Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 07-26 CCPC 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# Passcode: 7635693300# J uly 26, 2021 AGE NDA 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the C ounc il on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with presenter. Questions from the C ounc il will be for c larific ation only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the c omments made but, rather, for hearing the presenter for informational purposes only. I will first c all on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak during open forum, and then I will ask if any one else c onnected to this meeting would like to speak. W hen I do, please indicate y our name and then proc eed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking. 2.Invocation - Lawrence-Anderson - 7 p.m. 3.Call to Order Regular Business M eeting This meeting is being conduc ted electronic ally under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D .021 due to the pandemic. For those who are connec ted to this meeting, please keep your microphone muted. I f there is an opportunity for public c omment, y ou may unmute and speak when called upon. Please do not talk over others and any one being disruptive may to ejec ted from the meeting. The packet for this meeting is on the City's website, whic h is linked on the calendar or can be found on "City Council" page. 4.Roll Call 5.P ledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda The following items are c onsidered to be routine by the C ity Council and will be enac ted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration I tems. a.Approval of Minutes - Approve minutes from: Jul y 12 - Study Sessi on July 12 - Regular Session July 12 - Work Session b.Approval of L icenses - Motion to approve the licenses as presented. c.Resolution Setting the Date of the S ale of $8,950,000 General Obligation I mprovement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A to F inance the Construction of Grandview P ark Area South I mprovements and the Storm Water I mprovements related to the B rooklyn Boulevard Corridor Phase 2 Project for A ugust 23, 2021 - Motion to approve resolution setting the date of the sale of $8,950,000 General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A to finance the construction of Grandview Park Area South Improvements and the Storm Water improvements related to the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor Phase 2 Project for August 23, 2021. 7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a.Youth in Government Day - Accept the Proclamation of July 26, 2021, as Youth in Government Day in the City of Brooklyn Center, MN b.Presentation from Hennepin County Commissioner J eff L unde - Accept presentation from Commissioner Lunde c.Resolution Expressing Recognition and A ppreciation to Kelli W ick, Human Resources Director for Over 25 Years of S ervice to the City of B rooklyn Center - Motion to approve a resolution expressing recognition and appreciation to Kelli W ick, Human Resources Director for over 25 years of service to the City of Brooklyn Center d.Resolution Recognizing Fire Chief and E mergency Manager B erg for his L eadership through the C O V I D-19 pandemic - Motion to approve a resolution recognizing Fire Chief and Emergency Manager Todd Berg for his leadership through the COVID-19 pandemic. 8.P ublic Hearings The public hearing on this matter is now open. I will first call on those who notified the Clerk that they would like to speak to this matter, then I will ask if anyone else on this meeting would like to speak during this hearing. W hen I do, please indic ate your name and then proceed when I call on you. Please be sure to state your name and address before speaking. a.An Ordinance A mending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway Motion to approve a second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway. 9.P lanning Commission Items 10.Council Consideration Items 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7/26/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes Requested Council A con: - A pprove minutes from: J uly 12 - Study Session July 12 - Regular S ession July 12 - Work S ession B ackground: B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type 7.12 S tudy S es s ion 7/16/2021 Backup M aterial 7.12 Regular S ession 7/16/2021 Backup M aterial 7.12 Work S es s ion 7/16/2021 Backup M aterial 07/12/21 -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 JULY 12, 2021 VIA ZOOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:02 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 indicated that Work Session Agenda Item 3, Mayor’s Senior Policy Aide Position, will be rescheduled to the July 26, 2021, Work Session Meeting. MISCELLANEOUS RETREAT DATES Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards stated that at the last Study Session, the City Council had proposed two retreat dates, which he confirmed with Common Sense, and either date works: Saturday, July 24, 2021, from 8:30 a.m. to noon or Saturday, August 14, 2021, from 8:30 a.m. to noon. He noted both dates would be in-person meetings but on July 24, 2021, Councilmember Butler will be away and have to participate virtually. Mayor Elliott felt it made sense to go with the August 14th date so all Council Members could be present. Councilmember Ryan stated he can make either date work but sees advantages to having all meetings face-to-face in person, which is doable from a public health standpoint. City Attorney Gilchrist stated, as a point of information, that he is in town on July 24, 2021, but will be out of town on August 14, 2021, and not able to call in. Mayor Elliott stated it is important for Mr. Gilchrist to be there as well. He asked Dr. Edwards if Common Sense gave any indication relating to the importance of members attending in person versus participating virtually. 07/12/21 -2- DRAFT Dr. Edwards stated Common Sense indicated they can make it work but it is far easier to do when one Council Member is participating virtually as opposed to multiple Members. Also, the City just acquired a 360 camera that picks up people when speaking and participating virtually. Mayor Elliott stated without objection, the Council retreat will be held on August 14, 2021, from 8:30 a.m. to noon. Councilmember Graves asked staff to post more scheduled meetings on the calendar and send out invites as a reminder to Council Members. Dr. Edwards stated staff will make sure that happens. CANCELATION OF JULY 22, 2021 JOINT WORK SESSION Dr. Edwards explained staff has not yet received information from the County related to tax capacity so the July 22, 2021, City Council Joint Budget Meeting with the Financial Commission can be canceled. He suggested the overview of the financial landscape and identifying values and priorities of the City Council going into the 2022 budget cycle be held on August 2, 2021. The City Council agreed and Mayor Elliott asked staff to update the City Council’s meeting calendar to reflect this change. Mayor Elliott explained he is dealing with severe allergies and has asked Mayor Pro Tem Butler to chair the meeting during his periodic absences at tonight’s meeting. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION Dr. Edwards explained this presentation is geared to create a shared understanding in defining what is meant when speaking of engagement, as there are various types and levels of engagement. He stated when staff talks with the City Council or public about inclusive engagement within Brooklyn Center, the intent is to have a common understanding of what they are talking about and thereby being able to set and meet expectations. Dr. Edwards stated tonight the City Council is being asked to hear a presentation on the types and levels of community engagement and to prepare a statement defining the term engagement and how it is referenced. He noted engagement is used in many different ways in different communities throughout the country and staff wants to center on a statement about how we think about engagement from our perspective, which is also based upon research in what others have utilized, what the City can come close to in a working definition, and understanding what has been done in the City. Dr. Edwards explained that to establish a common understanding of engagement among the City Council, staff, and residents, a framework for the different types and levels of engagement is being presented to the City Council. He noted that a section of the Council agenda item coversheet will include a new section on engagement. The purpose of this section will be for staff to convey to 07/12/21 -3- DRAFT the City Council the type and level of engagement proposed or completed and for the City Council to use in their deliberations on various projects. Dr. Edwards stated in 2018, the City Council established inclusive community engagement as a strategic priority and also started the Office of Communication and Community Engagement. Currently, there is a staff of 2.5, a Communications Manager, one hired for engagement, plus a part-time graphics designer. The City has been advertising for neighborhood engagement liaisons and is in the process of securing those, which has been a challenge to recruit as applications currently are from outside of Brooklyn Center. Dr. Edwards noted the Departments, over time, have engaged the public in various forms and methods (flyer, door knocking, City newsletter, etc.) so engagement has occurred but now the City Council desires to enhance engagement. Dr. Edwards stated the intent is to provide some consistency, understanding, and application in what is meant by the term ‘engagement.’ He read the statement staff crafted based upon surveying and research that has been utilizing for the last year and a half to two years as follows: ‘Inclusive community engagement fosters fellowship and inclusion and builds trusting relationships, encourages a mutual exchange of ideas, and reflects the dynamic culture of our community.’ Dr. Edward stated engagement as we see it and have experienced it is two-way. It is not simply the City dumping information or even the public dumping information. Rather, it is an exchange and, in the end, it is about fostering those relationships, fellowship, and being inclusive. The staff understands that fellowship has some religious connotations but that is not the intent. It is the intent to exemplify a deep relationship between the City and its residents including a sense of fellowship where you are nurturing, building, and understanding one another. Such a trusting relationship is mutual and reflects the dynamic culture of Brooklyn Center. Dr. Edwards stated that is, in essence, how we think and as we go forward in this conversation, the staff asks the City Council to come back with particular questions and thoughts about how we think of engagement ultimately when we try to express with the public and each other. Dr. Edwards reviewed the five different levels of engagement taken from nationwide models and revised them to make them our own. He explained that there will be variation but if the City can establish a baseline, it will go a long way to execute engagement within the City. Dr. Edwards noted with the five levels, one is not more important than another, but they are different in the timeframe and resources needed. Dr. Edwards stated the first level is to inform the public with balanced and objective information or understanding of a problem and what is happening. For example, if there is road construction and the City wants everyone to know, the City will put information out via a flyer, social media, etc. about the details. It is simply providing information going out. Dr. Edwards stated level two has a consulting role asks the public to consult with the City. This is not simply providing information as something comes back from residents so the City can obtain public feedback, analysis, and alternatives. This level involves informing the public, listening and acknowledging input, and hearing feedback. An example would be the community survey conducted every four years. The extent of level two is to ask, receive information back, and 07/12/21 -4- DRAFT evaluate that information in strategies going forward or actions taken. It may take a couple of months for level two to take place but the City is also trying to build credibility and relationship. He explained that mailing out a postcard to 11,000 properties costs $3,000 and with design and mailing the cost can go to $5,000. The cost for the community survey is higher than that. Dr. Edwards stated the third level is to be involved, meaning the City and public are interacting together and the goal is to work directly with the public throughout the process to assure public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. At this level, the City asks residents, engages with residents, hears resident input, and then incorporates those concerns and aspirations into the solutions/recommendations that come back to the City Council. An example would be the recent Citywide branding when the City asked the public for their thoughts, which included the City’s central location, affordability, diversity of the community, and parks and greenspaces. Those four items were incorporated when creating the brand and logo for the City. He explained level three can take two to four months and it becomes more costly. When the City can identify the level and type of engagement and be consistent with that understanding, it allows staff to budget and plans for that and for the City Council to make an informed decision based on the potential timeframe, costs, etc. He noted this will vary from project to project but gives a framework. Dr. Edwards stated level four is collaborative and moves back and forth in different relationships (resident to resident, resident to City, City to City) with all working together in partnership. The goal would be to partner with the public at each aspect of decision-making, including the development of alternatives being created. This is upfront, helps generate the idea together, then proposes solutions and recommendations together. It involves co-creating solutions with residents, with residents being on the front side of idea generation, co-creating, and partnering. Level four can take 4-12 months in the process, is more intense around the relationship, and can cost $40,000. This level continues to be a shared relationship creating credibility, and trust. An example would be a city celebration where residents are asked to participate, engage, be advisory, and help create an event. Dr. Edwards stated level five applies to certain programs and is to empower and bring forth residents that not only engage in co-creation but possibly co-implementing and execute. The goals are to place a portion of the final decision-making in the hands of the public, which would be delegated by the City Council. Ultimately, it is about having the power to develop the idea and execute those ideas. The outcome is to implement the co-created solution, decisions, recommendations and in some cases, may go beyond recommendations. This could be much like the presentation heard last week around the Opportunity Site framework where there is an extensive engagement of residents understanding and shaping development or engagement strategies. In this case, the City was looking to contact residents and community-based organizations to help gain understanding around engagement related to the Opportunity Site, then develop that strategy with residents and, in some cases, employ residents and community organizations to do that work. In some cases, such as during COVID and the civil unrest, the City found itself without the capacity to use the great assets within the community. So, it is about leveraging those assets that already exist within the community is not only co-creating but also investing in community folks to do things that serve the interest of the City. 07/12/21 -5- DRAFT Dr. Edwards stated those are the five levels of engagement, noting they are outlined on one page in tonight’s meeting packet. The intent is simply to say can we have a shared understanding of what we mean when we say ‘inclusive community engagement.’ There is an element in the statement that says reflects the dynamic culture of community and the five levels articulate the who and the how. He stated staff clearly understands that when the City Council, over the years, has talked about inclusion in engagement, it does not simply mean members or residents in the community but that those members are reflective of the diversity of the community. That is inherent and embedded in strategies and thought so as we go forward with executing community engagement when staff comes to the City Council and talks about engagement when staff says we have engaged ‘x’ amount or ‘x’ member in various types or ways, it is implicit and implied that we will be able to articulate that it is reflective of the community so that is understood. Dr. Edwards stated this is the table setting of how we think about engagement and with that said, he asked for the City Council’s input on the shared statement. He stated when there is agreement among the City Council, staff will take it out to the public and build that same understanding and agreement with the public because it is not until we are all on the same page that we may be effective at engagement. He stated the other issues are the framework, levels one through five, and the final piece as it relates to embedding that structure into the City Council worksheet so when staff starts reporting on an item, the City Council can expect staff will be referencing this framework. Mayor Elliott stated his overall reaction to the presentation is very good and he thinks it is moving squarely in the right direction. He noted the presentation ended with talking about diversity and it being inherent in all levels of engagement so we should have that part of our policy to report out on diversity. He stated the City Council needs to ensure, written in this plan, there is a statement saying diversity is measured and reported on. He stated the other thing is that baked into that statement of engagement is that it should include creating access to decision making or empowering residents of all backgrounds, something around designing and creating their environment, so somewhere it should talk about that. He stated it is baked into some of the higher levels of engagement but he thinks that sense should be captured in that overall statement. Mayor Elliott stated he has also heard now, mentioned in discussions around development and placemaking, the idea of moving at the speed of trust, and he likes to see that trust-building statement as it is important. He stated the City will not be successful in engagement efforts unless we do move at the speed of trust because we have seen, in the past, when the community feels they have not been moving at that speed, particularly around the Opportunity Site development. He stated sometimes there are actions the City Council has to move on because of the circumstances but those are his reactions. Overall, he likes it and wants the City Council to come back and spend more time on it before passing it. Mayor Elliott noted the chat feature is open and asked for community comments. Councilmember Graves stated in general she is on board with what staff has presented, noting you don’t want the statement to get too long but she is not opposed to adding a little bit. She is okay with the statement the way it is, especially if the framework is included because this can be an introduction to the City Council’s vision for engagement. But, if you want a nuance broken down, 07/12/21 -6- DRAFT you can then look at the framework to understand how it is used in specific situations. She liked that Dr. Edwards provided examples where we have already been doing this work and is excited about the growth of community engagement work within Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Graves stated when she first started on the City Council, there was not a Community Engagement Department or Communications Department so she is proud of the work and progress the City has made. In general, she thinks some examples Dr. Edwards shared make sense in governance, and in some situations, maybe four or all five levels of engagement will be needed. Yet in other situations, maybe it will just be level one or level two. Councilmember Graves stated she can see how a specific project or scenario might need level one, informing, first and then, later on, have a more collaborative or informing type of situation. A case in point is the Opportunity Site where multiple levels have been happening since the beginning, including the Citizen Academy. She stated in general, she does not need a huge longer discussion with what staff has recommended. Councilmember Butler echoed other comments made, noting it was a well-done presentation for which she thanked Dr. Edwards and his team for putting together. She stated she can hear a lot of the things the City Council has talked about in terms of what they want to see with community engagement. She thanked staff for including the feedback the City Council has given over the few years she has been on the City Council. She likes the wording relating to co-creating and collaboration which are key to community engagement. She also likes that there are different levels because with some things, the City is simply trying to inform the public and at other times the City wants their feedback before moving forward. Councilmember Butler agreed with Councilmember Graves that this does not need a lot of work but she would like more time to go through it to see if there is anything she would like to add or has questions about. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson concurred with her colleagues that the report was well done, articulate, and as mentioned prior, different scenarios will require a different level of interaction with the public. She is very excited to pursue this and have a bit more discussion so we may direct staff accordingly. She stated her appreciation for Dr. Edwards and his staff for their very thorough report tonight. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates the mission statement given by staff and their work and thinks it does a reasonable job of articulating the distinctions between levels of engagement. He also appreciated that his colleagues recognize the different specific considerations under which different levels of engagement may be warranted. He stated the difficulty is that it gets to some fundamental issues about how a democratically elected representative government should function in serving the people who elected them to office. He stated there is a time-honored model known as the trustee model, those who act on behalf of others using their knowledge and experience. And, the delegate model where constituents entrust their elected representatives to represent them however they see fit, which is not consistent with the popular mood today. But there are some examples of very esoteric policy decisions that we make where the public feels it is our job to take care of that in their best interest. 07/12/21 -7- DRAFT Councilmember Ryan cited the franchise fee discussion as an example where the City Council is faced with the option of franchise fees and agreements required, to renegotiate those franchise fees or increase utility bills for residents so we can do away with either all or most of the special assessments on the street reconstruction program. He noted that might be contentious and it is also rather technical when we have to rely upon financial advice. That is an example where the City Council is hired to make difficult decisions based upon conflicting policy options. He stated within that context, we need to be cognizant of which different levels of engagement are appropriate for different policy decisions. Dr. Edwards stated this may be an item that the City Council wants to solidify their thoughts and perspectives during the upcoming Council retreat. He noted this will provide some guidance for staff as well as residents to build a common understanding. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott recessed the Study Session at 6:51 p.m. 07/12/21 -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 JULY 12, 2021 VIA ZOOM 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:51 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, Acting Police Chief Tony Gruenig, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for Informal Open Forum. Mark Goodell, 1512 Woodbine Lane, stated he is a 24-year resident and currently serves as the Chair for both the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission and Housing Commission. At the request of the Charter Commission, at their last meeting, he was asked to follow up on a letter the Charter Commission sent to the City Council on April 20, 2021, concerning a large number of open advisory commission positions and lack of transparency on the Commission process. He noted that while there have been some appointments since April, across all of the Commissions, there are currently 7 open positions and 9 Commissioners whose terms have expired. In numerical terms, that is 21% of the possible positions open and 26% of the sitting positions are currently expired, or almost half the possible Commissioner positions. At the same time, there are a good number of residents, including many currently serving Commissioners, who have submitted applications to fill these positions, some waiting for over two years without any feedback on when or if they will be appointed. Mr. Goodell stated from the minutes of the Work Session on June 28, 2021, he is encouraged to see there has been some discussion on this topic that specifically related to actions taken to recruit new applicants but there remains some concern. First, he asked if the City Council expects to fill any of the open or expired positions from applicants who have already applied. Or, if not, will the City Council communicate their decision to the applicants and serving Commissioners. Mr. Goodell stated he knows there is a high level of uncertainty among Commissioners serving with an expired term that they can be replaced at any time. There has been some history on that, noting a situation that occurred last year when several long-term Commissioners of the Planning Commission were replaced with little or no notice. He asked, secondly, what steps will the City 07/12/21 -2- DRAFT Council take to revamp this process to make it more transparent and timelier to make sure we have full participation in these Commissions. Speaking for himself, he welcomed and encouraged the recruitment of Commissioners to reflect the diversity of our City as such involvement can only serve to strengthen our community. Mr. Goodell stated he understands the Commissions are formed by and serve at the request of the City Council but he is concerned that this lack of communication to those who currently serve or have applied will discourage participation and limit the effectiveness of these Commissions whose purpose is to give voice to the residents of the City in their government. He stated he appreciates the City Council’s time and consideration and the opportunity to speak on this topic. Mayor Elliott thanked Mr. Goodell and stated he will follow up with him. Diane Sannes announced the start of the Thursday farmer’s market at Brooklyn Boulevard and Noble Avenue and the July 13, 2021, Zoning meeting on commercial design standards. Ms. Sannes stated she has spoken at the last few Informal Open Forums. In the past, the City Manager sent a letter thanking the speaker and it was copied to staff. She stated she is not sure the City Council knows that now when you speak at Informal Open Forum, you don’t get any reply back. She spoke in May about the website and needed corrections but nothing changes and she gets no reply or hears from the City Manager. Last month she talked about National Night Out but again, no reply and now it is almost too late to talk about National Night Out. Also, the last two neighborhood meetings have been canceled. Ms. Sannes asked whether it is the effort of the City Council that there is no outreach to the community any longer, as that seems to be what is occurring. She also asked if the City Council does not want to meet with the residents as there is no National Night Out and the last two neighborhood meetings have been canceled. She stated she wants to put it out there that you can talk during Informal Open Forum but you are talking to yourself because there is no reply. Ms. Sannes stated she was saddened to see another long-time retail business in Brooklyn Center is leaving. She thanked the City Council for their time. Councilmember Graves stated she was under the impression we were still holding the rest of the neighborhood meetings because she did ask about that after the last one was canceled. She stated she had also asked about National Night Out and knows the kick-off event is not be held but neighborhood events and ride alongs with the Police Department are still happening. Acting City Manager Reggie Edwards explained that during COVID, the City was not able to host the neighborhood meetings, and then there was a transition in staffing who was the primary coordinator but that coordination will be transitioned to the Communication and Engagement Division. Staff anticipates having the next two neighborhood meetings and continuing that tradition as they are important and staff also heard that from the City Council. Staff may also schedule additional meetings to make up for the two that were missed. Dr. Edwards stated with National Night Out, with COVID and transition of staff who coordinated that event, the City does not have the capacity at this time to pull that off but will, in the coming 07/12/21 -3- DRAFT years, have the day before the event. He stated National Night Out events will be happening in the neighborhoods this year. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she is a watch captain on her block and in prior years, they would register with the individual who coordinated the event to alert the Police and Fire Departments of neighborhood parties going on. She asked if there is a way for Watch Captains to communicate with staff, who would that be, and how would staff be reached as she plans to have a National Night Out event at her house this year and would like to have the Police and Fire drive by. Dr. Edwards stated neighborhood National Night Out events will be held this year and Acting Police Chief Gruenig can speak to the point person that neighborhood captains can communicate with. Acting Police Chief Tony Gruenig stated there is a form on the website that can be filled out so everyone can sign up if they would like to participate in National Night Out. There are some small technical difficulties with the website form so people can also contact Commander Gabler at his office or e-mail him while that small website glitch is worked out. Julie D. stated on June 2, 2021, before her retirement, Crime Prevention Specialist Becky Boie preemptively e-mailed the registration form to registered block captains. Julius Cochran stated he recently moved into the 1500 69th Avenue neighborhood and thanked Dr. Edwards for the community engagement presentation. He stated this is his first time joining the Informal Open Forum but since he moved in two weeks ago, they have felt the presence of engagement. Mr. Vong and Mr. Oster also reached out to them so he wanted to share that they are feeling very welcome in the community and enjoyed watching the presentation on community engagement. He stated as a social service agency, sometimes you want to engage in dialogue with the City but don’t know the route to go so this is great and they can’t wait to participate. Dianne Sannes stated her questions from May are still open about the obvious errors on the website, which can’t take more than a couple of minutes or be that hard to correct, including the spelling of elected official’s names. She asked if staff can start correcting the basic things on the website. Dr. Edwards stated staff will follow up and engage with Ms. Sannes on all of the issues she has identified on the website to make sure they are addressed. Ms. Sannes stated she has already engaged with those corrections but even the simplest corrections have not been made and it is only proper to spell an elected official’s name and office correctly. No one else wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 7:10 p.m. 07/12/21 -4- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION As the Informal Open Forum ran over its allotted time, Councilmember Butler stated she would forgo the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 7:11 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 Reggie Edwards, City Engineer Mike Community Development Director Meg Beekman, 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 Ryan seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. June 7, 2021 – Work Session 2. June 28, 2021 – Study Session 3. June 28, 2021 – Regular Session 4. June 28, 2021 – Work Session 6b. LICENSES GARBAGE Aspen Waste 2951 Weeks Ave SE Minneapolis MN 55414 Randy's Sanitation Inc DBA Randy's Environmental Services PO Box 169 Delano MN 55328 HOSPITALITY ACCOMMODATIONS Best Western Plus 2050 Freeway Blvd Brooklyn Center MN 55430 07/12/21 -5- DRAFT MECHANICAL LICENSES 4Front Energy Solutions Inc 3230 Gorham Ave Ste 1 St. Louis Park MN 55426 Comfort Solutions Heating & Cooling 11 1st St NW Osseo MN 55369 DeZiel Heating & A/C 209 5th St NE #5 Buffalo MN 55313 Duct Doctors LLC 5385 Stacy Trl Lot 319 Stacy MN 55079 Marsh Heating & A/C 6248 Lakeland Ave N Brooklyn Park MN 55428 Midwest Heating & Air Conditioning 26355 Tucker Road Rogers MN 55374 River City Sheet Metal Inc 8290 Main Street NE Fridley MN 55432 RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 6769 Humboldt Avenue N. Loan Nguyen INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 5312 Northport Drive HPA US1 LLC RENEWAL (TYPE IV – six-month license) 5333 Dupont Avenue N. FYR SFR Borrowe LLC Met requirements 6424 Girard Avenue N. Rashidat Sowermimo / Livewell Home Care LLC – missing CPTED & CFH Cart RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 3807 61st Avenue N. IH2 Property IL LP Missing CPTED 6007 Girard Avenue N. RB Management III/Ben Dossman RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 1200 67th Avenue N/Emerson Chalet Thomas Morrow/Emerson Chalet 819-21 55th Avenue N. Stephanie Statz RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 5115 Twin Lake Blvd. E. Ruth Cioni 2329 55th Avenue N. Sara Brang / Easton Homes 2606 65th Avenue N. HPA US1 LLC-met requirements 4806 69th Avenue N. Xian Lin/Prosperous Property 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard Mains’l Properties 07/12/21 -6- DRAFT 3808 France Place IH2 Property IL LP Met requirements 5834 Fremont Avenue N. Robert Goldsmith 5559 Lyndale Avenue N. Brett Hildreth/Dragon Property Mgt. SIGNHANGER JH Signs 41357 460th St. Perham MN 56573 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-85 ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2022-01, 02, 03, AND 04, WOODBINE AREA STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-86 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF 53RD AVENUE N. (FROM XERXES AVENUE N. TO MISSISSIPPI DRIVE N.) AND XERXES AVENUE N. (FROM 49TH AVENUE N. TO 53RD AVENUE N.) 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-87 AUTHORIZING THE DEDICATION OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EASEMENTS AT 6250 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-88 ENDING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION 6g. AMENDMENT TO THE 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS - None. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. ORDINANCE NO. 2021-02 AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 19 ALLOWING AND REGULATING NATIVE PRAIRIE GRASS AND NATURALISTIC VEGETATION Dr. Edwards introduced the item and invited Ms. Beekman to make the staff presentation. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated this is a consideration of the second reading of an ordinance to amend the Code to allow for native lawns and bee-friendly gardens. She explained Chapter 19 regulates many nuisances in the City and within that chapter, it requires property owners must not keep grass or noxious weeds at a height that exceeds 8 inches, which is 07/12/21 -7- DRAFT regularly and routinely enforced in the City. The current ordinance allows for lands designated as a park or open spaces to have natural preserves; however, that is not allowed on private property. Ms. Beekman stated prairie grasses or native grasses are typically taller than 8 inches in height so having them would violate the current ordinance. Most mowed lawns are not native to Minnesota and tend to require more watering and maintenance as opposed to native grass that is more conducive to prairies that existed before development as they are more drought-tolerant and friendlier to native insect species. Flower gardens are allowed but the Code does not have clear guidance on the maintenance of those species. Ms. Beekman noted on February 11, 2019, the City Council adopted an ordinance to allow residents to keep bees and laid out requirements for a license but the rules did not regulate the planting of bee or other pollinator-friendly plants. More recently, the Housing Commission held a discussion about native grasses and prairie plantings, reviewed a draft ordinance, and recommended it be brought to the City Council. The City Council held the first reading on this ordinance on June 14, 2021, and two questions were raised. One question pertained to language referencing native grasses extending for more than three growing seasons. She explained the intent is that because it takes time to establish a native lawn, typically you have to kill off existing non- native species and then go through a planting and establishment period. The ordinance requires that native grass/lawn be established within three growing seasons so there is not a constant state of kill-off and establishment. There was also a question about the language referring to permits being required. Staff discussed the reasoning and thinking behind this requirement since long grass is a high complaint item that Code Enforcement deals with so having a registration and/or permitting process would allow staff to provide educational materials about how to properly establish native grasses and to keep a registry so when complaints do come in, staff can address them right away and not have to go out and bother folks with inspections. Ms. Beekman stated staff and the City Council discussed the difference between a permit and registration and it was suggested to revise the ordinance to require registration as opposed to a permitting process. Essentially, it would be the same in terms of tracking but the City Council wanted a low barrier entry for folks to participate in this program. Staff also contacted the University of Minnesota and other similar agencies, the DNR, and the Blue Thumb website, all of which have good resources about native prairie grass, natural vegetation, and best practices. Staff will gather that information and create a page on the City’s webpage with information about native plantings and more environmentally friendly yard maintenance practices. Ms. Beekman provided a summary of what the ordinance amendment includes relating to guidelines and registration requirements, noting it does not regulate the type of plantings for these spaces but more about their performance and how they may impact right-of-way or neighboring properties. There are requirements for a setback, how they are to be maintained/mowed once per year, clear definitions as native and natural vegetation, located on private property, and transition within three growing seasons. She stated the recommendation is to hold the public hearing, receive public input, approve the second reading and adopt the ordinance, and approve summary publication of the ordinance. 07/12/21 -8- DRAFT At the request of Mayor Elliott, the rest of the Regular Session was chaired by Mayor Pro Tem Butler. Councilmember Ryan stated he is in favor of the spirit of this ordinance in the interest of supporting natural pollinators and other ecological benefits; however, there seems to have been some confusion in terms of how some residents interpret the ordinance change to entitle them not to maintain their conventional lawns within the existing standards of the preceding ordinance. He stated he was considering the prospect of information on the website as well as the posting listed in the meeting packet where some mention of the pre-existing ordinance requirements and maintenance standards for conventional lawns are retained and will be enforced. Ms. Beekman stated that is a fair statement and as the staff puts together the educational materials, both on the website as well as how this is communicated to the public, is a valid concern. She explained the intent is that people who are entrusted with establishing a native lawn with native vegetation (not a conventional lawn) will be educated about the ordinance. The ordinance will not go into effect for 30 days following the publication so this likely will be something that will come up next year Councilmember Ryan stated as discussed early concerning community engagement, it is a challenge and especially when the change is to the time-honored and conventional pattern of doing things. He stated he looks forward to staff bringing that information to the public and making it clear that the community standards will continue to be supported and, where necessary, enforced while at the same time, this City Council in its policy-making function will do what it can to support ecological goals. He stated he appreciates the staff’s efforts in drafting this ordinance and is in support of it. Mayor Pro Tem Butler asked Ms. Beekman to clarify what is meant by the ‘three-year growing seasons’ and if it means mowing once a year. Ms. Beekman stated the ordinance would require the native lawns, once established, to be maintained at least one time per year. Typically, this would be through mowing or a controlled burn. The ordinance indicates that once the registration is issued, the resident will go through the process of establishing a native lawn that entails the kill- off of current vegetation, which can take one growing season, the introduction of native plantings, which can take more than one growing season to be established. From an application for the registration to the time the native lawn is established has to be within three growing seasons. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated he revised the permitting process to a registration process, as directed by the City Council. He asked staff to display the redline version of the ordinance so the City Council is clear they are viewing the correct ordinance version. He stated the language changed the permitting process to a registration process so instead of a permit, it is an acknowledgment that the person has submitted a complete application and is registered to proceed, conditioned on compliance with the various requirements within the ordinance. Ms. Beekman noted the older ordinance version is in tonight’s meeting packet but the version referred to in the resolution is the updated version with the registration process. She thanked Mr. Gilchrist for that clarification. 07/12/21 -9- DRAFT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she supports this ordinance and personally plants as much as she can to attract bees and butterflies. She stated her neighbor planted something years ago that has a stalk and is now ten feet tall, highly invasive, and has migrated into her year. She asked how the City can address highly invasive native species that migrate. Ms. Beekman stated the ordinance, as currently written, indicates noxious weeds or plant materials would be prohibited. She noted there is a distinction between invasive (native plants that spread) and noxious plants that are listed by the DNR and followed by the City. Ms. Beekman agreed that invasive spreading can be an issue with native plants and noted that is not addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Gilchrist clarified this ordinance does not allow the introduction of invasive plants that are otherwise prohibited by law and the robust registration process will assure the proposed plantings are reviewed to assure they don’t cause problems to the applicant’s or neighbor’s properties. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Diane Sannes asked if this will cover noxious weeds growing on the Brooklyn Center property. Ms. Beekman stated this ordinance pertains to and references private property, and currently prohibits noxious weeds and plants, so there would be no revision to the ordinance as it pertains to that. No one else appeared to address this item. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Butler moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the second reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2021-02 Amending Chapter 19 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding Regulating Native Prairie Grass and Naturalistic Vegetation. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Butler moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-89 for Summary Publication in the Sun Post. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None. 07/12/21 -10- DRAFT 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-90 ADOPTING AN OPPORTUNITY SITE INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE THE OPPORTUNITY SITE MASTER PLAN Dr. Edwards introduced the item and invited Ms. Beekman to make the staff presentation. Ms. Beekman stated this item was discussed by the City Council at a previous Work Session. She noted that over the last year and a half, the City has been working to develop a master plan for the Opportunity Site. In January of 2020, a framework for that master plan was established to do more community engagement as the City developed an implementation component to the master plan. The framework consists of four elements of the site: land use and stormwater; access and transportation; and, parks and open space. It is a culmination of community engagement efforts as well as studying and understanding the physical constraints of the site and laying out that physical framework through which the development could occur. Ms. Beekman stated when looking at a master plan with those components, the physical framework, and implementation component goes much deeper into community benefits, financial feasibility, and details of the goals for a particular development site. She stated several moving pieces relating to this project including ongoing discussions with Mn/DOT related to right-of-way that cuts through the site and takes up approximately 5 acres of land, to get right-of-way deemed excess turned over to the City. Staff is also working with the Three Rivers Park District and their plans for a bridging park within the Opportunity Site that is part of their Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2026. Ms. Beekman stated most importantly, about half of the Opportunity Site is privately owned and that means those owners retain property rights that relate to the underlying zoning of the site and will continue to until a master plan is adopted and zoning has been updated for the property. The framework will help guide discussions with the property owners as they think about what they want to do with their sites and interested parties that come forward, which helps prepare a foundation for those conversations and ultimately negotiations with developers. Ms. Beekman stated staff has been working closely with the City’s consultant team including Andrew Dresdner with Cunningham Group and Hylah Maise with Bolton & Menk who are at the meeting tonight to provide background and present about the framework. She stated there was a fairly robust discussion with the consulting team at the last Work Session and as a result, some changes and refinements have been made. Staff heard the City Council’s desire to continue to have this be a flexible process that is informed by community engagement as it moves through. Ms. Beekman noted the resolution drives home that fact in creating guiding frameworks that will help the City move through as they continue implementation and community engagement to bring the project forward, noting the implementation plan is the heart of the master plan. Haila Maise, Bolton & Menk, provided a PowerPoint presenting the background and vision for the Opportunity Site. She noted the master plan and implementation process goes back several years 07/12/21 -11- DRAFT when the City reached preliminary agreements in 2019 to explore options for the Opportunity Site and agreement with Alatus and subsequently engaged consultants to do master planning, look at community engagement, existing conditions, physical infrastructure plan, land use concepts, and the implementation framework. The goal is to create a robust but flexible framework that allows the community to have the guidance it needs to develop the site into what it needs to be and should be while also being open to opportunities and changes and deeply informed by the community. Ms. Maise made the distinction that the master plan process is not the same thing as development due process as it provides an overall framework so adopting and supporting it means there is a structure for how decisions are made. There still will be many community conversations through the development review process when specific development proposals come forward. This is not a ‘blank check’ for developers to do what they want, it is guidance to give the City the tools needed in making decisions going forward. Ms. Maise noted the focus is on the physical infrastructure plan today but really important is the implementation plan. Once that plan is in place, the City needs a structure to make sure the plan is implementable, fundable, accountable to the City’s goals, and can move forward. Ms. Maise displayed a zoning map of the subject site, noting it is currently largely vacant, and in the future will be rezoned to Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). She then reviewed the guiding principles that came out of community engagement to create a vibrant and distinct destination, embrace the diversity of the community, consider sustainable elements, and bring places of the community together. These will be the hallmarks and touchpoints of this process going forward. Ms. Maise stated there are also specific values, which the community said were important, what the community stands for, what is closest to the heart of the people who work and live here. The values reflect that conversation in terms of what is important around diversity, inclusivity, affordability for everyone, supporting health and wellness, being fiscally responsible, flexibility that is open to opportunities, community pride, environmental sustainability, local benefit, and counteracting displacement. Ms. Maise addressed publicly owned properties as being an important component with the City owning a lot of the land and responsibility as to what the next plan is, including getting it back on the tax rolls to support the community. That is important as the investment here needs to be reflected in benefit. Ms. Maise reviewed how the framework reflects engagement, which was discussed recently, and how that looks in practice: the values and principles guide the plan; uses and activities included on-site; design and character of improvements, and intended beneficiaries of development. Andrew Dresdner with Cunningham Group introduced himself and used a PowerPoint presentation to review the four frameworks, much of which was presented during the last Work Session. He stated this plan changes the underlying systems of the area, its land use, open space, stormwater, and transportation. This site has the potential to meet many needs of the City but not if it is saddled with the infrastructure that was placed years ago. To meet the potential for this area, we need to change the infrastructure that supports it and that is what the four frameworks are about. 07/12/21 -12- DRAFT Mr. Dresdner presented a map depicting the land use, noting the Comprehensive Plan adopted a few years ago guides this area towards TOD, which is a broad definition but is a mix of medium density uses arranged in a way that encourages walking and transudes. It tends to be heavy on residential but also inclusive of other uses. The purpose of this plan is to put a finer point and more definition to the Comprehensive Plan’s rather broad land use designation. In no way does this planned walk that designation back, rather, it puts a greater depth and mission to it. Mr. Dresdner stated the land use framework divides the property into two zones: one that stretches north and south along Shingle Creek Boulevard; and, a second on the east side of the site along Highway 100. Together, these two areas will feature the buildings and development patterns that are mixed, sustainable, and connected to create nodes of mixed-use activity and neighborhoods for people and new residents of Brooklyn Center to live in and enjoy in any stage of life. Mr. Dresdner explained the majority of the Opportunity Site is guided towards the type of TOD mentioned before, mostly residential with pockets of retail uses. It proposes two non-residential nodes, one along the main street (extension of John Martin Drive) and another clustered around the Three River’s park. The framework provides options for the southeast segment of the site, and presents a different potential than the rest of the site because it is more visible to the region, it is more accessible to the region, and it is mostly publicly owned. Mr. Dresdner provided an overview of the different options. One option is regional recreation, which would encompass the entire 22 acres fulfilling a year-round indoor/outdoor recreational need for the City and region. The challenges would relate to traffic and funding as it would not be funded by the City alone and look to the region and state for additional funding. It would significantly change the imprint of this area on the region and City itself. Mr. Dresdner stated a second option is business mixed-use that would produce a considerable number (500-1,000+) of living wage low barrier entry jobs for the community. It would differ from standard light industrial because it would have to fulfill the principles of TOD, which is both a challenge and an opportunity. These uses would have to meet those principles of TOD, be designed to integrate well with housing and incorporate placemaking and open spaces so it is a full community. It would have spaces for small- and medium-sized businesses including something like a community manufacturing incubator space. It would attract small, medium, and perhaps some larger businesses to the area. It could also offer sustainability opportunities with smart stormwater management, significant rooftop solar, and benefits that could be spread throughout the district, potentially lowering energy costs for nearby residents. Mr. Dresdner stated a third option is more of a standard TOD consisting of mostly housing and an extension of the rest of the Opportunity Site. This is a very market viable approach as there is an extremely high demand for housing; however, the drawbacks are that it would provide fewer jobs and fewer recreational opportunities than the other options provide. Mr. Dresdner stated the second framework relates to open space, parks, and trails. The purpose of the open space framework is to create an inside/out city, a place that allows people to be outside year-round for gathering, recreation, and socializing. He reviewed a map depicting an open space 07/12/21 -13- DRAFT pattern that is aligned with the land use patterns to provide two neighborhood parks, one to the north and one to the south, so all homes will be within two blocks of a small park for young children. It also provides for a four-acre Three Rivers’ park on the southern portion of the site. The open space framework will connect the two regional trails that pass adjacent to the site so people can get to all parts of the Opportunity Site from both the Shingle Creek trail as well as the Twin Lakes trail. Mr. Dresdner stated the third framework is stormwater, which is important because absent a plan like this, stormwater compliance would be accomplished on a property-by-property basis without district coordination and while that can be done, it is much better to coordinate those efforts. With the master plan, the stormwater can be coordinated so it does more than simply move water. It can create a system that uses space efficiently, replenishes the aquifer more efficiently and accurately, and coordinate with other recreational and sustainability goals. Ultimately, it can add value to the real estate that the City can use to amortize over time. The district stormwater plan will take advantage of all of these pieces and provide developers a more expedient and efficient way to develop their sites, all the while accomplishing other City-wide goals. Mr. Dresdner next presented a framework addressing access and connectivity, intending to create 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, convenient, and accessible options. This framework proposes a relatively simple grid of streets that organizes blocks of development and how people will get to and move about the Opportunity Site. There will be a hierarchy of streets, each with a different function, some carrying more cars and some carrying fewer, some with significant green space alongside and others with less, some encouraging curb cuts and others prohibiting them. They are also considering the possibility of a regional mobility hub that would serve as a central place on the site to transfer to transit or foot or bike or lift or, in the future, to a circulator. Mr. Dresdner explained one of the features of this framework is the garden street in the middle of the site, being one of the two streets that connect through the site. He stated a Councilmembers had asked about this feature at the last meeting so he wanted to explain that more in-depth. He stated the garden street is a residential street or place that prioritizes people and all their activities over cars. It is narrow, green, lined with housing that opens onto it, making it a front yard or plaza of sorts for those who live along with it. It is the type of street you don’t see much in the United States but it is common elsewhere. Fortunately, several proven design principles can ensure its safety, which is the concern expressed by a Councilmember. Mr. Dresdner stated you can consider this a completely car-free zone, as that is how the site would work, but there are benefits to letting local cars trickle onto it. Those details are in flux. Regarding safety issues and the design principles, a garden street like this would have to have clear entrances and thresholds at each end to indicate you are entering a special space. That threshold and the basic design cues along with it tell you, if you are in a car, you are now a guest in this space and have to behave accordingly. The garden street can be curbless and go from building to building to be a space that is flexible and shared. There may be subtle definitions of where cars go but it is a clear table you can design and use in any way you want. If cars are permitted onto the street, it would be a curbed street or have physical barriers that disallow any movement greater than 10 07/12/21 -14- DRAFT miles per hour so it is a safe space. He stated a garden street like this is a new idea for Brooklyn Center but they know it can be designed to be safe, comfortable, and valuable. Mr. Dresdner stated he wants to address a question of Mayor Elliott from the last Work Session relating to how these frameworks address issues of equity, which is an important question and needs to be kept in the front of mind as this plan evolves. He stated we don’t have all the answers now but he wanted to highlight some of how this plan does things differently to address systematic inequities. He explained that in keeping with the frameworks, he will speak to land use, parks, and transportation. With land uses there are two pieces, one relates to small businesses and the other relates to housing. These are two areas where we know the free and open real estate market does not serve that well. With small businesses, the plan recognizes a very important and unique feature of Brooklyn Center, mainly it is a regional center for BIPOC home-based and small new, local businesses. Therefore, the plan proposes an approximately 20,000 sq. ft. entrepreneurial market space to provide professional support for these young home-based start-up businesses. The goal is to provide them the marketing and finance backbone support to help them get onto their feet and operating. The plan also creates several other spaces throughout the district outside this entrepreneurial space to support small local businesses. He stated we will ensure the plazas and streets can host food trucks, for example, that will be built into the design of the site. The main street into the parks will be designed to host farmer’s markets, craft fairs, as well as allowing small businesses to get onto their feet. Places will be designed for kiosks, which are slightly more permanent than a market space but less permanent than a storefront for seasonal retail. There will also be opportunities along the main street and around the Three Rivers’ park for popup and micro businesses to operate in small retail storefronts, keeping rents low, and helping businesses move through their maturity. Mr. Dresdner stated another item he wants to talk about is the goal to provide housing that meets the needs of the community in several ways. He noted Brooklyn Center has a lot of affordable housing as measured by the regional median income. The challenge is that many of the people living in affordable housing are cost-burdened, paying more than one-third of their income toward housing, which creates tremendous stress and strain. One of the needs of Brooklyn Center is to help create deeply affordable housing. This plan is heavy on housing so that gives the City a great opportunity to use public land and the City’s leverage to encourage and support the creation of deeply affordable housing. Mr. Dresdner stated there is also the need for market-rate housing in Brooklyn Center as the City has built almost no multi-family market-rate housing in the last 20 to 30 years. That has put a strain on the housing market and limited people’s housing options. Additional market-rate housing in this area will allow people to age in the community, open housing for others that will, in turn, reduce some of the pressure on those who are currently cost-burdened. He explained that all of these housing types are related to this plan and, hopefully, will address some of the housing issues. Mr. Dresdner stated the last item of equity he wants to talk about relates to transportation and trying to create a system for the most vulnerable. He noted it works well if the drivers are perfect, pedestrians are able-bodied and alert, and the bikers are well trained and fully insured. The system works great for them in a standard street design. An equitable transportation system, which is what they are trying to do here, flips the script and says, we will design a system for everyone else, 07/12/21 -15- DRAFT people who choose to or cannot own a car, younger or older people who might be less alert or less able-bodied, and people of lesser means who simply cannot own a car. That is the type of transportation we want to support. Mr. Dresdner stated the garden street is certainly a centerpiece of that system and hopefully as he has described it, you can imagine it as a very safe space that is connected through the area. He stated we want to go further and have as many streets as possible with curb bump-outs to make them safer for the pedestrians to cross, for all drive lanes to be as narrow as possible, and all intersections to have safety measures built into them from the beginning. Designing for the most vulnerable is an important first step in this equitable transportation system. Mr. Dresdner stated he already mentioned how each resident will be no more than two blocks from a park and how people will be able to move safely throughout this district. Another feature will be the Three Rivers’ park that Ms. Beekman mentioned. This is an important investment in equity because the Three Rivers Park District recognizes that, on balance, they have several thousand acres and a $55 million budget that does not serve Brooklyn Center or other inner-ring communities as well as it can. In the upcoming years, the Three Rivers Park District has committed to creating a bridging park that will be specifically designed for residents of Brooklyn Center, have features and amenities to introduce residents and users of the park to natural play and spaces, so they all are more comfortable accessing those thousands of acres elsewhere in the County. Mr. Dresdner stated aside from the Three Rivers Park District, the plan will encourage all public spaces to be welcoming, accessible, and inclusive, designed for flexibility, and highlight artwork by residents. The park will be designed not to be rigid, stuffy, predetermined, but designed to encourage sociability and community expression, which links back to the values that Ms. Maise talked about. Ms. Dresdner stated this plan is an ongoing process, we anticipate implementation to uncover additional equity issues, and while no plan can solve all the world’s problems, we certainly look forward to the challenge of pushing this one as far as it can go. Ms. Maise reviewed the next steps noting there is a lot left to do and realize, and more process around engagement. There are steps in the near term including discussion around the resolution on infrastructure framework, the commitment to ongoing community engagement, and infrastructure framework discussions. She noted it is not an accident this is happening now and they are encouraging action discussion around this now as there are relevant and near-term conversations to be had with different stakeholders about issues. With Mn/DOT, they will talk about the access off Highway 100, ramps in that area, and other access considerations. With the Three Rivers Park District, they will talk about their plan for a mini-park and rerouting the regional trail network in the area. With property owners and potential developers who are interested in the property and looking for guidance for their proposals. And, there are other interested parties because people are aware this is a great opportunity. She stated having this framework in place is a starting place for discussion on the City’s values and what they want to achieve. Some of those conversations have been happening and others will be scheduled on the radar. 07/12/21 -16- DRAFT Ms. Maise stated completion of the implementation plan is focused on how this will get done, resources that need to be brought to bear, including going after funding resources, grant rounds, and stimulus dollars to pursue, not only dollars from City residents. She referenced partnerships and opportunities to bring people in and do new, better, and creative things. Ms. Beekman thanked Ms. Maise and Mr. Dresdner for the presentation. She stated the resolution before the City Council is written to be quite flexible and identify frameworks as a concept of preliminary design that will influence the final design and location in terms of these elements. We also know there is considerable marketing and engagement that is ongoing and will continue to inform the work. She explained that is taken into account as we think about what the framework does, which is to guide as we move forward and inform those conversations with partners, interested parties, and the community about what this site can be and the implementation component as it gets developed. Mayor Pro Tem Butler thanked all who provided a presentation and opened the floor for questions of the City Council. Councilmember Ryan stated he supports the resolution because of its generality and flexibility. Councilmember Graves stated she has no questions and appreciates the presentation. She stated she remembers the conversations a few weeks back and appreciates the additional information about the garden street as she had concerns around safety. She stated overall, it makes sense as a good guiding framework so she is ready to support approval. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated she has no questions as she found the presentation to be thorough and she looks forward to continuing community engagement with residents. Councilmember Graves moved and Mayor Pro Tem Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-90 Adopting an Opportunity Site Infrastructure Framework to Guide the Opportunity Site Master Plan. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated the City Council has talked a lot about this item so she is not sure a formal presentation is needed on this item. Dr. Edwards introduced the item and stated at the last meeting, the City Council asked the City Attorney to prepare a resolution and agreement, which has been provided for the City Council’s review. There is nothing additional to present at this time. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated he was the drafter of the updated agreement with the City Manager. He updated the form used for the previous City Manager to reflect the current circumstances, noting there are two outstanding issues he wants to assure reflects the City Council’s desire. He was not clear on the effective date and asked if it is effective July 15, noting 07/12/21 -17- DRAFT it is currently drafted as being effective on August 1. The other issue is the salary, which the City Council previously set. Councilmember Graves asked if the agreement would be effective of the Acting City Manager or prorated backpay. Mr. Gilchrist explained it would be effective as of the City Manager. Councilmember Graves stated any potential backpay would be addressed in a different area. Mr. Gilchrist stated the idea would be transitioning from the Acting City Manager to the full City Manager. The current agreement does not provide for back pay, which had been addressed previously. The issue is when the City Council wants to transition Dr. Edwards to be the City Manager. Councilmember Graves recalled that conversation and assumed it had been acted upon before these conversations on promotion to the Acting City Manager rather than the Interim City Manager. She had suggested a smaller reduction from what the previous City Manager had been paid and recommended Dr. Edwards be paid as of the new City Manager mainly because of fewer years of experience. She was not sure whether that conversation was recorded or any adjustment made based on that conversation. Mr. Gilchrist stated on that point, a reduction in salary from the previous City Manager was inserted into the agreement on the Acting City Manager. He stated his presumption that would carry forward unless the City Council decided to change that amount. Dr. Edwards stated he presumed that when the City Council takes a formal vote, there would be no back pay because he was serving as the Acting City Manager so the transition will become effective tomorrow if approved by the City Council tonight. He stated at the time the City Council deliberated, he had proposed a salary of $162,000 and the City Council looked at the current rate that former City Manager Boganey was paid and he presumed that was related to him serving as the Acting City Manager, not City Manager. He believed they did not have an agreement as it relates to that. He also provided the City Council with the pay scale of comparative cities, which showed the average pay at $155,000, and former City Manager Boganey was paid as one of the top City Managers. At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Butler, City Clerk Barb Suciu displayed the draft resolution. Mayor Pro Tem Butler opened the floor to City Council input based on what the City Attorney, Mr. Hilcrest, and Dr. Edwards have said. Councilmember Ryan stated he absolutely and affirmatively recommends moving forward with the naming of Dr. Reggie Edwards as the Brooklyn Center City Manager given his previous performance and commitment to the wellbeing and welfare of the City. He is inclined to support compensation in line with the averages presented, noting the line in the contract has not been resolved and is subject to negotiation. He stated the compensation should be a fair representation of the average of other cities and reflective of Dr. Edwards’ performance and experience. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she supports Dr. Edwards as being the City Manager 07/12/21 -18- DRAFT going forward and will support the resolution. Her only question pertains to the vehicle and how the contract reads compared to prior contracts with City Managers about transportation. She asked if this is a new component being added. Mr. Gilchrist stated the provision regarding personal auto usage is a proposed change over both the Acting City Manager agreement and the previous City Manager agreement in that it recognizes that presently, there is long-distance travel to get to work and this provides flexibility to the City Council, after two years, to consider the provision of an automobile for the City Manager and whether to continue that or instead of providing a vehicle, pay a lump sum that’s commensurate with other city managers in the area for transport to and from work. Mayor Pro Tem Butler asked if the mileage is up to a certain amount. Mr. Gilchrist stated it is not and will be provided with a City-owned vehicle for traveling to and from work. There is no particular limit and the idea is that it is the use of a City vehicle to travel. Dr. Edwards stated he wanted to articulate again that there was a previous vehicle allowance so there is no additional cost to the City. In this case, it is simply providing and utilizing a City vehicle versus providing a car allowance. In the end, there is no significant shift proposed in the cost in this resolution. It provides the option for the City Council to move to a car allowance versus the use of a City vehicle but there is no significant financial difference. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she appreciates that clarification, which was worthy of bringing out into the open. She stated it seems to be the most simple approach for transportation so she is in support of that and the resolution as it reads tonight. Councilmember Graves agreed with Councilmember Ryan’s suggestion around a salary that is in alignment with the average of comparable cities. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated the salary is currently at $140,000 and to be in comparison with the average, the suggestion is $150,000 to $155,000. Dr. Edwards stated that is correct, and staff can verify that number. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated she thought the City would be providing mileage, knowing Dr. Edwards lives a far distance from the City. But, she feels better than it is a City-owned vehicle and not mileage reimbursement so she is comfortable moving up the salary and not paying mileage. Mayor Elliott added it is important to look at how the City will support Dr. Edwards including transportation. He stated it is either using a City-owned vehicle, if available or paying mileage if a vehicle is not available. Mr. Gilchrist stated it is currently worded to indicate ‘shall provide’ and optional after two years. Mayor Elliott stated the City will then provide a vehicle. Mayor Elliott asked Dr. Edwards what was his proposed salary. Dr. Edwards stated the average was $155,000 and he is agreeable to that salary. Mayor Elliott stated it is important to compensate for this and all positions in a way that is commensurate with the level of work involved and level of responsibility. 07/12/21 -19- DRAFT Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve the appointment of Dr. Reggie Edwards to the position of City Manager at the rate of $155,000 a year and subject to the provisions as provided in the contract. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Edwards thanked the City Council Members, stated he appreciates the vote of confidence, and looks forward to serving the residents of Brooklyn Center and working with the City Council on behalf of the residents. Councilmember Graves stated she is happy to have Dr. Edwards in the City Manager role. Mayor Elliott and Mayor Pro Tem Butler congratulated Dr. Edwards. 10c. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-91 SUPPORTING BROOKLYN CENTER COMMUNITY CENTER STATE CAPITAL BONDING REQUEST Dr. Edwards introduced the item and provided a PowerPoint presentation relating to the Brooklyn Center Community Health, Culture, and Recreation Center. He explained the City Council is being asked to support and authorize the City’s application for Minnesota State Capital Bonding (Year 2022) for the design and construction of a new Brooklyn Center community center. Dr. Edwards stated over the past years and in numerous community engagement, surveys, and being out in the community and talking with residents, staff has heard a consistent drum as it relates to the need for the community to gather, a place with multiple planning for youth and families, and for the existing facility to be more welcoming, flexible, accessible, useable, and valuable for residents. This was heightened during COVID when there was extreme social isolation and in talking with residents about the impact of COVID, the need for such a place rose to the top as residents found themselves isolated. In addition, during the civil unrest following the shooting killing of Daunte Wright and in speaking to young people in particular at Listening Sessions, they continuously talked about the need for more space to do different things and a place to gather. Dr. Edwards stated Brooklyn Center has a community center but it is pretty clear with the community that young folks and many others do not connect with the current facility. Dr. Edwards stated in April, the City Council initiated a study to determine the feasibility of expanding the existing community center and it was anticipated that would be back before the City Council in three months or so to determine if there was interest in expanding the community center. That was based on a myriad of things including the Olympic-sized swimming pool, one of three in the State, so there is heavy demand for use including regional meets. In addition, there is a need for splash pads and other aquatics for families. The City was approached by some partners interested in additional indoor courts so staff will be exploring those options as it relates to the possibility of expanding the community center. Dr. Edwards explained those conversations are underway and should the City Council want to move ahead, it would be in the range of $15 million to $30 million for that type of expansion. 07/12/21 -20- DRAFT Dr. Edwards explained that during the civil unrest and in working with Representative Vang, Senator Eaton, and others, opportunities were identified to look at State bonding. Initially, the City did not have a project on the table for the 2021 budget but Representative Vang offered the opportunity to be listed for the 2022 bonding. That deadline is July 18 so staff applied for the possibility of a new community center for $62 million. Since the City was already in the process of doing a study on expanding the community center with the potential cost of $15 to $30 million, staff proposed asking the State for total funding of $62 million to build a new facility all- encompassing the things discussed relating to health, culture, etc., and with a match of $15 million. He explained that in applying for State bonding, it’s usually required to provide 50% matching funds so in this case, it would have been $31 million for the City. However, there is an opportunity for exceptions, which the City applied for at a match of $15 million, or 24%, about one-half of the typical match. For the exception, the staff made the argument given the circumstances, challenges with the civil unrest, and disproportionate impact of COVID, particularly in Brooklyn Center and BIPOC communities. Staff also talked about incomes and disparity in income between Brooklyn Center and the State. So, some of those cases will be made to potentially move this forward. The bottom line is that the City would have to take on a $15 million to $30 million cost burden to expand the community center and in this case, the City can potentially leverage access to the $47 million and still provide a cost of $15 million. Dr. Edwards stated the City indicated it would not seek bonding in the 2022 year so this will be between 2023 and 2026. The capital bonding projects have to be completed by 2026 so the City will need to determine when it will seek to bond should it be something the City Council is interested in doing. He explained what is at stake is bonding at a total of $62,000 with the State’s portion being $44,000 and the City’s portion being $15 million with local partners who have already made some commitments to partnering with the City at around $3 million. The bonding would be from 20 to 25 years at a rate of 3% debt in the $861,418 to $1,008,236 range and a 3% to 4% of the levy, depending on where we are at in the years 2023 to 2026. This is the staff’s best estimate at this time. He noted this would range from $861,418 to $1,008.236, which could probably be bonded with City funds upfront and then bonded and paid over some time. Dr. Edwards stated the application does ask if there is a City Council local resolution in support. When submitted, there wasn’t time to do that but there is an opportunity to add a resolution. The City Council is asked to pass a resolution that would support the application and commitment to funding the City’s share at $15 million with the exception. Dr. Edwards acknowledged this application is a long shot but the staff thought it was worth taking since it leveraged local and State resources. Dr. Edwards stated if the City Council agrees with the application and financial commitment, the study is being completed so the City Council will still have the opportunity to say whether or not they want to move forward. The action requested tonight is not a commitment to construct a new or expand the existing community center. Dr. Edwards stated the community center expansion study has involved initial levels of engagement particularly related to informing and surveying. But, for the most part, as we go into the first phase, it is asking residents what is the need. Then the City can develop the design and determine what ought to be included in the community center, whether expanded or a new facility. 07/12/21 -21- DRAFT The needs assessment will be presented to the City Council before moving into the phase of design on what it might look like and the cost. All of that will be brought to the City Council who can then make an informed decision on whether to move forward. Dr. Edwards stated as it relates to antiracism and equity, this applies to new categories placed on the City Council item coversheet. In this case, as it relates to equity, the initial onset of the expansion was borne out of the sense of trying to provide greater accessibility and value to residents. It is an opportunity to be competitive and provide capacity within the City to compete in a Midwest regional area. But as a foundation, it is about what we create to bring greater value to the residents of Brooklyn Center and to offset the cost for residents to be able to utilize it at an affordable rate, if not free. Dr. Edwards stated staff was not aware of this opportunity until the end of the Legislative session and thought it was in the interest of the City since it does not commit the City to decide to build. If there is funding, the City would like to access those funds to meet a need already articulated throughout the community. Dr. Edwards stated if the City Council is in support of authorizing the application for Minnesota State Capital Bonding, the next step will be to hold a robust legislative effort to bring the Bonding Committee to Brooklyn Center to see its need, move forward, and help them understand the need and benefit in Brooklyn Center. Typically, the State does not award grants to projects based on local need, since all communities have a need. So, the question is what does the project deliver in value to the region and State, which Brooklyn Center can do by addressing local needs while at the same time providing value to the region. Mayor Elliott stated this is one of the biggest opportunities Brooklyn Center has had as a City and he thinks all can agree we need a new community center, something to accommodate the changed Brooklyn Center and its evolved needs, an indoor space for soccer, track, and other activities, that is more modern and updated. He felt approaching the State to get funding to finance this project makes a lot of sense, noting other communities have accessed State dollars to support infrastructure in their city to the tune of multiple millions of dollars. He thinks this is a unique opportunity that Brooklyn Center, in recent years, has not tapped into, and now there is that opportunity. Mayor Elliott stated when the City first became aware of this opportunity, it was in the middle of civil unrest. He supported staff working diligently to move this forward and conducting studies and community engagement in building and designing what happens. Mayor Elliott stated this is an opportunity for co-creating to engage residents in and it makes sense for the City Council to support the resolution and move it forward. Mayor Pro Tem Butler agreed this is a great opportunity that she has been waiting for to revamp the community center so she fully supports the resolution. Councilmember Ryan referenced a successful program through the youth sports facilities dedicated sales tax that was levied at the Target Center and used to construct the Blue Barn at the Brooklyn Center High School. He asked if that program is still running. 07/12/21 -22- DRAFT Dr. Edwards stated there is funding available but he is not certain about that specific one. He stated he will research and find out with a report back. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates that these grant programs pop up from time to time and then have a terminus, which creates an element of uncertainty. He stated he raised it as a possibility because we should always be cognizant of every and all available various funding sources to enhance youth recreational and broad community recreational service facilities. He stated his only concern is that this very large enhancement or replacement of the community center has a very large sticker price and should it go forward, commits the City to a very large debt service when it already has some pretty significant debt service. He stated historically, the City of Brooklyn Center has had a relatively low debt position but because of the water treatment plant, where suddenly out of the blue, the City committed to an additional $20 million over 20 years. So, for a facility like this, as it is a worthy public purpose, the City Council has to balance it against that debt service commitment. Councilmember Ryan stated while he would be very happy to see us move forward with an enhancement for the community center, we also have to be cognizant of what our debt service commitment is going forward because we are in the long-term process of building back our industrial and commercial property tax base so the City can afford the level of community services we have historically provided without an onerous burden on those who pay indirectly the property tax bill through their residential rent or homestead property tax. He stated he hopes he has made that concern clear. Dr. Edwards stated he does not have a lot to say other than that staff is assessing the long-term implications and in a preliminary analysis, believe we have the capacity and can afford to cover it at a level of $15 million. Again, it is because we are only matching 24% of the typical match should it move forward. Councilmember Ryan stated he felt it was necessary to play ‘devil’s advocate’ but also recognizes that it is a very progressive ask on the part of the City. He appreciates the terms the City has offered but it remains a significant challenge for the City, should we be successful in the ask and are locked in a commitment where we have to service that level of debt. He stated it is one of the hard choices that policy-makers have to make and he appreciates the opportunity to bring up these difficult issues but as policy-makers, we need to be fully cognizant of those issues. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated if there were no further questions of discussion, she would call for a motion. Mayor Elliott moved and Mayor Pro Tem Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2021-91 Supporting and Authorizing the City’s Application for MN State Capital Bonding (Year 2022) to Design and Construct a new Brooklyn Center Community Health, Culture, and Recreation Center (Community Center). Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT 07/12/21 -23- DRAFT Mayor Pro Tem Butler noted the time is 9:15 p.m. and asked the Council Members to be brief as there is still an EDA meeting tonight. Councilmember Graves stated she likely will not be at the next City Council meeting as she will be on vacation. Councilmember Ryan stated he will be monitoring the net result of the legislative session and its impact on the City of Brooklyn Center, noting there will be a brief special session that will be included. He will be also consulting with staff, the League of Minnesota Cities, other organizations, and our representatives in St. Paul as to all pertinent legislation and impact on Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated in the interest of time, she has nothing to report. Mayor Elliott stated there have been several meetings regarding the implementation process of the public safety resolution, which largely revolve around getting resources from organizations that have expertise in this type of work, particularly in the implementation process. He will have more information on that in a later presentation. Mayor Elliott stated an application is on the City’s website to join the Implementation Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated she was invited by ACER and will be meeting tomorrow with tenants of Georgetown Townhomes. She has met with them before so this will be a follow-up and staff will join in that call in case there are questions she cannot answer. Mayor Pro Tem Butler thanked Dr. Edwards and Ms. Beekman for providing the information she requested and coordinating staff to be present. Mayor Pro Tem Butler stated she met over the telephone with the person coordinating the Highway 252 project and that person will contact Council Members to ask questions. She stated she will have a follow-up meeting around an update on engagement and what has been done to get more clarity in the process. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Butler moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 07/12/21 -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 JULY 12, 2021 VIA ZOOM CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice President Marquita Butler at 9:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Mike Elliott, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice President Marquita Butler, Councilmembers/Commissioners Kris Lawrence-Anderson and Dan Ryan. Councilmember/Commissioner April Graves was excused. Also present were City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FRAMEWORK DISCUSSION Mayor Pro Tem/Vice President Butler asked Dr. Edwards whether he needed additional feedback on this item. City Manager Reggie Edwards stated everyone spoke about the engagement framework at tonight’s Study Session and it will be discussed again at the City Council retreat. Mayor Pro Tem/Vice President Butler stated there was a chat comment around accountability to the framework and how that will happen. She asked staff to make note of that comment so it can be further discussed. This item was presented and also discussed at the July 12, 2021 Study Session. BC INNO-HUB CONCEPT REVIEW AND DISCUSSION Mayor Pro Tem/Vice President Butler asked whether this item can be rescheduled since Councilmember/Commissioner Graves had to leave and Mayor/President Elliott is not feeling well. Dr. Edwards stated this item is time-sensitive and an item staff wanted to bring before the City Council/EDA; however, it can be rescheduled to the July 26, 2021, Work Session. 07/12/21 -2- DRAFT Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated this item was on the last Work Session agenda but not considered and the consultant brought their team to the last meeting and again this evening to share their presentation. But, at the same time, there is value in having Mayor/President Elliott and Councilmember/Commissioner Graves present for those conversations. She stated staff would like to discuss this item in short order. Mayor Pro Tem/Vice President Butler noted there are about 20 minutes left before the cutoff at 10:00 p.m., which may not allow enough time for as robust a discussion as the City Council/EDA would like. She suggested this item be considered as the first item at the July 26, 2021, Work Session. Dr. Edwards assured the consultants that this item will be scheduled as the first item on the next Work Session agenda. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to reschedule this item to the July 26, 2021, Work Session. MAYOR’S SENIOR POLICY AIDE POSITION This item was rescheduled to the July 26, 2021, Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem/Vice President Butler moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence- Anderson seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7/26/2021 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:A lix Bentrud, D eputy City Clerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Licens es Requested Council A con: - Moon to approve the licenses as presented. B ackground: The following bus inesses /persons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Each bus iness/pers on has fulfilled the requirements of the C ity O rdinance governing respec#ve licens es, s ubmi7ed appropriate applica#ons, and paid proper fees. A pplicants for rental dwelling licens es are in compliance with C hapter 12 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances , unles s comments are noted below the property addres s on the a7ached rental report. Garbage H auler A llied Was te S ervices of North A merica 8661 Rendova S t N E C ircle P ines M N 55014 Walter Recycling & Refus e 2830 101st Ave N E Blaine M N 55449 M echanical Licenses D ean's Tank I nc P O Box 22515 Robbinsdale M N 55422 F lare H ea#ng & A ir C ondi#oning 9303 P lymouth Ave N G olden Valley M N 55427 G enz-Ryan P lumbing & H ea#ng 2200 West H w y 13 Burnsville M N 55337 M N P lumbing & H ome S ervices 12040 Riverwood C ir Burnsville M N 55337 P B S ervices 9410 Bataan S t N E Blaine M N 55449 Res iden#al H ea#ng & A ir, I nc 7454 Washington Ave S Eden P rairie M N 55344 S ignhanger's L icenses Tw in Tow n S ign C o 6033 G e7ysburg Ave N New H ope M N 55428 B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type Rental C riteria 3/16/2021 Backup M aterial 7-26-2021 Rental L icenses 7/21/2021 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 *** 3312 62nd Ave N Single Initial HPA US1 LLC/Pathlight Mgt 2 II N/A II 5012 65th Ave N Single Initial Segun Olatayo 6 III N/A III 5956 Beard Ave N Single Initial HP Minnesota 1/Pathlight Mgt 0 II N/A II 6325 Brooklyn Blvd Single Initial Obafemi Oladeji 5 II N/A II 3816 France Pl Single Initial Segun Olatayo 12 IV N/A IV 6511 Humboldt Ave N Pines of Brooklyn Center Multi 2 Bldgs  102 Units Renewal Norlin G. Boyum/The Pines North 41 (26 units insp) 1.58 per unit III 15 valid calls  0.15 per unit 6511 Humboldt Ave N 9/28/20 Robbery 10/12/2020 Assault 10/16/2020 Property  Damage 1/9/2021 Disturbance 1/23/2021 Disturbance 4/15/2021 Property Damage 4/18/2021 Vehicle Theft  6/3/2021 Weapons  6/18/2021 Robbery  6/26/2021 Robbery  6/27/2021 Disturbance  7/15/2021 Assault 6521 Humboldt 1/16/2021 Disturbance  1/29/2021 Burglary  4/6/2021 Theft III II 5301 Russell Ave N Multi 2 Bldgs 36  Units Renewal Midwest GIR Group / Met requirements 21 (9 units insp) 2.3 per unit III 1 valid, 7/1/2020 disturbing  the peace III III 3715 69th Ave N 2 Family  2 Unit Renewal Christian Knutson 0 I 0 I I 5200 France Ave N 2 Family  2 Unit Renewal Christian Knutson 2 I 0 I I 1207 65th Ave N Single Renewal Tech Ung 0 I 0 I I 5331 70th Cir Single Renewal Boukary Kabore missing CPTED follow  up 7 III 0 IV IV 4908 Abbott Ave N Single Renewal Aaron Burmeister 7 III 0 III II 5316 Colfax Ave N Single Renewal Home SFR Borrower 9 III 0 III III 6736 Colfax Ave N Single Renewal John Chao 12 IV 0 IV I 5415 Emerson Ave N Single Renewal MNSFII W1 LLC ‐ met requirements 4 II 0 II III 5550 France Ave N Single Renewal Belinda Gonzalez 3 II 0 II II 5550 Girard Ave N Single Renewal Steve Pierkarski/Restart Inc 4 II 0 II I 6325 Kyle Ave N Single Renewal Cuong Pham 7 III 0 III II Rental Licenses for Council Approval on July 26, 2021 Property Address Dwelling Type Renewal or Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS * Final  License  Type ** Previous  License  Type *** Rental Licenses for Council Approval on July 26, 2021 7024 Oliver Cir Single Renewal Juliana Koe 3 II 0 II III 5406 Sailor La Single Renewal James Waters 8 III 0 III II 6307 Scott Ave N Single Renewal Kin Chew/Iasis LLC 4 II 0 II III * CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.) ** License Type Being Issued *** Initial licenses will not show All properties are current on City utilities and property taxes Type 1 = 3 Year    Type II = 2 Year      Type III = 1 Year C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7/26/2021 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:A ndrew S plinter, I nterim F inance D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu#on S e/ng the D ate of the S ale of $8,950,000 G eneral O bliga#on I mprovement and U#lity Revenue Bonds , S eries 2021 A to F inance the C ons truc#on of G randview Park A rea S outh I mprovements and the S torm Water I mprovements related to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor P has e 2 P roject for A ugust 23, 2021 Requested Council A con: - Moon to approve resoluon seng the date of the sale of $8,950,000 G eneral Obligaon I mprovement and Ulity Revenue Bonds, S eries 2021 A to finance the construcon of G randview Park A rea S outh I mprovements and the S torm Water improvements related to the Brookly n Boulevard corridor P hase 2 P roject for A ugust 23, 2021. B ackground: Grandview S outh A rea Improvements The G randview S outh project area extends from 57th Avenue to 59th Avenue and from L ogan Avenue to D upont Avenue. The total project length is 15,557 feet. The neighborhood consists of approximately 183 res iden#al proper#es (R1), one school property (R1), two church proper#es (R1), 14 mul#-family proper#es (R4 and R5), and three commercial proper#es (C 1 and C 2). O n May 13, 2019 the C ity C ouncil approved res olu#ons es tablishing improvement projects for the G randview A rea. O n S eptember 28th 2020 the City Council approved a res olu#on ordering improvements and authorizing prepara#on of plans and s pecifica#ons for the G randview S outh A rea street, storm drainage and u#lity improvements . The C ity C ouncil also approved a res olu#on cer#fying the special as s essments on this project on D ecember 14, 2020. O n March 8th, 2021 the City Council accepted the bid and awarded the contract of the G randview North project to the low est responsible bidder. The es#mated total cos t of the project (amended per low bid) is $10,171,743. B rooklyn B oulevard Phase I I S torm Water Improvements P has e I I of the Brooklyn Boulevard I mprovements runs from Bass L ake Road to I -94. O n March 8th, 2021 The City entered into a C oopera#ve Construc#on A greement for Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor P roject P has e 2 I mprovements w ith H ennepin C ounty. O n M ay 10, 2021 the City Council accepted the bid and aw arded the contract of the Brooklyn Boulevard P has e I I project to the lowes t res pons ible bidder. The es #mated total cost of the project (amended per low bid) is $17,804,603 The total es#mate combined cost (amended per low bid) of the tw o projects is $27,976,346. O f this total cos t, $8,950,000 of street, sanitary sew er, storm water, and w ater infrastructure cos ts w ill be financed through bond proceeds and paid from a combina#on of future property taxes and u#lity revenues. This equates to approximately 32% of the total project cos t. Brooklyn Boulevard P hase I I is largely funded by Federal and C ounty contribu#ons, the largest share of City expens es relates to S torm Water I mprovements and that is the only por#on of that project the C ity is bonding for. B udget I ssues: The propos ed 2021 A bond issue includes approximately $2.055 million in street recons truc#on cos ts that w ill be repaid from an addi#onal debt service property tax levy and $1.3 million that will be repaid with s pecial asses s ments . The es#mated required levy for the new debt s ervice in 2022 is approximately $216,639.09, which equates to an approximate 1.08% levy increase for taxes payable in 2022. The u#lity funds pay for infras tructure replacement costs through u#lity charges. I ssuing debt to provide funding for the infrastructure improvements w ill allow the City to minimiz e the impact on these charges . The 2021 A bond is s ue includes $1.935 million in w ater u#lity costs, $2.2240 million in s torm w ater u#lity costs and $1.42 million in s anitary s ewer u#lity costs that w ill be funded through w ater, s torm w ater, and sanitary sew er u#lity fees . D ebt S ummary (B y Repayment S ource) P roperty Tax Levy $2,055,000 S pecial A s s essments 1,300,000 Water Charges 1,935,000 S torm Water Charges 2,240,000 S anitary S ewer C harges 1,420,000 Total D ebt I s s ue $8,950,000 We have aGached a copy of the projected debt s chedules for the is s uance of bonds prepared by the C ity ’s financial advis or, Baker Tilly. A bond ra#ng call is expected to take place A ugus t 11, in which we an#cipate that S tandard & Poor ’s will confirm that the bonds will con#nue to be rated A A . The an#cipated net interest cost of the bond s ale is 1.08 percent, which compares to 1.1 percent received on last year ’s bond is s ue. Compe##ve propos als will be received by the C ity ’s financial advis or, Baker Tilly at 10:30am on A ugust 23, 2021. P roceeds from the bonds w ill be received S eptember 22, 2021. I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type Res olu#on 7/22/2021 Resolu#on LeGer P res ale S ummary 7/22/2021 Exhibit BR291-412-733665.v1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA HELD: July 26, 2021 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, was duly called and held by teleconference in said City on Monday, the 26th day of July, 2021, at 7:00 o’clock P.M. The teleconference was held in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 13D.021. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member _______________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED SALE OF $8,950,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT AND UTILITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Finding; Amount and Purpose. It is hereby found, determined and declared that the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “City”), should issue $8,950,000 General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A, to finance various street improvements and related utility improvements within the City. 2. Meeting. This City Council shall meet on the date and at the time and place specified in the form of Terms of Proposal attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Competitive Negotiated Sale. The City has retained Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC (“Baker Tilly MA”) as an independent municipal advisor, and the City Council hereby determines to sell the Bonds by private negotiation, by way of a competitive sale in response to Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which are not published in any newspaper or journal. 4. Terms of Proposal. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the sale thereof are fully set forth in the “Terms of Proposal” attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby made a part hereof. BR291-412-733665.v1 2 5. Official Statement. The City Finance Director and other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to participate with Baker Tilly MA in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member _______________ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a 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. BR291-412-733665.v1 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ) HENNEPIN COUNTY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center (the “City”), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council called and held on the date therein indicated, which are on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript there from insofar as the same relates to the City’s $8,950,000 General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A. WITNESS my hand as such Clerk of the City this ____ day of _________, 2021. _______________________________________ City Clerk A-1 BR291-412-733665.v1 EXHIBIT A THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED BAKER TILLY MUNICIPAL ADVISORS, LLC TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $8,950,000* CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT AND UTILITY REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2021A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the above-referenced obligations (the “Bonds”) will be received by the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “City”) on Monday, August 23, 2021 (the “Sale Date”) until 10:30 A.M., Central Time (the “Sale Time”) at the offices of Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC (“Baker Tilly MA”), 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55101, after which time proposals will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at its meeting commencing at 7:00 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Baker Tilly MA will assume no liability for the inability of a bidder or its proposal to reach Baker Tilly MA prior to the Sale Time, and neither the City nor Baker Tilly MA shall be responsible for any failure, misdirection or error in the means of transmission selected by any bidder. All bidders are advised that each proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the proposal is submitted. (a) Sealed Bidding. Completed, signed proposals may be submitted to Baker Tilly MA by email to bondservice@bakertilly.com or by fax (651) 223-3046, and must be received prior to the Sale Time. OR (b) Electronic Bidding. Proposals may also be received via PARITY®. For purposes of the electronic bidding process, the time as maintained by PARITY® shall constitute the official time with respect to all proposals submitted to PARITY®. Each bidder shall be solely responsible for making necessary arrangements to access PARITY® for purposes of submitting its electronic proposal in a timely manner and in compliance with the requirements of the Terms of Proposal. Neither the City, its agents, nor PARITY® shall have any duty or obligation to undertake registration to bid for any prospective bidder or to provide or ensure electronic access to any qualified prospective bidder, and neither the City, its agents, nor PARITY® shall be responsible for a bidder’s failure to register to bid or for any failure in the proper operation of, or have any liability for any delays or interruptions of or any damages caused by the services of PARITY®. The City is using the services of PARITY® solely as a communication mechanism to conduct the electronic bidding for the Bonds, and PARITY® is not an agent of the City. If any provisions of this Terms of Proposal conflict with information provided by PARITY®, this Terms of Proposal shall control. Further information about PARITY®, including any fee charged, may be obtained from: PARITY®, 1359 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, New York 10018 Customer Support: (212) 849-5000 A-2 BR291-412-733665.v1 DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated as of the date of delivery and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2022. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts* as follows: 2023 $870,000 2024 $895,000 2025 $890,000 2026 $885,000 2027 $890,000 2028 $895,000 2029 $895,000 2030 $905,000 2031 $905,000 2032 $920,000 * The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds or the amount of any maturity or maturities in multiples of $5,000. In the event the amount of any maturity is modified, the aggregate purchase price will be adjusted to result in the same gross spread per $1,000 of Bonds as that of the original proposal. Gross spread for this purpose is the differential between the price paid to the City for the new issue and the prices at which the proposal indicates the securities will be initially offered to the investing public. Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for a combination of serial bonds and term bonds. All term bonds shall be subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption at a price of par plus accrued interest to the date of redemption scheduled to conform to the maturity schedule set forth above. In order to designate term bonds, the proposal must specify “Years of Term Maturities” in the spaces provided on the proposal form. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The lowest bidder (the “Purchaser”), as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2030, and on any day thereafter, to redeem Bonds due on or after February 1, 2031. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be redeemed. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All redemptions shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. A-3 BR291-412-733665.v1 SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition, the City will pledge (i) special assessments against benefited properties; and (ii) net revenues of the City’s water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage utility funds for repayment of a portion of the Bonds. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to finance (i) various street improvements, and (ii) related utility improvements with in the City. NOT BANK QUALIFIED TAX-EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS The City will not designate the Bonds as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. BIDDING PARAMETERS Proposals shall be for not less than $8,878,400 plus accrued interest, if any, on the total principal amount of the Bonds. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals on the Sale Date unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 1/100 or 1/8 of 1%. The initial price to the public for each maturity as stated on the proposal must be 98.0% or greater. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. ESTABLISHMENT OF ISSUE PRICE In order to provide the City with information necessary for compliance with Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (collectively, the “Code”), the Purchaser will be required to assist the City in establishing the issue price of the Bonds and shall complete, execute, and deliver to the City prior to the closing date, a written certification in a form acceptable to the Purchaser, the City, and Bond Counsel (the “Issue Price Certificate”) containing the following for each maturity of the Bonds (and, if different interest rates apply within a maturity, to each separate CUSIP number within that maturity): (i) the interest rate; (ii) the reasonably expected initial offering price to the “public” (as said term is defined in Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-1(f) (the “Regulation”)) or the sale price; and (iii) pricing wires or equivalent communications supporting such offering or sale price. Any action to be taken or documentation to be received by the City pursuant hereto may be taken or received on behalf of the City by Baker Tilly MA. The City intends that the sale of the Bonds pursuant to this Terms of Proposal shall constitute a “competitive sale” as defined in the Regulation based on the following: (i) the City shall cause this Terms of Proposal to be disseminated to potential bidders in a manner that is reasonably designed to reach potential bidders; (ii) all bidders shall have an equal opportunity to submit a bid; (iii) the City reasonably expects that it will receive bids from at least three bidders that have established industry reputations for underwriting municipal bonds such as the Bonds; and (iv) the City anticipates awarding the sale of the Bonds to the bidder who provides a proposal with the lowest true interest cost, as set forth in this Terms of Proposal (See “AWARD” herein). Any bid submitted pursuant to this Terms of Proposal shall be considered a firm offer for the purchase of the Bonds, as specified in the proposal. The Purchaser shall constitute an “underwriter” as said term is defined in the Regulation. By submitting its proposal, the Purchaser confirms that it shall require any agreement among underwriters, a selling group agreement, or other agreement to which it is a party relating to the initial sale of the Bonds, to include provisions requiring compliance with the provisions of the Code and the Regulation regarding the initial sale of the Bonds. A-4 BR291-412-733665.v1 If all of the requirements of a “competitive sale” are not satisfied, the City shall advise the Purchaser of such fact prior to the time of award of the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser. In such event, any proposal submitted will not be subject to cancellation or withdrawal. Within twenty-four (24) hours of the notice of award of the sale of the Bonds, the Purchaser shall advise the City and Baker Tilly MA if 10% of any maturity of the Bonds (and, if different interest rates apply within a maturity, to each separate CUSIP number within that maturity) has been sold to the public and the price at which it was sold. The City will treat such sale price as the “issue price” for such maturity, applied on a maturity-by-maturity basis. The City will not require the Purchaser to comply with that portion of the Regulation commonly described as the “hold-the-offering-price” requirement for the remaining maturities, but the Purchaser may elect such option. If the Purchaser exercises such option, the City will apply the initial offering price to the public provided in the proposal as the issue price for such maturities. If the Purchaser does not exercise that option, it shall thereafter promptly provide the City and Baker Tilly MA the prices at which 10% of such maturities are sold to the public; provided such determination shall be made and the City and Baker Tilly MA notified of such prices whether or not the closing date has occurred, until the 10% test has been satisfied as to each maturity of the Bonds or until all of the Bonds of a maturity have been sold. GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT To have its proposal considered for award, the Purchaser is required to submit a good faith deposit via wire transfer to the City in the amount of $89,500 (the “Deposit”) no later than 1:30 P.M., Central Time on the Sale Date. The Purchaser shall be solely responsible for the timely delivery of its Deposit, and neither the City nor Baker Tilly MA have any liability for delays in the receipt of the Deposit. If the Deposit is not received by the specified time, the City may, at its sole discretion, reject the proposal of the lowest bidder, direct the second lowest bidder to submit a Deposit, and thereafter award the sale to such bidder. A Deposit will be considered timely delivered to the City upon submission of a federal wire reference number by the specified time. Wire transfer instructions will be available from Baker Tilly MA following the receipt and tabulation of proposals. The successful bidder must send an e-mail including the following information: (i) the federal reference number and time released; (ii) the amount of the wire transfer; and (iii) the issue to which it applies. Once an award has been made, the Deposit received from the Purchaser will be retained by the City and no interest will accrue to the Purchaser. The amount of the Deposit will be deducted at settlement from the purchase price. In the event the Purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis calculated on the proposal prior to any adjustment made by the City. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any proposal that the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION The City has not applied for or pre-approved a commitment for any policy of municipal bond insurance with respect to the Bonds. If the Bonds qualify for municipal bond insurance and a bidder desires to purchase a policy, such indication, the maturities to be insured, and the name of the desired insurer must be set forth on the bidder’s proposal. The City specifically reserves the right to reject any bid specifying municipal bond insurance, even though such bid may result in the lowest TIC to the City. All costs associated with the issuance and administration of such policy and associated ratings and expenses (other than any independent rating requested by the City) shall be paid by the successful bidder. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after the award of the Bonds shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the successful bidder to accept delivery of the Bonds. A-5 BR291-412-733665.v1 CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for the assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds; however, neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the Purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. Baker Tilly MA will apply for CUSIP numbers pursuant to Rule G-34 implemented by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the Purchaser. SETTLEMENT On or about September 22, 2021, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the Purchaser through DTC in New York, New York. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the Purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement, payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds that shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Unless compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds has been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the Purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the Purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE In accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), the City will undertake, pursuant to the resolution awarding sale of the Bonds, to provide annual reports and notices of certain events. A description of this undertaking is set forth in the Official Statement. The Purchaser's obligation to purchase the Bonds will be conditioned upon receiving evidence of this undertaking at or prior to delivery of the Bonds. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of a Preliminary Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Preliminary Official Statement has been deemed final by the City as of the date thereof within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For an electronic copy of the Preliminary Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Municipal Advisor to the City, Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC, by telephone (651) 223-3000, or by email bondservice@bakertilly.com. The Preliminary Official Statement will also be made available at https://connect.bakertilly.com/bond-sales-calendar. A Final Official Statement (as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12) will be prepared, specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts, and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law. By awarding the Bonds to the Purchaser, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide to the Purchaser an electronic copy of the Final Official Statement. The City designates the Purchaser as its agent for purposes of distributing the Final Official Statement to each syndicate member, if applicable. The Purchaser agrees that if its proposal is accepted by the City, (i) it shall accept designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with its syndicate members for purposes of assuring the receipt of the Final Official Statement by each such syndicate member. Dated July 26, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Barb Suciu City Clerk City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Pre-Sale Summary for Issuance of Bonds $8,950,000 General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A The Council has under consideration the issuance of bonds to finance: (i) various improvement projects within the City (the “Improvement Portion”); and (ii) related utility projects (the “Utility Portion”). Together, the Improvement Portion and the Utility Portion are referred to as (the “Bonds”). This document provides information relative to the proposed issuance. KEY EVENTS: The following summary schedule includes the timing of key events that will occur relative to the bond issuance: July 26, 2021 Council sets sale date and terms Week of August 9, 2021 Rating conference is conducted August 23, 2021, 10:30 a.m. Competitive proposals are received August 23, 2021, 7:00 p.m. Council considers award of the Bonds September 22, 2021 Proceeds are received RATING: An application will be made to S&P Global Ratings (S&P) for a rating on the Bonds. The City’s general obligation debt is currently rated “AA” by S&P. THE MARKET: Performance of the tax-exempt market is often measured by the Bond Buyer’s Index (“BBI”) which measures the yield of high grade municipal bonds in the 20th year for general obligation bonds rated Aa2 by Moody’s or AA by S&P (the BBI 20-Bond GO Index) and the 30th year for revenue bonds rated A1 by Moody’s or A+ by S&P (the BBI 25-Bond Revenue Index). The following chart illustrates these two indices over the past five years: St u d y N o . : 02 0 1 . 1 5 7 _ 1 6 4 1 3 4 3 Da t e : J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 2 1 Page 2 BOND SUMMARY: The Bonds are structured as two purposes and are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapters 475, 429, and 444. The Bonds are a general obligation of the City, secured by its full faith and credit and taxing power and will be repaid by a combination of ad valorem tax collections and other pledged revenues described below. SCHEDULES ATTACHED: Schedules attached for the Bonds include (i) sources and uses of funds, (ii) estimated net debt service as a whole and by purpose, given the current interest rate environment; and (iii) estimated assessment collections for the Improvement Portion. RISKS/SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The outcome of this financing relies on the market conditions at the time of the sale. Any projections included herein are estimates based on current market conditions. SALE TERMS AND MARKETING: Variability of Issue Size: A specific provision in the sale terms permits modifications to the issue size and/or maturity structure once the price and interest rates are set on the day of sale. Prepayment Provisions: Bonds maturing on or after February 1, 2031 may be prepaid at a price of par plus accrued interest on or after February 1, 2030. Bank Qualification: The City expects to issue more than $10 million in tax-exempt obligations in 2021; therefore, the Bonds are designated as non-bank qualified. $3,355,000 Improvement Portion Description of Purpose PURPOSE: Proceeds of the Improvement Portion, along with special assessments funds and other funds of the City, will be used to finance the surface improvements related to the Grandview Park Area South Improvement project. AUTHORITY: Statutory Authority: The Improvement Portion is being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 429 and 475. Statutory Requirements: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, at least 20% of the City’s share of the project cost must be paid from special assessments. Of the total project cost, approximately 39% of the cost is being assessed, satisfying the statutory requirement. SECURITY AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT: In addition to their general obligation pledge, The City will pledge special assessments against benefited properties to pay debt service on the Improvement Portion. Special assessments in the principal amount of $1,300,000 are expected to be filed in the fall of 2021 for first collection in 2022. Assessments are amortized over ten years with equal annual payments of principal with interest on the unpaid balance charged at a rate of 4.0%. The City is required to levy for a portion of the debt service on the Improvement Portion. The City will make their first levy in 2021 for collection in 2022. Each year’s collection of taxes and special assessment revenue will be used to make the interest payment due on Page 3 August 1 of the collection year and the February 1 principal and interest payment due the following year. STRUCTURING SUMMARY: In consultation with City staff, principal repayment for the Improvement Portion is structured around the projected assessment income to result in approximately level annual tax levies over a term of 10 years. $5,595,000 Utility Portion Description of Purpose PURPOSE: Proceeds of the Utility Portion will be used to finance water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer improvements related to the Grandview Park Area South project and the storm water improvements related to the Brooklyn Bouolevard corridor Phase 2 project. AUTHORITY: Statutory Authority: The Utility Portion of the Bonds is being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444 and 475. Statutory Requirements: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444 and the resolution awarding the Bonds, the City will covenant to maintain user rates and charges for the sanitary sewer, storm drainage, and water utilities (collectively the “Utilities”) in an amount sufficient support operations and to pay debt service on pledged obligations. The City is required to annually review the budget of the Utilities to determine whether current rates and charges are sufficient and to adjust them as necessary. The City currently has six (6) outstanding bond issues that are payable in part from the Utilities. The table below shows the calculation of net revenues available to pay debt service for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2020. The maximum annual calendar year debt service payment, including the Utility Portion of the Bonds, is estimated to be $4,257,863 Based on the City’s 2020 audited results, the revenues of the Utilities are sufficient, to make the annual debt service payments due on all general obligation utility debt of the City. 2020 Net Revenues - Utility Funds Water Fund Sanitary Sewer Fund Storm Drainage Fund Total Operating Revenues 4,206,283$ 4,662,342$ 1,691,946$ 10,560,571$ Operating Expenses (3,924,010)(4,366,560)(2,304,316)(10,594,886) Operating Income 282,273 295,782 (612,370) (34,315) Add: Back Depreciation 1,800,118 977,861 1,431,750 4,209,729 Add: Investment Earnings 87,134 152,855 138,112 378,101 Net Revenues Available for D/S 2,169,525$ 1,426,498$ 957,492$ 4,553,515$ Projected Max Debt Service 4,257,863 Remaining Capacity 295,653$ Estimated Coverage 1.07 Page 4 SECURITY AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT: In addition to their general obligation pledge, the City is pledging net revenues of the Utilities to pay debt service on the Utility Portion of the Bonds. STRUCTURING SUMMARY: In consultation with City staff, principal repayment for the Utility Portion is structured over a repayment term of ten (10) years with approximately level annual debt service payments. Post Issuance POST ISSUANCE COMPLIANCE: The issuance of the Bonds will result in post-issuance compliance responsibilities. The responsibilities are in two primary areas: (i) compliance with federal arbitrage requirements and (ii) compliance with secondary disclosure requirements. Federal arbitrage requirements include a wide range of implications that have been taken into account as this issue has been structured. Post-issuance compliance responsibilities for this tax-exempt issue include both rebate and yield restriction provisions of the IRS Code. In general terms the arbitrage requirements control the earnings on unexpended bond proceeds, including investment earnings, moneys held for debt service payments (which are considered to be proceeds under the IRS regulations), and/or reserves. Under certain circumstances any “excess earnings” will need to be paid to the IRS to maintain the tax-exempt status of the Bonds. Any interest earnings on gross bond proceeds or debt service funds should not be spent until it has been determined based on actual facts that they are not “excess earnings” as defined by the IRS Code. The arbitrage rules provide for spend-down exceptions for proceeds that are spent within either a 6-month, 18-month or, for certain construction issues, a 24-month period each in accordance with certain spending criteria. Proceeds that qualify for an exception will be exempt from rebate. These exceptions are based on actual expenditures and not based on reasonable expectations. Expenditures, including any investment proceeds, must meet the spending criteria to qualify for the exclusion. The City expects to meet the 18-month spending exception. Regardless of whether the issue qualifies for an exemption from the rebate provisions, yield restriction provisions apply to Bond proceeds (including interest earnings) unspent after three years and the debt service fund throughout the term of the Bonds. These moneys should be monitored until the Bonds are retired. Secondary disclosure requirements result from an SEC requirement that underwriters provide ongoing disclosure information to investors. To meet this requirement, any prospective underwriter will require the City to commit to providing the information needed to comply under a continuing disclosure agreement. Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors (Baker Tilly MA) currently provides both arbitrage and continuing disclosure services to the City. Baker Tilly MA will work with City staff to include the Bonds under the existing Agreement for Municipal Advisor Services. Page 5 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION AND BOND RECORD: Supplementary information will be available to staff including detailed terms and conditions of sale, comprehensive structuring schedules and information to assist in meeting post-issuance compliance responsibilities. Upon completion of the financing, a bond record will be provided that contains pertinent documents and final debt service calculations for the transaction. Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC is a registered municipal advisor and controlled subsidiary of Baker Tilly US, LLP, an accounting firm. Baker Tilly US, LLP trading as Baker Tilly, is a member of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. © 2021 Baker Tilly Municipal Advisors, LLC. Page 6 $8,950,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Issue Summary Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 09/22/2021 | Delivered 09/22/2021 Street Improvement Portion Water Improvement Sanitary Sewer Improvement Storm Drainage Improvement Issue Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds...................................$3,355,000.00 $1,935,000.00 $1,420,000.00 $2,240,000.00 $8,950,000.00 Total Sources.............................................$3,355,000.00 $1,935,000.00 $1,420,000.00 $2,240,000.00 $8,950,000.00 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund.............3,300,000.00 1,900,000.00 1,400,000.00 2,200,000.00 8,800,000.00 Costs of Issuance........................................27,777.15 16,020.50 11,756.65 18,545.70 74,100.00 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%)...........26,840.00 15,480.00 11,360.00 17,920.00 71,600.00 Rounding Amount........................................382.85 3,499.50 (3,116.65)3,534.30 4,300.00 Total Uses..................................................$3,355,000.00 $1,935,000.00 $1,420,000.00 $2,240,000.00 $8,950,000.00 2021A GO Improvement & Ut | Issue Summary | 6/28/2021 | 10:03 AM Utility Portion Page 7 $8,950,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Issue Summary NET DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of Total Assessment Utility Revenue Levy Required 02/01/2022 -------- 02/01/2023 870,000.00 0.350%110,534.37 980,534.37 1,029,561.09 188,644.44 624,277.56 216,639.09 02/01/2024 895,000.00 0.450%78,330.00 973,330.00 1,021,996.50 176,800.00 629,333.25 215,863.25 02/01/2025 890,000.00 0.600%74,302.50 964,302.50 1,012,517.63 171,600.00 626,734.50 214,183.13 02/01/2026 885,000.00 0.700%68,962.50 953,962.50 1,001,660.63 166,400.00 623,269.50 211,991.13 02/01/2027 890,000.00 0.800%62,767.50 952,767.50 1,000,405.88 161,200.00 624,477.00 214,728.88 02/01/2028 895,000.00 1.050%55,647.50 950,647.50 998,179.88 156,000.00 625,065.00 217,114.88 02/01/2029 895,000.00 1.150%46,250.00 941,250.00 988,312.50 150,800.00 624,141.00 213,371.50 02/01/2030 905,000.00 1.250%35,957.50 940,957.50 988,005.38 145,600.00 627,818.63 214,586.75 02/01/2031 905,000.00 1.300%24,645.00 929,645.00 976,127.25 140,400.00 620,271.75 215,455.50 02/01/2032 920,000.00 1.400%12,880.00 932,880.00 979,524.00 135,200.00 628,173.00 216,151.00 Total $8,950,000.00 -$570,276.87 $9,520,276.87 $9,996,290.71 $1,592,644.44 $6,253,561.19 $2,150,085.09 Dated...................................................................................................................................................................................9/22/2021 Delivery Date.........................................................................................................................................................................9/22/2021 First Coupon Date..................................................................................................................................................................8/01/2022 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars..................................................................................................................................................................$52,747.08 Average Life..........................................................................................................................................................................5.894 Years Average Coupon....................................................................................................................................................................1.0811534% Net Interest Cost (NIC)...........................................................................................................................................................1.2168955% True Interest Cost (TIC)..........................................................................................................................................................1.2186596% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes...........................................................................................................................................1.0769507% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)...........................................................................................................................................................1.3669428% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost...................................................................................................................................................................1.0811534% Weighted Average Maturity.....................................................................................................................................................5.894 Years 2021A GO Improvement & Ut | Issue Summary | 6/28/2021 | 10:03 AM Page 8 $3,355,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Street Improvement Portion NET DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of Total Assessment Levy Required 02/01/2022 ------- 02/01/2023 345,000.00 0.350%40,984.31 385,984.31 405,283.53 188,644.44 216,639.09 02/01/2024 345,000.00 0.450%28,965.00 373,965.00 392,663.25 176,800.00 215,863.25 02/01/2025 340,000.00 0.600%27,412.50 367,412.50 385,783.13 171,600.00 214,183.13 02/01/2026 335,000.00 0.700%25,372.50 360,372.50 378,391.13 166,400.00 211,991.13 02/01/2027 335,000.00 0.800%23,027.50 358,027.50 375,928.88 161,200.00 214,728.88 02/01/2028 335,000.00 1.050%20,347.50 355,347.50 373,114.88 156,000.00 217,114.88 02/01/2029 330,000.00 1.150%16,830.00 346,830.00 364,171.50 150,800.00 213,371.50 02/01/2030 330,000.00 1.250%13,035.00 343,035.00 360,186.75 145,600.00 214,586.75 02/01/2031 330,000.00 1.300%8,910.00 338,910.00 355,855.50 140,400.00 215,455.50 02/01/2032 330,000.00 1.400%4,620.00 334,620.00 351,351.00 135,200.00 216,151.00 Total $3,355,000.00 -$209,504.31 $3,564,504.31 $3,742,729.53 $1,592,644.44 $2,150,085.09 Dated..........................................................................................................................................................9/22/2021 Delivery Date...............................................................................................................................................9/22/2021 First Coupon Date........................................................................................................................................8/01/2022 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars........................................................................................................................................$19,502.21 Average Life.................................................................................................................................................5.813 Years Average Coupon...........................................................................................................................................1.0742594% Net Interest Cost (NIC).................................................................................................................................1.2118849% True Interest Cost (TIC).................................................................................................................................1.2136099% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes.................................................................................................................1.0769507% All Inclusive Cost (AIC).................................................................................................................................1.3638702% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost..........................................................................................................................................1.0742594% Weighted Average Maturity...........................................................................................................................5.813 Years 2021A GO Improvement & Ut | Street Improvement Portio | 6/28/2021 | 10:03 AM Page 9 $1,300,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Assessments ASSESSMENT INCOME Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 12/31/2021 ---- 12/31/2022 130,000.00 4.000%58,644.44 188,644.44 12/31/2023 130,000.00 4.000%46,800.00 176,800.00 12/31/2024 130,000.00 4.000%41,600.00 171,600.00 12/31/2025 130,000.00 4.000%36,400.00 166,400.00 12/31/2026 130,000.00 4.000%31,200.00 161,200.00 12/31/2027 130,000.00 4.000%26,000.00 156,000.00 12/31/2028 130,000.00 4.000%20,800.00 150,800.00 12/31/2029 130,000.00 4.000%15,600.00 145,600.00 12/31/2030 130,000.00 4.000%10,400.00 140,400.00 12/31/2031 130,000.00 4.000%5,200.00 135,200.00 Total $1,300,000.00 -$292,644.44 $1,592,644.44 SIGNIFICANT DATES Filing Date...........................................................................................11/15/2021 First Payment Date..............................................................................12/31/2022 2021A Assessments 6.24.21 | SINGLE PURPOSE | 6/28/2021 | 10:04 AM Page 10 $1,935,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Water Improvement DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of D/S 02/01/2022 ----- 02/01/2023 180,000.00 0.350%24,090.04 204,090.04 214,294.54 02/01/2024 190,000.00 0.450%17,105.00 207,105.00 217,460.25 02/01/2025 190,000.00 0.600%16,250.00 206,250.00 216,562.50 02/01/2026 190,000.00 0.700%15,110.00 205,110.00 215,365.50 02/01/2027 190,000.00 0.800%13,780.00 203,780.00 213,969.00 02/01/2028 195,000.00 1.050%12,260.00 207,260.00 217,623.00 02/01/2029 195,000.00 1.150%10,212.50 205,212.50 215,473.13 02/01/2030 200,000.00 1.250%7,970.00 207,970.00 218,368.50 02/01/2031 200,000.00 1.300%5,470.00 205,470.00 215,743.50 02/01/2032 205,000.00 1.400%2,870.00 207,870.00 218,263.50 Total $1,935,000.00 -$125,117.54 $2,060,117.54 $2,163,123.42 SIGNIFICANT DATES Dated..................................................................................................................................9/22/2021 Delivery Date.......................................................................................................................9/22/2021 First Coupon Date................................................................................................................8/01/2022 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars................................................................................................................$11,518.38 Average Life.........................................................................................................................5.953 Years Average Coupon...................................................................................................................1.0862430% Net Interest Cost (NIC)..........................................................................................................1.2206369% True Interest Cost (TIC).........................................................................................................1.2224319% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes.........................................................................................1.0769507% All Inclusive Cost (AIC).........................................................................................................1.3693005% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost..................................................................................................................1.0862430% Weighted Average Maturity...................................................................................................5.953 Years Interest rates are estimates. Changes in rates may cause significant alterations to this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 2021A GO Improvement & Ut | Water Improvement | 6/28/2021 | 10:03 AM Page 11 $1,420,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Sanitary Sewer Improvement DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of D/S 02/01/2022 ----- 02/01/2023 135,000.00 0.350%17,627.77 152,627.77 160,259.16 02/01/2024 140,000.00 0.450%12,505.00 152,505.00 160,130.25 02/01/2025 140,000.00 0.600%11,875.00 151,875.00 159,468.75 02/01/2026 140,000.00 0.700%11,035.00 151,035.00 158,586.75 02/01/2027 140,000.00 0.800%10,055.00 150,055.00 157,557.75 02/01/2028 140,000.00 1.050%8,935.00 148,935.00 156,381.75 02/01/2029 145,000.00 1.150%7,465.00 152,465.00 160,088.25 02/01/2030 145,000.00 1.250%5,797.50 150,797.50 158,337.38 02/01/2031 145,000.00 1.300%3,985.00 148,985.00 156,434.25 02/01/2032 150,000.00 1.400%2,100.00 152,100.00 159,705.00 Total $1,420,000.00 -$91,380.27 $1,511,380.27 $1,586,949.28 SIGNIFICANT DATES Dated................................................................................................................................9/22/2021 Delivery Date......................................................................................................................9/22/2021 First Coupon Date..............................................................................................................8/01/2022 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars..............................................................................................................$8,423.83 Average Life.......................................................................................................................5.932 Years Average Coupon.................................................................................................................1.0847825% Net Interest Cost (NIC)........................................................................................................1.2196380% True Interest Cost (TIC).......................................................................................................1.2214180% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes........................................................................................1.0769507% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)........................................................................................................1.3687753% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost................................................................................................................1.0847825% Weighted Average Maturity..................................................................................................5.932 Years Interest rates are estimates. Changes in rates may cause significant alterations to this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 2021A GO Improvement & Ut | Sanitary Sewer Improvemen | 6/28/2021 | 10:03 AM Page 12 $2,240,000 City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota General Obligation Improvement and Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Storm Drainage Improvement DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 105% of D/S 02/01/2022 ----- 02/01/2023 210,000.00 0.350%27,832.25 237,832.25 249,723.86 02/01/2024 220,000.00 0.450%19,755.00 239,755.00 251,742.75 02/01/2025 220,000.00 0.600%18,765.00 238,765.00 250,703.25 02/01/2026 220,000.00 0.700%17,445.00 237,445.00 249,317.25 02/01/2027 225,000.00 0.800%15,905.00 240,905.00 252,950.25 02/01/2028 225,000.00 1.050%14,105.00 239,105.00 251,060.25 02/01/2029 225,000.00 1.150%11,742.50 236,742.50 248,579.63 02/01/2030 230,000.00 1.250%9,155.00 239,155.00 251,112.75 02/01/2031 230,000.00 1.300%6,280.00 236,280.00 248,094.00 02/01/2032 235,000.00 1.400%3,290.00 238,290.00 250,204.50 Total $2,240,000.00 -$144,274.75 $2,384,274.75 $2,503,488.49 SIGNIFICANT DATES Dated...................................................................................................................................9/22/2021 Delivery Date.........................................................................................................................9/22/2021 First Coupon Date.................................................................................................................8/01/2022 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars.................................................................................................................$13,302.67 Average Life..........................................................................................................................5.939 Years Average Coupon....................................................................................................................1.0845551% Net Interest Cost (NIC)...........................................................................................................1.2192649% True Interest Cost (TIC)..........................................................................................................1.2210539% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes...........................................................................................1.0769507% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)...........................................................................................................1.3682482% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost...................................................................................................................1.0845551% Weighted Average Maturity.....................................................................................................5.939 Years Interest rates are estimates. Changes in rates may cause significant alterations to this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. 2021A GO Improvement & Ut | Storm Drainage Improvemen | 6/28/2021 | 10:03 AM C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7/26/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Youth in G overnment D ay Requested Council A con: - A ccept the P roclamaon of July 26, 2021, as Youth in G overnment D ay in the C ity of Brooklyn C enter, M N B ackground: Youth in G overnment D ay was created to w elcome young people into the proces s es and s tructure of their local government - whose w ork directly impacts their lives every day. Through equipping young people w ith the understanding of how their communi#es work and how decisions are made, the event w ill cul#vate and equip young people to become engaged, ac#ve and informed ci#zens . I t is fi8ng the M ayor/City Council proclaim "Youth in G overnment D ay" and formally recognize their par#cipa#on. B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: S trategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, O pera#onal Excellence C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7/26/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:P res enta#on from H ennepin County Commissioner J eff Lunde Requested Council A con: - A ccept presenta on from C ommissioner L unde B ackground: B udget I ssues: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7/26/2021 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:D r. Reginald Edw ards , C ity M anager S U B J E C T:Res olu#on Expressing Recogni#on and A pprecia#on to Kelli W ick, H uman Resources D irector for O ver 25 Years of S ervice to the C ity of Brooklyn C enter Requested Council A con: - Mo#on to approve a resolu#on expressing recogni#on and apprecia#on to Kelli W ick, H uman Resources D irector for over 25 years of s ervice to the C ity of Brooklyn C enter B ackground: O n Monday, J uly 19, 2021, Kelli W ick, H uman Res ources D irector s ubmi9ed her res igna#on with the City of Brooklyn Center. Kelli has been employed with the City of Brooklyn Center for over 25 years w here she has s erved in s everal different H uman Resources posi#ons . Ms. W ick has been ins trumental in w ri#ng of the employee personnel policy handbook, s erving as a team lead on labor nego#a#ons, direc#ng s taff in all ma9ers of payroll and insurance, and ini#ated several technological advances in the H uman Res ources department which benefi9ed the organiz a#on as a w hole. The C ity appreciates all the contribu#ons Kelli has made to the City and wishes her all the best in the future. B udget I ssues: - None I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: S trategic Priories and Values: O pera#onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type Res olu#on 7/22/2021 Resolu#on Le9er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION TO KELLI WICK, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR FOR OVER 25 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Kelli Wick was hired by the City of Brooklyn Center to serve as the Human Resources /Purchasing Technician/Deputy City Clerk, on September 27, 1995; and WHEREAS, Kelli Wick was promoted to Human Resources Assistant on January 1, 1999; and WHEREAS, Kelli Wick was promoted to Human Resources Director on October 1, 2002, and has served the City of Brooklyn Center in this capacity for over 18 years; and WHEREAS, Kelli Wick has made significant contributions to the City recruitment efforts by establishing an online application system, continually monitoring recruitment processes, and exploring new selection processes, integrated payroll into the Human Resources division; established an online benefit enrollment system that is more effectively meets the needs of the employees; automated the workers’ compensation process; and WHEREAS, Kelli Wick completed the required reports for the State of Minnesota as well as the EEOC, Pay Equity conversion, and continued to remain in compliance; instrumental in developing training for employees in the area of diversity, customer service, and supervisory training; and WHEREAS, Kelli Wick has been an integral part of the negotiation team and served on the Labor-Management Committees for both the Police and Public Works Departments; and WHEREAS, Kelli Wick established the Employee Benefits/Wellness Committee resulting in recognition from Hennepin County for several years; and WHEREAS, Kelli Wick completed several courses over the years including Creating a Motivating Work Environment, HR Representative as Problem Solver, Worker and Unemployment Compensation, Harassment in the Workplace, Managing Performance Problems, Introduction to Employee Compensation, Introduction to Labor Relations, Benefits Communication, Conducting Background Checks, Designing Employee Orientation Programs, Conducting Lawful, Effective Interviews, The Human Resource Audit, and Human Resource General Certificate from the University of Minnesota; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, upon recommendation of the City Manager, that we recognize Kelli Wick, Human Resources Director, and express sincere appreciation for her dedicated public service. July 26, 2021 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 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:7/26/2021 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:D r. Reggie Edwards, City Manager S U B J E C T:Res olu#on Recognizing F ire Chief and Emergency M anager Berg for his Leadership through the C O V I D -19 pandemic Requested Council A con: - M oon to approve a resoluon recogniz ing F ir e C hief and Emer gency M anager Todd Ber g for his leadership through the C O V I D -19 pandemic. B ackground: Todd Berg, F ire Chief and Emergency Manager has shown incredible res ilience and leadership through this pandemic. H e con#nually provided city leadership with pandemic trends and looked ahead to make s ure the city w as pos i#oned to r es pond. C hief B er g us ed his resources to ens ure the city was prepared with proper pers onal protec#v e equipment (P P E). H e lev eraged his contacts to open tw o v accina#on clinics supported by the city. W hen the #me came, C hief Berg r es ponded to civ il unres t and or ganiz ed strike team tas k forces in the event the unr es t w ent poorly. Chief Berg again us ed his res ources and contacts to make s ur e the city w as prepared to respond. B udget I ssues: There are no budgetary issues res ul#ng from this ac#on. I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: N/A A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: N/A S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type Res olu#on 7/21/2021 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING FIRE CHIEF AND EMERGENCY MANAGER BERG, FOR LEADERSIP DURING PANDEMIC WHEREAS, Fire Chief Berg has shown incredible resilience and leadership through this pandemic, and WHEREAS, Fire Chief Berg became a Certified Emergency Manager logging 52 classroom hours and 100 hours of independent study; and WHEREAS, Fire Chief Berg continually provided city leadership with pandemic trends and looked ahead to make sure the city was positioned to respond; and WHEREAS, Fire Chief Berg used his resources to ensure the city was prepared with proper personal protective equipment (PPE) and leveraged his contacts to open two vaccination clinics supported by the city; and WHERAS, Fire Chief Berg responded to civil unrest and organized strike team task forces in the event the unrest went poorly and again used his resources and contacts to make sure the city was prepared to respond. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that we recognize Fire Chief and Emergency Manager Berg, for his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. July 26, 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. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:7/26/2021 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:D r. Reggie Edwards, A c#ng City Manager T H R O U G H :M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector BY:G inny M cI ntosh, City P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance A mending C hapter 35 of the City Code of O rdinances Regarding the Zoning C lassifica#on of 6221 S hingle C reek Parkway Requested Council A con: Moon to approve a second r eading and adopt an ordinance amending C hapter 3 5 of the C ity C ode of Ordinances regarding the z oning classificaon of 6221 S hingle C reek Parkway. B ackground: O n J une 10, 2021, the P lanning Commission conducted a public hearing on P lanning Commission A pplica#on No. 2 0 2 1 -0 0 2 , s ubmi:ed by A eon/The Crest A partments, L L C (“the A pplicant ”), for cons idera#on of requests that w ould allow for the cons truc#on of a s econd 4 8 -unit mul#-family res iden#al building and related building and s ite improvements, an amendment to the Zoning M ap to r emove the S ubject P roperty, located at 6221 S hingle C r eek Parkway, fr om the C entral C ommer ce O verlay D is trict and establis h a P lanned U nit D evelopment, and a recommended amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive P lan to allow for increas ed dens i#es within the C ommer cial M ixed-U s e future land use designa#on, of w hich the S ubject P roperty is a part of. The S ubj ect P r oper ty requires r emoval from the City ’s exis #ng C entr al Commerce O v erlay D is trict as res iden#al uses are not outlined as a permi:ed us e. A s part of the ongoing Zoning Code update to bring it into conformance w ith the 2040 C ompr ehens ive P lan, the Central C ommer ce O verlay D is trict w ill be revised or removed; how ev er, s ince that work is not yet complete, the propos al included the remov al of this property from the O verlay D is trict. The S ubject P roperty is already the s ite of a 122-unit apar tment building that pre-dates the O verlay D is trict. I n addi#on to the z oning code amendment to remove the S ubject P roperty from the C entral C ommerce O verlay D is trict, in order to es tablish a P lanned Unit D evelopment on the S ubject P roperty, it must ul#mately be re-z oned from its cur rent R7 (Mul#ple Family Residence) D istrict des igna#on to a P U D D is trict per S ec#on 35-355 of the C ity C ode. I n this par#cular case, the S ubj ect P roperty w ould be re-z oned to P U D /M X-C (P lanned U nit D evelopment/C ommercial M ixed-U s e) D is trict. Following clos e the of public hearing, the P lanning C ommis s ion elected to unanimously (4-0) recommend City C ouncil appr oval of the aforemen#oned requests. O n J une 28, 2 0 2 1 , C ity C ouncil unanimous ly approved (5-0) the requested s ite and building plan, es tablishment of a P lanned U nit D ev elopment, and Zoning M ap amendment to remov e the S ubject P roperty from the O v er lay D istr ict. C ity C ouncil also approved a firs t reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 3 5 of the Zoning C ode of O r dinances regarding the zoning clas s ifica#on of the S ubject P roperty located at 6221 S hingle Creek Park w ay and s et the s econd reading and public hear ing for this evening. A public hearing no#ce w as publis hed in the Brooklyn C enter S un Post on J uly 8, 2021 (a:ached). A s part of the A pplicant's reques ts under P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica#on N o. 2021-002, City C ouncil also made a recommenda#on to approve the reques ted C omprehens ive P lan A mendment to allow for increas ed densi#es; how ev er, final approval is deter mined by the M etropolitan Council thr ough a s eparate proces s . F inal approv al of all r eques ts is r equir ed in order for the propos al to pr oceed, and the A pplicant w ill need to comply w ith all condi#ons of approval as outlined in City Council Res olu#on No. 2021-083 (a:ached). B udget I ssues: None to cons ider at this #me. I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: Not applicable for this reques t. A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: Not applicable for this reques t. S trategic Priories and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type P ublis hed No#ce - O rdinance A mending Chapter 35 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances (6221 S hingle Creek Parkw ay)7/19/2021 O rdinance C ity C ouncil Resolu#on No. 2021-083 7/19/2021 Backup M aterial S taff Report and Exhibits - 6221 S hingle Creek Parkw ay (A eon/C res t A partments L L C)7/19/2021 Backup M aterial P res enta#on 8/18/2021 P resenta#on Member Graves introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2021-83 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2021-002 FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ZONING MAP AND 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 48-UNIT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 122-UNIT CREST APARTMENTS BUILDING AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS(6221 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002, submitted by Aeon/The Crest Apartments LLC ("the Applicant") requests review and consideration for the establishment of a Planned Unit Development and an amendment to the City's zoning map that would allow for the construction of a 48-unit building addition to the existing 122-unit Crest Apartments and related site improvements to the property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway the Subject Property");and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the Central Commerce Overlay District and pursuant to a determination by City staff, this District does not permit residential uses and therefore requires removal from said District; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota received and reviewed a planning report on the requested site and building plan, establishment of a Planned Unit Development, which would re-zone the Subject Property from R7 Multiple Family Residence) District to Planned Unit Development-Commercial Mixed-Use District, and an amendment to the City's zoning map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District for the proposed new construction and related site improvements on the approximately 4.37-acre Subject Property;and WHEREAS, said Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 also addresses a request to amend the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of"Commercial Mixed-Use," of which the Subject Property is designated as, to allow the density range to increase from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, which would accommodate the density needs required to move forward with the proposal and address oversights during completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan regarding the densities of existing multi-family residential uses within this designation and the anticipated future density needs as this land use designation anticipates 50-percent of the land use for residential development at densities slightly lower than the adjacent TOD land use designation, but only comprises 1.64 percent of the City's total land area;and WHEREAS, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan outlines that the majority of forecasted growth within the City is anticipated to occur within the maj or redevelopment areas guided primarily as Transit Oriented Development (TOD)and Commercial Mixed-Use; and RESOLUTION NO. 2021-83 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota held a duly noticed and called public hearing on June 10, 2021, whereby a planning report was presented and public testimony regarding the proposal were received. Notice of such public hearing was published in the official newspaper and mailed to the Applicant and adjacent property owners as required by the City and Minnesota State Statute;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota considered the application requests in light of all testimony received, and the guidelines and standards as outlined under Sections 35-202 (Comprehensive Planning) 35-208 (Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines), 35-210 (Rezoning Application Procedures and Reconsideration), 35-230 (Plan Approva, and 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and the request complies with the general goals and obj ectives of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan, with exception to the requested amendment to the Comprehensive Planto provide the increased density range required to move forward with the proj ect,and of which requires final determination by the Metropolitan Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002, submitted by Aeon/The Crest Apartments LLC, be approved based upon the findings of fact in the June 10, 2021, planning report, and submitted documents and plans as amended by the following conditions of approval: 1. Site and Building Plan Review: a. Any significant changes or modifications made to this request can only be made by an amendment to the approved plans and documents as approved by the City Council. b. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. c. The Applicant shall provide elevation drawings demonstrating compliance with the City's architectural guidelines, which specify a minimum of 50-percent Class I and remaining Class II building materials per elevation (face). d. The Applicant shall update all existing ground trash and equipment enclosures to comply with City code requirements with regard to screening. e. The Applicant shall provide any final site and building plans to City staff for a CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) review and make alterations as necessary prior to permit release. f. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable 2020 Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any site and building plan approval. i. A fire sprinkler system is required to be installed per Section 903 of the 2020 Minnesota Fire Code and 2020 Minnesota State Building Code and shall be maintained on a consistent basis in the proposed 48-unit addition and enclosed garage. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-83 ii. The Applicant shall comply with riser room access and improvement requirements, FDC connection, and fire access aisle requirements. g. The Applicant shall install irrigation systems where necessary to facilitate site maintenance,and irrigation shop drawings for review and approval shall be provided prior to installation. h. The Applicant shall provide a lighting or photometric plan that identifies all existing and proposed lighting for the parking lots and buildings and in conformance with the City's code and architectural guidelines requirements. Fixture specifications shall be provided prior to issuance of any building permits. i. The Applicant shall submit a Sign Permit Application for any proposed signage(e.g., wall, freestanding) and receive issuance of a permit prior to any installation. All signage shall conform to City requirements. 2. Agreements: a. The Applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center. This agreement is to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. b. A Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City shall be executed upon any approval of the to-be submitted building permit for site and building improvements,which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards. c. An as-built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines shall be submitted prior to release of any Performance Agreement financial guarantee. d. A Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required for submittal to the City prior to issuance of any permits. e. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement and associated escrow are required for submittal prior to the City prior to issuance of any permits. f. A pre-construction meeting is required prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. Engineering Review: a. The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Assistant City Engineer's review memorandum, dated June 4, 2021. b. Final grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer for City site and building plan approval and prior to the issuance of permits. RESOLUTION NO. 2021-83 June 28, 2021 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lawrence-Anderson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereo£ Butler, Elliott, Graves, Lawrence-Anderson, Ryan and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: June 10, 2021 Application No. 2021-002 Applicant: Aeon | The Crest Apartments LLC Location: 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway (The Crest Apartments) Requests: Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow construction of a second 48-unit multi-family residential building and related site improvements, an amendment to Zoning Map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District, and an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for increased densities within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation Requested Action Aeon/The Crest Apartments LLC (“Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of a proposal to construct a new five story, 48-unit apartment building at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway (“Subject Property”). The proposed new building would focus on providing housing for families in 1, 2, and 3- bedroom units and be physically connected to the existing 13-story, 122-unit Crest Apartment building, which would be renovated as part of the overall project. A single studio unit would be added to the existing Crest Apartment building in an office space for a combined total of 171 units between both buildings. Due to the nature of the request, approval of a site and building plan and establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is required. A zoning code text amendment is also required to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District, in addition to a comprehensive plan amendment to accommodate additional density needs within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation. Refer to attached Exhibit A for the provided project narrative and plans. As part of the application process, a public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on May 27, 2021 (Exhibit B), and notices were mailed to property owners within vicinity of the Subject Property, including those single family homes located along Brooklyn Drive, just west of the Subject Property. To date, the City has not received any comments regarding the proposal. The City also installed a sign on the Subject Property, indicating a development proposal was under review and to contact the City with any questions. Background Aeon purchased what is now known as the Crest Apartments in July 2012 through a HUD foreclosure process to ensure the long-term affordability of residents. In 2014, some initial renovations were completed, including work on the building systems. It was during this time that initial discussions were held regarding a future build out on the 4.37-acre Subject Property. In November 2017, these discussions were revisited and some initial meetings and concept proposals were provided to City staff to weigh in on. • Application Filed: 05/11/2021 • Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/10/2021 • Extension Declared: N/A • Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 2 In 2020, these discussions were reignited and a concept proposal was presented to the City Council on April 26, 2021. Based on the feedback provided by City Council, the Applicant subsequently submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 for consideration. The 122-unit apartment building currently on the Subject Property was originally approved under Planning Commission Application No. 72083 in 1972, which had been authorized under the Federal Housing Administration’s “236” housing program. The Section 236 program was originally established by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and combined Federal mortgage insurance with interest reduction payments to the mortgagee for the production of low-cost rental housing, and was one of the methods used at that time to boost the nation’s existing housing supply. As proposed, the new five-story addition would provide a unit mix of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two- bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. The existing Crest Apartment building is currently comprised of 78 one-bedroom units and 44 two-bedroom units, with plans to convert an existing office space into a studio apartment for a combined total of 171 units. Site Data: 2040 Land Use Plan: Commercial Mixed-Use (10.01-25 DU/Ac.) Neighborhood: Centennial Current Zoning: R7 (Multiple Family Residence) | Central Commerce Overlay District Site Area: 4.37 Acres Surrounding Area: Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North CM-U R1 (One Family Residence) District and Central Commerce Overlay Institutional South PSP/Institutional C1A (Service/Office) District and Central Commerce Overlay Institutional East CM-U C2 (Commerce) District and Central Commerce Overlay Office West Parks, Recreation, Open Space R1 (One Family Residence) District and Central Commerce Overlay Park, Recreational, or Preserve App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 3 Map 1. Subject Property Location (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway) REQUESTS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT A comprehensive plan amendment is required anytime a community changes any part of a municipality’s adopted comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to: • Changes resulting from neighborhood or small area planning activities • Land use changes to allow a proposed development • Proposed forecast changes to proposed MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) changes in service or staging • Text changes to revise a policy or land use category • Routine updates to incorporate new information or update a public facilities agreement These requests are ultimately submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and final approval; however, they require a recommendation from the local planning body, and local governing body authorization for the amendment. In certain cases, an adjacent jurisdictional review is also required to allow for other affected municipalities and districts to weigh in on any potential impacts. The Subject Property currently has a future land use designation of Commercial Mixed-Use (10.01-25 Dwelling Units per Acre) under the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Assuming a total of 171 units, the 4.37-acre Subject Property would have a proposed density of 39.1 dwelling units per acre. This would be an increase in density of 11.2 dwelling units per acre, as the 122-unit Crest Apartment building has a current density of 27.9 dwelling units per acre. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 4 Map 2. 2040 Future Land Use Plan and Subject Property (highlighted in black). In reviewing properties affected by the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation, City staff determined there was an oversight during completion of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process, as there are existing residential properties with densities above the outlined 25 dwelling units per acre threshold. The City recognizes that in addition to the potential conversion of existing office uses to residential, which might result in higher densities, the Commercial-Mixed Use designation, more than any other designation outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, allows for a vast range of potential uses, including office, hotel, multi-family residential, single-story commercial, and event center uses. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan notes that much of the forecasted growth within the City of Brooklyn Center is anticipated to occur within the major redevelopment areas guided primarily as Transit Orientated Development (TOD), and Commercial Mixed-Use, which the Subject Property is designated as. “Commercial Mixed-Use” is a new land use designation and guides for a mix of commercial, office, retail, service, and residential uses. This designation is guided for areas adjacent to the TOD and is planned to have a more significant proportion of the land use designated for the aforementioned uses, including supporting residential uses. An anticipated 50-percent of the land use is planned for residential development at densities slightly lower than the adjacent TOD land use designation, which allows for a density range of 31.01-130 dwelling units per acre. It should be further noted that the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation as outlined in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan accounts for only 1.64 percent (88.06 acres) of the total land area within the City of Brooklyn Center (5,360.75 acres). The Commercial Mixed-Use designation has a focus on providing both walkable and bikeable connections to adjacent TOD land uses and the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, located off Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). City staff feels the essence of the Commercial Mixed-Use land use designation is captured in the Subject Property due to its relationship to the adjacent park, and its proximity to the Three Rivers Park District Shingle Creek Regional Trail, which winds around the Subject Property. The Subject Property is serviced by a Route 722 bus stop just off the property, and the Brooklyn Center Transit Center, which is less than one mile away and accessible via sidewalk, trail, and bus, if necessary. Given the location of the Subject Property and its adjacency to the City’s Centennial Park, the Applicant App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 5 notes in their narrative (Exhibit A) that construction of the new 48-unit, 5-story building on the western end of the Subject Property and the increased density would have minimal impacts on the neighboring properties and ample open space and outdoor amenities for existing and new residents. Following a review of existing residential properties falling within the Commercial Mixed-Use future land use designation and with respect to potential future redevelopment in the adjacent lands, City staff requests that the City of Brooklyn Center’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” to allow for a density range of 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, which would capture existing multi-family residential uses that fall within this designation, as well as any potential future redevelopment within this designation. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for a density range increase of the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, approval of the related site and building plan, Planned Unit Development, and Zoning Code amendment requests, and contingent upon final approval from the Metropolitan Council. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Overlay districts generally apply an extra level of regulations or development criteria above the standard underlying zoning district. The Central Commerce Overlay District is an area roughly bounded by I-694 on the north, Highway 100 on the south and east, Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, and Shingle Creek on the north, and includes a specific list of permitted uses. Residential uses are not listed, which means they are not permitted within the overlay district. It should be noted, however, that there are multi- family residential properties in the Overlay District today that pre-date the establishment of this District. As part of the ongoing Zoning Code update, the Central Commerce Overlay District will be revised or removed; however, since that work is not yet complete, the proposal includes the removal of this property from the overlay district. In 2019, a similar request was made and approved by City Council as part of the redevelopment of the former Jerry’s Foods site (5801 Xerxes Avenue North) into a combined 270-units of housing across two multi-family residential buildings, now known as Sonder House and Sonder Pointe. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Code and associated map to remove the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay District in order to allow for additional dwelling units to be constructed on the Subject Property. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the Subject Property for Commercial Mixed-Use, with approximately 50-percent of this designation anticipated for residential use. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 6 Map 3. Central Commerce Overlay District and Subject Property (highlighted in black). Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested amendment to the City’s Zoning Code to allow for the removal of the Subject Property, located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, from the Central Commerce Overlay District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related site and building plan, Planned Unit Development, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Section 35-355 (Planned Unit Development) of the City’s Zoning Code notes that upon the rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters “PUD” followed by the alphanumeric designation of the underlying zoning district, which may be either the prior zoning classification or a new classification. Given that the major update to the City Zoning Code is currently underway and changes to districts are anticipated in order to align with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the request would be to re-zone following guidance from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan future land use designations for the Subject Property. This allows for flexibility within the Zoning Code for developments which would not be allowed under the existing regulations. PUDs are often used to achieve a higher quality development, or achieve other City goals, in exchange for zoning flexibility from the City Code. PUDs may only contain uses consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities, and the approval of a land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City ordinances generally governing them— essentially the City Council may approve plans that are not in compliance with the usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of residents or the City, although plans shall comply with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. As proposed, the request would be to re-zone from R-7 (Multiple Family Residence) District, which is the City’s highest density residential district (maximum of 31 dwelling units per acre), to Planned Unit App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 7 Development-Commercial Mixed Use. As approval of any development plan for the Subject Property shall constitute a re-zoning to PUD, approvals to establish a PUD require the City Council to base its actions on the re-zoning under the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes, and intent of this section (Section 35- 355); 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested establishment of a Planned Unit Development to allow for the re- zoning of the Subject Property, located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, to Planned Unit Development- Commercial Mixed-Use District, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related site and building plan, Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN Site Design The proposed development would result in the construction of a 48-unit, five story addition intended to serve families (family focused units). The proposed addition would be located just west of the existing 13-story Crest Apartment building and be oriented north to south. The new addition and existing apartment building would share a lobby, amenities (e.g. community room, fitness room, learning center, laundry rooms), and be physically connected via a pedestrian walkway. The lobby would serve as the new primary entrance and leasing center for all 171 units. The proposal also contemplates the installation of a children’s play structure, garden boxes for residents, and an outdoor patio off the proposed community room. Images 1 and 2. Existing Site and Proposed New 5-Story Addition and Site Improvements (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 8 Setbacks The proposed five-story addition identifies a front yard setback of approximately 300 feet from the property line abutting Shingle Creek Parkway, approximately 93 feet to the rear (or west) of the Subject Property, which abuts Centennial Park, and approximately 65 feet at its closest interior setback along the north end of the Subject Property, which abuts City Hall. No new construction is anticipated for the existing 13-story Crest Apartment building. Architectural Materials The City’s Architectural Design Guidelines require at least 50-percent of each elevation (face) of a building to be constructed of Class I materials, with the remainder constructed of Class II materials. The proposed five-story addition anticipates installation of Hardie Board siding in a vertical orientation, and metal paneling in both vertical and horizontal orientations. An elevation by elevation breakdown of Class I and Class II building materials was not provided. City staff requests that the Applicant forward an exhibit to determine conformance pending approval of the application requests. Image 3. Rendering of New Five-Story Addition (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Access and Parking Image 4. Proposed Parking Layout of Subject Property (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 9 The Subject Property is currently served by two access points: a right-in/right-out driveway off the southbound lane of Shingle Creek Parkway, and a private drive access located to the south of the Subject Property that provides shared access to the Subject Property and Hennepin County Service Center (6125 Shingle Creek Parkway). This access is controlled by a traffic light at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and the terminus of Summit Drive. The Applicant proposes to maintain these access points; however, the Applicant will need to determine if any amendments to a previously recorded ingress and egress easement (Document No. 1429165), or Maintenance Easement (Document No. 1723923) are required. Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg in his memorandum dated June 4, 2021 (Exhibit C), detailed vehicle turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, buses, etc. are to be provided demonstrating proposed and actual routing throughout the Subject Property. A narrative and plans would also be required outlining any temporary parking or access constraints during the course of construction. As proposed, the updated parking lot would provide 24-foot wide drive lanes, which is the minimum width required to allow for two-way traffic. Two areas appear to be set back near the existing entrance to the Crest Apartment building and the proposed new entrance, which would offer a space for drop- offs, pick-ups, and deliveries. There are a total of 171 dwelling units proposed between the two buildings. Section 35-704 (Minimum Parking Spaces Required) of the Zoning Ordinance requires two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit, or 342 total on-site parking spaces. As part of the original site and building plan approvals for the 122-unit Crest Apartment building in 1972, the project was approved with the understanding that less parking would be required due to evidence provided at the time indicating that subsidized housing relied less heavily on on-site parking. Pursuant to City records, it appears the Subject Property was approved with allocations for a total of 244 on-site parking spaces, and based on a completed parking lot of 123 parking spaces and a “proof of parking” for 121 additional spaces located westerly of the existing parking area and in the location of the proposed new five-story addition. While the majority of the parking lot is proposed for surface lot parking (164 spaces and 14 “proof of parking”), an additional 31 parking spaces would be available at the ground floor level of the proposed new addition. Assuming the existence of 130 stalls for 122 units in the existing parking lot, on-site parking is currently provided at 1.06 spaces per unit. The Applicant indicates in their narrative (Exhibit A) that the current parking lot is underutilized, and the proposal is to rebuild the parking lot with a storm management system below. A total of 195 on-site parking spaces would be constructed for the proposed 171 dwelling units for 1.14 spaces per unit, with an option to increase parking by 14 spaces for a total of 209 spaces or 1.22 spaces per unit if a need is determined in the future. The Applicant should note any considerations with regard to controlled access via the proposed garage structure. It is understood that the Applicant held some initial discussions with other City staff regarding safety and security considerations with regard to their building plan, but a CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) was not completed. Pending approval of the requests, City staff requests that the Applicant follow up with City staff for a more formal review of the proposed site and building improvements. As proposed, the new five-story addition would be constructed on top of the existing 121-space “proof of parking.” Per City staff request, a Parking Study (Exhibit D) was completed by Alliant Engineering to App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 10 determine whether sufficient on-site parking would be provided with the proposed improvements. Their study was conducted on Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021 between the hours of 5 a.m. and 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. and midnight. At peak, the provided Parking Study indicated that a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles was observed in both of the early morning and late evening hours of Thursday, May 6th, with a slightly lower peak demand observed on Saturday, May 8th. A peak parking rate of 98 vehicles on-site for the 117-units currently occupied at the Crest Apartment building, which equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit. The above rate was then used to calculate a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles that could be expected to utilize the existing parking lot under a scenario in which all 122-units in the existing Crest Apartment building were occupied. Under this scenario, and assuming a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit, it is assumed there would be a surplus of 30 parking stalls utilizing the existing surface parking lot. Assuming construction of an additional 48-units of housing within the proposed five-story addition and the conversion of an existing office space in the existing Crest Apartment building to a studio apartment, Alliant Engineering estimated a peak parking demand of 145 vehicles assuming full occupancy of both buildings (171 total units). Assuming construction of 195 parking stalls, it is anticipated there would be a 50-stall surplus (34.5 percent) of on-site parking, and that the proposed 14-space “proof of parking” to the east of the existing Crest Apartment building would not be required. It should be noted that the above calculations assume a 0.84 vehicles per occupied unit peak parking rate, and that the existing Crest Apartment building is comprised of 78 one-bedroom and 44 two- bedroom units. The proposed 48-unit addition proposes a mix of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units. As the intent is for the proposed addition to offer family-focused units, there is also the reality that there may be more cars per unit given the increased unit size. A 2018 survey of available parking spaces at other multi-family rental properties by City staff revealed few properties in the City meet the current requirement of two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit. The lack of parking citations issued at apartment complexes with fewer than two parking spaces per unit in the City comparable to this proposed development seems to indicate a lack of parking may be minimal. It is anticipated that both existing and future residents of the Subject Property will utilize the adjacent bus stop off Shingle Creek Parkway, as well as the nearby Brooklyn Center Transit Center. The Subject Property is currently serviced by sidewalks and trails to the east and west of the property, but proposes the addition of new sidewalks and connections to the adjacent Centennial Park and trails, as well as exterior bike parking near the main building entrances. Lighting The Zoning Code notes, “all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination of the property of the owner or operator of said illumination devices.” The submitted photometric plan proposes an average of 2.75 foot-candles across the site with a maximum concentration of 7.4 foot-candles towards the center of the site and parking lot. As proposed, 11 luminaires would be distributed throughout the surface parking lot, along with 11 bollard-style pedestrian lights placed around the perimeters of the new and existing apartment buildings, and pendant style down-lighting and wall-packs. Per the City Zoning Code, lighting shall not exceed three (3) foot candles measured at property lines App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 11 abutting residentially zoned property, or 10 foot candles measured at the property lines abutting the street right-of-way or non-residentially zoned properties. As is specified, no glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. The photometric plan indicates the fixtures are generally consistent with the Zoning Code requirements. The Applicant should ensure sufficient lighting is provided and distributed over all entrances and exits, walkways, and near site amenities (e.g. playground, trash enclosure). The Applicant should also ensure sufficient lighting is provided near pedestrian access points off Shingle Creek Parkway and with consideration to potential travel routes to the new five-story addition (i.e. path of least resistance). Trash As proposed, the new five-story addition would have access to a trash enclosure on the southeast corner of the new building, to the east of the proposed garage doors. Per a review of the existing building and submitted plans, it appears the plan is to retain the existing trash enclosure located just west of the existing entrance to the Crest Apartment building for those residents. Assuming this, City staff requests that the existing trash enclosure be updated to comply with City requirements, including but not limited to a full screening of the trash enclosure with opaque doors, and walls high enough to completely contain any dumpsters. Given the current location of the trash enclosure, City staff is also requesting that the Applicant entertain options for screening trash from top view (i.e. the apartments above). The Applicant should provide a proposal for frequency of trash pick-up and determine the need for garbage and recycling containers to be placed throughout the site (e.g. near building entrances, near proposed community amenities). Images 5 and 6. Proposed New and Existing Trash Enclosure Locations (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Screening All ground mounted equipment (e.g., transformers, mechanical) shall be effectively screened from adjacent public rights-of-way and properties by a solid wall or fence constructed of wood, masonry, or other durable materials that are complementary to the materials used on the primary building. Per Chapter 12 (Building Maintenance and Occupancy) of the City Code, roof-mounted equipment shall also be screened from view through use of parapets, wall/ fencing materials, or paint to match surrounding colors when visible from the public right-of-way. In reviewing the Subject Property, City staff noted there is current ground-mounted equipment at the northeast corner of the existing Crest Apartment building and visible from Shingle Creek Parkway that is not in compliance with the aforementioned code requirements, as the enclosure is too short to provide any screening. As part of any approval, City staff is requesting this enclosure be updated to comply. See Image 7 below. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 12 Image 7. Non-Compliant Ground Mounted Equipment (6221 Shingle Creek Parkway). Landscaping The project submittal includes a landscape plan and planting schedule, Although City Code does not have any specific requirements on the species of landscaping, and the City has operated under and held new and redeveloped areas to complying with the City’s adopted Landscape Point System policy, which assigns points to a given site based on the acreage and type of development. The point system requires multi-family residential sites to provide a specific amount or number of landscaping units, and is based on the maximum percentage of certain materials (i.e., 50% shade trees; 40% coniferous trees; 35% decorative trees; and 25% shrubs). Given a “Multi-Family Residential” use and assuming an approximately 4.37 acre site, the Subject Property would have to accrue 358 points. (2 acres * 90 + 2.37 acres * 75 = 357.75 points). Planting Type Minimum Size Points Per Planting Maximum Points (%) Points Accrued Shade (Deciduous) Trees 2 ½” diameter 10 50% or 179 points 179 points (67 trees * 10 points) Coniferous (Evergreen) Trees 5’ height 6 40% or 143 points 0 points (0 trees * 6 points) Decorative (Ornamental) Trees 1” diameter 1.5 35% or 125 points 9 points (6 trees * 1.5 points) Shrubs 12” diameter 0.5 25% or 90 points 172.5 points (345 shrubs * .5 points) Total 360.5 points Based on a review of the submitted Landscape Plan, dated May 11, 2021, the plan meets and exceeds the minimum requirements under the Landscape Point System Policy at 360.5 points achieved. The Applicant may want to identify potential coniferous trees for planting as none were identified on the submitted plan. As proposed, the Applicant desires to plant native plantings where possible to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. City staff is supportive of this particularly given the Subject Property’s location next to Centennial Park and Shingle Creek. Signs No specific signage requests were made regarding new or revised signage for the Subject Property, although a sign is indicated in the submitted architectural plans on top of the proposed new main App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 13 entrance. The City is currently underway with an update to multiple City codes, including the Sign Code. Any signage will need to comply with the allowances as outlined in the adopted City signage regulations, and the Applicant will need to apply for and receive issuance of a sign permit prior to any installation. Engineering Review Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer, reviewed plans and provided a memorandum, dated June 4, 2021 (Exhibit C). Most of the comments pertain to the need for plan corrections and additional details. Many of the provided comments relate to the proposed stormwater details and systems and the ability to capture and route surface run-off from parking areas through soil medium prior to discharge in the proposed underground stormwater system. Assistant City Engineer Hogg also requests that detailed turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, etc. be provided. In addition an NPDES permit is required as the total disturbed area would exceed one acre, and a Construction Management Plan and Agreement, and Utility Facilities Easement Agreement shall be submitted to the City in advance of any permit release. The Applicant will also require a watershed plan review and conform to watershed rules. A stormwater report dated May 11, 2021 and attached as Exhibit E was also completed by Pierce Pini & Associates per City staff request as the Subject Property abuts Shingle Creek and is located at least partially in the 100-year floodplain. The City has record of an approved Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) on file that indicates the existing Crest Apartment building is outside the 100-year floodplain and located in Flood Zone B (also known as Zone X), which is considered to be a moderate flood hazard area located between the limits of the base flood and 0.2 percent annual change (or 500-year) flood. Per the report provided, the identified peak elevation for a 100-year storm event was 842.37 feet. This would provide more than two feet of separation between the 100-year peak elevation and the low floor opening of the existing and proposed buildings. Fire Inspection/Building Review Pending approval of the requests, the Applicant will need to submit full construction plans, including but not limited to: architectural, structural, mechanical, civil, landscaping, and photometric plans to the City for review. A fire sprinkler and monitoring system is required for installation and is to be maintained at all times in the new five-story addition and enclosed garage. The Applicant will also need to meet any minimum ADA requirements with regard to the building and site improvements. All building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. CPTED Review City staff is requesting the Applicant forward any final site and building plans to City staff for CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) review and commentary. City staff is to the understanding that initial discussions were held regarding the building plans, but no formal recommendations were provided by City staff. Based on the above noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the requested site and building plans for the proposed new five-story addition, building and site improvements for the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, subject to the Applicant complying with the Conditions of Approval as noted below, and approval of the related Planned Unit Development, Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests. App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 14 APPROVAL CONDITIONS Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 for the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway: 1. Site and Building Plan Review: All requested alterations will need to be approved by City staff with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits, and fire related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief. a. Any significant changes or modifications made to this request can only be made by an amendment to the approved plans and documents as approved by the City Council. b. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. c. The Applicant shall provide any final site and building plans to City staff for a CPTED review and make alterations as necessary prior to permit release. d. The Applicant shall work to ensure all applicable Minnesota Fire Code requirements have been met as part of any site plan approval. e. A fire sprinkler system is required to be installed and shall be maintained on a consistent basis in the proposed five-story addition and enclosed garage. f. The Applicant shall install irrigation systems where necessary to facilitate site maintenance, and irrigation shop drawings for review and approval prior to installation. g. The Applicant shall provide a lighting plan that identifies all existing and proposed lighting for the parking lots and building. The lighting plan shall include a site wide photometric plan that is in conformance with the lighting provisions as noted under the City Zoning Ordinance and in consideration of the City’ s Architectural Design Guidelines. Fixture specifications shall be provided prior to issuance of any building permits. h. The Applicant shall submit a Sign Permit Application for any proposed signage (e.g., wall, freestanding) and receive issuance of a permit prior to any installation. All signage shall conform to City requirements. 2. Agreements: a. The Applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center. This agreement is to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. b. A Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City shall be executed upon any approval of the to-be submitted building permit for site improvements, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards. c. The Developer shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of any Performance Agreement financial guarantee. d. A Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required for submittal to the City prior to issuance of any permits. e. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement and associated escrow are required for submittal prior to the City prior to issuance of any permits. 3. Engineering Review: a. The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Assistant App. No. 2021-002 PC 06/10/2021 Page 15 City Engineer’s review memorandum, dated June 4, 2021. b. Final grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plans and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer for City site and building plan approval and prior to the issuance of permits. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above-noted findings, staff recommends the following motion: Motion to approve a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve (1) the submitted site and building plan, (2) establishment of a Planned Unit Development, (3) an amendment to the Zoning Code and associated Map to remove the Subject Property located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway from the Central Commerce Overlay District, and (4) an amendment to the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for a density range increase of the future land use designation of “Commercial Mixed-Use” from 10.01 to 25 dwelling units per acre to 10.01 to 60 dwelling units per acre, based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, as amended by the Conditions of Approval in the June 10, 2021 Planning Commission Report, and subject to final approval by the Metropolitan Council for the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Planning Commission Application No. 2021-002 Plans and Documents, submitted May 11, 2021. Exhibit B – Public Hearing Notice, as published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, and dated May 27, 2021. Exhibit C – Review Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, and dated June 4, 2021. Exhibit D – The Crest Apartments Parking Study, prepared by Alliant Engineering, and dated May 18, 2021. Exhibit E – Stormwater Calculations for Aeon Crest II Apartments, prepared by Pierce Pini & Associates, Inc. and dated May 11, 2021. Applicant Information: Name: Address: Office Phone: Cell: Email: FAX: Property Owner Information* (if different from Applicant): Name: Property Owner Address: Office Phone: Cell: Email: FAX: 2021 Planning Commission Application Project Information: Provide a general description of your project and request(s): Address/Location of Property: Legal Description of Property: Application Type (Mark all that Apply) Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,050 Appeal $200 Rezoning $1,050 Zoning Code Text Amendment $500 Special/Interim Use Permit $250 Special/Interim Use Permit Amendment $150 Site and Building Plan Review $750 Variance $200 Planned Unit Development $1,800 Planned Unit Development Amendment $700 Preliminary Plat $400 Final Plat $200 IMPORTANT: All applications may be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of costs incurred by the City for filing, reviewing, and processing applications in the form of an escrow to the City. Application Fee: $ Escrow Amount: $ Receipt No: For Office Use Only Date Received: Date Application Complete: Letter of Completeness: PC App No. For Office Use Only Exhibit A Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned acknowledges that they understand that before a Planning Commission application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. By signing and submitting this application, the Applicant agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center the actual costs incurred for expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the review, filing, and processing of the application. Such costs will be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application will not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Any administrative fees paid as part of the submission of this application are nonrefundable. ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ___________________________________________________ ______________________ Applicant Signature (If different than Property Owner) Date Memorandum TO: City of Brooklyn Park City Council, Planning Commission & Planning Staff COPY: Leslie Roering, Beth Shogren, Jen Small -Aeon & Joe Brown, Ellie Ziaie – BKV Group FROM: Chris Palkowitsch, AIA – BKV Group DATE: 05/11/2021 RE: Crest Apartments – Site and Building Plan Review & PUD Aeon with BKV Group is proposing to add additional development and renovations to the Crest Apartments at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway. This site is 4.37 acres (190,483 SF) and houses the 13 story Crest Apartments with 122 existing affordable units, constructed in 1972. The new proposal adds 48 housing units in a five-story building and 1 unit to the existing building for a new site total of 171 units. The new building addition is connected to the existing building with a shared first level lobby, amenities, and enclosed link. The new units will focus on providing affordable units for families. The proposed addition unit mix consists of 4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom units. The existing building will be renovated, primarily focusing on maintaining the current use of the building for years to come, additionally one studio unit will be added to the existing building replacing an existing office space. The remainder of the existing building unit mix consists of 78 one-bedroom units and 44 two-bedroom units. Aeon Aeon’s mission is to create and sustain quality affordable homes that strengthen lives and communities. Over the past 35 years, we have successfully developed, redeveloped, or preserved more than 5,650 apartment homes in 59 properties, providing homes to more than 15,000 people in Minnesota. Aeon is a non-profit owner and manager. The name ‘Aeon’ is from the Latin word ‘eon’ meaning ‘forever’, demonstrating our focus on providing long-term, quality, homes. Aeon purchased The Crest Apartments in 2012 through a HUD foreclosure process to ensure the long-term affordability for existing and future residents. In 2014, initial renovations were completed on many of the building systems. The proposed project will complete renovations to the main building systems and enhance the feeling of home for our residents with interior upgrades. The Crest Apartments is a mix of one- and two-bedroom units. The proposed project will preserve and expand on those units and add much needed three bedrooms units to the mix. The Twin Cities has a severe need for more affordable homes. There are currently only 37 affordable homes available for every 100 extremely low- income families in need (MN Housing). And without stable housing, people cannot properly address their health, education, employment, and social needs. Given the unusual time we face with the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an even greater need for affordable housing. Renters have lost income, childcare, and social supports. Significant disruptions to the pipeline of new affordable housing could mean fewer new units coming online in the upcoming months or years. Aeon is confident we can navigate this uncertainty. Together, we can ensure our community’s most vulnerable families have access to stability during this national crisis. Site & Zoning The site is located on Shingle Creek Parkway. The buildings to the east, across Shingle Creek Parkway are two office buildings and Shingle Creek Center. The northern border of the site is Shingle Creek and Brooklyn Center City Hall. The west site boundary is immediately adjacent to Centennial Park, the park amenities, and a vast trail system. Additionally, the Hennepin County Service Center and Library are located to the south. The site is on bus line 722 with bus stops in close proximity. The site is zoned R7 Multiple Family Residence. This project is being submitted as a Planned Unit Development, (PUD). With the addition of the new 48 units and the 1 unit added to the existing building, the project will total 171 units. The site will have 39.1units per acre, the existing building is at 27.9 units per acre. Base zoning allows for a density of 31 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, we are proposing a reduction in the base zoning site parking requirement of 2 stalls per unit, to 1.14 stalls per unit. Additional Units per Acre - The additional 48-unit building uses underutilized land on the site to add additional affordable units to the city. With the addition, the site still provides ample open space and new outdoor amenities to the residents. The site also has immediate access to Centennial Park and its trails. The positioning of the 5-story building has minor impacts to the neighboring properties, with almost no impact in the spring, summer, and autumns months. Parking Reduction - The existing parking lot has 130 stalls for 122 units, 1.06 Stalls per Unit. The current parking lot has been underutilized for a number of years. We are proposing to rebuild the parking lot with a robust storm management system below it. The new parking layout for the site will include 31 enclosed stalls within the new building and 164 surface stalls for a total of 195 stall for the 171 units, 1.14 Stalls per unit. Additionally, the site has 14 proof of parking sites in the north east corner. Aeon has completed a parking study that shows the peak vehicle demand to be .84 stalls per unit of need for the completed development. Project Design The current site and building underutilize the land by preserving a large amount of space on the west side of the site as proof of parking. The newly proposed 5 story addition seeks to better utilize the site while providing family focused units. The addition is I-shaped and runs north to south, connecting to the existing building with a new shared lobby, amenities, and enclosed building link (Pedestrian Walkway in MN Building Code terms). The new lobby will become the primary entry and leasing center for all the units. Additionally, the amenities shared by all residents will include a community room, fitness room, learning center, and laundry rooms. The site amenities will feature updated landscaping including a children’s play structure, garden boxes for residents, and an outdoor patio off the community room. Furthermore, the landscaping will include new trees and drought resistant plantings that change seasonally providing a mix of colors. The existing site parking lot is aged and needs to be reconstructed. We are proposing a more efficient parking layout, and the first floor of the new building will include 31 structured parking stalls. Parking cannot go below grade on this site due to the high ground water level and proximity to Shingle Creek. Vehicles access into parking garage is on the south side of the new building. The new surface parking lot will have 164 surface stalls with 14 additional proof of parking stalls. Storm water management will be handled by a below grade pipe system, located in the parking lot. Sustainability is integrated into the design and the project will meet Enterprise Green Community Standards. These standards focus on making sustainable design choices and positive impacts on the health of the residents. Some of the sustainability features include: · Solar ready - Roof top photovoltaic array for onsite energy production. · Improved site storm water management through treatment and rate control, current site is uncontrolled. · Native plantings and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. · Limited extents of irrigated turf grass to reduce the need for irrigation and maintenance. · On site garden beds for residents. · New sidewalks and enhanced landscaping, improving and promoting the walking experience around the site and connections to the park. · Exterior bike parking near the housing entries. · LED light fixtures. · Energy Star appliances. · High efficiency water heaters. · Recycling collection and chute in the new addition. · Durable exterior materials on the addition. · Efficient doors and windows, with Low -E coating on the addition. · Construction waste recycling. · Smoke free building. The exterior design of the apartment building has been influenced by the existing building and incorporates the concepts of the original building into an updated and refined design look with a retro feel. The existing tower is formed by two tall masses connected by the center blue recessed space. The primary window banding also creates a strong horizontal rhythm on the main elevations. The new 5 story addition has strong corner masses and a recessed center of the building, responding to the existing massing but creating something unique. The corner masses have a vertically stacked window look, in order to give the corners a taller appearance. The windows and banding in the center of the building are positioned horizontally, responding to the existing window banding. The building materials feature a dark brown burnished block at the first level, entry and at the link. The burnished block was selected to complement brick on the existing building. Informed by the existing building buff color, champagne metallic metal panels are utilized on the building corner masses creating a contemporary interpretation. The center recessed area is a blue painted cement panel from levels 2-5. Stormwater Management - PPA Project #20-046 The City of Brooklyn Center and the Shingle Creek Watershed District stormwater management rules and requirements apply to any site that disturbs more than one acre during development or redevelopment. Projects are required to meet the following standards: a. Rate Control – proposed runoff shall not exceed pre-development runoff rates for the 2-year, 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour design storm events. b. Water Quality – 80% total suspended solids and 60% total phosphorus shall be removed. c. Water Quality Volume – 1.0” over the new impervious area shall be abstracted from the impervious surfaces on the site Because the site is located within a floodplain, infiltration is not viable for this site because the 3’ separation from the bottom of a treatment system to the high-water level is not feasible. The site stormwater system needs to be a filtration system rather than an infiltration system. The site area is 4.38 acres. The new and redeveloped areas will be collected via catch basins and storm sewer and routed to the underground filtration system. This drainage area includes the new apartment building, reconstructed and new parking lot and sidewalks throughout the site. The approximate drainage area treated by the underground system is 3.35 acres. To meet city and watershed requirements the new filtration system consists of 2,540 lineal feet 48” diameter HDPE pipe beneath the reconstructed parking lot to control the runoff rates. The pipe system connects to a 5’x10.5’ Bioclean Water Polisher Filtration vault to meet water quality and volume control. Since the site stormwater cannot infiltrate, approximately 8,000 cubic feet of stormwater needs to filter through the filtration vault to meet volume requirements. The system will discharge to a 21” RCP pipe that connects to the existing 72” RCP city storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. Specific Design Items that Meet the Intent of the City’s Goals a) Creating a walkable community – This project is walkable to Centennial Park and the County Library b) The project supports the City's goal for additional affordable housing. c) Incorporate increased diversity of units within new redevelopment areas from micro-apartments to three- and four-bedroom units. – This project will add family focused units to diversify the mix at the Crest, creating more housing options. d) Stabilizing the existing owner/ renter occupied units – The renovation of this project will improve the longevity of the existing 122 units. e) Residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with more than two (2) children. This new project unit mix directly address the resident comments. f) Sustainability and Green Energy - The project will be designed to meet Enterprise Green Community standards. Additionally, the roof will be designed to be solar ready. g) The City will explore polices and ordinances, including incentives and standards, that encourage the construction of new affordable housing Affordability and Financing The Crest currently has an existing HUD Risk Share mortgage on it, with additional funds from Hennepin County and Minnesota Housing. The total existing funding equates to about $2,440,000 – some of which will remain with the project in a new limited partnership and some of which will be replaced with new financing. HDPE Pipe Gallery (picture from ADS website) Bioclean Water Polisher Filtration Vault (picture from Bioclean website) Property Lender Program Principal Maturity Crest, The Hennepin Co NSP $995,645 10/01/44 Assumed Crest, The MN Housing FFCC $575,000 09/01/44 Repaid Crest, The MN Housing First Mortgage, HRS $872,245 02/01/45 Repaid Total $2,442,890 In partnership with the City of Brooklyn Center, the project aims to request approximately $18,200,000 in tax exempt bonds in Summer 2021. The project will secure a first mortgage and retain the NSP funds from Hennepin County. The general partner is expected to make a contribution to round out the capital stack for the project. The anticipated total development cost for this project is roughly $35,500,000. ** Sources and Uses are subject to change during underwriting. Construction Financing: Construction Sources Tax Exempt Bond Loan $18,245,275 Taxable Loan $6,943,806 $25,189,081 As Underwritten**: Uses Sources Acquisition/Existing Debt $10,297,000 First Mortgage $7,960,000 Construction $17,434,161 Low Income Housing Tax Credit $15,649,675 Professional Fee $1,861,070 Hennepin County (assumed) $995,645 Developer Fee/Consultants $3,000,000 Interim Income $300,000 Financing Costs $1,909,304 Return of Forward Commitment $121,680 Reserves $1,081,639 General Partner Contribution $1,377,064 Seller Loan $7,779,110 TIF Request $1,400,000 Total $35,583,174 Total $35,583,174 Aeon is committed to providing quality affordable homes for individuals and families with the greatest barriers to housing. The proposed Crest will provide affordable homes to 171 households. The Crest Apartments is proposed to be a mix of affordability from 30% area median income (AMI) to 60% AMI. The mix of affordability is spread throughout all unit types. This mix allows households of a variety of sizes and incomes an opportunity to call The Crest Apartments home. As Underwritten: Rent Range 30% AMI 11 Section 811 Project Based Rental Assistance for households with disabilities 40% AMI 36 1bd: $668; 2bd: $832 50% AMI 98 0bd: $735 $1bd: $830; 2bd: $1048-1056; 3bd: $1250 60% AMI 26 1bd: $1103; 2bd: $1322; 3bd: $1523 TIF REQUEST $1,400,000 Average Affordability 48.12% By providing an average affordability of 48.12%, the project ends up with a financial gap of $1,400,000. The Crest Apartments would not be feasible without the assistance of TIF due to the impact that deep affordability has on the income generated for the project. The Crest Apartments will be seeking TIF assistance from the City of Brooklyn Center as part of this request. Schedule To date, the development team has had preliminary meetings with City staff and a Concept Review with the City Council. This submission is for site and building plan review and PUD, for the project to complete the entitlement process. If this project is selected to receive funding in July from the Minnesota Management and Budget office, we anticipate construction to begin in October of 2021. Construction would last approximately 13 months, with the project completed in October of 2022. Contact Info Leslie Roering Aeon Senior Real Estate Developer Mobile: 612-708-0915 Chris Palkowitsch BKV Group Architect, Partner Mobile: 612-598-8808 [End of Memo] The Crest Apartments Plan and Building Plan Review 5.11.21 2 Site 3 Site context 6200 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING SUITE LIBRARY & SERVICE CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTERSHINGLE CREEK & CREST APARTMENTS EMBASSY SUITES BY HILTON FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES BY MARRIOTTBROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER CITY HALL & COMMUNITY CENTER CENTENNIAL PARK 4 Existing 5 Project Information 4.37 acres (190,483 SF) Site 13-Story Crest Apartments Renovation 122 Existing Affordable Housing Units Unit mix -44 one-bedroom units and 78 two-bedroom units + One new studio unit. Constructed in 1972 The existing building will be renovated, primarily focusing on maintaining the current use of the building for years to come. Addition –New Lobby, Link Amenities & Units: New main entry to both buildings & shared amenities 48 housing units in a five-story building Unit Mix –4 one-bedroom units, 28 two-bedroom, and 16 three-bedroom units. Zoning The site is zoned R7 Multiple Family Residence, with allowance of 31 dwelling units per acre. The site will have 171 Total Units at 39.1 units per acre, the existing building is at 27.9 units per acre. Parking A parking study was completed recommending .84 stalls per unit. Project proposes 195 stall at 1.14 stalls per unit, + 14 proof of parking stalls. 6 Site Plan PARKING TOTALS SURFACE 164 STRUCTURED 31 TOTAL 195 PROOF OF PARKING +14 ALTERNATE TOTAL 209 Existing Addition (For reference see plans for updates) 7 Site Vision and Sustainability Sustainability Features 1.Project will meet Enterprise Green Communities requirements. 2.Solar ready -Roof top photovoltaic array for onsite energy production. 3.Improved site storm water management through treatment and rate control, current site is uncontrolled. 4.We will plant native and cultivars of native plantings to reduce the need for irrigation and fertilizers and provide habitat and food for pollinators. 5.We will limit the extents of irrigated turf grass to reduce the need for irrigation and maintenance. 6.On site garden beds for residents. 7.New sidewalks and enhanced landscaping, improving and promoting the walking experience around the site and connections to the park.. 8.Exterior bike parking near the housing entries. 9.LED light fixtures. 10.Energy Star appliances. 11.High efficiency water heaters. 12.Recycling collection and chute in the new addition. 13.Durable exterior materials on the addition. 14.Efficient doors and windows, with Low-E coating on the addition. 15.Construction waste recycling. 16.Smoke free building. 8 Renderings –Existing & Addition 9 MP-1 Una Clad Firestone –UC-600 (Corrugated Metal Panel -Vertical) Finish:Champagne Metallic MP-2 Una Clad Firestone –Delta CFP-12 (Horizontal Panel -Flat) Finish:Champagne Metallic MP-3 Una Clad Firestone –Flat Finish:Dark Grey Materials FCP-1 Fiber Cement Panel James Hardie Vertical Siding Panels Field Paint –Softer Tan FCP-2 Fiber Cement Panel James Hardie Vertical Siding Panels Field Paint –Blue Decorative CMU-1 Amcon Concrete Products -Burnished Size: Half High, 3 5/8" x 3 5/8" x 16" Finish:Color Series, 310 Walnut Pella Impervia -Fiberglass Function Style –Awning Finish: Brown 0'6"1'2'3' N SHADOW STUDY 2283-04AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 A3.0 1 9 AM SS A3.0 2 11AM SS A3.0 3 1 PM SS A3.0 4 3 PM SS SU M M E R S O L S T I C E WI N T E R S O L S T I C E A3.0 5 11 AM WS A3.0 6 9 AM WS A3.0 7 1 PM WS A3.0 8 3 PM WS CHICAGO 209 South LaSalle Street The Rookery, Suite 920 Chicago, IL 60604 P 312.279.0470 DALLAS 1412 Main Street Adolphus Tower, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202 P 469.405.1196 HANOI, VIETNAM No 1 Dao Duy Anh Street Ocean Park Building, Suite 15, Room 1508 Phuong Mai Ward, Dong Da District Hanoi, Vietnam P 469.405.1240 MINNEAPOLIS 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Building, Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 P 612.339.3752 WASHINGTON, DC 1054 31st Street NW Canal Square, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20007 P 202.595.3173 WWW.BKVGROUP.COM ENRICHING LIVESANDSTRENGTHENINGCOMMUNITIES G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2021 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 4:35:46 PM Author Checker 2283-04 G100 COVER SHEET AEON - CREST APARTMENTS AEON -CREST APARTMENTS 6221 Shingle Creek Crossing, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 AEON PROJECT LOCATION RENDERING PROJECT TEAMPROJECT SUMMARY (UNIT MATRIX) Architect: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Chris Palkowitsch OWNER / APPLICANT: Aeon,TBD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 901 North 3rd Street, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-746-4853 Contact: Leslie Roering Civil: Pierce Pini + Associates 9298 Central Avenue NE, Suite 312, Blaine, MN 55434 Phone: 763.537.1311 Contact: Rhonda S. Pierce Landscape: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Brady K. Halverson Structural Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Structural Engineer's Name Mechanical Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Alex Sawka Electrical Engineering: Boarman Kroos Vogel Group, Inc 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Phone: 612.339.3752 Fax: 612.339.6212 Contact: Chad Kurdi SITE SHEET LIST - SITE PLAN REV NUMBER SHEET NAME 20 2 1 / 0 2 / 1 7 S D S E T 20 2 1 / 0 5 / 1 1 S I T E R E V I E W GENERAL G100 COVER SHEET X X G120 CODE SUMMARY & OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION PLANS X X CIVIL 000 SURVEY X X C100 GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND X C200 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN X X C300 SWPPP NARRATIVE X X C301 SWPPP SITE LAYOUT X X C302 SWPPP DETAILS X C400 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN X X C500 UTILITY PLAN X X C550 STORMWATER DETAILS X C600 SITE LAYOUT PAVING PLAN X X C700 CIVIL DETAILS X LANDSCAPE L100. OVERALL SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN X L101. SITE PLANTING PLAN X ARCHITECTURE A1.01 1ST 2ND FLOOR PLAN X A1.02 3-6 & 7-12TH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN X A1.03 ROOF X A2.01 NORTH & EAST ELEVATION X A2.02 SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION X ARCHITECTURE A010 SITE PLAN X X A101 LEVEL 1 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A102 LEVEL 2 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A103 LEVEL 3 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A104 LEVEL 4 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A105 LEVEL 5 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN X X A140 ROOF PLAN X X A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X X A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X X A501 BUILDING SECTIONS X X ELECTRICAL E015 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS X SITE PLAN REVIEW ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW -EXISTING UP DN B 3678.19 SF OCCUPANCY CLASSIFCATION A-3 B S-2 S-2 12375.12 SF A-3 1095.23 SF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY TO EXISTING BUILDING R-2 14955.84 SF OCCUPANCY CLASSIFCATION R-2 R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF LIFE SAFETY AREA TAG: INDICATES AREA NAME INDICATES AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE INDICATES AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE PER OCCUPANT INDICATES OCCUPANT LOAD CODE PLAN NOTES: 1. CODE PLANS ARE INTENDED TO BE PRINTED IN COLOR FOR CLARITY. 2. HIGHEST REQUIRED HOURLY RATING FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL WALL WILL BE SHOWN WHERE MULTIPLE REQUIRED RATINGS OCCUR. 3. EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE PER IBC 1016.1 IS 250 FEET AT R-2, 400 FEET AT S-2. 4. MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE TO FIRE EXTINGUSHER PER IFC 906.3 IS 75 FEET. 5. SEE SHEET G120 FOR COMPLETE CODE SUMMARY 6. PROVIDE 2-WAY COMMUNICATION AT ELEVATOR LANDINGS PER IBC 1007.8. 7. ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE MN STATE ACCESSIBILITY TYPE B PER CODE, CHAPTER 1341 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PROVIDE FIRE PROTECTION TO RATING INDICATED ON CODE PLANS FOR STEEL COLUMNS, BEAMS & BEARING ANGLES SUPPORTING BUILDING ELEMENTS PER IBC 704 (SEE STRUCTURAL) 9. ASSEMBLY OCCUPANT LOADS SHALL BE POSTED BY SIGNAGE AT TIME OF FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION 10. PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS ON ALL WALLS REQUIRED TO HAVE PROTECTED OPENINGS OR PENETRATIONS PER MBC 703.7. SF/OCC OCC Name 150 SF 20 20 CODE LEGEND 30 MIN FIRE PARTITION 1 HR FIRE PARTITION 1 HR FIRE BARRIER 3 HR FIRE WALL 2 HR FIRE BARRIER 2 HR FIRE WALL ## OCCUPANT LOAD 30 MIN CORRIDOR, 20 MIN DOORS, 45 MIN WINDOWS FIRE EXTINGUISHER: SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHER TYPES AND LOCATIONS FE FEC EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCE ##NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS EXITING STANDPIPESP SEPARATED OCCUPANCY SMOKE PARTITION 1 HR SMOKE BARRIER G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:52 PM Author Checker 2283-04 G120 CODE SUMMARY & OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION PLANS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS G120 1" = 30'-0" 3 LEVEL 1 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 4 LEVEL 2 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 5 LEVEL 3 -OCCUPANCY PLAN G120 1" = 30'-0" 6 LEVEL 4 -OCCUPANCY PLAN *GSF AREA BY BUILDING BY... Occupancy Classification Area B 3678.19 SF A-3 1095.23 SF S-2 12375.12 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF R-2 14955.84 SF ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET G120 1" = 30'-0" 2 LEVEL 5 1 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" 2345678 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINTP2BLUE PAINT FB FACE BRICK FB FACE BRICK FB FACE BRICK 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" A 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" B C D 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 2' - 0 " A3.05 6 A3.05 8 A3.05 7 FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT P2 BLUE PAINT TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_EXIST_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:03:08 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A2.01 NORTH & EAST ELEVATION Aeon - Crest I ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION A2.01 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION A2.01 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" A 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" BCD 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 9' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT 1 1ST LEVEL G1 100' - 0" 2ND LEVEL 111' - 6 1/2" 3RD LEVEL 120' - 1" 4TH LEVEL 128' - 7 1/2" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1ST LEVEL G2 102' - 0" 5TH LEVEL 137' - 2" 6TH LEVEL 145' - 8 1/2" 7TH LEVEL 154' - 3" 8TH LEVEL 162' - 9 1/2" 9TH LEVEL 171' - 4" 10TH LEVEL 179' - 10 1/2" 11TH LEVEL 188' - 5" 12TH LEVEL 196' - 11 1/2" 13TH LEVEL 205' - 6" LEVEL "M" 214' - 1 1/2" LEVEL 'E' 223' - 7" LEVEL "R" 232' - 1" 8' - 6 " 9' - 5 1 / 2 " 8' - 7 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 1 / 2 " A3.05 3 A3.05 1 A3.05 4 A3.05 2 A3.05 5 FB FACE BRICK P1 LIGHT BROWN PAINT P2 BLUE PAINT TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_EXIST_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:03:22 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A2.02 SOUTH & WEST ELEVATION Aeon - Crest I ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION A2.02 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 WEST ELEVATION A2.02 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH ELEVATION AEON - CREST APARTMENTS 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW UP Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 EXISTING MAIN ENTRY 164 TOTAL PARKING SPACES + 14 PROOF OF PARKING= 178 NEW MAIN ENTRY LOADING AREA TRASH PICK UP 171714 17 1514 12 13 8 17 31 PARKING SPACES CREST APARTMENT I (EXISTING) SHINGLES CREEK PARKWAY CREST I -AREA SCOPE CREST II -AREA SCOPE CREST I -AREA SCOPE CREST II -AREA SCOPE GENERATOR PLEASE SEE LANDSCAPE FOR OUTDOOR AMENITY FEATURES SIGNAGE SIGNAGE 20 7 7 35' - 1" 24' - 0" 20' - 4 1/2" LOBBY 100B TRASH 113 ELEC 112 WATER ROOM 114 TRANSFROMER SCREENING SET BACKS BUILDING SET BACKS BUILDING SET BACK 40' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" PARKING SET BACK 15' - 0" BUILDING SET BACK 50' - 0" PROOF OF PARKING 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" 18' - 0" 24' - 0" G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:19:32 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A010 SITE PLAN AEON - CREST APARTMENTS SITE PLAN KEYNOTES ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW SITE PLAN NOTES: 1. SITE ELEVATION 100' -0" CORRESPONDS TO CIVIL ELEVATION 849' 2. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR SITE DEMOLITION & EROSION CONTROL, SITE GRADING, UTILITIES, EASEMENTS & SETBACKS, SITE PAVING, & PARKING DETAILS 3. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR PLANTINGS & STREETSCAPE 4. SEE CODE PLANS FOR BUILDING EXITING 5. SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS FOR SITE LIGHTING & POWER 5. SEE MECHANICAL FOR DRAIN & HOSE BIB LOCATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FCP1 FIBER CEMENT SOFT TAN FCP2 FIBER CEMENT BLUE MP-1 CORRUGATED CHAMPAGNE METALIC MP-3 DARK BRONZE MP-2 FLAT CHAMPAGNE METALIC ? ? LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" W2 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2 W2 W2 W4 W4 W4 W4 MP-1 FCP1 VTAC LOUNVER DECORATIVE LIGHTING CMU-1 FCP-2 MP-3 DECORATIVE LIGHTING MP-2FCP1 CMU-1 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 21 ' - 4 " 2' - 0 " CREST I 7' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2W3 W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2 W2 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W2 W3 W3W2 W2 W3 W4W4 W4 W4 W4 LINK TO CREST I 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " PREFINISHED METAL COPING, DARK BRONZE FINISH FCP1 FCP-2 MP-2 MP-1 VTAC LOUNVER, PAINT TO MATCHVTAC LOUNVER MP-1 FCP1 FCP1 DECORATIVE LIGHTING EXIT LIGHTING W4 W4 W4 W3 7' - 8 " G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:27 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A401 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 2 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET A401 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION A401 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW THE CRESTTHE CREST CMU-1 BURNISHED BLOCK EXTERIOR MATERIAL LEGEND FCP1 FIBER CEMENT SOFT TAN FCP2 FIBER CEMENT BLUE MP-1 CORRUGATED CHAMPAGNE METALIC MP-3 DARK BRONZE MP-2 FLAT CHAMPAGNE METALIC ? ? LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 12 ' - 0 " W4 W4 W4 W4 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3W3 W3 W3 W3W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 MP-1 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 57 ' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 12 ' - 0 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " 3' - 0 " W4 W4 W4 W4 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W2 W3 W3 W3 W3W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3W3W2 W2 W3 W3W2W3 W3 W3W3W2W3 W3 W2 W3 W3W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 W3 W2 W2W3 2' - 0 " FCP1 FCP-2 MP-1 MP-2 W2 W3 W2 W3 W2 W3 W3W2 CMU-1 W5 7' - 8 " LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" FCP-2 MP-2 CMU-1 MP-1 G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:44 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A402 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEYNOTES 1 12 1 A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION A402 1/8" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 2 B A C D ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW CMU-1 BURNISHED BLOCK LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" PLANTERS, SEE LANDSCAPE ENL C 10 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 8 " UNIT - B1 208 UNIT - B1 207 UNIT - B1 307 UNIT - B1 308 UNIT - B1 407 UNIT - B1 408 UNIT - B1 507 UNIT - B1 508 CORRDIOR 200 CORRIDOR 300 CORRIDOR 400 CORRIDOR 500 DF LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 2 112' - 0" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 3 122' - 8" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" LEVEL 4 133' - 4" ROOF 154' - 8" ROOF 154' - 8" LEVEL 1 - G2 102' - 0" LEVEL 1 - G2 102' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" LEVEL 5 144' - 0" 1 4 9 146 UNIT - B2 204 UNIT - A1 206 UNIT - B1 208 UNIT - B3 210 UNIT - C1 212 FITNESS 105 UNIT - C1 312 UNIT - B3 310 UNIT - B1 308 UNIT - A1 306 UNIT - B5 (TYPE A) 304 UNIT - C1 412 UNIT - B3 410 UNIT - B1 408 UNIT - A1 406 UNIT - B2 404 UNIT - C1 512 UNIT - B3 510 UNIT - A1 506 UNIT - B2 504 UNIT - B1 508 G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture BK V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_AI_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 1:20:46 PM Author Checker 2283-04 A501 BUILDING SECTIONS AEON - CREST APARTMENTS A501 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 BUILDING SECTION 1 A501 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 BUILDING SECTION 2 ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 02/17/2021 SD SET 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW T R A C T A SH I N G L E C R E E K P A R K W A Y FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE AE FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE X(OTHER FLOOD AREAS) Project Location Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. Date Submittal / RevisionNo.By Designed:Drawn: Approved:Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issued: Client AEON THE CREST APARTMENTS 6221 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY BROOKLYN PARK, MINNESOTA LCC CEJ 12/22/2020 22447 To The Crest Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company and Commercial Partners Title, a division of Chicago Title Insurance Company This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 7(a), 8, 9, 10a, 11, 18 and 19 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on 12/22/2020. Dated this 21st day of December, 2020. Sambatek, Inc. Craig E. Johnson, LS Minnesota License No. 44530 1. The bearing system is based on Registered Land Survey No. 1359. 2. Subject property's address is 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway, its property identification number is 35-119-21-34-0004. 3.This survey was prepared utilizing the Commercial Partners Title, a division of Chicago Title Insurance Company Title Commitment No. 57529, bearing an effective date of October 12, 2020. 3.The vertical datum is based on NAVD88. BENCHMARK #1 TNH @ northwest corner of survey. Elev.= 847.33 BENCHMARK #2 Rim of water manhole @ northeast corner of survey. Elev.= 843.00 4.Field work was completed on 12/17/20. FOUND MONUMENT SET MONUMENT MARKED LS 47481 ELECTRIC METER LIGHT POLE SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FLARED END SECTION ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER AIR CONDITIONER GUY ANCHOR HANDICAP STALL UTILITY POLE BOLLARD SIGN TELEPHONE PEDESTAL GAS METER OVERHEAD WIRE WOOD FENCE EASEMENT LINE SETBACK LINE RESTRICTED ACCESS BUILDING LINE BUILDING CANOPY CONCRETE CURB BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE LANDSCAPE SURFACE DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE 0 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 30 60 VICINITY MAP LEGENDSURVEY NOTES Description from title commitment: Parcel 1: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1359, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Parcel 2: Common driveway and pedestrian use easement contained in Quit Claim Deed dated March 19, 1981, filed June 19, 1981, as Document No. 1429165. Parcel 3 Common driveway and pedestrian use easement contained in Agreement Between Adjoining Owners Creating Common Easement for Driveway Purposes and Pedestrian Use dated November 30, 1973, filed February 11,1974, as Document No. 1098796. The following notes correspond to the reference numbers listed in Schedule B, Section 2 of the title commitment. 20.Private reservation of mineral and mineral rights, as set forth in prior deeds by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. (Shown as a recital on the Certificate of Title). Affects property and is blanket in nature. 21.Easement for storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water main purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, contained in Easement Grant dated June 7, 1971, filed June 23, 1973, as Document No. 1000599. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 22.Easement for water main purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, as contained in Easement Grant dated April 3, 1973, filed May 28, 1973, as Document No. 1071235. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 23.Terms and conditions of and easement for ingress and egress driveway and pedestrian purposes contained in Agreement Between Adjoining Owners Creating Common Easement for Driveway Purposes And Pedestrian Use dated November 30, 1973, filed February 11, 1974, as Document No. 1098796. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 24.Terms and conditions of and easement for sidewalk and related purposes, in favor of the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, contained in Easement Grant and Maintenance Agreement dated May 1, 1986, filed May 15, 1986, as Document No. 1723923. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 25.Easement for electrical and related purposes in favor of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, contained in Underground Easement dated September 28, 1971, filed October 1, 1971, as Document No. 1011148. Affects property and is blanket in nature. 26.Terms conditions, covenants and restrictions contained in Declaration of Restrictive Covenants dated September 7, 2012, filed September 11, 2012, as Document No. T4991564, by Aeon and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Affects property and is depicted hereon. 27.Terms and conditions of and easement for ingress and egress and driveway purposes contained in Quit Claim Deed dated March 19, 1981, filed June 19, 1981, as Document No. 1429165. Affects property and is depicted hereon. SUBJECT PROPERTY 1.The surveyor has depicted the property corner monuments, or the witness to the corner that were found during the field work, and set property corner monuments, or witnesses to the corner, at the locations where there did not appear to be any evidence of an existing monument. 2.The property address is shown on the graphical portion of the survey. 3. The subject property lies within Flood Plain Zones X, X(other flood areas) and AE, per FEMA, FIRM Map No. 27053C0208F dated 11/04/16. Per Letter of Map Amendment Determination Document (Removal), dated October 15, 2002, the structure on the subject property has been removed from the Special Flood Hazard Area. 4. The gross area of the subject property is 4.376 Acres or 190,629 Square Feet. 5.The vertical relief is shown on the graphical portion of the survey. 6a. Per Zoning Letter dated May 31, 2013, prepared by the City of Brooklyn Center, the subject property is currently zoned R-7 (Multiple Family Residence), and is subject to the following setbacks: Building:Parking: Front yard: 50 feet From street right of way:15 feet Rear yard: 40 feet Side yard: 20 feet 7a. The building and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall. 8.Visible substantial features observed in the process of conducting the fieldwork are shown hereon. 9. The parking areas and striping on the subject property are shown. There are 6 handicapped parking stalls, and there are 127 regular parking stalls for a total of 133 parking stalls. 10a.There were no division or party walls designated by the client to be shown on the survey. 11.The names of adjoining land owners according to the current county tax records are shown on the survey. 18.Wetlands were delineated by MFRA, Inc., on July 10, 2012, and are shown hereon. 19.Plottable off site easements and servitudes disclosed in the provided title documents and/or observed during the field work that appear to benefit and/or affect the subject property are shown hereon. "TABLE A" NOTES CERTIFICATION Dec 22, 2020 - 10:19am - User:LCAPISTRANT L:\PROJECTS\22447\CAD\Survey\Sheets\22447-ALTA.dwg 1/1 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY SUMMIT DR N SH I N G L E C R E E K PA R K W A Y 94 N.T.S. BUILDING DETAIL GROUND LIGHT FIRE HOOKUP WATERVALVE MH ELECTRIC OUTLET TRAFFIC LIGHT SITE N.T.S. SUMMIT DR N SH I N G L E C R E E K PA R K W A Y 94 UP Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L0 L1 L1 L3 L1 L11 L13L12 L11 L13 L14 L21 L4 L6 L15 L22 L2 L1 L3 L19 L9 L10 L5 L5 L2 L5 L5 L5 L7 L8 L8 L8 L23 L23 L7L8 L14 L16 L20 L17 L18 L18 L18 L18 L16 L18 L18 L18 L18 L1 L1 KEY NOTES:GRAPHIC LEGEND: SURFACE TREATMENT 1; PLAIN BROOM FINISH CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 4; DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE TREATMENT 2; INTEGRALLY COLORED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARDWOOD MULCH, SHREDDED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 6; ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX; "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering B K V R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_LAND_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 4:29:12 PM Author Checker 2283-04 L100 OVERALL SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN Aeon - Crest II ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05-11-2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 20'-0"L100 1 OVERALL SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN L0 BUILDING ENTRY L1 SURFACE TREATMENT 1: CAST IN PLACE PLAIN BROOM FINISH CONCRETE PAVING L2 SURFACE TREATMENT 2: CAST IN PLACE INEGRALLY COLORED CONCRETE PAVING; COLOR TBD L3 SURFACE TREATMENT 3: BITUMINOUS PAVING; SEE CIVIL L4 SURFACE TREATMENT 4: DECOMPOSED GRANITE L5 SURFACE TREATMENT 5: EXISTING WALK OR PATIO TO REMAIN L6 SURFACE TREATMENT 6: ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA; BY PLAY EQUIPMENT PROVIDER L7 NATURAL TURF LAWN, IRRIGATED SOD ON 3" MIN. DEPTH OF TOPSOIL L8 NATIVE SEED MIX 1, BASIS OF DESIGN "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES; PLANT AT MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED RATE WITH 2" PLUGS AT A RATE OF 1 PER SF; SEE CIVIL FOR SOIL PROFILE L9 RETAINING WALL; BASIS OF DESIGN "STANDARD" BY VERSALOK, SIZE 6"H X 16"W X 12" DEEP, FULL RANGE OF ENDS AND CAPS INCLUDED; COLOR TBD.; SEE CIVIL FOR TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATIONS; SEE 5/L300 L10 DECORATIVE WOOD SCREEN FENCE; 8' TALL WITH STEEL POSTS, FASTENERS AND CAPS L11 BENCH; "HARPO" BY LANDSCAPE FORMS, 69" LENGTH; MATERIAL: POWDER COATED ALUMINUM FRAME, THERMALLY MODIFIED ASH SEAT AND BACK SLATS L12 BIKE RACK; "ICON HITCH" BY DERO L13 TRASH AND RECYCLING RECEPTACLE; "SELECT" DOUBLE BY LANDSCAPE FORMS; "STORM CLOUD" POWDER COAT FINISH L14 DOGIPOT DOG WASTE BAG DISPENSER L15 PLAY EQUIPMENT; FINAL DEISIGN BY PLAY EQUIPMENT VENDOR L16 CUSTOM WOOD AND STEEL PERGOLA; 16' SQUARE X 10' TALL L17 MOVEABLE FURNISHINGS; BY OWNER L18 MASS PLANTING BED; 12" MIN. PLANTING SOIL, 3" MIN. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH; STEEL EDGER WHEREVER MASS PLANTING BEDS MEET SOD OR SEEDED AREAS L19 IRRIGATION WATER SOURCE; COORDINATE WITH MECH. L20 SQAURE FIRE PIT; "CABO" BY WOODLAND DIRECT, SIZE 48" SQUARE, NATURAL GAS, ELECTRONIC IGNITION, COLOR NATURAL GRAY, WITH TIMER SWITCH AND EMERGENCY SHUTOFF L21 RAISED GARDEN BEDS; 3'X 5' X 18"H GALVANIZED STEEL TROUGH WITH 4 WEEP HOLES DRILLED IN BOTTOM OF EACH L22 6" WIDE X 18" TALL CONCRETE RIBBON CURB L23 MONUMENT SIGN UP Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 PROPOSED PLANT SCHEDULE: GRAPHIC LEGEND: SURFACE TREATMENT 1; PLAIN BROOM FINISH CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE TURFGRASS: SOD, IRRIGATED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 4; DECOMPOSED GRANITE SURFACE TREATMENT 2; INTEGRALLY COLORED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE HARDWOOD MULCH, SHREDDED (SEE SPEC) SURFACE TREATMENT 6; ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER PLAY MEDIA NATIVE PRAIRIE SEED MIX; "POLLINATOR MIX WET MESIC" BY MN NATIVE LANDSCAPES 50 Dl 7 QW 16 Dl 12 ha 1 AG 3 Dl 4 ha 3 Dl 3 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 3 Dl 2 ha 4 ha 2 Dl 3 ha 1 Dl 4 ha 2 Dl 6 nf 4 lb 6 nf 4 lb 1 PS 1 AS 8 Am 10 Am 9 nf 16 Sm 12 Jc 50 Dl 2 QB 1 QB 2 QB 2 QB 6 Ss 9 Dl 16 Am 1 QB 8 Jcs 7 Jcs 1 QB 1 AS 1 AS 1 PS 1 PT 1 CO 9 Cs 7 Cs 1 BN 1 BN 1 QB 6 ed 7 Ss 9 Am 1 PS 4 Dl 6 lb 8 Ss 31 nf 5 Am 5 Ss 1 PT 5 ed 5 ed 1 BN 13 ed 9 ed 7 ed 9 ed 15 ed 5 Ss 13 Jcs 1 Jcs 6 Dl 5 Dl 1 AS 1 AS 9 lb 7 Cs 1 QB 1 AS 1 QB 1 BN 1 BN 1 AS 1 AS 5 Dl 6 Dl 1 Jcs 6 Dl 0 Jcs 1 AS2 CO 5 CO 4 QB 2 CO 7 AS 1 CO 1 CO 1 AS1 AS 1 AS 1 CO 1 QB 1 QB 1 CO 1 QB 1 CO 1 CO 37 lb 14 nf 15 lb 6 lb 16 lb 1 QB 6 Ss 3 Jc TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH G Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture Engineering BKV R O U P 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2019 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_LAND_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 4:29:20 PM Author Checker 2283-04 L101 SITE PLANTING PLAN Aeon - Crest II QTY SYM COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PLANTING SIZE COMMENTS PERENNIALS/GROUNDCOVERS/GRASSES 69 ed BABY JOE PYEWEED Eupatorium dubium 'Baby Joe' #1 CONT. 38 ha AUGUST MOON HOSTA Hosta 'August Moon' #1 CONT. 95 lb STANDING OVATION LITTLE BLUESTEM Schizachyrium scoparium 'Standing Ovation' #1 CONT. 66 nf WALKERS LOW CATMINT Nepeta faassenii 'Walkers Low' #1 CONT. DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL TREES 1 AG AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchir x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' 3 PS PINK FLAIR CHERRY Prunus sargentii 'JFS-KW58' 1.5" CAL. 2 PT PRAIRIE GOLD ASPEN Populus tremuloides 'NEArb' 1.5" CAL. DECIDUOUS CANOPY TREES 19 AS FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE Acer saccharum 'Bailsta' 2.5" CAL. 5 BN RIVER CLUMP BIRCH Betula nigra 8' CLUMP 16 CO COMMON HACKBERRY Celtis occidentalis 2.5" CAL. 20 QB SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor 2.5" CAL. 7 QW REGAL PRINCE OAK Quercus warei 'Long' DECIDOUS SHRUBS 48 Am IRIQUOIS BEAUTY BLACK CHOKEBERRY Aronia melanocarpa 'Morton' #5 CONT. 175 Dl DWARF BUSH HONEYSUCKLE Diervilla lonicera #5 CONT. 16 Sm DWARF KOREAN LILAC Syringa meyeri 'Palibin' #5 CONT. CONIFEROUS EVERGREEN SHRUBS 15 Jc MANEY JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis 'Maney' #5 CONT. 31 Jcs SPARTAN JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis 'Spartan' 6' B&B 23 Cs CARDINAL DOGWOOD Cornus sericea 'Cardinal' #5 CONT. 37 Ss SEM FALSE SPIREA Sorbaria sorbifolia 'Sem'(PP16,336) #2 CONT. ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05-11-2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW 1" = 20'-0"L101 1 OVERALL SITE PLANTING PLAN PARKING LOT Illuminance (Fc) Average = 2.75 Maximum = 7.4 Minimum = 0.1 Avg/Min Ratio = 27.50 Max/Min Ratio = 74.00 PARKING LOT Illuminance (Fc) Average = 2.75 Maximum = 7.4 Minimum = 0.1 Avg/Min Ratio = 27.50 Max/Min Ratio = 74.00 Luminaire Schedule Tag Symbol Qty Description Lum. Watts LLF XB 11 LUMIERE EON 303-B1-LEDB1-3000-120-T2-X-BK-42-EDGE-LAB 24 0.900 XW1 10 HINKLEY LIGHTING HIN221094 15 0.900 XP1 3 LUMARK PREVAIL PRV-C40-D-UNV-T3-SA-BK 131 0.900 XP2 8 LUMARK PREVIAL PRV-C40-D-UNV-T3-SA-BK 131 0.900 XW2 6 SYRIOS SY300-L1L10-13W-924-80-3500 13 0.900 XW 7 LUMARK XTOR-2A 18 1.000 XP2XP2 XP2 XP2 XP2XP2 XP2 XP2 XP1XP1 XB XB XB XB XB XB XW1XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1 XW1XW1XW1XW1 XB XB XB XB XB XW2XW2 XW2XW2 XW2XW2 XP1 XW XW XW XW XW XW XW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.7 4.1 3.1 2.0 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.7 2.5 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.6 3.5 2.5 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.3 2.5 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 2.8 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.5 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.5 2.8 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.2 2.8 3.6 4.0 4.0 3.5 2.8 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.1 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.9 2.7 3.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 3.6 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.5 3.3 4.3 4.6 4.8 4.9 4.4 3.2 2.2 1.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.3 3.8 5.9 7.3 6.3 6.5 7.4 5.5 3.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.0 4.7 6.9 6.5 6.3 6.8 6.8 4.7 2.8 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 2.0 3.3 4.9 5.9 5.4 5.4 5.9 4.7 3.1 2.3 1.9 2.0 2.7 3.8 5.5 5.9 5.5 5.7 5.4 3.9 2.5 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 4.0 4.0 4.3 3.9 3.0 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.8 3.5 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.4 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.6 4.5 1.1 3.7 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.3 1.8 1.4 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.1 4.0 4.5 4.4 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.7 4.4 4.5 4.4 3.5 2.7 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.0 3.2 5.0 6.0 5.7 5.9 5.9 4.9 3.4 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.9 4.2 6.0 6.2 5.7 6.1 5.8 3.9 2.6 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.1 3.5 5.6 6.9 6.5 6.5 7.2 5.7 3.8 2.6 2.0 2.2 3.0 4.7 6.6 7.0 5.6 6.3 6.6 4.7 2.8 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.5 4.5 4.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 2.9 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.9 4.4 4.0 4.5 4.1 3.1 2.2 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.4 3.8 3.8 3.5 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.0 2.3 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.8 3.6 3.9 3.7 3.4 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.9 2.8 3.9 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.5 3.8 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.3 4.3 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.2 3.1 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.3 3.9 6.1 7.2 6.2 6.7 7.2 5.6 3.8 2.7 2.6 3.3 4.7 6.5 7.1 6.4 7.0 7.0 4.5 2.9 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.3 2.0 3.3 5.1 5.8 5.5 5.8 6.0 4.7 3.4 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.8 5.3 6.2 5.5 5.8 5.5 4.1 2.4 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.0 3.9 4.4 4.5 3.9 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.6 4.3 4.4 4.2 3.5 2.5 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.5 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.6 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.5 4.2 3.6 3.4 4.2 5.4 5.6 5.2 5.5 5.0 3.7 2.4 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.8 4.6 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.1 7.4 5.6 4.2 4.2 5.3 7.4 7.2 6.3 6.9 7.2 4.6 2.9 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.4 4.5 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.7 3.9 3.2 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.4 3.2 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.6 3.7 3.6 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.0 3.2 3.0 0.8 1.4 0.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 3.7 4.6 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 2.5 2.9 2.5 1.9 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.8 4.2 3.4 2.7 2.0 1.5 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.7 5.7 3.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 2.7 3.4 3.6 4.1 4.9 4.0 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.8 5.0 2.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 2.7 3.2 4.5 7.7 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 2.1 3.5 4.7 2.6 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.2 3.3 5.9 2.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 1.7 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.2 3.8 1.7 4.1 0.8 2.1 8.7 11.0 4.6 2.4 2.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.9 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.2 4.7 5.7 3.6 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 8.1 8.3 9.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.5 5.5 7.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Group#289 Group#291 Group#295 Group#296 Group#297 Group#298 Group#299 Group#300 Group#301 Group#302 Group#303 Group#304 Group#305 Group#306 Group#307 Group#308 Group#309 Group#311 Group#312 Group#313 Group#314 Group#317 Group#318 Group#320 Group#321 Group#322 Group#323 Group#324 Group#325 Group#326 Group#327 Group#328 Group#329 Group#330 Group#331 Group#319 Group#316 Group#293 Group#315 Group#290 Group#292 Group#294 Group#310 Group#286 Group#287 Group#288 Architecture Interior Design Landscape Architecture TRUE NORTH 222 North Second Street Long & Kees Bldg Suite 101 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.339.3752 www.bkvgroup.com © 2021 BKV Group SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY CHECKED BY COMMISSION NUMBER PROJECT TITLE CONSULTANTS N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N CERTIFICATION BIM 360://2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II/2283-04 Aeon - Crest I & II_MEP_2019.rvt 5/11/2021 10:20:32 AM ALR CSK 2283-04 E015 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS 2283-04 Aeon Crest II NOT TO SCALEE015 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PHOTOMETRICS ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION 05/11/2021 CITY SUBMITTAL 05/11/2021 SITE PLAN REVIEW Exhibit B M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 4, 2021 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Preliminary Site Plan – Crest Phase II Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed Crest Phase II: Preliminary Plans dated May 11, 2021 Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit. C200 – Removals Plan 1.Protect existing sidewalk and utilities along Shingle Creek Blvd. C300, 301, 302 – Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans 2. Clean up text/Turn off conflicting layers C400 – Grading Plan 3. Provide calculations for flood plain mitigation. 4. Clean up text/Turn off conflicting layers C500, C550 – Utility Plan & Stormwater Details 5. Explain the purpose of leaving the existing storm sewer as shown on plan. It appears that it is not tied in to any proposed structure. 6.At the underground storm sewer tie-in to storm in Shingle Creek Bvld show pavement and sidewalk removals. Remove pavement to nearest lane line. Protect existing utilities within Right- of-Way. 7. Engineer should attempt to capture and route surface run-off from parking areas through soil medium prior to discharge in to underground storm water system. Watershed rules require the abstraction of run-off in accordance to Watershed Rule D.3 (h). 8.Utility Facilities Easement Agreement is required. Developer must submit O&M Plan for the underground treatment system and filter system as a part of the Utility Facilities Easement Agreement. C600 – Site Plan 9. Show location of trash enclosure. 10. Provide bike Racks. Exhibit C Crest Phase II Site Plan Review Memo, June 4, 2021 C700 – Detail Sheets 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of public utilities must conform to the City standard specifications and details. The City’s standard details must be included in the plan. 12. Update to use current City plates. Miscellaneous 13. See redlines for additional Site Plan comments. 14. Provide narrative and plans laying out staging and phasing of site throughout construction. Highlight temporary parking and access for residents during course of construction. 15. Provide irrigation plan. 16. Provide detailed vehicle turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles, garbage trucks, bus, etc. demonstrating specific and actual routes. 17. Applicant should address the recommendations of the parking study, conducted by Alliant Consulting dated May 18, 2021. 18. Upon project completion the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 19. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the State of Minnesota and must certify all required as-built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). 20. The total disturbed area exceeds one acre, an NPDES permit is required. The total disturbed area is less than five acres; the City of Brooklyn Center will review the plans per the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission rules. Applicant must meet requirements from the watershed’s rules review. 21. Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit. Prior to Issuance of a Land Alteration 22. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended, as required by the City Engineer. 23. A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100 percent of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 24. During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $2,500 that the City can draw upon on a monthly basis. Crest Phase II Site Plan Review Memo, June 4, 2021 25. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility p rovisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non-compliance provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting 26. A City Land Disturbance permit is required. 27. Watershed plan review is required. 28. A MPCA NPDES permit is required. 29. Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warrant. 30. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 31. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined b y the City. *Protect existing sidewalk *Provide flood plain mitagation cacluations *Clean up points/text conflicts * Obtain temporary construction easement for wet tap on adjacent property Remove Pipe? What is pipe tying into? Show extents of road pavement removal and side walk Remove and replace to lane line Protect existing utilites *Provide O&M Manual for stormwater system, Preserver & BioClean filter *Utilities Facilities agreement required *Provide turning templates and traffic movements for delivery trucks, bus and garbage trucks Trash Enclosure? Provide Bike Racks MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2021 TO: Leslie Roering, Aeon FROM: Jordan Schwarze, PE, Alliant Engineering SUBJECT: The Crest Apartments Parking Study Introduction Alliant Engineering, Inc. has completed a parking study for the proposed The Crest Apartments expansion project located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, MN (see Figure 1: Project Location). The Crest Apartments site is currently comprised of a 122-unit affordable housing apartment building and an accompanying surface parking lot providing approximately 134 stalls. The proposed expansion will include additional affordable housing apartment units and parking stalls, though concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of the proposed parking supply. Therefore, the following evaluation was prepared to estimate the maximum daily parking demand under future conditions and compare it to the proposed parking supply to determine an anticipated parking surplus or deficit. Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to show that the proposed parking supply is sufficient to meet the parking demand of The Crest Apartments expansion proposal. The following goals have been established for this parking study: •Document parking characteristics at The Crest Apartments site under existing conditions. o Determine a peak parking rate (vehicle/occupied unit) based on observed existing parking characteristics. o Compare the observed existing parking demand against parking demand estimates developed from rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition. •From the comparison of observed and estimated parking demand, determine an appropriate maximum daily parking demand estimate for the proposed expanded development site. o Compare the estimated maximum daily parking demand against the proposed parking supply to determine a parking surplus or deficit. Exhibit D ALLIANT Project Location Figure 1The Crest Apartments Parking Study 964 94 100 Shingle Creek Parkway 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway The Crest Apartments & Community Center Brooklyn Center City Hall Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 3 Existing Conditions As of May 2021, The Crest Apartments site exhibits the characteristics documented in Table 1. Table 1. The Crest Apartments – Existing Site Characteristics Land Use 1 Capacity Occupancy Apartment Building 122 Units 117 Units 2 Surface Parking Lot Approximately 134 Stalls Variable 1. The Crest Apartments property is located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, MN 2. Apartment occupancy as of May 2021 Parking Observations To document typical current parking demand at The Crest Apartments development site, parking occupancy data was collected on Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021. Considering that residential parking demand peaks during the late evening/overnight/early morning hours, parking data was collected during the following timeframes: • 5:00 AM – 8:00 AM • 9:00 PM – 12:00 AM The Crest Apartments existing parking counts, documented in Table 2, indicate that a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles was observed in both the early morning and late evening hours of Thursday, May 6, 2021. However, a slightly lower peak parking demand was observed on Saturday, May 8, 2021. Given an apartment occupancy of 117 units at the time of parking data collection, the observed peak parking demand of 98 vehicles equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicle/occupied unit. At this observed peak parking rate, a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles could be expected to utilize the existing surface parking lot under a scenario in which all 122 apartment units are occupied. Under this hypothetical full occupancy scenario, a parking surplus of approximately 30 stalls would be anticipated within the existing surface parking lot. ITE Estimates The observed peak parking demand at The Crest Apartments was also compared to peak parking demand estimates based on applicable rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition (ITE PGM). The ITE PGM is an industry standard resource for estimating parking demand based on studies of numerous land uses. Table 3 documents the ITE PGM based estimated peak parking demand for apartment occupancies of both 117 units and 122 units. Results of the ITE PGM based parking demand estimates indicate that The Crest Apartments would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 91 vehicles at an apartment occupancy of 117 units or a hypothetical peak parking demand of 95 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 122 units. The ITE PGM based peak parking demand estimates equate to a peak parking rate of 0.78 vehicle/occupied unit. This rate is lower than the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit). Therefore, parking demand estimates for the proposed conditions will be based on the observed peak parking rate. Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 4 Table 2. The Crest Apartments – Existing Parking Observations Table 3. The Crest Apartments – ITE Existing Parking Demand Estimates Weekday Saturday 5:00 - 5:15 AM 98 89 5:15 - 5:30 AM 97 89 5:30 - 5:45 AM 96 89 5:45 - 6:00 AM 95 91 6:00 - 6:15 AM 94 91 6:15 - 6:30 AM 93 90 6:30 - 6:45 AM 88 88 6:45 - 7:00 AM 86 87 7:00 - 7:15 AM 86 87 7:15 - 7:30 AM 83 87 7:30 - 7:45 AM 78 92 7:45 - 8:00 AM 77 90 9:00 - 9:15 PM 86 82 9:15 - 9:30 PM 86 83 9:30 - 9:45 PM 86 78 9:45 - 10:00 PM 89 78 10:00 - 10:15 PM 90 84 10:15 - 10:30 PM 90 87 10:30 - 10:45 PM 90 87 10:45 - 11:00 PM 92 90 11:00 - 11:15 PM 94 93 11:15 - 11:30 PM 96 92 11:30 - 11:45 PM 98 93 11:45 PM - 12:00 AM 97 94 Peak observed parking rate: 98 vehicles / 117 occupied units = 0.84 vehicle / occupied unit 1. Parking observations completed Thursday, May 6, 2021, and Saturday, May 8, 2021 Observation Period 1 Parked Vehicles Early Morning Late Evening Land Use (ITE Code)Size (Occupied Dwelling Units) Weekday Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) Saturday Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) 117 2 91 77 122 3 95 81Affordable Housing (223) 1 3. Apartment capacity Peak ITE parking rate: 91 vehicles / 117 occupied units = 0.78 vehicle / occupied unit 2. Apartment occupancy as of May 2021 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition 1. Parking Generation Assumptions: Income limits affordable housing in a general urban/suburban setting Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 5 Proposed Conditions The currently proposed The Crest Apartments expansion project, shown in Figure 2, is expected to consist of the following: • Modified existing affordable housing apartment building o Office space within the existing apartment building will be repurposed to include one additional apartment unit for a total of 123 units • New 48-unit affordable housing apartment building o New 31-stall parking garage beneath the new apartment building • Expanded 164-stall surface parking lot o New 14-stall surface “proof of parking” lot (if necessary) Hypothetical Peak Parking Demand Utilizing the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit), hypothetical peak parking demand estimates were made for the proposed expanded development site. The parking demand estimates shown in Table 4 indicate The Crest Apartments site could be expected to exhibit a hypothetical peak parking demand of 145 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 171 units under proposed conditions. With a total proposed parking supply of 195 stalls, a 50-stall (34.5 percent) parking surplus would be expected under the estimated hypothetical peak parking demand. Therefore, the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate in accommodating parking demand generated by both the modified existing and new apartment buildings onsite. Consequently, no impacts to surrounding properties and/or roadways are anticipated. Furthermore, the 14-stall “proof of parking” lot is not expected to be necessary. Table 4. The Crest Apartments – Proposed Conditions Parking Demand Estimates Land Use Size (Occupied Dwelling Units) Peak Parking Demand (Vehicles) 123 2 104 48 3 41 145 195 50 34.5% 4. Proposed total parking stalls = 164 surface parking stalls + 31 garage parking stalls 1. Peak parking rate based on existing parking observations = 0.84 vehicle / occupied unit Affordable Housing 1 2. Modiefied existing apartment building capacity 3. New apartment building capacity Total Peak Parking Demand Proposed Total Parking Stalls 4 Parking Surplus/Deficit Percent Parking Surplus/Deficit ALLIANT Proposed Site Plan Figure 2 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway The Crest Apartments The Crest Apartments Parking Study S h in g le C r e e k P a r k w a y 164 surface lot stalls surface stalls 14 proof of parking 31 garage stalls 48 units 123 units Leslie Roering, Aeon May 18, 2021 The Crest Apartments Parking Study Page 7 Summary and Conclusions The following summary and conclusions are offered for consideration: • Existing parking observations at The Crest Apartments documented a peak parking demand of 98 vehicles. Given an apartment occupancy of 117 units at the time of parking data collection, the observed peak parking demand of 98 vehicles equates to a peak parking rate of 0.84 vehicle/occupied unit. o At this observed peak parking rate, a hypothetical maximum of 103 vehicles could be expected to utilize the existing surface parking lot under a scenario in which all 122 apartment units are occupied. Under this hypothetical full occupancy scenario, a parking surplus of approximately 30 stalls would be anticipated within the existing surface parking lot. • Parking demand estimates were also completed based on applicable rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition (ITE PGM). The ITE PGM based parking demand estimates indicate that The Crest Apartments would be expected to generate a peak parking demand of 95 vehicles at a full apartment occupancy of 122 units. The ITE PGM based peak parking demand estimates equate to a peak parking rate of 0.78 vehicle/occupied unit. This rate is lower than the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit). Therefore, parking demand estimates for the proposed conditions were based on the observed peak parking rate. • Upon completion of The Crest Apartments expansion project, the property is expected to consist of a total of 171 apartment units (123 in modified existing building + 48 new) and 195 parking stalls (164 surface + 31 garage). • Utilizing the peak parking rate observed at The Crest Apartments (0.84 vehicle/occupied unit), hypothetical peak parking demand estimates were made for the proposed expanded development. At a full apartment occupancy of 171 units, The Crest Apartments development site could be expected to exhibit a hypothetical peak parking demand of 145 vehicles under proposed conditions. With a total proposed parking supply of 195 stalls, a 50-stall (34.5 percent) parking surplus would be expected under the estimated hypothetical peak parking demand. o Therefore, the proposed parking supply is expected to be adequate in accommodating parking demand generated by both the modified existing and new apartment buildings onsite. Consequently, no impacts to surrounding properties and/or roadways are anticipated. Furthermore, a 14-stall “proof of parking” lot is not expected to be necessary. P I E R C E P I N I & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M STORMWATER CALCULATIONS FOR AEON CREST II APARTMENTS Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 May 11, 2021 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 41333 05/11/2021 Name: Rhonda S. Pierce Reg. No. Date Exhibit E – 2 – 9 2 9 8 C E N T R A L A V E N U E N E , S U I T E 3 1 2 • B L A I N E , M N • 5 5 4 3 4 P H O N E : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 1 1 • F A X : 7 6 3 . 5 3 7 . 1 3 5 4 • E M A I L : P P A @ P I E R C E P I N I . C O M INDEX 1. DRAINAGE NARRATIVE 2. STORMWATER CALCULATIONS a. DRAINAGE AREA SUMMARY b. STORMWATER RATE SUMMARY 3. DRAINAGE MAPS a. EXISTING CONDITIONS b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 4. HYDROCAD REPORTS a. EXISTING CONDITIONS b. PROPOSED CONDITIONS 5. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Aeon Crest II Apartment Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #20-046 Page 1 of 2 STORMWATER MANGEMENT NARRATIVE Existing Conditions The existing site is located along Shingle Creek. It has an apartment building, surface parking lot and trails currently on-site. A portion of the site is located in the flood plain. Currently no stormwater management exists on-site with all drainage going into the City storm sewer that flows into Shingle Creek. The approximate disturbed area (including future parking) is 146,051 SF with 60,473 SF of impervious area. The existing soils on-site consist of sands, silty clays and organics. Groundwater was found in the borings between 833.50 and 839.50. Infiltration will not be used as the project does not meet the minimum 3’ of separation between the bottom of the stormwater system and the groundwater elevation requirement. Proposed Conditions The proposed project consists of constructing a second apartment building to the West and reconstructing the parking lot. This will require a flood plain analysis to determine the extent that the floodplain will be modified. The floodplain calculations will be finalized going forward. The proposed impervious area for the entire site is approximately 96,755 SF which is an increase of 36,282 SF. This number includes the area for future parking of 4,604 SF that is counted as impervious in the stormwater calculations. Stormwater Management The Local Governing Unit for stormwater is the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and the City of Brooklyn Center. The city requirements match those of the watershed. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Requirements: 1. Rate Control – Runoff rates for the project site area shall not exceed existing rates for the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events using Atlas 14 precipitation events. 2. Water Quality – 85% Total Suspended Solids Control (TSS) Removal and 60% Total Phosphorus (TP) Removal. 3. Water Quality Volume – 1.0” rain event runoff generated from impervious surface area. 4. The 100 High Water Elevation of the BMP must have at least two vertical feet of separation between low openings of structures Aeon Crest II Apartment Stormwater Narrative PPA Project #20-046 Page 2 of 2 5. Drawdown Time – When using infiltration for volume reduction, runoff must be infiltrated within 48 hours using accepted BMPs for infiltration. The proposed building and the reconstructed parking lot will be collected and sent to an underground stormwater storage system consisting of 48” Duromaxx pipe. This system then connects to a media filter vault that treats the water to remove 85% TSS and 70% P. The volume treated is equal to 1.3” over all disturbed impervious surfaces including the future parking area. An external bypass is used to allow storms larger than the water quality volume to flow downstream without impacting the media filter vault. The outlet then connects to the 72” City storm sewer in Shingle Creek Parkway. This system will reduce the existing rates from the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events. See the following page for existing and proposed rates and water quality volume calculations. The peak elevation for the 100-year storm event is 842.37’. This provides more than two feet of separation between the 100-year peak elevation and the low floor opening of the existing and proposed buildings. See the following pages for the stormwater calculations. Sediment and Erosion Control Silt fence, catch basin inserts and bio-logs will be placed within the site and along the perimeter of the disturbed construction area prior to construction to prevent sediment displacement from the site into the city street and storm sewer. A rock construction entrance will be established and site street sweeping performed throughout construction to address tracking from the site. Soils stockpiles will be covered when not used for more than 48 hours or temporarily seeded to prevent windblown sediment from transporting off-site. Permanent erosion control will consist of sod and pavement. Slopes and swales will be stabilized with a heavy-duty erosion control mat designed for the intended area. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared and will be implemented for the project. EX1 21750 80 56500 98 78250 93 EX2 59580 80 3617 98 63197 81 EX3 4248 80 356 98 4604 81 Total 85578 80 60473 98 146051 87 EX1 5.91 9.48 17.39 EX2 3.02 5.92 12.82 EX2 0.22 0.43 0.93 P1 16647 80 67559 98 84206 94 P2 32649 80 6852 98 39501 83 P3 0 80 17740 98 17740 98 P4 0 80 4604 98 4604 98 Total 49296 80 96755 98 146051 92 1P (P1,P3,P4)0.60 1.47 8.69 P2 2.09 3.95 8.28 CN ValueDrainage Area Impervious Area [SF]CN Value 100-Year Event (cfs) Proposed Conditions Rates CN Value Total Area [SF] 10-Year Event (cfs) Proposed Conditions 100-Year Event (cfs) Existing Conditions Rates CN Value Drainage Area 2-Year Event (cfs) Drainage Area 2-Year Event (cfs)10-Year Event (cfs) Pervious Area [SF] Aeon Crest II Stormwater Calculations PN: 20-046 Date: 05/11/21 Drainage Area Pervious Area [SF] Existing Conditions Impervious Area [SF]CN Value Total Area [SF]CN Value 2-Year Event 9.15 2.69 10-Year Event 15.83 5.42 100-Year Event 31.14 16.97 1P 85,299 9,241 UG 48" CMP 11923 2,682 11923 10482 1441 Excess Volume Total Site Provided Volume (CF)= Total Site Required Volume (CF)= Total Site Excess Volume (CF)= Treatment System Impervious Area (SF) to System Required Volume* (CF)Stormwater Management BMP Treatment Volume (CF) Water Quality Volume Treatement Amount Total Site Impervious Area (SF)Total Site Required Volume (Imp. Area * (1.3"/12)96755 10482 Total Runoff Rate Summary Table Stormwater Event Existing Conditons (cfs) Proposed Conditons (cfs) Existing Conditions EX1 Parking Lot EX2 Green Space EX3 Future Parking 1R Total Runoff Routing Diagram for Stormwater Model Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 5/10/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.965 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (EX1, EX2, EX3) 1.388 98 Paved parking, HSG D (EX1, EX2, EX3) 3.353 87 TOTAL AREA Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 3.353 HSG D EX1, EX2, EX3 0.000 Other 3.353 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.10"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=5.91 cfs 0.315 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=3.02 cfs 0.144 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.19"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.22 cfs 0.010 af Inflow=9.13 cfs 0.469 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=9.13 cfs 0.469 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.469 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.68" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 5.91 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.315 af, Depth= 2.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 3.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.144 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Depth= 1.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.68" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 9.13 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.469 af Outflow = 9.13 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.469 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.47"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=9.48 cfs 0.520 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.34"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=5.92 cfs 0.283 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.34"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.43 cfs 0.021 af Inflow=15.78 cfs 0.824 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=15.78 cfs 0.824 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.824 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.95" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 9.48 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.520 af, Depth= 3.47" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 5.92 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.283 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.021 af, Depth= 2.34" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.95" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 15.78 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.824 af Outflow = 15.78 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.824 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=78,250 sf 72.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.63"Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=93 Runoff=17.39 cfs 0.992 af Runoff Area=63,197 sf 5.72% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.23"Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=12.82 cfs 0.633 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 7.73% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.23"Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=81 Runoff=0.93 cfs 0.046 af Inflow=31.02 cfs 1.671 afReach 1R: Total Runoff Outflow=31.02 cfs 1.671 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 1.671 af Average Runoff Depth = 5.98" 58.59% Pervious = 1.965 ac 41.41% Impervious = 1.388 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: Parking Lot Runoff = 17.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.992 af, Depth= 6.63" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 21,750 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 56,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 78,250 93 Weighted Average 21,750 27.80% Pervious Area 56,500 72.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: Green Space Runoff = 12.82 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.633 af, Depth= 5.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 59,580 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,617 98 Paved parking, HSG D 63,197 81 Weighted Average 59,580 94.28% Pervious Area 3,617 5.72% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX3: Future Parking Runoff = 0.93 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Depth= 5.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 4,248 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 356 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 81 Weighted Average 4,248 92.27% Pervious Area 356 7.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 41.41% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.98" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 31.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.671 af Outflow = 31.02 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.671 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Proposed Conditions P1 Parking Lot P2 West Site P3 Building P4 Future Parking 2R Total Runoff 1P 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Routing Diagram for Stormwater Model Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 5/10/2021 HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 1.132 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (P1, P2) 2.221 98 Paved parking, HSG D (P1, P2, P3, P4) 3.353 92 TOTAL AREA Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 0.000 HSG C 3.353 HSG D P1, P2, P3, P4 0.000 Other 3.353 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.20"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=6.57 cfs 0.354 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.32"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=2.09 cfs 0.100 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.61"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=1.52 cfs 0.089 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.61"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=0.39 cfs 0.023 af Inflow=2.69 cfs 0.565 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=2.69 cfs 0.565 af Peak Elev=840.85' Storage=9,498 cf Inflow=8.48 cfs 0.465 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=0.60 cfs 0.465 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.565 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.02" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 6.57 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.354 af, Depth= 2.20" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 2.09 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.100 af, Depth= 1.32" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 1.52 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Depth= 2.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 0.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.023 af, Depth= 2.61" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.565 af Outflow = 2.69 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.565 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault [87] Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt or Finer Routing (severity=11) Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.28" for MSE3 - 2 event Inflow = 8.48 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af Outflow = 0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary = 0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs, Volume= 0.465 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 840.85' @ 13.17 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 9,498 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 124.4 min ( 899.1 - 774.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.60 cfs @ 11.47 hrs HW=839.51' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.60 cfs of 1.54 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 2 Rainfall=2.84"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.58"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=10.39 cfs 0.577 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.51"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=3.95 cfs 0.190 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.02"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=2.30 cfs 0.137 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.02"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=0.60 cfs 0.035 af Inflow=4.55 cfs 0.939 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=4.55 cfs 0.939 af Peak Elev=841.48' Storage=15,741 cf Inflow=13.29 cfs 0.749 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=1.47 cfs 0.749 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 0.939 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.36" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 10.39 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.577 af, Depth= 3.58" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 3.95 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.190 af, Depth= 2.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 2.30 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.137 af, Depth= 4.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 0.60 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.035 af, Depth= 4.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.36" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 4.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.939 af Outflow = 4.55 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.939 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault [87] Warning: Oscillations may require smaller dt or Finer Routing (severity=14) Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.67" for MSE3 - 10 event Inflow = 13.29 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af Outflow = 1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 30.5 min Primary = 1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 0.749 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 841.48' @ 12.67 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 15,741 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 170.7 min ( 937.0 - 766.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.47 cfs @ 12.67 hrs HW=841.48' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.47 cfs of 18.39 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.87 cfs @ 2.09 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 10 Rainfall=4.26"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points x 3 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method Runoff Area=84,206 sf 80.23% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.75"Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=94 Runoff=18.85 cfs 1.087 af Runoff Area=39,501 sf 17.35% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.46"Subcatchment P2: West Site Flow Length=75' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=7.4 min CN=83 Runoff=8.28 cfs 0.413 af Runoff Area=17,740 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.22"Subcatchment P3: Building Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=4.05 cfs 0.245 af Runoff Area=4,604 sf 100.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=7.22"Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Flow Length=150' Slope=0.0500 '/' Tc=8.9 min CN=98 Runoff=1.05 cfs 0.064 af Inflow=11.87 cfs 1.808 afReach 2R: Total Runoff Outflow=11.87 cfs 1.808 af Peak Elev=842.37' Storage=24,527 cf Inflow=23.96 cfs 1.395 afPond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Outflow=8.69 cfs 1.395 af Total Runoff Area = 3.353 ac Runoff Volume = 1.808 af Average Runoff Depth = 6.47" 33.75% Pervious = 1.132 ac 66.25% Impervious = 2.221 ac MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Parking Lot Runoff = 18.85 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.087 af, Depth= 6.75" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 16,647 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 67,559 98 Paved parking, HSG D 84,206 94 Weighted Average 16,647 19.77% Pervious Area 67,559 80.23% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P2: West Site Runoff = 8.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.413 af, Depth= 5.46" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 32,649 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 6,852 98 Paved parking, HSG D 39,501 83 Weighted Average 32,649 82.65% Pervious Area 6,852 17.35% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.4 75 0.0200 0.17 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P3: Building Runoff = 4.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.245 af, Depth= 7.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 17,740 98 Paved parking, HSG D 17,740 98 Weighted Average 17,740 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Future Parking Runoff = 1.05 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.064 af, Depth= 7.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46" Area (sf) CN Description 0 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,604 98 Paved parking, HSG D 4,604 98 Weighted Average 4,604 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 8.9 150 0.0500 0.28 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 2.84" MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 2R: Total Runoff [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 3.353 ac, 66.25% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.47" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 11.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.808 af Outflow = 11.87 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 1.808 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Inflow Area = 2.446 ac, 84.38% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.84" for MSE3 - 100 event Inflow = 23.96 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af Outflow = 8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af, Atten= 64%, Lag= 10.7 min Primary = 8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 1.395 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs / 3 Peak Elev= 842.37' @ 12.34 hrs Surf.Area= 15,120 sf Storage= 24,527 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 128.3 min calculated for 1.395 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 128.3 min ( 884.3 - 756.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1A 839.50' 0 cf 72.00'W x 210.00'L x 4.50'H Field A 68,040 cf Overall - 31,919 cf Embedded = 36,121 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A 839.50' 31,919 cf CMP Round 48 x 120 Inside #1 Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 12 Rows of 10 Chambers 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 1,759.3 cf Inside 31,919 cf Total Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 839.00'24.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 839.00' / 838.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf #2 Device 1 839.50'0.60 cfs BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' at all elevations Phase-In= 0.01' #3 Device 1 841.10'24.0" Round Overflow Culvert L= 40.0' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 841.10' / 840.50' S= 0.0150 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.012 Concrete pipe, finished, Flow Area= 3.14 sf Primary OutFlow Max=8.69 cfs @ 12.34 hrs HW=842.37' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 8.69 cfs of 23.29 cfs potential flow) 2=BioClean Water Polisher 5'x10.5' (Exfiltration Controls 0.60 cfs) 3=Overflow Culvert (Inlet Controls 8.09 cfs @ 3.84 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault - Chamber Wizard Field A Chamber Model = CMP Round 48 (Round Corrugated Metal Pipe) Effective Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H => 12.57 sf x 20.00'L = 251.3 cf Overall Size= 48.0"W x 48.0"H x 20.00'L 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing = 72.0" C-C Row Spacing 10 Chambers/Row x 20.00' Long +4.00' Header x 2 = 208.00' Row Length +12.0" End Stone x 2 = 210.00' Base Length 12 Rows x 48.0" Wide + 24.0" Spacing x 11 + 12.0" Side Stone x 2 = 72.00' Base Width 48.0" Chamber Height + 6.0" Cover = 4.50' Field Height 120 Chambers x 251.3 cf + 70.00' Header x 12.57 sf x 2 = 31,918.6 cf Chamber Storage 68,040.0 cf Field - 31,918.6 cf Chambers = 36,121.4 cf Stone x 0.0% Voids = 0.0 cf Stone Storage Chamber Storage = 31,918.6 cf = 0.733 af Overall Storage Efficiency = 46.9% Overall System Size = 210.00' x 72.00' x 4.50' 120 Chambers 2,520.0 cy Field 1,337.8 cy Stone MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Hydrograph for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Time (hours) Inflow (cfs) Storage (cubic-feet) Elevation (feet) Primary (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 4.00 0.05 0 839.50 0.05 6.00 0.14 0 839.50 0.14 8.00 0.24 0 839.50 0.24 10.00 0.56 2 839.51 0.56 12.00 10.46 9,683 840.87 0.60 14.00 0.68 15,426 841.45 1.33 16.00 0.34 12,733 841.18 0.64 18.00 0.27 10,567 840.96 0.60 20.00 0.20 7,921 840.69 0.60 22.00 0.12 4,755 840.33 0.60 24.00 0.05 1,071 839.80 0.60 26.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 28.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 30.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 32.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 34.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 36.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 38.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 40.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 42.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 44.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 46.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 48.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 50.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 52.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 54.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 56.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 58.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 60.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 62.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 64.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 66.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 68.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 70.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 72.00 0.00 0 839.50 0.00 MSE 24-hr 3 MSE3 - 100 Rainfall=7.46"Stormwater Model Printed 5/10/2021Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.00-20 s/n 03481 © 2017 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: 48" CMP Gallery w/ 5'x10.5' Filtration Vault Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 839.50 0 839.55 75 839.60 212 839.65 389 839.70 597 839.75 831 839.80 1,088 839.85 1,365 839.90 1,661 839.95 1,974 840.00 2,303 840.05 2,646 840.10 3,002 840.15 3,371 840.20 3,752 840.25 4,143 840.30 4,544 840.35 4,956 840.40 5,376 840.45 5,804 840.50 6,240 840.55 6,684 840.60 7,134 840.65 7,591 840.70 8,054 840.75 8,522 840.80 8,995 840.85 9,473 840.90 9,956 840.95 10,443 841.00 10,933 841.05 11,426 841.10 11,923 841.15 12,422 841.20 12,923 841.25 13,426 841.30 13,931 841.35 14,437 841.40 14,944 841.45 15,451 841.50 15,959 841.55 16,467 841.60 16,975 841.65 17,482 841.70 17,988 841.75 18,493 841.80 18,996 841.85 19,497 841.90 19,996 841.95 20,492 842.00 20,986 842.05 21,476 842.10 21,963 Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 842.15 22,445 842.20 22,923 842.25 23,397 842.30 23,865 842.35 24,328 842.40 24,785 842.45 25,235 842.50 25,678 842.55 26,115 842.60 26,543 842.65 26,963 842.70 27,374 842.75 27,776 842.80 28,167 842.85 28,547 842.90 28,916 842.95 29,273 843.00 29,616 843.05 29,944 843.10 30,257 843.15 30,553 843.20 30,831 843.25 31,088 843.30 31,322 843.35 31,530 843.40 31,706 843.45 31,842 843.50 31,919 843.55 31,919 843.60 31,919 843.65 31,919 843.70 31,919 843.75 31,919 843.80 31,919 843.85 31,919 843.90 31,919 843.95 31,919 844.00 31,919 IOWA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation: Proposed Crest Apartments 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota CVT# 18020.21.MNT Prepared for: Ms. Leslie Roering Senior Real Estate Developer Aeon Certification: I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Matthew J. Reisdorfer, PE Geotechnical Engineer License Number 52032 Date: April 7, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Testing • 245 Roselawn Ave. E., Suite #29, St. Paul, MN 55117 • Telephone (651) 756-7384 • stpaul@cvtesting.com Ms. Leslie Roering April 7, 2021 Senior Real Estate Developer Aeon 901 North 3rd Street, Suite 150 Minneapolis, MN 55401 lroering@aeon.org Re: Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN CVT Project Number: 18020.21.MNT Dear Ms. Roering: We have completed the design phase geotechnical evaluation authorized for the proposed Crest Apartments in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. This letter briefly summarizes the findings and analysis detailed in the attached geotechnical report. Summary of Boring Results Borings: At the surface, the borings encountered about ½ to 1 foot of topsoil. The topsoil consisted mostly of slightly organic sand with silt. Sand fill was met below the topsoil in the northeast, east-central and southern building borings, while silt fill and clay fill were met within the west-central and center building borings. The fill materials were encountered to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet. Buried topsoil was met below the sand fill in the east- central boring to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill sand was met below the topsoil in the northwest building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. The material was judged to be possible fill as they varied in color and characteristics to that of the native soils encountered at the site, but lacked any obvious indicators, such as debris and organics. Below the topsoil layer in the north-central building boring and stormwater borings as well as below the fill, possible fill and buried topsoil layers, the borings were dominated by clean sand and sand with silt, to depths of about 9 to 24.9 feet below the surface. Silty sand and silty clayey sand was met below the clean sand and sand with silt layers in the southeast building boring and the stormwater borings. These borings terminated in silty sand and silty clayey sand at depths of about 11 to 24.9 feet below the surface. The remaining borings terminated in clean sand and sand with silt at depths of about 24.9 feet below the surface. Crest Apartments April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Groundwater: Water was observed in all of the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The water levels observed corresponds to elevations of about 833 ½ to 839 ½ feet on the datum used to locate the borings. Water levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal weather patterns, along with water levels in nearby streams and rivers. Summary of Analysis and Recommendations The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. Frost-depth footings are expected to bear upon native sands or engineered fill overlying native sands. With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. Based on this design bearing pressure, total post-construction settlements are expected to be 1 inch or less, and differential settlement is expected to be ½ inch or less between footings that are similarly loaded. Crest Apartments April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Remarks For more details of our analysis and recommendations, please see the attached report. We appreciate the opportunity to help you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us at (651) 756-7384. Sincerely, Chosen Valley Testing, Inc. Hannah Fischer Graduate Geological Engineer Matt Reisdorfer, PE General Manager/Geotechnical Engineer _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Introduction _______________________________________________________________ 2 A.1. Purpose ______________________________________________________________________ 2 A.2. Scope ________________________________________________________________________ 2 A.3. Boring Locations _______________________________________________________________ 2 A.4. Geologic Background ___________________________________________________________ 2 B. Exploration Results _________________________________________________________ 3 B.1. Stratification __________________________________________________________________ 3 B.2. Penetration and Laboratory Test Data _____________________________________________ 4 B.3. Ground Water Data ____________________________________________________________ 4 C. Design Information _________________________________________________________ 5 D. Analysis __________________________________________________________________ 5 E. Building Recommendations __________________________________________________ 6 E.1. General Grading Recommendations _______________________________________________ 6 E.1.a. Over-Excavations _____________________________________________________________________ 6 E.1.b. Geotechnical Review of Bearing Materials _________________________________________________ 6 E.1.c. Oversizing ___________________________________________________________________________ 6 E.1.d. Filling and Compaction ________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2. Building Design ________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.a. Foundation Design ____________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.b. Bearing Capacity and Settlement ________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.c. Vapor Barrier and Drainage _____________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.d. Slab Design __________________________________________________________________________ 7 E.2.e. Seismic Design _______________________________________________________________________ 7 F. Paved Area Recommendations ________________________________________________ 8 F.1. Stripping and Grading ___________________________________________________________ 8 F.2. Pavement Design ______________________________________________________________ 8 F.3. Pavement Maintenance _________________________________________________________ 8 G. Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations ______________________________________ 9 H. Construction Recommendations ______________________________________________ 9 H.1. Excavation ___________________________________________________________________ 9 H.2. Groundwater/De-watering ______________________________________________________ 9 H.3. Filling and Compacting __________________________________________________________ 9 H.4. Construction Testing and Documentation _________________________________________ 10 I. Level of Care ______________________________________________________________ 10 Appendix ___________________________________________________________________ 11 Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN CVT Project Number: 18020.21.MNT April 7, 2021 A. Introduction The intent of this report is to present our findings and describe the means used to collect the data. The data was collected for a specific purpose and may not be suitable for other purposes. We should be consulted before attempting to use the data for other uses. A complete and thorough review of the entire document, including its assumptions and its appendices, should be undertaken immediately upon receipt. A.1. Purpose This geotechnical report was prepared to aid design and construction of the proposed Crest Apartment in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. Our services were authorized by Ms. Leslie Roering, Senior Real Estate Developer for Aeon. A.2. Scope To provide data for analysis, a total of 10 penetration test borings were authorized. The borings were drilled to depths of about 14 ½ to 24 ½ feet. Our scope included geotechnical recommendations for design of foundations, slabs, and pavements as well as recommendations for earthwork corrections and stormwater design. A.3. Boring Locations The boring locations were indicated to Chosen Valley Testing based on a site plan provided to us by the client. The boring location sketch in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of the soil borings as drilled, and was based on plotting GPS coordinates for the borings onto a satellite view of the site using Google Earth software. Ground surface elevations at the borings were measured using a laser level. The finished floor of the existing building was used as a benchmark and had an understood finished floor elevation of 846.16 feet based on the ALTANSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated December 22, 2020. A.4. Geologic Background A geotechnical report is based on subsurface data collected for the specific structure or problem. Available geologic data from the region can help interpretation of the data and is briefly summarized in this section. Geologic maps of the area indicate that the dominant soils in the area are terraced deposited sands overlying glacial till deposits of clays, silts and sands. The uppermost bedrock is commonly Jordan Sandstone and Prairie du Chien dolomite and is expected to be on the order of 100 to 150 feet below the surface. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N B. Exploration Results The borings were performed using penetration test procedures (Method of Test D1586 of the American Society for Testing and Materials). This procedure allows for the extraction of intact soil specimen from deep in the ground. With this method, a hollow-stem auger is drilled to the desired sampling depth. A 2-inch OD sampling tube is then screwed onto the end of a sampling rod, inserted through the hole in the auger's tip, and then driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped repeatedly from a height of 30 inches above the sampling rod. The sampler is driven 18 inches into the soil, unless the material is too hard. The samples are generally taken at 2½ to 5-foot intervals. The core of soil obtained is classified and logged by the driller and a representative portion is then sealed and delivered to the soils engineer for review. B.1. Stratification At the surface, the borings encountered about ½ to 1 foot of topsoil. The topsoil consisted mostly of slightly organic sand with silt. Sand fill was met below the topsoil in the northeast, east-central and southern building borings (Boring B- 3, B-6 through B-9), while silt fill and clay fill were met within the west-central and center building borings (Borings B-4 and B-5). The fill materials were encountered to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet. Buried topsoil was met below the sand fill in the east-central boring (Boring B-6) to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill sand was met below the topsoil in the northwest building boring (Boring B-1) to a depth of about 4 feet. The material was judged to be possible fill as they varied in color and characteristics to that of the native soils encountered at the site, but lacked any obvious indicators, such as debris and organics. Below the topsoil layer in the north-central building boring (Boring B-2) and stormwater borings (Borings B-10 and B-11) as well as below the fill, possible fill and buried topsoil layers, the borings were dominated by clean sand and sand with silt, to depths of about 9 to 24.9 feet below the surface. Silty sand and silty clayey sand were met below the clean sand and sand with silt layers in the southeast building boring (Boring B-9) and the stormwater borings (Borings B-10 and B-11). These borings terminated in silty sand and silty clayey sand at depths of about 11 to 24.9 feet below the surface. The remaining borings terminated in clean sand and sand with silt at depths of about 24.9 feet below the surface. The soil boring data has been summarized in the following cross-section. Please refer to the individual log of boring sheets for more detailed information. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N 815 820 825 830 835 840 845 850 855 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 B-9 B-10 B-11 Ap p r o x i m a t e E l e v a t i o n ( f e e t ) Boring Number Topsoil Silt/Clay Fill Sand Fill Poss. Sand Fill Buried Topsoil Terrace Sand Silty/Clayey Sand Below Boring Apartment Building Borings North to South Desgin FFE = 849.0 feet Stormwater Borings B.2. Penetration and Laboratory Test Data The number of blows needed for the hammer to advance the penetration test sampler is an indicator of soil characteristics. The number of blows to advance the sampler 1 foot is called the penetration resistance or “N”-value. The results tend to be more meaningful for natural mineral soils, than for fill soils. In fill soils, compaction tests are more meaningful. Penetration resistance values ("N" Values) of 3 to 15 blows per foot (BPF) were recorded in the possible fill sand, terrace sand and glacial sand, indicating they were very loose to medium dense. A key to the descriptors used to qualify the relative density of soil (such as soft, stiff, loose, and dense,) can be found on the Legend to Soil Description in the Appendix. B.3. Ground Water Data Methods: During drilling, the drillers may note the presence of moisture on the sampler, in the cuttings, or in the borehole itself. These findings are reported on the boring logs. Because water levels vary with weather, time of year, and other factors, the presence or lack of water during exploration is subject to interpretation and is not always conclusive. Water was observed in all of the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The water levels observed corresponds to elevations of about 833 ½ to 839 ½ feet on the datum used to locate the borings. Water levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal weather patterns, along with water levels in nearby streams and rivers. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 5 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N C. Design Information Each structure has a different loading configuration and intensity, different grades, and different structural and performance tolerances. Therefore, the geotechnical exploration will be construed differently from one structure to another. If the initial structure should change design, we should be engaged to review these conditions with respect to the prevailing soil conditions. Without the opportunity to review any such changes, the recommendations may no longer be valid or appropriate. The project consists of constructing a 5-story, slab-on-grade apartment building. The apartment building is assumed to consist of frost-depth, cast-in-place concrete foundations with the superstructure consisting of wood framed walls, joists and trusses. Loading information was not available to us at the time of this report. The maximum wall loads are assumed to be on the order of 6 kips per linear foot or less. The maximum column loads are assumed to be on the order of 250 kips or less. Grading information was provided to us by Aeon. The finished floor elevation of the apartment building is understood to be near elevation 849.0 feet. Based on the design finished floor elevation, new fill on the order of 5 to 8 feet above existing elevations is expected to be required D. Analysis The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. Frost-depth footings are expected to bear upon native sands or engineered fill overlying native sands. With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. Based on this design bearing pressure, total post-construction settlements are expected to be 1 inch or less, and differential settlement is expected to be ½ inch or less between footings that are similarly loaded. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 6 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N E. Building Recommendations E.1. General Grading Recommendations E.1.a. Over-Excavations: The topsoil and fill are not suitable for support of the structures and should be completely removed from below the building and oversize areas. The surficial topsoil was about ½ to 1 foot thick while the fill was met to depths of about 1 to 6 ½ feet below the surface. The buried topsoil was met to a depth of about 1 ½ feet below the surface. Possible fill soils were met below the topsoil in the northwest apartment building boring to a depth of about 4 feet. We recommend the possible fill soil encountered be further evaluated during construction to determine its suitability. If the material is judged to be native, it can likely remain in place. If the material is judged to be fill, then it will likely need to be removed and replaced with engineered fill. The following table provides further detail regarding the anticipated depths of over-excavations below the structure. Boring # Approx. Ground Surface Elev. (Feet) Approx. Depth of Over-Excavation below Ground Surface (Feet) Approx. Elev. at Bottom of Over-Excavation (Feet) B-1 841 ½ 1(4*) 840 ½ (837 ½*) B-2 840 ½ 1 839 ½ B-3 844 ½ 4 840 ½ B-4 841 ½ 6 835 ½ B-5 843 6 ½ 836 ½ B-6 843 ½ 1 ½ 842 B-7 843 4 839 B-8 843 ½ 4 839 ½ B-9 843 ½ 1 ½ 842  (x*) indicates depth of over-excavation if possible fill soils are judged to be uncontrolled fill. E.1.b. Geotechnical Review of Bearing Materials: After removal of the topsoil and fill materials, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of clean sand and sand with silt. These materials are generally suitable for supporting the building foundations and slabs. We recommend that geotechnical personnel from Chosen Valley Testing be on hand during excavations in order to evaluate the suitability of the bearing soils and their consistency with our expectations based on the soil boring and design data. E.1.c. Oversizing: Any corrective excavations should be oversized at least 1 foot beyond the foundations for each foot of fill needed below footing grade. This over-sizing can be reduced by up to 50% if rather precise staking is present during grading, and the excavation limits can be rather precisely confirmed relative to the foundations. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 7 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N E.1.d. Filling and Compaction: For ease in compaction, we recommend using clean sand or gravel having less than 15% particles passing a number 200 sieve, as engineered structural fill below all foundations and basement slabs. The on-site native terrace sands encountered in the borings would be suitable for use as engineered fill. Furthermore, the on-site sand fill would likely meet this requirement, provided they are free of debris and organics. We recommend the upper 6 inches of engineered fill placed below slabs consist of clean sand or gravel having less than 5% particles passing a number 200 sieve. The clean sand will act as a moisture barrier to prevent moisture from coming in contact with the slab. All fill below building and oversizing areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95% of its maximum standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). E.2. Building Design E.2.a. Foundation Design: For frost protection, we recommend that exterior foundations for heated structures bear on soils at least 42 inches below the exposed ground surface. Interior footings for heated structures can be placed directly below slabs. Footings for unheated structures should be placed 60 inches below the surface. E.2.b. Bearing Capacity and Settlement: With the assumed foundation loads and implementation of the earthwork recommendations, we are of the opinion that foundations may be designed to exert bearing pressures up to 3,000 psf. This capacity includes a safety factor of at least 3 against shear failure. Based on the loading information provided and implementation of our recommendations, total settlement of footings is expected be 1 inch or less. Differential settlement is expected to be on the order of ½ inch or less between similarly loaded footings. E.2.c. Vapor Barrier and Drainage: If the slab will receive coverings that are less permeable than concrete, a vapor barrier should be placed below the slab. Some contractors prefer to place this barrier below sand, to limit the potential for curling. E.2.d. Slab Design: The completed slab subgrade is expected to consist primarily of engineered granular fill overlying native sands. We recommend using a modulus of subgrade reaction of up to 250 pounds per cubic inch for these conditions. E.2.e. Seismic Design: In accordance to the 2020 International Building Code (IBC), the site profile is considered to rate as Site Classification D. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 8 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N F. Paved Area Recommendations F.1. Stripping and Grading We recommend completely stripping the topsoil and pavement materials from areas to receive pavements. The topsoil was about ½ foot thick at the locations explored. After surface removals, the exposed subgrade is expected to consist of fairly clean sand. These soils are judged to be suitable for supporting pavements. We recommend scarifying, moisture conditioning and re- compacting the subgrade with a vibratory smooth drum compactor prior to placement of new fills. If granular fill is needed, the surface receiving the granular materials should be sloped to provide positive drainage out from under the paved areas. This is intended to prevent water from ponding below the pavements and causing localized weak areas, frost boils or “bird baths.” All subgrade and subbase materials encountered within 3 feet of the bottom of pavements should be compacted to at least 98% of the soil’s standard Proctor density and should be able to pass a test roll using a fully-loaded, tandem-axle dump truck. Any fill placed below this zone should be compacted to at least 95% of the soil’s standard Proctor density. F.2. Pavement Design As mentioned, sands are expected to be the dominant materials present at subgrade elevations. These soils would be expected to have a modulus of subgrade reaction of 250 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The proposed parking areas are assumed to receive light duty traffic. We recommend a pavement section consisting of 3 inches of bituminous (PCC) underlain by 8 inches of aggregate base for light duty traffic. These pavement sections should be considered preliminary and subject to review by the project civil engineering consultant, based on more specific traffic loading information. The above pavement sections also assumes that the subgrade has been sufficiently scarified and compacted to pass a test roll. Observation of the test roll should be documented by qualified geotechnical personnel. The necessity of scarifying and recompaction of the subgrade would be determined by the test roll. F.3. Pavement Maintenance Routine maintenance is recommended for improved pavement performance and to increase pavement life. Some thermal shrinkage cracks may develop over time; therefore, pavements should be sealed with a liquid bitumen sealer to mitigate water intrusion into the base course and subgrade sections. Localized patch failures may also develop, which should be cut out and repaired. Periodic seal coating would also help preserve and assure a longer pavement life. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 9 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N G. Stormwater Infiltration Recommendations Infiltration rates were estimated for the various materials encountered at the site. The infiltration pond borings dominantly encountered clean sand followed by silty sand and silty clayey sand. The following table presents the recommended infiltration rate per soil type from the MPCA Minnesota Storm Water Manual (updated from Version 2X). Please see the individual Log of Boring sheet in the Appendix for soil classification details at each location and depth. Unified Soil Classification System, USCS Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) Clean Sand (SP) 0.8 Silty Sand (SM) 0.45 Silty Clayey Sand (SC-SM) 0.06 Double-ring infiltrometer testing could be performed to provide site specific infiltration values but was not part of our initial work scope and would need to be performed at the bottom of the infiltration structure. H. Construction Recommendations H.1. Excavation Tracked equipment is expected to be needed to complete the site stripping and corrective excavations. The backhoe with a smooth lip shovel should be used for deeper excavations, to limit disturbance to those materials left in place. H.2. Groundwater/De-watering Water was encountered in the borings during drilling, at depths of about 4 to 8 feet below the surface. The majority of the corrections are expected to occur above the water levels observed in the borings. We would expect that sump pits would likely be adequate to control any moisture in the excavations. Well points will likely be required for excavations extending below the water levels observed. H.3. Filling and Compacting Fill should be placed in lifts adjusted to the compactor being used and the material being compacted. We recommend limiting lifts to no more than 12 inches for the recommended fill materials – assuming large, self-propelled or tow behind compactors are used. Compaction of the silty clays may require use of static rollers or vibratory rollers operating in static mode, due to vibration effects on soil stability. If site grading is anticipated during cold weather, we recommend that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading. No fill should be placed on soils that have frozen or contain frozen material. Frozen soils should not be used as fill. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 10 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N H.4. Construction Testing and Documentation The bottom of all excavations should be evaluated and documented by geotechnical personnel, after the unsuitable soils are removed from the building site, and before filling. Fill placed below building and paved areas should be evaluated for conformance to the project gradation recommendations and should be tested for compaction. If the filling proceeds during periods of freezing weather, full-time testing should be considered to help confirm that imported fill is thawed prior to and during compaction, and that all snow has been removed before placement of the fill. Although our firm offers testing services relating to civil and structural components of the building (such as concrete testing, reinforcement observations, etc.) specification of such services is beyond our work scope and the designer should be consulted as to such requirements. I. Level of Care The services provided for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area, under similar budget and time constraints. This is our professional responsibility. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Crest Apartment April 7, 2021 Project #: 18020.21.MNT Page - 11 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ M I N N E S O T A I O W A W I S C O N S I N Appendix Boring Location Sketch Log of Boring # 1-11 Legend to Soil Description N Soil Boring Location Sketch Proposed Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 18020.21.MNT Legend Boring Locations Benchmark B1 B2 B3 B6 B5 B4 BM B8 B7 B10 B9 B11 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SP SM SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 4.0 24.9 840.3 837.3 832.3 816.4 9.0 OL 1.0 11 10 10 4 6 7 11 5 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF POSSIBLE FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, fine-to-medium grained, brown, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, grayish brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-01 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-01 841.3 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 839.8 OL SP CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 0.9 24.9 7 9 815.8 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 5 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) Below 7 feet, fine grained, no Gravel, gray. Below 12 feet, fine-to-course grained, trace Gravel. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 7 8 6 7 6 7 See attached sketch. Tests and NotesElev.USCS SymbolDepth DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL BORING:B-02 18020.21.MNT 0.0 PROJECT: 840.7 L O G O F B O R I N G CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota B-02 page 1 of 1 End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. OL SP SM SP SM CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 0.5 4.0 843.8 840.3 819.4 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine grained, brown and dark brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) 24.9 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 6 9 8 9 10 10 9 8 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesElev. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL 18020.21.MNT B-03 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: Depth B-03 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING PROJECT: 844.3 L O G O F B O R I N G SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF OL OL SP SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 6.0 24.9 Below 10 feet, grayish brown. 840.7 835.7 816.8 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Slightly Organic Silt, trace Wood debris, black, wet. At 5 feet, layer of Poorly Graded Sand. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) 5 6 6 7 9 8 6 5 1.0 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 8 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-04 B-04 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 841.7 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING OL OL SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 6.5 24.9 Below 10 feet, gray. 842.0 836.4 818.0 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Slightly Organic Lean Clay, black, wet. At 5 feet, Slightly Organic Silty Sand, fine-to-medium grained, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) 9 9 8 6 7 6 8 7 0.9 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-05 B-05 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 842.9 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.3 0.4 24.9 SP SP SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 842.8 818.6 829.5 14.0 842.2 SP 843.1 834.5 SP 5 6 9.0 OL 7 7 7 15 11 10 OL 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota PROJECT: 0.7 Tests and NotesElev.USCS Symbol BPF SCALE: 1" = 3' CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING L O G O F B O R I N G 843.5 See attached sketch. LOCATION:LOCATION: Depth WL Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) DATE: 3/26/2021 POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, brown. At 12 feet, no Gravel. BURIED TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt. End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. Below 7 feet, trace Gravel. At 20 feet, layer of Silty Sand. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, grayish brown, water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. B-06 18020.21.MNT BORING: 0.0 B-06 page 1 of 1 Below 7 feet, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel. OL SP SM SP CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.0 4.0 842.1 839.1 818.2 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, dark brown, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine grained, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) 24.9 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 9 6 15 6 7 8 5 6 See attached sketch. 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota DepthElev. End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. USCS Symbol LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488) LOCATION: WL B-07 B-07 page 1 of 1 0.0 Tests and Notes BORING: 18020.21.MNT PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' BPF L O G O F B O R I N G 843.1 CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SM SP SM SP Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 4.0 24.9 842.7 839.6 834.6 818.7 9.0 OL0.9 5 7 8 13 8 10 10 8 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF FILL, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown and dark brown mixed, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, loose. (Terrace Deposit) POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, water bearing, loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-08 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-08 843.6 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist.SP SP SM SC SM Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 1.7 24.9 842.7 842.0 832.2 818.8 11.5 OL 1.0 5 3 13 4 9 11 9 9 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota USCS Symbol Tests and NotesDepthBPF FILL, Poorly Graded Sand, brown, moist. See attached sketch. LOCATION: DATE: 3/26/2021 LOCATION: Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WLElev. POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to medium dense. (Terrace Deposit) SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 6 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. B-09 page 1 of 1 0.0 BORING: L O G O F B O R I N G B-09 843.7 PROJECT: CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 825.7 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 0.4 9.0 14.9 CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 SM TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 5 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) SILTY SAND to SILTY CLAYEY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose to medium dense. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. 840.2 4 7 831.6 5 9 9 11 OL SP Tests and NotesDepthElev.Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WL LOCATION:LOCATION: See attached sketch. BORING:B-10 DATE: 3/26/2021 USCS Symbol B-10 page 1 of 1 0.0 18020.21.MNT 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota BPF PROJECT: SCALE: 1" = 3' CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING L O G O F B O R I N G 840.6 Benchmark: Finished floor of existing building. Understood FFE of 846.16 feet based on ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey from Sambatek, dated 12/22/2020. 0.5 9.0 14.9 CV T S T A N D A R D 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J L O G A G N N N 0 6 . G D T 4 / 6 / 2 1 TOPSOIL, Slightly Organic Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, fine-to-medium grained, trace Roots, black, moist. POORLY GRADED SAND, fine grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 7 feet then water bearing, very loose to loose. (Terrace Deposit) At 7 feet, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel. SILTY SAND, fine-to-medium grained, trace Gravel, gray, wet, loose. (Glacial Till) End boring. Water was observed at 4 feet during drilling. Boring was sealed upon completion. 833.3 5 7 827.4 7 9 10 OL SP SM Tests and NotesDepthElev.Description of Materials (ASTM D 2487/2488)WL LOCATION:LOCATION: See attached sketch. 841.8 BORING:B-11 DATE: 3/26/2021 USCS Symbol B-11 page 1 of 1 0.0 18020.21.MNT SCALE: 1" = 3' 842.3 L O G O F B O R I N G CHOSEN VALLEY TESTING PROJECT: 18020.21.MNT Design Phase Geotechnical Evaluation Crest Apartment 6221 Shingle Creek Blvd. Brooklyn Center, Minnesota BPF GROUP SYMBOL SOIL GROUP NAMES & LEGEND PRIMARILY ORGANIC MATTER, DARK IN COLOR, AND ORGANIC ODOR BLOWS/FOOT* CONSISTENCY SAMPLE TYPES Job No. 18020.21.MNT GRAVELS WITH FINES >12% FINES 2.0 - 4.0 OVER 4.0 TERM Trace With Modifier 0.50 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 0 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.50 GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC CL ML OL CH MH OH PT CLEAN GRAVELS <5% FINES WATER LEVEL (WITH TIME OF) MEASUREMENT 0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50 OVER 50 LIQUID LIMIT (%) CH 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X ( % ) SIZE < 12 in. 3 in. - 12 in. #4 sieve to 3 in. #200 sieve to #4 sieve Passing #200 sieve TERM Boulder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt or Clay SAND & GRAVEL CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING SOIL GROUP NAMES - - - MC OC CN DD PP RV SA P200 >50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES ON NO 4. SIEVE RELATIVE DENSITY (RECORDED AS BLOWS / 0.5 FT) CL SILT & CLAY NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 LB HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D. (1-3/8 INCH I.D.) SPLIT-BARREL SAMPLER THE LAST 12 INCHES OF AN 18-INCH DRIVE (ASTM-1586 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST). * BLOWS/FOOT* WELL-GRADED GRAVEL POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL WELL-GRADED SAND POORLY-GRADED SAND SILTY SAND CLAYEY SAND LEAN CLAY SILT ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT FAT CLAY ELASTIC SILT ORGANIC CLAY OR SILT PENETRATION RESISTANCE Hollow Stem LEGEND TO SOIL DESCRIPTIONS FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH PI>7 AND PLOTS>"A" LINE PI>4 AND PLOTS<"A" LINE LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75 PI PLOTS >"A" LINE PI PLOTS <"A" LINE LL (oven dried)/LL (not dried)<0.75 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (TSF) Chosen Valley Testing - CLEAN SANDS <5% FINES SANDS AND FINES >12% FINES INORGANIC MOISTURE CONTENT ORGANIC CONTENT CONSOLIDATION DRY DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R-VALUE SIEVE ANALYSIS % PASSING #200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT PLASTISITY INDEX SWELL TEST Unconsolidated Undrained triaxial LL PI SW UU PERCENT < 5 5 - 12 > 12 Relative Proportions of Fines Standard Penetration Test VERY SOFT SOFT RATHER SOFT MEDIUM RATHER STIFF STIFF VERY STIFF HARD UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION (ASTM D-2487/2488) ML MH - - - - - - - - TEST SYMBOLS PERCENT < 15 15 - 29 > 30 ORGANIC Relative Proportions of Sand and Gravel 0 - 1 2 - 3 4 - 5 6 - 8 9 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 30 OVER 30 INORGANIC TERM Trace With Modifier Grain Size Terminology Cu>4 AND 1<Cc<3 Cu>4 AND 1>Cc>3 FINES CLASSIFY AS ML OR CL FINES CLASSIFY AS CL OR CH ORGANIC VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE GRAVELS 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 MATERIAL TYPES Cu>6 AND 1<Cc<3 Cu>6 AND 1>Cc>3 CV T 1 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 . M N T ( B R O O K L Y N C E N T E R C R E S T A P A R T M E N T S ) . G P J 4 / 6 / 2 1 PEAT SANDS SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT>50 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT<50 >50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO 4. SIEVE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS CO A R S E - G R A I N E D S O I L S >5 0 % R E T A I N E D O N NO . 2 0 0 S I E V E FI N E - G R A I N E D S O I L S >5 0 % P A S S E S NO . 2 0 0 S I E V E PLASTICITY CHART "A " L I N E CL-ML City Council Meeting| July 26, 2021 Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator REQUEST: SECOND READING | PUBLIC HEARING Amend Chapter 35 Regarding Zoning Classification of 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway 2 Background Aeon | The Crest Apartments LLC submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2021- 002, for consideration of requests that would allow: 1.Site and Building Plan (48-unit building addition, conversion of existing office to studio apartment unit, related site improvements) 2.Establishment of a Planned Unit Development (R7 PUD/MX-C) 3.Amendment to the Zoning Map to remove the property from the Central Commerce Overlay District 4.Recommended Amendment to 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for increase in densities within the Mixed-Use Commercial (MX-C) future land use designation 3 Background Aeon | The Crest Apartments LLC submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2021- 002, for consideration of requests that would allow: 1.Site and Building Plan (48-unit building addition, conversion of existing office to studio apartment unit, related site improvements) 2.Establishment of a Planned Unit Development (R7 PUD/MX-C) 3.Amendment to the Zoning Map to remove the property from the Central Commerce Overlay District 4.Recommended Amendment to 2040 Comprehensive Plan to allow for increase in densities within the Mixed-Use Commercial (MX-C) future land use designation 4 Background (Cont.) •The Planning Commission reviewed the requests for the Subject Property at their meeting on June 10th and following close of the public hearing, elected to unanimously (4-0) recommend City Council approval. •The City Council reviewed the requests at their meeting on June 28th and unanimously (5-0) recommended approval of the aforementioned requests with the exception of the comprehensive plan amendment, which was a recommendation for approval. Final approval of the comprehensive plan amendment falls to the Metropolitan Council under separate process. •The City Council also made a motion to set the second reading and public hearing for this evening (July 26th). •A public hearing notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on July 8th. 5 Planned Unit Development – Re -zoning Re -zone Subject Property from R7 (Multiple Family Residence) District to PUD/MX-C (Planned Unit Development/Commercial Mixed-Use) •Reflective of 2040 Comprehensive Plan future land use designation PUDs grant flexibility in Zoning Code to allow for developments that would not be allowed under existing regulations. •Often used to achieve higher quality development or achieve other City goals in exchange for flexibility with Code. •PUDs may only contain uses consistent with City’s Comprehensive Plan •Despite flexibility, plans shall comply with all watershed, state, and federal storm water, erosion control, and wetlands requirements. 6 Central Commerce Overlay District – Removal The Central Commerce Overlay District does not allow for “residential uses,” despite there being multi-family residential properties within the District to this day that pre-date the establishment of the District. •District to be revised or replaced with Zoning Code update underway •Similar request made and approved by City Council in 2019 with Real Estate Equities project on Former Jerry’s Food Site 7 Requested Action (i)Motion to: -Open the public hearing -Take public input -Close the public hearing (ii)Motion to approve a second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of land located at 6221 Shingle Creek Parkway; and (iii)Approve a resolution for a Summary Publication in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post 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# Passcode: 7635693300# J uly 26, 2021 AGE NDA AC T I V E D I S C US S IO N I T E M S 1.B C I nno-Hub Concept Review and Discussion 2.Youth on Boards P rogram Discussion P E ND I NG L I S T F O R F UT URE WO RK S E S S IO NS 1.Pending I tems C ouncil/E DA Work Session DAT E:7/26/2021 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:B C I nno-H ub C oncept Review and D is cus s ion Requested Council A con: B ackground: A s part of the construc#on of M unicipal L iquor S tore #1, the City cons tructed an a8ached s hell commercial s pace of approximately 3,500 square feet. This space was cons tructed at a cos t of roughly $318,000 and w as financed through the liquor store fund. A s s uming that the cos ts of cons truc#on w ould be paid over 15 years , the annual debt service would be approximately $27,000 per year. For lease term analysis that equates to approximately $7.50 per square foot, prior to any common area maintenance (C A M) charges. T he C ity's C A M rates are $3 per square foot, which does not include property taxes because the property is exempt. E s#mated market rates per square foot of equivalent leasable space are $22 to $28, with addi#onal C A M fees of $8 to $12 per foot. At the #me the shell space was constructed, the plan was to have the E DA acquire it at some point in the future from the liquor store and u#lize it to support small business development. At the June 10, 2019, City Council Work S ession, the C ouncil dis cus s ed the future tenant s pace, directed the F inance D irector to move forw ard w ith its cons truc#on, and dis cus s ed how it might be u#lized in the future. The discussion included an array of op#ons for the future use of the space that repres ented varying levels of city commitment and involvement. The op#ons pres ented for discussion were: 1. No build. 2. Build addi#onal s pace w ith inten#on to s ell building and property to highest and best bid. 3. Build addi#onal s pace with inten#on to sell building and achieve C ouncil pr iori#es (i.e. Res ident Economic S tability), but maintain s ome property rights over future use. The City w ould retain some ability to have a voice on future us e bas ed on criteria of the us er(s ) and property use. 4. Lease at market rates to highes t/bes t proposal. 5. Lease w ith intent to achieve specific Council priori#es (i.e. Resident Economic S tability), with no opera#ng subsidy assumed. 6. Lease with intent to achiev e specific C ouncil priori#es (i.e. Resident Economic S tability), w ith an opera#ng subsidy assumed. The Council directed that the s pace be built and indicated that the s pace should be used to s upport small and local bus inesses as part of the s trategic priority of Res ident Economic S tability. F urther, the Council indicated s ome willingness to s ubs idiz e the us e of the s pace, but did not indicate a lev el or amount of s ubs idiz a#on they w ould be comfortable with. The s pace has s ince been cons tructed, and is currently just a s hell. A ddi#onal finishing is required before it can be used, w hich is es #mated at $100 per s quare foot, for a total es#mated cos t of approximately $350,000. Opons Explored S taff has been exploring op#ons for the us e of the s pace and s poken w ith s ev eral s mall bus iness resource providers to be8er understand how the s pace might best be u#lized. O p#ons that have been explor ed have included: Leasing the s pace to a s mall bus ines s , s uch as a res taur ant, at below market rents - T his w as examined in partnership w ith s ev er al bus ines s res ource providers to iden#fy s pecific poten#al tenants . Es tablishing a micro-bus ines s incubator to support s mall and emerging entrepreneurs - N EO N explored this concept for a #me, but have since moved on from it. Es tablishing a busines s res ource hub - Currently propos ed by PA A D I O C ons ul#ng B C I nno-H ub P roposal Paadio Consul#ng has submi8ed a propos al for the us e of the s pace. Their full proposal is a8ached to this report. T heir v is ion is to create a s mall bus ines s and w orkforce resource hub to deliver diverse and inclusive programming for economic empowerment and oppor tunity to fast-track pos t-pandemic economic recovery & rebuilding. They are pr opos ing to u#lize the s pace to s er ve Brooklyn C enter res idents and entrepreneurs by providing s mall bus ines s technical as s is tance, wor kfor ce dev elopment training and market place matchmaking. The bus iness model for the space includes : 1. P roviding leaders hip in equitable and inclus ive bus iness innova#on and community development 2. D elivering Micro-Busines s grow th s upport, coaching, consul#ng, w orks pace, mee#ng s pace, virtual office, mailing, and recep#on s ervices that provides addi#onal pathw ays for wealth-building 3. Crea#ng an inclusive busines s networking marketplace, a matchmaking s ervice linking s mall and large bus inesses in mutually beneficial partners hips 4. H os#ng U pS killing w orkforce development programming from community partners Paadio is proposing to leas e the s pace from the City and ov ers ee its build-out into a func#oning and usable s pace. A s the manager of the B C I nno-H ub, their role w ould include: D elivering micro business programming and services - technical assistance training Bringing in and managing third-party training and development programming Engaging diverse s takeholders in micro-s cale economic empow erment H os#ng community collabora#ve programming and leaders hip events Crea#ng a leadership space for equitable and inclus ive bus iness prac#ce They envis ion the space as a community res ource, out of which themselves and other community partners , as well as the City, can deliver programming, resources and assistance to local bus inesses and entrepreneurs. They envis ion a flexible programming model that allow s the delivery of s ervices to evolve and innovate over #me to meet changing community needs. A s a resource hub, the space would rely on partners hips to deliver micro-bus iness development, workforce development, youth outreach and training, and management. Paadio has iden#fied and reached out to various poten#al partners and begun developing those rela#ons hips and connec#ons. Paadio has developed a launch #meline that includes using a phas ed approach, allow ing them to leverage exis#ng core competencies to create early succes s , while building on community partners hips to incrementally increase the service offerings over a 36 month period. Paadio is also working on a busines s model w ith the goal of stabiliz ing the opera#ons over #me and becoming self s us taining. Their ini#al funding s ources w ould include: Equity inves tment City financial s upport P hilanthropic and corporate s pons orships and grants P rogram revenue from co-working s paces , office rentals , pod service fees and event hos#ng Paadio has provided an ini#al budget and opera#ng model, w hich is a8ached to this report. They have es#mated a build-out cos t es#mate of $385,000, with firs t year s tart-up expenses of $32,000. Paadio is s eeking to rais e $500,000 of capital to ini#ate this project. Requested A con Paadio is s eeking a M emorandum of U nders tanding from the C ity, indica#ng the C ity's support of the project and w illingnes s to partner on fundrais ing and con#nued program development efforts. S imilar to a preliminary development agreement, Paadio is seeking a formalized partners hip w ith the C ity to allow them access to the s pace and #me to iden#fy funding partners , raise res ources , and develop formalized partners hips w ith organiza#ons to deliver programming. Paadio is not s eeking dedicated C ity funding at this #me; however, they w ant to explore and discuss the City's w illingnes s to provide the s pace at no cost, as part of their ini#al build-out and 36 month opera#ons launch. A ddi#onally, A merican Res cue P lan funds may be a poten#al source of funding that will be explored as part of the fundrais ing strategy for the s pace. The 2021 E DA budget has iden#fied $50,000 of funds to s upport the build-out and use of this s pace. I f the City Council is suppor#ve of this concept, thes e funds may be u#liz ed to further s upport its development and build-out. Paadio Consul#ng will provide a presenta#on at the June 28 mee#ng, and be available to ans w er Council ques#ons about their concept. Policy I ssues: W hat quesons does the C ouncil have about this concept proposal? I s the C ity C ouncil supporve of entering into a M O U with Paadio C onsulng to indicate the C ity 's support of the project and provide resources to support fundraising and program development efforts? A re there any concerns the C ity C ouncil has, that should be explored or considered as part of the due diligence for this project? B udget I ssues: The 2021 E DA Budget has iden#fied $50,000 to be us ed for the build-out and development of this space. A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: The purpos e of this project is to forward the City's s trategic priority of Res ident Economic S tability, by crea#ng a bus iness resource center to s erve and connect local entrepreneurs . S trategic Priories and Values: Resident Economic S tability AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type B C I nno-H ub P roposal 6/18/2021 Backup M aterial B C I nno-H ub Timeline and P roforma 6/23/2021 Backup M aterial PROPOSAL FOR “BC INNO-HUB” A BUSINESS INNOVATION HUB IN SUBMITTED BY: Paadio Consulting 1007 West Broadway Ave Minneapolis, MN 55411 CONTACT PERSON: Jude Nnadi CONTACT INFO: jude.nnadi@paadio.com REF: Site Location: Shell building at 1350 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 PROJECT TITLE: BROOKLYN CENTER INNO-HUB INTRODUCTION Paadio Consulting exists to transition all people from subsistence to surplus. Micro enterprises and individuals at the economic margin lack the available time and capital needed to invest effectively in growth. To build equitable and inclusive prosperity in Brooklyn Center, Paadio Consulting proposes to launch an Innovation Hub in the city’s shell building at 1350 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Brooklyn Center Inno-Hub will create a diverse and inclusive center for economic empowerment and opportunity to fast-track post-pandemic economic recovery & rebuilding. TABLE of CONTENTS: Title and Introduction 1 Table of Contents 2 Subsistence and Surplus Models of Personal Economics 3 BC Inno-Hub Project Summary 4 Lead Project Partner and Core Competencies 6 Section 1: Key Needs and Issues 7 Community Needs 7 Contextual Factors 8 Community Assets 9 Section 2: Vision and Strategy 10 Goals 10 Objectives 10 Target Audience 11 Section 3: Programs Partnerships and Process 12 Programs 12 Project Partners 14 Project Launch Timeline 16 Section 4: Management Operations and Request 17 PROJECT SUMMARY: The BC Inno-Hub will perform 4 core functions: 1. Provide leadership in equitable and inclusive business innovation and community development 2. Deliver Micro Business growth support, coaching, consulting, workspace, meeting space, virtual office, mailing, and reception services, within an Opportunity Zone that provides additional pathways for wealth-building 3. Create an inclusive business networking marketplace, a matchmaking service linking small and large businesses in mutually beneficial partnerships 4. Host UpSkilling workforce development programming from community partners Leveraging the Paadio Consulting team’s expertise in microbusiness development and many partners in economic and community development, The Inno-Hub will provide resources, training, technology, and mentorship to grow and retain entrepreneurial and skilled talent in Brooklyn Center and the Twin Cities region. The Inno-Hub will give the city government, leading corporations, and nonprofits a productive forum to connect with entrepreneurs, problem solvers, newcomer business leaders, and emerging workforces. “BC INNO-HUB is a Unique Social Enterprise, Driven by Public-Private Partnership, Maximizing Value for the City’s Residents and Businesses” Paadio Consulting requests free access to the 3500 sf. vacant business space at 1350 Shingle Creek Parkway in Brooklyn Center, to create BC Inno-Hub, a center for inclusive business development and opportunity. This catalyzing enterprise will: ● Help local micro businesses network and grow. ● Connect leading businesses with diverse partners. ● Train local emerging talent creating improved career pathways. ● Prototype and showcase potential development avenues to engage the community on projects such as the Brooklyn Center Opportunity Site. ● Attract revenue and resources to Brooklyn Center BC Inno-Hub will provide facilities and tools to nurture new ideas and creative business initiatives. Our resources, support, and programming will help our community become more resilient, advancing economic success and prosperity at the individual level. BC Inno-Hub will create initiatives to generate business linkages and partnerships between micro businesses, large companies, the city, nonprofits, and foundations. BC-Inno-Hub will foster a positive environment conducive for all stakeholders large and small to collaborate, create, and innovate together in a supportive network. LEAD PROJECT PARTNER and CORE COMPETENCIES: Paadio Consulting is a social enterprise dedicated to transitioning all people from economic subsistence to persistent prosperity and abundance. Paadio’s ventures help newcomers, people at the economic margins, and micro entrepreneurs build the capacity to invest meaningfully in growth and development. Our core competencies are in leadership in inclusive economic development, micro business support, and building diverse equitable business partnerships. We are bridgebuilders between micro enterprises, big business, BIPOC communities, and regional government. We connect businesses of all sizes with the resources and partnership they seek. Paadio has an extensive network of economic development specialists ready to deploy micro business support services and deliver DEIB matchmaking services to large corporations. Paadio’s partner organizations are poised to deliver UpSkilling workforce development solutions to Brooklyn Center. Our services include coaching, training, facilitation, management and consulting, delivering diverse, equitable, and inclusive business development resources and programming. Our focus is local and regional including Brooklyn Center and the Twin Cities region. Paadio works in close collaboration with municipalities and fiscal sponsors to deliver innovation and opportunity in economic empowerment, microbusiness management, corporate DEIB matchmaking, technology training, career advancement, entrepreneurship, workforce development, and youth development. Paadio partners with nonprofit organizations, corporate entities, and foundations to fund and execute our empowerment programming. Through Paadio’s management of the Innovation Hub, Brooklyn Center will see an influx of resources and funding for inclusive economic development. Economic empowerment at the individual level is a question of access to opportunity, and not just the opportunity itself. Reducing the barriers to increasing incomes for Brooklyn Center residents is what the BC Inno-Hub is founded to solve. Paadio’s Role: ● Deliver micro business programming and services ● Source and manage third-party training and development programming ● Engage diverse stakeholders in micro-scale economic empowerment ● Host community collaborative programming and leadership events ● Create a leadership space for equitable and inclusive business practice SECTION 1: KEY NEEDS & ISSUES A. Community Needs: Post-Pandemic Economic Recovery and Inclusive Opportunity for All Stakeholders: Residents of Brooklyn Center need the resources to emerge from the dual crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic and social disparities created by systemic racism. The creation of multi-generational wealth is needed to elevate our community and our children’s prospects. Creating discretionary income fosters true freedom of choice, economic equity, and the power to invest in family, home, business, and the community of Brooklyn Center. Micro Business Owners need tools, resources, and access to sustain operations, network with complementary business, grow revenue, and scale up business. Unemployed and under-employed residents need to find career inspiration, hone relevant skills, and connect with higher-income employment opportunities. Nonprofits focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging will need points of access to connect with constituencies with need. Corporations lack the connections to fully enact inclusive and equitable procurement and employment policy. They seek community partners in leading initiatives to create a more diverse, equitable, and inclusive society. City Governments lack the network of diverse vendors, suppliers, partners, and employees to fully embody and enact inclusive equitable civic policy. Cities need skilled, passionate, collaborative, and creative partners to create and extend a web of supportive services and resources to empower all residents to reach greater prosperity. We will have reached equity and inclusion in our cities when all citizens engage with and fully benefit from all segments of our governing apparatus. B. Contextual Factors: Paadio has identified several factors influencing need for an inclusive innovation hub: 1) The city has shifted significantly post-COVID and the community outcry with civil unrest. There is an increasing pressure, need, and will to focus on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) across the city, region, and state, as our nation places greater focus on issues of social justice, economic equality, civil rights, and civic fairness. 2) Large corporations and the business community have an increasing desire to do business at all levels with diverse populations, but generally lack the relationships to follow through on expanding meaningful engagement in channels other than sales, such as employment, procurement, and investment. 3) Brooklyn Center is the most diverse city in Minnesota, and one of the most diverse cities in the midwest. As such, our community has the most to gain from successful implementation of DEIB initiatives. Our hub will help accelerate and amplify the benefits of a diverse community, and foster investment in the city. As a city that is regionally ahead of the curve, in terms of shifting demographics and diversity, we have the opportunity to test and perfect new models for success, and act as leaders for our state and nation. 4) Average incomes within Brooklyn Center are lower than Hennepin County as measured for each racial segment. To improve the quality of life in Brooklyn Center we need to raise incomes for our whole community and build and attract new economic resources. 5) Brooklyn Center has few resources and support systems available for economic and career empowerment, particularly as it relates to individuals and micro businesses. C. Community Assets: Brooklyn Center is uniquely positioned to lead in diverse, equitable and inclusive economic development. The following factors can contribute to Brooklyn Center’s leadership in solving a local, regional, and national challenge facing our democracy: ● We are Small - change is easier when you start at a small scale ● We are Flexible - with a smaller city infrastructure we can move quickly ● We are Diverse - our differences are our strength; many perspectives lead to holistic and sustainable solutions ● We are Emblematic of shifting regional and national demographics - the region and the nation are looking to us to see how we solve our issues ● We have a Motivated newcomer population - our country has been built on the ingenuity and hard work of immigrants realizing an evolving American Dream time and time again. We are the engine of innovation. SECTION 2: VISION & STRATEGY A. Goals: The overall vision of Paadio is encapsulated in the following statement: We exist to make systemic prosperity the normal way of life, by bridging the gaps between large economic players and micro entities in the shared business ecosystem. We empower invisible entrepreneurs by catalyzing personal economic growth using a diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging lens. Through the services of the BC Inno-Hub we aspire to revitalize local economies, create generational wealth, and support the city’s inclusive economic development focusing on post pandemic recovery. B. Objectives: The objectives of BC Inno-Hub will bridge gaps and expand opportunities for systemic change in the following areas: 1. Provide thought leadership in equitable and inclusive innovation and development. a. Generate, and infuse new ideas into the city’s leadership, management, and deliverables to residents b. Create a space for ideation, experimentation, business prototyping, and mentorship to help the City realize the mission and vision of its Opportunity Site, as well as the full potential of other redevelopment sites. 2. Provide direct support and service to micro business owners and job seekers 3. Create a matchmaking service connecting small diverse business entities with large economic partners. 4. Create a hub venue for inclusive economically-focused initiatives, fostering collaboration between residents, city government, business owners, nonprofits, foundations, regional corporations, and innovation experts. C. Target Audiences: This project would be focused on supporting: ● Micro Businesses (businesses grossing <$250k/yr with 0-5 employees) ● Community Career Changers and Youth ● Local and Regional Entrepreneurs ● BIIPOC community ● Local Government systems ● Corporations seeking DEIB partnerships SECTION 3: PROGRAMS, PARTNERSHIPS, and PROCESS Paadio proposes to develop the BC Inno-Hub in a phased approach designed to create value quickly, reduce risk, scale with time, and attract valuable external financial resources and expertise to the city. By combining the diverse competencies of Paadio Team Consultants with existing and future community partners the Inno-Hub will be able to quickly scale up program offerings over the first 36 months of operation. A. Programs: BC Inno-Hub program offerings and services align with the core competencies of Paadio Consulting as well as those of its key partners, and are grouped into four areas. Please reference our Timeline worksheet on page 17 that provides a visual overview of phased launch of programming. DEIB Leadership and Innovation - ● DEIB Business Consulting - provide strategic services to corporations, governments, and foundations seeking to build diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging into their vision, mission, operations, offerings, and investment. ● EDA Micro Business Summit - Host regional collaborative conference sharing strategy, policy, and programming to support and accelerate micro business growth across the Twin Cities. ● Inclusive Procurement Summit - Host summit accelerating growth in inclusive practice in corporate procurement. Share end to end solutions for building diversified partner and vendor portfolios. ● DEIB Collaboration Summit - Host community development summit focused on building synergistic partnership and joint venture leading to inclusive and equitable outcomes in personal economics and social power. ● Inclusive Recruiting Summit - Host regional summit sharing best practices for diverse talent attraction, inclusive recruiting, and equitable pipeline development. ● Workforce Equity Lab - launch collaborative incubator for nurturing experimental initiatives in workforce diversification. Micro Business Growth Services - ● Micro Business Navigation Coaching - provide individual guidance to micro entrepreneurs on growth strategy, operations, system navigation, and investment ● CoWorking Space Rental - provide virtual office, coworking and semi-private workspace, meeting space, and office technology to local micro businesses ● Micro Business Boot Camps - provide short weekend and evening intensives teaching core business skills for microbusiness with topics including accounting, marketing, finance, technology, legal, procurement, HR, creative ● Micro Business Accelerator - create a micro business focused multi-month intensive to nurture, grow and professionalize micro-business concepts, technology development, customer acquisition, marketing, investment, hiring, etc. ● Micro Business Pod Services - launch cluster of direct services from local and virtual providers creating the fractional employment opportunities in specialty business management competencies to catalyze seamless scaling of micro business. Create aggregated customer opportunities for professionals in accounting, finance, legal, marketing, creative, IT, etc. ● Micro Business Incubator - long term host and guide an in-house collaborative cohort of micro businesses. Candidates for incubation would come from graduates of the accelerator with a concentration on promoting BIIPOC entrepreneurship and DEIB business practice DEIB Business Matchmaking Marketplace - ● DEIB Matchmaking Service - Our Navigator team will provide consultation and direct service to corporations in identifying, developing, and closing on diverse and inclusive partnering opportunities. ● Local eMIX Forums with Meet and Greet, Networking Events - Host business networking events structured to introduce large and small players to each other ● Procurement Link Forum - Host physical networking opportunities for institutions and vendors (this programming currently exists in a virtual format). UpSkilling Workforce Development - ● Youth Career Inspiration in partnership with BrookLynk - We will coordinate closely with the BrookLynk Director and her team to add unique value to the existing programs and the expanded programming coming soon. The Youth Career Inspiration Program will provide events for youth to network with recruiters and hiring managers, as well as people working in specific career fields. ● Coding Academy - This is high level upskilling and reskilling in technologies that include cybersecurity, Application Programming Interface (API), coding and Data Analysts. We have started building relationships with local trainers as well as Trilogy - (One of the largest technology training organizations in the US. ● On-the-Job training -The Hub will facilitate on-the-job training between employers and a pool of local talents. We will design the program with the stakeholders to identify the areas of need and match with local applicants. The employers will pay some percentages of the pay rate while we augment with sponsoring partners. ● Mentor-Protege-Program - facilitate a collaborative growth program for larger organizations to subcontract small jobs to microbusinesses, provide mentorship, training and supportive environment for the protege to learn the ropes, earn revenue, and build capacity. The proof of concept is well established by MnDOT. We will modify it to achieve the designed outcome B. Project Partners As a hub of resources, skill, and vision the BC Inno-Hub will draw on a deep well of knowledge and experience from the Paadio Consulting team and our group of talented partners. With partners in micro business development, workforce development, technical solutions, economic and community development funding, DEIB advocacy, and real estate management, we are positioned to deliver a comprehensive suite of supportive offerings and innovation that no single organization could deliver alone. ● Micro Business Development Support Partners: ○ ACER: microbusiness economic development ○ Mirror Ink360 -- full spectrum of branding and marketing services. ○ Significant Advantage -- small business development, training, coaching, and technical assistance. ○ Impact Zone Strategies -- small business owner professional development, leadership training, and HR services. ○ MIX -- Meetups, Networking, Forums, Investment and Business Service Matchmaking since 2019 supporting Brooklyn entrepreneurs & innovators. Digital platform and space design partner. ○ Joule Micro Nation -- focused on freelancers and micro business development, networking, and training. ○ TVA Tax, Accounting, and Legal -- CPA and Legal services in Brooklyn Center focused on small businesses and individuals needing tax strategy and education. ● Workforce Development Partners: ○ AfriMentor - Equips, empowers, and positions black immigrants with skillsets that foster career development, personal income, and wealth- building ○ BrookLynk - We will coordinate closely with the BrookLynk Director and her team to add unique value to the existing programs and the expanded programming coming soon. Our focus is on matching job seekers with mentoring and on the job training in an apprenticeship-style. ○ Prosperity Ready - Develops ready-now immigrant talent programs, provides navigation, and places participants with pre-committed hiring organizations. ○ Whitestone Personal and Professional Marketing - Customized job transitions ○ We Network Now - Connect professionals of African descent to opportunities and demystify professional and personal success. ● Technical Partners: ○ HandsOn Twin Cities -- Technical partner in developing digital supports for micro business ○ Target Corporation -- Technical partner in developing communication for fundraising, corporate partnerships, and the digital platform for supplier diversity search, networking, and matching. ○ City of Brooklyn Park EDA -- Technical partner in development of DEIB Procurement programming ● Funding Partners: ○ Partnership with various Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and foundations for fiscal sponsorship on projects and programs. ○ Donald Shea -- Former executive director of US Chamber of Commerce, raised over 10M for public/private initiatives. ● Potential Collaborative Programming Partners: [Community Partners] ○ LIBA -- Community-based organization providing fundamental business services to African-owned businesses and other BIIPOC populations. ○ ACER -- Community-based organization providing career and micro business services to the African immigrant community and other BIIPOC populations. ○ CAPI -- Community-based organization providing career and micro business services to Asian immigrant community and other BIIPOC populations. ○ MAC -- Community-based organization providing community engagement with and advocacy for Africans in Minnesota, with multiple initiatives in Brooklyn Center. ○ MEDA -- CDFI providing access to capital, lending services and technical assistance for entrepreneurs of color. ○ ADC --- CDFI providing access to capital and financial training. ● Spatial Management Partners: ○ NEON - Offers coworking spaces, expert guidance from NEON Business Advisors, mentorship, business incubation and development, training, workshops. ○ Brady Real Estate Development -- Space planning, budgeting, cost analysis, and space management. Opportunity zone expertise. C. Program Launch Timeline Paadio proposes to reduce risk in the development process by using a phased approach. This will allow us to leverage existing core competencies and create fast wins for stakeholders, collaborating through our established relationships with community- based organizations and CDFIs like NEON, Metro IBA, LIBA, ACER, MEDA, ADC, Women-Venture, and NDC. Together with our experienced partners we will be able to incrementally launch a strong suite of offerings over our first 36 months. This collaborative approach will allow the BC Inno-Hub to rapidly build excitement, participation, success, and further funding sources and programming opportunities. As a customer/client-focused business we will adjust our program planning based on both measured outcomes and direct feedback from our diverse set of stakeholder groups. Our four focus areas create a strategic roadmap when viewed in sequence. ● Providing DEIB leadership events and programming up front is designed to create visibility for the hub and attract new clients, participants, partners, and funders. ● Rapidly deploying micro business support services brings in a diverse clientele of local entrepreneurs seeking to build wealth through private enterprise. ● Building on micro business support with UpSkilling workforce development programming will attract motivated local job seekers who seek to build wealth through employment. ● This powerful combination of diverse entrepreneurs and job seekers is exactly the community that corporations seeking to build inclusive and equitable business practices wish to engage. In this way, building DEIB leadership events and consulting, micro business support services, and upskilling workforce development programming together create the venue and the supply part of our DEIB Business Matchmaking Marketplace. Corporations, representing the demand part of the matchmaking marketplace, see the value of the BC Inno-Hub’s proposed integrated services as it creates a pipeline and pathway for inclusive equitable business practice that otherwise does not exist. Innovation is in creating a viable symbiotic relational space for small and large economic players to connect and share value. SECTION 4: MANAGEMENT & OPERATION OF THE HUB Paadio will provide the strategy, planning, build-out, management, and operation of the Inno-Hub space with a cultural appreciation of the city of Brooklyn Center’s demography. A. Business Model The term “hub” is the foundation of our business model. Our local research with corporate and government procurement and workforce professionals has highlighted the increasing cost of the gaps they are facing that are impacting talent acquisition, employee engagement, supplier diversity, and customer retention. The overall lack of context for building relationships with the local community at large, and the BIIPOC community in particular, is becoming more painful. One pillar of our model is to create revenues by providing corporate and government partners with high value direct channels and a physical + digital context of the Inno-Hub to network with local micro businesses and job seekers, and for providing collaborative and practical programs that engage the local community in multicultural and multigenerational innovation on behalf of larger businesses. Even in this smaller format, event space is in high demand. Our plan provides for a highly flexible space that can be configured for different types of uses and events. We will produce DEIB-focused events for the business community that celebrate the vibrant cultures in our surrounding communities, introduce immersive cultural experiences for corporate clients, and provide event planning, management, and hosting services through our dynamic event partners and local vendors who provide in-demand services to the business clients and entrepreneurs who will frequent this space. Our emphasis is on providing relevant high value propositions to our clients in the macroeconomic environment, while fundraising to subsidize and sponsor the advancement of micro business and job seekers in the community. This sets our business model apart from typical coworking and event spaces. SUMMARY OF INNO-HUB FUNDING SOURCES: ● Paadio startup investment ● Brooklyn Center financial support ● Foundation, Corporate, and Nonprofit sponsorship and grants in collaboration with public and private partners. ● Internally generated revenue ○ coworking space renting ○ office renting ○ Pod service fees ○ Event hostings ○ corporate training ○ Township Retreat & Immersion ■ Full Immersion - minimum of a full working day ■ Partial Immersion - After hours - evenings ■ concierge services ○ build partnership Earl Brown Center for sizes beyond the Hub. ○ Identify areas of group tour expressing our diversity and richness in culture ○ partner with community based organizations for culturally immersive diversity networking, entertainment and cultural appreciation. B. Budget Summary: PROJECT COST ESTIMATES: (reference Budget Worksheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IJ0_Sdb9IqblGnX9NskL9FnFsLp- q_uQ03noC3JGWDI/edit?usp=sharing) Buildout Startup Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 buildouts est. at $80/sf x 3500sf set up expenses fixed costs per month phase 1 fixed costs per month phase 2 fixed costs/mo phase 3 $ 280,000 $ 32,000 $ 12,220 $ 146,640 $ 18,400 $ 220,800 $ 22,100 $ 265,200 FFE est. $30/sf for phase 1 $ 105,000 DIRECT REVENUES: Phase 1 revenues Phase 2 revenues Phase 3 revenues $ 220,125 $ 597,525 $ 774,600 GROSS MARGIN ESTIMATES: 23% 28% 34% FUNDRAISING $500,000 C. Requests to the City EDA: In summary, Paadio is grateful to the City EDA and Council for the opportunity to build and manage the Inno-Hub for collaboration and gathering that supports the micro business community and advances other initiatives in the city. Our specific requests: ● Paadio is requesting free access from the City to use the empty space (approx. 3,500 sq ft) that is located close to the Opportunity Site to create BC Inno-Hub. ● Paadio is requesting budgetary support and/or subsidies to accelerate initial startup and nurture early operations. ● Paadio is requesting partnership with the city in acquiring additional resources from third party funding sources. ○ Work with Paadio to develop a Memorandum of Understanding to define the partnership with the City EDA. ○ Allow Paadio to secure the space during the Inno-Hub project development, estimated to take about six months to define the detailed buildout and business plan and raise funds. ○ Provide a letter of intent and assistance in identifying local allies who are most likely to welcome the opportunity to provide funding and other forms of support for the Inno-Hub and its services. D. PreLaunch TIMELINE: ● Present proposal to City Council ● Receive Approval to Proceed with MOU between City and Paadio ○ Place hold on usage of proposed Inno-Hub space ○ Develop funding sources in partnership with city ● Develop formal MOU with EDA by Aug 30, 2021 ● Finalize site development / buildout plan by Oct 15 2021 ● Obtain permits and complete initial phase buildout by Dec 30 2021 ● Equip the space for soft launch by January 15 2022 CLOSING STATEMENT: Thank you to the City Council, Mayor, and EDA for your consideration of our BC Inno- Hub Proposal. We are excited by the opportunity to create broad value for the community that is realized by diverse stakeholders. We are grateful to the City of Brooklyn Center for supporting ongoing efforts to innovate in both business and equitable and inclusive practice. We look forward to co-creating regional leadership in inclusive economic development with the city. Sincerely, Jude Nnadi and the Paadio Consulting Team COWORKING think zero waste / circular economy Source Assumptions Startup costs $448,001 $0 Build out list Furniture list Fixture list Equipment list Software list Supplies List Labor List Process Development List Sourse Account Name Description not required by city security deposit $0 start with vanilla shell reception desk lighting fixtures front desk pc WIndows 10 Copy machine paper Set up team Strategic Plan Advertising and Promotion Advertising, marketing, graphic design, and other promotional expenses city contribution lease up front fees $0 reception chairs wall fixtures front desk copy machine Microsoft Office 365 branded notebooks Pre-opening Day team Business Model Auto and Truck Expenses Fuel, oil, repairs, and other maintenance for business autos and trucks internal team at lower cost build outs at $80/sf $280,000 include 1 "family" room for infants lobby chairs bathroom fixtures routers Adobe Creative Suite branded gel pens Process development team 8 Business Process Maps Bank Service Charges Bank account service fees, bad check charges and other bank fees sanitary sewer hookup $5,000 find liquidator deals $39 furniture $30,000 lobby buildouts?lobby tables [ref. kitchen fixtures]ethernet cables Miro whiteboard markers Procedures for all critical functions Blueprints and Reproduction Blueprints, photostats, and other printing expense find liquidator deals fixtures (bathroom, kitchen, lights, speakers, security, tech)$40,000 [ref. kitchen buildouts]lobby shelves I.T. closet fixtures widescreen tv/monitors Acuity whiteboard erasers Policies Bond Expense Construction bonds expenses directly related to jobs find liquidator deals equipment (tech, kitchen, copy/printer)$65,000 Microsoft Surface Hub 2.0 sharpie markers Building and Property Security Building and property security monitoring expenses First month / Set up $800 LAB lounge couches lounge counter tops Business Licenses and Permits Business licenses, permits, and other business- related fees set up of space (tech, equipment, furniture, etc.)$800 - smart board lounge chairs lounge cabinets dishwasher plates Commissions Paid Commissions paid to outside sales reps and agents multicultural media website design & development $3,000 - smart adjustable table lounge coffee tables lounge sink microwave/convection oven mugs Computer and Internet Expenses Computer supplies, off-the-shelf software, online fees, and other computer or internet related expenses digital marketing $3,000 - high intensity lighting lounge laptop desks lounge sink faucets espresso machines silverware Conferences and Meetings Costs for attending conferences and meetings print advertising $500 - wet counter (sinks)lounge bookshelves teapots teacups Chemicals Purchased Costs of chemicals used in farming operations supplies $1,500 - refrigerator / cooler lounge dining table composter coffee Construction Materials Costs Construction materials costs contract admin labor (CM, admin, IT/lab)$8,000 lounge dining chairs can crusher tea Continuing Education Seminars, educational expenses and employee development, not including travel insurance $1,200 sugar Accounting Fees Outside (non-employee) accounting, audit, bookkeeping, tax prep, payroll service, and related consulting professional services - legal $3,000 Legal Fees Outside (non-employee) legal services Quality System set up professional services - accounting $1,200 long tables for coworking honey process development $5,000 Contracted Services Direct labor costs for contract (non-employees) performing services for clients utilities Depreciation Expense Depreciation on equipment, buildings and improvements internet Dues and Subscriptions Subscriptions and membership dues for civic, service, professional, trade organizations security Equipment Rental Rent paid for rented equipment used for business Equipment Rental for Jobs Rent paid for rented equipment used on jobs $28,000 Special Events Brand vangelism, and special events SPACE EXPENSES Total toward space per sf long benches for coworking spices Facilities and Equipment Expenses related to office, storage, and other space Buildout per sf $0 $80 Fertilizers and Lime Fertilizers and lime purchased for farm operations. FFE per sf $0 $30 Food Purchases Food purchases including meats, vegetables, and all ingredients for Restaurants $0 workstations (standing/sitting)dishwasher detergent Freight and Shipping Costs Freight-in and shipping costs for delivery to customers Fixed costs desk chairs dishwasher rinse aid Freight and Trucking Amounts paid for freight or trucking of farm products. lease (nnn)$1 stools Freight Costs Costs of freight and delivery for merchandise purchased software subscriptions $500 dish detergent Fuel for Hired Vehicles Fuel costs for hired vehicles HR/Payroll subscription $150 Norwex cloths Gasoline, Fuel and Oil Gasoline, fuel or oil used for farm machinery banking fees $20 Norwex towels General Liability Insurance General liability insurance premiums POS $100 Life and Disability Insurance Employee life and disability insurance premiums supplies $800 Professional Liability Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance Paadio Community Manager $4,800 Workers Compensation Worker’s compensation insurance premiums CTO - I.T. Training, Help Desk, Technical Assistance $1,200 Equipment Insurance Insurinf your equipment or facilities Administration & Reception $4,200 Interest Expense Interest payments on business loans, credit card balances, or other business debt insurance $200 Janitorial Expense Janitorial expenses and cleaning supplies professional services - legal $100 Job Materials Purchased Construction materials used on jobs professional services - accounting $150 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Landscape maintenance, gardening, and pool maintenance costs of your building professional services - bookkeeping $300 Linens and Lodging Supplies Costs of linens and other supplies for guest rooms professional services - custodial $200 Marketing Expense Advertising, marketing, graphic design, and other promotional expenses for our company Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization Materials Costs Cost of materials used on jobs Monthly Overhead / Operating Costs:$12,220 Meals and Entertainment***Business meals and entertainment expenses, including travel-related meals (may have limited deductibility, specially after 01/01/2018) CEO & Navigators who we are and why we exist Media Purchased for Clients Print, TV, radio, and other media purchased for clients where we are going Medical Records and Supplies practices Cost of Sales $220,125 Merchant Account Fees Credit card merchant account discount fees, transaction fees, and related costs # of transactions/mo Ministry Expenses Ministry expenses for non-profit / churches per transaction fees 2.50%$5,503 Office Supplies Office supplies expense the unit economics of the business running full speed, clear break even points: throttling utilization; what does a new MIX add in terms of EBIDTA path from zero to opening, makes sense of burn marketing 10%$22,013 Other Construction Costs Other costs directly related to jobs such as waste disposal, onsite storage rental, etc. sales commissions 15%$33,019 impact investor money?Other Job Related Costs Other costs directly related to jobs such as waste disposal, onsite storage rental, etc. set up costs 5%$11,006 how we're going to spend it and why Outside Services Payments to outside contractors (non-employees) for projects, consulting, or short-term assignments dedicated office set up 3%$6,604 who we're going to present to Parts Purchases Purchases of parts for use on customer repairs or resale program facilitation leans on outsourced 44%$96,855 Payroll Expenses Payroll expenses partners to reduce costs and risks Postage and Delivery Postage, courier, and pickup and delivery services Sq Ft 23.00%$50,629 Printing and Reproduction Printing, copies, and other reproduction expenses rent psf Product Samples Expense Cost of products used as floor samples or given to customers for trial or demonstration CAM psf Professional Fees Payments to attorneys and other professionals for services rendered Gross psf per yr $0 Purchases – Hardware for Resale Purchases of hardware items for resale that are not tracked or counted in inventory Annual Rent $0 Purchases – Parts and Materials Purchases of parts and other supplies used on service and maintenance jobs Monthly Rent $0 Purchases – Resale Items Purchases of items for resale that are not tracked or counted in inventory Purchases – Software for Resale Purchases of software items for resale that are not tracked or counted in inventory Reference Materials Coding books, anatomical charts and models, etc. Rent Expense Rent paid for company offices or other structures used in the business Repairs and Maintenance Incidental repairs and maintenance of business assets that do not add to the value or appreciably prolong its life Research Services Research costs including legal library and subscriptions for research services Restaurant Supplies Supplies purchased for restaurant operations. Includes dishes, cookware, and other items not classified as inventory or fixed assets Salon Supplies, Linens, Laundry Costs of supplies used in the course of business (includes linens and laundry services) Seeds and Plants Purchased Seeds and plants purchased for producing farm income. Shop Expense Miscellaneous shop supplies and related shop expenses (rags, hand cleaning supplies, etc.) Small Medical Equipment Purchases of small instruments and equipment not classified as fixed assets for medical practices Small Tools and Equipment Purchases of small tools or equipment not classified as fixed assets Storage and Warehousing Amounts paid to store farm commodities. Subcontractors Expense Subcontracted services performed by other contractors Taxes – Property Taxes paid on property owned by the business, franchise taxes, excise taxes, etc. Telephone Expense Telephone and long distance charges, faxing, and other fees Not equipment purchases Tools and Small Equipment Purchases of tools or small equipment used on jobs Travel and Meetings Expenses related to travel, meetings, conferences Conference, Convention, Meeting Conducting, or sending staff to, program-related meetings, conferences, conventions Travel Expense Business-related travel expenses including airline tickets, taxi fares, hotel and other travel expenses Travel Expenses for Drivers Business-related travel expenses including hotel and meals for drivers Truck Maintenance Costs Maintenance, repairs, tires, etc. on trucks, tractors, and trailers for hire Uniforms Uniforms for employees and contractors Utilities Water, electricity, garbage, and other basic utilities expenses of your office or business facilities Vaccines and Medicines Vaccines, medicines, and other drugs for medical practices Worker’s Compensation Insurance Worker’s compensation insurance premiums services Year 1:$220,125 Est. Rev/Mo:$64,550 Year 1:month 1 month 2 month 3 month 4 month 5 month 6 Year 2:$597,525 at mid-capacity $220,125 $6,800 $7,850 $8,150 $14,825 $14,625 $14,925 Year 3:$774,600 23%COS $1,564 $1,806 $1,875 $3,410 $3,364 $3,433 open services for the community list of paid services BASIS FOR BUDGET $146,640 OVERHEAD $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 community services with fiscal sponsorship from Community-Based Organizations like CAPI, ACER, LIBA, NEON (assume the hub is open 10 hrs/day, 20 days/mo)Sponsorship can offset / subsidize costs #/mo unit type unit rate rev est. CASHFLOW -$6,984 -$6,176 -$5,945 -$805 -$959 -$728 business lounge with business book library mailing service $75/month subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 20 users $75 $1,500 150 300 450 600 750 900 food and beverage bar/counter reception and phone answering service $150/month subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 10 users $150 $1,500 150 300 450 600 750 900 restrooms vendor/supplier matching service $150/month (large vendors pay to be promoted to users) 20 users $150 $3,000 300 450 600 750 900 1050 wifi private furnished day offices $750/month subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 3 users $750 $2,250 750 1500 1500 2250 2250 2250 POSITION BROOKLYN CENTER "AT THE CENTER"work rooms (marketing, design, prototyping)$35/hour subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 100 hours $35 $3,500 700 700 700 875 875 875 to create value for cities & school districts conference room $35/hour subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 100 hours $35 $3,500 700 700 700 875 875 875 as well as corporations phone booths $35/hour subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 100 hours $35 $3,500 0 0 0 875 875 875 -- through the power of diversity events: subsidized by partners to provide accessibility $0 -- through demonstrating inclusion and cultural appreciation space rental $100/hour 20 hours $100 $2,000 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 -- through specific services for connecting with and event production $50/hour 20 hours $50 $1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 engaging people of different cultures and languages event management $50/hour 20 hours $50 $1,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 entertainment or speakers fees vary (split for Inno-Hub)1 $500 $500 0 0 0 500 0 0 Offer packages to cities, school districts, and corporations sound system rental $50/hour 10 hours $50 $500 0 0 0 0 0 0 light system rental $50/hour 4 hours $50 $200 0 0 0 0 0 0 A/V equipment rental $50/hour 10 hours $50 $500 0 0 0 0 0 0 training $100/hour subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 20 hours $100 $2,000 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 coaching $100/hour subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 8 hours $100 $800 200 200 200 200 200 200 technical assistance / navigation $75/hour subsidized by partners to provide accessibility 40 hours $75 $3,000 1500 1500 1500 2000 2000 2000 FOCUS MORE HERE: innovation tool kit corporate or govt clients 4 $1,200 $4,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 facilitation sessions corporate or govt clients 2 $1,200 $2,400 0 0 0 1200 1200 1200 (reference Jude + Zark's list of funding sources)$0 microbusiness pods -- service fees 6 $400 $2,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 corporate training 8 $300 $2,400 0 0 0 1200 1200 1200 township retreat & immersion 0.5 $7,200 $3,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 partnerships with other event centers like Earle Brown 2 $100 $200 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 $5,000 $5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 (through food, entertainment, media) networking events and services 3 $500 $1,500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 matching services 10 $1,000 $10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0 20 $100 $2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 import/export connections, consulting, partner with U.S. and Minnesota Trade Office, Global Minnesota kiosk with interactive touch smartboard with preset resources for people to connect with, chosen based on good fit with BC community sponsored interactive art installation that people can touch and create for constantly changing designs special events that celebrate diversity and cultural appreciation month 7 month 8 month 9 month 10 month 11 month 12 Year 2:month 13 month 14 month 15 month 16 month 17 month 18 month 19 month 20 month 21 month 22 month 23 month 24 $21,800 $21,600 $21,900 $29,450 $28,950 $29,250 $597,525 $50,150 $38,350 $38,850 $52,125 $45,025 $45,125 $57,050 $49,850 $57,050 $49,850 $57,050 $57,050 $5,014 $4,968 $5,037 $6,774 $6,659 $6,728 28%$14,042 $10,738 $10,878 $14,595 $12,607 $12,635 $15,974 $13,958 $15,974 $13,958 $15,974 $15,974 $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 $12,220 $220,800 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $18,400 $4,566 $4,412 $4,643 $10,457 $10,072 $10,303 CASHFLOW $17,708 $9,212 $9,572 $19,130 $14,018 $14,090 $22,676 $17,492 $22,676 $17,492 $22,676 $22,676 1050 1200 1350 1500 1500 1500 265200 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1050 1200 1350 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1200 1350 1500 1500 1500 1800 2100 2500 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 1050 1050 1050 1400 1400 1400 1750 1750 1750 2625 2625 2625 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 1050 1050 1050 1400 1400 1400 1750 1750 1750 2625 2625 2625 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 1050 1050 1050 1400 1400 1400 1750 1750 1750 2625 2625 2625 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500 1500 1500 1500 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 500 500 500 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 500 500 500 500 500 500 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 500 0 0 500 0 0 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 100 100 100 250 250 250 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 50 50 50 100 100 100 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 250 250 250 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 1500 1500 1500 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 300 300 300 400 400 400 500 500 500 700 800 900 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1200 1200 1200 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 1200 1200 1200 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 1200 1200 1200 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 2400 0 0 0 0 0 0 7200 0 0 7200 0 0 7200 0 7200 0 7200 7200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 5000 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 2000 2000 2000 4000 4000 4000 8000 8000 8000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 Timeline month 1 month 2 month 3 month 4 month 5 month 6 month 7 month 8 month 9 month 10 month 11 month 12 month 13 month 14 month 15 month 16 month 17 month 18 month 19 month 20 month 21 month 22 month 23 month 24 5 6 8 8 8 10 11 12 14 16 17 18 DEIB Leadership and Innovation DEIB Business Consulting EDA Micro Business Summit (ongoing support for networking and matching micros with business services and opportunities for procurement) Inclusive Procurement Summit (ongoing support for networking and matching micros with business services and opportunities for procurement) DEIB Collaboration Summit Innovation Tool Kit Launch Inclusive Recruiting Summit DEIB Art Installation Workforce Equity Lab Micro Business Growth Services Micro Business Navigation Coaching CoWorking Space Rental Micro Business Bootcamps Pop-Up Marketplace Micro Business Accelerator Micro Business Pod Services Micro Business Incubator DEIB Business Matchmaking Marketplace Hosted local eMIX Forums with Meet and Greet, Networking Events Connection into the local Procurement DEIB Program DEIB Matchmaking Service - Provided by Navigators UpSkilling Workforce Development Career Listening Center providing innovative access to On-The-Job Training & Apprenticeships (pave the way for the WEL)Workforce Equity Lab Coding Academy Youth Career Inspiration - bridge between business and youth in support of BrookLynk Programs C ouncil/E DA Work Session DAT E:7/26/2021 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:Youth on Boards P rogram D iscussion Requested Council A con: B ackground: T he C ity C ouncil has iden#fied a goal of incorpora#ng young people and advancing youth engagement and outreach as part of the 2021 budget and strategic ini#a#ves. T he C ity allocated $10,000 within the Recrea#on D epartment's 2021 budget to focus on and elevate youth par#cipa#on in decision-making. T his program would fulfill the goals of that ini#a#ve by imbedding young people within iden#fied boards, commissions or commi8ees as full contributors and decision-makers. The Brooklyn Bridge A lliance for Youth, in partnership with Youthpris e, is developing a program that would elevate youth voice at decis ion-making tables among A lliance partners. A full project charter and program descrip#on is a8ached to this report. This project for youth development and empowerment would cul#vate and mentor young people as they are appointed to various advis ory boards , commissions, and/or commi8ees of the City. The program s erves a dual func#on of eleva#ng youth voice at advisory and decision-making tables, and als o to reduce and eliminate barriers of entry for divers e voices as a whole. The program intends to provide leadership skill development for young people as well as skill building with current s i:ng advisory body members to create an inclusive and w elcoming space for diverse voices . The project includes a mul#-phased approach that w ould s tart s mall and build on itself to grow capacity and expand the number of youth who par#cipate. As part of the ini#al phase, staff is seeking direc#on from C ouncil on whether this program could provide value. T he next step would be to iden#fy 1-3 specific decision-making tables to imbed youth within, then work with the C ity A8orney to develop an implementa#on plan that meets any legal requirements that may exist for that body. Staff will then return to the C ity C ouncil to make any necessary changes to the by-laws or founda#onal resolu#ons that formed that decision-making body. T he inten#on is to con#nue to grow the program over #me, adding youth par#cipa#on at addi#onal advisory tables as capacity grows. B rooklyn B ridge Alliance for Youth has received funding to support the program, and they are not asking for C ity contribu#on at this #me. T he purpose of this work session discussion is to discuss the program and seek direc#on from the C ouncil on whether staff should proceed with developing an implementa#on strategy in partnership with B rooklyn B ridge Alliance for Youth. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues at this #me. I nclusive C ommunity Engagement: The purpos e of the program is to engage youth in a more direct and tangible way by including them at advis ory and decis ion-making tables w ithin the C ity. A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: The program w ill engage young people in the community, who are predominantly B I P O C, and provide leaders hip s kill building and inclusive engagement to elevate their voices and values within the exis#ng city governance s tructure. S trategic Priories and Values: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip#on U pload D ate Type Youth on Boards P roject Charter and D es crip#on 7/20/2021 Backup M aterial THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH Youth OnBoard Project Charter Julie Richards April 29th, 2021 Part of accelerating youth success is creating intentional space for them at decision-making tables. By placing young adults on Boards and Commissions throughout the cities and systems of Alliance members, we will cultivate civic voice for the next generation of leaders by working collaboratively to identify issues and design and implement solutions. 1 The Youth OnBoard Project Charter Project: Youth OnBoard Background: Part of accelerating youth success is creating intentional space for them at decision-making tables. By placing young adults (Emerging Leaders) on Boards, Commissions, and Committees (Decision-making Tables) throughout the Alliance partners that broadly serve the northwest area of Hennepin county, we will cultivate civic voice for the next generation of leaders by working collaboratively to identify issues and design and implement solutions. Youth OnBoard: 1) Identifies Commissions, Advisories, and Committees (Decision-making Tables) where decisions are made that impact youth 2) Matches young adults 14-25 (Emerging Leaders) in the community with leadership opportunities and decision-making tables, 3) Provides inclusion training for adults, 4) Provides on-boarding training for emerging leaders, so they can effectively engage and provide input that strengthens city efforts, and 5) Assists with on-going maintenance for these process shifts on boards, commissions, and leadership tables. This model was developed by the Northfield Healthy Community Initiative (HCI); however, we are building upon that to include boards, commissions, and other leadership tables to meet the unique needs of our community. The Youth OnBoard program is founded in the belief that the community is stronger when young people, or Emerging Leaders, participate at Decision-making Tables. The Alliance partners offer unique opportunities for Emerging Leaders to get involved in local government, the four school districts, and non-profit organizations to make change, gain an understanding of how organizations work, and use their voice in meaningful and powerful ways. Key Stakeholders: Young people 14-25 living in the northwest area of Hennepin County, boards, commissions, and other leadership tables within this area, current boards, commissions, leadership team members, city and systems leaders, and community members. Project purpose and description: The purpose of this project is to create intentional pathways for Emerging Leaders to fully participate on Decision-making Tables, leading to more inclusive environments that utilize and capitalize on a wider range of voices, experiences, needs, and ideas. 2 Project has two phases: • Phase 1: Program Design and Readiness (Spring 2021-Summer 2021) • Phase 2: Launch Pilot Program (Fall 2021- Fall 2022) Scope: The pilot project includes comprehensive plans for recruitment, implementation and on-boarding (both for Emerging Leaders and current Decision-making Tables), and on-going communication and support. Emerging Leaders In response to a gap in civic opportunities and leadership development, we created a pilot plan that focuses on recruiting young adults ages 14-25 who are interested in furthering their professional development and engagement with systems and high-level decision- making. While we will work with each organization to identify which populations tend to be least engaged, we know that young adults from these specific demographics tend to have the least access to decision-making spaces. We welcome students and non-students from these communities: ● Live and go to school in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park ● Low income/working class ● Renters ● County Involved ● Immigrant Communities ● LatinX ● African American ● Black or African ● Lao/Hmong Decision-making Tables We will begin the pilot project identifying tables (boards, commissions, and committees) within the program partners who are most ready. We will work to ensure that each table has at least two emerging leaders at the table. The appointments for Emerging Leaders will reflect the appointment schedule for the table (this is not just a school year program). Major Tasks and Timeline: Beginning in May 2021, we will begin to draft specific timelines that include formal invitations sent to interested program partners, exploratory conversations with interested Decision-making Tables to assess organizational readiness, develop the on-boarding process for current commission members, peer mentors, and young adults, discuss and development recruitment strategies and implementation, create an on-going communication loop, and determine how best to evaluate the pilot comprehensively. We will also begin to build diverse and intentional recruitment pathways for young people to participate. 3 By early fall, we plan on having our first Emerging Leaders begin participation. We will report back on what we’ve learned to the Alliance board and program partners, and then determine how to move the pilot into a sustainable phase. 2021 Tasks Lead Phase 1: Program Design and Readiness (Spring 2021-Summer 2021) April • Establish timelines for project launch. • Create readiness rubric for partners. • Reach out to our program partners with readiness rubric. • Establish initial recruitment pathways for Emerging Leaders. (Andrew Mua) • Draft youth profile Julie Implementat ion Team May • Begin stakeholder conversations in response to readiness rubric. • Draft timelines in response to readiness conversations. • Develop trainings for both young adults and current commission members. • Begin attending commission meetings for exploratory conversations. Julie Implementat ion Team June • Develop communication and feedback loop. • Finalize first iteration of Decision-making tables. • Finalize scope of 1st program launch – 1st iteration of decision-making tables. • Expand personnel as needed to respond to the Youth Onboard program scope • *If needed, post Youth OnBoard Program Coordinator position, begin hiring process. • Work with Ivan to develop evaluation strategy to focus on ensuring inclusive tables and EL satisfaction. Julie Implementat ion Team July • Invite Youth to become an Emerging Leader. • Post positions for tables with recruitment partners (BrookLynk Alumni network, BYC alumni, and program partners) Julie Phase 2: Launch Pilot Program (Fall 2021- Fall 2022) 4 August • Begin training first round of decision-tables (see logic model) • Begin training emerging leader: Both with general tools for participation and specific to each table. (See logic model) Julie Implementat ion Team Program Coordinator September - December • Test out communication mechanism with young adults. • Appointees begin commission appointments. • Begin bi-weekly/monthly meetings with young adults and peer mentor. • Attend and continue to assess the inclusion practices for the table. • Continue improving communication/support loop. • Begin young adult group trainings. For tables that have challenges with inclusion, explore the use of IDI for table development. • Continue young adult on-boarding, revisit self-care, their own equity journey and reflections on their development. • Begin recruitment for second cycle iteration. • Check in with program partners and table mentors for initial reactions/feedback to project implementation. Julie Program Coordinator Implementat ion Team Spring • Continue program, monitor results. • Provide update to board of directors. Summer • If supported by program partners, continue the program, and determine next steps in program sustainability. Fall • If supported by program partners, launch year 2. Project team: • Julie Richards – Project lead, Program Supervisor • Lexi Prahl, Transition Age Coordinator, Hennepin County • Andrew Mua, Public Ally, Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth • *Youth • *Point person from each program partner – who will liaise, coordinate, and engage as needed with the project team. These may be individuals who are assigned to onboarding efforts in their organization. *indicates project team members who will advise regularly but are not required to attend meetings. 5 Evaluation: Broadly speaking, the success of this effort will be measured in three ways. 1. Did leadership tables expand inclusive practices to include those impacted? 2. Did emerging leaders build skills that support their development? 3. Did we effectively coordinate the program? Definitions: Emerging Leaders: young people between the ages of 14-25, interested in participating Decision-making Tables: boards, commissions, committees, and other decision-making spaces C ouncil/E DA Work Session DAT E:7/26/2021 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:D r. Reginald Edw ards , A c#ng C ity M anager S U B J E C T:Pending I tems Requested Council A con: Earle Brow n Name Change for P ublic P roperty Council Policy for C ity C harter requirement of Mayor's s ignature on all contracts S trategic P lans for years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 Review S pecial A sses s ment Policy Tobacco O rdinance Emerald A s h Boer Policy Review Civilian D is cipline Review Commi9ee Community-W ide S urvey A9orney R F P P rocess B ackground: B udget I ssues: A nracist/Equity Policy Effect: S trategic Priories and Values: