensus of the City Council/EDA to move forward with the second option, business mixed-use, for the southeast segment, it does not preclude the other uses (TOD development or a parks element) being integrated into that. Mr. Dresdner asked whether he was referring to the southeast segment. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated probably adjacent to it because he understood from the description that it could be managed in such a way that it would mesh with or generate the creation of some favorable neighborhoods and incorporate many of the other planning values. He asked if that is a fair generalization. Mr. Dresdner stated that is correct but concerning regional 06/07/21 -10- recreation, it has a regional scale and therefore has a big footprint. He stated a smaller recreational piece could be integrated here but initially, that was a 20-acre piece. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated that was the water park concept the City Council/EDA looked at a couple of years ago. He noted there is other green space distributed throughout the Opportunity Site that could be designed in various ways. Mr. Dresdner stated that is correct as well as in the business mixed-use area. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated the City Council/EDA could simply state to go ahead with this planning paradigm and still be flexible in terms of business mixed-use or extended TOD development and asked if that is a fair generalization. Mr. Dresdner stated he thinks so. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he thinks there has already been extraordinary community engagement going back a couple of years and many studies years before so if taking some steps to move this along, during that time, additional inclusive community engagement that is truly inclusive can take place when the City Council/EDA will hear needs, desires, and expectations from the community. But, at the same time, when looking at development concepts that currently have some traction, to take additional steps to get this going because the worst thing that could happen is if this gets drawn out long enough where there is another bump in the road with the economy and if this gets delayed again, it could be really bad. Councilmember/ Commissioner Ryan stated he would like to go forward with this four-stage infrastructure plan. Ms. Beekman stated to create some context, in terms of the business mixed-use, it is not a surprise there is a significant amount of interest in light industrial land use as it is strong now in the market. She noted Mr. Dresdner has looked at a way to capture a land use and create value on the site that a strong market demands yet carve, hone, and focus it in a way that maximizes the community benefit. When Mr. Dresdner described what it is and what this land use could be, he made a strong point to distinguish it from a typical business park or light industrial business park. This is intended to integrate much smaller footprints to create a more vibrant and walkable space that will create a strong tax base and livable wage jobs. Staff believes this is possible because of the strong market demand so the City can push that market given the visibility on this site, the proximity to downtown, location within the region, which all make this a desirable site. That will allow the City to leverage the high value and is what this concept is predicated on, an urban mixed type land use that creates a lot of value. If that is not possible, then that is not the land use the City has an interest in here. Ms. Beekman stated to Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan’s point about there being other options and sites, the staff knows that TOD development and demand for housing are strong and a possibility for this area. The staff knows that having a destination where people will come to this site from other places will create a market as well and has value. She noted all of those things are part of this conversation. She asked the City Council/EDA if there is any value to be found or interest in the business mixed-use concept as defined and described by Mr. Dresdner, noting that indication would provide direction to staff as they hold conversations with interested parties. Ms. Beekman explained that achieving this vision will require a fairly significant amount of work in terms of aligning visions with the private market and bringing it to bear. 06/07/21 -11- Ms. Beekman referenced Mayor/President Elliott’s comments about equity and access and housing and stated she agreed those items are critically important and, in some regard, the most important in terms of ultimate outcomes for this development. Staff is asking the City Council/EDA to speak to that foundational element, the physical frameworks that the rest of the vision is built upon. She explained the City is at the point with some of the work that the implementation part cannot move forward until staff knows we are on the right track in terms of the physical elements comprised of the road network, stormwater plan, and regional trail and park systems. Mayor/President Elliott noted the time is 6:44 p.m. and some on the Finance Commission have joined for the next meeting that was to start at 6:30 p.m. He stated his experience when attending past sessions, one being at the library where a young white couple walked out of the meeting saying ‘you guys already have your mind made up so I don’t know why you’re having this community session.’ Mayor/President Elliott stated it is stuff like bringing a plan that’s already been approved by the City Council/EDA to be engaged upon. He does not understand why the engagement process cannot include land use, which is fundamental to the question of equity. The process of engaging the community on whether businesses should be here, mixed uses here, housing here, parks over here, is fundamental so for him, he thinks there are some good things but it is putting the ‘cart before the horse. He asked if other Councilmembers/Commissioners want to comment on this item before transitioning to the next meeting. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated there is one other element that he feels should not be overlooked. He stated Ms. Beekman mentioned that Mn/DOT is considering some improvements to Highway 100 in the next two to three years. Ms. Beekman stated that is correct. Councilmember/ Commissioner Ryan stated one of his observations in having lived here for a long time, in looking at the road system, is that he remembers before Highway 100 was modified and when Brookdale was still doing well, several businesses would go into the southeast area site and inevitably fail. He observed that because of the configuration of the road system, people would drive along Highway 100, see stores, but not have a clear idea of how to reach those locations. He had euphemistically referred to it as a place where businesses went to die. So, if the City does not know what potential modification there is for Highway 100, then that is when he starts to think about the business mixed-use being designed on the right scale and integrating well into adjacent neighborhoods. To him, that lends more credence to that concept because however Highway 100 is modified, if not as advantageous to that site, it may be more conducive to a business mixed-use because if Highway 100 is not as convenient off/on, it will probably have less impact on that business mixed-use than other uses. Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated there are components of all the options she likes and thinks there is a way to take pieces of each option and adjust it to what will work best for Brooklyn Center. But she too agrees with what Mayor/President Elliott said about wanting engagement and does not want to approve a plan and then engage the community with an already thought-out plan because if she was a community member, she would think you are wasting her time or didn’t care about her opinion. Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated she has to disagree with Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan because she does not think our engagement has been sufficient around this Opportunity Site. She acknowledged the City has made efforts and as feedback was received, staff has adapted, taken that feedback, and improved as we’ve gone along so she wants to give credit to the staff for hearing our concerns and doing their best to adapt and 06/07/21 -12- improve. Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated she does not want to say we have not done any engagement work or staff hasn’t tried. She noted she will not be at the next meeting but will review the packet and is excited to hear what the plan is for engagement. She is not in a position now where she would want to vote on an option at this time but appreciates the presentation and looks forward to hearing more about the community engagement plan. Ms. Beekman stated staff laid out four physical infrastructure pieces and land use is one of those elements. The other three are the open space system, stormwater system, and access and connectivity system. She asked whether the City Council/EDA feels they could move forward with those other frameworks at a future meeting. Ms. Beekman explained there are elements of the implementation piece as well as the conversations with other agencies that lend themselves to needing to know that from a structural standpoint, we are moving in the right direction. Mayor/President Elliott asked if there is a possibility of getting engagement around just those pieces and coming back with that, to frontload engagement around access and connectivity. He stated historically, the land use in these communities has been a question where communities have been left out so he wants to hear from people around those issues and if it means we connect with Mn/DOT and have a more engaged conversation around right-of-way, he is happy to have that conversation with them along with the staff. He asked if there is another way to engage them in that conversation to assure the City will be accommodated by them. Mayor/President Elliott stated he would like the land-use question engaged on and that portion to come back for the City Council/EDA to consider. In the meantime, perhaps he, Dr. Edwards, and Ms. Beekman can engage with Mn/DOT to get something figured out on the land use and right- of-way questions. Ms. Beekman stated she hears that with the land use piece, the City Council wants to do more engagement. She stated the stormwater plan and transportation plan would be two items that to complete implementation, staff needs to know they are on the right track because the next phase of design is fairly intensive and will involve the watershed district, Mn/DOT, Hennepin County, etc. and specifically with Three Rivers Park District, who is putting capital investment into a park and need to know the City Council/EDA is supportive of that direction. She stated these items are fairly critical to carry on those conversations. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she thinks most of what she saw was good and incorporated many things that have already been stated and priorities of the City Council/EDA. A couple of things that came up for her as potential questions but in general, as a framework to get more feedback from the community, she is hoping frameworks can be somewhat flexible and as more engagement and feedback are incorporated into the framework it may change a little bit. With the street structure, she has a few questions about the garden street, which she likes as a concept but is more concerned with safety features to encouraged people to go slow as the roadway will be more narrow. She would like to see a similar example where it has slowed down traffic since this will be open mostly to residents who hopefully wouldn’t speed down their blocks. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves referenced the slide detailing the downside of a particular concept where there would not be space for a workforce-focused amenity, which gave her pause. 06/07/21 -13- She noted there is already meant to be some type of entrepreneurship workforce element to other plans discussed within the Opportunity Site so she is also interested in how this aligns with the other designs the City Council/EDA has discussed and has been getting community engagement upon. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated, in general, she likes the concept, things incorporated, and wonders specifically about the kind of industrial jobs and if located near housing, the types of safety or noise considerations there may be, and how accessible will these living wage jobs be to some of our Brooklyn Center residents. She also asked about the output from the types of businesses that may locate there. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she wondered about the stormwater element and while it won’t be a lazy river, she likes ideas within the recreation option. Similar to what Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated, she thinks it would be nice to incorporate some of the other options into one so when doing community engagement, staff can offer the other options and get feedback on that as well. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated in general, she thinks it is a flexible framework to get feedback on from the community that will be adaptable and iterative so she is okay with moving forward on it. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he appreciates the fact that at this point, there doesn’t seem to be a consensus on land use and desire for additional community input on land use concepts but he does not see why we can’t move forward on stormwater transportation and possibly open space given Three River Park District’s interest. He noted there would still be a lot of flexibility in terms of ultimate land-use decisions. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated the City Council/EDA should not be seen as unwilling or unable to make any decisions about moving the process forward when it is feasible to do so and still be guided by further community engagement. Councilmember/Commissioner Butler asked Ms. Beekman, in terms of decisions needed today, what aspects need to move forward to not hold up the other stakeholders involved. Ms. Beekman stated it was intended this evening to present the infrastructure framework in its entirety and ultimately get direction from the City Council/EDA on whether the staff is on the right track. She stated Councilmember/Commissioner Graves was articulate when she talked about frameworks having flexibility and as part of moving forward, understanding what aspects the City Council/EDA is comfortable with, we might be able to bring it forward at a future meeting to take action. She explained that the resolution to take action can be written to build flexibility. Staff did not think the roads would be built in these exact locations and we are not done talking about those aspects of the project. That is not the intention. Ms. Beekman stated staff intends to create a check-in and place where the City Council/EDA can see the work to date in response to physical realities of the site, geographic context, and community engagement, recognizing this is iterative. But, if the City Council/EDA is not comfortable building in land use, it can be an open space framework, transportation framework, and stormwater framework that allows staff to continue implementation. Councilmember/Commissioner Butler thanked Ms. Beekman for that clarification and stated if it is not set in stone and the City Council/EDA can continue to amend it as getting feedback and 06/07/21 -14- clarity, then she is fine with moving forward. She feels that many elements we spoke to have been incorporated. Ms. Beekman stated the other thing to keep in mind relating to land use is that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan does guide this site for TOD so that component is part of the land use vision and has been codified in the Comprehensive Plan. That is not changed by this framework other than the piece of 20-22 acres along Highway 100 in the southeast segment is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for TOD, staff has seen other land use opportunities come forward. If land use is a component of the framework that the City Council/EDA takes action on at some point in the future, that is fine. But it would be extremely helpful for staff to understand what that level of interest is to the business mixed-use concept because there have been so many conversations with interested parties who want to pursue that type of land use, a business park that is not typical by any means. Financial Commission Chair Taneshia Kragness liked the fact there is so much flexibility, which will go far with the community engagement piece as nothing is set in stone yet and it has the flexibility of combining options. She noted then someone won’t show up saying the decision has already been made and why are you asking now for someone’s opinion. She likes the fact you can say it is still flexible. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked Mayor/President Willson to poll the City Council/EDA for a consensus to address the Community Development Director’s last question about whether there is some level of interest for the business mixed-use development for the 20 acres in the southeast segment. Mayor/President Willson agreed to conduct that poll and asked the City Council/EDA if there is some interest in business mixed-use development for the southeast segment. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he has a strong interest in pursuing that concept and as Councilmember/Commissioner Graves mentioned, none of this is written in stone but there is potential to look at concepts without having predetermined decisions. He is strongly in favor of the business mixed-use concept for that location. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson offered no reply. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves concurred. Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated she is fine with exploring that option. Mayor/President Elliott stated he thinks exploration is okay but moving forward with this as the plan is not okay and he wants to see the community engaged before he is interested in voting on the plan. City Clerk Barb Sucui reported the poll vote shows four in favor of going with business mixed- use for development of the southwest segment. 06/07/21 -15- Mayor/President Elliott confirmed the direction of the City Council/EDA is to explore business mixed-use on that portion of the property. CITY MANAGER POSITION DISCUSSION This item was addressed during June 7, 2021, Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission. ADJOURNMENT Mayor/President Elliott adjourned the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 7:11 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss. Certification of Minutes CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER) The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, certifies: 1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of the City Council from the City of Brooklyn Center Joint Work Session with Financial Commission held on June 7, 2021. 2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof and was duly held at Brooklyn Center City Hall. 3. That the City Council adopted said minutes at its June 14, 2021 Regular Session. City Clerk Mayor 06/28/21 -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 28, 2021 VIA ZOOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Mayor Elliott announced he had to leave the meeting at about 8 p.m. and at that point, Councilmember Graves will take over. Councilmember Graves asked whether Mayor Pro Tem Butler is not present tonight. Mayor Elliott apologized and corrected that Mayor Pro Tem Butler will preside upon his departure. City Clerk Barb Suciu noted an added agenda item related to a Presentation from Hennepin County Regarding Civil Unrest. Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards explained that Commissioner Lunde intended to make a presentation of support from Hennepin County as it pertains to civil unrest. But, due to a family event, Commissioner Lunde is unable to be present tonight so it will be rescheduled for July. Dr. Edwards asked Mayor Elliott about EDA/Work Session item. Mayor Elliott thanked Dr. Elliott for the reminder and removed EDA/Work Session Agenda Item 3, Mayor’s Senior Policy Aide Position, for presentation at an upcoming meeting. Later in the meeting, it was agreed to switch Council Consideration Items 10.a., Resolution Authorizing a Community Engagement Pilot Program with Community Partners for the Opportunity Site, and 10.b., City Manager Appointment. MISCELLANEOUS CHAT FEATURE 06/28/21 -2- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated the City Council had the chat feature before, then discussed it, and turned it off. He stated he likes having the chat feature on to increase participation and asked for City Council input. Councilmember Graves stated she appreciates additional ideas brought forward by the chat feature as well but also sees how sometimes it is a bit of a distraction and space where, if not well facilitated, could be hostile because it is hard to control what people decide to say digitally. She noted even something meaning to come from a good place can be interpreted and received negatively. Councilmember Graves stated, first of all, she looks forward to being able to meet back in person again, which she prefers although it is nice to have the option for virtual should she be out of town or not feeling well. She prefers an in-person connection with Council Members, staff, and community members who attend. She suggested between now and when resuming in-person meetings, the chat feature is open during Work Sessions and Informal Open Formal and closed when not during that time. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson concurred with Councilmember Graves that during the Work Session and Informal Open Forum are a perfect opportunity for the chat feature. Yet during the meeting, she believes it is a distraction, noting in Chambers, public comment is not typically allowed unless a Public Hearing. She stated if the chat feature is used as if an in-person meeting, it would be perfectly fine if facilitated well, which may be an obstacle for the City Clerk who is the host. Councilmember Ryan stated he generally concurs with his colleagues and thinks the chat feature is a distraction and can be used or misused. But if acceptable to most of his colleagues to have the chat feature enabled during a Work Session or Informal Open Forum, he can live with it. But, would just as soon have the chat feature disabled. Councilmember Butler stated she is fine with the suggestions of Councilmember Graves, though the chat feature does not bother her either way. She thinks it is a good compromise for those who do not want it versus those who do. Mayor Elliott asked the City Clerk whether it is technologically feasible to enable the chat feature during the Work Sessions and disable it during the Regular Sessions. Ms. Suciu stated she is not 100% sure and will check into that capability. Mayor Elliott asked for City Council input in the event the chat feature needs to be all or nothing, Councilmember Graves stated even if it has to be enabled at the beginning, the City Clerk could enable it just for herself and not for everyone. Then she could present comments or questions based upon the chats she received. Councilmember Graves stated this is the same as when people try to comment coming off mute. 06/28/21 -3- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated he is interested in using the chat feature because it adds another dimension to the meeting that allows for remote participation we haven’t had before so he would hate to lose that feature completely. He stated before he wanted it off but as he thinks about it, would like to have it available. For him, the question, as mentioned by Councilmember Graves, is folks commenting in ways that are abusive or offensive and he does not know how to monitor that. Mayor Elliott asked the City Clerk to find an answer to that issue, perhaps saying that bullying is not allowed and shutting off that person’s chat. He stated he has heard from the community about this and the consensus seems to be that they want the ability to be able to comment. Ms. Suciu stated she could enable the chat feature at the start of the Informal Open forum, turn the chat feature to host only during the Regular Session, and then enable the chat feature again during the EDA/Work Session. She explained this feature has to be set up when the meeting is set up so tonight, she is not able to do that. It was the City Council consensus to enable the chat feature during Informal Open Forum, turn the chat feature to host only during the Regular Session and enable the chat feature during the EDA/ Work Sessions. RESUME IN-PERSON COUNCIL MEETINGS Dr. Edwards stated that staff is looking to open City Hall to the public on Monday, July 12, 2021, for regular business. At the last City Council meetings, it was indicated that if going back to regular meetings they would seek to provide technology so people can access public meetings as they do now virtually but that would pertain to the public and not the Council Members. Council Members would still be obligated by law to participate at City Council meetings in person and cannot use virtual meetings as a proxy or to vote via virtual meeting. Mayor Elliott stated all have become more adept with virtual meetings and asked whether there are any discussions to change the rule so city councils can meet remotely. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist advised he is not aware of a general legislative effort to allow that. He explained that currently, Brooklyn Center is operating under an emergency authority in the face of a health pandemic or emergency declaration to meet electronically. Also, the City would have to find it is not practical or prudent, because of one of those criteria, to meet in person. Once that goes away, the City has to default back to the general rule of having to meet in person. Mr. Gilchrist stated about Councilmember Graves’ earlier comment, there is a current Statute that allows a member to participate electronically. But, there are several ‘hoops to be jumped through for that person to do that. The member has to be at a public place remotely, everyone has to be able to hear everyone, so it is somewhat like the rules for these meetings. Once we are beyond the emergency electronic meeting format and go back into the normal format, there is a limited exception that allows members to participate remotely if, as Councilmember Graves mentioned, they are traveling for work or not feeling well. Mayor Elliott asked whether there is a limit on the number of times an individual could meet remotely with those special exceptions. Mr. Gilchrist advised an amendment was made to that law 06/28/21 -4- DRAFT during the last Legislative Session that gave three opportunities to meet without being in a public forum but they were COVID related to a doctor’s stay at home order, or military service. He recalled the Statute does not have a general cap on how often you can do that but each time, you have to satisfy the criterion including providing notice that ‘member x will be participating from this remote location.’ Mayor Elliott asked about the timeline for going back to in-person meetings. Dr. Edwards stated it is at the City Council’s discretion and nothing is preventing the City Council from starting to meet in person at this time. Mr. Gilchrist asked the City Council to keep in mind this is the exception, not the rule, due to the pandemic emergency allowing an electronic meeting format. Even then, it is only if you find it is not practical or prudent to meet in person. Once the City Council determines, as the presiding officer, that there is no reason the City Council can’t meet in person, then he would sign a statement to that effect and everything goes back to normal, meeting in person. Mr. Gilchrist advised that as the restrictions associated with the pandemic have lessened and the Governor’s emergency order may come to an end in August, there will be a point where Brooklyn Center can no longer justify having electronic meetings anymore. He noted some cities have already gone back to in-person meetings and others have done so while keeping the public portal open for the public to participate remotely. Councilmember Graves explained that in her full-time job with the City of Minneapolis, they sent a survey to employees to gauge their interest or non-interest in flexible work locations and times. She likes to work on the ground in the community and it is nice she has a desk space downtown but also nice to be able to call into some meetings or work from home on certain days. She stated this is an opportunity to try and adapt and be flexible to everyone’s lives and help people find a work/life balance. But, at the same time, she does not want to lose the in-person aspect because that is when the most authentic energy comes through to build relationships, which is what we are doing every day. Councilmember Graves stated she is anxious to get back to in-person meetings in alignment with what the Governor does, it makes sense and gives the City time to prepare emotionally and physically the spaces they share. Ms. Suciu stated she talked with the cable provider and if going with a hybrid format, some work will need to be done so the sooner date is decided, that work can progress so they are ready by the meeting date. Mayor Elliott stated he will work on this with Dr. Edwards and Mr. Gilchrist to determine a date this fall to start in-person meetings. He asked Council Members what that should look like, noting we should think about ways in which we will share that space and how it will aid or negatively impact our ability to do the work we’re doing. Councilmember Butler stated she thinks about spacing for the Council and the Chambers, noting it cannot be assumed that everyone is or is not vaccinated. She asked if the meetings will take place in the Council Chambers or move to a larger space, such as done for a few public meetings 06/28/21 -5- DRAFT in April and May. Councilmember Butler stated in terms of going back, she has enjoyed attending virtual meetings from home but, like Councilmember Graves stated, she understands it is important to meet in person to develop those relationships with the community. She stated August would be a great timeline and give people time to work out the issues over the next few meetings. Mayor Elliott stated that is a good point and we cannot assume everyone who comes to the meetings is vaccinated so we need to assure there is enough space. REVIEW DATES FOR COUNCIL RETREAT Dr. Edwards introduced the item, noting the City Council is being asked to consider dates for a meeting with Common Sense. He explained that the consultant prefers the date of July 24 or July 10 and July 31 is no longer an option. He stated there are several issues the City Council wants to address: the development the City Council has been working on; issues coming out of the Listening Sessions; and, work around engagement and building consensus with Council on engagement. He explained that if held on July 24, there would be additional time, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. If meeting on July 10, there is only a 2-hour block of time available, from 8-10 a.m. Dr. Edwards stated weekdays were not considered but if the City Council is open to that, he can ask Common Sense for additional dates. Mayor Elliott asked if this will be an in-person retreat. Dr. Edwards answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted according to the Friday update, this meeting was to be July 26. Dr. Edwards apologized for the error and clarified July 26 is the date for the regular City Council meetings. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated July 24 works for her. Councilmember Butler stated July 24 is the only day that does not work for her. Councilmember Ryan stated he is fine with either date so whatever works for the balance of the membership. Councilmember Graves stated it is the same for her. Mayor Elliott stated July 10 does not work for him and July 24 does not work for Councilmember Butler. Councilmember Butler stated if it works for everyone else, she may be able to change her schedule. Dr. Edward stated it would be 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. but that it can be shortened to assure Councilmember Butler’s participation. Councilmember Butler stated she will be out of town hosting an event and can make it work but maybe not until 12:30 p.m. She stated she should be available from 8:30 to 11 a.m. However, if in-person attendance is required, she would not be available. 06/28/21 -6- DRAFT Mayor Elliott asked if there will be a remote option. Dr. Edwards stated it is an in-person meeting but remote virtual attendance can be made available if needed. Mayor Elliott asked Dr. Edwards to check with Common Sense about one member attending remotely to assure it can be facilitated. If that works, then the meeting will be held on July 24 with Councilmember Butler attending virtually. If it does not work, he suggested Dr. Edwards ask about August 7. Councilmember Graves stated August 7 is her daughter’s birthday but if the meeting is held earlier during the day, she could make it work. Councilmember Butler stated August 7 works for her. Mayor Elliott asked about August 14. Councilmember Butler stated she has a work event starting at 1 p.m. on August 14 so for her, it would work until about noon. Councilmember Graves stated she thinks August 14 will work for her. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated either August 7 or 14 will work for her. Councilmember Ryan stated August 7 or 14 will possibly work but he is planning a trip and will have to check the dates. Mayor Elliott asked Dr. Edwards to also check on the dates of August 7 and 14 if they prefer to have the full City Council attend in person. REGULAR SESSION AGENDA MODIFICATION Mayor Elliott switched the order of Council Consideration Items 10.a., Resolution Authorizing a Community Engagement Pilot Program with Community Partners for the Opportunity Site, and 10.b., City Manager Appointment. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS Mayor Elliott reported that since the last meeting, progress has been made in recruiting to assure more applications are received. He stated they have made a lot of headway and at the next meeting, he will bring forward more reappointments and appointments. He thanked Silas Means who just started as an intern and is actively working with him on recruiting for the commissions including meeting with Hmong pastors, visiting apartments, and working with their management, and the barbershop. Mayor Elliott stated they now have a few names of people interested in joining commissions. He stated they are also working on a plan for when applications are made, when appointments are 06/28/21 -7- DRAFT made, and reviewing formats from other cities in terms of having an appointment form to assure a clear record. Mayor Elliott stated he may not be attending tonight’s Work Session so he wanted to open this item to get Council Member’s input. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she is pleased that progress has been made and there will be new appointments coming forth, noting it is important to maintain the integrity of our legacy partners who can mentor new individuals as well as recruiting people from diverse backgrounds. She stated there needs to be a good balance between existing long-term members who bring experience and also new people with fresh ideas. Councilmember Graves agreed with Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson and stated she is excited to see what applications and applicants will come before the City Council. She stated we need to make sure the commissions are as full as possible so engagement and work are completed and staff can get their work done. Councilmember Graves stated the City Council participated in the Listening Sessions and that was something that came up so she is excited about the recruitment that has been happening, seeing which applications will come before the City Council, and considering approval at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott adjourned the Study Session at 6:48 p.m. 06/28/21 -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 28, 2021 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Elliott seconded to open the Informal Open Forum at 6:48 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for Informal Open Forum and invited the public to speak. City Clerk Barb Suciu stated Charice sent an e-mail before the meeting with information and would like to speak. Charice stated she sent information ahead of time and believes a sign is needed at Northport Park to share with the people who use the shelter that the sound volume, primarily music, needs to be kept down to the ordinance regulation, which is 50 feet. She and her neighbors want to be part of the sound assessment discussion, noting details including a video of a June 19 gathering during which the sound was excessive, which have been submitted for the City Council’s consideration. She also sent additional documents showing how far the sound is heard as measured in feet, to the street, and what 50 feet look like according to the Brooklyn Center Nuisance Ordinance. Mayor Elliott thanked Charice for providing the information and indicated the City Council will follow up with her after reviewing of the information and what actions will be taken. Diane Sannes reminded the City Council of the meeting on the first three Tuesdays in July, starting at 6 p.m., to modernize the City’s zoning code. She asked staff to remind the City Council of the meetings as they hope a lot of people will attend. 06/28/21 -2- DRAFT Ms. Sannes noted that National Night Out on the first Tuesday in August is not listed on the City’s calendar and asked if that can be updated. She stated the City is holding a concert that same night in Centennial Park. Mayor Elliott thanked Ms. Sannes and stated staff will follow up on those requests. No one else wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:55 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECESS AND RECONVENE Mayor Elliott recessed the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:02 p.m. 2. INVOCATION Councilmember Ryan suggested, as a matter of privilege, the City Council skip the Invocation and move on with the meeting. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 7:03 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, to switch Council Consideration Agenda Items 10.a., Resolution Authorizing a Community Engagement Pilot Program with Community Partners for the Opportunity Site, and 10.b., City Manager Appointment, and remove EDA/Work Session Agenda Item 3., Mayor’s Senior Policy Aide Position, and the following consent items were approved: 06/28/21 -3- DRAFT 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 14, 2021 – Study Session 2. June 14, 2021 – Regular Session 6b. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-82 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION BY-LAWS Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2021-002, FOR-SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL, ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6221 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, AND A RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT TO THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED DENSITIES WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL MIXED- USE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards introduced the item and invited Ms. Beekman to present the staff report. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated this item will be presented by Ms. McIntosh. Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh provided a PowerPoint presentation of a multi- part request for a site-building and plan approval, the establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), an amendment to the Zoning Code, and an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She displayed a map of the subject site, noting it is just south of City Hall at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway to allow for the construction of a new 5-story, 48-unit multi-unit apartment building, the conversion of existing office space into a studio unit, and related site improvements. Ms. McIntosh stated the Crest Apartments was originally approved for development in 1972 and noted on the application that the project had been authorized under the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) 236 Housing Program, intended to boost the nation’s existing housing 06/28/21 -4- DRAFT supply and provide low-cost rental housing. In 2012, Aeon purchased the Crest Apartments through a HUD foreclosure process with the intent to assure the long-term affordability of those apartments. Some renovations were completed around 2014, specifically to the building systems and aesthetic improvements. Around 2014, there were initial discussions about the potential future buildout on that 4.37-acre site. These conversations came and went over the years and in 2017, there were additional discussions about an addition to the Crest Apartment complex. Now, at the end of April 2021, the City Council had a concept review with Aeon and several weeks ago, the Planning Commission had their review. Ms. McIntosh stated the Crest Apartments is 13-stories and has 122 units. On the west side is a green space and gardening plots. She used a map to point out the entry points off Shingle Creek Parkway. Ms. McIntosh stated the over-arching request for discussion tonight is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which is required any time there is a change in a small area plan, land-use changes to allow for development, forecast changes to an Urban Service Area, text changes, routine updates to public facilities agreements, or a multitude of other meetings. She noted the City Council will make a motion and if it is to recommend approval, a Comprehensive Amendment has an additional step through the Metropolitan Council who has the ultimate authority. Ms. McIntosh explained the Comprehensive Amendment is being requested because the Crest Apartment property currently has a designation of Commercial Mixed Use, which allows for a density range of 10-25 dwelling units per acre. Assuming the proposed 172 units, this would be 39.1 dwelling units per acre, which is beyond the 25 caps. Currently, the Crest Apartment building already has 27.9 dwelling units per acre so it is already over that threshold. Ms. McIntosh stated City staff reviewed the proposal, looked at other properties with a Commercial Mixed Use designation under the Comprehensive Plan, and determined there had been an oversight in the Comprehensive Plan process. There are other commercial properties with a Commercial Mixed Use designation that fall above the 25 dwelling units per acre cap, specifically the Lux. Ms. McIntosh explained the Commercial Mixed Use designation allows for a wide range of uses but 50% of this particular designation was set aside for residential development at densities just lower than the TOD designation under the Comprehensive Plan, which allows between 31 and 130 dwelling units per acre. Ms. McIntosh stated the TOD and Commercial Mixed Use designations are expected to take on the bulk of forecasted residential growth in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The key is that the Commercial Mixed Use designation only accounts for about 88 acres of the entirety of the City, or 1.6% of land area in Brooklyn Center. Staff is requesting the density range move from its cap of 25 dwelling units per acre up to 60 dwelling units per acre. That would account for the expansion with the Crest Apartments and other properties that may be redeveloped again in the future. 06/28/21 -5- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh stated the specific request is for the Central Commerce Overlay District. This came up several years ago with Real Estate Equities. The Central Commerce Overlay District encompasses the Shingle Creek Crossing and Opportunity Site areas, which have been in place since early 2000. However, residential uses are not listed as use so, therefore, they are not allowed in an Overlay District. Since Overlay Districts only came online in the early 2000s, there are multi-family families in that Overlay District today. The multi-family properties are the Crest, developed in the 1970s, the Lux in the 1980s, plus Gateway Commons. Ms. McIntosh explained since the City is undertaking a Zoning Code update, this Overlay District will be revised or removed but because that update is not yet complete, the request is to remove the Crest property from the Overlay District. This same request was made in 2019 for the Jerry’s Food site, which was in the Central Commerce Overlay District, and was removed for the Real Estate Equities projects to move forward. Ms. McIntosh stated the third request is for the establishment of a PUD. She explained that given the City Code update and changes to the Zoning Districts to mesh and align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the request is to rezone this property to PUD. That will allow some flexibility in the Zoning Code that is not currently provided. As mentioned in past meetings, PUDs are often used to achieve higher quality development or City goals in exchange for that flexibility. As proposed, the request would be to rezone this property, which is R-7, the densest district allowing 31 units per acre and this is the only R-7 property to PUD-Mixed Use. She noted the Lux property was originally zoned R-7 and rezoned to PUD. Ms. McIntosh stated the fourth request is the most visible, the site and building plan request for a 48-unit, 5-story building addition, connected via lobby and pedestrian walkway, to the existing apartment building. The new building, as proposed by Aeon, is intended to provide family-focused units so there would only be 4 1-bedroom units, 28 2-bedroom units, and 16 3-bedroom units. As mentioned previously, 3-bedroom units are a ‘unicorn’ in Brooklyn Center. The Crest building has 78 1-bedroom units, 44 2-bedroom units, and as part of this request, will convert existing office space to a studio unit, totaling 171 units. Ms. McIntosh stated the proposed addition would be north/south facing and include a community room, fitness room, learning center, and laundry rooms on each floor. They will install a new play structure, garden boxes for residents, and an outdoor patio off the community room. Staff was not concerned about the front setback as it is far from Shingle Creek Parkway, about 300 feet. The back is about 93 feet off the rear setback, which abuts Centennial Park, and the closest point it gets to is along with City Hall at 65 feet off the property line. Ms. McIntosh stated because this is a PUD request, the City follows a set of guidelines based on the Shingle Creek Crossing for, at a minimum 50% of each building face to be comprised of Class 1 type building materials (bricks, masonry, glass) with the remaining a Class 2 type building material (architectural metal panels, fiber cement, EFIS). After reviewing the exhibit provided after the Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2021, that was submitted today, if this moves forward there will be some back and forth to get the percentage numbers up. She stated they are proposing a lot of architectural metal panels, hardy board for most of it, and concrete on the bottom with Class 1 windows. Ms. McIntosh displayed a colored rendering of the proposed addition 06/28/21 -6- DRAFT exterior elevation and materials board, noting the area of connection would be the new main lobby/leasing area for both buildings. Ms. McIntosh presented the proposed parking plan. The existing apartment building required 342 on-site parking spaces. In 1972, when proposed, it was known 123 on-site parking spaces were to be provided and constructed on the site and 121 proof of parking spaces were to be reserved to the west of the parking area. She stated the proof of parking spaces was never constructed and the plans indicate there are 130 spaces on site today for the existing apartment building of 122 units. The proposal would offer 195 on-site parking spaces broken up between surface parking, a garage on the ground floor level of the addition, and a small area to the east of the existing Crest Apartment for the proof of parking replacement if required. Ms. McIntosh stated a parking study was completed and included in the staff report that determined there would be a 50-space surplus assuming the 195 spaces and 171 units between both buildings. She displayed a map and pointed out the proposed parking areas and access points that remain the same. Ms. McIntosh stated the numbers the engineering firm worked with for the parking study were based on the existing apartment and filled units. The existing parking building is only 1- and 2- bedroom units so there may be some fluctuation should there be units with several younger drivers. Ms. McIntosh presented the lighting plan that complied with the City’s requirements but staff determined that sufficient pedestrian lighting should be distributed across the site, the entrances, exits, walkways, all amenities, and trash enclosures that people may access in the evening hours. The other comment was that given the reduction in parking since several people will use public transportation or walk along Shingle Creek Parkway to the bus stop and Transit Station, they should think about potential travel routes to the new addition since pedestrians may not follow a sidewalk. Ms. McIntosh stated they are proposing a trash enclosure at the southeast corner of the building. Staff needs to confirm if the existing trash enclosure will or will not remain. If it remains, then it will need to comply with screening requirements as it does not currently. They will also need to address screening from the units just above. Staff will be requesting turning radius diagrams to make sure delivery, garbage trucks, and busses can drop off and make the turns necessary to get in and out. Ms. McIntosh stated they may need to think about providing trash receptacles or cans around the site, especially if there will be gardening plots, as well as near the community room patio and playground areas. Ms. McIntosh stated all ground-mounted equipment needs to be screened from the right-of-way and other properties by a solid wall or fence and the same thing goes for roof-mounted equipment. There is an existing piece of equipment on the northeast corner of the existing apartment building that is not in compliance. So, as part of this, the City is requesting that the enclosure be updated to comply with the Code. Ms. McIntosh stated with the landscaping, the City uses a landscape point system policy. This proposal needs 358 points based on their multi-family and acreage requirements. Based on staff 06/28/21 -7- DRAFT review, they are just meeting that at 360.5 points. She noted perhaps they might provide some conifers. Ms. McIntosh reviewed a rendering showing signage and explained a specific signage proposal has not yet been submitted. The City is also updating its Sign Ordinance so staff will review the sign plan when submitted. Ms. McIntosh stated the City Engineer submitted a review letter and the applicant will need to comply with all comments and revision requests including an NPDES Permit since disturbing over an acre as well as a Watershed plan review. She pointed out the Engineer noted they should try to do a better job of routing surface runoff from the parking areas through the soil before discharging to the stormwater. Ms. McIntosh reviewed the requirements for review by the Metropolitan Council, compliance with the Accessibility Code, a fire sprinkler system installed in the addition and enclosed garage, and provide missing details on the riser room and connection to the Fire Department and fire access aisle requirements. These requirements will need to be met, pending approval of the application, and upon submitting plans to the City for review. Ms. McIntosh stated they had initial conversations regarding crime prevention and environmental design. Staff typically likes to see applicants, especially with multi-family, have a meeting and go through that process. So, some commentary was provided but a formal recommendation was not provided. Pending approval of this application, staff would like them to submit their plans for formal review before receiving any permits. Ms. McIntosh indicated a public hearing notice was posted and sent to single-family homes across the park in alignment with Centennial Park. A City sign was also installed along Shingle Creek Parkway notifying of this proposal. A public hearing was held on June 10, 2021, for these requests. Staff did not receive any comments before the meeting from the public and a resident did provide comments at the hearing about the proposed building materials and make-up. Generally, the Planning Commission was in support of the proposed improvements and expansion. Ms. McIntosh stated representatives from Aeon and EKB Group were available for questions and at the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the City Council approve the application requests. Ms. McIntosh stated the request is for two motions: approval of the site and building plan, the PUD, and the zoning map amendment for this property and recommended amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the increased densities that will require an additional process with the Metropolitan Council; and, approve first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code to allow for the PUD and removal from the Central Commerce Overlay District. Ms. McIntosh reviewed a slight change per the City Attorney, noting the ordinance language before the City Council was slightly changed. She displayed a slide showing both versions. 06/28/21 -8- DRAFT Mayor Elliott stated he is generally supportive of the application and asked about the change in density from 10-25 residential units per acre to 10-60 residential units per acre and if it is for this application alone. Ms. McIntosh stated it would be for the properties that have the Commercial Mixed Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, which is 1.6% of all land area in Brooklyn Center. That is because the Lux is also designated as Commercial Mixed Use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan but does not meet that density cap of 25 residential units per acre because it is in the 43-45 range of residential units per acre. Mayor Elliott asked, generally speaking, what do the 60 units per acre density translate to, medium or high density. Ms. McIntosh stated under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the densest district, the TOD District, allows for 31 to 130 dwelling units per acre. Currently, the Commercial Mixed Use designation allows 10-25 dwelling units per acre and we would bump it from 10 to 60 so there would be a bit of overlap. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked for a clarification on the parking language and what does proof of parking mean. Ms. McIntosh explained it means you are supposed to have this much but are demonstrating that you don’t need this much. But, if it turns out that you do need this much, you need to save a place for it. She stated there is a flat rate of two parking spaces per dwelling unit and in the 1970s when it was being considered, the applicant had stated this is going to be affordable housing, a lot of these people will use public transportation, walking, and using other methods of transportation so they don’t need all of the required parking. The City said they could construct 123 parking spaces but they need to save a spot for another 121 spaces to get to the minimum required parking. Then if it turns out there are parking problems, they would have to construct the proof of parking spaces. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted there are 122 units but only 130 parking spaces on site. She asked if that is adequate parking now. Ms. McIntosh stated that is the assumption. A parking study was completed by Alliant Engineering who went to the site on a few select days during the week and on the weekend in the morning hours and evening hours. She noted this is broken down into greater detail in the parking study. Based on their observations, they counted the parking spaces, how many were and were not occupied, considering that 117 units of the 122 existing units are occupied, and then based on what they saw, calculated a parking rate number, which was substantially lower than two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted the proposal shows they will provide 195 on-site parking spaces and a new surface parking lot with 164 spaces. Ms. McIntosh clarified that as part of this proposal, the parking lot would be completely reconstructed so they can address stormwater concerns. The parking lot will also be restriped to 06/28/21 -9- DRAFT allow for 164 surface parking spaces and the ground level would have an enclosed garage for 31 more parking spaces, for a total of 195 parking spaces. If it turns out they need additional parking, they have determined there is room for additional 14 parking spaces, if needed. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson noted the 195 parking spaces is the new lot of 164 parking spaces plus the 31 garage parking spaces. Ms. McIntosh stated that is correct. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson thanked Ms. McIntosh for the clarification. Councilmember Graves asked about the different government entity reviews and when that happens in the process. Ms. McIntosh stated assuming the City Council recommends that all four requests are approved, then staff will work with the applicant to submit the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment through the Metropolitan Council. That request will not be considered by the Metropolitan Council until they receive a City Council resolution saying they are supportive of the amendment. That will be the next step in the process if supported by the City Council. At that point, there will need to be approval by the Metropolitan Council because the proposed density is above. If the Metropolitan Council approves the amendment, then construction plans would be submitted to the City. Councilmember Graves asked if this process results in it coming back before the City Council. Ms. McIntosh explained the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be a recommended approval for the density increase. Then staff will submit the City Council resolution along with the other paperwork for consideration by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council will make the final determination. If they do not approve, then this project will not move forward. Councilmember Graves stated the Metropolitan Council is the body that will also review the environmental information and other reviews. Ms. McIntosh stated with this project, because of where it is located adjacent to Shingle Creek, requires a review by the Watershed Commission, which is a separate process not undertaken by the Metropolitan Council. If a project is under five acres, the City staff reviews it in-house. She noted the MPCA has its own permitting and review requirements as well. So, those reviews and approvals are needed for this project to move forward but are not under the control of the City. She explained the City will not issue a building permit until all of the approvals have been received from those agencies. Councilmember Graves stated she is in support of moving forward with the resolutions. Mayor Elliott stated the items before the City Council are as follows: 1. Establishment of a PUD 2. Amendment to the Zoning Map to remove this property from the Central Overlay District 3. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 4. Allow for the range of units per acre to be increased from a minimum of 10-25 to a minimum of 10-60 dwelling units per acre within the Commercial Mixed Use designation 06/28/21 -10- DRAFT Mayor Elliott asked if the Commercial Mixed Use designation covers about 1.6% of the City’s total landmass. Ms. McIntosh answered in the affirmative and stated it is about 88 acres, noting the entire City is about 5,600 acres. Mayor Elliott stated it would then only apply to 88 acres in the City. Ms. McIntosh stated that is correct and it would apply to the northern portions of the Opportunity Site. Ms. Beekman stated there are two land use categories in the City that are intended to be higher density: TOD which comprises most of the Opportunity Site as well as some of the properties to the north of Shingle Creek Crossing; and, Commercial Mixed Use. The intention of that land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for higher density residential but would be slightly less intense than the designated TOD areas. Ms. Beekman stated as staff looked at the Comprehensive Plan through the lens of this particular application, they realized the Comprehensive Plan had capped the Commercial Mixed Use residential density at 25 units per acre, which was an oversight at the time and not the intention for that district. She stated if you think about the Commercial Mixed Use area, it comprises the portion of the City between 694 and Summit Drive. This is primarily where the Heritage Center is located, office buildings, but also the Lux, a senior facility, and the Crest. The Comprehensive Plan had envisioned that up to 50% of that area could potentially redevelop in the future to residential, recognizing the size and density of buildings already out there that could conceivably go towards more residential uses. Ms. Beekman stated as staff looked at the Opportunity Site and talked with property owners in these areas, once the Master Plan for the Opportunity Site is done, it is likely the Comprehensive Plan will need to be amended again to make sure the Opportunity Site Master Plan is fully embedded and can be used for regulatory purposes. But, for the time being, in looking at Commercial Mixed Use and recognizing it wants to be medium-high density residential, there is not a district in the Comprehensive Plan that identifies that. Mayor Elliott asked if there were additional comments or questions. Hearing none, he called for a motion. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-83 to Approve Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 for Site and Building Plan Approval, Establishing of a Planned Unit Development, and a Zoning Map Amendment for the subject property located at 6221 Shingle 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 within 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. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code of Ordinances regarding 06/28/21 -11- DRAFT the zoning classification of the subject property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway and set the Second Reading and Public Hearing for July 26, 2021. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX AUTHORIZING A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PILOT PROGRAM WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY SITE This item was considered following Item 10.b. City Manager Appointment. 10b. CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT Mayor Elliott stated the City Council has been talking about the City Manager appointment for several sessions. He stated there is an Acting City Manager at this time who has been in the role since April 12, 2021, and served the City long before that. The City Council is in a position now to solidify the work that Dr. Edwards has led in our City since that date on helping to bring new ways of thinking about the work we are doing, new innovative approaches, and community inclusive work. Mayor Elliott recommended that tonight, the City Council move ahead and appoint Dr. Edwards as the City Manager and direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution reflecting his appointment and act on it at the next City Council meeting. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she wholeheartedly agrees with Mayor Elliott, 100%, and that the City needs continuity of leadership at this time, particularly based on staff feedback as far as the current unrest within the organization. She believed Dr. Edwards had done a wonderful job and will continue to do so. Councilmember Butler stated she agrees as well, thanked Dr. Edwards for the work he has done, and his commitment to Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Ryan stated he concurs with his City Council colleagues and hopes the Acting City Manager is soon to be City Manager Edwards. He stated he appreciates Dr. Edward’s hard work, tireless efforts, commitment to Brooklyn Center, and exemplary character. Councilmember Graves stated she concurs with everybody else and is happy to hear we are moving forward with a well-deserved appointment. Mayor Elliott asked City Attorney Gilchrist to prepare a resolution for consideration at the next City Council meeting. Mr. Gilchrist stated he would be happy to do so and assumed that would include the City Manager contract as well. 06/28/21 -12- DRAFT Mayor Elliott answered in the affirmative. 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-84 AUTHORIZING A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PILOT PROGRAM WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY SITE Dr. Edwards introduced the item and noted this item was tabled from the last City Council meeting to tonight when a full Council would be present. He explained that tonight is an opportunity for ‘table setting,’ understanding, and to establish expectations as it relates to engagement and efforts needed to meet those expectations around the Opportunity Site. He invited Ms. Beekman to make the staff presentation. Ms. Beekman stated this is a follow-up item. Staff had met with the City Council in March of 2021 and been working with a consultant, NEOO Partners, who have been the EDA’s representative as it pertains to the Opportunity Site redevelopment and has been leading and managing that process. As part of that work, they identified and outlined an approach for community engagement, which was presented to the City Council in March. That approach included going out into the community, identifying community partners that would partner with the City, and help carry that engagement work deep into the community and provide an opportunity for an innovative and ultimately unique approach for community engagement. This would involve contracting with organizations and agencies that are embedded within the City with deep and meaningful connections with community members and be able to expand the City’s engagement reach. Ms. Beekman stated the City prepared an RFQ to seek proposals from prospective community partners to understand what they felt the best approach would be for community engagement. As part of that work, staff recognized the City Council’s role in this will be to set the timeline, budget, and items that will be engaged around. But, wanting to leave as much flexibility within the community to identify the best ways and strategies. Ms. Beekman noted at that March meeting, staff laid out, for the City Council’s consideration, a description of different types of engagement ranging from light touch to medium touch to deep- dive engagement and recognizing that each type of engagement strategy serves a different purpose from informing the public, consulting with the public, decision making, as well as empowering the public and community to make decisions around the project. Each strategy has different time requirements and costs associated with it so needed to understand from community engagement groups what seemed to work best. Ms. Beekman reported the City received a good response and the consultant team has done a phenomenal job of working individually with each of these groups to refine and hone and make sure of the most efficient process. The goal tonight is to have the City Council approve the process as well as a not-to-exceed budget to allow flexibility so NEOO Partners can work with community partners going forward to continue to refine those contracts and allow flexibility should gap be identified with various community groups to bring them on board as we move forward. 06/28/21 -13- DRAFT Ms. Beekman stated this is a pilot engagement process to test the waters and see what works best, we will learn along the way, and continue to refine and hone. But what is learned will be carried forward and used in future engagement on the Opportunity Site and also for other engagement work the City undertakes. She stated this will focus on the Opportunity Site but recognize that the process is something that is new and unique and provides flexibility to learn from it and carry those lessons forward. Mayor Elliott stated, as he indicated earlier in the meeting, he needs to step away and invited Mayor Pro Tem Butler to preside over the remainder of the meeting. Mayor Elliott left the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Butler asked staff to proceed. DAngelos Svenkeson, NEOO Partners, stated they have provided some flags to allow for catch up as a lot has transpired since early March so there are several opportunities to refresh on the items they talked through at the last City Council update session as well as a deeper dive around some of the nuances around budget, timeline, activities we can expect for the dollar amounts, as well as the request. Mr. Svenkeson stated NEOO Partners is a professional planning and development firm based in the Twin Cities, an African-American owned and operated firm, with seven professionals spanning two States (Mississippi and Minnesota), and have met the City Council over the last 90 days. They set out on a journey and conversation that resonated with Ms. Beekman and her team around the intersection of real estate development, urban planning, and community engagement. He reviewed the pathway through round one engagement in 2019, round two that was interrupted by COVID, and plan for a reboot in 2021 where they presented in March. They also recognize the space that is required for a community to heal from more recent events. He stated the timeline gets us to the end of this year, respecting everything we are recovering from at the same time society is pushing forward rapidly post-COVID. Mr. Svenkeson stated the three goals of engagement recognized are: • How do we create a pathway for direct community participation in the planning process? • How do we create a pathway for community partners to lead the engagement work, not relying on what is considered to be professionals? • How do we allow for a transparent connection between the community partners and the City Council? Mr. Svenkeson stated this framework was developed and presented in March when the City Council would work with a citizen advisory task force as well as a group of community partners who would target specific niches in the community that has been identified as historically hard to reach (BIPOC communities, local agencies, faith-based organizations, non-profit service providers, youth), and lift the voices of local businesses and residents of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Svenkeson stated NEOO Partners would act as an engagement manager providing technical assistance to the partners as they move forward with engagement. 06/28/21 -14- DRAFT Mr. Svenkeson presented slides outlining roles and responsibilities, noting the City Council would approve a process, timeline, and set cost boundaries. The defined roles and responsibilities, setting metrics for how engagement will be done related to the content, and staff will be providing some guidance. He reviewed the next layer outlining what the partners would be doing, outlining methodology, creating tools and materials, and engaging directly with the community. NEOO Partners would then collect and collate the response data and the task force would take that feedback, form equity scorecards, as well a community benefits plan that needs to be created to hold all parties accountable for the results of the engagement. Mr. Svenkeson stated they would lead strategy, track timelines, costs, train the trainers on nuances around urban planning, collate all the reporting from the partners, and get it back to the City Council at the end of this session. Mr. Svenkeson stated they acknowledge that engaging around a 10-15-year Master Plan is a very nebulous task for folks who are in the middle of a pandemic, reacting, responding, and trying to heal from civil unrest and violent crimes to residents, and dealing with a recession that affected a disproportionate amount of BIPOC communities. So, given the reality of the moment, they wanted to focus and agree this is a pilot process to create something tangible for the Opportunity Site. Mr. Svenkeson explained that based on the March meeting, they created an RFQ process that was sent out to several prospective community partners, residents, and religious leaders asking them to submit a level of qualifications and a very low-entry to barrier type of way to tell us who you are, what have you done, and what would you like to do. From that process, they had about a dozen responses from different organizations. After talking and interviewing them, they were encouraged to submit a proposal about what they would like to do now that they have more information about the project and process. He explained he uses the term ‘perspective community partners’ because no one has a contract now. He displayed a list of those partners who emerged and submitted a proposal and described their discussion about how to reach those hard to target and engage populations. This existing group of prospective community partners submitted a budget and timeline that digs in from June to November but that has been changed to a July to December timeline given current events. Mr. Svenkeson presented the engagement timeline, noting it is robust with July to mid-August with a lot of level setting and history and information exchange, to make sure the hardest to reach portions of the neighborhood are fully up to speed about what has already taken place, and what is being considered and proposed for the Opportunity Site. He explained that when they were asked to submit proposals, not in alignment with each other, there was a lot of overlap so they received a request for funds for about $550,000 for engagement. His team looked at industry norms for hours, rates, and times for different activities as well as creating a low and high based on the responses and standardized each of the scopes received. Mr. Svenkeson displayed a chart depicting the proposed high and low budgets and engagement activities for each of the prospective community partners. He stated they had asked for proposals and partnerships and teams. Not everyone cross-communicated with each other so they identified quite a bit of overlap, redundancy, and duplication, and are now talking with each group about what can be taken out of some proposals. Mr. Svenkeson explained some groups asked to 06/28/21 -15- DRAFT specialize in just communications and translation services where others wanted to do more focus groups or town hall settings. He noted there was a lot of overlap in the door-knocking in the same targeted communities so they considered how to ensure all parts of Brooklyn Center receive adequate door knocking while still investing the resources in the hard-to-reach communities to make sure they know about the project and know when they can provide input, correction, or alternate suggestions on the project. He stated there are other means of communication that are more highly skewed towards youth through an online presence, and audio/video content for advertising. Mr. Svenkeson stated they standardized it because in March they had a budget range between $15,000 and $50,000 for the different partners. They created a checklist and the resolution before the Council speaks to the City allowing a not to exceed the budget of $300,000, which will be geared towards creating flexibility over the next six months and it is not guaranteed to spend this amount over six months or that every partner is contracted because there could be some efficiencies. But what it does allow is flexibility and fill gaps in the process that may emerge to create a standard for a robust engagement going forward and allow this project to be that test. Mr. Svenkeson stated they are recommending a not-to-exceed budget of $300,000 and any number of combinations of partnerships with the community partners. Ms. Beekman stated Mr. Svenkeson summed it up well in terms of talking about the ask tonight to create that not to exceed the budget amount, noting the resolution includes language that talks about entering into contracts with community partners, many that have been identified including ACER as the leading agency to help fill a lot of the gaps that may exist as well as facilitate those conversations around the table with the community partners for the check-in. In terms of the next steps, the citizen advisory task will be before the City Council in the coming weeks including a process to get that onboarded. They want to get that group formed and meeting so they have time to set an agenda around what they want in terms of information and technical assistance from staff and the consultant teams. Then they will be ready to accept the reports and digest that information as it comes in the fall and later months of the year. Ms. Beekman offered to answer questions of the City Council that pertains to this item, noting Mr. Svenkeson is also available. Councilmember Ryan asked whether the City to date has spent $95,000 on engagement related to the Opportunity Site. Ms. Beekman answered that is a fairly accurate estimate. Councilmember Ryan stated with the previous engagement efforts, Ms. Beekman had indicated that City staff and spearheaded by Bolton and Menk, contacted 3,000 residents who responded with substantive responses, which he thought was a remarkable number. Councilmember Ryan stated a community member asked him a question he did not know how to answer, noting the engagement effort that produced a report to the City Council not long ago listed all of the engagement activities that were quite extraordinary and the report was very lengthy. So, a community member asked him about all those residents who do not have organized groups reaching out to them, seeking their feedback on the Opportunity Site. That community member 06/28/21 -16- DRAFT asked him how the City will see to it that those earlier respondent’s input will not be left behind or obscured or marginalized. Ms. Beekman stated the City has done a considerable amount of engagement there has probably been more engagement on this project than in any other in the City’s history. She does not know whether that was a high bar, to begin with, but it is worth noting because there have been several residents who provided engagement and direct input on this project. As part of the process, she has heard from the City Council clearly that with the engagement done to date, there is no intention that it be set aside and we are not starting over. This is a process that has built upon itself. Initial engagement talked about high-level things like values the community had around this development, the goals, and guiding principles. The staff has spent a lot of time working with the community to hone those and make sure they reflect what the community wants. Ms. Beekman explained that later engagement focused largely on identifying specific elements the community wanted to see, what was missing and needed in the community, and then going back to test what they heard, prioritizing those things, and identifying high-level priorities around what the community wanted to see in the development. She stated we need to recognize this is a development that will occur over the entire Opportunity Site, over many years, with multiple phases, with different developers, and at different times during a changing market. She stated no one phase is going to solve every need in the community but as part of this process, it will identify how we make sure that with each phase we are meeting a little bit here and there so, in the end, we have a whole. Ms. Beekman stated all of that speaks to the need for building and a lot of the level setting work to be done with the community partners. The citizen advisory task force will be talking about the things we have heard from the community up to this point so those things continue to live on. She asked Mr. Svenkeson to address the question of who will be reached during this process. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates that comment because Ms. Beekman paints a picture that places this more in context. He believed in an earlier conversation, he experienced something like sticker shock. But if placed in the context that these are efforts that will guide us for years to come and we can project this cost over that longer view and period, then it seems more reasonable, he thinks. He stated the bottom line is that our community is fractured in a lot of ways and even if we have to expend a significant level of resources to bring all the community together, even though there are different emphasis and respondents, to come up with a more unified vision for the community’s future, then he will support this. Councilmember Ryan stated as you recall from earlier conversations, he was very skeptical but he does not want to stand in the way of the very first activity he hopes will come forward on the part of Alatus and their business project in the southwest corner of the Opportunity Site and, of course, for nailing down the master plan for the Opportunity Site. He stated he appreciates hearing more details and the way Ms. Beekman put it into context. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated it is known this process will be very long but this is a budgetary item under community partner response indicating NEOO Partners is further asking for a total engagement budget of $300,000 to be disbursed contractually to community partners to 06/28/21 -17- DRAFT perform certain engagement activities over five months, occurring July 1 through December 1. She asked if that means the City Council would be committing to a $300,000 budget between July 1 and December 1. Ms. Beekman stated she may have misinterpreted Councilmember Ryan’s statements but yes, this is a five-to-six-month process that will have community partners conducting the engagement work. Her interpretation of Councilmember Ryan’s comments was about the fruits of that labor, the deliverables that come out of that are what we think of as a continuation of the engagement process. Having identified and gone through the work they have done for engagement, the next step is in creating these documents, like the equity development scorecard, that will live on long into the future and be used to evaluate development projects through the lens of equity going forward. But the work to create that document requires some up-front work. With the community benefits plan, for example, these are detailed specifics that need to be created by the community and talk about what will the developer and city be held accountable to when it comes to delivering on the things being talked about. So, the Master Plan is at its best a high-level vision for development but there usually isn’t a lot of detail when looking at that. This piece is about developing those accountability tools to make sure that moving forward, we are delivering on the things the community has said they want out of this process. She stated it is a more intensive engagement process and, in some respects, it needs to be because these are aspects of the project that require a deeper dive in terms of working with the community to create these deliverables. She stated she recognizes there is a higher cost to it and the goal is to complete the process within the next six months so the development projects on the Opportunity Site will be able to move forward using this framework. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson referenced several paragraphs in the Resolution indicating a total ask from the proposals was $553,000 so she is concerned the community engagement being done now is a snapshot in time for a project that is going to be upwards of 30 years. So, what we see today in the opinions and thoughts may not reflect those in 20 or 30 years. Ms. Beekman stated that is correct and a comment made by Councilmember Graves several times that she has taken to heart is about what does engagement looks like in five years, ten years, around process. She does not want to tell the City Council that we are asking for a budget of up to $300,000 and that’s the final say and there will be no more engagement on the Opportunity Site because that would be a false statement. Ms. Beekman explained this process is intended to get this pilot project through for us to learn. She noted we have heard a lot from the community and the City Council about expectations around community engagement and she admits she does not know that there is a clear vision around it and thinks Dr. Edwards has talked about that in terms of wanting to have more discussion with the City Council around what community engagement looks like. But, ultimately, the deliverables from this process will create a framework for how engagement can move forward into the future. That does not mean there won’t be any engagement in the future, it means that what we are learning is a process. We are developing frameworks for how to do that work, we will have deliverables such as the equity development scorecard which will be a tool we can use on future projects, and a community benefits plan that may be specific to a development like a project Alatus is working on because that is how community benefit plans work but knowing we can use that same model in 06/28/21 -18- DRAFT the future for other development projects. Ms. Beekman stated this is not a ‘one and done and there will be ongoing engagement for years to come but what they are building are this process and framework. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked whether it is essentially creating a benchmark for going forward or creating a baseline. Ms. Beekman stated she would not describe it as a baseline. Dr. Edwards stated as Ms. Beekman mentioned, we will be doing ongoing engagement and will not be able to sustain engagement at this level, at this cost, so part of the question with this particular contract effort is, can we create an infrastructure and tools that we can leverage in the future that we could not afford to do. So, for example, by delivering the equity scorecard and community benefits plan, once those tools are created, they will be used indefinitely as they go forward. Whereas with other projects, they will not be able to create that every time. So, from their perspective, part of this project and efforts, the investment is creating tools and inroads with engagement that will pay dividends for decades to come. He stated, again, we cannot afford to do this every time we do engagement but we can utilize these tools and inroads and framework, as Ms. Beekman mentioned, as we go forward. To him, that is where, from a cost-benefit analysis, the City receives the benefits. He explained they are learning and gaining an asset upfront that can be used over time that will be considered to deliver value for Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson thanked staff for that clarification. She saw all of the organizations involved but did not see any Latina or Asian or Hmong groups. She asked if the City reached out to those groups because it will be important to have them at the table as well. Mr. Svenkeson stated they did include groups inside those listed hard-to-reach communities that Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson named as part of their outreach. Some organizations responded that they can and are willing to come to the table on a different timeline but others are also part of the ACER network and already have a working relationship with ACER for other business outreach needs. So, some will be more comfortable in that existing relationship that they will leverage. He stated some will come on directly that will be responding on a different timeline and some will be part of the existing ACER relationship network to deliver a deep level of engagement as well. Mayor Pro Tem Butler thanked Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson and stated that was her question as well around those populations not represented. She noted the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance is on the list to engage youth and, honestly, in the time she has been on the City Council, she has not seen them engage Brooklyn Center youth that successfully as they are heavy Brooklyn Park. She would not want us to rely solely on them to engage youth and we need to be working with our schools to ensure we are engaging with Brooklyn Center youth. She stated there are many school districts within Brooklyn Center but encouraged working directly with the Brooklyn Center School District as there is an established relationship with them. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated some Council Members met with youth leaders a couple of months ago so some youth want to be involved with what is happening in the City. She thinks we need to go to the source, which is our schools, to engage those youth. 06/28/21 -19- DRAFT Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated she wants to make sure it is community-driven in terms of how we are approaching it as a mistake was made early on when she came into the process and was going to community meetings because it was more like ‘here is the plan, what do you think about it.’ It did not feel like you could give input because the plan was already thought out. She stated that may have already been addressed but she wanted to make sure that is the line we are approaching the community, to ask them what they want to see instead of giving them a plan. She stated she understands community does not always understand what we can and cannot do so we need to make those things clear. But when we go to them with a plan, it often feels dismissive to the community. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated she appreciates all of the work that has been done on this plan and the thoroughness of the plan. She has been behind staff to have more confidence in engagement and she agrees with Councilmember Ryan’s earlier comment about making sure the engagement that we have done previously, that those comments are not lost and we include them for this engagement that is happening. Councilmember Graves stated she has nothing to add as the other Council Members either asked her questions or summed up what they would be. She thanked staff for the presentation and stated she is willing to move forward but hopes over the next few months that staff keeps the City Council in the loop about how things are going and provide periodic updates. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates the questions and comments of all the members and dialogue which was more open and accepting than some held earlier on engagement. He stated being the longest involved with the City Council, he fully appreciates that the way we do business is changing and thinks this is the paradigm case that illustrates that change. He stated we all need to work together to bring the community together and build that baseline of trust through transparency and engagement, which will build the community and help us to move forward. He noted the Opportunity Site is the future for the City. He thanked Mayor Pro Tem Butler and all Council Members. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-XX Authorizing a Community Engagement Pilot Program with Community Partners for the Opportunity Site. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT This item was considered before Item 10.a., Resolution Authorizing a Community Engagement Pilot Program with Community Partners for the Opportunity Site. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Graves stated she did not have anything specific to report tonight but does want the City Council to get back in the habit of reporting since it includes updates on what is happening on the Commissions. 06/28/21 -20- DRAFT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she does not wish to give a Council report tonight; however, perhaps the City Council could get clarification about the funding briefing tomorrow from 1-2 p.m. Dr. Edwards stated he will be presenting but that meeting will be hosted by the Foundations on behalf of Brooklyn Center, including the Ford Foundation, McKnight Foundation, Minneapolis Foundation, Pohlad Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation. He explained this will be a virtually attended event but it was not posted as it was not expected that Council Members would be in attendance. If they would like to attend, staff will need to post that meeting. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she is available, would like to attend, and asked Dr. Edwards to provide the link to the virtual meeting. Councilmember Ryan deferred from making a Report. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 06/28/21 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION JUNE 28, 2021 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Pro Tem Marquita Butler at 9:27 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Pro Tem Marquita Butler, and Councilmembers/Commissioners April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Mayor/President Mike Elliott was excused. Also present were Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS This item was discussed and concluded at the June 28, 2021, Study Session Meeting. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION Mayor/President Pro Tem Butler stated she has talked with Dr. Edwards and this item may take longer than the 30 minutes they have left so if there are no issues with moving it to the next meeting, she would like to do that. Commissioner Ryan complimented Mayor/President Pro Tem Butler on how she has run tonight’s meetings in a business-like manner so he has no objection to deferring the items given they are not time-sensitive, especially the item that could be lengthy as it enters into some interesting and daunting philosophical issues about Council governance. He stated this is a wise decision of Mayor/President Pro Tem Butler and Dr. Edwards to table. Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson concurred. The consensus of the City Council/EDA was to table this discussion to the next EDA/Work Session Meeting. MAYOR’S SENIOR POLICY AIDE POSITION This item was removed from the agenda upon its adoption. 06/28/21 -2- DRAFT BC INNO-HUB CONCEPT REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Mayor/President Pro Tem Butler stated again, this item is not time-sensitive. The consensus of the City Council/EDA was to table this discussion to the next EDA/Work Session Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Graves moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:30 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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:A lix Bentrud, D eputy C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A pprov al of L icenses Requeste d C ouncil A con: - Moon to appr ove the licenses as pr esented. B ackground: T he following bus ines s es /pers ons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Each bus ines s /person has fulfilled the requir ements of the City O rdinance gov er ning respec"ve licens es , s ubmi6ed appropriate applica"ons, and paid pr oper fees . A pplicants for rental dwelling licens es ar e in compliance w ith Chapter 12 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances, unless comments are noted below the property addr ess on the a6ached rental report. G arbage H auler A spen Was te 2951 Weeks Ave S E Minneapolis M N 5 5 4 1 4 Randy's S anita"on I nc D B A Randy's Env ironmental S ervices P O Box 169 D elano M N 5 5 3 2 8 H ospitality A ccommodaons Best Western P lus 2050 F reew ay B lvd Brooklyn C enter M N 5 5 4 30 M e chanical L icenses 4 F ront Energy S olu"ons I nc 3230 G orham Ave S te 1 S t. L ouis Park M N 5 5 4 26 C omfort S olu"ons H ea"ng & Cooling 11 1s t S t N W O s s eo M N 5 5 3 6 9 D eZ iel H ea"ng & A /C 209 5th S t N E #5 Buffalo M N 5 5 3 1 3 D uct D octors L L C 5385 S tacy Trl L ot 3 1 9 S tacy M N 55079 M ars h H ea"ng & A /C 6248 L akeland Ave N Brook lyn Park M N 5 5 428 26355 Tucker Road M idw est H ea"ng & A ir C ondi"oning Roger s M N 5 5 3 7 4 River C ity S heet M etal I nc 8290 M ain S tr eet N E F ridley M N 5 5 4 3 2 S ignhanger's L icenses J H S igns 41357 460 th S t. Perham M N 5 6 5 7 3 B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe Rental C riter ia 3/16/2021 Backup M aterial 7-12-2021 Rental L icens es 7/6/2021 Backup M aterial Page 2 of 2 b.Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are “Family or household members” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category Impact 1-2 0-1 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 Categories 1-2 Greater than 3 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category (Based on Property Code Only) Number of Units Property Code Violations per Inspected Unit Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9 3+ units Greater than 3 Property Address Dwelling Type Renewal or Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS * Final  License  Type ** Previous  License  Type *** 6769 Humboldt Ave N Single Initial Loan Nguyen 6 III 0 III 5312 Northport Dr Single Initial HPA US1 LLC 3 II 0 II 1200 67th Ave N Emerson Chalet Multi 1 Bldg 18  Units Renewal Thomas Morrow/Emerson Chalet 16 (12 units insp)  1.33 per unit II 0 II I 819‐21 55th Ave N 2 Family  2 Unit Renewal Stephanie Statz 3 II 0 II II 5115 Twin Lake Blvd E 2 Family  1 Unit Renewal Ruth Cioni 1 I 0 I I 2329 55th Ave N Single Renewal Sara Brang / Easton Homes 0 I 0 I I 3807 61st Ave N Single Renewal IH2 Property IL LP ‐ Missing CPTED 4 II 0 III 2606 65th Ave N Single Renewal HPA US1 LLC‐ met requirements 2 I 0 I IV 4806 69th Ave N Single Renewal Xian Lin/Propseperous Property 0 I 0 I I 5501 Brooklyn Blvd Single Renewal Mains'l Properties 2 I 0 I I 5333 Dupont Ave N Single Renewal FYR SFR Borrowe LLC ‐ met  requirements 10 IV 0 IV III 3808 France Pl Single Renewal IH2 Property IL LP ‐ met requirements 2 I 0 I III 5834 Fremont Ave N Single Renewal Robert Goldsmith 0 I 0 I I 6007 Girard Ave N Single Renewal R B Management III/Ben Dossman 6 III 0 III II 6424 Girard Ave N Single Renewal Rashidat Sowemimo/Livewell Home  Care LLC ‐ missing CPTED & CFH Cert 10 IV 0 IV III 5559 Lyndale Ave N Single Renewal Brett Hildreth/Dragon Property Mgt 1 I 0 I II * CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.) ** License Type Being Issued *** Initial licenses will not show All properties are current on City utilities and property taxes Type 1 = 3 Year    Type II = 2 Year      Type III = 1 Year Rental Licenses for Council Approval on July 12, 2021 C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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 :D or an M . C ote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works BY:M ike A lbers , P.E., City Engineer S U B J E C T:Res olu"on E s tablishing I mpr ovement P roject Nos. 2022-01, 0 2 , 03 and 0 4, Woodbine A rea S tr eet and U "lity I mpr ovements Requeste d C ouncil A con: - M oon to approve a resoluon establishing I mprovement P r oject N os. 2022-01, 02, 03 and 0 4 , Woodbine A r ea S tr eet and Ulity I mprovements. B ackground: I n accordance w ith the C ity ’s C apital I mprovements P lan (C I P ), the ar ea r eferred to as the Woodbine A rea is programmed for improv ements in 20 2 2 . T he Woodbine A rea S treet and U "lity I mprov ements extends from Br ookly n Boulevard to F rance Av enue and from 71th Av enue to the north City limits (see a=ached map for s pecific s tr eet loca"ons ). T he Woodbine A rea S tr eet and U "lity I mpr ovements cons is ts of approximately 15,525 linear feet of roadw ay length. Thes e roadway s wer e recons tr ucted in 1995. T he area cons is ts of approximately 2 5 4 res iden"al proper"es. At this "me, s taff requests that the C ity C ouncil establis h this s tr eet impr ovement project so inves "ga"ve engineering w or k may begin. T he C I P calls for thes e roadw ay s to be improv ed w ith a full depth pavement r eplacement w ith par"al concrete curb and gu=er replacements , minor s idew alk r eplacements, r eplacement of the exis "ng V C P s anitary sew er within the roadw ay and cured-in-place lining of the s anitary sew er along the J une Avenue eas ement betw een 7 1 s t Avenue and 70th Avenue, r eplacement of the C I P w ater main pipe, and replacing approximately 5 0 per cent of the exis "ng hydr ants and gate valves . The funding for the project is through a variety of s our ces as des cr ibed in the C I P w hich are an"cipated to include s pecial as s ess ments , s treet recons truc"on funds and u"lity funds . Ty pically, in order for a proj ect to be completed w ithin a specified calendar year, preliminary des ign mus t commence almos t one year in adv ance. This includes ini"a"on of the public no"fica"on and par"cipa"on proces s that cons is ts of informing affected pr operty ow ner s , conduc"ng field s urveys , at leas t one public informa"onal mee"ng and an extensive amount of informa"on and data collec"on. I ni"al des ign als o includes detailed technical engineer ing w or k, under gr ound infras tructure inspec"ons and asses s ments and s oil/geotechnical inves "ga"ons . U pon authoriza"on by the City C ouncil the follow ing ac"ons w ould take place: Collect data, including field s urveys , review traffic counts and review maintenance records. Conduct televis ed ins pec"ons of the s anitary and storm sew ers and s oil/geotechnical inv es"ga"ons . Conduct a public informa"onal mee"ng in the winter of 2021 to present ini"al findings to the neighbor hood and gauge public inter es t in the improvement project. P repar e a feas ibility report for review by the City Council. The C ity C ouncil could then cons ider s eFng a date for the impr ovement hearing. B udget I ssues: T he Woodbine A r ea S treet and U "lity I mprovements proj ect is iden"fied in the City ’s C I P w ith a preliminary proj ect cos t es "mate of $9,4 4 0,000. T he es "mated cos t for preliminary field w ork, prepara"on of a project feas ibility report and design is $350,0 0 0 . I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: Conduct a public infor ma"onal mee"ng in the winter of 2021 to pres ent ini"al findings to the neighborhood and gauge public inter es t in the impr ovement proj ect. I t is als o an"cipated that there will be 2 public hearings as par t of the s pecial as s essment proces s . I f approved, there w ould be monthly newsle=ers dur ing cons truc"on. A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: Key Transporta"on I nves tments AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe Res olu"on 7/6/2021 Resolu"on L e=er C I P Background 7/6/2021 Backup M aterial Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2022-01, 02, 03 AND 04, WOODBINE AREA STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City’s Capital Improvement Program identifies specific streets for proposed infrastructure improvements in 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the scope of proposed improvements for the Woodbine Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to begin the process of information gathering and solicitation of public comments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. Improvement Project Nos. 2022-01, 02, 03 and 04, Woodbine Area Street and Utility Improvements are hereby established. 2. Staff is directed to begin field work, contact property owners in the neighborhood to obtain comments and input and hold public informational meetings for property owners in the neighborhood where improvements are proposed. 3. The City Engineer shall prepare a project feasibility report for review by the City Council in the fall of 2021. 4. Estimated project costs for preliminary field work, geotechnical investigations and sewer televising costs are as follows: COST AMOUNT Preliminary Design and Plan Prep. $195,000 Televising $ 15,000 Field Survey $ 60,000 Geotechnical Investigation $ 30,000 Storm Sewer system analysis $ 35,000 Watermain system analyses $ 15,000 Estimated Costs Total $350,000 RESOLUTION NO. _______________ REVENUES AMOUNT Sanitary Sewer Utility Fund $ 70,000 Water Utility Fund $115,000 Storm Sewer Utility Fund $ 35,000 Street Reconstruction Fund $130,000 Estimated Revenues Total $350,000 July 12, 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. Project Summaries Page | 20 2021-2035 Capital Improvement Program Woodbine Area Improvements - 2022 The Woodbine project area extends from Brooklyn Boulevard to France Avenue and from the north City limits to 71st Avenue. The project area contains a total of 15,525 linear feet of local streets. The neighborhood consists of approximately 254 residential properties. Streets Noble Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard to the north City limits is a designated MSA Route. The Woodbine Neighborhood was reconstructed in 1995. Noble Avenue is 40-feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. The remaining streets are generally 30-feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. The project design process will include evaluating geometric options at the intersection of Noble Avenue and Woodbine Lane to address possible pedestrian safety issues. The current cost estimate assumes street improvements that consist of approximately 50 percent curb replacement, 10 percent sidewalk replacement and full depth pavement replacement. Water main The existing water main in the Woodbine area consists of 6-inch and 8-inch diameter CIP installed between 1957 and 1959. Records indicate there have been 11 water main breaks in the neighborhood between 1975 and 2013 and six properties have experienced frozen water service in past winters. The current project cost estimate includes complete water main replacement. Sanitary Sewer Approximately 25 percent of the sanitary sewer in the project area was replaced with PVC when the neighborhood was reconstructed in 1995. The remaining sanitary sewer consists of 8-inch diameter VCP installed in 1958 and 1959. Approximately 57 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance capacity. The current project cost estimate includes replacement of the existing VCP sanitary sewer within the roadway and cured-in-place lining of the sanitary sewer along the June Avenue easement between 71st Avenue and 70th Avenue. Storm Sewer The storm sewer on Noble Avenue consists of 12-inch and 15-inch diameter RCP that drains to Shingle Creek. This storm sewer was installed in 1970. The remainder of the project area consists of 15-inch to 33- inch diameter RCP installed when the neighborhood was reconstructed in 1995. This storm sewer generally drains to Palmer Lake. The condition of the storm sewer within the neighborhood is rated as good. The current project cost estimate includes replacing storm structure castings and isolated portions of lateral storm sewer as necessary. Street Lighting The current cost estimate includes replacing the 20 wood poles with 20 fiberglass poles with a cut-off type LED light fixture and underground power. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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 :D or an M . C ote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works BY:M ike A lbers , P.E., City Engineer S U B J E C T:Res olu"on A pprov ing and A uthor iz ing Execu"on of a Joint Pow er s A greement w ith the C ity of Minneapolis for the maintenance of 53rd Ave N (fr om Xerxes Av e N to Mississippi D r N) and Xerxes Ave N (from 4 9 th Av e N to 53rd Ave N ) Requeste d C ouncil A con: - M oon to approve a resoluon appr oving and author iz ing execuon of a J oint Pow er s A greement w ith the C ity of Minneapolis for the maintenance of 53r d Ave N (from Xerxes Ave N to M ississippi D r N ) and Xer xes Ave N (from 4 9 th Ave N to 53r d Ave N ) B ackground: T he C ity of Br ookly n C enter and the C ity of Minneapolis are propos ing to enter into a J oint Pow ers A greement for the maintenance of 53rd Av e N from Xerxes Avenue N to Mis s issippi D r N , and Xer xes Ave N from 49th Ave N to 53rd Av e N. T he centerline of 5 3 rd Ave N and Xerxes Ave N are boundaries between the tw o ci"es . The pr opos ed agreement defines complete maintenance of the s tr eet s har ed by both ci"es . T he proposed agreement is for an ini"al five y ear term from the date of execu"on, with pr ovisions to automa"cally renew for s ucces s ive fiv e year terms unles s terminated by either party. Both ci"es have been maintaining the roadw ay s in accordance w ith the 1 9 7 0 ’s maintenance agreement which is expired. City of M inneapolis staff and C ity of Brooklyn C enter s taff hav e been collabora"ng to develop the J oint Pow ers A greement for the maintenance for thes e shar ed s tr eets . This agreement covers the complete maintenance of 5 3 rd Ave N and Xerxes Av e N for the next 5 y ears. The document has been rev iewed by P ublic Works and C ity A@orney 's O ffice s taff. S taff from both ci"es have agreed on the key terms of the agreement as follow s : City of Minneapolis w ill be responsible for the complete maintenance, as it's defined in the J oint Pow ers A gr eement, along 53rd Ave N betw een M is s is s ippi D r N and H umboldt Ave N, and for Xer xes Ave Nor th between 49th Ave N and 51s t Ave N. City of Brooklyn C enter w ill be res pons ible for the complete maintenance, as it's defined in the J oint Pow ers A greement, along 53r d Ave N between H umboldt Ave N and Xerxes Av e N, and Xerxes Ave N from 51s t Ave N to 53rd Av e N . A ny cos t or expens e in connec"on to the complete maintenance of the afor es aid streets shall be the s ole obliga"on of the city des ignated res pons ible for the maintenance. B udget I ssues: A s part of the J oint Powers A greement, the C ity of Br ookly n Center w ill be res pons ible for the complete maintenance along 53r d Av e N betw een H umboldt Ave N and Xerxes Av e N , and Xerxes Av e N fr om 51s t Av e N to 53r d Ave N. A ny cost or expens e in connec"on to the complete maintenance of the afores aid s treets s hall be the s ole obliga"on of the C ity of Br ookly n C enter and will be included in futur e oper a"ng budgets . I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe Res olu"on 7/6/2021 Resolu"on L e@er J oint Pow ers A greement (2021 P roposed)7/6/2021 Backup M aterial J oint Pow ers A greement (1970 Expired)7/6/2021 Backup M aterial Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF 53RD AVE N (FROM XERXES AVE N TO MISSISSIPPI DR N) AND XERXES AVE N (FROM 49TH AVE N TO 53RD AVE N) WHEREAS, the centerline of 53rd Ave N and Xerxes Ave N are boundaries between the City of Brooklyn Center and the City of Minneapolis; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center and the City of Minneapolis are proposing to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement for the maintenance of 53rd Ave N from Xerxes Ave N to Mississippi Dr N, and Xerxes Ave N from 49th Ave N to 53rd Ave N; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreement defines complete maintenance of the street shared by both cities; and WHEREAS, the proposed agreement is for an initial five year term from the date of execution, with provisions to automatically renew for successive five year terms unless terminated by either party; and WHEREAS, the parties determined it is in their best interest to maintain 53rd Ave N and Xerxes Ave N according to the terms and conditions of the Joint Powers Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the maintenance of 53rd Ave N (from Xerxes Ave N to Mississippi Dr N) and Xerxes Ave N (from 49th Ave N to 53rd Ave N) is hereby approved. The Mayor and Acting City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said agreement. RESOLUTION NO. _______________ July 12, 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 AGREEMENT FOR THE DIVISION OF PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY ON 53RD AVENUE NORTH AND XERXES AVENUE NORTH AS BOUNDARY STREETS BETWEEN MINNEAPOLIS AND BROOKLYN CENTER THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ___ day of _______, 2021 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a municipal corporation ("Brooklyn Center"), and the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, a municipal corporation ("Minneapolis"). Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis may hereinafter be referred to individually as a “party” or collectively as the “parties.” WHEREAS, Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center share the following common boundary streets: 53rd Avenue North between Mississippi Drive North and Xerxes Avenue; and Xerxes Avenue North between 49th Avenue North and 53rd Avenue North; and WHEREAS, both Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center desire that the maintenance responsibility of these boundary streets be shared equitably between the two municipalities as provided in this Agreement. Now, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I. Division of Responsibility Minneapolis shall be responsible for providing the maintenance items described below on 53rd Avenue North between Mississippi Drive North and Humboldt Avenue, and for Xerxes Avenue North between 49th Avenue North and 51st Avenue North. Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for providing the maintenance items described below on 53rd Avenue North between Humboldt Avenue North and Xerxes Avenue North, and Xerxes Avenue North from 51st to 53rd Avenue North. ARTICLE II. Maintenance Items The maintenance items for which each party is responsible as set forth in Article I above shall include all routine maintenance operations normally performed on the street on a more or less regular basis including, but not limited to, street sweeping, snow and ice control, temporary and permanent pavement patching and repair, striping and pavement markings, signage and shall also include any non- regular or preventative maintenance items not normally considered as routine maintenance such as crack sealing and sealcoating. The need to conduct non-regular maintenance items shall be determined jointly by the Minneapolis City Engineer and the Brooklyn Center City Engineer. If the non-regular or preventative maintenance items are agreed to, the work shall then be accomplished by the party responsible for the portion of the street on which the need exists. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C7F2096-63F0-4FAC-A63E-D43086055530 2 ARTICLE III. Maintenance Costs Any cost or expenses required to complete the maintenance items on the boundary streets shall be the sole obligation of the party designated by this Agreement as being responsible for the maintenance of the identified boundary streets. ARTICLE IV. Liability Minneapolis shall not be liable for any loss, damages, claims or demands of any kind or nature, including workmen’s compensation claims, in any way resulting from or arising out of the acts or omissions of Brooklyn Center, its contractors or any subcontractor, including acts or omissions of their employees or agents, in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Brooklyn Center shall not be liable for any loss, damages, claims or demands of any kind or nature, including workmen’s compensation claims, in any way resulting from or arising out of the acts or omissions of Minneapolis, its contractors or any subcontractor, including acts or omissions of their employees or agents, in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any immunity or limitation on liability to which either party is entitled under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, or otherwise. Neither party is agreeing to accept liability on behalf of the other party. ARTICLE V. Term and Termination This Agreement is effective as of the Effective Date indicated above and shall continue in effect for an initial term of five (5) years from that date. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive five (5) year terms on the anniversary of the Effective Date, unless it is terminated by either party. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon 120 days written notice of termination provided to the other party. However, no such termination shall be effective unless the parties have mutually agreed to a new division of maintenance responsibilities for the boundary streets that will go into effect upon the termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE VI. Miscellaneous Provisions 1.The provisions of M.S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinances relating to Civil Rights and discrimination shall be considered a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 2.All accounts and records kept by Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center with respect to any of the items mentioned in this Agreement shall be subject to examinations by representatives of the respective parties. 3.Data provided to either party or received from either party under this Agreement shall be administered in accordance with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C7F2096-63F0-4FAC-A63E-D43086055530 3 Chapter 13. 4.Before this agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved by resolutions of the respective councils of the City of Minneapolis and the City of Brooklyn Center. 5.The parties agree to comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations of Minnesota applicable to this Agreement and the construction of the Improvements. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of Minnesota. 6.In the event that any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall pertain only to such section and shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this Agreement. The parties being in agreement, have caused this document to be executed as follows: FOR THE CITY: Approved as to Form by: Signature: Assistant City Attorney Signature: Department Head (or Designee) Authorized to Sign this Contract and/or Responsible for Administering and Monitoring Contract Signature: Finance Officer or Designee/Purchasing Agent CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ___________________________________________ Mike Elliott, Mayor DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C7F2096-63F0-4FAC-A63E-D43086055530 6/28/2021 6/28/2021 6/28/2021 4 __________________________________________ Reginald Edwards, Acting City Manager ___________________________________________ Date DocuSign Envelope ID: 5C7F2096-63F0-4FAC-A63E-D43086055530 L` N PV.hT O City of b,. ` z Minneapolis fo Jut. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CLAYTON A.SORENSON,P.E. CITY ENGINEER—DIRECTOR MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 November 16 , 1970 Mr. James Merila Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 7100 Osseo Road Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Dear Sir : Enclosed herewith is one fully executed copy of the agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the City of Minneapolis , relative to providing for the division of maintenance responsibility for 53rd Avenue North between Lyndale and Xerxes Avenues North, and Xerxes Avenue North between 49th and 53rd Avenues North. This fully executed copy is for your files . Very truly yours , Clayton A. Sorenson , P .E . Director. of Public Works B y Fred S . Myren Supervisor , Right of WaPg Y FSM/GB/lfi Enclosure 7 g , a Wr C:c; Clerk AGREEMENT FOR DIVISION OF MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY ON 53RD AVENUE NORTH AND XERXES AVENUE NORTH AS BOUNDARY STREETS BETWEEN MINNEAPOLIS AND BROOKLYN CENTER TIzIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 9th day of November , 1970 , by and between the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS , Minnesota, a municipal corporation, CITY hereinafter called "Minneapolis , " and the Vibb*@ OF BROOKLYN CENTER, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Brooklyn Center" , WITNESSETH: WHEREAS , Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center share as common boundary streets 53rd Avenue North between. Lyndale Avenue and Xerxes Avenue North, and Xerxes Avenue North between 49th Avenue North and 53rd Avenue North; and , WHEREAS, both Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center desire that the maintenance responsibility of these boundary streets shall be shared equitably between the . two municipalities ; NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed as follows : ARTICLE I . Minneapolis shall be responsible for the complete maintenance of 53rd Avenue North between Lyndale Avenue and Humboldt Avenue , and for Xerxes Avenue North between 49th Avenue North and 51st Avenue North. Brooklyn Center shall be responsible for the complete maintenance of 53rd. Avenue North between Humboldt Avenue North and Xerxes Avenue North, and Xerxes Avenue North from 51st to 53rd Avenue North. ARTICLE II . The term complete maintenance as set forth in Article I above shall include all routine maintenance operations normally performed on the street on a more or less regular basis including but not limited to street sweeping , sanding, salting, snow plowing, snow removal, etc.. and shall i also include any non-regular maintenance items not normally considered as routine maintenance such as scarifying and blading of the street or any other maintenance operations not considered as routine. The need for the accomplishment for the non-regular maintenance items such as scarifying and blading of the street shall be determined jointly by the City Minneapolis City Engineer and the Brooklyn Center V-411 Engineer and following such joint determination, the work shall then be accomplished by the municipality responsible for the portion of the street in which the need exists . ARTICLE III. Any cost or expense in connection with the complete maintenance of any aforesaid street 'shall be the sole obligation of the municipality which is herein designated as responsible for such maintenance of said street . ARTICLE IV. Minneapolis shall not be liable for any loss , damages , claims or demands of any kind or nature , including workmen' s compensation claims , in any way resulting from or arising out of the acts or omissions of Brooklyn Center, its contractors or any subcontractor , including acts or omissions of their employees or agents , in connection with the perfor- mance of this contract . Brooklyn Center shall not be liable for any loss , damages , claims or demands of any kind or nature , including Workmen ' s compensation claims , in any way resulting from or arising out of the acts or omissions of Minneapolis , its contractors or any subcontractor, including acts or omissions of their employees or agent , in connection r rY with the performance of this contract . ARTICLE V. The provisions of M. S . 181 . 59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to Civil Rights and discrimination shall be considered a part of this contract as if fully set forth herein. ARTICLE VI . All accounts and records kept by Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center with respect to any of the items mentioned in this agreement shall be subject to examinations by representatives of the municipalities . ARTICLE VII . This agreement shall take effect immediately upon its execution by proper officers of each of the municipalities and shall continue in Y effect for a period of five (5) years from that date . ARTICLE VIII . Before this agreement shall become binding and effective , it shall be approved by resolutions of the respective councils of the City of City Minneapolis and the Sege of Brooklyn Center . IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed in their behalf respectively by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized and have caused their corporate seals to be hereunto affixed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS By Mayor c Attest : nn L Cn m City C d.S Lks .i-'.J:.~!tA. 44 Countersigned • W Comptroller CITY IN PRESENCE OF: p ,$ OF BROOKLYN CENTER BY YJ Mayor By Glee R City Manager Approved as to form: r Y r r 111 OW%-,. An r i I , ion was Caul v n. and l L` ,N PV Nr O City of n .._ z Minneapolis pR [ JUNC S` DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CLAYTON A.SORENSON,P.E. CITYENGINEER—DIRECTOR October. 16 , 1970 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55415 P=FJ ED Mr. James Merila OCT 191970 Village Engineer tq of BfOeVYg center Village of Brooklyn Center 7100 Osseo Road Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Dear Sir : Enclosed are four copies of a proposed agreement with the Village of Brooklyn Center, relative to providing for the division of maintenance responsibility for 53rd Avenue North, between Lyndale and Xerxes Avenues North and Xerxes Avenue North between 49th and 53rd Avenues North. This agreement has been authorized by the City Council and has been approved as to form by the City Attorney. If this agree- ment meets with your approval , kindly execute it and return all four copies to the Department of Public Works , attention of the undersigned. Attached is a certified copy of the Resolution passed by the City Council authorizing its officers to execute this agreement . Upon complete execution by the City, a copy will be returned for your files . Very truly yours , Clayton A. Sorenson Direc -6r of Public Works By l red S . Myren Supervisor, Right of Way CAS/FSM/fer Enclosure 40 4w,", la FORM 30 n, STATE OF MINNESOTA, County of Hennepin, ss. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, I, RICHARD JOHANSEN, City Clerk of the City of Minneapolis, in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have examined the attached copy of a Resolution adopted by the City Council of said city at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of August 1971 _ , and have carefully compared the same with the original thereof, now on file in this office, and that said attached copy is a true and correct copy of said original, and of the whole thereof. ter`, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here- unto set my hand and affixed the cor- porate seal of said City this 21st day of August A.D 1A-70 City Clerk HOW C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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 :D or an M . C ote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works BY:M ike A lbers , P.E., City Engineer S U B J E C T:Res olu"on A uthorizing the D edica"on of Temporary and Per manent Easements at 625 0 Br ookly n Boulevard Requeste d C ouncil A con: - M oon to appr ove a reso luon authorizing the dedicaon of tempo rar y and per manent easements at 6 250 Br ookly n B oulevar d per taining to the Br ookly n Boulevard C orr idor P r oject P hase 2 I mprovements. B ackground: O n M ay 3, 2021, the C ity Council awarded the contract for the Brooklyn Boulevard C orridor P roj ect P has e 2 I mprovements and determined the necessity for and authoriz ed the acquis i"on of certain proper ty eas ements for the B rook lyn Boulevard project. A s part of this proj ect, the propos ed improvements such as the turn lane, s idew alk s , trails , u"li"es and other s treets cape elements hav e been iden"fied that fall outs ide of exis"ng public easement areas . T he a<ached maps s how the extent of the eas ements needed for the proposed improv ements at 6 2 50 Brooklyn B oulev ar d. T he propos ed dedica"ons include: Parcel No. 43; 6 2 5 0 Br ookly n Boulevard (P I N 34-119-21-43-0066): T his parcel requires both a permanent eas ement and temporary cons truc"on easement. This includes appr oximately 7 ,152 squar e-feet of permanent drainage, u"lity, s idewalk and tr ail eas ement and 6,5 3 0 square feet of temporary cons truc"on eas ement. T he C ity A<orney has review ed all eas ement documents and concur s to the pur pos e and form of the eas ements. B udget I ssues: Eas ement recording fees w ill be paid for out of the improv ement project budget. I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: Key Transporta"on I nves tments AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe Res olu"on 7/6/2021 Resolu"on L e<er Parcel 43 - Eas ement Packet 7/6/2021 Backup M aterial Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEDICATION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS AT 6250 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “City”) is the owner of 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard, PID 34-119-21-43-0066 (the “Parcel”); and WHEREAS, said Parcel is located on Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (the “City) and Hennepin County (the “County”) are constructing improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard, including sidewalk and trail improvements and drainage and utility improvements (the “Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the City and the County are in need of temporary construction easements and permanent easements over the Parcel in order to construct the Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant said easements to the County for the Improvements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that 1. The City hereby approves the following easements, which are attached hereto: a. Permanent Easement for Drainage and Utility and Sidewalk and Trail Purposes on the Parcel b. Temporary Construction Easement on the Parcel. 2. The approval hereby given to the easement documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the City and the Mayor and Acting City Manager authorized herein to execute said documents. RESOLUTION NO. _______________ July 12, 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. 125 125 SUBJECT TO CHANGE DRAFT H : \ P r o j e c t s \ 1 1 0 0 0 \ 1 1 7 6 5 \ D e s i g n \ G r a p h i c s \ R i g h t o f W a y \ C i t y O w n e d P a r c e l s \ 1 1 7 6 5 _ g r 4 3 . d g n 7 / 1 1 / 2 0 2 0 1 : 2 7 : 0 7 P M PARCELDATE 7/11/2020 PID ADDRESS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SP 109-020-014 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD - PHASE 2 2021-05 TE [SQ.FT]D&U, S/T EASE [SQ.FT] AREA [SQ.FT] PARCEL EXISTING TREE W/IN TEMP EASE TREE REMOVAL CONST LIMITS PROPOSED D&U TEMP EASE EXISTING PE EXISTING R/W PARCEL LINE 250 50 SCALE IN FEET 6250 PARCEL #43 BROOKLYN BLVD 11.2' 27.8' 22.2' 12.8'3 4 ' 15'117' 98' 36' (NO IMPACT) BUSINESS SIGN 43 34-11-921-43-0066 6250 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 715293970 6530 1 BR291-10-728472.v1 PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE AND UTILITY AND SIDEWALK AND TRAIL PURPOSES (PARCEL 43) THIS INSTRUMENT is made this day of , 2021 by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (“Grantor”) in favor of Hennepin County, a body politic and corporate under the laws of Minnesota (the “Grantee”). Recitals A. Grantor is the fee owner of the property located in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”). B. Grantor desires to grant to Grantee a permanent non-exclusive easement for the drainage and utility purposes and sidewalk and trail purposes according to the terms and conditions contained herein. Terms of Permanent Easement 1. Grant of Permanent Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged by Grantee, Grantor grants and conveys to Grantee a perpetual easement for drainage and utility and trail and sidewalk purposes, over, under, across, and through that portion of the Property legally described on the attached Exhibit B and depicted on the attached Exhibit C (the “Easement Area”). “Trail and sidewalk purposes” means the use of trail facilities by pedestrians, bicycles, city and county public safety and public works vehicles, electric-powered wheelchairs, and small electric carts operated by physically handicapped people. The use of trail and sidewalk facilities by snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles is not permitted. 2. Scope of Easement. The perpetual, non-exclusive drainage and utility easement and sidewalk and trail easement granted herein includes the right of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, and employees to enter the premises at all reasonable times for the purpose of locating, constructing, reconstructing, operating, maintaining, inspecting, altering, and repairing the utilities, drainage ways, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and trails in the Easement Area. The easement granted herein also includes the right to cut, trim, or remove from the 2 BR291-10-728472.v1 Easement Area such improvements, trees, shrubs, or other vegetation, and to prohibit obstructions and grading alterations as in the Grantee’s judgment unreasonably interfere with the easement or the function of facilities located therein. 3. Warranty of Title. Grantor warrants that it is the fee owner of the Property and has the right, title, and capacity to convey to the Grantee the easement herein. 4. Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees, or losses resulting from any claims, actions, suits, or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on, or which relate to, the easement area or the Property prior to the date of this instrument. 5. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be binding on the Grantor, its successors and assigns. 3 BR291-10-728472.v1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto ex ecuted this Easement on the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota By: Mike Elliott Its: Mayor By: ___________________________ Reggie Edwards Its: Acting City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this ____ day of ________________, 2021, by Mike Elliott and Reggie Edwards, the Mayor and Acting City Manager, respectively, of the City of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota on behalf of the City, Grantor. ____________________________________ Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (SJS) Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 4 BR291-10-728472.v1 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Property That part of Lot 1, Block 1, FIRE STATION WEST, according to the recorded plat thereof, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with the south line of said Lot 1 and passing through a point on the east line thereof distant 107 feet from the Southeast corner thereof. 5 BR291-10-728472.v1 EXHIBIT B Legal Description of the Easement Area A perpetual easement for drainage, utility, sidewalk and trail purposes over, under, across and through part of the following described property: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, FIRE STATION WEST, lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with the south line of said Lot 1 and passing through a point on the east line thereof distant 107 feet from the Southeast corner thereof. Said perpetual easement is described as that part of said Lot 1, lying westerly, northwesterly, and northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said described property; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line said described property a distance of 12.21 feet to the point of beginning of said line; thence North 23 degrees 48 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 102.84 feet; thence North 18 degrees 06 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 110.55 feet; thence North 23 degrees 48 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 142.17 feet; thence North 33 degrees 06 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 24.81 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 43.61 feet; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 10.00 feet to the north line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating. 6 BR291-10-728472.v1 EXHIBIT C Depiction of the Easement Area 1 BR291-10-728505.v1 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (PARCEL 43) THIS INSTRUMENT is made by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “Grantor”) in favor of Hennepin County, a body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota (the “Grantee”). Recitals A.Grantor is the fee owner of the property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Property”) and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto. B.Grantor desires to grant to the Grantee a temporary construction easement (the “Easement”) according to the terms and conditions contained herein. Terms of Temporary Construction Easement 1.Grant of Temporary Construction Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged by Grantor, Grantor grants and conveys to the Grantee the following Easement which is legally described on Exhibit B (the “Easement Area”) and depicted on Exhibit C attached hereto. 2.Scope of Easement. The above-described Easement includes the rights of the Grantee, its contractors, agents, and employees to enter the Easement Area at all reasonable times to stage, operate, and store equipment as needed to complete construction activities. Displacing soil and grading are permissible. The temporary easement granted herein also includes the right to cut, trim, or remove any landscaping, trees, shrubs, improvements, or vegetation within the Easement Area that in the Grantee’s judgment unreasonably interferes with the scope of this Easement. Grantor will not erect, construct, or create any building, improvement, obstruction, or structure of any kind within the Easement Area during the term of this Easement, either above or below the surface or change the grade thereof without the express written permission of the Grantee. 3.Warranty of Title. Grantor warrants that it is the owner of the Property and has the right, BR291-10-728505.v1 2 title, and capacity to convey to the Grantee the easement herein. 4. Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorneys’ fees, or losses resulting from any claims, actions, suits, or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on, or which relate to, the easement area or Property prior to the date of this instrument. 5. Binding Effect. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be binding on Grantor, its successors and assigns. 6. Term. The easement granted herein shall commence on April 1, 2021 and expire on November 30, 2022. 7. Restoration. Grantee shall, upon completion of construction and prior to termination of this easement, restore the ground surface of the Easement Area to its original condition so far as is reasonably practicable with the exception of any grade changes, bank sloping, ditching, fills, slope construction, cuts, and any removal of any earth, other materials, trees, and other vegetation. STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: NONE BR291-10-728505.v1 3 Dated this ____ day of ______________, 2021. GRANTOR City of Brooklyn Center By: Mike Elliott Its: Mayor By: ____________________________________ Reggie Edwards Its: Acting City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _________, 2021 by Mike Elliott and Reggie Edwards, the Mayor and the Acting City Manager of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the City, Grantor. ______________________________ Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (SJS) 150 South 5th Street, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 A-1 BR291-10-728505.v1 EXHIBIT A TO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Legal Description of the Property That part of Lot 1, Block 1, FIRE STATION WEST, according to the recorded plat thereof, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with the south line of said Lot 1 and passing through a point on the east line thereof distant 107 feet from the Southeast corner thereof. BR291-10-728505.v1 EXHIBIT B TO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Legal Description of the Easement Area A temporary easement for construction purposes over, under, across and through part of the following described property: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, FIRE STATION WEST, lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with the south line of said Lot 1 and passing through a point on the east line thereof distant 107 feet from the Southeast corner thereof. Said temporary easement is described as commencing at the southwest corner of said described property; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line said described property a distance of 12.21 to the point of beginning; thence North 23 degrees 48 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 102.84 feet; thence North 18 degrees 06 minutes 18 seconds West a distance of 110.55 feet; thence North 23 degrees 48 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 142.17 feet; thence North 33 degrees 06 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 24.81 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 43.61 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 5.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 34.29 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 35.80 feet; thence South 23 degrees 48 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 117.20 feet; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 1.08 feet; thence South 18 degrees 06 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 117.81 feet; thence South 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 18.26 feet; thence South 23 degrees 48 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 98.39 feet to the south line of said described property; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds West, along said south line, a distance of 30.43 feet to the point of beginning. BR291-10-728505.v1 EXHIBIT C TO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Depiction of the Easement Area 1 BR291-4-731826.v1 Kennedy Troy J. Gilchrist 150 South Fifth Street Suite 700 Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9214 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax tgilchrist@kennedy-graven.com http://www.kennedy-graven.com & Graven C H A R T E R E D Also: St. Cloud Office 501 W. Germain Street, Suite 304 St. Cloud, MN 56301 (320) 240-8200 telephone MEMORANDUM To: Reggie Edwards, City Manager From: Troy Gilchrist, City Attorney Date: July 1, 2021 Re: Electronic Meetings Under the Open Meeting Law --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was asked to put information together on electronic meetings to assist the City and its boards and commissions as the City transitions out of what I will refer to as emergency electronic meetings. There are two types of electronic meetings allowed under the Open Meeting Law (“OML”) (Minn. Stat., chap. 13D). The first are what I will refer to as occasional electronic meetings, which is authorized by Minn. Stat. § 13D.02 and allows some members to participate electronically if certain conditions are met. The other is the emergency electronic meetings authorized under Minn. Stat. § 13D.021 and which the City has been operating under for the last 16 months. Both authorizations are exceptions to the general rule that members must be present to be counted toward a quorum and vote. This general rule applies to all bobies within the City that is subject to the OML (boards, committees, etc.). That means they can only be used if the criteria established in the statutes exist and the requirements followed. The fact that bodies have been meeting electronically for so long have cause some in the communities I work with to lose sight of the fact they have been operating under an emergency exception that cannot be kept up indefinitely. Emergency Electronic Meetings The one true exception to the general rule requiring in-person meetings is the emergency exception allowed during a health pandemic or emergency declared under Minn. Stat., chap. 12. If the City is facing one of those situations, it can conduct fully electronic meetings if the presiding officer “determines that an in-person meeting or a meeting conducted under section 13D.02 is not practical or prudent because of [the] health pandemic or an emergency declared under chapter 12.” (emphasis added). Given the recent lifting of covid restrictions and the 2 BR291-4-731826.v1 Governor ending the emergency declaration on July 1, 2021, the circumstances that made meeting in-person “not practical or prudent” are evaporating rapidly. Once the declaration ends, any further electronic meetings under the emergency exception can only be justified if the presiding officer finds the health pandemic remains, making it not practical or prudent to meet in person. However, that is a difficult assertion to maintain given the elimination of covid restrictions and the ending of the state’s emergency. Once the Mayor repeals his statement calling for electronic meetings, the Council and all boards, commissions, committees, etc. of the City must return to in-person meetings. The individual bodies do not have the discretion to continue to hold emergency electronic meetings. Occasional Electronic Meetings Once the justification for emergency electronic meetings under Minn. Stat. § 13D.021 ends, the only other authority available that allows a member to participate remotely is under the occasional electronic meeting authority in Minn. Stat. § 13D.02. This authority has been “on the books” for some time, but has not been used all that often because most communities did not have the technology in place to allow someone to participate remotely and the inconvenience of the additional requirements associated with using this exception. Qualifying Criteria Occasional electronic meetings can only be held if all of the following are met: (1) all members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented at any location at which at least one member is present; (2) members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of members of the body; (3) at least one member of the body is physically present at the regular meeting location; (4) all votes are conducted by roll call so each member’s vote on each issue can be identified and recorded; and (5) each location at which a member of the body is present is open and accessible to the public. Minn. Stat. § 13D.02, subd. 1(a). There is also an additional notice requirement that applies: Subd. 5. Notice. If telephone or another electronic means is used to conduct a regular, special, or emergency meeting, the entity shall provide notice of the regular meeting location, of the fact that some members may participate by electronic means, and of the provisions of subdivision 4. The timing and method of providing notice is 3 BR291-4-731826.v1 governed by section 13D.04. In addition, the entity must post the notice on its website at least ten days before any regular meeting as defined in section 13D.04, subdivision 1. The notice must include the location of each member that will be participating electronically. Minn. Stat. § 13D.02, subd. 4. Presumably the location information must be specific enough to allow a member of the public to go to the remote site to participate in the meeting (i.e., specific address, not just a reference to a city). Challenges and Considerations While local governments are in a far better position to comply with these requirements now that they have worked through the bugs of conducting electronic meetings, setting up the room so everyone can see and hear everyone will likely still be a challenge. While the Council Chambers is set up to video the meeting, there would be the additional challenging of being able to display the image and sound from each member participating electronically. Someone sitting in the back of the room needs to be able to see and hear each of the remote members, and the remote members need to be able to see and hear those speaking in the room. Those issues become even more of a challenge for meetings of larger bodies and those occurring in meetings rooms not wired for video and sound. Another issue is how to satisfy the requirement that the location of all members “is open and accessible to the public.” Neither the courts nor the Data Practices Office has issued an opinion that describes the conditions that must be satisfied for a location to be considered open and accessible to the public. The reality is that it never really becomes an issue because a member traveling for work in Texas will not have a Texan who cares to watch a Minnesota meeting over the member’s shoulder. I suspect at some point someone will request an opinion on this issue, but until then the remote location must be reasonably open to the public. For example, a hotel room on a floor that cannot be accessed except by a key card probably does not qualify as open and accessible. It is not clear whether a private home would be considered open and accessible under the statute. I have been involved in a community allowing a member to remote into a meeting under this statute. It certainly can work, but the technology needs to be in place to satisfy the conditions. I have always only seen this used by one member at a time, but the statute does allow all but one member to remote in as long as the conditions are satisfied for each member who remotes in. Not easy, but not impossible. My concern is that attempting to run meetings with a substantial number of members in remote locations is likely to be the kind of situation that will eventually result in someone asking if each of those remote locations are truly open to the public. The pandemic resulted in an amendment to the statute to allow a member to participate from a non-public location up to three times a year, but only if they are actively engaged in military service or a doctor has told the person to not be in a public place for medical reasons. This provision was helpful during the pandemic for those communities that returned to in-person meetings to accommodate someone who had to quarantine, but now it is largely only useful to accommodate those who are out of town for military drills, etc. 4 BR291-4-731826.v1 Electronic Public Participation The criteria associated with occasional electronic meetings only needs to be satisfied with respect to members participating remotely. They do not apply to the public who participate electronically. The City is not required to allow the public to participate in their in-person meetings electronically. However, if remote public participation is allowed, then the room needs to be set up so everyone can see and hear everyone else. It is also possible to offer remote participate by the public for only certain meetings. There may be a public hearing or input session for which the Council is interested in as much public input as possible. Summary To sum up, the OML was established to promote public access to meetings, not for the convenience of the body’s members. Once the Mayor determines the conditions allowing the emergency electronic meetings are no longer present, the only way for a member of any of the City’s bodies to participate in a meeting remotely is under the occasional electronic meeting statute. I suspect the Council Chamber is, or can be set up, to accommodate at least some members remoting in, but I would guess that is not the case for the City’s other meeting locations. Until and unless such technology is set up in a meeting room, it is unlikely members of boards, commissions, committees, etc. will be able to satisfy the criteria to remote into a meeting. Additionally, anytime a member does intend to remote in, that needs to be communication to staff with sufficient advance notice to allow staff to provide the additional notice and specific location information for each member that will be participating remotely. As mentioned above, the remote location must also be open and accessible to the public. Realistically, the ability for a member to remote into a meeting will likely be limited to Councilmembers and maybe to any other body that meets in the Council Chambers. That is likely also the case with respect to allowing the public to participate remotely. Other than special meetings such as those that were conducted at the Heritage Center, I suspect there is not sufficient technology in the City’s other meeting rooms to allow remote participation. Feel free to let me know if there are any other questions. 1 BR291-4-732392.v1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___ RESOLUTION ENDING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020 the Mayor of the City of Brooklyn Center (“City”) issued Mayoral Declaration No. 2020-1 Declaring a Local Emergency (“Declaration 2020-1”) as a result of the COVID-19 health pandemic; and WHEREAS, on the same day, the City Council exercised its authority under Minnesota Statutes, section 12.29 to adopt Resolution No. 2020-035 (“Extension Resolution”) to extend the local emergency declaration; and WHEREAS, the Governor, as part of a deal reached with the legislature, ended the Peacetime Emergency Declaration related to the pandemic effective as of July 1, 2021; however, the Governor did not declare the pandemic over and instead made provisions to continue emergency response to the pandemic by legislative authority rather than emergency authority; and WHEREAS, the residents of the City have been hit hard by the pandemic, both from a health perspective and financially, and efforts continues to get more residents vaccinated; and WHEREAS, City buildings were closed to the public during the pandemic and are only recently being reopened; and WHEREAS, the City has been conducting meetings by electronic means as authorized under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021, and is working to transition back to in-person meetings while exploring options to allow the public to continue to attend at least regular Council meetings electronically; and WHEREAS, electronic meetings can continue as long as the presiding officer (i.e., the Mayor) finds that it is not practical or prudent to meet in-person “because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under chapter 12”; and WHEREAS, the pandemic did not end on July 1st and Declaration 2020-1 is an emergency declaration issued under chapter 12 that remains in effect; WHEREAS, the City Council determines it is in the best interests of the City and its residents to wait until the end of July to end the local emergency declaration; and WHEREAS, the Mayor, as the presiding officer for the City, issued an updated statement indicating the City shall return to in-person meetings as of August 1st. 2 BR291-4-732392.v1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that, effective as of 11:59 p.m. on July 31, 2021, the local emergency declared by Declaration 2020-1 is ended and the Extension Resolution is repealed. 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:7 /12/2 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:A mendment to the 2021 C ity C ouncil M ee"ng S chedule Requeste d C ouncil A con: - Moon to appr ove the amendment to the 2 0 2 1 C ity C ouncil M eeng S chedule B ackground: T he 2021 C ity C ouncil mee"ng s chedule is amended to cancel the Joint C ouncil/F inancial Commission mee"ng originally s cheduled for J uly 19. A n amended 2021 C ity C ouncil mee"ng s chedule is a1ached. B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: O pera"onal E xcellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe 2021 M ee"ng S chedule 7/8/2021 Backup M aterial 2021 City Council Meeting Schedule Regular City Council Meetings Council Chambers City Hall Study/Work Session 6:00 p.m. Informal Open Forum 6:45 p.m. Regular Session 7:00 p.m. Work Session – After regular session Brooklyn Center City Council regularly meets the 2nd and 4th Monday each month, unless Monday is a holiday. January 11 January 25 February 8 February 22 March 8 March 22 April 12 April 26 May 10 May 24 June 14 June 28 July 12 July 26 August 9 August 23 September 13 September 27 October 11 October 25 November 8 November 22 December 13 Additional Meetings – 6 pm start Jan. 4 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 May 3 Sept. 7 Special City Council Meetings All dates are Monday unless otherwise noted April 5 7:00 p.m. Board of Appeal & Equalization CC April 19 6:00 p.m. Board of Appeal & Equalization Reconvene CC June 7 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Auditor and Budget Work Session w/Financial Commission CC July 7 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Financial Commission CC Capital Improvement Plan & Capital Project Funds July 19 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Financial Commission CC 2022 Budget Overview August 2 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Financial Commission CC General Fund – Department Requests August 16 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Financial Commission CC General Fund – Department Requests September 1 (Wednesday) 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Financial Commission CC General Fund – Department Requests October 4 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Financial Commission CC Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Internal Service Funds October 18 6:30 p.m. Work Session w/Financial Commission CC Utility/Enterprise Funds December 6 6:30 p.m. 2022 Budget Hearing and Special Meeting CC CC –Council Chambers located in upper level City Hall All dates are subject to change. Call City Hall at 763-569-3300 to verify dates and times. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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 :M eg B eekman, Community D ev elopment D irector BY:X iong T hao, H ousing and C ommunity S tandards S upervis or S U B J E C T:O rdinance A mendment to C hapter 1 9 A llow ing and Regula"ng Na"v e P rairie G rass and Naturalis "c Vegeta"on Requeste d C ouncil A con: - Moon to open public hear ing, take public comment, and close public hear ing - M oon to appr ove the second r eading and adopt an ordinance amending C hapter 19 of the C ity C ode of Or dinances regar ding Regulang Nave P r airie G r ass and Natur alisc Vegetaon - Moon to appr ove the resoluon for a S ummary P ublicaon in the S un Post B ackground: T he firs t reading of this or dinance w as dis cus s ed and approv ed by C ity C ouncil on J une 1 4 , 2021. At the mee"ng, the C ity C ouncil had a ques"o n rela"ng to the maintenance requirement exceeding more than three gro wing seaso ns. T he maintenance requirement states that the process o f establishing a na "ve prairie grass garden canno t take longer than 3 seasons to complete construc"on o r establish the garden. O nce the ga rden is installed, it must meet the requirements for regular ongo ing maintenance. S ince the fir s t reading of the or dinance, the pr opos ed ordinance was revis ed to r equir e na"ve lawns to be registered, as oppos ed to requiring them to hav e a permit. I t was suggested by C ity C ouncil that that the language regarding the requirement of a permit be o mi<ed and use a registra"on instead. T his is in hopes to make the process appear less diffi cult and hopef ully encourage mo re applica"o ns. O verv iew of O rdinance: Regis tr a"on w ith city is required Must meet s etback requirements Maintenance Requir ements M us t be maintained in a manner that does not contain noxious w eeds M us t be maintained at leas t once per year The ar ea s hall be clearly defined by lands cape edging or fencing The garden s hall not extend into the r ight of way I f the gar den is to be s een by the public, it s hall have s ignage iden"fy ing the garden I f w eeds cover 25% of the lands cape ar ea, it mus t be maintained to 8 ” or les s The trans i"on period to a na"v e and naturalis "c vegeta"on garden s hall not exceed more than 3 growing s eas ons S et back requirements : S etback mus t be 5 B from s ide and r ear lot lines Exemp"on to s etback: F ully opaque fence at least 5 B in height betw een na"v e and naturalis "c vegeta"on on the s ide and rear lot lines ; or na"v e and naturalis"c vegeta"on is on an adjacent lot A<ached to this report is the proposed ordinance, which was prepared by the C ity A<orney. B udget I ssues: T here w ill be s taff "me requir ed for administering the regis tra"on applica"on process. I t is not an"cipated that addi"onal s taffing w ill be required due to the low number of an"cipated regis tr a"ons . I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe Res olu"on 7/7/2021 Resolu"on L e<er O rdinance 7/7/2021 O rdinance BR291-4-732755.v1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 2021-___ WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center acted at its meeting on July 12, 2021 to adopt the above-referenced ordinance allowing the establishment and maintenance of native and naturalistic vegetation on property after registering with the City (“Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication of adopted ordinances by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing maps or charts; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines publishing the entire text of the Ordinance is not in the best interests of the City as the Ordinance is readily available to the public on the City’s website and by contacting City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines the following summary clearly informs the public of the intent of Ordinance and where to obtain a copy of the full text. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center hereby approves publication of the following summary language as publication of the Ordinance: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SUMMARY PUBLICATION Ordinance No. 2021-___ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 TO ALLOW AND REGULATE NATIVE AND NATURALISTIC VEGETATION The Brooklyn Center City Council adopted the above-referenced ordinance to allow property owners to register with the City to allow them to establish and maintain native and naturalistic vegetation on their property. The ordinances sets out definitions, establishes registration requirements, the authority to suspend or repeal registration if there is a violation, setback requirements, and general maintenance standards. The ordinance goes into effect 30 days from this publication. The full text of the ordinance is available on the City’s website and can be obtained by contacting City Hall. BR291-4-732755.v1 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 12th day of July, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard during the regular City Council meeting to consider an ordinance related to repealing the snow emergency prohibition. City Council meetings are being conducted by electronic means under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021 and information on how to connect to the meeting is provided on the City’s website. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 if there are any questions about how to connect to the meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 TO ALLOW AND REGULATE NATIVE AND NATURALISTIC VEGETATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. Brooklyn Center City Code Chapter 19 is hereby amended by adding Sections 19- 1551 through 19-1555 as follows: NATIVE AND NATURALISTIC VEGETATION PERMIT AND REQUIREMENTS Section 19-1551. INTENT. The City Council determines that a variety of properly maintained landscapes in the City add diversity and a richness to the quality of life. The City Council also supports the preservation, restoration, and maintenance of diverse and biologically stable natural plant communities. The City Council also supports environmentally-sound practices, including those to preserve residential pollinators, such as the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee. The City Council finds that the establishment of native and naturalistic vegetation is an acceptable landscape treatment in the City. However, as a protection for the larger community, such native and naturalistic vegetation must be properly planted, maintained, and the length of transition period must be minimized such that the property does not create a public nuisance. Section 19-1552. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of Sections 19-1551 through 19-1555, the following terms shall have the meaning given them in this section. a. “Native and naturalistic vegetation” means all native grasses and native plants that are native to, or adapted to, the State of Minnesota, and that are commonly found in meadow or prairie plant communities, with the exception of noxious weeds. b. “Native grasses” mean grasses that existed in the State of Minnesota prior to European settlement including, but not limited to, beach grass, wood chess grass, sand reed grass, wheat grass, bluestem grass, grama grass, brome grass, buffalo grass, switch grass, Indian grass, and wild rye, with the exception of turf grasses. c. “Native plants” mean plants that existed in the State of Minnesota prior to European settlement. 2 d. “Landscape edging” means material or vegetation used to differentiate a planting bed from turf grasses or adjacent planting beds. e. “Meadow” or “prairie” means those plant communities dominated by a diversity of native perennial herbaceous plants and grasses. f. “Noxious weeds” mean grasses or plants so designated by the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.77, Subdivision 8, or plants so designated by Hennepin County or the United States Department of Agriculture. The term includes any grass or plant that exceeds the height limitations established in these Sections 19-1551 through 19-1555. The term shall not include Taraxacum officinale (commonly referred to as the “common dandelion”). g. “Regularly cut” means mowing or otherwise cutting grasses or plants such that the dimension of the grasses or plants measured from the ground to the top of the grass or plant (as extended upright) does not exceed 12 inches in height. h. “Transition period” means the amount of time to change from one type of landscaping to another. i. “Turf grasses” mean bluegrass, fescue, ryegrass blends, or those other grasses commonly used in regularly cut lawns, including such grasses with non-woody vegetation interspersed within. Section 19-1553. PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; CONDITIONS. a. City Permit Required. No person shall establish or maintain native and naturalistic vegetation without having first obtaining a native and naturalistic vegetation permit from the City. b. Application; Review Process. 1. Any person desiring a native and naturalistic vegetation permit shall make application on a form provided by the City Manager or their designee. 2. Applications for permits shall be reviewed and either approved or denied by the City Manager or their designee. 3. An applicant aggrieved by the application decision may appeal the decision as described in this Section. c. Conditions of Permit. 1. The holder of a native and naturalistic vegetation permit shall comply with the setback regulations as required by Section 19-1554. 2. The holder of a native and naturalistic vegetation permit shall comply with the 3 maintenance regulations as required by Section 19-1555. 3. The City Manager may impose such other conditions and restrictions upon a native and naturalistic vegetation permit as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and other properties, and to ensure compliance with the requirements of the city code. d. Suspension or Revocation of Permit. The City Manager or their designee may suspend or revoke a permit if the permittee fails to comply with the requirements of these 19- 1551 through 19-1555, or any condition placed of a native and naturalistic vegetation permit. The City shall provide the permittee written notice of the suspension or revocation that states the reasons for the decision. The notice shall also inform the permittee of their right to appeal the decision to the City Council and the deadline for filing such an appeal. e. Appeal. An applicant aggrieved by any permit denial, suspension, or revocation decision of the City Manager or their designee may appeal the decision to the City Council. Written notice of the appeal must be given to the City Clerk within 10 days of the written decision, as indicated in the notice of decision, and must summarize the applicant’s reasons for appealing. The City Council shall consider the appeal at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on or after 10 days from the filing of the notice of appeal to the City Manager. Section 19-1554. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, EXEMPTIONS. a. Setback Regulations, Generally. Native and naturalistic vegetation shall be set back at least five feet from the side and rear lot lines, unless exempted by this Section. b. Exemptions to Setback Regulations. No setback shall be required on the side or rear lot lines if: 1. A fully opaque fence at least five feet in height is installed between the native and naturalistic vegetation and the side and rear lot lines, as applicable; or 2. The native and naturalistic vegetation abut native and naturalistic vegetation on an adjacent lot. Section 19-1555. GENERAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. a. Native and naturalistic vegetation shall be maintained in such a manner that it does not contain noxious weeds. b. Native and naturalistic vegetation shall be maintained at least once per year through mowing or, if appropriate permits are obtained from the City Fire Chief, through burning. c. The area in which native and naturalistic vegetation is planted shall be clearly defined 4 by landscape edging or fencing. Native and naturalistic vegetation that directly abuts at least five feet width of mowed and maintained turf grass shall be considered to have adequate landscape edging. d. The area in which native and naturalistic vegetation is planted shall not extend into public rights-of-way. e. For any area in which native and naturalistic vegetation is likely to be seen by the public, a sign shall be posted on the property in a location likely to be seen by the public advising that native and naturalistic vegetation, a meadow, or prairie is being established. The sign shall be in addition to any sign permitted by the sign ordinance, but shall be no smaller than 10 inches square, no larger than one square foot, and no higher than 3 feet tall. f. The maintenance of the area to a height of 8 inches or less if weeds cover more than 25% of the landscaped area equaling in excess of 144 square feet. g. Any native and naturalistic vegetation within 18 inches of any public street, walk, bikeway or alley shall be maintained to a height of 12 inches or less. h. The duration of any transition period to native and naturalistic vegetation shall not extend more than three growing seasons for any specific area. i. Except to the extent expressly allowed by these Sections 19-1551 through 19-1555, permit holders shall maintain native and naturalistic vegetation in accordance with all other requirements of the City Code. ARTICLE II. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. ATTEST: Barb Suciu City Clerk Publish: June 24, 2021 C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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:M eg B eekman, Community D ev elopment D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu"on A dop"ng an O pportunity S ite I nfras tructure F ramew ork to G uide the O pportunity S ite M aster P lan Requeste d C ouncil A con: - Moon to appr ove a r esoluon adopng an Opportunity S ite I nfr astructur e Framewor k to guide the Oppor tunity S ite M aster P lan B ackground: I n A pril 2019, the C ity r enew ed a P reliminary D evelopment A greement w ith A latus for 35 acres of the 8 0- acre O pportunity S ite. T he agreement outlined roles and responsibili"es for each party, w hich included the C ity taking the lead on master planning for the s ite, in partners hip with A latus , and incorpora"ng the larger 8 0 -acre O pportunity S ite into the mas ter plan. A latus for their part in the agreement w as tas ked with implemen"ng an ini"al phas e of development and con"nuing their w ork to bring a development for w ard. T hroughout 2019, the C ity, along with its cons ultant team, worked to dev elop the O pportunity S ite Mas ter P lan. T his w as a mul"-phased approach that inv olved a combina"on of technical as s essment, ini"al community engagement, feas ibility analys is , and further community engagement to con"nue to refine the plan. T he scale and r each of community engagement on this project has exceeded that of any pas t effort in the City ’s history ; however, the intent w ith this pr oject is to ensure that the outcomes truly benefit the res idents of Br ookly n Center, and this neces s itates a much deeper, more inclus ive engagement strategy than may be typical. F rom the beginning, the engagement approach w as intended to support this v is ion through an in- depth, inclus iv e pr oces s that connected w ith div er s e groups and view s thr oughout the city. P rinciples guiding this approach included: Consistency w ith city goals and policies , including the new city compr ehens ive plan. Ens uring the dev elopment provided dir ect acces s and bene?ts for city res idents. A uthen"c engagement to connect people w ith the decis ion-making pr oces s . Meaningful oppor tuni"es to in?uence outcomes for the plan and the s ite. Transpar ency in decision making, to build tr us t and accountability. W hile these princ iples have remained, the approa ch to engagement has evolved and changed since then, in response to feedba ck o n effec"veness, and changes in external condi"ons. T he C ity is wo rking with N EO O Partners on a public engagement strategy that inc ludes co ntrac"ng with community partners to lead deeper and mo re meaningf ul engagement with community, a nd the crea"o n of a ci"zen advisory taskforce to dis"ll the engagement results and create a co mmunity benefits plan for the development. M aste r P lan A mas ter plan is a big picture, v alues -driven plan that informs future development of an area. Mas ter plans do not prov ide details on specific development proj ects. Typically mas ter plans cons is t of tw o primary components : 1) A s et of phys ical infras tructure framew ork s that comprise the phys ical lay out of the area with roads , par ks , trails , stormwater, land us e and u"li"es , and; 2) An implementa"on component that iden"fies how the phys ical elements w ill be delivered and w hat they ar e intended to achieve. This component may include dev elopment goals, community benefits , financial feas ibility, zoning r egula"ons , detailed infras tructure des ign, and s hort and longer-term ac"on s teps. A draC mas ter plan lar gely comprised of the phys ical infras tructure framew ork s w as completed in January 2020 . This was based on early engagement efforts, the C ity ’s comprehens iv e plan, the geographic context of the s ite, and the phys ical r eali"es of the redevelopment areas . Early engagement efforts focused on developing guiding principles and v alues for the development, iden"fy ing outcomes that the community w anted to s ee, and geDng input on priori"zing thos e outcomes . T he inten"on at that point w as to move into an engagement phas e to dev elop the implementa"on component of the plan, w hich w ill provide a more detailed community benefits plan. This process was s low ed due to the pandemic and then further delay ed by civil unrest, but is being r e-engaged under an engagement s trategy developed by N EO O Partners , and in collabora"on w ith community partners. I n the interim, a traffic s tudy w as conducted, bas ed on the draC master plan, and a regional s tormw ater plan was developed for the site. O ne of the next s teps to complete the implementa"on component of the mas ter plan is to dev elop more refined des igns for the roads , streets capes and u"li"es. Refined designs are needed to complete cos t es"mates and s tor mwater planning, and to develop an implementa"on plan for the public improv ements. I n addi"on, Thr ee Riv er s Park D is trict has commiFed to prov iding a 4-acre “mini-r egional park”, within the dev elopment ar ea. They have amended their park s and trails master plan to include the project and hav e included it in their 2 0 2 4 C I P. They will begin an engagement and planning proces s for the park later in 2 021. M N D O T holds approximately 5 acres of right of way adjacent to H ighway 1 0 0 and in the middle of a highly visible area within the redev elopment plan. T his R O W is for John M ar"n D r ive and connects to the John M ar"n D r ive acces s and bridge over H ighw ay 1 0 0 , which is als o ow ned by M N D OT. T he draC mas ter plan calls for the closure of this acces s and br idge, and for M N D OT to vacate that R O W, allow ing it to be incorpor ated into a future development area. At pr esent, M N D OT has expres s ed hes ita"on to move ahead with any review of that R O W, due to a future 2 0 2 6 H ighw ay 100 improv ement that may need s tormw ater capacity. S taff has been w orking w ith M N D O T to ensure they under s tand that the highest and bes t us e of that land is not a stormwater pond, nor is wai"ng to deter mine M N D O T 's poten"al future need for the land acceptable. Thes e convers a"ons are ongoing. T he E DA controls approximately 44 of the 80-acre O pportunity S ite area. The balance of land is priv ately owned by various par"es. Nearly all of thos e proper"es are for s ale, or hav e willing s ellers. S taff has receiv ed numer ous inquiries from par"es interes ted in acquiring thes e parcels . I nterest includes redev elopment concepts , as w ell as r eus e concepts. G enerally, pr opos ed concepts are for us es that do not align with the draC mas ter plan. This is not surprising s ince the dr aC master plan calls for a s ignificant r e-v is ioning of the area, to intens ify the land us e, bring new infras tructure and ameni"es to the s ite, and deliv er outcomes that the mar ket would not be able to deliver on its own w ithout city s upport. T he concern is that abs ent a vision for the s ite, the C ity has limited ability to ens ure that any reuse or redev elopment of priv ate property w ithin the O pportunity S ite aligns with w hat the City w ants to achieve on the site. W ithout an adopted framework for futur e r edevelopment, it is mor e difficult for staff to convey the City ’s vis ion and prov ide direc"on to pr oper ty owners and pr os pec"ve buyers. T he 2040 C omprehens iv e P lan iden"fies futur e land us es for the O pportunity S ite of Trans it O riented D evelopment and C ommercial Mixed U se; ho wever, the zo ning f o r the site a llo ws auto -o riented retail and co mmercial uses, which are not in alignment with the visio n. A morato rium o n new development was put into place in August 2019, and expired in August 2020. T he C ity does no t have the ability to put into place another mo ratorium. T he O pportunity S ite M aster P lan will eventually be adopted as part of the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan, once it is completed, w hich will provide greater r egulator y ov ers ight for the C ity. I n the interim however, abs ent a change in zoning or an adopted master plan for the s ite, the City has les s dis cr e"on w hen it comes to the future us e of thes e par cels. I nfrastructure F rame work At the June 7, C ity C ouncil S pecial Work S es s ion, s taff and the consultant team pres ented the draC I nfrastructur e F r amewor k for dis cus s ion and as ked for direc"on from the C ity C ouncil on how to proceed. S taff introduced and pres ented four phys ical elements that form the framew or k that w ill guide the dev elopment of the O pportunity S ite. Thes e w er e: S tormw ater A ccess and C onnec"vity Parks and O pen S pace L and U s e A full descrip"on of each infras tructure element can be found in the aFached J une 7, City Council report. At the J une 7 Specia l Wo rk Sessio n, the C ity C o uncil directed staff to move a head with the I nfrastructure Framework, par"cularly the elements related to S to rmwater, Access and C onnec"vity, and Parks and O pen Space. T he C ity C o uncil expressed that the elements of the I nf rastructure Fra mewo rk would need to remain fl exible moving forward as addi"onal engagement is do ne, and con"nue to be informed by the co mmunity engagement pro c ess. B oth o f these points are included in the aFached resolu"o n, adop"ng the I nf rastructure Framework. I n terms of Land U s e, the C ity C ouncil expres s ed a des ir e to retain the mos t amount of flexibility for how the eastern 2 2 -acr es of land could and would be us ed in the future. W hile the cur rent land use designa"on for the O ppor tunity S ite is a combina"on of Trans it O riented D ev elopment and C ommercial M ixed U s e, the City Council indicated an openness to explor ing other land us es, s uch as Bus ines s Mixed Use, provided the res ul"ng development w as compa"ble with the balance of the site and furthered important C ity goals for community benefits and s ustainability. F urther, the C ity C ouncil expres s ed that futur e land us e for the eastern 22 -acr es con"nue to evolve and be informed by community engagement. Bas ed on the C ity C ouncil's dis cus s ion and direc"on, s taff and the cons ultant team have revised the proposed I nfras tructur e F ramework, w hich is aFached to this report, along w ith a res olu"on which would adopt it. The I nfr as tr ucture F ramew ork document outlines high level goals for each physical element, as w ell as conceptually lay s out the site. The aFached res olu"on provides flexibility to implement the phys ical infras tructure elements w ith con"nued community input, and as des ign of the elements con"nues. I n addi"on, the I nfras tructur e F ramework includes the background context for the s ite and iden"fies way s in w hich an equity lens applies to each infrastructur e element. T he approval of an I nfras tructure F ramework w ill guide the O pportunity S ite M as ter P lan work, in par"cular the development of the implementa"on s ec"on of the plan. I t w ill als o progres s and facilitate dis cus s ions w ith Thr ee Riv ers Park D is trict and M N D OT, as well as provide guidance on the future phys ical build out of the s ite, puDng the City in a beFer nego"a"ng posi"on w hen talk ing with exis "ng property ow ners and pros pec"v e interes ted par"es. F urther, adop"on of the I nfrastructure F ramew or k will allow s taff to con"nue the preliminary design and implementa"on of the roadw ay s , stormwater and par ks and open space elements , which is needed in or der to complete the O ppor tunity S ite Mas ter P lan. B udget I ssues: T here are no budget is s ues to cons ider at this "me. I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: Extensive community engagement has been u"lized to produce the I nfras tr ucture F ramew ork. This engagement w ork has focused on iden"fying guiding pr inciples for the dev elopment and decision making, community values which have been incorporated into the document, and high prior ity community benefits that can be prov ided thr ough the physical layout of the s ite. T he next phas e of community engagement is planned to pr ovide a deeper div e of input on the implementa"on components of the plan. A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: T he I nfras tructure F ramew ork w as developed w ith an equity lens . Page 10 of the aFached F ramework document outlines how each element of the plan addres s es equity. S trate gic Priories and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe O pportunity S ite I nfras tructure F ramework 7/6/2021 Backup M aterial Res olu"on 7/6/2021 Resolu"on L eFer J une 7, 2021, C ity C ouncil Report 7/6/2021 Backup M aterial Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, MN Draft Report as of July 6, 2021 Prepared for: City of Brooklyn Center Prepared by: Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. The City recognizes that historically, development patterns have resulted in disparate impacts, particu- larly on communities of color. These disparities have resulted in harm; such as displacement and exclusion from the benefi ts of new investment. The city endeav- ors to reverse these disparities and enhance equitable outcomes by working towards a more responsible means of advancing development 2Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Background07/06/21 Introduction..........page 3 Purpose of the Plan Community Values Guiding Principles Overall Vision Context Organization of the Site Four Frameworks.....page 8 Land Use Open Space Stormwater Access and Connection Table of Contents 3Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/21 1. Introduction 4Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Introduction Brooklyn Center is a City of the Future. The population is rich with diversity from around the world. The large number of children and youth will be future leaders in the years to come. Brooklyn Center also brings strengths from its past. Its location is accessible and connected. And people still value its stock of aff ordable housing with convenient access to jobs, shopping and services. But the transition from past to future is not without challenges. For the city, it means transitioning spaces and places built for a previous era, that no longer meet current needs. For the people, it means addressing past and current practices that exclude some people from benefi tting from progress and opportunity, particularly people of color, people with low-incomes, and renters. This includes addressing the potential for displacement and gentrifi cation in the city. The Opportunity Site project can’t meet every need. But it can help. For the city, this means creating a new place that strives to meet the needs of residents and workers, adds value to the community, and becomes a source of community pride. For the people, this means creating an accountable process that addresses past problems and provides transparency, accountability, and benefi t to existing residents of the community. Purpose of this Plan This document sets clear high level direction for the community vision for redevelopment and how the physical structure of the area must change in order to enable this change. This Framework Plan has two sections : 1. Background and Vision for Redevelopment 2. Four Frameworks This document is not a full Master Plan. Adoption and acceptance of this document sets the direction for a fully developed Master Plan and it allows City Staff and offi cials to have discussions with developers and property owners while a full Master Plan is in development. 5Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Overall Vision for a New Downtown Brooklyn Center Downtown Brooklyn Center... • Will be a place that represents all of what Brooklyn Center is and can become. • People will choose to invest their time and energies in Downtown Brooklyn Center as much for what it is as for what it is near. • It will contain a mix of uses that appeal to both current and future residents, entrepreneurs, and visitors of Brooklyn Center. • It will have a signifi cant amount of new medium and high density housing that helps diversify the City’s housing stock - allowing residents to stay in Brooklyn Center and also attracting new residents. • It will be a place that nurtures local businesses while also attracting new businesses that appeal locally and regionally. • It will generate value to the City by leveraging its irreplaceable assets - proximity to the park and civic buildings, centrality to the City and it’s people, and access to the region. Community Values Expressed in the Plan Guiding Principles Fiscal Responsibility Diversity and inclusivity Flexibility Aff ordability Health and Wellness Community Pride Environmental Sustainability Local Benefi t Counteracting Displacement Four guiding principles emerged from the com- munity workshops that reinforce a sense of community pride in Brooklyn Center The Opportunity Site and its Surroundings Natural Systems The Opportunity site is located a mile from the Mississippi River and adjacent to Shingle Creek. Both are part of regional recreational systems that are signifi cant amenities. Neighborhoods The area was developed in the 1960’s when land uses were strictly separated. As a result, the site is separated from neighborhood by large parks and highways. Brooklyn Center in the Region The Opportunity Site in Brooklyn Center Highways The Opportunity Site is located along major freeways and highways. It is easily accessible from throughout the region. This Plan recommends a combination of local and regional attractions that benefi t from the Sites location and access. Trails The Site is located at the junction of two regional trails which connect to the Mississippi River to the east, and large parks and lakes tot he west north and south. The Plan recommends leveraging these assets and routing the trail through the Site. Transit Metro Transit recently opened the C and D Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lines - both which terminate at a charging and layover station adjacent to the Opportunity Site. This Plan recommends relocating the station in the Opportunity Site and making it part of a mobility hub that serves the area. Local Roads The Site has few local roads serving it and through it. Redevelopment of the Site will require considerable new infrastructure in order for it to be redeveloped 6Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Publicly Owned Properties in the Opportunity Site The Opportunity Site is approximately 100 acres. Approximately 40% (shown in red) of it is publicly owned. While this study focuses on the Opportunity Site, it took into consideration a signifi cantly larger area because of its close relationship to the Opportunity Site. I-694 High w a y 1 0 0 J o h n M a r t i n D r i v e kw ay I69696944444I69I6969444I69I69I6969I696999944444I69I69I69I69I696999944444I-69I-69I-699I-69644444I-69I-69I-699I-69I-6 4444444I6969I69I69944444444I69I69I69I69944444444 JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ o J o J o J o JJ o J o J o J o J o J o o J o J o J o J o J o JJ o J o J o J o J o J o J o h J o h J o J o h J o h J o h J o h J o h J o h J o h J o h J o J o h J o h J o h J o h JJ o h oooo h o h o h o h o h ooooo h o h o h ooo h o h o h o h n o h n o h o h n o h n h oo h n o h n o h n o h o h h n h n h n h n n h n h n h n h n n h n h n nnn MMM h n h n nnn MMM nnnnnnnnn MMMMMMMMM nnnnnnnnn MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMyyyyyyyM a M a M a M a MM a M a aa MM a M a M a M a M a MM a M a M a M a M a MMaaaayyyyyyyyyyM a r M a M a r M a r M a r M a ar M a r M a r M a r rr M a r M a r M a r M a r M a r M a M a r M a r M a r araaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyarararararararararararar ttttttt ararararararararararararar tttttttwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaarararararararrtititittitititi arararararrarrtititittitititikkkkkkkkkwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaarrrrrrrrti n titi n ti n ti n ti n ti n ti n tti rrrrrrrrrtiti n ti n ti n ti n ti n ti n ti n titkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwti n ti n ti n titi n ti ninitti n ti n titi n ti n ti n tiinkkkkkkkkkkkkwwwwwwwwnnnnn DDDDDDDDD nnnnnn DDDDDDDDD kkkkkk n nn nnn DDDDDDDDDDD nn nn DDDDDDDDDDDD r DDD r DDDD r D r DD r DD r D r DDDD r D r D r D r i D r i D r i D r i D r i D r i D r i D r i D r i D r i i D r i D r i v D r i v iv ri v v D r i v D r i v iriri v ri v ri viviv ri v ri v ri vivivvvvvvvv eeeeeeeeeee vvvvvvvv eeeeeeeeee vvvvvvv eeeeeeeeee vvvvvv eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010010010100100100100101001000001001000100100100100010000100101010101010101010001010101010101010101010yyyyyyyyyyyy10101010110101000101001010yyyyy10101010101010101yyyyyyyyyyyyy111111111111yyyyyyyy1111ay ay ay ay ayay ay ayay ay ay ay ayayayayayayayayayaywaywaywaywaywayawawaywawaywaywaywaywaayywawaywaywaywaywaywaywaywayawaawawaywaywaywaywawayaywaawahhhhhhhhwawawawawaawwwwwhhhhhwawawawawawwwwhhhhhhhhhhhwwwwwwwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhwwwwwwwghghghghghghghghhwwwwwwwwwwghghghghghghhghhghhwwwww ighighghhighighighighighighighighighighighighighighighighighighgHigHigHigHigHigHigHiggHiggHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHiggHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigigHigHigHiHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHigHiHHigHigHigHigHiHigigiggHHigHigHigHigHigHiHi yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyaaayywwwaawwwkkwwwwk Opportunity SiteOpportunity Site Area of Area of Infl uence and Infl uence and ConsiderationConsideration Publicly Owned PropertiesPublicly Owned Properties With approximately 40% of the Opportunity Site publicly owned, the City can leverage its infl uence on future redevelopment. By undertaking a public engagement the City can guide redevelopment in a manner that refl ects the wishes, desires, and needs of the Community. As property owner and driver of the Master Plan, redevelopment of the Opportunity Site can deliver substantially more public benefi ts than if the redevel- opment was exclusively privately driven. 7Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Concepts that Organize The Site Trail and park connections to the expansive regional system1 Community Anchors to create a core to Brooklyn Center3 A spine to organize neighborhoods2 Local connections to make access to Downtown easy4 Earle Brown Earle Brown Conference Conference CenterCenter Earle Brown Earle Brown Elementary Elementary SchoolSchool Brooklyn Brooklyn Center City Center City HallHall Summit DriveSummit Drive Centennial ParkCentennial Park County County Building / Building / LibraryLibrary 8Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/21 Four Frameworks Four Frameworks TOMORROW Open Space Stormwater Transportation 9Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 TODAY Open Space Stormwater Transportation Land Use The Opportunity Site is a former retail district that is currently occupied with a collection of uses that don’t reinforce each other in a meaningful way. Much of the land is vacant and underused The Opportunity Site is adjacent to regional trails, as well as a large City Park - however there are no parks open spaces, or direct connections to regional trail within the Opportunity Site The Opportunity Site is almost completely impervious with buildings and parking lots. Improvements are needed to ensure ongoing compliance with local, regional, and watershed requirements The Opportunity Site is easy to get to due to its strong regional access, however it lacks an internal street system, pedestrian connections, and bike facilities to encourage redevelopment. Open Space Stormwater Transportation Land Use Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature building and development patterns that are mixed, sustainable, and connective - creating nodes of mixed use activity and neighborhoods for people to live and enjoy at any stage of life. Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature system of open spaces, streets, trails and pedestrian areas that promotes healthy living, gathering, social gathering, and environmental responsibility. A green and active stormwater system that provides health, and environmental benefi ts to all Downtown Brooklyn Center will have a transportation system that encourages walking and biking, is well connected to the region and reduces the need to own a car by providing safe, aff ordable, convenient and accessible options. Land Use Land uses and equity have a long and interwoven history in the US. For centuries, land use policies were used directly and indirectly to segregate certain people groups, often targeting BIPOC and other marginalized communities. . To combat this long history of inequity, the Opportunity Site Infrastructure Framework promotes land use equity by: • Prioritizing an intermingling of complementary uses throughout the Opportunity Site, within easily accessible distances, thus reducing access and transportation barriers for housing, goods & services, jobs, socialization, and physical activity. • Directly responds to an expressed community need for living wage jobs, while presenting opportunity for local hire programs (within Business Mixed Use district). • Supporting creation of a larger stock of housing choices across a multitude of scales and price points within Brooklyn Center – both aff ordable & market rate, fi lling housing needs the city currently has and promoting mixed income communities (housing) • Intending to off er unique destinations for the community to gather that are refl ective of the multifaceted ethnic diversity that makes the city great. • Providing business spaces at aff ordable price points for business incubation and growth, while connecting emerging entrepreneurs with more customers. Parks & Open Space Parks and open spaces throughout the Opportunity Site will prioritize connecting all people with high- quality parks and public spaces that are designed in a manner that is refl ective of the rich cultural diversity in Brooklyn Center and welcoming to all people. The Opportunity Site Infrastructure Framework promotes Park & Open Space equity by: • Providing accessible, free, quality green and open spaces that off er active and passive recreation, as well as community gathering spaces, for all ages and abilities. • Promoting health benefi ts for residents including opportunities for physical activity, stress reduction, and social connections. • Off ering amenities that are designed to refl ect the cultural diversity of Brooklyn Center, communicating that all area welcome to use the park and open space network. • Prioritizing environmental justice through restoration of natural spaces for communities that have historically shouldered the brunt of environmental degradation. • Presenting the City a tool in which to further develop multi-jurisdictional partnerships around equity promotion in park and open space design and management. Four Frameworks - Equity Lens Stormwater BIPOC and low-income communities have historically faced disinvestment infrastructure, further resulting in environmental and health disparities. As both fl oods and droughts become an increasing reality, ensuring resilient infrastructure to proactively management stormwater must be a priority for the Opportunity Site. Towards this end the Opportunity Site Infrastructure Framework promotes Stormwater equity by: • Instituting a district-wide stormwater system to reduce project lifecycle costs, thus reducing the fi scal burden on city residents. • Proactively planning for and instituting a stormwater plan that promotes environmental sustainability and resiliency in the face of ever-changing climate changes, that disproportionately impact BIPOC and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations • Instituting high-quality best management practices (BMPs) such as bioswales, green streets, and retention ponds, that mitigate negative stormwater impacts while providing additional aesthetic and livability benefi ts. • Cleansing and purifying stormwater before it re- enters Shingle Creek and other natural sources, reducing pollutants. Access & Mobility Of the four frameworks, none may be as consequential to equity as access and mobility. Transportation availability has been used to isolate people groups and create barriers to access. Communities without access to a car should not be isolated from taking advantage of the Opportunity Site, nor should they not be aff orded the choice to live near where they work, play, and recreate. The Opportunity Site Infrastructure Framework promotes access and mobility equity by: • Utilizing a framing lens that asks “who is the most vulnerable,” and making transportation decisions accordingly. • Prioritizing safe and connective mobility options, especially for those walking, rolling, biking, and taking transit. • Ensuring safe, evidence-based design standards are utilized, and that infrastructure is easily navigable and welcoming to diverse cultures once built. • Creating a plan that is anchored by multimodal transportation infrastructure, with complementary land uses, towards maximizing mobility options for residents, employees, and visitors. • Seeking environmentally sustainable solutions to transportation systems and infrastructure to reduce where possible the emission and impact of greenhouse gases. 10Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Land Use Transit Oriented Development Business Mixed Use Active Uses Such as Retail explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer FeaturesFrameworkOutcomes The Framework Plan contains parks, plazas, and open spaces designed to encourage gathering, socializing, and cultural expression. The spaces will be welcoming, accessible, and inclusive. The pulse of the City will be on display throughout the year in these spaces. Special consideration will be given to designing spaces that are active throughout the year. The spaces and activities will change with the seasons. An “Inside Out” City Land uses allow for developments supportive of or oriented around transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and that support local job creation and business growth. Land uses of this nature were informed by the 2040 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, and community input on the need for living- wage jobs, increasing the City’s tax base, and providing opportunities to diversify Brooklyn Center’s economy and housing. The fi nal land use policy direction will be supported by an implementation plan, which will be imbedded within the fi nal Opportunity Site Master Plan as well as with new zoning districts in an updated City zoning code. 11Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature building and development patterns that are mixed, sustainable, and connective - creating nodes of mixed use activity and neighborhoods for people to live and enjoy at any stage of life. New market rate and aff ordable housing designed to be walkable, neighborly, and welcoming. New neighborhoods with neighborhood parks and amenities at their core and a “garden street” linking them. Commercial development that supports local living wage jobs. An entrepreneurial market to incubate and accelerate local businesses. Housing for all Stages of LifeHousing for all Stages of Life Buildings and Spaces for an Entrepreneurial Downtown Brooklyn Center has an entrepreneurial population with a high percentage of fi rst and second generation Americans, the community boasts small home grown businesses in retail, food, and professional services. The Framework Plan creates buildings and spaces for these activities to fl ourish. An Entrepreneurial Market will provide in house marketing, fi nancial, and mentor support while also off ering access to customers in a market hall. In addition, plazas will be designed with kiosks, food trucks, and other opportunities for pop up retail. Brooklyn Center lacks the full range of housing options. As a result, some residents are foced to look for housing outside the City as they move through diff erent phases of life. The Opportunity Site will include apartments and townhouses that are both Market rate and Aff ordable. Eff orts will also be made to provide ownership housing across the income levels as well. IMIAGE descriptions on following pages Land Use (Continued) 12Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 TOD supports opportunities for transit-supportive and transit-oriented development, as well as land uses that support pedestrian and bicycle use. The TOD district requires intensities and patterns of development that support vibrant pedestrian activity, and discourages land uses and development patterns that could decrease walkability or interfere with future growth of transit-oriented development and transit ridership. The district promotes sustainable urban places that include places to live, work, shop, and recreate locally, reduce reliance on automobiles, and encourage the use of public transit. The district fosters job creation and economic growth in proximity to transit and provides residents with new housing and lifestyle choices with more nearby amenities and social interaction spaces. This will be the guidance for the majority of the Opportunity Site. Transit Oriented Development District (TOD) Transit Oriented Development District (TOD) M A I N S T R E E T 3 RIVERS PARK Main Street Three Rivers Park Land Use (Continued) Benefi ts 13Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 The MX-B1 designation guides land for a mix of business and light industrial uses with allowance for supporting retail/ service uses. This designation encourages redevelopment or development of commercial, offi ce, general business and light industrial uses in coordination with supporting retail/commercial uses to encourage a more dynamic and connected experience for workers. This land use does not plan for residential uses but may include limited live-work opportunities as established through supporting offi cial controls. This guidance will apply to an employment district adjacent to the highway, providing proximity to the TOD core, while still managing freight traffi c and impacts eff ectively. Rooftop community solar and micro grid Pervious pavement to encourage infi ltration Businesses with public interface located at activity nodes that face the neighborhoood Clear and simple pedestrian connections to the neightbohood Green edge for stormwater, trails, habitat public art and other shared amenities Smaller scale employment uses in the neighborhood - maker spaces, live work units »Living wage jobs with low barrier to entry »Jobs that are matched to the skills of the neighborhood »Higher than average job density (minimum 25 jobs/acre) »Local hiring and local job development »Incubator / Accelerator / Collaboration space for small business and start ups »Net Positive tax base »Workforce development and training »Local and distinctive business mix that share resouces »Businesses that complement existing industrial base »Employee base supports local retail and restaurants »Back room inventory and logistics for local retail »Potential event space for community gathering Business Mixed Use (MX-B1) Open Space Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature system of open spaces, streets, trails and pedestrian areas that promotes healthy living, gathering, social gathering, and environmental responsibility. Framework An inclusive, accessible, welcoming and dynamic public realm that becomes a social and gathering center for the entire City. An “inside out” City that attracts people to spend time outside together throughout all seasons of the year. Recreational and leisure activities for all ages and abilities. Connecting to and leveraging the potential of Centennial Park A green and active stormwater system that provides health, recreational, and environmental benefi ts to all. Outcomes Features An “Inside Out” City Neighborhood ParkD Stormwater GreenwayE 14Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 The Three Rivers Park District will establish their fi rst “urban bridging” park in Brooklyn Center. in an eff ort to introduce inner ring communities such as Brooklyn Center to its vast park resources throughout Hennepin County, the District endeavors to build 3-4 acre parks in the underserved communities. These parks will serve as a “bridge” to the more natural parks in the county. The District will fund, build, manage, maintain, and program these parks specifi cally for Brooklyn Center residents. The Framework Plan contains parks, plazas, and open spaces designed to encourage gathering, socializing, and cultural expression. The spaces will be welcoming, accessible, and inclusive. they will draw indoor activities to the outdoors. The pulse of the City will be on display throughout the year in these spaces. Special consideration will be given to designing spaces that are active throughout the year. The spaces and activities will change with the seasons. IMIAGE IMIAGE Three Rivers “Bridging” ParkA Parklets and Garden StreetB BC PlazaC A D E E B B C Parklets Neighborhood Parks Plaza Three Rivers Park Greenway Regional Recreational Attraction Three Rivers Urban Bridging Park Stormwater FeaturesFrameworkOutcomes 15Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Stormwater will be integrated with the design of the area so it has multiple functions. Instead of relyingon expensive “hard” infrastructure to move rainwater to areas lakes and rivers, rainwater will be harnassed and used as a resource. For example, the linear greenway that fi lters water before it percolates into the soils will als serve as a regional bike trail. In areas where stormwater is underground, it will be stored and used for irrigation, with th e excess returning to the groundwater aquifer. A green and active stormwater system that provides health, recreational, and environmental benefi ts to all Downtown will feature a stormwater system that man- ages rainwater throughout the District while also serving as a health, recreational, and aesthetic amenity for residents and visitors. Urban Green Streets Greenway and treatment train Neighborhood Rain Gardens Larger detention areas Linear Stormwater parks and greenways along the edge of the large greenspace C Green Streets with Urban StormwaterA Ponding areasD A Garden Street with Rain gardens and ParkletsB C B A D Shared Stacked Green infrastructure District Stormwater System Pavers and soil cells fi lter runoff and encourage root growth Blue Green Roofs use rain water to irrigate plants on roofs and on site. Soil cells with impermeable liners keep polluted water from infi ltrating A diverse mix of salt tolerant and winter hardy plants reduce heat island eff ects and enhance human comfort C A D B C A D B Access and Connectivity Shingle Creek Parkway Main Street Garden Street Parkway Neighborhood Street “Slow Zones” Prioritizing pedestrians to create a walkable community Creating a safe and connected bicycle network Ensuring vehicular access to Downtown from throughout the City and the region. Establishing a network of streets that enables people to get round easily without the use of a car if they chose. FrameworkOutcomes Features 16Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 Downtown Brooklyn Center will have a transportation system that encourages walking and biking, is well connected to the region and reduces the need to own a car by providing safe, aff ordable, convenient and accessible options. A “Garden Street” will be the primary pedestrian spine through the development. The Garden Street will be a narrow residential space lined with townhouses and small apartments. It will be a primarilly pesedstrian zone, though bicyclists and slow speed cars would be permitted, primarilly to access residential parking areas. The Garden Street will contain small play spaces, gardens, and other residential amenities. Slow Zones are segments of streets that are specifi cally designated and designed for slower traffi c than otherwise similar streets in the City. The Framework Plan will designate areas around the Three Rivers Park and at the terminus of John Martin Drive as Slow Zones. This will improve the quality of the adjacent spaces, create a safer environment for all users, and enable pedestrians to easilly cross the street. Garden Street Slow Zones descriptions on following pages Typical Residential Street Residential streets will be designed as slow and safe streets whose primary purpose is to be a comfortable and shared environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. The curb to curb area will be programmed with two way traffi c, parking on one side and a shared bike lane. Beyond the curb, street trees will create a shaded 5’ sidewalk. Buildings will be set close to the back of the sidewalk with patios, stoops, and porches to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. Typical Residential streets should havea maximum of two curb cuts per block. Sidewalk 115’ ROW Dining Parking / PlazaTravel Lane Travel Lane Sidewalk Sidewalk Dining Sidewalk SidewalkSidewalk Travel Lane Parking Travel Lane 60’ ROW 10’ Frontyard 6’ Sidewalk 8’ Parking Travel Lane 70’Travel Lane Parking 10’ Regional Trail 150’ ROW 8’8’ 10’ Trail 10’ SidewalkTravel Lane Parking Lane Travel Lane Median 100’-0” ROW On-street bikeway Shingle Creek Parkway Shingle Creek Parkway is proposed to be narrowed to a three lane road. The northbound outside lane can be converted to a parking lane and the southbound outside lane can be converted to a two way on street commuter bike lane (allowing Shingle Creek Trail to be recreational and multi-use). Vehicle Zone Activity ZoneActivity ZoneSetback Main Street Main Street/John Martin Drive will be designed as a pedestrian oriented street where cars are considered guests. The sidewalks are extra wide, and the center median can be used for kiosks, food trucks, or short term parking. Amenities such as public art, bike racks, fi xed and moveable seating, and ample shade trees will create an environment that is pleasant for businesses and residents and visitors Garden Street The north south street in between Earl Brown Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway will be a “shared street” or “woonerf” . It will be a slow speed, pedestrian priority street that is lined by townhouses and live work buildings. The laneway for vehicles will be serpentine to make room for greenspace, rain gardens, and parklets. Shingle Creek Parkway Main Street Garden Street Connector Parkway Neighborhood Street Parkway The Connector Parkway will be the primary east/ west road through the new development. It will be a primary address for both housing and emplyment. The Plan recommends a 70’ greenway for stormwater retention and light recreation along its eastern edge. Access and Connectivity (continued) 17Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 07/06/2021 RESOLUTION NO. 2021- RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN OPPORTUNITY SITE INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE THE OPPORTUNITY SITE MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Opportunity Site Master Plan (Master Plan) will be a multi-phased planning document initiated in 2019, to vision the future redevelopment of the area known as the Opportunity Site in Brooklyn Center, and will include a technical assessment of the physical elements of the site, community engagement, feasibility analysis and implementation plan, and; WHEREAS, a master plan is a big picture, values-driven plan crafted to guide future development of a specific area. Master plans are not intended to provide specific details on specific development projects, and often consist of two primary components: 1. An infrastructure framework that comprises the physical layout of the area with land use, roads, parks, trails, stormwater, utilities, and related elements, and; 2. An implementation framework that identifies how the physical elements will be delivered and what they are intended to achieve. This component may include development goals, community benefits, financial feasibility, zoning regulations, and short and longer-term action steps. WHEREAS, the Opportunity Site Infrastructure Framework (“Infrastructure Framework”) is a foundational component to the Opportunity Site Master Plan process, as it outlines guidance regarding land use, road network, public space network, and stormwater system, and; WHEREAS, the Infrastructure Framework is critical for preserving and progressing the Opportunity Site Master Plan process because: • The absence of cohesive site-wide policy guidance severely limits the City from aligning private property reuse or redevelopment in the Opportunity Site with city and community goals through the development review process; • The Infrastructure Framework ensures consistency of site-wide infrastructure planning – particularly land use, roadway, public space, and stormwater systems – which will result in opportunities for more connective, efficient, sustainable, and cost-effective systems; • It leverages and supports momentum from Three Rivers Park District, which has committed to a 4 acre “mini-regional park” within the Opportunity Site, and has amended their parks and trails master plan to include the project. Three Rivers Park District has also incorporated the park in their 2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Engagement for the park is scheduled to begin in 2021; • City guidance on site-wide land and infrastructure use will aid city staff in their ongoing conversations with MnDOT over the future use and ownership of MnDOT held right-of-way (ROW) at John Martin Drive; • The Infrastructure Framework supports implementation of the City of Brooklyn Center’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, upon which the master plan is based; • It will provide a context in which to focus and continue community engagement efforts around the future of the Opportunity Site. WHEREAS, the Infrastructure Framework is based on input from community engagement focused on community priorities for the site, as well as the physical and geographic realities of the area, and; WHEREAS, the Infrastructure Framework is not a final layout of the physical infrastructure elements, but rather a guide to inform the continued community engagement efforts, as well as the study, design and engineering of the physical infrastructure elements, and; WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center expects continued community engagement, which will inform elements of the Opportunity Site Infrastructure Framework and help refine technical details of the site infrastructure, and; WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center affirms and commits to continued public engagement around the future Opportunity Site Master Plan, which will help refine and guide development goals, community benefits, financial feasibility, zoning regulations, and short and longer-term action steps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. The Opportunity Site Master Plan Infrastructure Framework shall be used as the guiding yet flexible framework in which to progress planning efforts of the Opportunity Site. 2. The City and its partners shall continue engagement and refinement of all elements of the Opportunity Site Master Plan. _____________________________ _____________________________ Date Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Council Worksession 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: 2365542887# P asscode: 04152021# J une 7, 2021 AGE NDA The City C ounc il requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public at http://cityofbrooklyncenter.org/. 1.Call to Order - 5:30 p.m. 2.Roll Call 3.Opportunity Site Infrastructure F ramework Discussion a.Opportunity S ite I nfrastructure Framework Discussion 4.City M anager P osition Discussion 5.Adjourn C ouncil Worksession DAT E:6/7/2021 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:O pportunity S ite I nfrastructure F ramew ork D iscussion B ackground: I n A pril 2019, the City renewed a P reliminary D evelopment A greement w ith A latus for 35 acres of the 80- acre O pportunity S ite. The agreement outlined roles and responsibili#es for each party, which included the City taking the lead on mas ter planning for the s ite, in partners hip w ith A latus, and incorpora#ng the larger 80-acre O pportunity S ite into the master plan. A latus for their part in the agreement was tasked w ith implemen#ng an ini#al phas e of development and con#nuing their work to bring a development forw ard. Throughout 2019, the City, along w ith its cons ultant team, worked to develop the O pportunity S ite Mas ter P lan. This was a mul#-phas ed approach that involved a combina#on of technical asses s ment, ini#al community engagement, feasibility analysis, and further community engagement to con#nue to re?ne the plan. The scale and reach of community engagement on this project has exceeded that of any past effort in the City ’s history; how ever, the intent with this project is to ensure that the outcomes truly benefit the res idents of Brooklyn Center, and this neces s itates a much deeper, more inclus ive engagement strategy. F rom the beginning, the engagement approach w as intended to support this vision through an in-depth, inclus ive proces s that connected with divers e groups and view s throughout the city. P rinciples guiding this approach included: • C ons is tency w ith city goals and policies, including the new city comprehens ive plan. • Ensuring the development provided direct acces s and benefits for city residents . • A uthen#c engagement to connect people with the decision-making process. • M eaningful opportuni#es to influence outcomes for the plan and the site. • Trans parency in decision making, to build trust and accountability. W hile thes e principles have remained, the approach to engagement has evolved and changed s ince then, in res pons e to feedback on effec#venes s , and changes in external condi#ons . The C ity is working w ith N EO O Partners on a public engagement s trategy that includes contrac#ng with community partners to lead deeper and more meaningful engagement w ith community, and the crea#on of a ci#z en advisory tas kforce to dis#ll the engagement res ults and create a community benefits plan for the development. S taff w ill pres ent the community partner propos als and pres ent a revised #meline for the engagement work at the J une 14 C ity C ouncil mee#ng. M aster P lan A mas ter plan is a big picture, values-driven plan that informs future development of an area. M aster plans do not provide details on specific development projects . Typically master plans cons is t of tw o primary components ; 1) a s et of phys ical infrastructure framew orks that comprise the phys ical layout of the area w ith roads , parks , trails, s tormw ater, land use and u#li#es , and 2) an implementa#on component that iden#fies how the physical elements w ill be delivered and what they are intended to achieve. This component may include development goals, community benefits, financial feas ibility, zoning regula#ons, detailed infrastructure design, and s hort and longer-term ac#on steps . A draG mas ter plan largely compris ed of the physical infras tructure frameworks was completed in J anuary 2020. This was based on early engagement efforts , the City ’s comprehensive plan, the geographic context of the site, and the phys ical reali#es of the redevelopment areas . The inten#on at that point w as to move into an engagement phase to develop the implementa#on component of the plan. This process was s low ed due to the pandemic and then further delayed by civil unres t, but is being re-engaged under an engagement s trategy developed by N EO O Partners , and in collabora#on w ith community partners. I n the interim, a traffic s tudy was conducted, based on the draG master plan, and a regional stormwater plan was developed for the s ite. O ne of the next steps to complete the implementa#on component of the mas ter plan is to develop more refined designs for the roads , streets capes and u#li#es . Refined des igns are needed to complete cos t es#mates and s tormw ater planning, and to develop an implementa#on plan for the public improvements. I n addi#on, Three Rivers Park D istrict has commiIed to providing a 4-acre “mini-regional park”, w ithin the development area. They have amended their parks and trails master plan to include the project and have included it in their 2024 C I P. They w ill begin an engagement and planning process for the park later in 2021. M N D O T holds approximately 5 acres of right of way adjacent to H ighway 100 and in the middle of a highly visible area w ithin the redevelopment plan. This R O W is for John M ar#n D rive and connects to the John Mar#n D rive acces s and bridge over H ighway 100, w hich is also owned by M N D OT. The draG master plan calls for the closure of this access and bridge, and for M N D O T to vacate that R O W, allow ing it to be incorporated into a future development area. At pres ent, M N D O T has expres s ed hes ita#on to move ahead w ith any review of that R O W, due to a future 2026 H ighway 100 improvement that may need stormwater capacity. S taff has been w orking with M N D OT to ens ure they unders tand that the highest and best use of that land is not a stormwater pond, nor is w ai#ng to determine M N D O T's poten#al future need for the land acceptable. Thes e convers a#ons are ongoing. The E DA controls approximately 44 of the 80-acre O pportunity S ite area. The balance of land is privately ow ned by various par#es. Nearly all of thos e proper#es are for s ale, or have willing s ellers. S taff has received numerous inquiries from par#es interested in acquiring thes e parcels . I nterest includes redevelopment concepts , as w ell as reus e concepts . G enerally, propos ed concepts are for us es that do not align w ith the draG master plan. This is not surprising s ince the draG mas ter plan calls for a s ignificant re- visioning of the area, to intensify the land us e, bring new infrastructure and ameni#es to the site, and deliver outcomes that the market w ould not be able to deliver on its own without city s upport. The concern is that absent a vis ion for the s ite, the C ity has limited ability to ensure that any reus e or redevelopment of private property within the O pportunity S ite aligns with what the C ity wants to achieve on the site. W ithout an adopted framew ork for future redevelopment, it is more difficult for s taff to convey the C ity ’s vision and provide direc#on to property ow ners and pros pec#ve buyers. The 2040 C omprehens ive P lan iden#fies future land us es of Trans it O riented D evelopment and Commercial Mixed Use; however, the zoning for the s ite allow s auto-oriented retail and commercial uses , which are not in alignment w ith the vis ion. A moratorium on new development w as put into place in A ugus t 2019, and expired in A ugus t 2020. The City does not have the ability to put into place another moratorium. I nfrastructure F ramework I n order to complete the O pportunity S ite M aster P lan, and specifically the implementa#on component, S taff is s eeking direc#on from the City Council on the physical infras tructure components of the draG mas ter plan. These cons is t of four elements: Land us e Parks and O pen S pace S tormw ater A ccess and Connec#vity The purpos e of the w ork s ession discussion this evening is to provide an overview of these four elements, and get direc#on from Council. Each component is described in more detail in the sec#ons below. Bas ed on the dis cus s ion, S taff is propos ing that the C ity C ouncil take ac#on to approve the infrastructure framew ork at a future mee#ng. The approval of an infras tructure framework is needed in order to provide guidance on the draG mas ter plan, and to facilitate the comple#on of the implementa#on component. I n addi#on, guidance from Council is needed to progres s and facilitate dis cus s ions w ith Three Rivers Park D istrict and M N D OT. A n approved infras tructure framework would als o allow staff to ar#culate the C ity ’s vision for the site, and put s taff in a beIer nego#a#ng pos i#on when talking with exis #ng property ow ners and pros pec#ve interested par#es . The sec#ons below outline the vision and outcomes for each infrastructure element. Land Use “D owntown Brooklyn C enter will feature building and development paerns that are mixed, sustainable, and connecve - creang nodes of mixed use acvity and neighborhoods for people to live and enjoy at any stage of life.” Land us es within the O pportunity S ite are intended to allow for a mix of us es, including those s uppor#ve of or oriented around trans it, pedestrian and bicycle facili#es, and that s upport local job crea#on and bus iness grow th. L and uses of this nature were informed by the 2040 Brooklyn C enter C omprehens ive P lan, and community input on the need for living-wage jobs, increasing the C ity ’s tax bas e, and providing opportuni#es to divers ify Brooklyn C enter ’s economy and hous ing. The final land use policy direc#on w ill be s upported by an implementa#on plan, w hich w ill be imbedded w ithin the final O pportunity S ite M aster P lan as well as with new z oning districts in an updated C ity zoning code. Transit O riented D evelopment D istrict (TO D ) The majority of the O pportunity S ite w ill be guided for Transit O riented D evelopment (TO D ). TO D supports opportuni#es for trans it-suppor#ve and trans it-oriented land uses that als o facilitate pedestrian and bicycle us e. The TO D district requires intensi#es and paIerns of development that support vibrant pedestrian ac#vity, and discourages land us es and development paIerns that could decrease w alkability or interfere w ith future grow th of trans it-oriented development and trans it ridership. The district promotes sustainable urban places that include places to live, work, s hop, and recreate locally, reduces reliance on automobiles , and encourages the use of public trans it. The dis trict fosters job crea#on and economic growth in proximity to trans it and provides res idents with new hous ing and lifestyle choices w ith more nearby ameni#es and s ocial interac#on spaces. S outheast S egment For the approximately 20-acre s egment located in the southeast of the O pportunity S ite, three land us e op#ons are being explored. Each is being asses s ed as to their viability, support of community goals, and alignment w ith the larger Mas ter P lan vision. A s eries of ini#al pros and cons are provided for addi#onal cons idera#on. O p#on 1 | Regional Recrea#on AIrac#on A n ini#al concept for the southeast segment was the introduc#on of a major recrea#on aIrac#on, to establis h a regional des #na#on within the City. A n aIrac#on of this nature would anchor and drive ac#vity for the s urrounding O pportunity S ite, providing a significant draw, and create more market interest in the area. A n aIrac#on of this nature w ould need to provide year-round indoor and outdoor opportuni#es for public ac#vi#es and gathering, mee#ng a w ell-know n public need. I f designed well, the aIrac#on could connect to surrounding neighborhoods via sidew alks and trails, promo#ng overall O pportunity S ite acces s ibility. S uch a us e could als o provide opportuni#es to meet community recrea#on needs ; however, a s ignificant s ource of cus tomers would need to be draw n from the broader region. To be viable, the aIrac#on w ould almos t certainly need to be privately ow ned and operated, but with public S outheast S egment: Regional Recrea on A"rac on P ros Cons ·Would present a major des #na#on and ac#vity center for the O pportunity S ite and City ·P romote year-round healthy recrea#on for residents and vis itors ·Could provide needed community indoor and/or outdoor gathering s pace(s ) ·A ddres s a need for entry-level jobs ·Could support local and regional connec#vity and s us tainability goals, especially w ith any outdoor recrea#on features ·P resent opportuni#es for placemaking and es tablishing unique community des#na#ons reflec#ve of the many ethnici#es that make up Brooklyn C enter ·S ingle s ite owner simplifies coordina#on around roadways, u#li#es, s tormw ater, and related infrastructure ·U nknown #meline or prospec#ve aIrac#on ·Typically requires high upfront cost of cons truc#on & management ·Recrea#on jobs are generally limited, low paying, and seasonal – unlikely to offer a large number of living-wage jobs or advancement opportuni#es ·Forecasted for very high traffic demands , which w ould require s everal traffic mi#ga#on efforts in/around the O pportunity S ite ·S uch users are few and the pandemic may have impacted the market demand for s uch a facility acces s ibility. D is counted rates for Brooklyn C enter residents could be purs ued to promote local benefit. O p#on 2 | Busines s Mixed Use Busines s Center O p#ons for the southeast segment has s ince evolved to include the concept of a mixed bus iness- and manufacturing-oriented land use concept. Leveraging adjacent acces s to major highways and great visibility, this designa#on w hich w ould allow for a busines s center with manufacturing and busines s produc#on alongs ide suppor#ve retail/services to encourage a more dynamic and connected experience for the public, employees, and busines s ow ners . The res ul#ng manufacturing, assembly, produc#on, repair, and distribu#on uses w ould co-locate s mall-s cale retail uses into an appropriately scaled, integrated district. This concept does not guide for significant residen#al us es, but may allow for limited live-work opportuni#es. I ntroducing industrial type uses to the O pportunity S ite w ould not come w ithout challenges , each of which w ould require a comprehensive strategy of mindful site design, suppor#ve programma#c and/or policy s ystems, and sustainability guidance to mi#gate poten#al issues . A pproaches being explored include: S ustainability guidance to pr omote envir onmental s tewardship, closed-loop material/was te sys tems , and leveraging na#onal momentum around s us tainable manufacturing prac#ces . I n contr as t to tr adi#onal large buffers and use s epar a#on, a “neighborhood seam” w ould be sculpted betw een the TO D and Bus ines s M ixed Us e dis tr icts , integra#ng mul#modal access and s caled gathering spaces to pr omote natur al tr ans i#ons and acces s ibility. S imilarly, mixing uses w ithin the district reduces busines s s ystem footprints and busines s cos ts . Require higher-than-average thres holds of impervious s urfaces and green infras tructure throughout the dis trict to promote s us tainability and mi#gate stormwater runoff. L ocal hire and job training pr ogr ams to support local living w age j obs and ensure capitol is recirculated back into the local community. A ffordable rental s paces to promote startup and bus iness needs of all s iz es. Building orienta#on that keeps trucking aw ay from res iden#al areas, and vis ually hidden. S outheast S egment: B usiness M ixed Use P ros Cons ·D irectly res ponds to an expres s ed community need for living w age jobs , while pres en#ng opportunity for local hire programs . ·Would provide flexible w orking spaces for busines s es to grow and expand ·Could provide affordable, flexible s pace for local busines s es in need of bou#que manufacturing and w arehouse/distribu#on - opportunity to develop a busines s -focus ed incubator ·Leverages s trong market demand for this type of use, which als o w ould allow for s tronger des ign and performance s tandards for projects ·Low infrastructure cos ts regularly produces a net-posi#ve tax bas e ·W ith integrated uses come opportuni#es to es tablish a unique district iden#fy, reflec#ng the rich cultural entrepreneurialis m of the many ethnici#es that make up Brooklyn Center. ·Retail loca#ons along the edge of the district present opportuni#es for placemaking and public gathering s paces . ·Co-loca#ng res iden#al uses near and w ithin the district reduces transporta#on needs , promotes access for w orkers, s upports local retail, and creates general dis trict vibrancy. ·S ignificantly reduces traffic forecas ts compared to a regional recrea#on aIrac#on, requiring minimal-to-no mi#ga#on efforts ·Located near s everal regional and s tate-w ide routes - H w y 100 and I -94/694 – offering strong distribu#on connec#vity ·Leverages interest of exis #ng area property owner that w is hes to redevelop their property ·I ndus trial and manufacturing jobs tradi#onally carry higher was te produc#on and energy needs ·I ntegra#ve land us e models oriented around indus trial are not well establis hed ·Nois e, light, and related impacts would need to be well unders tood w ith mi#ga#ng measures put in place ·Poten#al pollu#on effects w ould need to be well unders tood w ith mi#ga#ng measures put in place ·Establis hing closed-loop s ystems requires heavy coordina#on and management ·Would risk aIrac#ng heavy-shipping interest, and require coordina#on of s hipping routes around the O pportunity S ite - this can be mi#gated with strong zoning that regulates the s cale and type of busines s us es which would be permiIed. ·P hased buildout could complicate coordina#on of roadw ays , u#li#es , stormwater, and related infras tructure O p#on 3 | Transit O riented D evelopment A third op#on w ould be to con#nue use of the TO D des igna#on. G uiding the area for TO D w ould ensure uniformity of urban form and mix of uses w ith the rest of the O pportunity S ite, and present the mos t s traight-forward land us e op#on. S uch a designa#on how ever w ould decreas e opportuni#es to establis h a unique ac#vity center and des #na#on within this segment. I t would als o make more it more difficult to establis h an employment center with busines s grow th opportuni#es. F urther, res iden#al projects along H wy 100 may prove to be les s than des irable for developers and res idents, and may require s creening or other buffers. S outheas t S egment C oncept : Trans it O rie nted D e velopment P ros Cons ·G reatest flexibility in allow able land uses ·Would provide opportuni#es for addi#onal residen#al units to the city ·Con#nuity of neighborhood form and dens ity with rest of O pportunity S ite ·P romote con#nued s upport for trans it s ervices , and mul#-model connec#vity w ithin and around the O pportunity S ite ·Wouldn’t support the crea#on of an area des#na#on or employment center ·P roximity to H w y 11 may deter residen#al development ·D oesn’t leverages interes t of exis#ng area property ow ner that wishes to increase jobs, or regular industrial development inquires ·U nknown traffic impacts , as the TO D concept for this area has not yet been s tudied ·U nknown stormwater and u#lity impacts, as the TO D concept for this area has not yet been s tudied S taff is s eeking direc#on from the City Council on land us e for the southeast 20 acres of the site. O pen S pace “D owntown Brooklyn C enter will feature a sy stem of open spaces, streets, trails and pedestrian areas that promotes healthy living, gathering, social gathering, and environmental responsibility.” The infrastructure framew ork includes a network of parks and plaz as, connected by sidew alks and trails. A new neighborhood park is located on the north side of the site, connected by a garden street to a 4-acre micro regional park that w ill be managed by Three Rivers Park D is trict on the s outh s ide. Pocket parks and plazas are planned throughout to create places for people to gather and recreate. S ome of these open spaces and plazas w ill be privately ow ned and maintained, with public access granted through eas ements. O ther elements of the open s pace plan will be new publicly ow ned spaces that w ill be maintained by the City. This w ill require careful planning to ens ure that thes e spaces can be maintained in an efficient and cos t effec#ve manner. The framework iden#fies the following outcomes for the open space plan: A n inclusiv e, acces s ible, welcoming and dy namic public realm that becomes a social and gathering center for the en#re C ity. A n “ins ide out ” City that aIracts people to spend #me outside together throughout all s eas ons of the year. Recrea#onal and leisure ac#vi#es for all ages and abili#es. Connec#ng to and leveraging the poten#al of Centennial Park A green and ac#ve s tormw ater s y s tem that prov ides health, recrea#onal, and env ironmental benefits to all. S tormwater “A green and acve stormw ater sy stem that provides health, recreaonal, and environmental benefits to all” A regional s tormw ater plan has been developed for the O pportunity S ite, bas ed on the draG plan. The regional s ystem is des igned to manage stormwater for the en#re s ite. I nfiltra#on is planned through neighborhood raingardens, s treets des igned w ith s torm w ater bes t prac#ces , and larger deten#on areas . S tormw ater would be carried primarily in a linear greenway that runs through the s ite adjacent to a regional trail. D evelopment projects would provide infiltra#on enhancements on their s ites and connect to the regional s ystem. A s part of the implementa#on plan, a build-out plan and fee s ystem needs to be developed to ensure that the regional stormwater s ystem will be built in a cohes ive manner and can be paid for. A regional s tormw ater sys tem benefits the C ity by allowing more intens ive us e of developable land and crea#ng more value. F urther, by u#liz ing innova#ve best prac#ces for s tormw ater and going above and beyond the minimum s tandards, the regional stormwater plan will be eligible for s tate funding to support its build-out. A ccess and Connec vity “D owntown Brooklyn C enter will have a transportaon sy stem that encourages walking and biking, is well connected to the region and reduces the need to ow n a car by providing safe, affordable, convenient and accessible opons.” The infrastructure framew ork iden#fies a hierarchy of roadways, s idewalks and trails that connect both w ithin the site as well as to bring people easily into the site. The roadw ays and their approximate loca#ons are a cri#cal component to the infras tructure framework because they create a series of pedes trian-s caled blocks that w ill make up the urban form of the site and dictate where development can occur. Each roadw ay is categoriz ed by type. The different types of roadw ays dictate their func#on and purpose w ithin the development. S ome roads will be designed to carry through-traffic and thus more vehicles, w hile others are des ignated as neighborhood streets , and w ill be des igned for lower traffic. A garden s treet connects the site north to south and is envis ioned as a low traffic, “shared” s treet, w ith pocket parks and ample traffic calming devices. The garden street elevates the role of the pedestrian and bicyclist, w hile minimizing the role of vehicles . This street is s imilar to those s een in places s uch as A msterdam, w here they are designed as res iden#al streets that discourage cut-through traffic. S tudies have s how n that thes e types of streets are safer for people and promote social w ellbeing for neighborhoods. O utcomes of the access and connec#vity framew ork are: P riori#z ing pedestrians to create a w alkable community Crea#ng a safe and connected bicycle network Ens uring vehicular acces s to D owntown from throughout the City and the region. Es tablishing a netw ork of s tr eets that enables people to get round easily w ithout the us e of a car if they chos e. This roadw ay network represents road types that do not currently exis t in the C ity. Becaus e the goals for the area include a dens er development paIern, on-street parking w ill very likely be part of the design, as w ell as w ell as integrated sidew alk and trail features. A mple s treetscaping, including street furniture, ligh#ng and lands caping, all w ill require extens ive maintenance. A s part of the implementa#on plan, it will be neces s ary to understand w hat the maintenance requirements will be and how this will be accomplis hed. For example, new equipment and prac#ces may be needed to effec#vely plow and remove s now. S ome of the streets s how n on the plan may be privately owned and maintained, w hile others will be new public s treets. D etermining w ho w ill be responsible for building and maintaining the s treet netw ork w ill be a cri#cal component of the implementa#on plan. I n some cas es, depending on the development #ming, new s treet sec#ons may need to be constructed in advance of a par#cular development phase. P lanning for this, and how it will be paid for, will als o be needed. The exact loca#on of the s treets within the mas ter plan are less important than their typologies . For example, depending on how the former Target site redevelops, the streets in that area may adjus t a bit; how ever, their func#on w ill remain cons tant. N ext S teps S taff is s eeking direc#on from the City Council on the physical infras tructure framework elements. Most especially, the framework of L and U s e requires addi#onal dis cus s ing and direc#on. Bas ed on the dis cus s ion, staff will make any needed revis ions to the infrastructure framew ork, with the goal of bringing it back to a future Council mee#ng for approval. O nce approved, s taff w ill con#nue the process of developing the implementa#on component of the Mas ter P lan. This will include a robus t engagement effort as w ell as designing and planning for the open space, s tormw ater, u#lity and access plans . B udget I ssues: None at this #me I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: Extensive community engagement has occurred in varying degrees over the las t three years on this site. A ddi#onal engagement is planned and w ill be presented at the J une 14 C ity C ouncil mee#ng. A n racist/Equity Policy Effect: The draG master plan framew ork has been developed from its incep#on with an equity lens, focus ed on producing equitable outcomes and mi#ga#ng dis placement risks . The infras tructure framework provides the founda#on upon which the implementa#on por#on of the plan can be developed, which will iden#fy a community benefits plan to ensure thes e outcomes take place. S trategic Priori es and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type F ramework 6/4/2021 Backup M aterial Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, MN Draft Report as of June 4, 2021 Prepared for: City of Brooklyn Center Prepared by: Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. The City recognizes that historically, development patterns have resulted in disparate impacts, particu- larly on communities of color. These disparities have resulted in harm; such as displacement and exclusion from the benefits of new investment. The city endeav- ors to reverse these disparities and enhance equitable outcomes by working towards a more responsible means of advancing development 2Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Background06/04/21 Introduction..........page 3 Purpose of the Plan Community Values Guiding Principles Overall Vision Context Organization of the Site Four Frameworks.....page 8 Land Use Open Space Stormwater Access and Connection Table of Contents 3Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 1. Introduction 4Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Introduction Brooklyn Center is a City of the Future. The population is rich with diversity from around the world. The large number of children and youth will be future leaders in the years to come. Brooklyn Center also brings strengths from its past. Its location is accessible and connected. And people still value its stock of affordable housing with convenient access to jobs, shopping and services. But the transition from past to future is not without challenges. For the city, it means transitioning spaces and places built for a previous era, that no longer meet current needs. For the people, it means addressing past and current practices that exclude some people from benefitting from progress and opportunity, particularly people of color, people with low-incomes, and renters. This includes addressing the potential for displacement and gentrification in the city. The Opportunity Site project can’t meet every need. But it can help. For the city, this means creating a new place that strives to meet the needs of residents and workers, adds value to the community, and becomes a source of community pride. For the people, this means creating an accountable process that addresses past problems and provides transparency, accountability, and benefit to existing residents of the community. Purpose of this Plan This document sets clear high level direction for the community vision for redevelopment and how the physical structure of the area must change in order to enable this change. This Framework Plan has two sections : 1. Background and Vision for Redevelopment 2. Four Frameworks This document is not a full Master Plan. Adoption and acceptance of this document sets the direction for a fully developed Master Plan and it allows City Staff and officials to have discussions with developers and property owners while a full Master Plan is in development. 5Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Background Overall Vision for a New Downtown Brooklyn Center Downtown Brooklyn Center... • Will be a place that represents all of what Brooklyn Center is and can become. • People will choose to invest their time and energies in Downtown Brooklyn Center as much for what it is as for what it is near. • It will contain a mix of uses that appeal to both current and future residents, entrepreneurs, and visitors of Brooklyn Center. • It will have a significant amount of new medium and high density housing that helps diversify the City’s housing stock - allowing residents to stay in Brooklyn Center and also attracting new residents. • It will be a place that nurtures local businesses while also attracting new businesses that appeal locally and regionally. • It will generate value to the City by leveraging its irreplaceable assets - proximity to the park and civic buildings, centrality to the City and it’s people, and access to the region. Community Values Expressed in the Plan Guiding Principles Fiscal Responsibility Diversity and inclusivity Flexibility Affordability Health and Wellness Community Pride Environmental Sustainability Local Benefit Counteracting Displacement Four guiding principles emerged from the com- munity workshops that reinforce a sense of community pride in Brooklyn Center The Opportunity Site and its Surroundings Natural Systems The Opportunity site is located a mile from the Mississippi River and adjacent to Shingle Creek. Both are part of regional recreational systems that are significant amenities. Neighborhoods The area was developed in the 1960’s when land uses were strictly separated. As a result, the site is separated from neighborhood by large parks and highways. Brooklyn Center in the Region The Opportunity Site in Brooklyn Center Highways The Opportunity Site is located along major freeways and highways. It is easily accessible from throughout the region. This Plan recommends a combination of local and regional attractions that benefit from the Sites location and access. Trails The Site is located at the junction of two regional trails which connect to the Mississippi River to the east, and large parks and lakes tot he west north and south. The Plan recommends leveraging these assets and routing the trail through the Site. Transit Metro Transit recently opened the C and D Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Lines - both which terminate at a charging and layover station adjacent to the Opportunity Site. This Plan recommends relocating the station in the Opportunity Site and making it part of a mobility hub that serves the area. Local Roads The Site has few local roads serving it and through it. Redevelopment of the Site will require considerable new infrastructure in order for it to be redeveloped 6Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Publicly Owned Properties in the Opportunity Site The Opportunity Site is approximately 100 acres. Approximately 40% (shown in red) of it is publicly owned. While this study focuses on the Opportunity Site, it took into consideration a significantly larger area because of its close relationship to the Opportunity Site. I-694I-694 High w a y 1 0 0 High w a y 1 0 0 Jo h n M a r t i n D r i v e Jo h n M a r t i n D r i v e Shingle Cree k P ark w a y Shingle Cree k P ark w a y Background Opportunity SiteOpportunity Site Area of Area of Influence and Influence and ConsiderationConsideration Publicly Owned PropertiesPublicly Owned Properties With approximately 40% of the Opportunity Site publicly owned, the City can leverage its influence on future redevelopment. By undertaking a public engagement the City can guide redevelopment in a manner that reflects the wishes, desires, and needs of the Community. As property owner and driver of the Master Plan, redevelopment of the Opportunity Site can deliver substantially more public benefits than if the redevel- opment was exclusively privately driven. 7Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Concepts that Organize The Site Trail and park connections to the expansive regional system1 Community Anchors to create a core to Brooklyn Center3 A spine to organize neighborhoods2 Local connections to make access to Downtown easy4 Earle Brown Earle Brown Conference Conference CenterCenter Earle Brown Earle Brown Elementary Elementary SchoolSchool Brooklyn Brooklyn Center City Center City HallHall Summit DriveSummit Drive Centennial ParkCentennial Park County County Building / Building / LibraryLibrary 8Downtown Brooklyn Center Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Four Frameworks Four Frameworks TOMORROW Open Space Stormwater Transportation 9Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 TODAY Open Space Stormwater Transportation Land Use The Opportunity Site is a former retail district that is currently occupied with a collection of uses that don’t reinforce each other in a meaningful way. Much of the land is vacant and underused The Opportunity Site is adjacent to regional trails, as well as a large City Park - however there are no parks open spaces, or direct connections to regional trail within the Opportunity Site The Opportunity Site is almost completely impervious with buildings and parking lots. Rainwater that falls on the site is piped to Shingle Creek, picking up contaminants and sediment along the way. It is out of compliance with local, watershed, and regional requirements The Opportunity Site is easy to get to due to its strong regional access, however it lacks an internal street system, pedestrian connections, and bike facilities to encourage redevelopment. Open Space Stormwater Transportation Land Use Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature building and development patterns that are mixed, sustainable, and connective - creating nodes of mixed use activity and neighborhoods for people to live and enjoy at any stage of life. Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature system of open spaces, streets, trails and pedestrian areas that promotes healthy living, gathering, social gathering, and environmental responsibility. A green and active stormwater system that provides health, recreational, and environmental benefits to all Downtown Brooklyn Center will have a transportation system that encourages walking and biking, is well connected to the region and reduces the need to own a car by providing safe, affordable, convenient and accessible options. Land Use Transit Oriented Development Business Mixed Use Active Uses Such as Retail explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer explainer FeaturesFrameworkOutcomes The Framework Plan contains parks, plazas, and open spaces designed to encourage gathering, socializing, and cultural expression. The spaces will be welcoming, accessible, and inclusive. The pulse of the City will be on display throughout the year in these spaces. Special consideration will be given to designing spaces that are active throughout the year. The spaces and activities will change with the seasons. An “Inside Out” City Land uses allow for developments supportive of or oriented around transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and that support local job creation and business growth. Land uses of this nature were informed by the 2040 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan, and community input on the need for living- wage jobs, increasing the City’s tax base, and providing opportunities to diversify Brooklyn Center’s economy and housing. The final land use policy direction will be supported by an implementation plan, which will be imbedded within the final Opportunity Site Master Plan as well as with new zoning districts in an updated City zoning code. 10Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature building and development patterns that are mixed, sustainable, and connective - creating nodes of mixed use activity and neighborhoods for people to live and enjoy at any stage of life. New market rate and affordable housing designed to be walkable, neighborly, and welcoming. New neighborhoods with neighborhood parks and amenities at their core and a “garden street” linking them. Commercial development that supports local living wage jobs. An entrepreneurial market to incubate and accelerate local businesses. Housing for all Stages of LifeHousing for all Stages of Life Buildings and Spaces for an Entrepreneurial Downtown Brooklyn Center has an entrepreneurial population with a high percentage of first and second generation Americans, the community boasts small home grown businesses in retail, food, and professional services. The Framework Plan creates buildings and spaces for these activities to flourish. An Entrepreneurial Market will provide in house marketing, financial, and mentor support while also offering access to customers in a market hall. In addition, plazas will be designed with kiosks, food trucks, and other opportunities for pop up retail. Brooklyn Center lacks the full range of housing options. As a result, some residents are foced to look for housing outside the City as they move through different phases of life. The Opportunity Site will include apartments and townhouses that are both Market rate and Affordable. Efforts will also be made to provide ownership housing across the income levels as well. IMIAGE descriptions on following pages Land Use (Continued) 11Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 TOD supports opportunities for transit-supportive and transit-oriented development, as well as land uses that support pedestrian and bicycle use. The TOD district requires intensities and patterns of development that support vibrant pedestrian activity, and discourages land uses and development patterns that could decrease walkability or interfere with future growth of transit-oriented development and transit ridership. The district promotes sustainable urban places that include places to live, work, shop, and recreate locally, reduce reliance on automobiles, and encourage the use of public transit. The district fosters job creation and economic growth in proximity to transit and provides residents with new housing and lifestyle choices with more nearby amenities and social interaction spaces. This will be the guidance for the majority of the Opportunity Site. Transit Oriented Development District (TOD) Transit Oriented Development District (TOD) M A I N ST R E E T 3 RIVERS PARK Main Street Three Rivers Park Land Use (Continued) Benefits 12Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 The MX-B1 designation guides land for a mix of business and light industrial uses with allowance for supporting retail/ service uses. This designation encourages redevelopment or development of commercial, office, general business and light industrial uses in coordination with supporting retail/commercial uses to encourage a more dynamic and connected experience for workers. This land use does not plan for residential uses but may include limited live-work opportunities as established through supporting official controls. This guidance will apply to an employment district adjacent to the highway, providing proximity to the TOD core, while still managing freight traffic and impacts effectively. Rooftop community solar and micro grid Pervious pavement to encourage infiltration Businesses with public interface located at activity nodes that face the neighborhoood Clear and simple pedestrian connections to the neightbohood Green edge for stormwater, trails, habitat public art and other shared amenities Smaller scale employment uses in the neighborhood - maker spaces, live work units »Living wage jobs with low barrier to entry »Jobs that are matched to the skills of the neighborhood »Higher than average job density (minimum 25 jobs/acre) »Local hiring and local job development »Incubator / Accelerator / Collaboration space for small business and start ups »Net Positive tax base »Workforce development and training »Local and distinctive business mix that share resouces »Businesses that complement existing industrial base »Employee base supports local retail and restaurants »Back room inventory and logistics for local retail »Potential event space for community gathering Business Mixed Use (MX-B1) Open Space Downtown Brooklyn Center will feature system of open spaces, streets, trails and pedestrian areas that promotes healthy living, gathering, social gathering, and environmental responsibility. Framework An inclusive, accessible, welcoming and dynamic public realm that becomes a social and gathering center for the entire City. An “inside out” City that attracts people to spend time outside together throughout all seasons of the year. Recreational and leisure activities for all ages and abilities. Connecting to and leveraging the potential of Centennial Park A green and active stormwater system that provides health, recreational, and environmental benefits to all. Outcomes Features An “Inside Out” City Neighborhood ParkD Stormwater GreenwayE 13Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 The Three Rivers Park District will establish their first “urban bridging” park in Brooklyn Center. in an effort to introduce inner ring communities such as Brooklyn Center to its vast park resources throughout Hennepin County, the District endeavors to build 3-4 acre parks in the underserved communities. These parks will serve as a “bridge” to the more natural parks in the county. The District will fund, build, manage, maintain, and program these parks specifically for Brooklyn Center residents. The Framework Plan contains parks, plazas, and open spaces designed to encourage gathering, socializing, and cultural expression. The spaces will be welcoming, accessible, and inclusive. they will draw indoor activities to the outdoors. The pulse of the City will be on display throughout the year in these spaces. Special consideration will be given to designing spaces that are active throughout the year. The spaces and activities will change with the seasons. IMIAGE IMIAGE Three Rivers “Bridging” ParkA Parklets and Garden StreetB BC PlazaC A D E E B B C Parklets Neighborhood Parks Plaza Three Rivers Park Greenway Regional Recreational Attraction Three Rivers Urban Bridging Park Stormwater FeaturesFrameworkOutcomes 14Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Stormwater will be integrated with the design of the area so it has multiple functions. Instead of relyingon expensive “hard” infrastructure to move rainwater to areas lakes and rivers, rainwater will be harnassed and used as a resource. For example, the linear greenway that filters water before it percolates into the soils will als serve as a regional bike trail. In areas where stormwater is underground, it will be stored and used for irrigation, with th e excess returning to the groundwater aquifer. A green and active stormwater system that provides health, recreational, and environmental benefits to all Downtown will feature a stormwater system that man- ages rainwater throughout the District while also serving as a health, recreational, and aesthetic amenity for residents and visitors. Urban Green Streets Greenway and treatment train Neighborhood Rain Gardens Larger detention areas Linear Stormwater parks and greenways along the edge of the large greenspace C Green Streets with Urban StormwaterA Ponding areasD A Garden Street with Rain gardens and ParkletsB C B A D Shared Stacked Green infrastructure District Stormwater System Pavers and soil cells filter runoff and encourage root growth Blue Green Roofs use rain water to irrigate plants on roofs and on site. Soil cells with impermeable liners keep polluted water from infiltrating A diverse mix of salt tolerant and winter hardy plants reduce heat island effects and enhance human comfort C A D B C A D B Access and Connectivity Shingle Creek Parkway Main Street Garden Street Parkway Neighborhood Street Prioritizing pedestrians to create a walkable community Creating a safe and connected bicycle network Ensuring vehicular access to Downtown from throughout the City and the region. Establishing a network of streets that enables people to get round easily without the use of a car if they chose. FrameworkOutcomes Features Mobility Hub? Integrating Regional Trails 15Downtown Brooklyn Center Framework Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 06/04/21 Downtown Brooklyn Center will have a transportation system that encourages walking and biking, is well connected to the region and reduces the need to own a car by providing safe, affordable, convenient and accessible options. A “Garden Street” will be the primary pedestrian spine through the development. The Garden Street will be a narrow residential space lined with townhouses and small apartments. It will be a primarilly pesedstrian zone, though bicyclists and slow speed cars would be permitted, primarilly to access residential parking areas. The Garden Street will contain small play spaces, gardens, and other residential amenities. Slow Zones are segments of streets that are specifically designated and designed for slower traffic than otherwise similar streets in the City. The Framework Plan will designate areas around the Three Rivers Park and at the terminus of John Martin Drive as Slow Zones. This will improve the quality of the adjacent spaces, create a safer environment for all users, and enable pedestrians to easilly cross the street. Garden Street Slow Zones C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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:C ity Council S U B J E C T:C ity Manager A ppointment Requeste d C ouncil A con: - Moon to appr ove the appointment of D r. Edwar ds as the C ity M anager B ackground: T he issue of appointment of the A c"ng C ity M anager w as discussed at the J une 7, 2 0 2 1 , Work S ession and a1er much dis cus s ion there w as a cons ensus of the C ouncil to bring it to the J une 1 4 , 2021 C ity C ouncil mee"ng which w as then tabled to the J une 2 8 , 2021 C ity C ouncil mee"ng due to the number of councilmember s pres ent at the J une 14, 2021 mee"ng. T imeline to date: June 28, 2 0 2 1 - Considera"on of A ppoin"ng D r. Edw ards as C ity M anager June 14, 2 0 2 1 - Tabled due to the number of councilmembers pres ent June 7, 2 0 2 1 - D is cussion of C ity M anager appointment May 10 , 2021 - A pproved D r. Edw ards ' pay adjustment for du"es as A c"ng City Manager May 3, 2021 - I ni"al dis cus s ion A pril 12 , 2021 - D r. Edwards appointed A c"ng City Manager B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe Res olu"on 7/9/2021 Cov er Memo A greement 7/9/2021 Cov er Memo salary survey comparis ons 7/9/2021 Cov er Memo BR291-4-732762.v1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-___ RESOLUTION HIRING DR. REGINALD M. EDWARDS AS THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Dr. Reginald M. Edwards has worked for the City of Brooklyn Center (“City”) for several years, first as the Assistant City Manager and then as the Acting City Manager; and WHEREAS, Section 6.01 of the City Charter requires the City Council to choose a City Manager “solely on the basis of training, experience, and administrative qualifications”; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds Dr. Edwards has far more than the minimum education, training, experience, and administrative qualifications required to serve as the chief administrative officer for the City and has consistently demonstrated a high level of skill in performing his duties and is deeply dedicated to the City and its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center as follows: 1. The City Council is pleased to select Dr. Reginald M. Edwards as the City Manager of the City of Brooklyn Center. 2. The City Council approves entering into an employment agreement with Dr. Edwards for his new position and authorizes the Mayor to execute it once it is in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 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 BR291-4-732331.v3 City Manager Employment Agreement THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of July 2021 by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”) and Dr. Reginald M. Edwards (“Manager”). The City and the Manager may hereinafter be referred to individually as a “party” or collectively as the “parties.” RECITALS A. City wishes to engage the services of Manager as a professional employee of the City. B. The parties wish to set forth the terms and conditions of their relationship in this Agreement in order to secure and retain the services of Manager, assure the requisite flexibility to enable Manager to function as City’s chief administrative official, and to provide a means for the Brooklyn Center City Council (“Council”) to terminate Manager’s services if it determines such termination is appropriate. C. The nature of Manager’s position requires continued professional training and attendance at meetings during evenings and other non-traditional work times. D. Manager desires to accept employment as City Manager of City in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement. AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: 1. Duties. City agrees to employ Manager as City Manager to perform the functions and duties specified in the City Charter, City Code, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 412, as amended, and such other duties which are consistent therewith and as may be assigned from time to time by the Council. 2. Discharge of Duties. Manager shall be paid a salary as a professional employee and shall not be paid overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per week, and similarly shall be able to be absent in consideration of extraordinary time expenditures. The discharge of Manager’s duties requires work outside the normal workday for meetings and projects. To that end, Manager will work flexible hours as is necessary to enable Manager to effectively discharge the duties of Manager’s position. 3. Outside Activities. Manager agrees to remain in the exclusive employ of City and neither to accept other employment nor to become employed by any other employer during the term of Manager’s employment. This provision does not prohibit Manager from engaging in occasional teaching, writing, consulting, or military reserve service performed during Manager’s time off, provided such outside activities do not interfere with the performance of Manager’s duties for City. 2 BR291-4-732331.v3 4. Evaluation. Council shall review Manager’s performance of the duties of the position annually, or at such other times as Council may determine are appropriate. Such evaluations shall be based on the written goals established by the Council, if any, and the general duties set forth in this Agreement. 5. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of August 1, 2021 (“Effective Date”) and shall continue for an indefinite term until terminated by one or both of the parties as set forth in this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement prevents, limits, or otherwise interferes with the right of Council to terminate the services of Manager at any time, with or without cause, subject only to the provisions set forth in City Charter, Section 6.01 and this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement prevents, limits, or otherwise interferes with the right of Manager to resign at any time, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement. 6. Participation in Employee Benefits. (a) Health Insurance. City shall provide health insurance coverage for Manager in the same fashion as it provides health insurance for non-union employees. (b) Life Insurance. City shall provide life insurance coverage for Manager in the same fashion as it provides life insurance for non-union employees. (c) Other Benefits. Except as otherwise specified within this Agreement, Manager shall receive or be eligible to participate in any other benefits provided City’s non-union employees generally. 7. Vacation and Holidays. (a) Vacation. Manager shall accrue days of vacation on the first day of each month equal to an annual rate of 20 days per year. Manager may accrue vacation to a maximum accumulation of 230 hours. Manager shall not be required to use vacation leave except for a whole day’s absence from performing Manager’s duties. Manager may, at Manager’s discretion, take ½ day increments of vacation leave for an absence from the performance of Manager’s duties. (b) Holidays. Manager shall have the same paid holidays off from work as City’s non-union employees. 8. Sick Leave. Manager shall accrue days of sick leave at the same rate as other non-union employees. 9. Compensation. (a) Initial Salary. Manager’s initial salary as of the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be $___________ per year. Such salary shall be paid at the intervals customarily used for other City employees. 3 BR291-4-732331.v3 (b) Salary Increases. Manager’s salary shall be considered at the same time as and commensurate with the salary increases for other non-union employees of City. Any changes in the Manager’s salary shall be pursuant to the written agreement of Manager and City. All such amendments shall be incorporated in and made part of this Agreement. (c) Personal Auto Usage. Manager shall be provided with a City-owned vehicle for traveling to and from work. City may, at any time after two years from the Effective Date of this Agreement, review the cost of providing a vehicle to Manager and, at its discretion, provide an annual lump sum payment in lieu of providing Manager a City-owned vehicle. The lump sum payment shall be in an amount that is equivalent to the amount of expense reimbursement provided to other city managers in the general area to travel to and from work at their respective cities as determined by the Council. Manager shall be reimbursed for personal automobile use for trips, meetings, work, and other use related to his employment (other than travel to and from home) at the rate consistent with Internal Revenue Service regulations. (d) Professional Membership Dues and Professional Subscriptions. City will pay the cost of membership in the International City/County Management Association, the Minnesota City/County Management Association, and like organizations and subscriptions to professional journals and publications. (e) Participation in Professional Training/Development. City will pay the cost of Manager’s participation and attendance at the ICMA Annual Conference or similar national training opportunity, MCMA Annual conference, League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference and miscellaneous professional training programs offered within the State of Minnesota. 10. Expenses Incurred in Performing Duties. City shall reimburse or directly pay for actual expenses reasonably incurred by Manager that are directly related to performing Manager’s duties, including lodging following late or early City business. The parties contemplate Manager will incur expenses for travel, attendance at meetings, etc. 11. Retirement Benefits. City shall pay the employer’s portion of the Minnesota Public Employment Retirement Association contribution on Manager’s salary. Manager shall, in addition to the retirement benefits provided above, be allowed to participate, at Manager’s own expense, in IRS approved deferred compensation plans offered through City. 12. Discontinuance of Employment Relationship. Manager serves at the pleasure of the Council and is removable at the will of the Council, subject only to the limitations imposed by the City Charter. Understanding Manager serves as the chief administrative official for City and Manager’s employment status can be affected by political influences that are independent of job performance, the parties wish to make arrangements that reflect the realities of the marketplace and are necessary to recruit qualified persons. The parties wish to assure flexibility for Council, while providing for the ability of Manager to perform Manager’s duties without undue concern for Manager’s financial security should the need arise to seek new employment. Therefore, the parties have made concessions and Manager, 4 BR291-4-732331.v3 as part of Manager’s compensation agreement, has made concessions in the amount of salary and other forms of compensation in return for the covenants contained in this section relating to the discontinuance of the employment relationship. (a) Manager to Provide Notice. Manager shall give City 30 days’ notice prior to discontinuing Manager’s employment, where there has been no event constituting an involuntary separation as hereinafter set forth. The parties may mutually agree to waive such notice requirement. (b) Option to Resign. If Council proposes or acts on the “involuntary separation” of Manager, Manager may choose to resign immediately before the proposed action or, if the Council acts on the “involuntary separation” and sets a later effective date, prior to the effective date of such termination. (c) Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the term “involuntary separation” shall mean a formal request adopted at a public meeting by Council that Manager resign or an action adopted by Council terminating this Agreement. The term “involuntary separation” shall also mean the resignation of Manager within 30 days of the occurrence of any of the following: (1) A change in the form of government at City due to the adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter, election to adopt or repeal a particular statutory form of government (other than for a Plan B statutory form of government), or an ordinance/resolution changing City’s organizational structure that diminishes or reassigns Manager’s authority; or (2) A fundamental change in the duties and authority of Manager adopted by Council, by special or general election, or by referendum or initiative such that City’s status as a council-manager plan city is changed to some status other than a council- manager form of government. (d) Payment upon Involuntary Separation. In the event of an involuntary separation, whether through resignation by Manager or termination by Council, Manager shall be entitled to the benefits and payments set out in this paragraph: (1) Accrued Benefits. Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at Manager’s current rate of pay and in accordance with City’s personnel policy. (2) Health Insurance. Payment by City of the full cost of family health insurance, at level of coverage in effect just prior to the involuntary separation for a period of nine full months from the date such involuntary separation becomes effective. In addition, Manager shall be entitled, at Manager’s own cost to continue participation in City’s group insurance plans for at least 18 months after City is no longer required to make full payment of premiums for Manager’s insurance coverage, provided City’s group insurance plan authorizes such continued participation. 5 BR291-4-732331.v3 (3) Severance Payment. Manager shall receive severance benefits in the amount equal to six months gross salary. (4) Time of payment. All payments due under this paragraph shall be paid within 14 days after the involuntary separation becomes effective. (5) Termination for Cause. If Manager is terminated by Council for substantiated and proven malfeasance in office, or intentional misconduct, the City shall have no obligation to pay or provide benefits or severances payment listed in parts (1) through (3) of this paragraph, except to the extent specifically required by law. “Intentional misconduct” is defined as substantiated and proven sexual, racial or other unlawful harassment, distribution of pornography, acts of physical violence in the workplace, theft or conversion of City property or funds, willful and repeated neglect of duties, or conviction of a felony. “Intentional misconduct” and “malfeasance” as used in this paragraph do not include poor performance or general neglect of duties. (e) Payment Upon Voluntary Termination. Upon Manager’s voluntary termination of employment, Manager shall be entitled to full payment by the next following pay period of: (1) Payment of all accrued vacation and sick leave at its full value at the Manager’s current rate of pay and in accordance with the City’s personnel policy. (2) Payment of all wages for days worked since the last payroll period prior to separation. (f) No Waiver. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of any rights or claims that either party may have beyond the compensation due in the normal course of the separation of the Manager from the City’s employ. 13. City’s Personnel Policy. Any employment matter not addressed by this Agreement shall be determined in accordance with the City’s personnel policy, provided such determination does not conflict with an express provision of this Agreement. 14. Indemnification. City shall defend and indemnify Manager pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 466.07 and 465.76 as required by law. City shall also defend and hold harmless and indemnify Manager from all torts, civil damages, penalties, fines, provided the Manager was acting within the course and scope of Manager’s duties and is not charged with a crime. 15. Merger. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written communications between the parties. 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the employment relationship between City and Manager, and the parties agree that there were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this Agreement 6 BR291-4-732331.v3 except as herein contained. The current agreement between the parties designating the Manager the Acting City Manager is terminated as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. 17. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained in this Agreement will not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 18. Governing Law. This Agreement will be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously in two or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will be constitute one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MANAGER MINNESOTA By Michael Elliott Reginald M. Edwards Its Mayor Compensation of City Manager/Administrators in New Hope's Comparable Group for 2020 City Population Tenure Total Compensation Annual Salary Health Insurance (only dollar amount greater than that of typical Non-rep EE) Employer Paid Retirement (PERA) or Deferred Compensation Amount Employer Paid Retirement/Deferred Compensation Amount Description Car Allowance (annual) Columbia Heights 18,361 2014 176,862.50 151,500.00 21,162.50 7.5% PERA + $8,800 Deferred Comp 4,200.00 Crystal 22,014 2000 170,796.43 153,299.00 11,497.43 7.5% PERA 6,000.00 Fridley 26,347 2013 197,478.75 172,982.00 2,874.00 21,622.75 7.5% PERA+5% Def Comp mileage reimbursement Golden Valley 22,000 2015 181,486.83 164,359.84 12,326.99 7.5% PERA 4,800.00 Hopkins 17,290 2011 188,014.12 169,873.60 12,740.52 7.5% contribution 5,400.00 New Brighton 22,321 2020 159,058.20 143,496.00 10,762.20 7.5% PERA 4,800.00 Richfield 35,724 2019 161,250.00 150,000.00 11,250.00 7.5% PERA mileage reimbursement Robbinsdale 13,953 2001 169,585.76 152,172.80 11,412.96 7.5% PERA 6,000.00 South St. Paul 20,180 2018 178,416.86 164,439.50 13,977.36 PERA + 1.0% into Def Comp mileage reimbursement West St. Paul*19,746 2017 171,449.08 155,022.40 11,626.68 7.5% PERA 4,800.00 White Bear Lake*24,555 2016 162,162.50 147,500.00 11,062.50 7.5% PERA 3,600.00 AVERAGES:22,045 5.5 Years 174,232.82 156,785.92 *Denotes no salary increase in 2020 New Hope 20,718 2007 184,197.78 171,346.77 12,851.01 7.5% PERA mileage reimbursement 13 Years C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7 /12/2 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. Reggie Edw ards , A c"ng C ity M anager S U B J E C T:Br ookly n Center Community C enter S tate C apital Bonding Reques t Requeste d C ouncil A con: - A pprove a r esolu on suppor ng and author iz ing the C ity's applica on for M N S tate C apital Bonding (Year 2022) to design and construct of a new B rook lyn C enter C ommunity H ealth, C ulture, and Recrea on C enter (C ommunity C enter). B ackground: O ver the past year s and in numerous community engagement events (i.e., community s urv eys , community mee"ngs, lis tening s es s ions , focus groups, and inter view s ) res idents hav e expres s ed a s trong desire for a renovated or new community center. S en"ments related to more programs , bas ketball and volleyball courts, s plash pads , cultural s pace for gather ings , and more programming hav e been ar"culated by res idents. I n M arch 2020, the S tate and City declared an emer gency in response to the C O V I D -19 Pandemic. D ur ing the "me of the C O V I D Pandemic res idents endur e s ocial is ola"on and mental illnes s trauma. I t w as during this "me of extr eme s ocial is ola"on that the des ire for an expanded or new community center con"nued to be expres s ed by r es idents . I n A pril, 2021 , the C ity became embroiled in civ il unres t due to the s hoo"ng and killing of D aunte Wright. A s a result, many res idents experienced trauma"z a"on. D uring a C ity lis tening s es s ion with youth at the Brooklyn Center C ommunity S chool, s tudent leader s expressed concerns r egar ding the lack of programming, s paces to gather, and mental s tr es s . T he y outh also advocated for a new community center w ith courts and s paces for youth the gather or hang out. I n April 2021, the C ity ini"ated a study to determine the feasibility of expanding the current community center. T he ini"a"ng of the s tudy w as bas ed the pr iori"es and values of inclusion (all people), equity, quality, innova"venes s , and adaptability. C onduc"ng a feas ibility study w ould allow the city to focus its res ources on ac"vi"es and facili"es that the community w ould most u"liz e at the community center. I n J une 2021 , Repres enta"v e S amantha Vang s hared w ith the C ity the oppor tunity to apply for bonding funds at the s tate level. U nfortunately, it w as tow ar d the end of the legis la"ve s es s ion and the C ity was not in a posi"on to pr es ent a plan for an expanded or new community center or any other capital related projected rev olving ar ound the civ il unres t. H owever, Representa"ve Vang did make the City aware of the applica"on proces s for 2022 S tate Bonding, w hich had a fas t approaching, deadline in mid-July. S taff w as able to quickly create a dra? propos al and s ubmit an applica"on w ith the hope of receiving s tate bonding funds in 2 0 2 2 . The City 's applica"on total r eques t w as for $62 million, which included a C ity pledge contribu"on of $1 5 million from the C ity. The s tate typically as k (par t of the applica"on) the reques"ng en"ty to contr ibute 50% of the r eques t. H ow ev er, there are guidelines that w ould allow a reques"ng en"ty to s eek an excep"on to the 5 0 % contribu"on. The City's applica"on accounted for a $15 million local contr ibu"on (24%). I n the applica"on, the City ar"culated the dis pr opor"onal impact of C O V I D, the civ il unres t, and the income dis par ity betw een the C ity and the S tate av er age were jus"fica"ons for an excep"on to the 50% contribu"on guideline. T he applica"on is for 2 0 2 2 S tate Bonding F unds ; how ev er, the City's contr ibu"on would not require local bonding un"l the year s of 2 0 2 3 through 2025. I f aw ar ded, the project mus t be completed by the year 2 026. This proj ect would not impact the City's 2022 budget. T he applica"on r ecommends a resolu"on fr om the gov erning board. The applica"on process includes s ev eral steps ov er the cours e of months leading up to the opening of the next legis la"ve s ession in J anuar y 2 022. Thereby, a r es olu"on by the Council may be added to the applica"on. S taff is s eeking a res olu"on of support and author iz a"on for S tate Bonding F unds for the expans ion or building of a new Br ookly n Center Community C enter. B udget I ssues: Total Bonding Reques t - $6 2 Million S tate Por "on - $44 M illion (71%) City Por "on - $15 M illion (24%) L ocal Partners Por "on - $3 M illion (5%) Bonding for 2 0 year s to 2 5 years at a rate of 3 % w ould require addi"onal C ity funding of $861,418 to $1,008,236 (es "mated). I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: T he C ommunity C enter E xpansion S tudy has involv ed ini"al levels of engagement par "cularly related to informing and s ur veying. The primary focus of engagement at this early s tage w ould be to have res idents be aw are of the C ity's inten"on to expand or build a new and to s eek under s tanding of w hat residents w ould like to s ee in an expanded or new community center. More extensive engagement would conducted s hould the Council decide to mov e for w ard w ith a new building. The C ouncil will be pres ented w ith pr ev ious engagement informa"on as part of the s tudy in order to help determine, if the C ity should expand or build a new community center. A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: T he ini"a"ng of the C ommunity C enter Expans ion S tudy w as bas ed the pr iori"es and values of inclusion (all people), equity, quality, innova"v enes s and adaptability. I n the applica"on, the City ar"culated the dis pr opor"onal impact on C O V I D, the civil unrest, and the income dis parity between the City and the S tate average w ere j us "fica"ons for an excep"on to the 50% contribu"on guideline. The intent of this proj ect would be to help addres s health, quality of life and program acces s dis par i"es . S trate gic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, I nclus ive Community Engagement, S afe, S ecur e, S table Community, C us tomer I n"macy AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe Res olu"on 7/9/2021 Cov er Memo RESOLUTION NO._____________ APPROVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S APPLICATION FOR MN STATE CAPITAL BONDING (YEAR 2022) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT OF A NEW BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY HEALTH, CULTURE, AND RECREATION CENTER. WHEREAS, constructing a new Community Health, Culture, and Recreation Center is based on the City of Brooklyn Center’s priorities and values of inclusion (all people), equity, quality, innovativeness and adaptability. WHEREAS, The City of Brooklyn Center has one of only three Olympic 50 meter pools in the State of Minnesota and the demand is high and growing for USA Swimming, high school invite meets, Master’s meets, YMCA regional and national meets. WHEREAS, there is a high need for in the region for indoor track, basketball, tennis and volleyball courts for regional and national meets. WHEREAS, A new Brooklyn Center Community Health, Culture, and Recreation Center would provide: • Activities within the community center that are more representative of the community and the trends desired within recreation. • Produce jobs for the community by requiring more staff. • Recreation Programs that reach and impact more youth, adults and families. • A regional facility that serve youth, adults and families across the region. WHEREAS, In March 2020, the State of Minnesota and City of Brooklyn Center declared an State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. During the time of the COVID Pandemic residents endure social isolation and mental illness trauma. It was during that time of extreme social isolation that the desire of space for gathering safely, healing, and recreating continued to be elevated by residents. WHEREAS, In April, 2021 the City became embroiled in civil unrest due to the shooting and killing of Daunte Wright. As a result, many residents experienced traumatization. During a City listening session with youth at the Brooklyn Center Community School, student leaders expressed concerns regarding the lack of programming, spaces to gather, and mental stress. The youth also advocated for a new community center with courts and spaces for youth the gather, hang out, heal, recreate, study and lead community activities. WHEREAS, Constructing a new Community Health, Culture, and Recreation Center was also based upon responding to the disproportional impact of COVID, the civil unrest, and the income and quality of life disparities between the City and the State of Minnesota. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota request funding support in the 2022 Minnesota State Bonding for the purpose of constructing a new Community Health, Culture, and Recreation Center. RESOLUTION NO._______________ July 12, 2021 Date Mike Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Barbara Suciu, 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. 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: 99398068818# P asscode: 7635693300# J uly 12, 2021 AGE NDA AC T I V E D IS C US S I O N IT E M S 1.Community Engagement F ramework Discussion - Staff request that the Council provide hear a presentati on on types and level s of community engagement, adopt a shared definition of the term "engagement", and provide feedback on its additi on to Council's Agenda Coversheet. 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:7 /12/2 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. Reggie Edw ards , A c"ng C ity M anager S U B J E C T:C ommunity Engagement F r amewor k D is cus s ion Requeste d C ouncil A con: - S taff r equest that the C ouncil provide hear a pr esentaon on types and levels of community engagement, adopt a shared definion of the term "engagement", and provide feedback on its addion to C ouncil's A genda C oversheet. B ackground: T he C ity C ouncil establis hed "inclusive community engagement" as one of its key strategic prior i"es and from that the D ivision of Communica"ons and C ommunity Engagement was created. This division has a s taff of 2.5 employees , as a means to begin ac"ng on the that strategic prior ity. D epartments have executed s tr ategies of v arious ty pes and levels of engagement ranging fr om adv er"sements for elec"ons , door hanger s for neighborhood road cons tr uc"on, flyers for neighborhood mee"ngs, pop-up events for dev elopment, mail out s ur veys for community feedback and opinions on playground equipment, lis tening s es s ions on city s erv ices and social is sues and s pecial ligh"ng s how ev ents for par"cipa"on in the 2 0 2 0 Cens us . T he term "engagement" is used in s o many different ways that it means different things to differ ent people and at differ ent "mes of applica"on. Engagement types and lev els can range from informa"ve to collabora"ve (s ee a:ached chart). To es tablish a common unders tanding of "engagement" among the C ity Council, staff, and res idents a framew ork for the different types and levels of engagement is being pres ented to the City C ouncil. A s ec"on of the C ouncil agenda item coversheet w ill include a new sec"on on engagement. The purpose of this sec"on w ill be for s taff to conv ey to the Council the type and level of engagement propos ed or completed and for the C ity C ouncil to us e in your delibera"ons on various pr ojects . H opefully, this meas ure w ill prov ide cons is tency in unders tanding and applica"on of engagement meas ur es in a manner that meets the des ired outcomes . This w ill also guide s taff and allow staff to pr edict mee"ng the expecta"ons of the C ouncil on various types of proj ects. B udget I ssues: N/A I nclusive C ommunity E ngageme nt: T his is the focus of this w ork s ession item. A nracist/Equit y Policy Effe ct: S trate gic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, I nclus ive Community Engagement, Customer I n"macy, O pera"onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip"on Upload D ate Ty pe C ommunity E ngagement F ramew ork 6/10/2021 Cov er Memo Brooklyn Center Inclusive Community Engagement Framing Brooklyn Center Inclusive Community Engagement Statement Inclusive community engagement fosters fellowship and inclusion. It builds trusting relationships, encourages mutual exchange of ideas, and reflects the dynamic culture of our community. Inclusive Community Engagement Type (IET) ICET Type ICET Goal ICET Outcome ICET Level Time/Character Inform To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions. Continuous public informing. 1. 2 weeks – 2 months Credibility $ ($1k – 5K) Consult To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decision. Continuous informing public informing, listening, acknowledging of input (i.e., concerns and aspirations) and providing feedback on how public input influenced the decision. 2. 1 – 2 months Credibility $ ($1k – 5K) Involve To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered Hear and incorporate concerns and aspirations formulating solutions and recommendations 3. 2-4 months $$$ ($3k – 10K) Shared Credibility Trusting Relationship Collaborate To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the preferred solution Co-create with the public in formulating solutions and recommendations 4. 4-12 months $$$$$ ($10k - $40k) Shared Credibility Trusting Relationship Empower To place final decision-making in the hands of the public. Implement co- created solutions, co- decisions, recommendations, co-decision making 5. 6-18 months $$$$$$ ($50k - $300k plus) And/or Co-implement solutions and recommendations where possible Shared Credibility Trusting Relationship Council Agenda Form: Inclusive Community Engagement ICET ICET Level Description of Inclusive Engagement Activities Estimate Number of Participants Estimated Number of Participant Ethnic/Gender Diversity Example Inform 1  Placed an article in the Citywide Newsletter  Sent out notices on all social media platforms and website  Distributed neighborhood and apartment door hangers fliers  Conducted CCX interview  Sent notice to City BIPOC list of organizations and community leaders  Handed out notice at all facility city front-desks  Handed out notice at during city events, Rec-on-the-Go and Health- on-the-Go  350 door hangers hung  15 social media postings  1 CCX interview  11,000 properties received mailing  200 flyers handed out at city facilities  350 flyers handed out via mobile service units  Potential reach of 12,000 residents  1,000 direct reach of BIPOC populations C ouncil/E DA Work Session DAT E:7 /12/2 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: