Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 03-08 CCP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL MEETING Revised • City of Brooklyn Center March 8, 1999 AGENDA 1. Informal Open Forum With City Council - 6:45 p.m. - provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council 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 citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing he citizen iz n for informational g purposes only. 2. Invocation - 7 p.m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting 4. Roll Call 5. Council Report 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda . -The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted 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 consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes - Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the vote on the minutes. 1. Regular Session - February 22 1999 b. Licenses 1. Approval of Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling (Raffle Application) From North Hennepin Community College Foundation for an Event to be Held at Earle Brown Heritage Center on April 23, 1999 2. Approval of Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo at Orchard Lane Elementary School on April 24, 1999 3. Approval of Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo at Willow Lane Elementary School on April 3 0, 1999 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 8, 1999 4. Approval of Application for Exempt Permit (Raffle) at Evergreen Park Elementary School on April 16, 1999. C. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Grant Agreement and Receive State Monies if the City is Awarded a Conservation Partners Grant for the Eugene H. Hagel Arboretum 7. Public Hearings a. Continuation of Public Hearing on Creation of Tax Increment Financing District for Joslyn Site 1. Resolution Approving the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4, and the Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor - Requested Council Action: - Reopen the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. b. Proposed Improvement Project Nos. 1999 -01, 02, and 03, Southeast Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements -This item was first read on February 8, 1999; published in the official newspaper on February 17, 1999; and is offered this evening for a second reading and public hearing. 1. Resolution Ordering Improvements, Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 1999 -01, 02, and 03, Southeast Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- March 8, 1999 C. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances Relating to Open Burning and the Adoption of the Uniform Fire Code -This item was first read on February 8, 1999; published in the official newspaper on February 17, 1999; and is offered this evening for second reading and public hearing. -Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt ordinance. d. Projected Use of Funds for 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program 1. Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements - Requested Council Action: -Open the public hearing. -Take public input. -Close the public hearing. - Motion to adopt resolution. 8. Planning Commission Item a. Planning Commission Application No. 99001 Submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC. Request for Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the expansion, redevelopment, and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its February 25, 1999, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 99001 Submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC. 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Brookdale) - Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. - Motion to approve first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Brookdale) and set April 12, 1999, for second reading and public hearing. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 4- March 8, 1999 9. Council Consideration Items a. Bill Bellm Request for Change in Vehicle Weight Restrictions -Requested Council Action: - Council discussion with Mr. Bellm. b. Proclamation Declaring April 11 through April 18, 1999, as Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust -Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt proclamation. C. Set Date and im Ti e of General Work Session with Auditor and Possible Joint Meeting with Financial Commission -Requested Council Action: - Motion to set June 21, 1999, 7:00 p.m. for Council general work session. d. Amend 1999 City Council Meeting Schedule to Schedule 6:00 p.m. Study Session Before Each Regular Session Council Meeting -Requested Council Action: - Council adopt amended schedule. e. Note: This item was moved to Item No. 7d under Public Hearings. f. Resolution Authorizing Transfer of 54,357.16 to Earle Brown Heritage Center -Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. g. Resolution Supporting Various Legislative Proposals Affecting Cities •Requested Council Action: - Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 6a 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 FEBRUARY 22, 1999 CITY HALL 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in informal open forum and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman, Ed Nelson, and Robert Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Public Works Director Diane Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Recording Secretary Maria Rosenbaum. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM No one appeared at the open forum. Public Works Director Diane Spector informed the Council that the City of Brooklyn Center received an Honor Award for the Shingle Creek Regional Pond from the Consulting Engineering Council of Minnesota. Mayor Kragness asked Ms. Spector to show this award during the meeting. The Council discussed referring item 8b to the Financial Commission and also briefly discussed the recent action on the Time of Sale Ordinance. ADJOURN IN FORMAL OPEN FORUM A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to adjourn the informal open forum at 6:59 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Sheila Arrington, Spiritual Life Church gt P , offered the invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna Kragness at 7:02 p.m. 02/22/99 -1- DRAFT 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Myrna Kragness, Councilmembers Debra Hilstrom, Kay Lasman, Ed Nelson, and Robert Peppe. Also present: City Manager Michael J. McCauley, Public Works Director Diane Spector, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Recording Secretary Maria Rosenbaum. 5. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Lasman reported that she attended the Park and Recreation Commission meeting on February 16, 1999, and the Crime Prevention meeting on February 17, 1999. Councilmember Nelson reported that he attended the public hearing for the Highway 100 project on February 18, 1999. He expressed he would like to see more people attending these meetings. Mayor Kragness said that she believes there are not that many Brooklyn Center citizens attending right now because the City's portion of this project will not take place until 2002. Mayor Kragness expressed that it is important for citizens to attend planning meetings now. Mayor Kragness thanked Councilmember Peppe for acting as Mayor pro tem while she was on vacation. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Motion passed unanimously. 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to approve the minutes from the regular session on February 8, 1999. Motion passed unanimously. 6b. LICENSES A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Peppe to approve the following list of licenses. Motion passed unanimously. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS A -ABC Appliance and Heating 2638 Lyndale Avenue South, Minneapolis Action Heating and Air Conditioning 529 -79th Avenue Northeast, Spring Lake Park Excel Air Systems 2075 Prosperity Road, Maplewood Joel Smith Heating and Air Conditioning 14034 Lexington Avenue NE, Ham Lake Minnegasco 700 West Linden Avenue, Minneapolis i 02/22/99 -2- DRAFT RENTAL DWELLING Initial: Dariush Danesh 5820 Logan Avenue North Dariush Danesh 5800 -5830 Logan Avenue North Renewal: Curtis Cady 6915 Brooklyn Boulevard Vernon Hughes 5240 Drew Avenue North SIGN HANGER Demars Signs, Inc. 410 -93rd Avenue NW, Coon Rapids UTILIZE EXPLOSIVES WITH CONDITIONS Cropmate Company 4821 Xerxes Avenue North LIOUOR LICENSE Flik International Corporation Earle Brown Heritage Center 6e. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS RESOLUTION NO. 99 -29 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT, AND DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Peppe. Motion passed unanimously. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7a. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CREATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT FOR JOSLYN SITE Mr. McCauley requested to continue the public hearing on creation of tax increment financing district for Joslyn site to the March 8, 1999, City Council meeting. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to continue public hearing to the March 8, 1999, City Council meeting. Motion passed unanimously. 02/22/99 -3- DRAFT 7b. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PAYMENT BY PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALERS FOR ITEMS PLEDGED AND LOCATION OF PAWNBROKERS Mr. McCauley discussed the ordinance amending Chapter 23 of the City Ordinances relating to payment by pawnbrokers and secondhand goods dealers for items pledged and location of pawnbrokers. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one wished to address the Council. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Nelson to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 99 -08 Councilmember Peppe introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO PAYMENT BY PAWNBROKERS AND SECONDHAND GOODS DEALERS FOR ITEMS PLEDGED AND LOCATION OF PAWNBROKERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 8a. NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Mr. McCauley advised that the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission had given the City $10,000 to assist in paying for cable casting equipment. He recommended that this $10,000 be placed in the capital improvement fund which will be used to address building issues, including upgrading of cable television capabilities. The City's equipment is in need of upgrading. Councilmember Lasman expressed thanks for the Commission's generosity. A motion by Councilmember Lasman, seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom to place the $10,000 contribution by the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission in the capital improvement fund. Motion passed unanimously. 02/22/99 -4- DRAFT • 8b. ENTERPRISE FUND CASH BALANCE TARGETS Mr. McCauley suggested, based on the City Council's previous suggestion, that the matter be referred to the Financial Commission for their review and comment. A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to have the Financial Commission review these targets. Motion passed unanimously. 8c. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1998 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR VARIOUS OPERATING DEPARTMENTS Mr. McCauley discussed this resolution amending the 1998 general fund budget reflects requirements of the Charter to address specific appropriations, even though the overall general fund budget will end the year at roughly 95 percent expenditure of the budgeted amounts. In the fire department unanticipated repairs were the major reason for exceeding the fire department appropriation, increased utility costs and other building needs resulted in higher then anticipated government building maintenance, and engineering undertook redevelopment projects that will be reimbursed in 1999, though the expenditures were made in 1998. The Community Center had revenues in excess of the increased expenditures by increasing the swimming lesson program. The largest single component of the resolution reflects the additional transfer to the Convention and Tourism Bureau which is required in connection with the lodging tax. Lodging tax receipts greatly ® exceeded the budgeted amount which results in 50 percent of that increased amount being required to be transferred to the Convention and Visitors Bureau. RESOLUTION NO. 99 -30 Councilmember Nelson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1998 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS FOR VARIOUS OPERATING DEPARTMENTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Hilstrom. Motion passed unanimously. 8d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POLICE STATION 1998 -09, AND WITHDRAWING AND AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WEST FIRE STATION 1998 -10 AND EAST FIRE STATION REMODELING 1998 -11 Mr. McCauley discussed this resolution is awarding bids for woodwork to the next lowest bidder due to the lowest bidder being unable to perform as specified. 02/22/99 -5- DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 99 -31 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW POLICE STATION 1998 -09, AND WITHDRAWING AND AWARDING CONTRACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WEST FIRE STATION 1998 -10 AND EAST FIRE STATION REMODELING 1998 -11 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 8e. REPORT ON BLEACHERS Mr. McCauley reported the Public Works Department is conducting an inspection and inventory of all the bleachers and reviewing current standards due to the recent concern that has been expressed regarding older model bleachers. This inventory should be completed by mid -March and will be on the City Council agenda for March 22, 1999, for an update. Councilmember Lasman asked if these bleachers are ADA acceptable. Mr. McCauley responded they are not. Ms. Spector informed Councilmember Lasman that all the ball facilities have resting facilities for people with wheelchairs that provide for ADA compliance. 8f. REPORT ON SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT MEETING Mr. McCauley reported that he attended the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District meeting on February 9, 1999. The meeting involved a number of first ring suburbs to discuss the potential for Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District investment in first ring suburban communities and opportunities for greater coordination of facilities such as trails. At the meeting he suggested that the cities of Robbinsdale, New Hope, Crystal, and Brooklyn Center meet jointly with Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District representatives since many potential opportunities for trail and other park development would require cooperative efforts. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District representatives will be following up with a more formal invitation for continued discussions. 8g. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1999 WATER UTILITY FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF WELL METERS Mr. McCauley discussed that during the installation of City's new SCADA system it was discovered that the new system may not be able to reliably read the data from the existing meters and that this resolution would amend the 1999 water utility fund budget to provide the replacement of well meters. i 02/22/99 -6- DRAFT ® RESOLUTION NO. 99-32 Councilmember Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1999 WATER UTILITY FUND BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF WELL METERS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Nelson. Motion passed unanimously. 8h. SET DATE AND TIME OF WORK SESSION Mr. McCauley requested to set March 15, 1999, 7:00 p.m. for a City Council work session. A motion by Councilmember Hilstrom, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to set March 15, 1999, 7:00 p.m. for a City Council work session. Motion passed unanimously. 8i. REPORT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT Mr. McCauley reported on the following: TYPES OF CORRECTION ORDERS 1996 1997 1998 Building maintenance and structural integrity 857 1431 114 Rubbish issues 459 788 772 Vehicle violations 201 444 349 Yard maintenance 70 79 109 Fences 57 96 15 Other 59 114 62 1703 2952 1421 He also reviewed a pie chart that listed the percentages for 1998 on the types of code correction orders. Rubbish issues had the highest at 54 percent, vehicle violations 25 percent, yard maintenance and building maintenance and structural integrity 8 percent, other 4 percent, and fences I percent. Council further discussed the procedure for citations and the next area that will be viewed by the Neighborhood Liaison. Mr. McCauley informed the Council that the Neighborhood Liaison will do inspections year round. She is also working on identifying community resources to assist people who have difficulty complying due to health or other conditions. 8j. STAFF REPORT RE: BROOKLYN BOULEVARD ENHANCEMENT PROJECT Before reporting on the Brooklyn Boulevard enhancement project Ms. Spector shared with the Council the Honor Award the City received from the Consulting Engineering Council of Minnesota for the Shingle Creek Regional Pond supported by Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. 02/22/99 -7- DRAFT Mr. McCauley suggested the Council provide input after each design is presented. It was the consensus of the Council to do so. Ms. Spector started with the type of ornamental lighting for both street lighting and pedestrian lighting. She explained the type proposed is based on design criteria established by the Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force and that these types of lighting are approved by NSP. Council consensus was in favor of continued design work based on this outline. The second design was the concept of use of colored concrete at the intersection treatments, the concrete medians, and the trail edge strips. The color proposed would be a dark, sandy orange -red. Council discussed the look of the design and the actual color along with the bike trails and sidewalks. Ms. Spector informed the Council that the final color selection had not been made. Council consensus was in favor of continued design work based on this outline. The third design was intersection landscaping. The concept of using evergreens as a backdrop (outside of the clear view triangle), with ornamental trees and shrubs and perennial bulbs. A question was raised as to if it would be the City's responsibility to maintain these intersections. Mr. McCauley responded that yes it would the City's responsibility. Council consensus was in favor of continued design work based on this outline. The fourth design was the concept of a one -foot concrete strip at the back of the curb along the length of the project. Council discussed the effect this would have on snow plowing in the winter months and the color of this one foot concrete strip. Council consensus was in favor of continued design work based on this outline. The fifth design was of a white wooden fencing and evergreen trees as the "freeway entry ". Council discussed the maintenance of the fencing and it was brought to the attention of the Council that there would be a concrete lip installed under the fencing to help with the maintenance. Council consensus was in favor of continued design work based on this outline. The sixth and final design was the concept of white wooden fencing, landscaping, and a sign similar to the types of signs at the Earle Brown Farm for the gateway monuments. One suggestion was that the white wooden pillars of the monument sign could be replaced with fieldstone faced pillars similar to the fence design on 53rd Avenue. The second suggestion was that the top ornamental wooden crosspiece on the monument could be replaced with an ornamental wrought iron silhouette of a horse -drawn wagon (cupola). Council discussed the cupola further and Ms. Spector informed the Council that she could have other alternatives prepared for the Council to review. Ms. Spector then discussed the cost and schedule of these design elements. A more refined set of plans will come back to the Council when the roadway plans are presented for review and approval, which will likely be in May. Final plans and specifications will come back to the Council for review and approval prior to submittal to Mn/DOT. 02/22/99 -8- DRAFT • 8k. REPORT ON LEGISLATION REGARDING TRUNK HIGHWAY 252 Mr. McCauley reported on two major highway proposals in the City, completion of Highway 100 and the proposal of widening I -94 and asked for the Council's approval for the recommendation to the City's legislative delegation for support before consideration of other projects by Mn/DOT. A motion by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to approve recommendation to the City's legislative delegation for support of Highway 100 and I- 94/694 project completion and full funding before consideration of other projects by Mn/DOT. Motion passed unanimously. 81. TRANSIT HUB AT BROOKDALE Mr. McCauley discussed that City staff had been engaged in discussions with both the Metropolitan Council and Talisman Brookdale LLC regarding transit access to Brookdale and the Metropolitan Council's desire to construct a transit hub. Staff attempted to work with both parties to identify potential locations that would accommodate the Metropolitan Council's desire for a transfer hub and Brookdale's need to use its own property for expansion of the center. Since the City had been unable to assist in mediating or locating a site that would be acceptable to Brookdale in connection with the use of City right -of -way or convince the Metropolitan Council • Operations to purchase property in the Brookdale vicinity for construction of a transit hub, Mr. McCauley requested direction from the Council as to what the City Council would see as the appropriate direction or involvement, if any, for the City staff in this matter. Council discussed further the issue of the transit hub and Mayor Kragness said that this issue should not be pushed by the City anymore and that this is between Talisman Brookdale LLC and Metropolitan Council. This was the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Hilstrom asked if the buses would continue to run at Brookdale. Mr. McCauley responded that Brookdale had indicated that the buses will have to be off -site when the construction starts. 9. ADJOURNMENT A motion by Councilmember Peppe, seconded by Councilmember Lasman to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Mayor 02/22/99 -9- DRAFT • City Council Agenda Item No. 6b • City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Cl k OA DATE: March 3, 1999 SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on March 8, 1999: GASOLINE SERVICE STATION Duke's Mobil 6501 Humboldt Avenue North MECHANICAL SYSTEMS Centraire Heating and Air Conditioning 7402 Washington Avenue, Eden Prairie Faircon Services 1891 West County Road C, Roseville RENTAL DWELLING Initial: Janine Atchison 5909 June Avenue James Tindall 6101 Beard Avenue North Renewal: Donald Sobania 3701 47th Avenue North Martha Callendar 3613 47th Avenue North B C Leased Housing Association Summerchase Apartments SIGN HANGER Lawrence Sign 945 Pierce Butler Road, St. Paul Nordquist Sign Company, Inc. 312 West Lake Street, Minneapolis Signart, Inc. 2170 Dodd Road, Mendota Heights Suburban Lighting, Inc. 6077 Lake Elmo Avenue North, Stillwater Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle, Osseo . TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Duke's Mobil 6501 Humboldt Avenue North 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer �QpOKLYN CElyr� BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk Sharon Knutson FROM: Joel Downer, Chief of Polic DATE: February 25, 1999 SUBJECT: Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License (Raffle Application) - North Hennepin Community College Foundation On February 25, 1999, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Exemption from Lawful Gambling License from the North Hennepin Community College Foundation. This application is for an event to be held at the Earle Brown Heritage Center on April 23, 1999. This application has been approved and will be returned to the North Hennepin Community College Foundation representative after City Council review. The representative will forward it to the State Gambling Control Board. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. SK:kh i LG220 For Board Use Only Rev06 /96 Minnesota Lawful Gambling Fee Paid Application for Authorization for an Check # • Exemption from Lawful Gambling License Initals Date Recd Or anization Information , Organization Name Previous lawful gambling exemption number North Hennepin Community College Foundation X 27108 - 98 - 001 Street City Sate Zip Code County 7411 85th Avenue N Brooklyn Park MN 55445 Henne Name of Chief Executive Officer of organization (CEO) Daytime Phone number of CEO First Name Last Name Gary Uhde (612) 424 -8559 Name of Organization Treasurer First Name Last Name Daytime Phone Number of Treasurer Barb Wiley 612 425 -2315 Type `of Nonprofit Organization Check the box below which best describes Check the box that indicates the type of proof attached to this application your organization by your organization: ® IRS letter indicating income tax exempt status � Fraternal F-1 Veterans Certificate of good standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office Religious A charter showing you're an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization ® Other nonprofit Proof previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board Gamblin Premises Information g n N me of Establishment where gamb cCti. ^ty will be conducted Earle Brown Heritage Center Street City State Zip Code County 6155 Earle Brown Drive Brook Center MN 55430 Hennepin Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing) April 23, 1999 Check the box or boxes which indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting *Bingo ® Raffles (] *Paddlewheels F *Pull -tabs ED *Tipboards *Equipment for these activities must be obtained from a licensed distributor is For Board Use Only Be sure the Local Unit of Government and the CEO of your organization sign Date & Initials of Specialist the reverse side of this application. Local Unit . . . ., .. Governm ent Jurisdictio Is this gambling premises located within city limits? [!] Yes No • If Yes, write the name of the City: City Name Brooklyn Center If No, write the name of the County and the Township: County Name Township Name Check the appropriate status of the Township: organized M unorganized unincorporated Loca! Unit Of Gov ernment Acknowled I I I. The city must sign this application if the gambling 3. DO NOT submit this application to the Gambling Control premises is within city limits. Board if it is denied by the local unit of government. 2. The county and township must sign this applica- 4. NOTE: A To%Nmship may not deny an application. tion if the gambling premises is not within city limits. Upon submission of this application to the Gambling Control Board, the exemption will be issued not more than 30 days (60 days for cities of the 1st class) from the date the local unit of government signed the application, provided the application is complete and all necessary information has been received, unless the local unit of government passes a resolution to specifically prohibit the activity. A copy of that resolution must be received by the Gambling Control Board within 30 days of the date filled in below. Cities of the first class have 60 days in which to disallow the activity. City or County Acknowledgment of Receipt of Township Acknowledgment ofAwatenes of Application Application Sig+ ture of person receiving application Signature of person acknowledging. application Date Received: Date Signed: Title of person receiving application Title of person acknowledging application C�� �IerK Oath of Chief Ex ecutive: Ocer I have read this application and all information is true, accurate and complete. .Date: Submit the application at least 45 days prior to your scheduled date of activity. Be sure to attach the $25 application fee and a copy of your proof of nonprofit status. Mail the complete application and attachments to: Gambling Control Board 1711 W. County Rd B Suite 300S Roseville, MN 55113 This publication will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. Questions on this form should be directed to the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at (612)639 -4000. Hearing impaired individuals using a TDD may call the Minnesota Relay Service at 1- 800 - 627 -3529 in the Greater Minnesota Area or 297 -5353 in the Metro Area. . 0 The information requested on this form will be used by the Gambling Control Board (GCB) to determine your compliance with Minnesota Statues and rules governing lawful gambling activities. All of the information that you supply on this form will become public information when received by the GCB. * * pOKLYH CENT� BROOKLYN CENTER �i POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk FROM: Joel Downer, Chief of Police DATE: February 17, 1999 SUBJECT: Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo Orchard Lane Elementary School On February 16, 1999, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo from the Orchard Lane PTA. This application is for an event to be held at the Orchard Lane Elementary School on April 24, 1999. This application has been approved and returned to the Orchard Lane PTA who will forward it to the State Gambling Control Board. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. .Joel owner �_.. Chief of Police JD:kh Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - LG240B • If your organization has been licensed or exempted in the current calendar year, you are not eligible to apply for excluded bingo. Organization Information Organization Name FOR.BOARD USE ONLY _0 Y)e a r T � Proof Street I ❑ S ❑ C ❑ O ❑ N ❑ NA Shatte /Zi .�� f r ►1�,� �� Other Activity Type of nonprofit organization (check one): ❑ Fraternal ❑ Veteran ❑ Re :igious Other nonprofit organization Type of proof of nonprofit - attach a copy (see instructions): ❑ Certificate of Good Standing - Minnesota Secretary of State's Office ❑ Internal Revenue Service ❑ Affiliate of Parent nonprofit organization (charter) Excluded Bingo Activity Information Has your organization held a bingo event in the current year? No4- Yes If yes, list the dates that bingo was conducted • Check one: 1W The bingo event will be oyynne�e of four or fewer bingo events rurr organization will hold this year. Date(s) of bingo event Apn l �� J " OR ❑ The bingo event will be conducted (up to 12 consecutive days) in connection with a: County Fair - Date(s) of bingo event State Fair - Date(s) of bingo event Civic Celebration - Date(s) of bingo event Name of the person in char the bingo event Daytime Phone \ A VN-�- (U) k - ,V n- 0 Premises ere Excluded Bingo Will Be Conducted Name of Premises _ ( - ,r)41 j''�� Street Address c tt�� R Coun y� Township • Be sure to complete pa4j 2 � Page 1 of 2 2/98 Page 2 of 2 Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - LG240B 2/98 Organization Name ra M )c Chief Executive Officer's Signature r• The information provided in this a�pli tion is complete and to o the best o my knowledge. Chief Executive Off s signature , Name (please printt _ 1 1�' _ Date /./ Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment and Approval If the gambling f lpremises is within city limits, the city'must sign this application. On behalf of the city, 1 hereby approve this application Brooklyn Center for excluded bingo activity at the premises located within the city's jurisdiction. Prinvrpme of city Signature of city personnel receiving application Title City Clerk Date 1f t1)e gamibiing premises is located In a dwnshlp, both the county and township must sign fhis:,appllcal o For the township: On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for excluded bingo activity within the township limits. Print name of township A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. Stat. sec. 349.213, subd. 2). Signature of township official acknowledging application Title Date / ! • For the county: On behalf of the county, I hereby approve this application for excluded bingo activity at the premises located within the county's jurisdiction. Print name of county (Signature of county personnel receiving application) Title Date / ! Mail Application and Attachment(s) Send the completed application and a copy of your proof of nonprofit status at least 30 days prior to the activity date to: Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN 55113 If your application is denied by the local unit of government, do not send the application to the Gambling Control Board. Acknowledgment of Gambling Control Board Your request to conduct excluded bingo has been received and is acknowledged by the Gambling Control Board. Acknowledged by Licensing Specialist Date Questions? Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at (612) 6394000. If you use a TTY, you can call the Board by using the Minnesota Relay Service at 1- 800 -627 -3529 and ask to place a call to (612) 6394000. This form will be made availabl� in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. The information requested on this form will become public information when received by the Board, and will be used to determine your compliance with Minnesota statutes and rules governing lawful gambling activities. Application to Conduct Excluded Bingo - LG24013, Instructions 2/98 When May Excluded bingo (without a license) may be conducted: Excluded Bingo ► by an organization that conducts four or fewer bingo occasions in a calendar year; or ® be Conducted? • in connection with a county fair, the state fair or a civic celebration if it is not conducted for more that 12 consecutive days in a calendar year. Completion of Complete the application, and attach proof of your organization's nonprofit status from either Application the IRS or the Minnesota Secretary of State. Minnesota Secretary of State IRS Income Tax Exemption Certificate of Good Stand_ ina - Nonprofit Under a national oraanization _ Articles of Incorporation OR If your organization falls under a national Attach a copy of your organization's organization, attach both of the following: Certificate of Good Standing (317A) 1. a copy of the IRS letter showing that showing incorporation as a nonprofit your national organization has been a organization. registered nonprofit 501(c) organiza- This certificate can be obtained from the tion and carries a group ruling, and Minnesota Secretary of State: 2. a copy of the charter, or letter from your national organization, recognizing your Minnesota Secretary of State organization as a subordinate. Business Services Division 180 State Office Building Not under a national oraanization, St. Paul, MN 55155 If your organization does not fall under a national organization, attach a copy of the Phone: (612) 296 -2803 IRS income tax exemption [501 (c)] letter in the name of your organization, showing income tax exempt status. To obtain a copy of your federal income • tax exempt letter, send your federal ID number and the date your organization initially applied for tax exempt status to: IRS P.O. Box 2508 Room 4010 Cincinnati, OH 45201 Phone: (513) 684 -3957 Pty -. t - l vb�e� tax exempt status or federal ID employer not proof of income tax exempt status. Authorization to Your application will be acknowledged by signature of the Gambling Control Board staff. Conduct Excluded Bingo A signed copy will be returned to your organization as your authorization to conduct the activit ty You will not be issued a number for this application. Gambling activity conducted without written authorization from the Gambling Control Board will be referred to the Department of Public Safety, Alcohol. & Gambling Enforcement Division. Recordkeeping Your organization must keep your bingo records for 3 -1/2 years. Questions? Contact the:Garnbling Control Board at (612)639- 4000: EXEMPT AND EXCLUDED ORGANIZATIONS ":: ... ........... .. . .... .... . . . ... . ............. ................... .. .. .... .................. ... ..... ...... ............ ............ X . I.-I..,.:,..:.:.:.:.*.�." .......... . ..... .. . ..... ... . .... ..... ............ ..... . . ......... X .... ............ . XTI N: ......... . ....... .. ....... ... . . X: .. .... . O ............... ............ . . ........ ....................... . ....... ......... ........ ... X.- ...... ........... : X. ... ........ ..... . ... .... .. :::::: .... :::.: . . .................. ..... . .. ...... .. . .... ...... . . ...... .... ..... ...... .. . . . ... .. .... ...... Prizes per bin .. go occasion may not exceed $2,500, not including cover-all games. If cover-all games areconducted, the tow prizes per bingo occasion may not exceed $3,500 (that is, $2,500 plus the cover-all of up to $1,000). Prizes awarded for progressive games are not subject to the limits established for bingo occasions. Type of Game Description Prizes Single game-: A bingo, game other than a cover- May not exceed..$200. aU or progressive game. Cover-all game A bingo game where all spaces on May not exceed $1,000 for all cover-all games played during an the bingo face must be covered. occasion. Progressive . Xgame in4hich1he value of .the Up to$2,000. . game prize increases depending upon May start at up to $300 and increase by up to 100 per whether ihe.prize, was won at a occasion. previous occasion. Progressive prizes may not exceed $36 any calendar year. Consolation prize I I • Up to $ 100 where a progressive:gaine is.played': and the accumulated prize is :not won. Consolation prizes count toward the occasion limit of $2,500. Gambling equipment not allowed as prize Additional information Prizes may not consist of gambling equipment (such as For additional information, you may wish to obtain a copy of pull-tabs, tipboard tickets, raffle tickets, or the Lawful Gambling Manual, an easy-to-use reference guide paddlewheel tickets), except for coupons to redeem for the conduct of lawful gambling, or a copy of statutes and bingo hard cards or bingo paper. rules that govern lawful gambling. There is a, charge for the copies. Contact: Minnesota's Bookstore 117 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 1-800-657-3757 or 612-297-3000 Bingo prizes - value, ownership References Donated prizes - Donated bingo,prizes must be valued: Statutes and rules contain regulatory requirements for the at their fair market value. Fair.market Value is what a conduct.of bingo. Those references are: willing buyer would pay a willing seller when neither has to buy or sell and both are aware of tlie. conditions* Minn. Statutes :349.12 ....:Definitions of the sale. Minn. Statutes, 349.:17 .... :Conduct of Bingo Minn. Statutes 349. 18 Premises Used For Gambling Merchandise Merchandis,e:prizes must be Minn. Statutes 349.19 Records and Reports valued at their fair market value: and cannot be Minn. Statutes .349:211:.:: Prize Limits redeemed for cash or converted into cash.. Minn. Rules 786 1.00 10 Definitions Ownership Real or personal property prizes.must be Minn. Rules 7861.0060.. Conduct of Lawful-0ambling: paid for without lien or interest by others prior: to the Minn. Rules 786 1.007 0 Bingo occasion.. Savings bonds Savings bonds must be.ann6unced and reported at their purchase price. EXAMPLE A $50 savings, b ond would be announced as $25.: 2198 Msharediforms1exbingo.doc 1 1,1 1 11 IN r RO FoTrn ST-17 N K 1 , 4 :,1' 1 � • S `; tRev.S- 1 -? f Minnesota 1 State o Department of Revenue —Sales and Use Tax Division i •� �„ t ' . _ Paul, Minnesota 55145 ; + - Centennial Office Building St• ; ;ltr; t +' '� ;;•' ` , , . — EXEMPT ORGANIZATION CERTIFICA ' i: t ;;; - • `Z EXEMPT STATUS , . ,t �• •. ;::. r �. • ubdivisiori l (p) of tlrc Minnesota Sales and Use Tax Law, the organ zaftP n whose name appea } on 25, S o u rclkascs, rentals and leases of tan ble ersonal propeTtY CO be r' `' 5 t ' the prov isions of Sectt and use taxes app t p nal functions by that organ i za tion, ;y s. r Under P t from sales a l exem ous or educatto below is certified to be P f charitab e, religi ') •�',::' �`'•� the rform ! �;: i J,,,:. ?, , y and exclusively in P ance o e _ ;. used sole! a t +` �.:;.. 'ai'` l:; • `� certificate NO- ;7 i ,,, ` t ' S Cr1001 + +A 6 ;34 • �'�:..:." bane Elementary E S. Orcha 2 i s t rd ._ �.... <'1• %` D Issued 6201 Noble Avenue North >initeapolie� >l�ipnesota 554 March 19, X976 ' r 'r,� -., .;fi >.` ..', - =: ��•`' ARTHUR ROFMf R. t ,t•1� ..a,d;',. voked b the D 5 MUNDAHL Dire ctor C .• ' ' iivision This certificate S an is val until re y ad Use Tax Minnesota Department of R evenue ..y °r tickets of a dmission The exemption does not appiv to purchases of meals• Ik'dRinti; i ,. r ,,.iy y it y aZ ��ppKLYN CENT� BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk FROM: Joel Downer, Chief of Polic DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Application (Excluded Bingo) - Willow Lane PTA On February 22, 1999, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo from the Willow Lane PTA. This application is for an ® event to be held on April 30, 1999 at the Willow Lane Elementary School located at 7020 Perry Ave N within the city of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. This application has been approved and returned to the Willow Lane PTA who will forward it to the State Gambling Control Board. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. JD:kh willows.mem • LG240B (Rev. 1/21M) Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo Part 1 of 2 (If your organization has been licensed or exempted in the • current calendar year, you are not eligible to apply for excluded bingo) Fill in the unshaded areas of this application and send it to the Gambling Control Board at least 30 days prior to the activity. FOR BOARD USE ONLY Organization Information Proof Or g anizatio 1 ❑ S ::❑ C 0 fff l �U I �IAYLE �/ f 00 N ..❑ . NA ❑ .. _. Street a � , V �� ���` 14 v A J Other Activity City � �/ � Sta�� Zip kel un Cam ' Type of nonprofit organization (check ond: ❑ Fraternal Veteran ❑ Religious ( Other nonprofit organization Type of proof of nonprofit status attached (check one): ❑ Certificate of Good Standing - Minnesota Secretary of State's Office ❑ Internal Revenue Service 0 Affiliate of Parent nonprofit organization (charter) Excluded Bingo Activity Information Has your organization held a bingo event in the current calendar year? No �' Yes ❑ 0 I yes, list the dates that bingo was conducted Check one: tILA She bingo event will be one of four or fewer bingo events your orgAni apn will hold this year. Date(s) of bingo event:r i OR The bingo event will be conducted (up to 12 consecutive days) in connection with a: County Fair - Date(s) of bingo event State Fair - Date(s) of bingo event Civic Celebration - Date(s) of bingo event Print the ame of the pqrson in charge the bingo event Daytime Phone Premises where excluded bingo will be conducted Name of premises Street Address -76 City11J IOVR' unty � Township (Be sure to complete Part 2) o WNte-Originat LG240B (Aev. (1/21/93) Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo ® Part 2 of 2 Organization Name Willow /' ar-€' P7'1 Chief Executive officer's Signature The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Chie ecutive Officer's signature Name (please print) Date al it of Government Acknowledgment and Approval The city must sign this application if the gambling premises is located within city limits. • The county AND township must sign this application H the gambling premises is located within a township. • If this application is denied by the local unit of government, it should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Board. Township: A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. Stat. 349.213, Subd. 2). Name of City OR County By signature below, the`)ocal unit of government hereby � pproves this application for excluded bingo activity at he premises located within their jurisdiction. Signature of person approving application for local unit of government. (Sign above) Title ry I+ N erK Date Received Township is: Organized ❑ Unorganized ❑ � Attach letter Unincorporated ❑ Acknowledgment of Registration (For Board Use Only) Your request to conduct excluded bingo has been received and is acknoweeged by the Executive Director of the Gambling Control Board. Acknowledged by: Gambling Control Board Date Send the completed registration form with your organization's proof of nonprofit status to: Gambling Control Board while- original 1711 W. County Road B, Suite 300 South Yellow - Board Roseville, MN 55113 Name of Township 8y signature below, the township acknowledges that the organization is applying for excluded bingo activity within the township limits. Signature of person acknowledging application for for township. (Sign above) Date Received Title o?- P5-99 p FOR BOARD USE ONLY Whis form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. Application for Authorization to Conduct Excluded Bingo Form LG240B - Instructions When May Excluded Bingo be Conducted To obtain a copy of the certificate of good standing as a (Refer to MN Statute 349.166, Subd. 1(a)) nonprofit incorporation filed with the Minnesota Secretary of • Bingo may be conducted without a license if it is conducted State, write or call: MN Secretary of State - Business Services Div. • by an organization that conducts four or fewer bingo 180 State Office Building occasions in a calendar year St. Paul, MN 55155 OR Phone: 612/296 - 2803 • in connection with a county fair, the state fair or a civic To obtain a copy of the federal income tax exempt letter celebration if it is not conducted for more than 12 proving your 501(c) status, send your federal ID number and consecutive days in a calendar year date applied, to: Restrictions: IRS Organiz may not c onduct excluded gambling activi Attn: E 2 in the same ca(�ar vear in which the orQW1ZWLQI3 ac Attn: h O Branch either been licensed o conducted exempted ga ling PO Box Chicago, L 60690 , IL activity. Requirements: • Chartered organizations must submit an IRS letter for the parent organization indicating a group ruling Your organization must comply with MN Statutes Chapter (dated after the charter date) plus a copy of your 349 and MN Rules 7861. (A Minnesota Bookstore order organization's charter. form is enclosed for your convenience.) In particular, your • Catholic churches should submit a copy from the organization must: Archdiocese Directory listing your organization. • Comply with statutory prize limits (Minnesota Statute I Completioi►`of >Foi�'m °8L Attdchment::. 349.211, Subd. 1 & 2) • Complete the organization information, excluded bingo • Use the profits for lawful purposes as defined in activity information, and chief executive officer's signature Minnesota Statute 349.12, Subd. 25 portions of the form. • Comply with the statute concerning allowable ex- • Be sure to attach your proof of nonprofit status (and a penses from gambling funds (MN Statute 349.15) copy of your organization's charter if you are a chartered organization). • Comply with all local regulations • The registration form must be signed by the local unit of Recordkeeping: government (city OR county and township) approving the • Keep records for three and one half years. application. If the township is unorganized or unincor- porated, the county must submit a letter stating so. • Report any discrepancy of more than $20 between the • Submit the application at least 30 days prior to the activity gross receipts reported by the checkers and the gross receipts determined by the record keeping system to E Wher* e.'to'Maii the Form, : ) the Gambling Control Board within five days of the Submit the application and attachments at least 30 days prior bingo occasion. to the activity date to the Gambling Control Board for • Itemize expenditures as to payee, purpose, amount, Processing. and date of payment. Gambling Control Board 1711 W. County Road B, Suite 300S Orgacnization.Eligibility Roseville, MN 55113 Your organization must: �Acknowlec(gme'nt Of R egistration • Be a fraternal, religious, veterans, or other nonprofit Your registration will be acknowledged by signature of the organization with proof of nonprofit status from the Gambling Control Board staff. A signed copy will be Minnesota Secretary of State OR the IRS. returned to your organization as your authorization to conduct the activity. You will not be issued a number for Non pro i t Status:::: this application. 11 Check the box that describes your type of organization. Gambling activity conducted without written authoriza- Check the box that describes the proof of nonprofit status tion from this office will be referred to the Department of that you have attached to the application. Public Safety, Gambling Enforcement Division. The nonprofit status must be for the organization which is questions? applying for excluded bingo activity. This may include a Call the Licensing Section of the Gambling Control Board at , copy of your organization's certificate of good standing with 612/639 -4000. Hearing impaired individuals using a TDD the Minnesota Secretary of State or an IRS income tax may call the Minnesota Relay Service at 1- 800 - 627 -3529. exemption letter. (A Minnesota sales and use tax permit or federal ID number is not acceptable.) This publication will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, braille) upon request. (1/21/93) Dis:PC! Direcror RECF Minnesota Congress of Persor. to Contact D. Armstrong Parents, Teachers and .i ce � y jU Students Telephone humbe- (312) 886 -4718 '10 1910 West County Road B Suite 102 Re's Rec�y EO:201 :TPS Roseville, MN 55113 i Da:e December 5, 1983 This is i n reply to your letter dated October 6, 1983 Our records indicate that you were issued the following: Exemption letter dated August 13, 1945 Section of Code 501(e)(3) Foundation Status (501(c)(3) only) 509(a)(2) Based on the above the tax exempt status of your organization still remains in effect. i Sincerely yours, Timothy F. Lambin _ Chief, EP /EO Review Staff Your Group Ruling number is 0870 Due to a substantial backlog we have experienced delays in'responding to taxpayer requests. Please excuse this inconvenience..' i. a t W WA6 WFWW t �iT�Ite�ot� �ot�gre�� of Varent2;, �eacc erg acttD� t b 4u ent2; t� A CHARTER FOR LOCAL ASSOCIATION f U Tbig Ctrtifito that the Willow Lane Parents, Teachers and Students Association o Osseo S 1986 f organized P is an authorized. unit of the Minnesota Branch of the National Congress of Parents, Teachers and Students and is �- entitled to all rights and privileges thereto. [ State President ___.._ ... 9tr State Tturer t= � c �i 605 CENl BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE MEMORANDUM TO: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk FROM: Joel Downer, Chief of Polic DATE: February 22, 1999 SUBJECT: Application for Exempt Permit (Raffle) Evergreen Park Elementary PTO . On February 22, 1999, the Brooklyn Center Police Department received an Application for Exempt Permit from Evergreen Park Elementary PTO. This application is for an event to be held at the Evergreen Park Elementary School, 7200 Dupont Avenue North, on Friday, April 16, 1999. This application has been approved and will be returned to the Evergreen Park Elementary representative after City Council review. The representative will forward it to the State Gambling Control Board. If you or any member of the City Council objects to issuing this license, you must notify me within 30 days according to Minnesota State Statute. JD:kh For Board Use Only Minnesota Lawful Gambling Fee Paid • Application for Exempt Permit - LG220 Check No. Initials Organization Information Received Organization name ` r} Previous lawful gambling exemption number Stree# � city l State /Zip Code County - 7 Vt /V fI Cr0 IC, 11 t W) 65 ye'(1 rq Name of chief executive officer (CEO) of organization / ` Daytime phone number of First name Last name CEO: ( ) 1` C � e (Z ? ��. r ^,c_ (�` VIA _ �- 1--- -, Name of teasurer of organization % Daytime phone number of First name i Last name treasurer: cc 1 (, ( ) Type of Nonprofit Organization Check the box that best describes your organization: ❑ Fraternal ❑ Religious ❑ Veteran ® Other nonprofit organization Check the box that indicates the type of proof your organization attached to this application: . ❑ IRS letter indicating income tax exempt status ® Certificate of Good Standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office ❑ A charter showing you are an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organization ❑ Proof previously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board Gambling Premises Information Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place) Ir V e - r C mot � C 1� e rr f i'1 ' 1 rk l" ` CAN 0 1 Address (d6 use PO box) City l State/Zip Code County 0 V14 A �FL /U. Bror,!Aun 0-1- Al L/3 0 Date(s) of activity (for r ffles, indicate the date of the drawing) Chec the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting: ❑ `Bingo (K Raffles ❑ *Paddlewheels 7-Pull-Tabs ❑ *Tipboards *Equipment for these activities must be obtained from a licensed distributor. This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. The information requested on this form will become public information when received by the Board, and will be used to determine your compliance with Minnesota statutes and rules governing lawful gambling activities. Page 1 of 2 3/98 Page 2 of 2 Application for Exempt Permit - LG220 3198 Organization Name E '4 C- C c C - e_-e A V� _ V k e- Y\A - c - k Local Unit of Gov ernmen4 Acknowledgment (Required by Statute)/ "If, Js1ocatiedthatow.his 1p b Qth M,Ih n ,h h • ,!ses ls� r y r6mftes'. 'd � b ow'" irs" h 10 n' u t' n. 'the� OuRty car must sign this P* , , ".:-.,-,";"�.,�-�,�,','-,,,.,' � I c On behalf of the city, I acknowledge this application On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application and three options for the city: and three options for the county: 1. Approve the application: By taking no action, 1. Approve the application: By taking no action, the the city allows the Board to issue a permit after county allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days. 30 days (60 days for a first class city). 2. Waive the above-noted waiting period: The county allows the Board to issue a permit before 30 days. 2. Waive the above-noted waiting period: The Documentation attached. city allows the Board to issue a permit before 3. Deny the application by passing a resolution within 30 days (60 days for a first class city). Docu- 30 days. mentation attached. Print name of county: 3. Deny the application by passing a resolution within 30 days (60 days for a first.class city). (Signature of county personnel receiving application) B Print We of c L_ j CQ V, I f1 4 Title 1 j Date (Signature of city personnel receiving application) On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the Title 0.1ler K, organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. Date / . g A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. Stat. sec. 349.213, subd. 2). • Print name of township: (Signature of township official acknowledging application) Title Date Chief Executive Officer's Signature The information provided in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Chief Executive Officer's signature Name (please print) K ti e_,c o C IV( Date 2- 22-1 Mail Application and Attachment(s) At least 45 days prior to your scheduled activity date send: • the completed application; • a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and • a $25 application fee (make check payable to "State of Minnesota"). Application fees are not prorated, refundable, or transferable. Send to: Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, IVIN 55113 If your application has not been acknowledged by the local unit of government, do not send the application to the Gambling Control Board. • City Council Agenda Item No. 6e • • ® MEMORANDUM DATE: March 3, 1999 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager G� FROM: Joyce Gulseth, Administrative Aide ` , SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign a Grant Agreement and Receive State Monies if the City is Awarded a Conservation Partners Grant for the Eugene H. Hagel Arboretum The Local Grants Program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has made available various grant programs for 1999. The City has applied for the Conservation Partners Grant Program which encourages the enhancement of wildlife and native plant habitat through cooperation by private organizations and local governments. If awarded, the grant monies would be used for improvements in the Eugene H. Hagel Arboretum. Grant awards are typically for 50 percent of the total eligible project costs up to the maximum grant amount of $10,000. The remaining 50 percent "local share" can consist of cash or the value of materials, labor and equipment usage through local donations or any combination thereof. One of the requirements of the application process is the authorization by the applicant's organization of a person to sign the grant agreement and to receive state monies. Attached is a resolution for the council to authorize Michael McCauley, City Manager to act on behalf of the City. A copy of the grant application is also attached. adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT AND RECEIVE STATE MONIES IF THE CITY IS AWARDED A CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT FOR THE EUGENE H. HAGEL ARBORETUM WHEREAS, The City has applied for a Conservation Partners Grant with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to provide for up to 50% of the cost of enhancing or improving wildlife and native plant habitats in the Eugene H. Hagel Arboretum; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The City Manager is authorized to sign the grant agreement and receive state monies if the City is awarded the grant. 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. i CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT Lj City of Brooklyn Center 1999 CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT APPLICATION Application submitted by City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 569 -3340 CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT City of Brooklyn Center 1. Applicant Information Organization Name: City of Brooklyn Cente Contact Person: Dia ne Spector Title: Direc of Public Work Mailing Address: City �r y y 630 Shingle Creek Park Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 - 2199 Telephone: - 8 P (6121 6, 5 9 332 E -mail address: dianesQlogis.or CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT City of Brooklyn Center 2. Project Description Title of Project: Hagel Arboretum Improvements Located in: Henn epin County Summary The seven acre Eugene H. Hagel Arboretum is rectangular in shape with two ponds and surrounding wetlands situated north to south along the western edge of the site. The intended use of the arboretum is to display native and varietal plant species common to wetland and woodland environments of central Minnesota. Beth Nixon, a Scientist/Ecologist, biologist and wetland specialist from the consulting firm of Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. has toured the site with several City staff members and offered recommendations for implementation of a plan for the Arboretum. The Arboretum has two issues of interest and challenge for both the site and the Public Works staff. The first issue is the development of the park as an Arboretum. A formal effort to bring the arboretum concept to life has already been made by a dedicated group of citizen volunteers. A phased planting scheme for the park is shown in Figure A -2. This plan integrates traditional and varietal tree and shrub species with placement intended to reflect their varied ecological requirements and wetland planting areas to provide natural buffers for local runoff entering the ponds. The plan has two sets of native herbaceous species intended to reflect distinct differences in moisture requirements. Set A is to be planted in a bog /wetland environment, and Set B is to be planted in woodland. The second issue is improving water quality (clarity) of the ponds. The ponds are part of the City's storm water runoff and flood retention system. Improving water quality and aesthetics of the ponds will require maximizing the natural environmental factors affecting water quality and possibly integrating selective use of certain chemical treatments. A Conservation Partners Grant is requested to provide matching funds for four activities addressing the most pressing needs: 1. Prepare bedding areas for future planting of native plants. Existing ground cover will be removed for site preparation for several of the bedding areas. Grass will be killed by 1' /z years of cover with 8" to 12" of dense wood chip mulch. Wood chip mulch was spread in the spring of 1998 and will be ready for tilling and further preparation by the fall of 1999. 2. Plant eroding slopes along the west edge of the site to prevent future soil erosion and provide a buffer between runoff from residential lawns and the ponds. A dense planting of Pennsylvania sedge will hold the soil with its root systems and provide a low green plant cover. After the sedge is established it will be interplanted with wild geranium, columbine, and eventually selected species from the arboretum plan. 3. Mulch the duck feeding area to prevent further erosion. The area will be mulched with dense wood chips along with scattered large woody debris to retard runoff and still allow ducks to feed. 4. Immediately improve water quality by excavating accumulated silt and muck in the dry areas of the pond(s). The materials will be used for enriching annual flower beds within the Arboretum. Excavating will remove an internal source of nutrient and lead to improved water clarity and aesthetics. 2 Ik A wath K 1 " t »z. ♦ h � - d f t n I d � k f a� }p S through { $..: k' Y - . v the Arboretum I CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT City of Brooklyn Center 3. Project Cost Grant requested 54.2 45.15 Matching contribution 54.2 45.15 Total Cost 58.490.30 Component 1. Bedding areas Site preparation and plant materials for bedding areas. We anticipate the tilling and soil installation will require 10 hours of labor at $23.27/hr.* and 10 hours of equipment time at $15.00 /hr. Gardening volunteers will commit to at least 150 hours of donated time valued at $5.00 /hr. and a $200 cash donation will be applied towards planting materials. Cost $1,332.70 Component 2. Eroding slopes A dense planting of 1370 four -inch pots of Pennsylvania sedge on approximately 2,000 sq.ft of eroding slopes along the west edge of the Arboretum (Photo A). The plants are $3.20 each for a total cost of $4,384.00 . We anticipate this activity will require 48 hours of labor at $23.27 per hour.* Cost $5,500.96 Component 3. Duck feeding area Mulch the duck feeding area (Photo B). The labor requirements for this procedure will be 16 hours at $23.27 per hour* and equipment charges of 16 hours at $15.00 per hour for a one ton truck. Cost $612.32 Component 4. Pond Water Quality Excavate accumulated silt and muck in the d areas of the pond (s). This component will require 16 hours n' p ( s ) P q of labor and $23.27 per hour* and 16 hours of equipment time for a backhoe at $42.00 per hour. Cost $1,044.32 * Gross hourly wages for Maintenance II Operator at the City of Brooklyn Center , e£' f �a Photo A - West Edge Trail. View of an eroding slope. Soil wash onto the trail can be seen. ,� ;�' `• °{,�` s�. � III y r , .r: Photo B - North Pond. View to south from north edge showing predominantly woody wetland fringes of pond. i CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT City of Brooklyn Center 4. Matching Contribution Name of Donor Type Contribution e f t ' ution Value Elizabeth Muellner Volunteer gardener who has made a commitment of at $ 750.00 least 150 hours of time valued at $5.00 /hr. Mervyn's Brookdale Cash contribution of $200 from employees for $ 200.00 enhancement of bedding areas. City of Brooklyn Center Equipment, services and materials $ 3,295.15 Total Matching Contribution $ 4,245.15 February 26, 1999 Joyce Gulseth City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Joyce: As spring approaches I look forward to another year of volunteering my services to planting and maintaining native plant habitat in the Arboretum in Brooklyn Center as I have for the past six years. I anticipate I will be contributing at least 150 volunteer hours to continue with the commitment I have made establishing and maintaining the wildflower beds as well as starting the planting of ground cover on the eroding slopes. As in the past, I would appreciate any names of individuals that may be interested in assisting in any way they can. Sincerely, Elizabeth Muellner 6124 Noble Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT City of Brooklyn Center 5. Other Partners Helping With Your Project Beth Nixon, a scientist /ecologist, biologist and wetland specialist with Short Elliott Hendrickson visited the site on September 26, 1997. The purpose of the visit was to observe for signs of existing and potential conditions which may deteriorate the water quality of the ponds and to determine which natural environmental functions around the ponds can be maximized for water quality improvement and at the same time be amenable to adjacent residents to the west. While Beth will not be involved with this project, her recommendations during the site visit provided the basis upon which this project was established. CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT City of Brooklyn Center 6. Project Maintenance Pennsylvania sedge will require one or two years to establish. Realizing that many exotic and invasive plants will compete with the plantings, we have established the following management plan for the growing season: Watering At planting time and weekly as needed, depending on rainfall, to establish plant cover. Soil moisture will be checked frequently. The watering will be done by City Park Staff. Wood chips Wood chips will be added at planting time and as needed for mulch. This task will be done by City Park Staff. Mechanical Removal Chopping and hand weeding of individual unwanted plants will be done on a routine basis by our volunteer gardeners. 7. Permission of Landowner The landowner of this property is the City of Brooklyn Center. 8. Authorization to accept state funds If a grant is awarded, Michael McCauley, City Manager of the City of Brooklyn Center will be authorized to act on its behalf. Attached is a resolution signed by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center authorizing Michael McCauley to sign the grant agreement and to receive state monies. 9. Maps See attachments. S adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A GRANT AGREEMENT AND RECEIVE STATE MONIES IF THE CITY IS AWARDED A CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT FOR THE EUGENE H. HAGEL ARBORETUM WHEREAS, The City has applied for a Conservation Partners Grant with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to provide for up to 50% of the cost of enhancing or improving wildlife and native plant habitats in the Eugene H. Hagel Arboretum; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The City Manager is authorized to sign the grant agreement and receive state monies if the City is awarded the grant. s 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. Component 1 highlighed in pink Q UA N TI TY IKEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME P �E P - aT .SIZE COfAIAENTS I A OUERCUS RUBRA _ RED OAK a 1 � ®I _ B -B-41 LB OUERC AO CARPA OUR OAK -�_- -- Component 2 highlighted in green C CELT19 M 0CC CR I.ENTAlL4 8 ' ' 2' _ - -- _ • _ COMMON NA CK BERRY - - - - - I 2 B I O I ACER GINNALA - - AMUR MAPLE - -- _ _- I 10 -- - -- I E OUERCUS AlBA __ WHITE OAK 3 1 °-B 2 B -8 tti2 �� OSTRYA VIRCINIANA IRONWOOD _ Component 3 highlighted in orange G _ ACERSACCHARUM SUGAR MAPLE _ -- I = 2 ° 2- -- N L _ PHYSOCARPUS OPULIpT0 AUREW' - GOLDLEAF NINEBAAK I 13 10 7 '- ! _ RHUS CLABRA _ SMOOTH SUMAC 13 8 18 -8 3' 8 FT. Cey Component highlighted in blue J _. PRUNUS VIRCINIANA - SH UBER "' CANADA RED CNOKECHERAY #- 5 3 18 -8 B' _ K - STMPHORICARPOSORBIC 11 CORALBERRY 50 I 20 14 I 2 I 4 FT. CEN - ]RS L _ PRUNUS GLANOUIOSA'`INEN13(( FLOWERING ALMOND _. _- 9 e S 2' - a FT. CEtll':.43 — ...._. . -_. SAMeUCUS CANAOENS13 _ _ AMERICAN ELDER 30 5 f0 3' _ 8 FT. CENT ?RS _ N COTONEASTEP 4CUTIFOLIA PEKING COTONEASTEA __ _ _ 7 3 8 -B 4- 3 FT- GENT _',3 _ EXISTING PLANTING PLAN Water surface area 0 _ CORNUS ALTEANIFOIIA DWARF PA CODA DOGWOOD _ ? ' 8 -8 B � _- ..- . -.___ ? _ _ ACE. CIN NA LA COMPACrA 8 F AMUR .MAPLE 5 7 8-° a 4 FT. CEN T:RS 7 JUNIPEAUS VIRCINIANA 'SKYROCKET' EASTERN RED CEDAR 3S I 20 10 PDT GAL, 5 FT. CENT'AS Adjacent land use = residential 3 1 / 3P R ARIES SALSAME_A _ BALSAM FIR -- 1 1 _ PHASE T PLANTING r j PICEA GLAUCA _ _ WHITE SPRUCE _ _ _ _ 3 I 10 O 1 ! T �_ IARIX LARICINA _.._ _.._ .. TAM AA ACK .. . _ - -_ S - 1 7_ -_ .. .. . -_. ' / V THUJA OCCIDENTAt19 AMERICAN AR80RVrrAE 4 3 - -_ -- -- _ ° 72 FT. CENTERg O PHASE 2 ?CANTING / PICEA CIAUCA ' OEN ggTA BLACK HILLS SPRUCE 4 2 r 3 - - -' _ - - W CORNUS STOLONIFEAA RED DOGWOOD 45 17 I 28 I S' a FT CENTr'IS VIBURNUM TRILOSUM AMERICAN CRANBERRY BUSH 13 I 14 7 B -B 4 d' • 4 FT CEN7 .r;5 I _ - -- PHASE 3 PLANTING - -- - 'R7 IT Y AMELANCHIER CANAOENSIS SERVICEBERRY B 2 2 B -B B FT. CEN T:.;7 W Z ELEAGNUS UMSELLAT AUTUMN ELEAGNUS J7 11 9 S' 150 - ... _ YELLOWTWIO DOGWOOD — 13 a AA COgNUS STOLONIFERA'FLAVIIAMEA' - - - - �1,. _ _ _ S s' a F CEN '_E_: S 1 T ~\ -4P BB _ BEREIERIS THUNSERGI JAPANESE GREEN BARBERRY __ 18 P07 S G4 4 F CEN ` I CC JUNIP EROS PROCUMB�NS JAPGARDEN JUNIPER I 14 POTS GA 4 FT. CENT - CIIS OD PINUS SYLVESTRIS - SCOTCH PINE 7 I8 3A I EE I ACER PLATANOIOES 'JADE GLEN' NORWAY MAPLE f 1 I 113-8 12 -,,-1 ! CAGE 3R I J IW BU I i IF 2V 3U 3Y 70 lTN 50 IY 3U 2R 50 16X3U 3W aW 6X D SD lee zoo I_I I I I I I 5'CHAIN LINK FENCE 41- 1Z&/ 99 II P -- 28 3U I � \ 1 / r��J I OBSEAVATIOf.� 1�QI 4T - ' _ 9L 4'N 5 % 1 I SAA PROPOSED WATT 4 - 2 . _ SELAoera`L ° s� � 4AA �� , it -\ SIN 3 ) 7Z � PLANTING PLAN y 1 >- -I F B.Woodland Plants - . ^ -�.��\ T4 -�f �� l 6W ��- i• NON -PO TABLE / �\ \ �-. '�WEtt -65K Rue Anemone 7W \ M - ZF \ u Wild Columbine IN �i/ SI Butterfly Weed Wild White Indigo PARKING L0 BY OTH EAS 3W i � BOltonia ` I F 8M ^rte _ - - Purple Prairie Clover EE ENTRANCE C ONCRETE E S E Od-A / - ' , • D Wild Bleeding Heart ENTRANCE SEE DEl''All� i I 14CC Shooting Star 19Z Flowering Spurge Wild Gera n iulm 16 8P— Rough Giyfenther TRANCE P TING 11Z ^ 9Z 8' ASPHALT PATH -� 12' MAINT. GATE Virginia Bluebells II �2A PROPOSED SE TAI L i I OF 12' PORTION log �lll J� OF GATE IN Partridge berry (Tvinberry) PLANTING PLAN ` o ETAILe Wild Blue Phlox '' � 'wild Blue Phlox / 8l (Woodland Phlox) A. Bog(Wetland plants I �' 13H Ob Nc v England Aster I .. _ 7 Mayapple 9j g I Creeping Jacob's Ladder (Michaelmas Daisy) SEE OE7?t 1 Solomon's Seal 'j Marsh Marigold I 33 : Virginia Mountain Mint Spring Beauty _ r yr „l, Ragged Coneflower Cut - leaved taothwart Dutchman's Breeches ! y i Golden Ragwort `j _ I Early Meadow Rue Wild Bleeding Heart N LI FEN E I Whitc Trillium Yellow Trout Lily i I I (Large flowered Trillium) Round Lobed Hepatica I' Blue Flag Iris I (',I'EBl MEr bC113 False Rue Anemone 28 2C 30 1A 1F l0I I 10H 28 9M I lON 2A (Lllr�e0olver�tl(lolhaort Twin Leaf 7H I 3E 3J 19K 5L 2F 1G 8I 1E 5J 1.0 et (ulvrrlrtGlu) Twinflower Cardinal Flower Barren Strawberry Canada Mayflower Foxglove PCn3tem On Obedient Plant Mayapple Bloodroot • - .Golden Ragwort Arboretum Park Brooklyn Center BFOCr9803.00 'Phased Planting Scheme A-2 1 II 1p I' kill f rl w I u II a'. • �IQ yA4e + �rN4Af ,.l � .F . XI " ,' _ �' •i �� ..5. .. � ` Y ��y M � �� W � � v WNYI!II IIAWY IYIW W�Mk y+ , i. .,. M• �P yy FWIM , ' 9 ' Or I „ a r �I: m• w. 9 w 44 r aw I Y11 i v41 AA 1 I h: , , X ,1 r 5 t ' +1 afar. swill p ki t A NcTX'f*�S : I' '4 wo I% A�l .I, rte; r ' Al 'µ r^RrFky. - e..yr�llAyn ^•r'nItiX�MM4. .. 1XXYIR�pw n�41'IM 'w�6' +.::' nV �sw+AMVe q V h It w u m a 1 CONSERVATION PARTNERS GRANT City of Brooklyn Center Item 10. Planting List Qty Species Size Native to Supplier project area? 1370 CAREX PENSYLVANICA 4 " pots Y Prairie Restoration PENNSYLVANIA SEDGE I City Council Agenda Item No. 7a MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager / FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist/ Tp DATE: March 4, 1999 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4, and the Adoption of a Tax Increment -Plan Therefore On January 11, 1999 the City Council authorized a public hearing on the creation of a Tax Increment Financing (Soils Conditions) District and Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan to implement the district. The initial public hearing date was set for February 8, 1999. The hearing was opened on February 8, 1999 and continued to the February 22, 1999 meeting at which time it was opened and continued to the March 8, 1999 meeting. The reason for the continuation was due to issues raised by the Minnesota Department of Transportation relative to the Highway 100 reconstruction project and specifically, the rail crossing over Highway 100 and how it may impact the tax increment project site. The Highway 100 reconstruction issues are not resolved by staff believes the tax • increment financing project can move forward while the Highway 100 rail crossing issue is being resolved. As required by State Statute, notice of the hearing and a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan were mailed to the Robbinsdale School District and Hennepin County. On January 28, 1999 the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan and determined it "conforms to the development plan of the City ". A copy of the Planning Commission resolution regarding their review of the TIF is included with this memorandum. The remainder of this memorandum is a summary and restatement of the information contained in a memorandum from Mr. Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director and presented at the January 11, 1999 City Council meeting. Additionally, changes and revisions to the initial draft plan and contained in the final TIF plan are summarized in this memorandum. • The proposed tax increment district, if approved, would encompass four existing parcels including the Joslyn Pole Yard site (see attached map). The Joslyn Pole Yard is listed as a Federal "Super Fund Site" because of the creosote contamination of the soil and ground water. The four parcels contained in the tax increment district have a combined market value of $2,005,600 with a net tax capacity of $68,621. • The type of tax increment district proposed for the site is a soils condition district. In order to qualify as a soils condition district, all three of the following requirements must be met: . 1. The presence of hazardous substances, pollution or contaminants require removal or remedial action for use. • Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley March 3, 1999 Page 2 2. The estimated costs of removal and remedial action exceed the fair market value of the land before the preparation. 3. The proposed removal or remedial action must be specified in a development response plan approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. • A soils condition district may collect increment for 20 years after the date of approval of the TIF plan. The increment in a soils condition district can only be spent to acquire parcels on which removal or remediation will occur; pay the costs of removal or remedial action; and allocated administrative expenses, including the cost of preparation of the Development Action Response Plan. • The developer of the site is Real Estate Recycling, a small firm that specializes in the redevelopment of polluted sites. The firm is headed by Paul and Mac Hyde along with Jeff Hall. They propose to develop the site in up to three phases corresponding to three reconfigured parcels. The uses will be office /warehouse /light industrial uses consistent with the areas I -2 zoning. When fully developed, the site would have between 400,000 to 500,000 square feet of new construction and would generate up to 600 full time jobs. The market value of the development, dependent on the mix will range from $18,000,000 to $25,000,000. • A development agreement is being negotiated with Real Estate Recycling and will be presented at a future City Council meeting. • The City of Brooklyn Center has received grants to assist in this project from the Department of Trade and Economic Development and the Metropolitan Council. The City has received grant agreements from both DTED and the Met Council that this project has been funded for Phase I. The two grants total $2,244,117. • The draft TIF plan presented at the January 11, 1999 City Council meeting contained a total estimated budget of $9,944,384 which included the following category and cost breakdown: Soils/Environmental $2,794,800 Geotechnical $1,000,000 Acquisition $3,542,682 Demolition $140,000 Contingency $466,902 Groundwater Pumping and Maintenance $2.000.000 Total $9,944,384 • Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley March 3, 1999 Page 3 • The revised budget in the final draft of the TIF plan is $13,574,852 (see Section K of TIF plan). This is a "worst case scenario" budget. A summary of the revised costs follows: ► $413,150 in additional soils /environmental costs in case off -site treatment of soils is required and additional capping of undeveloped areas is required. ► $770,000 in infrastructure costs due to the potential extraordinary cost associated with utility hookups, since water and sewer lines are constructed on pilings in this area. ► $997,318 in revised acquisition costs. ► $1,450,000 in additional groundwater pumping and monitoring due to potential increased water levels from the Highway 100 reconstruction. The development agreement as it is currently being drafted would provide the following financial assistance to the developer: 1. All costs of the development would be financed by the developer. TIF assistance would be "pay as you go ", meaning the developer would receive the assistance if there is available TIF generated by the project. If the developer is not successful in developing this site in a manner significant enough to generate TIF funding, the maximum TIF funding potential would not • be realized by the developer. 2. The City would agree to a maximum of ten full years of TIF assistance per phase of the development. In other words, when the developer has completed the first building they would start the ten year clock on that phase and the completion of the second building would start the next ten year clock. However, all phases would have to start within the five year period as required by Statute. When the ten year clock on phase I expires that parcel would be removed from the TIF district reverting back to the tax rolls. The intent is to limit the actual TIF payment to a maximum of ten years of total development although the impact of staging the district would give the district a potential lifetime of 15 years. 3. The total maximum TIF assistance from all development that could potentially be received is $4,000,000 in today's dollars paid over the ten year period at 8%. 4. To the extent that new grants are received from any source that would reduce the total qualified costs below $4,000,000 there would be a corresponding reduction in the potential $4,000,000 of City assistance to the developer through TIF. The developer will be required to apply for available grants for each phase of the development. An application for phase H to the State and Met Council will go out this spring and phase III probably this fall. 5. A final cap on potential TIF assistance is created that would limit the City's level of assistance. The City will not provide assistance that would lower the developers cost for • usable land below $2 per square foot. The $2 per square foot is in the middle of the price • Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley March 3, 1999 Page 4 range for comparably zoned property in the north metro area. If the cost of clean up is less than estimated, the price per foot will control a potential windfall to the developer. A Resolution Approving the Establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and the Adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefore is presented for Council consideration upon holding oldmg a public hearing on the Tax Increment Financing Plan. It should be noted that the initial draft plan referred to District No. 1. It is staff's belief that referring to the district as No. 4 will alleviate potential confusion with existing Tax Increment Districts already in place. The district was initially labeled No. 1 since it is the first soils condition district proposed for the City but to alleviate any confusion staff is recommending that the district be referred to as District No. 4. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE HELD ON FE -BRTIA Ry l.R. 1,999 REGARDING POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE JOSLYN SITE Mailed notices were sent to the neighborhood surrounding the proposed tax increment district, inviting residents to a open house on February 18, 1999. The open house was held at City Hall between the hours of 4 and 7 p.m. on February 18th. Five persons from the neighborhood attended the open house. In addition, Mr. Paul and Mac Hyde were in attendance along with staff members Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director and Tom Bublitz, Community Development • Specialist. Residents in attendance informally reviewed the proposed development plans for the site. The only major concern raised by one of the residents was the potential for additional traffic congestion in the neighborhood which may be created by the closing of the Indiana Avenue entrance to Highway 100. The resident also expressed the concern that the proposed development may increase traffic in the neighborhood along with the potential problems created by the closing of Indiana and the changes in Highway 100 access. • G:\ DEPTS \EDA \RESOLUTI\1999 \T1F4308.MEM D AVE. N. "4:f�i,F','t!', :'i .: ,f tt:: 4. ! i1;J, s � -1 F t7ill A,Y`If: 'i .., '� q ,, +.' g ! I r !��ra� +l ; t: OAK T. Rl —ui =I•�it r.I� .rsF 1 y'� G.dq+ t`:.. ' ° ",ff.•�l�' ;l..w ,f't`I''i....�. ` i,a w .! j j� ��• r �'� ISj:'ry f i �� Yl.�'�4 iY �.'r'�..4 1• CK m_ _ o 15 R;i f: '�. +ft.l'•,i uf:i rtJ�j •C�'J If !•ci z — z ■ � 51ST A VE � � —` � ' --w AVE.N. _ / '' ,; ■ 50TH AVE. 'j`y�;. -, �' • ' S. , f�i: '� Jam. rl: ;.,;,.:.. '• ':�' r • , 'x-� �. (49TH AVE. uj f aoma 48TH AV LAKESIDE A 10 II :,, �., �f .. .tip:•: ',•.•t - �� i 1 47TH N Z AVE. N. LAKE r; {' -B CH PAR City of Brooldyn Center (Official Publication) - EXIIIRIT A _ . CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COUNTY OF 4 ,&c .. STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISH ENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (SOILS CONDITION) DISTRICT NO.1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the `Council') of the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin Coun- ty, Minnesota, will hold a public hearing on Monday, February S, 1999, at 7:00 o'clock pm., at the Brooklyn Center City Hall, in Brooklyn Center Minnesota to consider the establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 1(the'TIF District') and the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 through 469.179, all inclusive as amended. A copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF District, as proposed to be adopted, will be on file and available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall. The property proposed to be included in the TIF District is described in the Tax Increment Financing Plan. A map of the proposed TIF District No. 1 is set forth below: _ All interested persons may appear at the hearing and present their views orally or in writing. Dated: January 27, 1999 13Y ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /_t Sharron Knutson i - City Clerk i I _ F 32ND AVE N. OAK �,illll� 1 i l T 'AIM 318 N. i �'3 AVEN. - Wth Ave- N. 10- 118 -21 -23 -0004 ? / DLE � \ i � _— W i 10. 116- 21- 31.0021�� i = W NTM AVE N. I AV A 47TH AWE N. N LAKE _ CH P -::. / r `j 44T►1 . AVE N. 46 TH AvE N: Tax Increment Financing ' ' 1 (sons Condwon) (Jan. 27, 1999) P1 Soil • its adoption: Member Stephen Erdmann introduced the following resolution and moved . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9 9 - 01 RESOLUTION REGARDING CONFIRMATION THAT THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (SOILS CONDITION) DISTRICT NO. 1 CONFORMS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center proposes to establish Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 1 within the Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 pursuant to a Tax Increment Financing Plan dated January, 1999 (the "Tax Increment Financing Plan "); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan to determine its conformity to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan • for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole and the Commission forwards the Tax Increment Plan to the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center. Date Chair Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Sean Rahn and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Tim Willson, Dianne Reem, Graydon Boeck, Stephen Erdmann and Sean Rahn and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 (France Avenue Business Park Project) Dated: March 8, 1999 Prepared by: SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED 85 E. Seventh Place, Suite 100 St. Paul, MN 55101 -2887 (651) 223 -3000 TABLE OF CONTENTS • Section PaQe(s) A. Definitions ................................................................................... ............................... 1 B. Statutory Authorization ............................................................... ............................... 1 C. Statement of Need and Public Purpose ...................................... ............................... 1 D. Statement of Objectives ............................................................. ............................... 1 E. Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as a Soils Condition District............ 2 F. Duration of the TIF District and the Three Year Rule .................. ............................... 2 G. Property to be Included in the TIF District ................................... ............................... 3 H. Property to be Acquired in the TIF District .................................. ............................... 3 I. Specific Development Expected to Occur Within the TIF District ............................... 3 J. Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing ........................ ............................... 4 K . Estimated Public Costs ............................................................... ............................... 5 L. Estimated Sources of Revenue .................................................. ............................... 5 M. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness ............................... ............................... 5 N . Original Net Tax Capacity ........................................................... ............................... 5 O. Original Tax Capacity Rate ......................................................... ............................... 6 P. Projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity and Projected Tax Increment.......... 6 • Q. Use of Tax Increment ................................................................. ............................... 7 R. Excess Tax Increment ................................................................ ............................... 8 S. Tax Increment Pooling and the Five Year Rule .......................... ............................... 8 T. Limitation on Administrative Expenses ....................................... ............................... 9 U. Limitation on Property Not Subject to Improvements - Four Year Rule ...................... 9 V. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ......................... ............................... 9 W. Local Government Aid Penalty ................................................... ............................... 10 X. Prior Planned Improvements ...................................................... ............................... 10 Y. Development Agreements .......................................................... ............................... 10 Z. Assessment Agreements ............................................................ ............................... 11 AA. Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing Plan ..................... ............................... 11 AB. Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Plan ................... ............................... 11 AC. Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements ..................... ............................... 13 Map of the Tax Increment Financing District ........................... ............................... EXHIBIT AssumptionsReport ............................................................... ............................... EXHIBIT II Projected Tax Increment Report ............................................. ............................... EXHIBIT III Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Report ......... ............................... EXHIBIT IV Market Value Analysis Report ................................................. ............................... EXHIBIT V • Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section A Definitions • The terms defined in this section have the meanings given herein, unless the context in which they are used indicates a different meaning: "Authority" means the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority. "City means the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; also referred to as a "Municipality ". "City Council" means the City Council of the City; also referred to as the "Governing Bodv ". "County" means Hennepin County, Minnesota. "EDA Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108, inclusive, as amended. "HRA Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. "Redevelopment Proiect" means Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1 in the City, which is described in the corresponding Redevelopment Plan. "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for Housing Development and Redevelopment Project No. 1. "Proiect Area" means the geographic area of the Redevelopment Project. "School District" means Independent School District No. 281, Minnesota. • "State" means the State of Minnesota. "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.1791, both inclusive. 'TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4. 'TIF Plan" means the tax increment financing plan for the TIF District (this document). Section B Statutory Authorization See Subsection 1.3 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project. Section C Statement of Need and Public Purpose See Subsection 1.2 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project. Section D Statement of Objectives See Subsection 1.4 of the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project. • 2 SPRINGSTED Page 1 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section • E Designation of Tax Increment Financing District as a Soils Condition District A soils condition district is a type of tax increment financing district in which one of the following conditions exist: (1) there exists the presence of hazardous substances, pollution or contaminants which require removal or remedial action for use, and such removal and remedial action is specified in a development action response plan; (2) the estimated cost of the proposed removal and remedial action exceeds the fair market value of the land before completion of the preparation. The requirement specified in (2) above may also be satisfied if each parcel of property in the district either meets the requirements of (2) above or has estimated removal and remedial costs which exceed $2 per square foot. Tax increments derived from a soils condition district may only be used to: (1) acquire parcels on which improvements described in (2) below will occur; (2) pay for the cost of removal or remedial action; and (3) pay for the administrative expenses of the authority allocable to the district, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan. • Section F Duration of the TIF District and the Three Year Rule Soils Condition districts may remain in existence 20 years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment. The Authority reserves the right to allow the TIF District to remain in existence the maximum duration allowed by law (projected to be through the year 2020), but anticipates that the TIF District will be decertified prior to that time (see Section P). All tax increments from taxes payable in the year the TIF District is decertified shall be paid to the Authority. In addition, no tax increments shall be paid to the Authority from the TIF District after three years from the date of certification unless within that time period: (1) bonds have been issued in aid of the Project Area (except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S. Sections 469.152 to 469.165); (2) the Authority has acquired property within the TIF District; or (3) the Authority has constructed public improvements within the TIF District. SPRINGSTED Page 2 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section G Property to be Included in the TIF District • The TIF District is approximately a 4- parcel, 45.92 -acre area of land located within the Project Area. A map showing the location of the TIF District is shown in Exhibit 1. The boundaries and area encompassed by the TIF District are described below: Parcel ID Number Leual Description 10- 118 -21 -31 -0008 Lot 3, Block 1, Dale & Davies 1St Addition 10- 118 -21 -31 -0028 Lot 2, Block 1, Dale & Davies 3r' Addition 10- 118 -21 -31 -0027 Lot 1, Block 1, Dale & Davies V Addition 10- 118 -21 -23 -0004 Unplatted 10- 118 -21, that part of gov't Lot 2 lying swly. of rr r/w ex road The area encompassed by the TIF District shall also include all street or utility right -of -ways located upon or adjacent to the property described above. Section H Property to be Acquired in the TIF District The Authority may acquire and sell any or all of the property located. within the TIF District; however, the Authority does not anticipate acquiring any such property at this time. Section I Specific Development Expected to Occur Within the TIF District The Redevelopment Project proposed for the site will consist of a phased development. • Phases will be developed with office /warehouse/industrial uses. It is anticipated the site will consist of approximately 400,000 to 500,000 square feet of industrial /warehouse /office space. The first facility is expected to be fully constructed in 2000 and be 100% assessed and on the tax rolls as of January 2, 2001 for taxes payable in 2002. Remaining Phases of the project will consist of development of the remaining developable area as an industrial park with office /warehouse and /or industrial uses. It is anticipated the development in the TIF District will occur in two to three phases. It is the intent of the Authority to allow each phase of development to receive tax increment from the TIF District in equal duration. The result will be that each phase of the development will receive the same duration of tax increment as the other phases. At the time this document was prepared there were no signed construction contracts with regards to the above described development. • SPRINGSTED Page 3 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section J Findings and Need for Tax Increment Financing • In establishing the TIF District, the City makes the following findings: (1) The TIF District qualifies as a soils condition district; See Section E of this document for the reasons and facts supporting this finding. (2) The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future, and the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the TIF Plan; The reasons and facts supporting this finding are that the developer has represented to the Authority that it would not undertake the proposed development without the assistance of tax increment financing. Private investment will not finance these development activities because of prohibitive costs. It is necessary to finance these development activities through the use of tax increment financing so that other development by private enterprise will occur within the Project Area. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without • establishment of the TIF District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above and is shown in Exhibit V. This analysis indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the TIF District and the use of tax increments. (3) The TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and The reasons and facts supporting this finding are that the TIF District is properly zoned, and the TIF Plan has been reviewed by the City Planning Commission and will generally compliment and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive plan. (4) The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Project Area by private enterprise. The reasons and facts supporting this finding are that the development activities are necessary so that development and redevelopment by private enterprise can occur within the Project Area. (5) The City elects the method of tax increment computation set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 3b (see method b in Section P). • SPRINGSTED Page 4 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section K Estimated Public Costs • The estimated public costs of the TIF District are listed below. Such costs are eligible for reimbursement from tax increments of the TIF District. Soils /Environmental $ 3,207,950.00 Geotechnical 1,000,000.00 Infrastructure 770,000.00 Acquisition 4,540,000.00 Demolition 140,000.00 Contingency 466,902.00 Groundwater Pumping and Monitoring 3.450,000.00 Total $13,574,852.00 The Authority reserves the right to administratively adjust the amount of any of the items listed above or to incorporate additional eligible items, so long as the total estimated public cost is not increased. Section L Estimated Sources of Revenue The Authority anticipates providing financial assistance to the proposed development through the use of a pay -as- you -go technique. As tax increments are collected from the TIF District in future years, a portion of these taxes will be distributed to the developer /owner as reimbursement for public costs incurred (see Section K). • The Authority reserves the right to finance any or all public costs of the TIF District using pay - as- you -go assistance, internal funding, general obligation or revenue debt, or any other financing mechanism authorized by law. The Authority also reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Project Area to pay for such costs including, but not limited to, special assessments, utility revenues, federal or state funds, and investment income. Section M `Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness The Authority does not anticipate issuing tax increment bonds to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District, but reserves the right to issue such bonds in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000. Section N Original Net Tax Capacity The County Auditor shall certify the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. This value will be equal to the total net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District as certified by the State Commissioner of Revenue. For districts certified between January 1 and June 30, inclusive, this value is based on the previous assessment year. For districts certified between July 1 and December 31, inclusive, this value is based on the current assessment year. The Estimated Market Value of all property within the TIF District as of January 2, 1998, for taxes payable in 1999, is $2,005,600. Upon establishment of the TIF District, and subsequent reclassification of property, it is estimated that the original net tax capacity of the TIF District will • be approximately $68,621. 2 SPRINGSTED Page 5 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount that the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased as a result of: • (1) changes in the tax - exempt status of property; (2) reductions or enlargements of the geographic area of the TIF District; (3) changes due to stipulation agreements or abatements; or (4) changes in property classification rates. Section O Original Tax Capacity Rate The County Auditor shall also certify the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District. This rate shall be the sum of all local tax rates that apply to property in the TIF District. This rate shall be for the same taxes payable year as the original net tax capacity. In future years, the amount of tax increment enerated b the TIF District will be calculated 9 Y using the lesser of (a) the sum of the current local tax rates at that time or (b) the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District. The sum of all local tax rates that apply to property in the TIF District, for taxes levied in 1998 and payable in 1999, is 134.261% as shown below. The County Auditor shall certify this amount as the original tax capacity rate of the TIF District. 1998/99 • Taxing Jurisdiction Local Tax Rate City of Brooklyn Center 36.998% Hennepin County 40.994% Independent pendent School District No. 281 47.716 /o Metro Special Taxing Districts 6.035% Other Special Taxing Districts 2.518% Total 134.261% Section P Projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity and Projected Tax Increment Each year the County Auditor shall determine the current net tax capacity of all property in the TIF District. To the extent that this total exceeds the original net tax capacity, the difference shall be known as the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. For communities affected by the fiscal disparity provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 473F and Chapter 276A, the original net tax capacity of the TIF District shall be determined before the application of fiscal disparity. In subsequent years, the current net tax capacity shall either (a) be determined before the application of fiscal disparity or (b) exclude the product of any fiscal disparity increase in the TIF District (since the original net tax capacity was certified) times the appropriate fiscal disparity ratio. The method the Authority elects shall remain the same for the life of the TIF District, except that a single change may be made at any time from • method (a) to method (b) above. The City has elected method b. 2 SPRINGSTED Page 6 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota • The County Auditor shall certify to the Authority the amount of captured net tax capacity each year. The Authority may choose to retain any or all of this amount. It is the Authority's intention to retain 100% of the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. Such amount shall be known as the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. Exhibit II gives a listing of the various information and assumptions used in preparing a number of the exhibits contained in this TIF Plan, including Exhibit III which shows the projected tax increment generated over the anticipated life of the TIF District. Section Q Use of Tax Increment Each year the County Treasurer shall deduct 0.25% of the annual tax increment generated by the TIF District and pay such amount to the State's General Fund. Such amounts will be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting and auditing of tax increment financing information throughout the state. Exhibit III shows the projected deduction for this purpose over the anticipated life of the TIF District. The Authority has determined that it will use 100% of the remaining tax increment generated by the TIF District for any of the following purposes: (1) pay for the estimated public costs of the TIF District (see Section K) and County administrative costs associated with the TIF District (see Section T); (2) pay principal and interest on tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District; • (3) accumulate a reserve securing the payment of tax increment bonds or other bonds issued to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District; (4) pay all or a portion of the county road costs as may be required by the County Board under M.S. Section 469.175, Subdivision 1 a; or (5) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School District. Tax increments from property located in one county must be expended for the direct and primary benefit of a project located within that county, unless both county boards involved waive this requirement. Tax increments shall not be used to circumvent levy limitations applicable to the City. Tax increment shall not be used to finance the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the State or federal government. This prohibition does not apply to the construction or renovation of a parking structure, a common area used as a public park, or a facility used for social, recreational, or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the community. If there exists any type of agreement or arrangement providing for the developer, or other beneficiary of assistance, to repay all or a portion of the assistance that was paid or financed with tax increments, such payments shall be subject to all of the restrictions imposed on the use • of tax increments. Assistance includes sale of property at less than the cost of acquisition or fair market value, grants, ground or other leases at less then fair market rent, interest rate subsidies, utility service connections, roads, or other similar assistance that would otherwise be paid for by the developer or beneficiary. 2 SPRINGSTED Page 7 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section R Excess Tax Increment • In any year in which the tax increments from the TIF District exceed the amount necessary to a the estimated public pay p costs authorized by the TIF Plan, the Authority shall use the excess tax increments to: (1) prepay any outstanding tax increment bonds; (2) discharge the pledge of tax increments thereof; (3) pay amounts into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of the tax increment bonds; or (4) return excess tax increments to the County Auditor for redistribution to the City, County and School District. The County Auditor must report to the Commissioner of Education the amount of any excess tax increment redistributed to the School District within 30 days of such redistribution. Section S Tax Increment Pooling and the Five Year Rule At least 80% of the tax increments from the TIF District must be expended on activities within the district or to pay for bonds used to finance the estimated public costs of the TIF District (see Section E for additional restrictions). No more than 20% of the tax increments may be spent on costs outside of the TIF District but within the boundaries of the Project Area, except to pay debt service on credit enhanced bonds. All administrative expenses are considered to have • been spent outside of the TIF District. Tax increments are considered to have been spent within the TIF District if such amounts are: (1) actually paid to a third party for activities performed within the TIF District within five years after certification of the district; (2) used to pay bonds that were issued and sold to a third party, the proceeds of which are reasonably expected on the date of issuance to be spent within the later of the five -year period or a reasonable temporary period or are deposited in a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund. (3) used to make payments or reimbursements to a third party under binding contracts for activities performed within the TIF District, which were entered into within five years after certification of the district; or (4) used to reimburse a party for payment of eligible costs (including interest) incurred within five Y ears from certification of the district. Beginning with the sixth year following certification of the TIF District, at least 80% of the tax increments must be used to pay outstanding bonds or make contractual payments obligated within the first five years. When outstanding bonds have been defeased and sufficient money has been set aside to pay for such contractual obligations, the TIF District must be decertified. The Authority does not anticipate that tax increments will be spent outside of the TIF District (except for allowable administrative expenses); however, the Authority does reserve the right to allow for tax increment pooling from the TIF District in the future. • SPRINGSTED Page 8 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section T Limitation on Administrative Expenses • Administrative expenses are defined as all costs of the Authority other than: (1) amounts paid for the purchase of land; (2) amounts paid for materials and services, including architectural and engineering services directly connected with the proposed development within the TIF District; (3) relocation benefits paid to, or services provided for, persons or businesses residing or located within the TIF District; or (4) amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount, tax increment bonds. Administrative expenses include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, planning or economic development consultants, and actual costs incurred by the County in administering the TIF District. Tax increments may be used to pay administrative expenses of the TIF District up to the lesser of (a) 10% of the total estimated public costs authorized by the TIF Plan or (b) 10% of the total tax increment expenditures for the project. Section U Limitation on Property Not Subject to Improvements - Four Year Rule If after four years from certification of the TIF District no demolition, rehabilitation, renovation, or qualified improvement of an adjacent street has commenced on a parcel located within the TIF District, then that parcel shall be excluded from the TIF District and the original net tax • capacity shall be adjusted accordingly. Qualified improvements of a street are limited to construction or opening of a new street, relocation of a street, or substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The Authority must submit to the County Auditor, by February 1 of the fifth year, evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the TIF District. If a parcel is excluded from the TIF District and the Authority or owner of the parcel subsequently commences any of the above activities, the Authority shall certify to the County Auditor that such activity has commenced and the parcel shall once again be included in the TIF District. The County Auditor shall certify the net tax capacity of the parcel, as most recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue, and add such amount to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. Section V Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Exhibit IV shows the estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions if the maximum projected retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District was hypothetically available to the other taxing jurisdictions. The Authority believes that there will be no adverse impact on other taxing jurisdictions during the life of the TIF District, since the proposed development would not have occurred without the establishment of the TIF District and the provision of public assistance. A positive impact on other taxing jurisdictions will occur when the TIF District is decertified and the development therein becomes part of the general tax base. 2 SPRINGSTED Page 9 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota • Section W Local Government Aid Penalty Tax increment financing districts established or expanded after April 30, 1990 may cause a reduction in the local government aid (LGA/HACA) received by the City from the State. For tax increment financing plans approved on of after July 1, 1995, the City may elect at the time of such approval to make qualifying local contributions to the project, and thereby be exempt from any loss of local government aid. For soils condition districts these contributions must equal 5.0% of the annual increment generated by the district. If the City elects to make the local contribution but fails to do so in any year, a reduction in local government aid will occur. The loss of aid will equal the greater of 1) the required local contribution or 2) the loss of aid which would have been incurred had the local contribution election not been made. Local contributions must be made out of unrestricted money and may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer payments. The contributions must be used to pay project costs and cannot be used for general government purposes or for costs which would have been incurred absent the project. The Authority may request contributions from other local governmental entities that will benefit from the establishment of the district. The City elects to make the qualifying local contributions to the project. Section X Prior Planned Improvements The Authority shall accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor (or notice of • district enlargement), with a listing of all properties within the TIF District for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the TIF District by the net tax capacity of each improvement for which a building permit was issued. There have been no building permits issued in the last 18 months in conjunction with any of the properties within the TIF District. Section Y Development Agreements If within a project containing a soils condition district, more than 10% of the acreage of the property to be acquired by the Authority is purchased with tax increment bonds proceeds (to which tax increment from the property is pledged), then prior to such acquisition, the Authority must enter into an agreement for the development of the property. Such agreement must provide recourse for the Authority should the development not be completed. The Authority anticipates entering into an agreement for development, but does not anticipate acquiring any property located within the TIF District. • SPRINGSTED Pag a 10 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section Z Assessment Agreements • The Authority u on entering in development agreement, Y P into a de elo also enter into an 9 P 9 assessment agreement g nt with the developer, which establishes a minimum market value of the land and improvements for each year a TIF District. p y during the life of th The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County or City Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed review the market value P p , previously assigned to the land, and so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears to be an accurate estimate shall certify the 9 Pp fy assessment agreement as reasonable. The assessment agreement shall be filed for record in the office of the County Recorder of each county here the property is located. An modification or tY P P Y Y premature termination of this agreement must first be approved by the City, County and School District. The Authority does not anticipate entering into an assessment agreement. Section AA Modifications of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Any reduction or enlargement in the geographic area of the Project Area or the TIF District; increase in the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; increase in the amount of capitalized interest; increase in that portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the Authority; increase in the total estimated public costs; or designation of additional property to be acquired by the Authority shall be approved only after satisfying all the necessary requirements for approval of the original TIF Plan. This paragraph does not apply if: • (1) the only modification is, elimination of parcels from the TIF District; and (2) the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcels in the TIF District's original net tax capacity, or the Authority agrees that the TIF District's original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcels eliminated. The Authority must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of the TIF District. The geographic area of the TIF District may be reduced but not enlarged after five years following the date of certification. Section AB Administration of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Upon adoption of the TIF Plan, the Authority shall submit a copy of such plan to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The Authority shall also request that the County Auditor certify the original net tax capacity and net tax capacity rate of the TIF District. To assist the County Auditor in this process, the Authority shall submit copies of the TIF Plan, the resolution establishing the TIF District and adopting the TIF Plan, and a listing of any prior planned improvements. The Authority shall also send the County Assessor any assessment agreement establishing the minimum market value of land and improvements in the TIF District, and shall request that the County Assessor review and certify this assessment agreement as reasonable. • SPRINGSTED Page 11 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota The County shall distribute to the Authority the amount of tax increment as it becomes • available. The amount of tax increment in any year represents the applicable property taxes generated by the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. The amount of tax increment may change due to development anticipated by the TIF Plan, other development, inflation of property values, or changes in property classification rates or formulas. In administering and implementing the TIF Plan, the following actions should occur on an annual basis: (1) prior to July 1, the Authority shall notify the County Assessor of any new development that has occurred in the TIF District during the past year to insure that the new value will be recorded in a timely manner. (2) if the County Auditor receives the request for certification of a new TIF District, or for modification of an existing TIF District, before July 1, the request shall be recognized in determining local tax rates for the current and subsequent levy years. Requests received on or after July 1 shall be used to determine local tax rates in subsequent years. (3) each year the County Auditor shall certify the amount of the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. The amount certified shall reflect any changes that occur as a result of the following: (a) the value of property that changes from tax - exempt to taxable shall be added to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. The reverse shall also apply; • (b) the original net tax capacity may be modified by any approved enlargement or reduction of the TIF District; (c) if the TIF District is classified as an economic development district, then the original net tax capacity shall be increased by the amount of the annual adjustment factor; and (d) if laws governing the classification of real property cause changes to the percentage of estimated market value to be applied for property tax purposes, then the resulting increase or decrease in net tax capacity shall be applied proportionately to the original net tax capacity and the retained captured net tax capacity of the TIF District. The County Auditor shall notify the Authority of all changes made to the original net tax capacity of the TIF District. s SPRINGSTED Page 12 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota Section AC Financial Reporting and Disclosure Requirements • The State Auditor shall enforce the provisions of the TIF Act, EDA Act, and HRA Act and shall have full responsibility for financial and compliance auditing of the Authority's use of tax increment financing. On or before August 1 of each year, the Authority must annually submit to the State Auditor, City Council, County Board and County Auditor, and the School District Board a report which shall: (1) provide full disclosure of the sources and uses of public funds in the TIF District; (2) permit comparison and reconciliation of the accounts and financial reports; (3) permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of the TIF District; and (4) be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. The report shall include, among other items, the following information: (1) the original net tax capacity of the TIF District; (2) the captured net tax capacity of the TIF District, including the amount of any captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing jurisdictions; (3) for the reporting period and for the duration of the TIF District, the amount budgeted under the TIF Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories: • (a) acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; (b) site improvements or preparation costs; (c) installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other similar public improvements; (d) administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the Authority; and (e) public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or other similar public improvements. (4) for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the Authority and the price paid by the developer; and (5) the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately financed improvements or other qualifying costs. Additional information which must be annually reported to the State Auditor, by August 1 of each year, includes: (1) for the entire City: (a) the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment bonds outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and (b) the total amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current calendar year on tax increment bonds. SPRINGSTED Page 13 Brooklyn Center EDA, Minnesota • (2) for each tax increment financing district in the City: (a) the type of district, (b) the date the TIF District is required to be decertified; (c) the amount of any payments and the value of in -kind benefits, such as physical improvements and the use of building space, that are financed with revenues from increments and are provided to another governmental unit during the preceding calendar year; (d) the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; (e) whether the TIF Plan permits tax increment revenues to be expended for activities located outside of the TIF District, and (f) any additional information that the State Auditor may require. The Authority must also annually publish in a newspaper of general circulation in the City an annual statement for each tax increment financing district showing the tax increment received in that year, the original and captured net tax capacity, the amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness, the amount of increments paid to other governmental bodies, the amount paid for administrative costs, the sum of increment paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located outside of the district, the increase in property taxes if a fiscal disparity contribution is being made from outside of the district, and any additional information the • Authority deems necessary. The Authority must publish the annual statement by August 1 of the next year and must provide a copy to the State Auditor by the time it submits the annual statement for publication. The reporting and disclosure requirements outlined in this section shall begin with the year the district was certified, and shall end in the year in which both the district has been decertified and all tax increments have been spent or returned to the county for redistribution. Failure to meet these requirements, as determined by the State Auditors Office, may result in suspension of distribution of tax increment. • SPRINGSTED Page 14 EXHIBIT I RE :P_" • . y en - �•..'� �� � wra�aar =.,. ._� ._: ..: �_..,.ti�..4.:. ^. •!'9eui- ..�C�z"r..+�-r -' � EP - :.r 52ND AVE. N. _ u l O OAK ST. --"� r^ _sti - � — / i _ m y0 - 57 $T— _ z TZ - 5'1 ST AVE. N. I -! _ so r ^ w �.AVE.N. — O I I I 1 -" `r "�, -- 10- 118 -21 -23 -0004 150TH AVE. N. j . DLE.: _. — Lli LA RE B 10- 118 -21 -31 -0027 10- 118 -21 -31 -0028 y/ i - z I. - ¢ — I — Q F10- 118 -21 -31 -00081 48TH AVE. N. E / V IA E 1 N LAKE \— l i 47TH AVE. N. CH PAR 1 � m rn • ( 46 TH AVE. N. 46TH AVE. N. Tax Increment Financing District No. 4 (Soils Condition) EXHIBIT I (Continued) HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 01 • PROJECT AREA MAP CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER •.aiTS_._3$i�$'= $ ;t ,� i :j � t $ S �$ � ��� �$i >iZ:S3s>iSi � 3tfSi .rw r I a.aKA. Awr 11 LEI = Aq s_ � � more � '�+ 1 �.,. � � � � I � '7 tea•. w .r i ` '.w. r .` � t � � � 1 , `� ••� �\ I SCI I � '' ��-t♦A- w.■•.as SM.4- ft 14 Z�rw Sm tee• • ��ti ♦ I L7� • Pur 3 � Y;~ fwr�� .�• f� t 'I 21 MW • /I �� M• I iI '7 y I i'I ' , �7 I 3 I I ICU 5 .. • w IlIII I �'~ • —�� 1� • ••R••• CENTER w■ gf The Boundaries of Housing Development and Redevelopment Project N0.1 EXHIBIT II . Assumptions Report City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 France Avenue Business Park Project Scenario A Type of Tax Increment Financing District Soils Condition Maximum Duration of TIF District 20 years from 1 st increment Certification Request Date 04/01/99 Decertification Date 12/01121 (20 Years of Increment) 1998/1999 Base Estimated Market Value $2,005,600 (1) Times: First $150,000 2.45% 3,675 Excess 3.50% 64,946 Original Net Tax Capacity $68,621 Assessment/Collection Year 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 • Base Estimated Market Value $2,005,600 $2,005,600 $2,005,600 $2,035,684 Increase in Estimated Market Value 0 0 15,994,400 16,234,316 Total Estimated Market Value $2,005,600 $2,005,600 $18,000,000 $18,270,000 Times: First $150,000 2.45% 3,675 3,675 3,675 3,675 Excess 3.50% 64,946 64,946 624,750 634,200 Total Net Tax Capacity $68,621 $68,621 $628,425 $637,875 Base Inflation Factor NA Local Tax Capacity Rate 134.261% 1998/99 Fiscal Disparities Contribution From TIF District 28.1157% 1998/99 Administrative Retainage Percent (maximum = 10 %) 2.50% Pooling Percent 0.00% City Tax Rate (Only if Local -Effort TIF) NA Bonds Note (Pay -As- You -Gol Bonds Dated NA Note Dated 04/01/99 First Interest Date NA Note Rate 7.75% Underwriters Discount NA I GA /HACA Loss: Will Annual Local Contribution Be Made (Yes or No)? Yes Upfront I.S.D #281 Equalized Tax Capacity Rate 36.58% I.S.D #281 Sales Ratio 92.30% • City Sales Ratio & Taxable Net Tax Capacity NA NA Present Value Date & Rate 04/01/99 5.00% (1) Currently 4 parcels, assumed they will be taxed as contiguous parcels. Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 312199 at 1:14 PM) Tifa3.xls Projected Tax Increment Report City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 France Avenue Business Park Project Scenario A Less: Less: Retained Times: Less: Less: Plus: Annual Total Original Fiscal Captured Tax Annual State Aud. Admin. Annual Local Annual Period Net Tax Net Tax Disp. @ Net Tax Capacity Gross Tax Deduction Retainage Net Tax Contribution Net Ending Capacity Capacity 28.1157% Capacity Rate Increment 0.25% 2.50% Increment 5.00% Revenue (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) 12/31/99 68,621 68,621 0 0 134.261% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/00 68,621 68,621 0 0 134.261% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12/31 /01 68,621 68,621 0 0 134.261% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12/31/02 628,425 68,621 157,393 402,411 134.261% 540,281 1,351 13,473 525,457 0 525,457 12/31/03 637,875 68,621 160,050 409,204 134.261% 549,401 1,374 13,701 534,326 0 534,326 12/31/04 647,467 68,621 162,747 416,099 134.261% 558,659 1,397 13,932 543,330 0 543,330 12/31/05 657,202 68,621 165,484 423,097 134.261% 568,054 1,420 14,166 552,468 0 552,468 12/31/06 667,084 68,621 168,262 430,201 134.261% 577,592 1,444 14,404 561,744 0 561,744 12/31/07 677,114 68,621 171,082 437,411 134.261% 587,272 1,466 14,645 571,159 0 571,159 12/31/08 687,294 68,621 173,944 444,729 134.261% 597,098 1,493 14,890 580,715 0 580,715 12/31/09 697,627 68,621 176,849 452,157 134.261% 607,071 1,518 15,139 590,414 0 590,414 12/31/10 708,115 68,621 179,798 459,696 134.261% 617,192 1,543 15,391 600,258 0 600,258 12/31/11 718,761 68,621 182,791 467,349 134.261% 627,467 1,569 15,647 610,251 0 610,251 12/31/12 729,566 68,621 185,829 475,116 134.261% 637,895 1,595 15,908 620,392 0 620,392 12/31/13 740,533 68,621 188,913 482,999 134.261% 648,479 1,621 16,171 630,687 0 630,687 12/31/14 751,664 68,621 192,042 491,001 134.261% 659,223 1,648 16,439 641,136 0 641,136 12/31/15 762,963 68,621 195,219 499,123 134.261% 670,128 1,675 16,711 651,742 0 651,742 12/31/16 774,431 68,621 198,443 507,367 134.261% 681,196 1,703 16,987 662,506 0 662,506 12/31/17 786,071 68,621 201,716 515,734 134.261% 692,430 1,731 17,267 673,432 0 673,432 12/31/18 797,886 68,621 205,038 524,227 134.261% 703,832 1,760 17,552 684,520 0 684,520 m 12/31/19 809,878 68,621 208,410 532,847 134.261% 715,406 1,789 17,840 695,777 0 695,777 X 12/31120 822,050 68,621 211,832 541,597 134.261% 727,154 1,818 18,133 707,203 0 707,203 _2 12/31/21 834,404 68,621 215,305 550,478 134.261% 739,077 1,848 18,431 718,798 0 718,798 co 12/31/22 834,404 834,404 0 0 134.261% 0 0 0 0 0 0 $12,704,907 $31,765 $316,827 $12,356,315 $0 _ $12,356,315 - Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (printed on 3/2/99 at 1:14 PM) Tifa3.xls Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions Report City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 France Avenue Business Park Project Scenario A Without Project or TIF District With Project and TIF District Projected Hypothetical 1998/99 1998/99 Retained New Hypothetical Hypothetical Tax Generated Taxable 1998/99 Taxable Captured Taxable Adjusted Decrease In by Retained Taxing Net Tax Local Net Tax Net Tax Net Tax Local Local Captured Jurisdiction Capacity (1) Tax Rate Capacity (1) + Capacity = Capacity Tax Rate ( *) Tax Rate (`) N.T.C. (') City of Brooklyn Center 15,242,805 36.998% 15,242,805 $550,478 15,793,283 35.708% 1.290% 196,567 Hennepin County 924,830,587 40.994% 924,830,587 550,478 925,381,065 40.970% 0.024% 225,529 ISD #281, Robbinsdale 62,903,729 47.716% 62,903,729 550,478 63,454,207 47.302% 0.414% 260,387 Other (7) - -- 8.553% - -- 550,478 - -- 8.553% - -- - -- Totals 134.261% 132.533% 1.728% " Statement 1: If the projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TIF District was hypothetically available to each of the taxing jurisdictions above, the result would be a lower local tax rate (see Hypothetical Adjusted Tax Rate above) ' which would produce the same amount of taxes for each taxing jurisdiction. In such a case, the total local tax rate would decrease by 1.728% (see Hypothetical Decrease in Local Tax Rate above). The hypothetical tax that the Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TIF District would generate is also shown above. Statement 2: Since the projected Retained Captured Net Tax Capacity of the TIF District is not available to the taxing jurisdictions, then there is no impact on taxes levied or local tax rates. m X _2 (1) Taxable net tax capacity= total net tax capacity -captured TIF -fiscal disparity contribution. W (2) The impact on these taxing jurisdictions is negligible since they represent only 6.37% of the total tax rate. --j C Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/2/99) EXHIBIT V • Market Value Analysis Report City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 France Avenue Business Park Project Scenario A Assumptions Present Value Date 04/01/99 P.V. Rate - Gross T.I. 6.00% Increase in EMV With TIF District $16,234,316 Less: P.V of Gross Tax Increment 6,103,260 Subtotal $10,131,056 Less: Increase in EMV Without TIF 0 Difference $10,131,056 Annual Present Gross Tax Value @ Year Increment 6.00% 1 2002 540,281 440,605 2 2003 549,401 422,681 3 2004 558,659 405,475 4 2005 568,054 388,957 5 2006 577,592 373,102 6 2007 587,272 357,882 7 2008 597,098 343,273 8 2009 607,071 329,252 9 2010 617,192 315,793 10 2011 627,467 302,878 11 2012 637,895 290,483 I 12 2013 648,479 278,587 13 2014 659,223 267,172 14 2015 670,128 256,219 708 15 2016 681,196 245,708 16 2017 692,430 235,623 17 2018 703,832 225,946 18 2019 715,406 216,662 19 2020 727,154 207,754 20 2021 739,077 199,208 • 21 2022 0 0 $12,704,907 $6,103,260 Prepared by: Springsted Incorporated (3/2/99) • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (SOILS CONDITION) DISTRICT NO. 4, AND THE ADOPTION OF A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City ") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (the "Authority") has asked the City Council to approve the establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.123, both inclusive and Sections 469.174 to 469.179, both inclusive, as amended. 1.02. The Authority has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the • establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and the adoption of a Tax Increment Plan therefor, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and Independent School District Number 281 which have taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4, and has requested that the City approve the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 following the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as required by law. Section 2. Findings for the Establishment of Ta x Tncrement Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and Adoption of a. Tax Increment Financin Plan therefor. 2.01 The City Council hereby finds that the establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and adoption of a Tax Increment Plan therefor, are intended and, in the judgment of the City Council, its effect will be, to provide an impetus for the removal and remediation of hazardous substances on certain land in the City, which will allow for development of new manufacturing facilities and will increase employment and otherwise promote certain public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Tax Increment Financing Plan. 2.02 The City Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 qualifies as a "soils condition district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 19, for the following reasons: • (1) The presence of hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants requires removal or remedial action for use, and • RESOLUTION NO. (2) The estimated cost of the proposed removal and remedial action exceeds the fair market value of the land before capitalization of the preparation. The reasons and supporting facts for the above findings are found in the Developer's Response Action Plan dated October 30, 1998. 2.03 The City Council hereby makes the following findings: (a) The City Council further finds that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. The specific basis for such finding being: The presence of hazardous substances on property in the Tax Increment District makes the use of tax increment financing necessary to assist in the removal and remediation efforts in order to allow new development from the private sector. (b) The City Council further finds that the Tax Increment Financing Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole. The specific basis for such finding being: The Tax Increment Financing Plan will generally compliment and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive plan. The facilities to be contemplated are manufacturing developments which comply with the existing zoning for the property. (c) The City Council further finds that the Tax Increment Financing Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for the development of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 by private enterprise. The specific basis for such finding being: The removal and remediation of hazardous substances and to ensure development will add new jobs within the City and will increase the market valuation of the City. (d) For purposes of compliance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3(2), the City hereby finds that the increased market value of the property to be developed within the Tax Increment District that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing is $ -0 ;; which is less than the market value estimated to result from the proposed development (i.e., $15,994,400) after subtracting the . present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Tax Increment District (i.e., $5,149,718). In making these findings, the City has noted that, the property has RESOLUTION NO. been undeveloped for many years and would likely remain so if tax increment financing is not available. Thus, the use of tax increment financing will be a positive net gain to the City, the School District, and the County, and the tax increment assistance does not exceed the benefit which will be derived therefrom. 2.04. The provisions of this Section 2 are hereby incorporated by reference into and made a part of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4. Section 3. Annroval of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and the Tax Increment Financina Plan therefor. 3.01. The establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor, are hereby approved. 3.02. The staff of the City, the staff of the Authority and the City's and Authority's advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor and for this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this City Council for its consideration all further • plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 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. • STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a meeting of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on the date therein indicated with the original minutes thereof on file in my office and that the same is a full, true, and correct transcript thereof insofar as said minutes relate to a meeting held on February 8, 1999, approving the establishment of Tax Increment Financing (Soils Condition) District No. 4 and the adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor. WITNESS my hand this day of , 1999. • Clerk • City Council Agenda Item No. 7b MEMORANDUM DATE: March 1, 1999 TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Scott Brink, City n sneer Y g� ` SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Proposed Improvement Project Nos. 1999 -01, 02, and 03, Southeast Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements Summary Explanation The proposed projects (Improvement Project Nos. 1999 -01, 02, & 03) include roadway, storm drainage, and utility improvements for the Southeast Neighborhood Area, more specifically the following streets: Irving, Girard, Fremont, and Emerson Avenues North between 53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North; Dupont, Colfax, Bryant, and Camden Avenues North between 55th Avenue North and 57th Avenue North; Aldrich Avenue North between 56th and 57th; 54th Avenue North between Irving and Dupont; 56th Avenue North between Fremont and Emerson; and 56th Avenue North between Dupont and Camden. The attached Feasibility Report includes maps showing the specific improvement locations. The project was initiated • and established by the City Council on August 24, 1998. On November 18, 1998 and January 26, 1999, public information meetings were conducted. On February 8, 1999, the Council received the Engineer's Feasibility Report and scheduled a public hearing for March 8, 1999 to consider these improvements. The proposed improvements can generally be described as follows: replacement of the existing streets with new bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer installation, repair and replacement of existing sanitary sewer mains, some spot replacements of water main facilities, and street light replacements. The attached Engineer's Feasibility Report describes the project improvements, costs, and schedule in more detail. Assessments In accordance with the City Council's policy regarding improvement projects in residential areas, proposed assessments have been made on a unit basis. The Council's 1999 residential unit rate for street reconstruction is $2,120 per parcel, and $690 per parcel for storm drainage improvements. The public hearing will not consider the proposed assessments. If the Council approves the Improvement Projects, a separate assessment hearing would be scheduled for September of 1999. All property owners in the area affected by the proposed improvements have been duly notified as required by law. Recommended City Council Action Staff Presentation. Open the Public Hearing on the proposed projects, take public comment, and close the hearing. Consider the improvement projects. A Resolution ordering Improvement Project Nos. 1999 -01, 02, & 03, Southeast Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, approving plans and specifications and authorizing an advertisement for bids is provided. its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1999 -01, 02, AND 03, SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council on March 8, 1999 authorized consideration of street, storm drainage, and utility improvements in the area generally described as the "Southeast Neighborhood Area," consisting of the following streets: Irving, Girard, Fremont, and Emerson Avenues North between 53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North; Dupont, Colfax, Bryant, and Camden Avenues North between 55th Avenue North and 57th Avenue North; Aldrich Avenue North between 56th and 57th; 54th Avenue North between Irving and Dupont; 56th Avenue North between Fremont and Emerson; and 56th Avenue North between Dupont and Camden; and WHEREAS, The Council has previously received and accepted a feasibility report for said proposed improvements, as prepared by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, said improvement is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed • in the feasibility report; and WHEREAS, The City Council on the 8th of February, 1999 adopted a resolution setting a date for a public hearing regarding proposed improvements for the Southeast Area Neighborhood; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing was given and the hearing thereon was held on the 8th day of March, 1999, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered all comments, testimony, evidence, and reports offered at or prior to the March 8, 1999 hearing; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to expend monies from the special Assessments Construction Fund, Water Utility Fund, Sanitary Sewer Fund, or Storm Drainage Utility Fund on a temporary basis to pay the expenditures described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects to reimburse itself for such expenditures from the proceeds of taxable or tax- exempt bonds, the debt service of which is expected to be paid from property taxes, special assessments, or utility fees. The maximum amount of obligations expected to be issued for such project is $1.1 million; and WHEREAS, City Staff, under the direction of the City Engineer have prepared plans and specifications for said project. • RESOLUTION NO. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED b the Ci Council of the Ci of Brook Y Y Y n Y Center, Minnesota that: 1. Improvement Project' Nos. 1999 -01, 02, and 03, Southeast Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements, are hereby ordered. 2. The plans and specifications for said improvement project are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 3. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvement in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during the consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be . considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. 4. This resolution is intended to constitute official intent to issue taxable or tax exempt reimbursement bonds for purposes of Treasury Regulation 1.105 -2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. This resolution shall be modified to the extent required or permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.105- 2. Or any successor law, regulation, or ruling. 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. City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PKWY ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • BROOKLYN CENTER, 11IINNESOT.4 55430 ENGINEERING. 569 -3340 FAX. 569 -3494 ENGINEER'S FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SOUTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 1999 -01, 02 &03 FEBRUARY, 1999 I hereby certify that this feasibility report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Reg. No. 17657 / • Scott Brink. P. E. City Engineer February 3, 1999 OVERVIEW (see Figure 1) These proposed projects include roadway and utility improvements for the Southeast Area Neighborhood, more specifically all public streets as shown in Figure 1. The general improvement area consists of the following streets: Irving, Girard, Fremont, and Emerson Avenues North between 53rd Avenue North and 57th Avenue North; Dupont, Colfax, Bryant, and Camden Avenues North between 55th Avenue North and 57th Avenue North; Aldrich Avenue North between 56th and 57th; 54th Avenue North between Irving and Dupont; 56th Avenue North between Fremont and Emerson; and 56th Avenue North between Dupont and Camden. Estimated costs for the new street improvements are included on the attached cost spread sheet(Figure 6). This report was prepared in accordance with revious direction of e th City Council and that staff would conduct P ty Pubhc Information meetings. On November 18, 1998 and January 26, 1999, public information meetings were conducted. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS STREETS Improvement Project 1999 -01 (see Figure 2) All of the streets in the proposed project area, with the exception of Dupont Avenue North, are classified as local • residential streets, originally constructed in conjunction with utility installations in the mid to late 1950's. Feasibility Report Southeast Area Neighborhood Page 1 Dupont Avenue is designated as a Municipal State Aid collector street under the City's Transportation Plan, meaning that state gasoline tax monies are available to assist in funding for reconstruction of that particular street. All of the existing streets are very flat, without curbs and gutters. On average, the streets are 30 feet wide, with a pavement thickness of 1.5 to 3.0 inches. These streets are aging and showing fatigue and distress, particularly along their unprotected edges. The • City's Pavement Management Program indicates that it is no longer cost - effective to routinely maintain these streets (i.e., patch and sealcoat). Complete reconstruction is recommended. It is proposed to reconstruct these streets as two lane roadways measuring 30 feet in width with a structural capacity for the current volume and vehicle distribution. Dupont Avenue would be constructed to Mn/Dot State Aid standards as required. At this time, it is recommended that Dupont Avenue north be reconstructed to a width of 32 feet, which is the minimum width allowed to permit parking on one side of the roadway. This is the same width that Dupont Avenue (from 53rd to 55th) was constructed to last year as part of the Bellvue Neighborhood Project. On- street parking on both sides of the street would continue to be allowed on the other streets in accordance with the City's parking ordinances. Concrete curbs and gutters and driveway aprons would be installed as part of the improvement. Traffic volumes on most of these streets are typical of local residential streets, with the exception of Dupont Avenue. Some traffic speed concerns have been expressed by some residents in the area. This is a common concern in many neighborhoods throughout the City. However, staff will continue to conduct additional traffic data collection work in the area to address specific concerns. There are no new sidewalks proposed as part of the project. Existing sidewalks within the project area are located along the collector streets of 53rd, 55th, and 57th Avenues. These walks generally were either replaced or repaired as part of previous projects. Only at those intersections at 53rd Avenue that require reconfiguration (matching) of newly constructed street grades will there be any adjustment work for sidewalks. Otherwise, no additional sidewalks or trails are included in the cost estimates. The cost estimates in this report do include a lump sum allocation ($30,000) for planting boulevard trees in appropriate areas and an allocation of ($35,000) for upgrading street lighting. However, staff is working with NSP to determine a more accurate estimate. • STORM DRAINAGE Improvement Project 1999 -02 (see Figure 3 for proposed storm sewer system) The existing storm sewer system in the project area was installed on a per development basis and is inadequate. Previously ordered hydraulic and technical studies of this drainage area have shown that additional storm sewer should be constructed to alleviate frequent localized drainage problems. Survey results received from residents also indicates some localized incidents of standing water and /or very poor drainage. The majority of storm sewer proposed for the project would consist of smaller mains and leads to pick up runoff at localized low spots. These mains would then connect to larger collector mains that were previously constructed as part of the 55th Avenue and 57th Avenue reconstruction projects. Therefore, the portion of construction costs attributable to storm sewer construction is significantly lower than previous projects. Figure 3 shows a preliminary concept for storm drainage improvements to serve the project area. Essentially, the project design provides for installation of additional storm sewers and catch basins to provide additional pick -up points throughout the neighborhood, thereby allowing streets to be regraded to provide more positive drainage, and to minimize localized flooding. SANITARY SEWERS Improvement Project 1999 -03 (see Figure 4) All sanitary sewers in the project area are 8 and 9 inch diameter clay pipe, installed between the early 1950's to 1960. Because these sewers were constructed without gaskets in the joints, they are subject to a modest level of ground water infiltration. Often, it would not be cost - effective to eliminate this infiltration if the pipe itself were in good condition. • However, while there are no capacity problems, City maintenance records, along with a televised inspection of all sewers Feasibility Report Southeast Area Neighborhood Page 2 in this area document a significant tree root infiltration problem and some structural defects in the sewer mains. Surveys received from residents also indicate various experiences with plugging of service lines that can often be attributed to root penetration of the pipe joints. The televised inspections have indicated that root infiltration is significant throughout the entire sanitary sewer system in the Southeast Area(Figure 4). Therefore, all sewer mains in the project area are proposed • to be replaced. Services between the main and the property line would also be replaced. It is also estimated that 434 sanitary sewer services would be replaced with the new sanitary sewer installation. Staff has compared costs of complete replacements vs. repair and replacement of specific problem areas only. Because of construction methods, mobilization costs, and in consideration of the final product and long term performance, it has been determined that complete replacement is more feasible. Additional information regarding sewer problems was received from property owners during the public participation process. Based on that information and additional review of other available information, final recommendations will be made during the final design process and project cost estimates will be revised accordingly. WATER MAINS Improvement Project 1999 -03 (see Figure 5) The water distribution system in this particular neighborhood was installed in the mid to late 1960's; some time after the original street and sewer construction. The condition of the water main distribution pipes are therefore in relatively good condition, and no major replacements are anticipated. Known problem locations, leaky valves, and aging hydrants would be replaced however as part of this work. ESTIMATED COSTS AND FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS (see Figure 6) The total estimated cost fqr the proposed project is $2,566,525.89. A detailed breakdown of this estimate, as well as funding sources are explained as follows in this report and attachment. Costs and Funding for Street Im"rovement Project No. 1999 - • The estimated cost for roadway improvements for all streets in this ro'ect area Local and Municipal p � ( pal State Aid), is $1,595,346.74. If street lighting improvements are included, the estimated cost for those roadway improvements is $1,630,346.74. It is proposed to levy special assessments for street improvements in accordance with the rates adopted by the City Council on November 23, 1998. The rates adopted by the City Council provide for a standard 1999 residential street assessment rate of $2120 per residential property. This rate would be assessed to all benefitted residential ro erties as shown in P P Figure 1. On this basis it is estimated that special assessments totaling $806,041 would be Ievied for street improvements. Costs and Funding for. Storm Draina System Improvement ,5. Project No. 1999 -02 The total estimated cost for storm drainage improvements within the Southeast Area Neighborhood area(Local and State Aid Streets) is $391,453.25. This includes the cost of storm sewer construction throughout the project area. It is proposed to levy special assessments for storm drainage improvements in accordance with the rates adopted by the City Council on November 23, 1998. Application of this rate to properties benefitted by these improvements will result in estimated special assessments of $690 per single family residential unit. The total cost to be assessed would be $265,793. Costs and Funding for San itary Sewer and Water Main Im provements. Pr. oiect No. 1999 -03 The estimated cost of sanitary sewer repairs and /or replacements is $467,011.89, and the estimated costs for water main repair and /or replacements is $77,713.82. As previously noted, these cost estimates are preliminary at this time. • However, all such costs would be funded by their respective utility funds, in accordance with established policy for such improvements. Feasibility Report Southeast Area Neighborhood Page 3 Recommended 1999 Proiect Schedule February 8 City Council receives feasibility report and calls for public hearing • March 8 Public Hearing, City Council may authorize the project and order preparation of plans and specifications March 22 Approve plans and specifications, authorize Ad for Bids April 14 Bid opening April 26 City Council awards contract April 28 Preconstruction conference April 29 Start construction September 13 Special Assessment Hearing September 30 Substantial completion Conclusion The overall condition of the City's infrastructure system (streets, sewers, utilities) is critical to the operation, safety, welfare, and economic health of the entire City. As a result of the infrastructure needs described, and the proposed solutions and estimated costs described in this report, the proposed project is considered to be necessary, cost effective, and feasible. Scott Brink; P. City Engineer Reg. No. 17657 z : Sa w n I t \ f.. <. •< ' I i + ' t I • U , , 1 a Z < 1 t -J � I Ea • t �J ! � l SST1• y — t "i 2 I •1 � 1 ' ` - I I K � < • 'fix , � - ��'- -. —+— � � � � � � 7�1 _ L ` I T ITl 0 VIVNE4F I I ' - I ({ J 1 Area Proposed To Be Assessed Feasibility Report Southeast Area Neighborhood Page 4 r , 1 1 i U 1.14 L 1, 57TH AVE. N. AVE �4,•, ..- .. ., . • N. I 1_ {' t�'1 t- ".- '_... _ 1 - J r. r 1 .5 � H I � � � � , J .. - . . _ eani 56TH — — m •. i ? qvE o _— _— WEV SSTH r 56TH . N. - - _ VE t_t�_: � - f •� 1 � - -- - - 1 55TH A i _ " � � I r — 't .• 1, .. ( — - ! --t .. i "i -f� r • i i . tl C' L . . O I -. - _._ .° .�+ rc l __ u Y`" __..__ _.. —_ .... .__ - S -_ .° ° _ - - - {It �c �- •c4-- uj S J_ u LL 1 . � _ ° 53RDi IIAV� , 1 �� __ - f or _ - r1'm tC��r7° - 7 -�'_ 1 - -7 53RD4 ! �, l �f }�_ if — il �! li ►f I �f_ - i(C I I 1 �� (i i I : ii c i ►F d ►� STREET CONSTRUCTION STORM: SEWER i CONSTRUCTION F�CUR $ SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1999 -01, 02 & 03 ! 1 _ ' 1 / _ I r t 1 .. t � r - J 57YH STTH A VE. N. 'w " — _r i r.�isi+. -►�: L ,rc ��' - '' - T 1 1 i 56TH N. _� . a .. , o . 567 — — r N _ -�•-- .. - O ..... .. .. •VE I H 9VE Kn FZ Pill," �r -- -- d,••- -_ - - t - -_ ; _ -- L� ; - - jv -E. T > Q . 0 - - .._.. .. ...a - --4- -z E _.... 1 _ ___- �_.._- [1� 53RDi' - IIAVE.I I I I -- WE. "u -r_ i 1 1 rrT - - I i 1 1 11 I I I i i +j _ i �- �. l i If ^,( i{ I f -- 11 ' -' - �-- - -_. � _. - iI ! j I I i! , !1 i ,! I I 1 _� i I, I! - a i l ►1 i I r � ii_ � � ,! ,' �, ! I 1 I 1 1 Y ! ► ►t - I, �j �► fi__I� � I�I�� j; �• �n r A n�i rr��►rr► r`(1�Ir`T�111/`Tln�t lr1l� ! + (' ! A R F AC (W U /ATFR iiA n IM i (1 Nc TR11/`T1nK1 �� 11 • City Council Agenda Item No. 7c I Office of the City Clerk City o f Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. is Sharon Knutson City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: March 3, 1999 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances Relating to Open Burning and the Adoption of the Uniform Fire Code At its February 8, 1999, meeting, the City Council approved first reading of An Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances Relating to Open Burning and the Adoption of the Uniform Fire Code, setting March 8, 1999, for a second reading and public hearing. This ordinance was published in the City's • official newspaper on February 17, 1999, and is offered this evening for a second reading and public hearing. It is recommended the City Council adopt this ordinance. If adopted this evening, the ordinance would be effective April 16, 1999. • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 8th day of March, 1999, at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances Relating to Open Burning and the Adoption of the Uniform Fire Code. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 5 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATING TO OPEN BURNING AND THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 5 -201.b is amended as follows: b. Adoption of Codes and Standards:. There is adopted and incorporated herein by reference • as an ordinance of the City: 1. Uniform Fire Code Adopted. The Uniform Fire Code as promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials and Western Fire Chiefs' Association (1994-7 Edition) toeether with Appendices I -A. I -B. I -C. II -A. II -B. II -D. III -A. III -B. III -C. IV -A. IV -B., VI -A, VT -B. VI -E and Minnesota Amendments as found in Rules Dart 7510.3510 through 7510.3710 is herebv adopted by reference and incorporated Minnesota Statutes Seetion 299F.9! 1 together with 3 I -A, I- H••B, II -D, III -A, ff! B, !I! -C;1V• A, :V! B, V! D into the Citv Code in whole as if herein set out in full, subject to deletions or modifications contained in this section (which code is hereafter referred to as the UFC code with ehanges m4 amissi hereinafter set fiDAh); and 1997 Edition.) 2. Adoption of National Fire Code. Whenever the Uniform Fire Code, as amended-by pafts 7510 3100 to 7519 , is silent on any subject, for any reason, in any situation, the provision of protection shall be in accordance with National Fire Code 4-9 Standards Numbered 13, 13A, 13D, 13R, 14, 20, 71, 72A, 72B, 72C, 72D, 72E, 72F, 74, 96 101, 231, 231C, 231D, and 231F and their appendices, issued by the National Fire Protection Association (Quincy, Massachusetts, 4-9 1997 which are adopted by reference as part of this code as though set forth herein in their • entirety. • ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 5 -201.c is amended as follows: C. Codes on File: The ;,:ty :,:crk fire chief shall file one (1) copy of the Uniform Fire Code 4-994- 1997 Edition with the State of Minnesota Amendments, and one (1) copy of those parts of the National Fire Code referred to in section two (2) of this Section, marked "Official Copy ", in h4-or-her his/her office, and the copies shall be kept available for public inspection. Section 3. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 5 -204 is amended by adding new paragraph i as follows: i. Open Burning: 1. Except as auth orized in this section, open burning of any material is prohibited. This prohibition does no apply to burning co nducted by governmental authorities which have secured permission from the fire chi ef or to outdoor cooking using only pro or charcoal. 2. Outdoor recreati or cooking fires m ay be permitted subject to the following . reauirements: a. Such burnin may be conducted o nly by persons living in a dwelling unit (as defined in Sectio 35 -900) for which a permit has been secured from the fire chief for bi gning in a specific location. Permi shall be issued for a calendar vear and only one permit shall be issued for any dwelling unit. Subiect to the conditions and restrictions of this section and anv conditions or restrictions imposed by t fire chief, a person holding such a permit may conduct up to four (4) such fires in each calendar month. b. All fires must be in an approved outdoo fireplace or a pit which is at least one (1) foot below grade. A pit must be located at least fifteen (15) feet from buildin fences property lines or flammable m aterials. Pits may be no more than three (3 feet in diameter, an d the outside edge shall be ringed with brick or rock. Commercially manufactured steel outdoor fire pits may be used provided they are no mo re than three (3) feet in diameter. C. Onlv clean dry wood may be burned. Wood mu st have been dried or cured for one (1) year or ma re and protected from, rain and snow. No leaves. trash. treated or pai wood, or any other materials m ay be burned. All burning material must be contained in the pit at all times. ORDINANCE NO. • d. Fires shall be so mana.¢ed and maintained that fires do not exceed three (3) feet above the fire pit. and persons are able to stand within four (4) feet of the fire. e. The fire shall be attended by an adult at all times and must be extineuished when unattended. An adequate source of water must be available at the nit for extinguishing the fire. f. Prior to commencement of burning the Brooklyn Center police department must be notified. Q. A fire may not be allowed to burn for more than six (6) hours. h. The fire chief is authorized to renuire that recreational fires be immediately extinguished if it is determined by the chief or the chief's desianated agent that the fire constitutes a dangerous condition. or if the fire is burning without being permitted or in violation of permit conditions. Failure to comply with any provision of this Chapter. with the conditions of a permit. or with an order of the chief or the chief's designated anent is a violation of this section.. • Section 4. Brooklyn roo yn Center Code Section 5 -204.c is amended as follows: C. Amendments to the UFC: 1. If doors i fire corridors, separation walls, fir doors. or smoke barrier doors are needed to be kept open. they sh be held ope by electric magnetic door holders that are controlled and released by the trip of a smoke detector or sprinkler head that covers the en tire building. The approval of t he fire chief is needed for this modification to a building. 1 �ftiele 4, "Permits and Gertifieates" of the T4FG is itteitteled in its entirety vvith fellr wing ;,.3 P kction - r. 1 vv- , lazardatts Materials, amended to read: 1. hazard perntit7 2. Glass 2. A speeieA hazard on L.,,�Iving - �-ariofm hazardetts mate als-, or proeesset��, 6% • than 3 3quaty, ORDINANCE NO. limited , Ir occaptaicics 3, mty of the following are presefit.- a. Nittitiple hftztffds. b Cl, --- agr, li s inv , 31ving dangeretts or hazardatts materials, 3 ez: pro ccsses- e. 9ee lcii c? a:u£chmi 31 lligli valu laclicumm arlees' . JVe1.1V11J o1Tii'CIGIL — I'V, l ir1. Pra teetion " of t he rrrn a re e _a_a .. €6llows.- a• ac ding a nom. 3htd l ica ��, . TF 3�TiZZeeLSZVeZCtcd in ar ett separ iott walls, or fire doers be - he4d 3per. f 41 , 11 a _a li' c d33T 1131�cvr�rurfuc canrivr�a — zizxa released by smoke deteetors. • b S eet i o , n of the T rnn �r��}'�szuncnata � o read as follows! (G) Standard installation for i ttspeetion, and maintenaftee of fire a4wm system she4l be I tlic U cr an NFP n 3. Tlie4o4ewing acct' " ,. ,] as F Qi . Scc tien n- >-4.204 e€4FG is amended y i&nti , arid addiiag paragraph to read as follows! (B) Test to establish fiante all be c.s pmvidcd in N.F "`""" , NFP n N o. 7 • ORDINANCE NO. Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of .1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) • 3 City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers H' om, Lasman, Nelson, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager , DATE: February 3, 1999 SUBJECT: 1997 Uniform Fire Code and Open Burning Fire Chief Ron Boman recommends adoption of the ordinance changes. Mr. LeFevere drafted and Mr. Clelland reviewed the proposed open burning ordinance. The open burning ordinance being proposed would limit outdoor fires to no more than four fires per month, each fire lasting no longer six hours. Fires would be required to be in an outdoor fire place or in a pit not greater than three feet in diameter. The adoption of the 1997 addition of the fire code would bring our ordinance in compliance with the adoption of the uniform fire code by the State of Minnesota, which now has adopted the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer 470 Pillsbury Center ;01B =a 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax C H A R T E R E o e -mail: atrys@kennedy- graven.com CHARLES L. LEFENT AttorneN al I.:n\ Direct Dial (612) -921 email: clefeverc a kennedy- graccn C 0111 December 30, 1998 Mr. Ron Boman Fire Chief City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RE: Burning Ordinance Dear Chief: Attached is a draft ordinance relating to recreational fires in the City. You will note that sections 1 and 2 have been left blank so you may insert changes relating to adopting an updated version of the fire code by reference. • I have also left a blank in subparagraph i 2 0 which indicates the person or office which must be notified prior to conducting a recreational fire. The uniform fire code requires notification to the "fire department" before "open burning" is conducted. however, it seems to me. that it would be difficult to prove that a person had not contacted the "fire department ". I believe in our telephone conversation we discussed notification to the City police and fire dispatcher. I assume that at this location we would have a good record of incoming calls. Please consider the best location for persons to call to give the City notification of an intent to conduct an open fire and give me a call on this point. By copy of this letter and the ordinance to Bill Clelland, i am also asking for his comments about the en orceabil:ty of the ordinance. and any ether chanaP�, which clay be desirable. Please give me a call when you have had an opportuni -:� to review the draft ordinance. If you will provide me with your email address, I will forwani the document to you So that you may make further changes or additions if you wish to do so. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:lh Enclosure • cc: Mr. Bill Clelland (with enclosure) Mr. Mike McCauley (with enclosure) CLL- 155799 BR291 -12 CARSON AND GLELLAND • ATTORNEYS AT Z.A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP JEFFREY A. CARSON 6300 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY, SUITE 305 TELEPHONE WILLIAM G. CLELLAND (612) 561 -2800 ELLEN M. SCHREDER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430-2190 FAX ANN L. HARBINSON (612) 561 -1943 12 January 1999 Charles L. LeFevere Kennedy & Graven 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 470 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Mr. Ron Boman Fire Chief City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Mr. Michael McCauley City Manager • City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Proposed Open Burning Ordinance Gentlemen: I have had an opportunity to read the proposed ordinance and review Chapter 5 -200, which it amends, and I have some thoughts for you. The open burning ordinance as it is drafted permits outdoor cooking or recreational fires using only three types of fuels, propane, charcoal or clean, dry wood. The regulations do not apply to outdoor cooking using only propane or charcoal, so the only prohibition and/or regulation will be for recreational or cooking fires using clean, dry wood. I wonder if there should be a size limit to unregulated outdoor cooking using propane or charcoal. I am sure the intent of the ordinance was not to cover nor regulate the use of a typical Weber grill, but under this ordinance, a person could have a large outdoor pit using charcoal only and that would not either be prohibited nor regulated by the ordinance. I • assume the intent might be to exclude the typical Weber, propane or charcoal grill, and yet still cover a large outdoor barbeque pit which might pose a special hazard or contribute more i Messrs. LeFevere Boman McCauley 12 January 1999 Page 2 significantly to pollution. We could consider limiting the unregulated propane or charcoal cooking to grills of a certain size so as to still regulate a large backyard pit. It might be a good idea to provide that the permit is issued to and for a household rather than an individual to prevent different individuals in the same household or immediate family from all holding a permit, which would greatly expand the ability to hold recreational fires. There is a definition of fancily in Section 35 -900 of the zomllg ordinance which d e fines a family, i.e. a household of a person or persons related by blood, marriage or adoption, together with domestic servants or gratuitous guests maintaining a common household in a dwelling unit. This or a similar definition could be included so that there is only one permit and therefore authorization for only four such fires conducted by any person in the household. In Section 3(i)(2)(b), the word "ust" should be "must." • I agree with Charlie's comments that notice to the City police through the dispatcher would give a good record of incoming calls, and I don't believe it would unduly tie up or impede the 911 system. The number to call could be placed on each permit which would give the City flexibility for assigning a number. Ron sent me a proposed permit which needs to be amended to conform to the final form of the ordinance. The ordinance might specify that a person of at least a certain age might have to attend the fire at all times, obviously it defeats a significant safety feature of the ordinance if younger children are either allowed to start and/or attend fires. I would like the penalty section in h) to provide that a failure to comply with any provision of this ordinance, a failure to comply with the terms of a permit and/or the failure to comply with any such order of the Chief is a violation of this section. Paragraph h), I think, should be amended to provide that the Fire Chief is authorized to require that recreational and/or outdoor cooking fires be immediately extinguished if the fires are determined by the Chief or his designated agent to constitute a dangerous condition, or if the fire is burning without acquisition of a permit or in violation of the conditions of the permit or the ordinance. This would allow the fire to be extinguished even if it is not considered dangerous if the person is violating the permit or the ordinance such as burning trash or leaves or starting a fire without a permit. Messrs. LeFevere, Boman, McCauley D • 12 January 1999 0 P age 3 Charging should normally take place by issuance of a citation. Chapter 18 of the City ordinances provides that code enforcement officers are authorized to issue citations for violation of the City's fire code, but it doesn't appear to me that under Chapter 5, fire officials have the right to issue citations. I'm not sure if the Uniform Fire Code gives fire department personnel this authority, but if not, a provision could be included to allow members of the fire department to cite for this violation. Chapter 5 of the ordinances does give the City the right to charge persons for fire calls. It might be a good idea to put this advisory on the permit. We could also provide that the Fire Chief has the right to deny a household a permit if there has been a previous violation of this chapter within the last 12 months or any other suitable period of time we might select. Please consider my remarks and give me a call. • Sincerely, CARSON, CLELLAND & SCHREDER William G. Clelland WGC:gn • City Council Agenda Item No. 8a MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist Subject: City Council Consideration Item - Planning Commission Application No. 99001 Date: March 3, 1999 On the March 8, 1999 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC requesting Rezoning and Site and Building Plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center. Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for Planning Commission Application No. 99001 and also an area map showing the location of the property under consideration, various site and building plans for the proposed development, . the Planning Commission minutes relating to the Commission's consideration of this matter, Planning Commission Resolution No. 99 -02 and other supporting documents. This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their February 25, 1999 meeting and was recommended for approval by the Commission through the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99 -02. It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the application. A draft resolution has been.prepared for City Council consideration. An ordinance amendment describing the property proposed to be rezoned is also offered for first reading by the City Council. i Application Filed on 1/28/99 • Revised Plan and Document Submitted on 2/23/99 City Council Action Should Be Taken By 4/17/99 (60 Days from 2/23/99) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 99001 Applicant: Talisman Brookdale, LLC Location: Brookdale Center Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan - PUD /C -2 The applicant, Lance Sturges on behalf of Talisman Brookdale, LLC, is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the expansion and redevelopment of Brookdale Regional Shopping Center. Their plan calls for the demolition and reconfiguration of the west end of Brookdale. An 86,650 sq. ft. second floor would be added that would cantilever 40 feet out over the parking lot and the reconfigured main floor at this location. The second floor would house a 20 screen, 4,252 seat theater to be operated by the Sony -Loews Cinema Group. The main floor would contain a large food court and a new configuration for retail shops. An approximate 13,200 sq. ft. addition would be added at the north entrance to the Center adjacent to Dayton's. This would be divided among two • potential restaurant sites and a new entry way. Approximately 13,000 sq. ft. of retail space would be added along with a revised entry way on the southerly side of the mall also adjacent to Dayton's. The proposal also calls for the demolition of the old Penney 's Auto Center building and the addition of five restaurant and retail out buildings. (Two along Xerxes Avenue in the vicinity of the 56th Avenue entrance, one easterly of Midas along County Road 10 and two southerly of the Shingle Creek Parkway entrance to the Center adjacent to the Ground Round and Kohl's.) The applicant is seeking the immediate approval for the relocation of Applebee's Restaurant from the Mall to a 4,650 sq. ft. building pad on Xerxes, north of the 56th Avenue entrance to Brookdale. Access to all of the out buildings proposed would be via the Brookdale Shopping Center perimeter road through the existing accesses to the Center (no direct access to these sites from public streets). The other out buildings are conceptual at this time and are 4,000 sq. ft., 10,000 sq. ft., 15,000 sq. ft. and 25,000 sq. ft. respectively. The property in question is currently zoned C -2 (Commerce) and is bounded on the north by County Road 10; on the east and southeast by T. H. 100; on the west and southwest by Xerxes Avenue North. • 2 -25 -99 Page 1 The reason for the requested PUD zoning is the extent of the applicant's proposed redevelopment • and a number of special considerations requested by the applicant that are modifications to existing ordinance requirements that are believed to be necessary to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the Brookdale Regional Center. The requested rezoning is to PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and the uses proposed are either permitted or special uses in the requested underlying C -2 zone. Retail uses and restaurant uses are permitted uses while fast food restaurants and motion picture theaters are special uses provided they do not abut R -1, R -2 or R -3 zoned property. Considerations that are being requested that are not consistent with city ordinances include the following: • Permit a setback for parking lot pavement (greenstrip) of 5 ft. from the property lines rather than the typical 15 ft. required in certain specific locations. • Permit a building setback of 35 ft. from the property adjacent to a public right -of -way rather than the 50 ft. building setback required for buildings from major thoroughfare right -of -way. • Permit double 90 degree parking space layout to be 60 ft. wide rather than the 63 ft. required by the ordinance. • Permit parking space requirements to be based on gross leasable area rather than the gross floor area required for retail space. • Permit 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area rather than the required 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. • Permit an additional freestanding sign on the Brookdale Shopping Center property along T. H. 100. • Permit a freestanding sign of 320 sq. ft. rather than 250 sq. ft. • Allow up to 20 percent of the gross leasable area for restaurant use without requiring a seating count for parking space requirements rather than the 15 percent currently allowed under the ordinance. As the Commission is aware, a Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. The rules and regulations governing the district (in this case C -2) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by • 2 -25 -99 Page 2 the City Council on the development plans. In this case, the applicant would be seeking • modification to allow the above listed requests which deviate from the current zoning ordinance requirements. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). REZONING The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35 -210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines which are contained in Section 35 -208. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review as well. The applicant has submitted a written request entitled "Application for Planned Unit Development and Building Plan Approval for Brookdale Center Additions and Renovation ", dated January 28, 1999 (attached), a parking analysis prepared by the Traffic Group out of Towson, Maryland (also attached) and site plans for the planned renovation. A traffic analysis of the surrounding roadways is being prepared by Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH). The most recent plan revision was submitted to the City on February 18, 1999, and it is anticipated that the SEH traffic study will be presented on Tuesday, February 23, 1999, at which time the application will be considered complete and the 60 day time limit for City Council action will begin. This means City Council action should be taken by no later than April 17, 1999. As with all rezoning requests, the Planning Commission must review the proposals based on the. • Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The policy states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and must not constitute "spot zoning" which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner and does not related to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal must be considered on its merits and measured against the City's policy and against the various guidelines which have been established for rezoning review. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to pages 5 and 6 of the applicant's January 28, 1999 submittal where they indicate how they believe their proposal meets the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. The following is a review of these guidelines and a summary of the applicant's comments as well as the staff comments related to the guidelines. A. Is there a clear and public need and benefit? The applicant indicates that Brookdale Shopping Center has lost its luster and its purpose and ability to provide the community residents with the most up -to -date merchants, services and entertainment. People have found other centers to be more complete and this has resulted in fewer shoppers at Brookdale and a loss of merchants and a lack of interest for new merchants to become part of the center. They believe the proposed rezoning along with the redevelopment and reconfiguration will allow • 2 -25 -99 Page 3 the owner to expand in order to provide the retail and entertainment mass necessary to • attract newer customers and newer merchants. It is the staffs opinion that a significant redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Shopping Center is necessary to keep it competitive in the. Twin Cities market area. Other regional shopping centers are either newer or have upgraded significantly since the Mall of America was constructed. No such upgrading has taken place at Brookdale and it has, in many respects, fallen behind in the attractions necessary for a retail shopping center. It appears that what the applicant's are proposing is necessary for this rejuvenation to take place. It is clear to us that this rejuvenation of Brookdale Shopping Center is a public need or benefit to the community. B. Is the proposed zoning consistent and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The applicant notes that Brookdale has been operating for over 35 years in a C -2 commercial zoning district. They also note that surrounding uses are compatible with the present C -2 zoning and would be compatible with the change to the PUD /C -2 proposal. It is the staff's opinion that this proposed PUD zoning classification is consistent and • compatible with surrounding land use classifications. Most of the property surroundin Brookdale is commercial or is separated by major thoroughfares from what might be considered incompatible land uses. We believe, as previously mentioned, that the upgrading of Brookdale is essential to the community as well as many of the surrounding commercial land uses. A viable Brookdale Shopping Center is essential for the viability of many of the surrounding C -2 land uses as well. C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? The applicant notes that the present retail use of the property will be enhanced with the addition of a 20 screen theater entertainment venue. The retail, selected services, and theater uses proposed are consistent with the current zoning and the developer is only requesting development changes in the zoning ordinance to enable the property to be utilized practically, efficiently, aesthetically pleasing and profitable. The staff believes that all of the uses contemplated in the Brookdale Shopping Center redevelopment which include retail, service related uses, restaurants, including fast food restaurants and the proposed new theater complex can be contemplated for • 2 -25 -99 Page 4 development of the subject site. As mentioned previously, the underlying zoning • district (C -2) allows all of these uses as either permitted or special uses. D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? ® There have been no physical or zoning classification changes in the immediate area which would adversely affect the continuation, expansion and rejuvenation of Brookdale. It has been the center of the retail community for over 35 years and the City is committed to attempting to retain its viability and place in the Twin City retail market. E. In the case of city initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? This is not a city initiated rezoning proposal, however, we do believe there is a broad public purpose evident in the refurbishing and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Shopping Center. F. Will the subject property bare fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? • The applicant indicates that they are prepared to comply fully with the restrictions and changes that are allowed. As noted, a number of modifications are proposed and further comment will be made later with respect to a justification for these proposed modifications. Findings will need to be made by the City and a development agreement between the City and developer will address any issues and will acknowledge the site plans as part of the development agreement. The applicant's proposal will need to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and is subject to other regulations as well. They are seeking some greenstrip modifications, setback modifications, parking formula considerations, parking standard deviations and sign ordinance modifications that will need to be justified on the basis of the plan submitted and studies provided. G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The applicant answers this question in the negative and notes that the existing uses have been operated under the C -2 commercial zoning district for some time. They also note that the proposed theater will be consistent with the district and adjacent properties. • 2 -25 -99 Page 5 We do not believe that it can be argued that the site is generally unsuited for uses permitted in this zoning district. That is why the C -2 designation is the underlying • zoning designation in this Planned Unit Development proposal. The modifications P P P requested and the new development proposed required a Planned Unit Development amendment and development agreement as a basis for this development to proceed. The Planned Unit Development is the p vehicle b which the City can provide control Y Y P over the potential development or redevelopment of this area. H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3. The best interest of the community? It is believed that the creation of the PUD /C -2 zoning district in this Brookdale area provides flexibility in dealing with the redevelopment issues for this site. It has been pointed out that Brookdale Shopping Center is a unique use in the city and perhaps should have its own specific zoning district with its own specific regulations designed for a regional mall type use. In effect, this PUD /C -2 zoning designation and the accompanying development agreement will establish Brookdale Shopping Center as a unique use within the community for which special development consideration can be justified based on the size of the operation and on its uniqueness. We believe, as pointed out before, that this redevelopment and rejuvenation is in the best interests of the community if it is properly done. The proposal is certainly not inconsistent with • the City's current Comprehensive Plan, which recommends an intense commercial development for the Brookdale and surrounding rea. The PUD zoning gives the City g gg Y what is considered to be the needed flexibility in dealing with the redevelopment issues for the Brookdale Shopping Center. As previously mentioned we believe the PP g P Y proposal is in the best interest of the city if properly developed along with appropriate analysis and findings that the proposed modifications meet the development needs of the community. I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The applicant responds by noting how the proposed expansion and rejuvenation will change the Center in a number of positive ways. They note that it is evident that Brookdale Center needs improvement at this time and that approval by the City to use the redevelopment plans as presented will assure future strength and competitiveness of the Center that will benefit the community in a number of ways. The staff would agree. The proposal does appear to have merit beyond only the interests of a particular property owner and will lead to the needed upgrading and • 2 -25 -99 Page 6 rejuvenation of Brookdale Shopping Center. It is a community anticipated and • needed improvement and we would concur with the applicant's comments. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL As mentioned previously, the applicant's proposal calls for the demolition of a portion of the west end of the Brookdale Center mall and the expansion of that area with an approximate 86,000 sq. ft., 20 screen, 4,252 seat theater on the second floor of the rebuilt center. Also, additional square footage is planned by the north entrance to the mall for restaurant uses and at the southerly entrance to the mall for additional retail space. The applicant has provided a floor plan and tenant mix proposal for the expanded area. Originally the applicant was proposing an amphitheater to be located in the mall adjacent to the ticket area for the theater and across from Sears. This amphitheater proposal has been abandoned and the revised plans have recently been submitted. Five freestanding out buildings are planned, four of which are conceptual at this time. The applicant has submitted the building plans for a freestanding Applebee's restaurant, which would be 4,650 sq. ft. in area. The other buildings are anticipated as part of the PUD but would require later submission of an amendment to the PUD for the particulars of the building such as building exterior elevations, floor plans and building uses. Building No. 5, which is proposed to be located adjacent to .Kohl's, is located within a portion of the 100 year flood elevation on the site. This would require the need for fill on the site and to provide compensating storage. This matter • is being reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and it is possible that compensating storage at Centerbrook Golf Course can be provided so that this area could be filled. The Watershed Commission is scheduled to review the Brookdale plans on March 11, 1999. ACCESS/PARKING Access to Brookdale Shopping Center would remain unchanged. Access is ained from public g p streets at four locations, Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10; Northway Drive and County Road 10; 56th and Xerxes Avenue, and 55th and Xerxes Avenue. Again, these access points would be for the most part unchanged. The applicant has provided a detailed site plan showing a proposed parking scheme that would allow for 5,700 parking spaces on the site. They are proposing to provide 90 degree parking which can allow for more parking spaces within the same parking configuration that they have. Currently most of the parking on the Brookdale site is angled parking with one way drive lanes. The distance between parking stalls is 60 ft. which allows for 60 degree parking and a driving lane. The applicants are proposing to be allowed to have 90 degree parking within this 60 ft. separation rather than the 63 ft. required by the current zoning ordinance. They propose to make up the 3 ft. difference by reducing the length of parking from 19 ft. 6 in. to 19 ft. and the 2 -25 -99 Page 7 driveway width from 24 ft. to 22 ft. It should be noted that the Brookdale Shopping Center was • granted a parking dimension variance many years ago and the current angled parking with the 60 ft. separation was provided. We would recommend that the 60 ft. wide double 90 degree parking with the 22 ft. drive lane be agreed to as a proof of parking, which could be installed if the applicant chooses to do so. For circulation purposes, it appears to us that the angled parking and alternating one way drive lanes is a more efficient parking and driveway scheme for the shopping center, however, should additional parking spaces may be needed to accommodate users, we believe such a configuration could be utilized. The other aspect of parking which the applicant is requesting modification to is the actual retail parking formula used for determining the minimum requirement for Brookdale Shopping Center. The city's retail parking formula requires 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. In the case of the Brookdale Shopping Center, this gross floor area requirement includes all connecting corridors, service and storage areas as well as the mall itself. The parking requirement is to provide 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of this entire area. The applicant is requesting that we utilize gross leasable area, which is only the store area actually utilized for commercial purposes for determining the maximum parking required. It appears reasonable to utilize gross leasable area for a major regional shopping center such as Brookdale which is unique with respect to the dynamics of a regional shopping center and the fact that people frequenting the Center frequent many establishments within the mall rather than just going to one store at a time. The applicant has provided a shared parking analysis prepared by the Traffic Group, Inc. to determine the maximum number of parking spaces that are required for the • Brookdale Shopping Center complex. They note the particulars of the project with proposed parking at 5,702 parking spaces on site. They have undertaken what is called a shared parking analysis showing the actual demand that is necessary for a proposed center based on those assumptions. The analysis assumes the procedures contained in an Urban Land Institute study. They provide three exhibits showing calculations used to arrive at the maximum number of parking spaces required for the subject site based on maximum demand. They indicate that a maximum of 5,133 spaces would be required for the Brookdale Shopping Center for both a weekday and weekend. They note that the Center is designed to provided 5,702 parking spaces, therefore, based on their analysis, more than sufficient parking is proposed on the site to meet maximum weekday and weekend hourly demand. The report also goes on to note other shopping centers in the Minneapolis /St. Paul area that have current parking ratios of less than 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. They note the Rosedale Shopping Center, which has 4.59 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable space and Southdale Shopping Center, which has a 4.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area. They believe the information is clear that the shared parking concept developed by the Urban Land Institute indicates that more than sufficient parking is proposed on the subject site based on the maximum hourly demand determined by the analysis. It should be noted that with the proposed development, not all of the buildings will be built at one time. There is a fudge factor, so to speak, which can be used as buildings come on line to • 2 -25 -99 Page 8 determine the amount of parking necessary to meet the Center's demand. It is also not clear at is this time whether or not the applicants are proposing to make significant changes to the parking layout at Brookdale Shopping Center. The City Engineer has noted in his report some concerns about the parking and the lack of delineation within the Brookdale proposal. This was based on a previously submitted plan and the applicants have made some changes in response to the comments by the staff. It appears that the 33 ft. wide perimeter road will be acceptable and the 30 ft. drive lanes close the Center itself will be appropriate. Again, we are not sure as to the applicant's intention as to when the parking plan presented would be installed. It appears, given the information provided that their plan could be adequate and when the parking is installed, concrete delineation should be provided as a condition of approval. Clarification from the applicant on this point is in order. A concern that has been noted is the location of the theater with respect to the westerly boundary of the Brookdale Shopping Center. It appears that the parking provided may not be conveniently located to the heaviest draw, the theater. There may be some temptation to park vehicles along Xerxes Avenue and it is recommended that this street be posted no parking to avoid on street parking and congestion on Xerxes Avenue. On site parking problems are really the applicant's problem. Should the plan prove to be insufficient, it will be their problem and in their best interest to correct. All in all, we believe the applicant's proposal for considering gross leasable area rather than PP P P g g gross floor are for determining the amount of parking required would be appropriate. Given the • comments provided relating to the shared parking analysis, we would concur also that this would be an appropriate consideration for the Brookdale Shopping Center and the proposed 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area would be in order. It should be noted also that sufficient on site parking should be a major concern of the applicant, and if parking becomes a problem, consideration of deck parking would be in order. GRADINGIDRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has submitted a grading, drainage and utility plan which is being reviewed by the City Engineer. The extent of the Brookdale remodeling and renovation and the fact that the site is well in excess of the watershed requirements, requires that the matter be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. An application has been submitted and the matter will be on the Watershed's agenda for their March 11 th meeting. The City Engineer has met with the applicant's Engineer and Watershed Engineer with respect to drainage issues. The City Engineer has also provided his written comments with respect to the applicant's plan. He notes that the site plan proposes to utilize the existing utilities that currently service Brookdale. These utilities are private utilities and the property owner is responsible for verifying existing utilities and future needs. He notes that with the proposed detached buildings along Xerxes Avenue, it will be necessary to verify the availability of services from Xerxes Avenue. • 2 -25 -99 Page 9 It should be noted that a ponding project has been completed to provide ponding capacity for • Brookdale and the surrounding areas with respect to watershed requirements. Therefore, no on site pond will be required for Brookdale. Storm water is proposed to be routed to the Shingle Creek Regional Pond by using existing and proposed storm sewer on the site and connecting to the crossing beneath Trunk Highway 100 that was recently constructed. The proposal for storm drainage is to route as much storm water as possible to the regional pond. A new large storm sewer pipe (42 ") is proposed to be installed on the east side of the property. The pipe will carry most of the site's drainage to the Shingle Creek Regional Pond. The City Engineer notes that a g g g y geotechnical engineer should be retained by the owner to evaluate the structural capability for placing this storm sewer in that location. The City Engineer also comments with respect to the building site location for building No. 5 which is located within the 100 year flood elevation. As mentioned previously this is a conceptual approval only and further building plans will need to be submitted at the time the applicants propose to develop the site with such a building. However, the location of the building will also be subject to the Watershed Commission's review. This location will necessitate the need to fill the site so that it is above the 100 year flood elevation and, thus, the need for compensating storage for the area filled. The City is working with the Watershed's Engineer to explore the possibility of utilizing the Shingle Creek Regional Pond at Centerbrook Golf Course for providing additional compensating storage which will have a direct affect on the ability of the applicant to locate the proposed building No 5. The construction of the 42" storm sewer pipe will necessitate the need to redo the parking lot in the area. • LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan in response to the landscape point system utilized by the Planning Commission for evaluating such plans. The total acreage of the Brookdale Shopping Center site is 76.74 acres which requires a landscape point total of 3,010 landscape points. The plan submitted shows existing landscaping, which is to be saved, and the introduction of some new landscaping around the perimeters of the property particularly along Xerxes Avenue and some new landscaping along County Road 10. Additionally landscaping will be provided around the new building locations as well as some island locations that are indicated on the site plan. The landscape point total for existing landscaping is 708.5 points. The applicants propose to add 2,611 additional landscape points by providing 120 shade trees, 73 coniferous trees, 92 decorative trees and 1,670 shrubs. The new landscaping is distributed around the site as previously mentioned. This landscape plan will provide a total of 3,319.5 points on the site. The landscape plant key list various species that are proposed for the various types of trees. Shade trees would include Green Mountain Sugar Maple, Red Sunset Maple, Imperial Honey Locust, Common Hackberry, Marshall's Ash, Greenspire Linden and Swamp White Oak. Coniferous trees include Black Hills Spruce, Colorado Spruce, Austrian Pine and Norway Pine. Decorative trees are Crab Apple, Japanese Tree Lilac, Serviceberry, and Thornless Hawthorne. • 2 -25 -99 Page 10 Shrubs include Little Princess Spirea, AW Spirea, Compact Viburnum, Lilac, Dwarf Korean • Lilac, Techney Arborvitae, Arcadia Juniper and Mint Julep Juniper. The applicant has requested that it be allowed to have 5 ft. greenstrips rather than the required 15 ft. greenstrips in certain locations. These areas include the parking lot for out building No. 1, the parking lot on both sides of the Applebee's building on Xerxes, the parking lot by building site No. 3 along County Road 10 and an area adjacent to the perimeter road along T. H. 100. It should be noted that the City has granted variances from the greenstrip requirements in the case of the Phillips 66 station at the northwest corner of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The applicant in this case indicates the need for parking to accommodate some of the buildings in the locations indicated on the site plan. The City has granted some greenstrip variance requests but has done so on the basis that where these greenstrip variances take place that a screen wall of about 3 to 3% ft. in height be established to provide a substitute for the normally required greenstrip requirements. It is believed that it would be appropriate in this case to require the same type of consideration to offset or mitigate the lack of greenstrip to the site. Any deviation from the 15 ft. greenstrip should be conditioned on the providing of a 3 to 3 %z ft. high keystone wall where the required greenstrip would be less that 15 ft. This would be consistent with past approvals by the City and would offset or mitigate the lack of greenstrip in these areas. The applicants have also requested consideration for 35 ft. building setbacks,at the proposed building location No. 1 along Xerxes Avenue and possibly other out buildings abutting major thoroughfares. The zoning ordinance requires a 50 ft. building setback where buildings abut • major thoroughfares. The City has previously granted a variance for a 35 ft. building setback for a commercial building along Brooklyn Boulevard consistent with recommendations found in the Brooklyn Boulevard studies. I believe the same consideration could be given for commercial buildings along a major thoroughfare such as Xerxes Avenue and/or County Road 10. However, the established setback should be the 35 ft. setback required for buildings on other street right -of- way. One of the purposes of the building setback requirements is to avoid the adverse affects of noise, vibrations and odors. The 50 ft. major thoroughfare setback was primarily designed to keep residential buildings further back and to thus avoid these adverse impacts. It can be argued that the extraordinary setback is certainly not needed for commercial buildings and this has been a factor in allowing building setbacks in commercial areas on major thoroughfares to be less than 50 ft. and would apply in this case. Therefore, it is recommended that out buildings be allowed to be located within 35 ft. of the major thoroughfare right -of -way. BUILDING The applicants have submitted building elevations for the additions to the Brookdale Mall and also a building elevation for the new Applebee's location. As indicated previously, the new proposed 20 screen theater will be on the second story of the newly configured west mall area. The theater will cantilever out about 40 ft. over a drive lane and some parking stalls. This location will come closer to the 56th Avenue entrance to the Brookdale Shopping Center. A new entrance including the main theater entrance will be located between Sears and the newly added • 2 -25 -99 Page 11 space. The exterior finish will be primarily E.I.F.S. (Dryuit material). New entry areas will . contain glass curtain walls, corrugated metal skin, metal trim and some decorative lights. In addition to the 20 screen theater, another feature is a large food court to be located also in the west mall area but on the first floor. It is highlighted by a glass curtain wall on the exterior and a wall sign indicating the location of the food court. Various wall signs depicting major retail areas such as Old Navy and a bookstore are indicated on the building levations. Also Sony- - y Loews' Theaters will have a wall sign and marquee. It appears that this signery is within the wall sign parameters outlined in the sign ordinance. No flashing or chasing lights are allowed as part of a marque, building decoration or sign display. Building elevations for the proposed Applebee's freestanding building are also provided. As indicated, this will be located along Xerxes Avenue, north of the 56th Avenue entrance to Brookdale. Again, no direct access to Xerxes will be provided to this site, with access gained through the Brookdale parking lot. The building elevations indicate a face brick exterior treatment around all four sides of the building to be primarily a reddish -brown color with some face brick accent color in a light gray. Stripped awnings are proposed with windows on the west, south and north elevations. A trash enclosure area is to be provided with wooden gates to screen the trash containers. Another aspect of the Brookdale plan for which special consideration is being requested is to allow up to 20 percent of the gross leasable area to be utilized in restaurant space without affecting the parking formula. Currently in shopping areas exceeding 50,000 sq. ft. up to 15 • percent of the gross floor area can be utilized as restaurant without requiring the seating /employee parking requirement. Given the size and nature of the Brookdale shopping center complex and the mixed or shared uses indicated in the parking study, it is believed that sufficient parking for such a use could allow up to 20 percent of the gross leasable space to be utilized as restaurant without additional parking requirements. This is recommended and should be acknowledged if the Planning Commission concurs in any approval for the site. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant has submitted a lighting plan showing the location of lighting on the Brookdale Shopping Center. They do not plan to alter the location of parking lot lighting and it will remain as it is. This should be sufficient lighting and the plan provided shows that the foot candle standards contained within the zoning ordinance can be met. Decorative lighting is to be provided at various locations and around the new additions particularly in the area of the theater. Again, we recommend that no flashing lights or chasing lights be allowed as part of either the signery or decorative lighting proposed for the center. This is in keeping with past City approvals. PROCEDURE This PUD /C -2 proposal is a rezoning with a specific development plan accompanying it. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. Normally, the Planning Commission • 2 -25 -99 Page 12 I refers rezoning proposals to the respective Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and • comment. The Planning Commission serves as the Neighborhood Advisory Group for the commercial and industrial area of the City, therefore, there is no need to refer this matter for additional review and comment. An additional request has been made that Brookdale be allowed to have an additional sign along the Trunk Highway 100 right -of -way with an area of 320 sq. ft. rather than the 250 sq. ft. maximum allowed for freestanding signs. Currently Brookdale has two freestanding, one at the Northway Drive entrance to the Center and the other at the Xerxes /56th Avenue entrance. The City's sign ordinance allows a commercial business having over 400 ft. of frontage along a street to have a freestanding sign on each such abutting street with the maximum area allowed to be 250 sq. ft. The amount of frontage on County Road 10, Xerxes Avenue and Highway 100 all exceed 400 ft. Brookdale has not chosen to take advantage of the Highway 100 right -of -way with a freestanding sign. The applicants are requesting that they be allowed to have two freestanding signs along this right -of -way. There is over 3,500 lineal feet of frontage along Trunk Highway 100. Given the fact that the amount of frontage is excessive it seems reasonable to allow two freestanding signs along the Trunk Highway 100 right -of -way. Also, given the size and the uniqueness of Brookdale Shopping Center it does not seem unreasonable to allow these freestanding signs to be 320 sq. ft. in area. The size and the unique nature of this regional shopping center are, in our opinion, justification for this modification. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have appeared in the Brooklyn Center Sun -Post and notices have also been sent to neighboring property owners within 350 ft. of the site. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing and take comments with respect to the applicant's proposal. A draft Planning Commission resolution outlining the proposal, its history, making various recommended findings and recommending approval of the PUD application subject to a number of conditions is offered for the Planning Commission's consideration. 2 -25 -99 Page 13 111 113 1 11 Bill a . mirk; u ' :� ,.nom. ■ � W � ���/ 1�. f k J \ P AN � i 111 I w MM COX SH �� � = :�:: 11�= 1111 i - ' ��� ��■ ' i �� 11, � � : 1� ♦ ♦/ r t111� 1 � � � ►.• • a.� ♦�� �:. - ♦ � 1111 1 ' •.� •. �� �� /I�� 11111 ■Jill _� � 11111 Liz ,r -� - ��� ♦� ���♦� ♦11 �� ' y ' �� � �� 1�► = 111�� Ilttt t11 , ♦ - ♦ ♦�� v n II lui gnu ni � ,' / �� �, ��. ^ �: 1�1 111 � �- ♦� ♦ ♦.: 1 � c s �� � � � .. • .1 tl I� C� 1�� � L iii -' - . - � :� � � � �� �1�• � ,� 1 . r r rl 1. „�,�I«,,,,,,ttl„t, B r o o k d a C enter City of Brooklyn Center P.U Submittal o S chedule of Draw Ins =��_� ==V G)O A VE.. I n - I p w ,t`2` +- f ?F.�. .! >r:3 5?2y • 'v::,:A ; `•..':.. t ......::!o. d M • ::5:::; :••• 9:��. :F}'r• �:{;,•' fi° i'i'• <;.' LF; }{ ?y :'•�� �:3� ' ,'.:n, S� F.r W. ®R 'M N-..,. x R g L I U Building InfoffnatIon She Context Plith nos began tlh MCI 4kad aO.0 KLMM All — Aaw 8 at maw. Pala dw Mid hmp-on It Wh moon -WLR- DL in SURVEY ►' // 1 s • --� I. IN rWUV llrrar sc. !cP wan.. aq.Kt•t IrIK O•L.wrf[I Kty (t (•., - +_. .. ; - . �t{R• 1111Or m[[p ..�— I•Mx[I Irr.O• m[(rl - q.ru." w..w" w • • •• J rut mlu. nnl [RG - vgn1n11! aar rnaw /rOw nn ----------- __ _ y 1 Of 1 11r 1r� rw• tt( .r.w lOd6rt 1r;/l.s.r $l`� K; ." t .1:•i "w. mr.. 1 — ... rnm. can i �i'ii �'i"w 1 ' ♦10.1 G•.• fYr1x.1 r"m Y.rI 1_:1( rmv! ` —nMt c.n snvcs m �144 c. - - [ y ••• "^•• t /rql Mwrs, Mmf• La[1. sar ar qOr MVg11. "WIN I•..:I ql[I I11i1N (I([" I t 1 1 1 11I I bNlr FRONT (WEST) ELEVATION Faor(T WALL SIG 64 SO. FT. � � SIZE KAH Yr r+ rr 71P•1 Y:i•uttm [t. r a il ft •.[•.tl[tL.! f—' WIN. IrP} rin 11111 ~�" \ � _ Mr. ir�n•r. 'I .LLIN wo.l Isms. '� w ter• r•WrtI rgln mg. REAR (EAST) ELEVATION r .101 � .......... T 1..------ - - - - -- � � . •. vno! wnt. I•wlt! - SIDE W4%LL SIGN 64 $O. FT. - a.... IK11m1. 11K1 t3m1 RIGHT SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION W4 IIKoI16a1 I ►1+p br, r.w.a fls•t, (4u6ras, S6. IM► d 4*1ors•s — - — p T��oa .1M I TwA,c LEFT SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION I SIDE WALL SIGN 64 SO. FT. A I'LL - Yu Ms PAM ....,..v.,orrrro.ro. , .... ..rv..rv,v .w. ..r...... ow. 0- - 4 I.f r _ j w � nar/n/wl,wa. ,..,..wa..� r` InvwRvrvavan 1• Nua1 urra _ o wlpp7 M _• /i / n i >• VAIM ISMS ?lPVq r1/ it ol //. > x.�; �•.:�. 1 � •` '. _. "mil ... •� Q ' �/ ':;....`,•+r::.,: G�fY i �� •fir:: ;. i ..t W :;...,�'+� •:t�:{<r d d "r /. �•`,. •fin:' +.Y'�� ;. •3 *'•: ;;�•H :? � C+.{.'•;.G.•R :�it: .. ...., � ..; «.w lq .'+•;??}: %' Q � :.:..r•;'; "``3�.•': , y•1.',': +q h o:, • � t i,•tx:: J.t•:: :•t::+h}, / . ; fisf +., , /% : "1s':" {;;• ': k " + r 3 . �:';•v;: .:: i�?i.•rN ' t`:. , �� �: ; •r,`'�f}w ;thr ?:• � < %r,:;•i,:.:� ai,i:t::;_:.; t;uy. ''• / :i •t:. t ��•:• {�i:��.. <�: �i ' � .•;t:,C;:'•tijt:: %� �:� ..,.LJ,Yr,`: •;x,:; }:t %r,�,<:'.•� ( r ..t :f:v: t•t�' +`: %` �': ?t;, .,:•:,tom ..;::, •y <., f: #;fS.'•:v f /// r.n w a: r • • `•. :t • : % h • F:'f t i£ > }r..•. ;: , 1 �- ..•t:h X57: %•`•r'.' r — egg 1 A4 wi"ir "r {� "-,111A 1 �y,i !}l i' <: it::�it::i i:yy �{ O:t;. ?!£..YfSS'J.•i � (� . + .'t•:2is < %�.' t;;'S ^tww ; � aw w / i w4 r.w c '•\ (�.�( /� i Y..ry �...� I /I is } / �y .+.. .w o —� v(' A' ,r,'7'• V /' r ...., ►. ..w ..T. � // /yam .. }:•:• }: Y'' i \ \ rr unnuuuniuun L � i i ' !�" W�w.�� � III f �Iird�►e.'w..0 v �<.�s�i.r' .. � i '':ut� "''` -•.... . ' i / � r11W�IM+Y+ - , ' YYYa. • 1111111,1111111111111 �' mow._ r.• MERVYN'S "• LD • MC= !� W My . •" .••r • •..A p• Imo' •ms • uo �1 M•.•n -i w �h�r m w erg J!I � , JR. ri•�_.• :' . __ DAYTON'S _.. _ . . . . . . . _ n;= •w• blU _ _... __. y�_..._4.... __ --fir - SEARS PENNY'S 1 ed pow"m ta" L No EIII MG nW UVM PUN SWC 1 /Irsl' -d a2.0 " A1QN1111All JIM III t«r'.r u.c. �• M r.r+ w C MERVYN'S ° g a.» w... r - Z «. see • I �ww wn ' , CS . 1 1n ° —Ft - w b JL Teri. �� wh ..r..+ A A rian tuia : �C . . m'o...a. - �l�i.Y -• d�11 A . A ,a ® DAYTON'S --- U SEARS tea' JC PENNEY A ;a JL J A . ,,;p ' '� ReMMr cry AelW Y i71. Z — W Ilreenaae . -- o :a` A m 0 r 1'rfl Lr.fi Lwfe Has EIRSI LEVEL PUN Scale: 114d' =1' -0' a 2.1 e • Aiutlinuauuwel ..... � ,:.wr, Cr,•IN. ILI. {Yw Y �— .,,. • „� , 1.,1 W wY Y.Y MERVYN'S • "MT ��. •C3. I Y_ 0•.v . JWYIY ►.. rr l ®o 1 DAYTON'S — Ill�11W1.81ulll1 �.. SEARS ' "�" JC PENNEY �- - I 11.ILY. G.11, AY�e,� d Kr.tle• $" @Ad b"d �IEI. PIO^ SECOND LEVEL PLAN Sole: 1 /l0" =P -0' ' 2.2 e IItHII III lit fit ItIII tr i MERVYN'S .' .aq M M f attraarxr.-rj �.... r r � ��► ........... Il •• -------- D •Irr r r * �„ ��� wwar �• _ _ -^- DAYTON'S (N ' Vuuiu�►uu�u - PENNY'S .� SEARS �� w wr w I t1@OW ta•rtMUM . a.y. a... Nwr Gwlfb. ROOF PIAN Seola 140' =1' - a2.3 a rm uurnnn T i Ill H 11 R w r a roe r rrr nr u r uu r nuu ' iiiiiiiiiiiii - „� I HIM li�!`IIIIII�iI W - ! "' •..! , { 33 111 II �� 11 � -. = I(l 1f..iir6llil�i�Sl9ii +�;;l:; tS3ti�Lil�atillilF�All L.. " i � � F �� �."°! ®.. _333333_.333;�€ — I � ®ter a1i6 €981 pp rsMtt �II II IIIII I *' �Ir � DY8��3b��llE1i� {�� r3� �i�Stl;if Yl if1� „?!If�l �aiias uc al Aid ., e;:, 3 c. 1®IFr11�ir �Ai�' 119110p11►I JAM UIt i -.r. ...r � .....rwr M P-4 _� W �ti 4tin.. P4 .M- �w......w Aarlol VIar laaklA 3aalhaa al rand Courl Rt :++ ••• rr.Y I .wr r.wr •ti r�i �' wr Craand Laval V a>a al read Cau►1 Enlry .« I ewer o.aa eoarw M AMNON I Aerial Vier Looia or hooal avollon a3.2 i I r , . � r fi'fi!/�ii/� f>�'�/f/ � ••• � l 1 r Al p m Now so xj ma \ J •'{ 1,� w.K Mina \ 1_/ \ Rl no,.. M , WPp0. ;• �' w ....,.s ` • \ \, wwA lrh MwbM -M"e hl" ,�ti' � �•ee.,�� �1 44 \ •I�nnsim•nM• %/rX4Sff4ff5i�� 1p puma 41 rw*vww Pon ,Illltllllllglllll• -- 11 ` •A wtr + ��yy '- � � � 1 T w tatJir Rn�� OrUr ,•1 r Y : . w fwu.lww, aril.. a .y • t: r,.r Mrir FtIwM rfliil. M..d. tr.ww t«wr t� 1 r y� 1 � - r - 7771��'177T1�Y/J, rrM rwrrr.waw pi, �w ,�`• llllMl rr.. rr ' i i t � . ttta f..l. htf.rt bri t>•Aw U. v�� e'er * `, t......w•,� #ieN -: •,.� `� fr ---`„� �� ■ ► wS.r ■ ,wee wr r try fit_ ,.: i:',. :r . ;. �1{✓tt .�.� r•I M v� H. • ♦ t 1UMTM "•�, \ Ir�M1t de4r Airir� \ M brwtltt i V.� . 41 ■ --- . ..-- ...��... ..»......� - ti.--- r.. .r. 11MMM MDic 616 IU / iiti• i - c1.2y i,•i rte` .■rWr nro .rvwy T• (47 I' Aq i a- lip I l ..M. 49 Y � - +. r / ju stlxl � Ard �wtirr .,,,,.,,, fftFK<Sf4fffff ��` • AM � w.•rw° )IIIII111111UIIIg1/ ...........r -- •-- •--• -- " A «'�'"" ` 1 A+nwuArAnl, � � 1 / /1.. on....I....w1 • «b `` l -�- s � ' W , k.d"d emir FNtlr P M kawMY M �4 Y� Armor llx ..—" �"'�'q. --`.. �."` Yty o.. �.. �'`-� y/wa�+t ►� f0 w auk �- -�— i[n ._.... w �..r Y.y w j iUL�M M IIAINLE IIAM S M Alta RMMARV �� ti N M.1+ twn.d II+r % i�7j�77i!77J7/7� Y'r ww Y M Ilw�t c1.4 �. 1 U �u:�riva. --- .__.- ♦• - -+• -• wra 11�:.,„:_. r. ► tiidtWi C= N Wlu� - I,,.r �rrl ��(.�."•� � \ � 9 I� w. trw.r LLt m IOU JAJL— � /rrr 117rN Mi,4 •\ • � s r 4_ �� ���y wr wr 7777/7J1777JTr/: 1111101 YlrM Y r 1MI.i. \ � fYMMr Mr. lYWK K YAW ODIM�11171�AtlfMle9l1 ♦ \ l�fM� f� Mrs rl wr. �«.w b.rrrr � X11 /`O,� N R ■ IOOAt�W 1� , \ • � S b�. r - .r \\ 'fir ' ♦IIF yy�i.. - rn w ♦w err • i � '\\ C �• -- w \ r awn -ig / Fat 1 r 1 &us" CrM A"UNG B NX*M i AWA NNW -- __ .--- --- --- --- --- --- - -+ c 1.5 . —� ,� �iumnnuuuuu J , IF i 0— 6-4.. tA^v *.X., mmw� I C F L ,� _. ` SSSf5f5ff5f4Yfr. »»..yr.�.• ».+.... � a" =3 �� O O \ • .... e.+. t� w r, • Zar r lb w t a ; C YJMTTWI im X BORIC= ou 1 • yam n,w � s I ' 1 1 I� cl.6 Ail fill, G E \ i . 3 � 00 1 1 1 # , 11 1 l ilt tt }} U � Li 1 I ' 1 I s I a / I � � •� I • A A N I .... NM still ?l id'IH SNI�i/Yd 'Y rain I r�. •' 'N 'RAY GIDtMMt Q1M/.7 - y" 1Ol p11NW .1' tIU1/K4 sm"R A ,p TWO 9WIV// TKl .V.1r0 w•e ...w-,l ..•I. a.a w..Kw ..1C+ A IM" cb tz ®® - r�,►,r.�""^.:C' ataLL.o.w..t7e•.nerl �••'1 Yy � .,!++j +a w w �u rww aw+au ® ��� � �- �r 1 �.. /' •• _'� \ •( � .�.,.���.'_•^..J''''�� 'isn wmA / 1x1 Lfru a, "��.'.Iw w-? 'l Y 1 S te^ -a,�•' w"'�" �� A I le A e l R INI wM N IK/ N i I /I' I I I ~• ASM MA t1I11 � � 1 � ��/ t •-y I i ter; —�� •\ c � I �..... �,ow„e; <, � � + r + `."• wy wrl 10 11... eIH Ab .....•� "�.. ,...... .•..:.. w.. r.l .. _ � , 7111 •• 'sue�r►reNa rauv�nrai ' ..� ,,, /..-.. ...•+ t tww aw ow IT-01 r+w li •K •w••I ww.t O•••/•V •rlq 7111 � C. w � � ` Ith w•a w v�•�.: ../ MI . • •w1.iw.w M • M/dwr�I �.... ^ r tvYM. ••taw pp � 1 aW yK .+ww �M. �y _ / / / / /qp -,PALO rw r-•i 4 �• M L ti. �>�• ' � vT1 �.'�C �r1 �f mA td;C�e/ ^ ` n� ......- ..p.. -ws ..r eoo . r.o� w.� � I •^..."{1 iRt w,,, K� !'+.'I�"ws� 't." �� �� 7r YInbIM •••�. ••^w MBk +•KH 4Yf?•?C ml�gal .. J w�. yy f t0a •ww/ ....�a MI+•t) � ' 7ta FA4q/ .•a w.r� •-i +w/ M . r .R '�.`.�'.T CII wl� A �w .•M (i •!!` �. . TI .�..�•! �•TI 4 � � w.r '�1{/�rH� ' . - !�:.r,�•� }I C WI•q 0�1 rIy �1 w et ..s AIM H �1'fly;•. rs . wqw/ nt • 1/ r-wwrr r.wrt •�TJ ^Ir � ['+wwh � • s.� r w. wr wr w w w •.w h wr MT'1.'r`+/ aA!••1 � �:'TlT�1+ . NVId ONIIH911 311S O nu emuon its ...... -1t� rV �.: ... _... �. :1.... ..._..........Jar .. -. ONYX "Mm R.n tPF4" :E _ " 1: � . . ............. --- { -- - - -- .:::_:tea` ------ .. .�- ....�.�_ e�uurrr I ►-`� :�� - - - _ - I ..�:r: °� __ •+: ��� -� �� � off- F = _{ #� u�nunnuuuurr . City of Brooklyn Center Section 35 -208 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. • 1. Purl2ose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy It is the policy of the City that: A. Zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and, B. Rezoning proposals will not constitute "spot Zoning ", defined as a zoning decision, which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines, which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines • A. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? B. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? D. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? E. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? F. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? G. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? H. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1. Comprehensive planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or, 3. The best interests of the community? I. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the -interests of an owner or owners of an individual • parcel? Section 35 -208 • c. Accessory ses incidental to the foregoing principal rY g g p ip 1 uses when located on the same property with the use to which it is accessory but not including any business or industrial uses. Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted to the following: 1. Off - street parking. 2. Public recreational buildings and parks, playgrounds and athletic fields. 3. Signs as permitted in the Brooklyn Center Sign Ordinance. Section 35 -355. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is to promote flexibility in land development and redevelopment, preserve aesthetically significant and environmentally sensitive site features, conserve energy and ensure a high quality of design. Subdivision 2. Classification of PUD Districts; Permitted Uses; Applicable Regulations. a. Upon rezoning for a PUD, the district shall be designated by the letters "PUD" followed by the alphanumeric a p anumenc desi anon of the under zoning district which may be either the ' or � Y � .. Y prior zoning classification or a new classification. In cases of mixed use PUDs the i C ty Council shall, whenever reasonably p racticable, specify underI in Q y p a p y � toning classifications for the various parts of the PUD. When it is not reasonably practicable to so specify underlying zoning classifications, the Council may rezone the district, or any part thereof, to "PUD - MIXED." b. Regulations governing uses and structures in PUDs shall be the same as those governing the underlying zoning district subject to the following: 1. Regulations may be modified expressly by conditions imposed by the Council at the time of rezoning to PUD. a _. Re are modified by implication only to the extent necessary to comply with the development plan of the PUD. 3. In the case of districts rezoned to PUD - MIXED, the Council shall specify regulations applicable to uses and structures in various parts of the district. 35-=5 • c. For ur oses of determining P P in applicable regulations for uses or structures on land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the PUD district which depend on the zoning of the PUD district, the underlying zoning classification of PUD districts shall be deemed to be the zoning classification of the district. In the case of a district zoned PUD - MIXED, the underlying zoning classification shall be deemed to be the classification which allows as a permitted use any use which is permitted in the PUD district and which results in the most restrictive regulation of adjacent or nearby properties. Subdivision 3. Development Standards. a. A PUD shall have a minimum area of one acre, excluding land included within the floodway or flood fringe overlay districts and excluding existing rights -of -way, unless the City finds that at least one of the following conditions exists: 1. There are unusual physical features of the property or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or terrain feature of importance to the neighborhood or community; 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public right -of -way from property which previously was developed as a PUD and the new PUD will be perceived as and function • as an extension of that previously approved development; or 3. The property is located in a transitional area between different land uses and the development will be used as a buffer between the uses. b. Within a PUD, overall density for residential developments shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 of this ordinance. Individual buildings or lots within a PUD may exceed these standards, provided that density for the entire PUD does not exceed the permitted standards. C. Setbacks, buffers and greenstrips within a PUD shall be consistent with Section 35 -400 to 35 -414 and Section 35 -700 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted with the addition of a screening treatment or other mitigative measures. d. Parking provided for uses within a PUD shall be consistent with the parking requirements contained in Section 35 -704 of this ordinance unless the developer can demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that a lesser standard should be permitted on the grounds of the complementarity of peak parking demands by the uses within the PUD. The City may require execution of a restrictive covenant limiting future use of the property to those uses which will continue this parking complementarity, or which are otherwise approved by the City. 35 -46 • Subdivision 4. General Standards. - a. The City may allow more than one principal building to be constructed on each platted lot within a PUD. b. A PUD which involves only one land use or a single housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the purposes and objectives of this section. c. A PUD may only contain uses consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. d. All property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved development plan and site plan. e. The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and the approval of land subdivision may be subject to modifications from the City Ordinances generally governing them. The City Council may, therefore, approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements where it is found that such are not required in the interests of the residents or of the City. . Subdivision 5. Application and Review. a. Implementation of a PUD shall be controlled by the development plan. The development plan may be approved or disapproved by the City Council after evaluation by the Planning Commission. Submission of the development plan shall be made to the Director of Planning and Inspection on such forms and accompanied by such information and documentation as the City may deem necessary or convenient, but shall include at a minimum the following; 1. Street and utility locations and sizes; 2. A drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; J. A grading plan; 4. A landscape plan; 5. A lighting plan; 6. A plan for timing and phasing of the development; 7. Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; • 35 -47 • S. A site plan showing the location of all structures and parking areas; 9. Building renderings or elevation drawings of all sides of all buildings to be constructed in at least the first phase of development; and 10. Proposed underlying zoning classification or classifications. Such information may be in a preliminary form, but shall be sufficiently complete and accurate to allow an evaluation of the development by the City. b. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the development plan. Notice of such public hearing shall be published in the official newspaper and actual notice shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners as required by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. The Planning Commission shall review the development plan and make such recommendations as it deems appropriate regarding the plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. C. Following receipt of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold such hearing as it deems appropriate regarding the matter. The City Council shall act upon the development plan within the time limits established by Section 35 -210 of this ordinance. Approval of the development plan shall constitute rezoning of the property to • PUD and conceptual approval of the elements of the plan. In addition to the guidelines provided in Section-3 5-208 of this ordinance, the City Council shall base its actions on the rezoning upon the following criteria: 1. Compatibility of the plan with the standards, purposes and intent of this section; 2. Consistency of the plan with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 3. The impact of the plan on the neighborhood in which it is to be located; and 4. The adequacy of internal site organization, uses, densities, circulation, parking facilities, public facilities, recreational areas, open spaces, and buffering and landscaping. The City Council may attach such conditions to its approval as it may determine to be necessary to better accomplish the purposes of the PUD district. d. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall seek plan approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 of this ordinance. In addition to the information specifically required by Section 35 -230, the developer shall submit such information as may be deemed necessary or convenient by the City to review the consistency of the proposed development with the • approved development plan. 35-48 • The plan submitted for approval pursuant to Section 35 -230 shall be in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean that buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same location as previously approved; the number of dwelling units, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. e. Prior to construction on any site zoned PUD, the developer shall execute a development agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. f. Applicants may combine development plan approval with the plan approval required by Section 35 -230 by submitting all information required for both simultaneously. g. After approval of the development plan and the plan approval required by Section 35 -230, nothing shall be constructed on the site and no building permits shall be issued except in conformity with the approved plans. h. If within 12 months following approval by the City Council of the development plan, no building permits have been obtained or, if within 12 months after the issuance of building • permits no construction has commenced on the area approved for the PUD district, the City Council may initiate rezoning of the property. i. Any major amendment to the development plan may be approved by the City Council following the same notice and hearing procedures specified in this section. An amendment shall be considered major if it involves any change greater than that permitted by subdivision 5d of this section. Changes which are determined by the City Council to be minor may be made if approved by the Plannin; Commission after such notice and hearing as may be deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. 35-49 APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL FOR BROOKDALE CENTER ADDITIONS AND RENOVATION BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA TALISMAN BROOKME, L.L.C. January 28,1999 R ECEIV ED s �- MI s • = '14XlYk (SEA, ° o BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKDALE CENTER ADDITIONS AND RENOVATION • PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTBUILDING PLAN APPROVAL j APPLICATION i INDEX ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE THE PROPERTY I RE- ZONING REQUIREMENTS I BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL 1 CHANGES REQUESTED TO THE CURRENT CITY REQUIREMENTS 1 • DISCUSSION OF ZONING REQUIREMENT, SIGN ORDINANCE & CODE CHANGES 2 -4 SPECIAL PROJECT DESIGN CONDITIONS IN PROCESS 4 REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES 4-6 ENCLOSURES 6 -7 r' -.a BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN • i PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTBUILDING PLAN APPROVAL APPLICATION l Submittal Date: January 27,1999 ' Subject Property: BROOKDALE CENTER 1108 Brookdale Center Brooklyn Center, MN The applicant, Talisman Brookdale, L.L.C. does hereby submit their application for the re- zoning of the subject site and request certain modifications of the current City governed requirements as they pertain to the proposed property additions and renovations. THE PROPERTY The property known as Brookdale Center is within the City of Brooklyn Center and consists of three (3) separately owned parcels totaling 81 acres. The parcels are individually owned as follows: Talisman Brookdale, L.L.C. 59 acres Sears and Mervyn parcels 22 acres The property is located in Hennepin County. The property is bounded by Xerses Avenue on the West, Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) on the North and State Route 100 on the South side. The property currently has two (2) entrances from both Xerses Avenue and Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). The existing access to the adjacent roadway system is not scheduled to be changed to accommodate the purposed additions and renovation to the Center. RE -ZONING REQUIREMENTS The Property is currently zoned C -2, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. The property is presently being used as a retail shopping center that is allowed by the current zoning. This application requests that the zoning of the Property be changed to PUD /C2 to enable the Owner to incorporate certain changes to the existing Zoning and other ordinances that will enable the Owner to better utilize the property, to benefit the economics of the center and in turn result with a property that will be financially stable and healthy now and in the future. Request: Re- zoning of the Center to PUD /C -2 BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL The Applicant requests Planning Commission approval of the following proposed development site and building plans: 1. Brookdale Center Additions and Renovation 2. Applebee's restaurant THE CHANGES REQUESTED TO THE CURRENT CITY REQUIREMENTS The following is a summary of the changes that are requested by the applicant to facilitate the redevelopment of the Center. The changes are addressed in more detail later in this application: 1. Permit the use of a 20- screen cinema within the shopping center. 2. Permit the setback to parking lot pavement of 5' from the property lines. 3. Permit a building setback of 35' from the property adjacent to a public right of way. 4. Permit double 90 degree parking space layout to be 60' wide with 8'8" wide car spaces. S. Permit car space requirements to be based on Gross Lease Area versus Gross Floor Area. 6. Permit 4.5 car spaces per 1,000 SF of Gross Lease Area. 7. Permit an additional freestanding sign on the Brookdale Center property along State Route 100. 8. Permit use of a LED type sign 9. Permit double -sided freestanding signs with a single side face of 320 SF 10. Permit 20 % of the GLA for restaurant use without requiring seating count for parking space and retail formula requirements. 11. Permit 35% Accessory uses within a covered mall building. 1 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN DISCUSSION OF ZONING REQUIREMENT, SIGN ORDINANCE & CODE CHANGES ITEM 1: SECTION 35- 322,ITEM 3, SPECIAL USES (Zoning) g ARTICLE 3 The rezoning of the property to PUD /C2 retains the uses permitted by the C -2 zoning as well as those that may be approved and permitted under the PUD. The C -2 zoning allows theaters under "Special Use" to be included in the C -2 zoned property provided it meets the requirements as established in the zoning ordinance and/or the PUD approvals and covenants. The Center has completed negotiations for the lease of the purposed space with the Sony -Loews Cinema Group. The cinema will consist of 20 theaters having a 100 seating capacity of 4252 seats. The cinema is to be located on the upper level of the new West area addition to the center. The theater will be a part of the new addition area and on land owned by the applicant. The addition of this entertainment venue to the existing and to be improved center will increase the entertainment options to the community, provide a convenient location for the patrons, and increase the synergy of the center to assure its future vitality and longevity. Request: • Approve the theater as a "Special Use" for the center. ITEM 2: SECTION 35 -412, SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN C2 DISTRICTS (Zoning) ARTICLE 4 The current zoning requires that a 15' green belt be provided between a property line along a main thoroughfare right of way and the onsite pavement. There are certain areas on the site that due to the location of the perimeter roadway, building additions and new out parcels it is necessary that the areas be • allowed to be paved up to 5' of the property line. The area would be landscaped and designed so that the visibility of the area would be enhanced with plantings of low shrubs and evergreens. Request: • Approve a setback of 5' from the property line to the asphalt pavement in certain areas along Xerses, County Road 10 and State Route 100. ITEM 3: SECTION 35 -400, TABLE OF MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS (Zoning) The current zoning permits a 50' building setback from the property line along a major thoroughfare right of way. The change requested in this application is to allow the added out parcel buildings to be located in a more desirable and effective location in order to provide more desirable parking to the center patrons. The change to a 35' setback is what is currently allowed by the "Minimum District Requirements" in other areas. Request: • Approve the use of a 35' set back from a property line for construction of out parcel buildings. ITEM 4: SECTION 35 -702, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS (Zoning) The current zoning requires a parking layout that is 63' wide for 90- degree parking. The current parking on site is stripped as 60' wide for 60- degree parking. The change to 90- degree parking within the same spacing allows additional parking spaces for the center while maintaining reasonable aisle width and car parking space depth for the majority of parking conditions and requirements. The spacing would also allow the existing light fixture spacing to remain in place. Request: • Approve the use of 60' wide double 90 degree parking with a 22' drive. • 2 'J BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, NIN • ITEM 5: 35 -704, MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, ARTICLE 2C (Zoning) The current code requires that the calculations for parking be based on the Gross Floor Area of the building. The typical shopping area incorporates an unusually high amount of floor area in common area uses. Brookdale Center is also unusual by today's mall standards as the area of the interior common mail areas are much greater then current mall designs recommend. These are common mall walkways and court areas, shipping and receiving areas, service areas, storage areas and etc. that are not used to hold or cause the patron count to increase but are usually used for accessing from one tenant space to another. It is not the practice to create greater common floor area space to generate more patrons or customers. Request: • Allow the use of "Gross Lease Area" (GLA) to be used to determine the requirements in the Center in lieu of "Gross Floor Area" (GFA). ITEM 6: SECTION 35 -704, MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED (Zoning) ARTICLE 2C The current zoning ordinance requires 5.5 car spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. As previously requested in Item 5 above the use of GLA in lieu of GFA has been requested. Additionally the applicant is requesting that the car space requirement be modified to reflect a practical understanding of the actual use of the expanse of parking spaces provided and the relatively few periods when the availability of parking is a problem to the center or its patrons. The applicant purposes a 4.5 car space per 1,000 SF of GLA although the present layout provides 5.19 cars per 1,000 SF of GLA. The project Site Plan as presented provides 6,263 car spaces. This is a greater number of spaces then the existing car count. The car count has been adequate in the past for patron parking and expected to be adequate for the expansion and theater use requested. The varied peak hours for shopping and theater customers normally allow for adequate parking with the exception of certain traditional and seasonal excessive shopping days. It is also noted here that there has been usable land area removed from the original center aggregate property for the state highway ramps and the Shingle Creek pedestrian walkway. Request: • Allow the project to base their car space requirements on 4.5 car spaces per I,000SF of GLA. • Allow the Developer the option and flexibility to finalize their design of the parking layout and count to the proposed standards approved by this PUD or a design that improves on the approved standards. ITEM 7: SECTION 34 -140, PERMITTED SIGNS, ARTICLES 1,212 (Sign Ordinance) The current sign ordinance allows the installation of a freestanding sign along the State Route 100 right of way. Due to the expanse, 3,500 lineal feet, of property along this premium frontage it is requested that a second freestanding sign be allowed with adequate spacing from the already allowed freestanding sign. The signs are both necessary as they provide identification and suggestion to the public that a viable mall is readily available in the community. In the case of the theater it provides information regarding features being shown to bring the patron to the center rather then travel to another center out of the community. The sign ordinance allows a freestanding sign for properties having at least 400 feet of roadway frontage. The center has much greater frontage on State Route 100 then that allowed for other single businesses and the center represents many businesses that depend on this type of exposure for their success. EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED. "PYLON SIGN ELEVATION" Request: • Allow the installation of a second freestanding sign along the State Route right of way in conformance to the setback, other sign ordinance and the PUD approved requirements. ITEM 9: SECTION 34 -140, PERMITTED SIGNS, ARTICLE 3A2a (Sign Ordinance) The current sign ordinance allows freestanding signage to a maximum of 250SF on buildings that have 24,000 SF or greater GFA. Brookdale Center is in excess of 1,200,000 SF of GLA. The center, as most businesses, requires exposure to the public on a continuos basis to remain viable. A new development is permitted by the sign ordinance to maintain a sign of up to 320SF where the new development contains 10 f, 3 BROOKDALE CENTER ? BROOKLYN CENTER, MN • acres or greater. This indicates that the city has concern for a new development to have significant - j exposure, through adequate signage, to assist in the success of the development. The center is in the same condition as the new development but lasting a longer period of time. There is the continuos need for 1 signage exposure to enable the center to sustain their market attraction. The center should have the same assistance through adequate signage in particularly on the heavily traveled SRI 00. Request: • Allow the freestanding signs along State Route 100 to be up to a maximum of 320SF for a single face on a double -faced sign. ITEM 10: SECTION 35-704 MINIMUM PARKING SPACES REQUIRED (Zoning) Article 2.c Other retail stores or centers and financial institutions The applicant requests that the percentage of restaurant space permitted of the Gross Lease Area (GFA in 4 the current zoning ordinance) be increased to allow the Applicant to provide the facilities necessary to J serve the projected tenant and employee requirements of the renovated and expanded Center. Request: • Allow the percentage of restaurant Gross Lease Area in the retail formula to be increased to 20% as relates to this section and article. • Allow the percentage of restaurant Gross Lease Area in the parking formula to be increased to 20% as relates to this section and article. ITEM 11: SECTION 404.5 OCCUPANCY (1997 Uniform Building Code) 404.5.1 General The Applicant requests that the Building Code requirement for Accessory uses/Tenant mix be changed to allow the Applicant to provide the services required to allow the mall to provide a correct mix of tenants. The addition of the cinema area impacts the GLA on which the accessory use percentages are based. An increase of the percentage will allow the tenant mix to be more in line with the ratio and GLA normally required to serve the retail segment of the mall. Request: Allow the percentage of mall Accessory uses to be increased to 35% SPECIAL PROJECT DESIGN CONDITIONS P E IN PROCESS A. WATERSHED APPROVALS B. OFF -SITE TRAFFIC STUDY ITEM A: WATERSHED APPROVALS The applicant does hereby recognize that the redevelopment of the site will include at their cost the ! relocation of the storm sewer system to the west of the Shingle Creek waterway. The storm water is to be re- routed into the new storm water structure constructed by the City along the Route 100 property line behind the J C Penney building. The Civil Engineer is currently working with the watershed consultant _regarding the requirements and design. ITEM B: OFF -SITE TRAFFIC STUDY The traffic study of the of -site roads is in process at this time and is to be presented as an addendum to this application within the next two- (2) weeks. Short Elliott Hendrickson is doing the work jointly for the City. of Brooklyn Center and the Developer, Talisman Brookdale LLC. SECTION 35 -208: REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES The following responses are made to the REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES of the City of Brooklyn Center as outlined in Section 35 -208 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN • Is there a clear and public need or benefit? In the past 35 years Brookdale Center, a regional shopping center, has lost its luster and its purpose and ability o provide the community ty p ntty residents with the most up to date merchants, services and entertainment. The community residents have found other centers to be more complete in selection of merchants, services and entertainment. This has resulted in fewer shoppers at the Center, a loss of merchants, and the lack of interest for newer merchants to become a part of the Center. The re- zoning and the changes requested enables the Owner to expand in order to provide the retail and entertainment mass necessary to attract the newer and name merchants. The expansion ro osed and the addition of an entertainment P P venue will provide the synergy necessary to provide: • the retail- entertainment mix that is necessary to serve the community • a convenient location for name merchants for the residents of the community • added employment for the community • stabilization to the value of the property as tax revenue source. This is a greater option then the continued deterioration of the Center and the potential of a diminishing tax base. - Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? The Center has been operating for over 35 years as a C2- Commercial District development. The surrounding area uses are compatible with the present C2 zoning and would be compatible with the change to the PUD /C2, PUD - Commercial District zoning. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? • The present retail use of the property will be enhanced with the adding of a 20- screen theater entertainment venue. The retail, selected services and theater uses are consistent with the current zoning when the "Special Use" provisions for a theater is applied. The Owner is requesting development changes in the zoning ordinance to enable the property to be utilized practically, efficiently, aesthetically pleasing and profitable. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? The Center has been operating for over 35 years. To the best of our knowledge there have been no major ,-� changes to the zoning in the area that are not consistent with the present and proposed uses. In the case of City- initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The City does not initiate this rezoning. The rezoning does however have the broad public support of many local churches and civic organizations that are interested in attaining the necessary services, merchandise, and entertainment in an aged regional center that would benefit the residents of the community. It will also serve to enhance and retain the commercial viability of a major piece of real estate and tax base within the t City. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? The applicant is prepared to comply fully with the ordinance development restrictions and changes permitted that are agreed to by the ordinance changes and rezoning approval. • 5 BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN • Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? 1 NO. The existing combined parcels are currently zoned and have been operating under C2- Commercial District Zoning. The rezoning and the approval of the Theater Special Use w_ ill be consistent with the District and the adjacent property uses. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by the best interests of the community? The rezoning does not expand the area of the present C2, Commercial District. The rezoning does allow I expansion and improvements within the center that will be in the best interests of the community as it protects the value and continued use of a prime real estate parcel within the City. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? The Owner is prepared to invest a significant amount of money in the Brookdale regional center to upgrade its present use capability and aesthetics to the current retail market requirements. The results of this private investment to the community will be to dramatically change the Center in the following ways: • Aesthetically change and upgrade the appearance of the Center entrance and addition areas • Expand the retail floor area and add selected out buildings to allow additional merchants and services in the center. • Construction of an entertainment (theater) venue to create a multi'-use Center covering the needs of the community. • Construction of an interior amphitheater to provide the community with an available facility for community group presentations and special Center sponsored events for the community. • Encourage improvements to the existing anchor stores to bring their facilities up to current standards found in other competing centers in the market area. • Increase available employment in the Centers market area. • Increase the value of the Center that will result in an increase in the City's tax base. • Improvement of the Center coincides with the City's plans to improve the surrounding Commercial District. • Reinforce the value of the Centers real estate by the proposed changes in order to avert a potential deterioration of the Center due to the eventual loss of tenants and customers to other existing or proposed major regional centers. We believe that it is evident that the Brookdale Center needs the improvement at this time and that the approval by the City to use the re- development plans as presented will assure future strength and competitiveness of the Center that will benefit the community in the many ways previously stated. ENCLOSURES: • THE TRAFFIC GROUP INC., PARKING STUDY • PLANS: SHEET NO. NAME CONSULTANT a 0.0 TITLE SHEET ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 0.1 EXISTING SITE, SURVEY C.E.COULTER & ASSOCIATES a 1.1 GENERAL SITE PLAN c 1.1 GRADING PLAN - NORTHWEST OLIVER & ASSOCIATES c 1.2 GRADING PLAN - NORTHEAST OLIVER & ASSOCIATES c 1.3 GRADING PLAN -EAST OLIVER & ASSOCIATES c 1.4 GRADING PLAN SOUTH OLIVER & ASSOCIATES . c 1.5 UTILITY PLAN- NORTHWEST OLIVER & ASSOCIATES c 1.6 UTILITY PLAN - NORTHEAST OLIVER & ASSOCIATES BROOKDALE CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER, MN • c 1.7 UTILITY PLAN -EAST OLIVER & ASSOCIATES c 1.8 UTILITY PLAN -SOUTH OLIVER & ASSOCIATES LI 1.1 SITE LIGHTING PLAN COOPER LIGHTING 11.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ARTEKA CORP. a 2.0 EXISTING LEASE PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.1 FIRST LEVEL PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.2 SECOND LEVEL PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE • a 2.3 ROOF PLAN ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE a 2.4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE 1 a 2.5 EXTERIOR IMAGES ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE . J A -1 PLAN, ELEVATIONS & SITE APPLEBEES • PYLON SIGN ELEVATION, LOEWS THEATRES • LEGAL DESCRIPTION END i I • * 7 L....._: {�.�.+� L.:.::.I ka�wrl L+:; giBi�1 btr�tai f �� L ; :..::d br..lY .I ...._..! ►,�.�:; 6 o (� D c z �► a O "TI ,!i z Z C) Pe mo w: Z z X O --� -� d Z U) Ul mo o "U o . rr[ IT1 U) ZAE jrm rTl A --4 y o CA) J� D II a O C n 'mil CpOCDO �► C O .. p O rh O CO U1 Cif ,< Z 11' -10 ' I LoEWS THEATRES fishbeck, thompson, carr & huber engineers • scientists cientists • architects o Grand Rapids • Lansing o Kalamazoo Michigan High Rise Construction C. E. COULTER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Construction Layout Platting LAND SURVEYORS Lot Surveys J Professionally Registered In Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin ALTA Surveys Section Subdivisions JOHN COULTER PETERSON Topographic Mapping P.O. Box 8900 / MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 -0900 Shopping Centers (612) 824-0370 / (612) 891 -5407 / FAX (612) 953-3074 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD PARCEL 1: Tracts A, B, C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 1469, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PERIMETER DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 (for informational purposes only, not for conveyance purposes): Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1469, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West, assumed bearing along the line i common to said Registered Land Survey No. 1469 and Registered Land Survey No. 936, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a distance of 553.00 feet; thence South 61 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 50.00 feet, thence North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 177.00 feet; thence South 61 degrees 14 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 400.00 feet; thence South 35 degrees 49 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 461.56 feet; thence North 11 degrees 43 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 577.90 feet; thence along a tangential • curve concave to the east havin g a radius of 460.94 feet a central angle of 35 degrees 10 seconds for a g 09 minutes distance of 282.80 feet; thence North 23 degrees 26 minutes 10 seconds East, tangent to last described curve a distance of 306.71 feet, thence South 66 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East.a distance of 521.72 feet; thence South 28-degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 130.32 feet; thence North 61 degrees 15 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 226.37 feet; thence South-28 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds East a distance of 43.00 feet; thence North 61 degrees 17 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet; thence North 28 degrees 44 minutes 04 seconds West a distance of 43.04 feet; thence North 61 degrees 15 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 104.63 feet; thence North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 130.00 feet; thence North 25 degrees 59 minutes 47 seconds East a distance of 404.60 feet; thence South 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds West a distance of 40.00 feet; thence North 49 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of 5.61 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 88.40 feet; thence North 47 degrees 34 minutes 42 seconds East a distance of 176.71 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 150.00 feet; thence North 83 degrees 26 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 100.51 feet; -; ! C. E. COULTER & A SSOC (AT ES, INC. High Construction Rise Construction La Platting LAND SURVEYORS Lot Surveys j Professionally Registered in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin ALTA Surveys Section Subdivisions JOHN COULTER PETERSON Topographic Mapping P.O. Box 8900 / MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55408 -0900 Shopping Centers (612) 824 -0370 /(612)891-5407 / FAX(612)953-3074 Page 2 thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 346.61 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 160.29 feet; thence South 00 degrees 01 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 889.23 feet; thence South 52 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 1035.25 feet, more or .less to the point of beginning; Except that part described as follows: Commencing at the said most Southerly corner of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1469; thence North 52 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds East, along the Southeasterly line of said Tract B a distance of 556.35 feet; thence North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 300.44 feet; thence North 61 degrees 12 minutes. 17'seconds East a distance of 103.24 feet, more or less to the most Southerly corner of Tract E, said Registered Land Survey No. 1469, said point being the actual point of beginning of the exception to be • described; thence North 28 degrees 47 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of 112.75 feet; thence South 61 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 27.25 feet; thence North 28 degrees 47 minutes 43 seconds West a distance of'367.75 feet; thence North 61 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 255.75 feet; thence South 28 degrees 47 minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 300.17 feet; thence North 61 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 28.00 feet; thence South 28 degrees 47 minutes 43 seconds East a distance of 180.33 feet; thence South 61 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds West a distance of 256.50 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. (the record description of the above described exception is Tract E, Registered Land Survey No. 1469, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota). • J . High Rise Construction E C. E. COULTER & ASSOCIATES, 1 N C. Construction Layout Platting LAND SURVEYORS Lot Surveys Professionally Registered in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin ALTA Surveys Section Subdivisions c c JOHN COULTER PETERSON Topographic Mapping P.O. Box 8900 / MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 -0900 Shopping Centers (612) 824-0370 1 (612) 891 -5407 / FAX (612) 953 -3074 Page 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RECORD PARCEL 2: Tracts A, B and C, Registered Land Survey No. 1614, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PERIMETER DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2 (for informational purposes only, not for conveyance purposes): Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1614, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 08 seconds East, assumed bearing along the line common to said Registered Land Survey No. 1614 and Registered Land Survey No. 1469, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a distance of 889.23 feet; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 160.29 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 744.46 feet; thence South 82 degrees 30 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 255.65 feet; thence South 2 degrees 57 minutes 29 seconds West a distance of • 57.17 feet; thence South 31 degrees 42 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 40.28 feet;.thence along a tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 2824.79 feet, a central angle of 1 degree 35 minutes 02 seconds for a distance of 78.09 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East, not tangent to last described curve a distance of 250.58 feet; thence South 52 degrees 34 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 538.50 feet; thence North 28 degrees 46 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 56.92 feet; thence along a non - tangential curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 2824.79 feet, a central angle of 3 degrees 28 minutes 35 seconds for a distance of 171.40 feet; thence South 52 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds West, not tangent to said last described curve, a distance of 267.42 feet; thence South 52 degrees 34 minutes "00 seconds West a distance of 504.32 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; Except that part described as follows: Commencing at the said most Southerly corner of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1614;.thence North 0 degrees 01 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 889.23 feet; thence North 00 degrees 01 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 160.29 feet; thence North 89 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 311.66 feet; High Rise Construction C. E. COULTER & A S S O C i AT E S, INC. construction Layout Platting LAND SURVEYORS Lot Surveys i Processionally Registered In Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin ALTA Surveys Section Subdivisions JOHN COULTER PETERSON Topographic Mapping P.O. Box 8900 / MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55408 -0900 Shopping Centers (612) 824 -0370 / (612) 891 -5407 / FAX (612) 953 -3074 Page 4 thence South 28 degrees 11 minutes 07 seconds .East a distance of 1.06 feet to the actual point of beginning of the exception to be described; thence South 28 degrees 11 minutes i 07 seconds East a distance of 270.33 feet; thence South 63 degrees 30 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 197.39 feet; thence North 23 degrees 34 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 127.58 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 153.50 feet, a central angle of 98 degrees 12 minutes 12 seconds for a distance of 263.09 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. (the record description of the above described exception is Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1430, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota). 1 CEC PROJECT NO. 11,658 FILE 7 =3 11/7/97 file:pfs6:ltr:brook.9 i UL /13 /yy__1riU l-l :u .L r.A" JUJ 0bLyblb I?1LIJAI.Ik-N WhIPANIES LLC 10002 r7L) N0.715 P002/009 4 txr ♦_i f` . February 18, 1,999 ; :. J 1 1 �• ` ti• Talisman Corporation W. Larry Radr. -me Suite 135 1500 San Remo Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33146 RE: Brookdale Center Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Our Job No-- 990103 Dear Mr. Rad zville. • • Based upon your request, The Traffic Group, Inc. has undertaken. a Shared Parking Analysis to determine the maximum number o parking spaces that are i requred for the proposed retail _ p complex. For the purposes of our anaaysie, the following are the basic assumptions used to reach our conclusions: 0 1,058,093 sq. ft. of gross leasable retail space • 4,252 seats for an 86,649 sq. ft. movie theatre • Proposed to provide 5,702 parkin=g spaces on -site � The Ci Z oning o Code requires � approximately 5.6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. for retail space.. The proposed plan suggests 4.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. • The City Zoning Code allowa that in retail centers over 50,000 sq. ft., that Parking for movie theatres exist at one space per three seats. The proposed plan asaumes one space per four seats. • The City Zoning Code requires a Shared Parking Analysis be approved by the City Council P Smite 600 40 W. Char pajb Aw"xe Towton, t& y4md 21204 410- 383 -8405 Fax 410 -321 -8438 uci loi yy 111 14: 01 FA1 305 6629616 TALISUN- COMPANIES LLC N0, 718 16 .Wr. Larry RadZo111e - Februaty 18, 1.9 Page 2 Based upon the above assumptions, The Traffic Group, Inc. has undertaken a Shared Parking Anah►sis that shows the actual demand that is necessary for the PropO9ed Center based upon th above assumptions. This Shared Parking Analysis assumes the procedures contained in the Shared Parking publication from the Urban Land Institute =). As paft of our amlysis, we have prepared three Exhibits to s Parking calculations based upon the Urban Land Institute how the shared raced e p rocedures for d term�g the number of par spaces required for a retail center with a mix Of retail space and movie theatres. Attached to this letter are three Exhibits which show the calculations used to arrive at the maximum number of parki sp aces re �8 P aired fur the subject site. The following is a brief description of each of these Exhibits: • Page I of 3 - shows the ma7d== monthly demand based upon the Parameters discussed for each of the uses for the proposed site. The maximum monthly demand of 5,293 spaces as shown on page 1 are used as the basis for determining the hourly demand shown on pages 2 and 3. • Page 2 of 3 - reflect the weekday conditions showing the maximum hourly • demand based upon the respective uses. • Page 3 of 3 - reflect the maximum demand for Saturday conditions at the proposed site. As shown on Pages 2 and 3, the results for Institute methodo of our analysis using the Urban Land �3' deter mitring the maximum number o that a maximum of 5,133 spaces would be required for the proposed center for both a weekday and weekend. As previously discussed, the proposed center is presently designed to provide 5,702 parking spaces. The refore, based upon the analysia shown on pages 1, 2 and 3, more than sufficient ar ' is p roposed on the subject site to meet the maximum weekday and weekend hourly demand. As Part of our evaluation, we have also examined the Shopping Center Directo for the MinneapolislSt. Paul area of Minnesota and have determined t rY are at least two $hopping centers that currently have parking ratios of less than 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. fL The Centers are as follows: • Rosedale Shopping Center - Roseville, Minnesota • 1,308,000 sq. ft, • 6,000 parking spaces ■ 4.59 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA The AgfJ1c Getup, Inc. VZ/ 10/ yy IJIU 14: ul 1'.0 305 6629616 T:1LISMAN COMP:INIES LLC 004 N0. ?lEt P904�009 ' Mr. Larry Rad. -vide , Februar 18, J999 • Page a • S Shopping Center - ■ 1,634,000 sq. Ft. ■ 6,950 parldng spaces N 4.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. GLA Based on the above information, it is clear that other Centers in the MinneapoliS/St. Paul area have been approved with parking ratios leas than 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. as required by the City Zoning Code. Therefore, based on the information shown on pages 1 through 3, it is clear that the shared parking concept developed by the Urban Laud Institute indicates that more than sufficient parking is proposed on the subject site based on the maximum hourly demand determined by this analysis. The data contained in the Urban Land Institute Study has also been provided for your reference. If You have any questions concerning the enclosed information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John W. Guckert President JWGllmk/smb (Paz. UPS) Tl e Traff eC Grsep, Inc. BROOKDALE CENT - ER, M INN. MONTHLY VARIATIONS TO D9TERMINE • P_EAK MONTHLY D EMAND Land Use Retail an 1,058,093 sq.ft (GLA) Movies = 4 .252 seats Parameters: Retail = 4.5 Wacesl1,000 s Q .ft MoviQS = 1 space! 4 Seats Parkinn Spaces; Total Spaces for Retail = 4761 Total Spaces for Movies = 1063 TOTAL a 6824 January 65% 3095 90% 957 Now 65% 4052 February 65 3095 70% 744 3839 March 70% 3333 50% 532 3865 1April 70% 3333 70% • I M 744 4077 ay 70% 3333 70% 744 4077 June 75 % 3571 10096 1063 4634 July 75% 3571 100% 1053 4634 August 75% 3571 70% 744 4315 September 75% 3571 80 ° l0 850 4421 October 75% 3571 70% 744 4315 November 80% 3809 50% 532 4341 December 100% 4761 50% 532 5293 MwdTnum Monthly Demand = 5293 Spaces (Dec.) Paddng provided = 5702 Spaces Noon ftPMWU ae WMhy Variations as Pgf=M9 of Peak Month am taken from Exhibit 2T of the Study CorfcA�CeO LAWt the Dir cb= Of ULWItan land Institute by 2aQton- Azchmen AsaocWm. !nc Page 1 of 3 • - �lo:as Zhu 13 :021 F -U 305 6629616 TALISriAlY COMPANIES LLC 006 NO 7119 FIMS/0a9 BROOKDALE CENTER,, mlNN, • SHARE P ARKIN G ANALYSES �uyEEKOA� - - - RQtail = 1,Q58,0 ®3 sq.R Movies = 4,252 seats parameters: Retail = 4.5 spaces11,000 sq.R Movies = 1 Space! 4 Seats Parktna Spaces based oft HiPhest IYfontHN Demana: Retail = 4761 Movies = 532 TOTAL 6293 7:00 AM 8% 381 8:00 AM 18% es o as 0 381 --.. 9:00 AM Q% 2000 ._. 10:00 AM 68% 3237 0 2000 -� 0 3237 11:00 AM 87% 4142 12:00 PM 97% 0 4142 MINE 4618 309'• 160 4778 • 1 :00 PM 100°/ 4761 70% 372 5133 2:00 PM 97% 4818 70% 3:00 PM 95% 4923 372 4990 70% 372 % 4142 70% 4895 4:00 PM 87 5:00 PM 79% 372 4514 3761 70% 372 4133 , 6:00 PM 82% 3904 80% 426 7:00 PM 89% 4330 4237 90% 479 4716 8:00 PM 87% 4142 100% i 9:00 PM g1g6 532 4673 t 9 :00 PM 2904 100% 532 3436 `� 1524 100% 532 2055 11 :00 PM 1200 AM 13% 619 60% 426 1045 �... 0 70% 372 372 Maxdmum Weekday Hourly Demand a 5133 Spaces P4*1np Provided ■ 3702 Spaces � oti.e Haar Aeo m Won by PwCMge of Peak Now are token hom t �0:t a Cmau0sa , N° Stud Under 1fie OweCon d UU -i/rpa tan0 lntfl,eo py gerp,,,men , Inc Page 2 of 3 log yy lnU 14: uz I':A 505 6629616 TkLISXkN COMPANIES LLC P007�I?l 007 BROOKDAL,E CENTER, MINN. SHARED PARKiNr ANALYSIS IWEEKENDI • Land Use Retail- 1,058,093 ap.R Movies 4.252 teats . Parameters: Retail = 4.5 apacac/1.000 sq.R Movies = 1 spate/ 4 Seats ar n s aces bas an Nldhe� ��••+�•�. .,,u♦ rrtand Retad a 4761 Movies n 532 TOTAL 5293 7:00 AM 3% 143 8:00 AM 10% 0 143 9:00 AM 30%6 42 8 �. 0 476 2142 � 10:00 AM 45% 1428 — t 1 :00 AM 73% 3476 0 2142 12:00 PM 85% 0 3.176 1:00 PM 9546 • 4047 30% 160 4207 4523 96 70% 372 4895 2:00 PM 100 4781 7096 372 5133 3:00 PM 10096 5133 4:00 PM 90% 70% 372 5133 5:00 PM 75% 3571 70% 372 4657 fi:00 PM 65% 70% 372 3943 3096 80 9 /0 426 3521 7:00 PM 6086 2857 8:00 PM $5g6 90% 479 3336 2619 100% 532 3151 9:00 PM 41% 1852 10096 10100 PM 3896 1809 S32 2484 11:00 PM 13% 10095 S32 2341 1319 809'0 426 AA 1045 L f:00 h _..,. o 70% 372 372 Maximum Weekday Hourly 0emand @ 5133 Spaces Parking Provided: 5702 Spaces New. FaepreaenoRMv AMY q=wnWat►oa Condvtxa0 UnQor by prim ar Peak "O"rara nkf ham EMIOR me SRgr Oro 04acaon of Ull -UrOSn land bw5kft by ftft1+A%d* ate Aseocjn=. lnr • Pao* S of 1 • •/�� rte. ate. �..� .. O EXHIBIT 27 REPRESENTATIVE MONTHLY VARIATIONS AS PERCENTAGE OF PEAK MONTH _ H Hotel Hotel Month Rooms Raoaas Hotel Hots! QffiCe Retail Sartawawt Cinema Residential �ekda Saturda ° y y Coalemn" Cosveatl,, January 100% 65% 80% 90% 100% 90% 65% 100% 100 65 75 70 209 February March 100 70 100 90 70 I00 40 Ap l ]QO 70 90 so 100 95 80 100 80 fit 70 100 95 B5 100 80 Y 100 70 95 70 100 95 85 June 100 75 100 100 1100 100 July 100 75 100 1100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 August 100 75. 85 70 100 50 100 l00 Oc�taber rr 100 75 8o 8o 100 95 90 100 loo 50 !00 75 $0 70 100 95 90 140 70 November 100 80 80 100 1010 70 SO • December 100 100 90 50 85 84 140 40 100 y $5 65 100 20 r N O M b I*f N NOTE: O FROM 'PAGE 4 01 THE STUDY ODNDUCTED UNDER THE DIREC rroN r URBAN LAND INSTnUTE 8Y BARTON • ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC, i f r m m m WIN O O 0* • `r O EXHIBIT 28 t REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR � 1fp d r R/t li,atl J ; Of�tt [s/f�rrarl bt,ll R„u1r41 CEO" 000mv. h,a•LiG� w $cam Oaw RNs >v1f /r{leLieui� ROO& t Mu ►, e v of by aMt"y a., %4" t/toaM/ M►.►tA Su+.+q t►� �gLry Su,au� latlfr W,t s/r 1rr► v�y 1Yr,1[/P lureiq �l pa0j '*1 6 :00 aro. 3� _ _ 1 14 T :00 Lm ZO 20°,6 i76 3!6 Z1% — 100 895 100"0 .100'6 4046 t0�(i 20% -- — e , –' 87 95 9S $S 70 20 20 ° 1f:00 am. 63 60 is t0 S 3 _ — _ � 79 88 90 65 60 zo 20 SO% 50% 90 La. 91 &0 42 30 10 6 — i3 81 8; 55 50 20 10 100 100 10:00 un. 100 80 d8 4S 20 8 — ro 110 Lm 100 100 89 73 JO f0 � i4 85 i3 4a ZD 24 IQO 100 N 60 12.-00 loon 90 100 97 as SO 30 JO% 1 8 35 35 JO JO 100 I o 1:00 fm. 00 80 to 93 TO 45 74 39 6 3 SO 30 30 30 100 100 2:00 Fm 97 60 97 � JO JO :0 •1! 100 100 100 60 4S ill 60 "1 65 33 JS d0 45 100 100 3.00 am. 93 40 95 100 dO 4S 70 al iJ 85 JS 40 SS iS 100 • 140 Coo Im. 71 40 67 90 SO 45 .0 66 ;S 8: 95 30 50 iS iQ0 100 S:00i« 47 Za 79 75 70 d0 TO 77 81 90 60 60 ;0 60 !O0 100 ►a e:001.fa. !> 20 61 to 7 W. 7 20 9 60 1p0 5 90 83 83 92 i0 ;0 90 90 IQO 100 N 94 7 EO 6, 94 80 100 OS 100 l0O 6500 !m. 67 3S 100 100 100 46 9I 96 0 0 4a 100 100 100 100 9:40 atII• 3 — 61 40 100 140 lap 1400 12 38 90 93 tap 99 95 98 95 95 100 140 100 100 0 :00 .m. — ... 96 100 100 90 9S SO 11 30 13 13 70 85 60 100 98 100 12 100 !00 70 8S 00 Kl — — — -- 30 70 70 100 100 100 100 100 50 70 Alzu N r r NOTE: OBTAINED FROM VAGE 47' OF THE SMW COFIMC M UNDER THE DIRECTION CF UU - URBAN LAND INST MITE BY BARTON - ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Or 0 0 • 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 22, 1999 TO: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Scott Brink, City Engineer SUBJECT: Brookdale Plan Review General site and preliminary plans have been reviewed relating to the proposed Brookdale Redevelopment. The plans reviewed are dated received by the City January 28, 1999, and submitted by the Architectural Alliance. I do have some comments to provide at this time. However, I anticipate providing additional comments upon completion of the traffic study by SEH and any comments /requirements resulting from review by the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission. At this time, we expect the Watershed to be reviewing the site plan and proposal at their March 11, 1999 meeting. • PARKING /ACCESS The parking study is not clear weather or not it is for the mall building only, or includes the detached buildings elsewhere on the site. The report submitted by The Traffic Group assumes 1,128,940 sq. Ft. of gross leasable retail space(GLA). The Plan submitted states a Total Mall Building Gross Leasable Area of 1,058,093 sf of GLA. It should be verified what buildings in addition to the mall itself have been used to compute the GLA. The Traffic Group's report proposes 6,263 parking spaces on site. I have counted the total number of stalls on the site plan and come up with approximately 6,235. However, this count includes all parking around existing Kohl's and Ground Round. Again, actual GLA locations and parking needs and parking assignments needs to be clarified much f u ther..SEH may provide additional comments as well. GENERAL TRAFFIC OPERATION AND CIRCULATION SEH Inc. has completed a traffic study for the site (report attached, or will be available at the February 25 Planning commission Meeting). An analysis of existing traffic volumes and movements, as well as anticipated volumes and movements are provided in the report. It is not anticipated that the redevelopment will have an overall negative impact on the surrounding County Roadways (Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10), or T.H. 100. . Locations of entrances to the mall are generally at the same locations. Therefore, access to the site will generally operate in an acceptable manner; with at least one exception, however. • 2 The west side of the mall, near the intersection of Xerxes and 55th will see significantly increased congestion, and forcasted volumes at that intersection predict a Level of Service F (breakdown of flow conditions). The need for a traffic signal at that intersection is likely. All of the other signalized intersections should operate at a Level of Service C or greater. The intersection of Xerxes Avenue and 55th Street will not operate satisfactorily as a 4 -way stop controlled intersection in the future and may need to be signalized. If the intersection of Xerxes , and 55th is signalized, the traffic control at the intersection of Xerxes and 56th may need to change as well. The fact that the intersections are so close to each other creates a problem if one is signalized and the other is a 4 -way stop. Xerxes /56th will most likely also have to be signalized in order to operate efficiently. Of particular concern is the demand for theater parking, and the available parking at the proposed theater's location. The supply of parking next to the theater entrance of the mall may not be able to accommodate the demand for theater patrons. Since the parking will also serve at least some retail demand, lack of parking and circulation problems around the theater side of the building could be a problem, and should be investigated further. The distance between Xerxes Avenue and the ring road and theater itself does not allow enough room to stack entering or exiting vehicles, thus causing significant delays. Parking restrictions on Xerxes and businesses on the west side of Xerxes would likely be needed for safety and to protect pedestrians. In addition, the • parking lot north and west of the food court entrance is discontinuous, with part of it located outside of the ring road. Patrons parking outside of the ring road would need to cross the road to access the mall, thus creating many vehicle /pedestrian conflicts. In summary, this particular area would not only be heavily congested with vehicles, but would not be pedestrian, friendly either. The parking along the outside of the perimeter road (adjacent to TH 100) is not recommended for safety reasons. This row of parking should be eliminated and instead added to the rows of parking perpendicular to the building and perimeter road. Parking stall and access drive width dimensions shown are slightly narrower than typically allowed by the City. All drives and accesses should provide a minimum of width to allow proper circulation and safety. I would also recommend that concrete curbing (rather than painted delineations) be utilized for the ends of the parking rows to help in delineating the access drive limits, particularly during winter months when painted lines and pavement lines tend to become obscured. A 15 foot "green- strip" is typically required by the City between the property line and the paved surface of parking lots or concrete. Along Xerxes Avenue and portions of County Road 10, the parking areas are up to the property line, with no green space between the parking area and property line. This is of concern, particularly in those places where sidewalk and utilities are located in the boulevard area. • The Shingle Creek Regional Corridor trail must be provided for in the site plan as well. The existing plan does not show or incorporate the trail. • _ 3 GRADING AND UTILITIES The site plan proposes to utilize many of the existing utilities that currently service Brookdale. Since these utilities are private, complete records are not available, and the property owner would be responsible for verifying existing utilities and future needs. Proposed detached buildings along Xerxes would need to verify the availability of services from Xerxes. Storm water is proposed to be routed to the Shingle Creek Regional Pond by use of existing and proposed storm sewer on site, and connecting to the crossing beneath TH 100 that was recently constructed by the City. For portions of the site east of Shingle Creek, the developer's engineer is reviewing the plans to try to route as much storm water as possible to the Regional Pond. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission will comment further on this upon their review. A large storm sewer pipe (42 inch dia. RCP) is proposed to be installed on the east side of the property. This pipe would ultimately carry the vast majority of the site's drainage. Past experiences suggest that the underlying materials may not be able to adequately support the pipe without piling. A geotechnical engineer should be retained by the owner to evaluate the • structural capability of the subgrade fiirther. An existing City trunk sanitary sewer main crosses this same area and is supported on piling. The proposed site of Building #4 along Shingle Creek is also located close to an existing City sewer force -main. A proposed building site ( #5) is also shown to be located within the 100 year flood zone of Shingle Creek. Under City and Watershed regulations, no fill can be placed within this zone without the providing of compensating storage as approved by the City and Watershed. The City is working with the Watershed's Engineer to explore the possibility of utilizing another site as additional compensating storage. The Watershed and City would ultimately need to assess the sufficiency of the Creek's flow and flood modeling hydraulic capabilities before approving such a proposal. OTHER Under the proposed plan, the entire Brookdale parking area would need to be re- striped, along with some grading and curbing modifications. Provisions (such as overlay or seal -coat) should be provided by the developer to insure that all existing pavement markings are adequately removed. The plan does provide for use of existing access drives from the surrounding roadways. It is not expected at this time that formal approval from Mn/Dot and/or Hennepin County will be needed. • However, it is recommended that plans be forwarded to those agencies as a courtesy for their information, or review and comment as necessary. Met Council Transit has also been working to establish a bus transfer site in the project area as well. At this time no site has been established. • Brookdale Area Traffic Study Brooklyn Center Minnesota • SEH No. A- BROCT9809.00 March 4, 1999 • =5EN Brookdale Area Traffic Study • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota SEH No. BROCT9809.00 March 4, 1999 I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: March 4, 1999 / Reg. No.: 25772 Reviewed by: Date Reviewed by: Date Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive 200 SEH Center St. Paul, Minnesota 55110 (612) 490 -2000 • Table of Contents Certification Page Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction ................... ............................... 1 2.0 Data Collection ................ ............................... 3 2.1 Mall information ............ ............................... 3 2.2 Roadway information ........ ............................... 3 2.3 Miscellaneous information .... ............................... 3 3.0 Existing Conditions ............ ............................... 5 3 .1 Analysis .................. ............................... 5 4.0 Proposed Development ...................................... 4.1 Trip Generation ............ ............................... 11 4.2 Forecasted Volumes . ...... ............................... 11 4.3 Trip Distribution ........... ............................... 12 • 5.0 Intersection Analysis .......... ............................... 12 6.0 Driveway Analysis ........................................... 16 6.1 Kohl's Driveway (County Road 10 & Shingle Creek Parkway) ....... 16 6.2 Mervyn's Driveway (County Road 10 & Northway Drive) ......... 16 6.3 Theater Driveway (Xerxes Avenue. & 56th Avenue) ............... 16 6.4 Sear's Driveway (Xerxes Avenue & 55th Avenue) ................ 17 7.0 Internal Circulation ............ ............................... 17 8.0 Miscellaneous Site Plan Comments ............................. 17 9.0 Parking ..................... ............................... 18 10.0 Transit (Bus) ................. ............................... 19 11 Pedestrians .................. ............................... 20 12.0 Summary .................... ............................... 22 • Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page i List of Figures Page Figure 1 Project Location ................. ............................... 2 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan .............. ............................... 4 Figure 3 Traffic Volumes Along Brooklyn Boulevard .......................... 6 Figure 4 Traffic Volumes Along County Road 10 ............................. 7 Figure 5 Traffic Volumes Along Highway 100 . ............................... 8 Figure 6 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .................. 9 • Figure 7 Existing Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes ............. 10 Figure 8 Forecasted P.M. Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .............. 13 Figure 9 Forecasted Saturday Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes .......... 14 Figure 10 Possibly Transit Hub Relocations .. ............................... 21 Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page ii List of Tables Page Table 1 Existing and Proposed Trips ...... ............................... 12 Table 2 Level of Service at Signalized Intersections ......................... 15 Table 3 Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections ....................... 16 • • Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page iii March 4, 1999 • Brookdale Area Traffic Study Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 1.0 Introduction The expansion of Brookdale Center and the redevelopment in the area, along with general traffic growth, has led to a need to review the traffic flow through the area. The City of Brooklyn Center, along with Talisman Brookdale LLC, has commissioned a traffic study by Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to evaluate the impact of future traffic generated by the expansion. The Brookdale area is the commercial center of the City of Brooklyn Center. Brookdale Center was one of the first major retail hubs in the northwest metropolitan area. It has spun off retail development to the • north along Shingle Creek Parkway and also along Brooklyn Boulevard with numerous outlots for restaurants and other types of development. Brookdale Center has direct access to Highway 100 at two interchanges and very close and convenient access to I -94 and I -694 to the east and Highway 252 to the north. The street system surrounding Brookdale is a triangle consisting of Highway 100, County Road 10 (Bass Lake Road), and Brooklyn Boulevard. Local streets provide access to individual outlots and parcels including Xerxes Avenue, 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue. Brookdale Center itself has an onsite circulation pattern that complements the public street system. The project location can be seen in Figure 1. Brookdale Center is proposing an expansion of retail space. The actual mall building is proposed to be expanded along with five new outlots being developed. It is proposed to increase the size of the overall shopping center by 212,664 square feet and construct a 20- screen movie theater. This report documents the data collection that was performed, the existing conditions, and the proposed development assumptions. It also summarizes the operational analysis that was performed on surrounding intersections and the shopping center driveways, plus comments about the • internal circulation, parking, pedestrians, and miscellaneous items on the site plan. BROCT9809.00 Page 1 C­ Vo. - — — — — — — — — — mSsI_ VD. 10 BL • ?«—' �_,A. 169' ANDOVER 's RAMS ;Yei HAM LAKE KID. "z. 47 t / A L ---------- 4- ANOKA r 1 BARER I LAKE J I • N. It. LAAE I L r X­�, FJ ST. 2 - St. R.IL lk 1111111111111111 COON 242 1 Ox. -'E. 10 RAPIDS ' N 0 N K A HIERS IEN LAAE L r ..A At tdv M, FR•tcher BLAINE sl 47 IL m9TN AV it IAIS& ENAMPL11- t — t 33 IRCU 69 ucv: PNE M N ale 31 ! . s T A6606 ._ PARK , r L IT It I 419 / f I 1� Lddk A . GTO 1IST4 213 418 - - I L 9 AVE. ST. R. 93RD AIL IB -mm I OSSEO V' 71 RSTR •IF m. alto G�UNO MA rs A GROVE I r, I ossow ?is PROJECT LOCA F I U Fi 3 7 Aft SHOREVIEW AVE. L W) 31 35 - • - - __ ---E �-'0 Uw N he .8 FRIO pA • L • AYE.! SF;41 377N � 8AB 42A AIL 39 4.1 4G, EW 4 HILL TOP 13RIGHTON 49TH AVE. K <-i 14 HEI AD , a NEW Av. LaA HOPE ICm L.A. UrL D 65 Y SAINT nA ANqTNO v � H.1, N­ All- I f K R r v 22 139 L * 1 1 1 3A 21 6 RED CIRE L7me I IRS. N L I S a I 'tur P L.A. a t a - WWA - - - - - - VA ST. AIL L .- FALCON IN. 001A I LAUDERDALE or. HEIGHTS 1 55 A4 --If ki, ISAB H E N N E P NJ FR"L AINM IN •4 1XIINIvERSI M 5 OOOLAND 5 • ' LAVE LU ST. ST. LOUIS LAK WEI-ONKA Lsh. PARK • IR g ,DEEPHAVEN a 1 i J L 1- 35. IT. M 1 , '- . . ' il S 1 L.. 14 IITR • ST. v V Z I,, Z, M I 1 NNETONKA .6 r 7 J - 7 RA Sr. 51 z 291"" aLvo. . rPAt A L.A. 7 100 It IN L 2 62 • ... I� L <.-'-! Y �. ' .dj tl � .. ' i'.. _a4 169 1 � — «n _:;rr... '� J., AV FILE NO. Project Location FrAM ABROCT9809.00 Brookdale Area Traffic Study DATE: 1 2/22/99 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 2.0 Data Collection • A large amount of data was collected from many different sources, including the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), Brookdale Center, and SEH's files. 2.1 Mall information The developer supplied information on the existing and proposed tenancy for the mall, along with the proposed site plan. The current proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. Information on driveway volumes for the past seven years were supplied by Brookdale Center. 2.2 Roadway information Peak hour turning movement counts were collected at nine intersections by SEH in January 1999. The turning movement counts were collected during the p.m. peak and also during the Saturday peak hour. The nine intersections and their current traffic control are listed below: • County Road 10 & Hwy. 100 East Ramps - Traffic Signal • County Road 10 & Hwy. 100 West Ramps - Traffic Signal • County Road 10 & Shingle Creek Parkway - Traffic Signal • County Road 10 & Northway Drive - Traffic Signal • County Road 10 & Xerxes Avenue - Traffic Signal • Xerxes Avenue & 55th Avenue - 4 -Way Stop Sign • Xerxes Avenue & 56th Avenue - 4 -Way Stop Sign • Brooklyn Boulevard & Hwy. 100 East Ramps - Traffic Signal • Brooklyn Boulevard & Hwy. 100 West Ramps - 2 -Way Stop Sign Historical volumes on area roadways were compiled by SEH using the Mn/DOT traffic flow maps. Hennepin County supplied the accident information for area roads. Information on the traffic signals along County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard was supplied by Hennepin County and supplemented by SEH. 2.3 Miscellaneous information Metro Transit supplied information related to buses, including current bus schedules and current transit hub options. The pedestrian data was obtained mainly by observation. A shared parking analysis was completed by the developer and supplied to SEH by the City. Information on other regional shopping center parking facilities was compiled by SEH. i Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 3 Y Y- Q � N C , Z N\ County Road 10 / N T-!7�' �•� y m `I� � s � W E I 56th Street r d Dayton's 195 sf Mervyn's 138,279 sf JC Penney 140,320 sf Sear's 180,669 sf Tenant Building 313,807 sf ,/ ��' Kohl's 75,000 sf 55th t Stre et / ��y `� Midas 8,254 sf Future Bldg #1 4,000 sf l / Future Bldg #2 4,650 sf Future Bldg #3 10,000 sf ` Future Bldg #4 15,000 sf Future Bldg #5 25,000 sf _— Ground Round 6,400 sf Cineplex 89,650 sf \ Shopping Center Total 1,206,397 sf I I 1 II Parking spaces 5.19 Ratio 5.19 FILE "."o"960 y Brookdale Area Traffic Stud Proposed Site Plan P .� I 2 8 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA (As of 2/22199) 2 3.0 Existing Conditions • Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on several surrounding roads were compiled for the years 1976 to 1996. ADT entering volumes at the four driveways to Brookdale Center were compiled for the years 1991 to 1998. From this historical data, it can be seen that traffic on the roads in the Brookdale area has been decreasing since about 1996, except for Highway 100, which has been increasing at a rate comparable to other similar facilities in the Twin Cities metro area. Figures 3 -5 show graphical representations of the historical traffic volumes on several roads near the mall. The shopping center entrance volumes have also been decreasing over the years, at a rate of 5.4% per year. There are four driveways that are used to access the Center. They are at County Road 10 /Shingle Creek Parkway, County Road 10/Northway Drive, Xerxes Avenue /56th Avenue, and Xerxes Avenue /55th Avenue. Based on historical driveway counts, the percentage of the total entering vehicles at each driveway are as followed: • Shingle Creek Parkway (Kohl's) - 33% • Northway Drive (Mervyn's) - 21% . • 56th Avenue (Applebee's) - 14% • 55th Avenue (Sear's) - 32% Peak hour turning movement counts were collected at nine intersections near the mall during the p.m. peak and at four during the Saturday peak hour. Because the volumes were collected in January, a monthly variation factor was applied in order to reflect "average" conditions. This factor was determined using historical Mn/DOT volume information on County Road 10, the historical driveway information and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. 6th Edition. The existing factored turning movement volumes for the p.m. peak and Saturday peak can be seen in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. 3.1 Analysis An operational analysis was performed for each intersection during the p.m. peak hour and the Saturday peak hour, using existing turning movement volumes in order to develop a base condition. The signal timing information, which was supplied by the County and supplemented by SEH, was used in the operational analysis. It was found that all of the intersections operate at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better during the p.m. peak hour and also on Saturday. LOS descriptions are in the Appendix. Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 5 i • • ♦ South of 1 -94 A North of CR 10 40,000 • CR 10 - TH 100 ■ South of TH 100 35,000 * South of 49th 30,000 --- - - - T - -- —T - - -- >, 25,000 = - - - -- .� _ o C 20,000 cz 15,000 ------------------- - ------ ------ _--- � ------------ - q- 10,000 -- 5,000 o , l I ( I I I I I I I 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Year FiIA ROCT9808.00 Brookdale Area Traffic Study Historical Average Daily Traffic Figure _5EN Date 2 -22 -99 Booklyn Center, Minnesota Along Brooklyn Boulevard 3 'i i • 25,000 20,000 CIO 15,000 / - - E— -------- - - - - -- -------- —_`- - — - —� N Cz 0 CD Cz 10,000 a� � Q ♦ West of Brooklyn Blvd 5,000 Brooklyn Blvd - Xerxes • Xerxes to Shingle ■ Shingle to TH 100 o 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Year Fil A ROCT9808.00 Brookdale Area Traffic Study Historical Average Daily Traffic Figure Date 2-22- Booklyn Center, Minnesota Along County Road 10 4 50,000 45,000 I 40,000 = ' { { -- -------------- ------- 35,000 U � 30,000------ - - --N. __• • 25,000 o Cm 20,000 Cz • South of Brooklyn Blvd Q 15,000 j ■ Brooklyn Blvd - CR 10 { A North of CR 10 10,000 5,000 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 Year � Fi ROCT9808.00 Brookdale Area Traffic Study Historical Average Daily Traffic Figure -S� Date 2 -22 Booklyn Center, Minnesota Along Trunk Highway 100 5 99 � to to N d' � - 6 t 98 TH 100 East Ramp C14 M M O 9 St y 100 West Ramp F� T r to to nIt ^ oto a' U LLJ Shingle Creek Pkwy *.j y Z 99 o9 l. W *L E- 91.1, U got c9 W *1Tr' J N tD tD Q N*V Y O O cc K)� m M CCO tp Northway Drive < j1 4 99z --t t- 96 92 F 9t O t *9 `1Tr' N too tD . to N at co io 14 00 LzI '- 4ztXerxes Avenu r Z9 'i � Li f l T r 0£z --s 'L 0t Og gZ N M OS E - £6l 4L� 'to to `1T to o o d O N O ` N to n N w to Existing Existing PM Peak AIF FILE N0. AB FILE N0. Turning Movement Counts FIGURE DATE: Brookdale Area Traffic Study 6 /22/99 2 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA N QJ raj M Shingle Creek Pkwy c j 98 T '� sSZ *61 <— ZZZ W £9c ,` 6L `1 T r' Z o F, � U K) v w �° J Q c 0 7 Y 0 °' O Northway Drive < j L, LL1 *gt m • SC F 9Z OLD L6 �to00 to CO co �r ro gL Xerxes Ave n 'n tn Z L y nue � .0- Li t -� 'BLS L c T f � L Lzz —� � LZ 1 87 8Z ° Lz LZ `1 Tr' 0 rnM LO N co to 0 Existing Saturday Peak Hour A RO N0..00 Turning Moment Counts FrAM Brookdale Area Traffic Study i� DATE: 7 2/22/99 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA The turning movement volumes were also used to determine the directional distribution of vehicles entering and exiting the mall and to confirm trip generation rates. 4.0 Proposed Development The existing Brookdale Center has 814,428 square feet of Gross Leasable Area plus three outlots including Kohl's department store, Ground Round, and Midas. The total square footage of the existing shopping center is 904,082 square feet. The proposed redevelopment will increase the size of the mall building to 968,442 square feet and add five outlots (two restaurants and three retail). It is also proposed to include a 20- screen movie theater in the redevelopment. The total square footage of the proposed redevelopment is 1,116,746 square feet, which is 212,664 square feet more than existing, plus the 20- screen movie theater. The current proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. 4.1 Trip Generation Trip generation rates are used to calculate the number of trips a given development is expected to generate, either on a daily basis or a peak hour basis. The ITE Trip Generation Manual. 6th Edition is a widely used industry resource which contains published rates for numerous types of land uses. The rates are usually based on national studies. • The existing trip generation rates (daily, p.m. peak hour, and Saturday peak hour) for Brookdale Center were calculated based on the existing tenancy information and the driveway and turning movement volumes that were collected. The existing Brookdale rates were compared to the rates published in the PTE Trin Generation Manual. The rates calculated for Brookdale Center were slightly lower than the ITE average rates. This is most likely due to the fact that the area around Brookdale is not as developed as other regional shopping centers and the volumes on the area roads are decreasing. Another reason the observed trip generation rates may be lower than the average ITE rates is that many people arrive at the mall via public transportation. Brookdale Center is the second highest retail center generator of transit trips in the metro area, behind the Mall of America. 4.2 Forecasted Volumes Based on the proposed site plan supplied by the developer, the mall will have a net increase of 212,664 square feet (including outlots) and a 20- screen movie theater. In order to forecast volumes for the proposed mall retail expansion, a trip generation rate between the one calculated for the existing Brookdale Center and the ITE rate was used. These two rates are explained in the previous paragraph. The trip generation rates for the • movie theater were obtained from the ITE Trin Generation Manual. 6th Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 11 Edition and confirmed b studies of local theaters. Table 1 I Y shows the • existing and forecasted peak hour volumes for Brookdale Center. Table 1 Existing and Proposed Trips P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour In Out In Out Existing Trips 1056 964 1669 1573 Future Trips 1662 1636 2575 2358 Net New Trips 606 672 906 785 4.3 Trip Distribution The new trips generated by the mall expansion were distributed to each driveway based on the existing turning movement counts. The new trips generated by the movie theater were oriented more towards the two driveways on Xerxes Avenue, because of the location of the theaters in relation to the driveways. • A background growth rate of 3 /a% per year (for 20 years) was applied to the through movements on County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard. This takes into account background growth over the next 20 years. A growth rate of 2% to 3% per year is normally used on similar roadways in the metro area. Since the traffic volumes on these two roads have actually been declining for the last 10 years, probably reflecting declining trips from Brookdale Center, and the fact that the area is built -up, the growth rate was reduced. The background growth and the forecasted volumes were added to the existing turning movement volumes to determine future volumes. The 20 -year forecasted turning movement volumes for the p.m. peak and Saturday peak can be seen in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. 5.0 Intersection Analysis An operational analysis was performed on each intersection during the p.m. peak hour and the Saturday peak hour, using forecasted volumes. It was found that all of the signalized intersections operate at a Level of Service C or better during the p.m. peak and Saturday peak hour. • Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 12 I o � PI) if) TH 100 East Ramp / 0 N O M � n Lo � 8 y TH 100 West Ramp Tf nrn rn '- ��M a: 0) toN Uj Shingle Creek Pkwy F j 99 - L i'BZ W oz L <— 60 Z U Sot , 7 to l, LU `l T r+ o '4- r'^ 0 ' � Y I o O o: O c cc 7 • o U Im O a} to M tq O) Northway Drive (J � 4 9Sz -a 'l- LL L £S F ZB £L 90L LO 0 ^CDC o�Cn •- t lI o lI �WY O totto 1-01 -t Xerxes co 0 to 1-51 �St,l Avenu ^ Z9Z F91-1 4-j � t- L9 r 119 9£L — Lg --t *-,?L f 1 T r* SZ-► '- £L Lll� `9Z oN OS Z r LL r` a ) O COW .+ U) j t � N U t to to LO %0 • Forecasted PM Peak FILE N0 Turning Movement Counts MURe ABROCT9809.00 •f— DATE: Brookdale Area Traffic Study 8 2/22/99 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA i co 0 co 't to Shingle Creek Pkwy � � 4 98 c9c Z6Z F 9L2 LU 69C ~ Z LU ° V, L0^ V a W c J p a Y U O O ^� = Northway Drive EJ 0 LL L -a 6 LZ m OS F 8C 0l cc l. f l T f �nN 0 c0� nt0� Z6 , Xerxes Avenu N ° ao y Li 9Z l LU L L LL _ � 8 Z 69l Z 0 0 88��� CZ a f l T f 0 � Cap ) 0 N N cD N � co � to I .. Forecasted Saturday Peak Hour FI LE N 0. ABRO T98 9.00 Turning Moment Counts FIGURE Brookdale Area Traffic Stud 2D/222T/E y 9 99 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA The intersection of Xerxes Avenue and 55th Avenue will not operate . satisfactorily as a four -way stop controlled intersection in the future, because of the increase in volumes on 55th Avenue. It appears that a traffic signal will be warranted in the future based on the post development volumes. The intersection of Xerxes Avenue and 56th Avenue will continue to operate satisfactorily as a four -way stop controlled intersection (by itself). If the intersection of Xerxes Avenue /55th Avenue is signalized, the traffic control at Xerxes Avenue /56th Avenue may also need to change. The fact that Xerxes Avenue at County Road 10 is signalized and 55th Avenue will be signalized in the future, a signal may also be needed at 56th Avenue in order to be maintain consistency. Further study will be required to determine this, as there are too many variables at this time to make a recommendation, such as the transit hub location and possible redevelopment on the west side of Xerxes Avenue. Table 2 shows the LOS at each of the signalized intersection5under existing and future conditions. Table 3 shows the LOS at each of the unsignalized intersection under existing and future conditions. Table 2 Level of Service at Signalized Intersections • Existing Future Existing Future Intersection P.M. Peak P.M. Peak Saturday Saturday Co. Rd. 10 & TH 100 East B C - - Ramps Co. Rd. 10 & TH 100 B B - - West Ramps Co. Rd. 10 & Shingle B C C C Creek Parkway Co. Rd. 10 & Northway B B B B Drive Co. Rd. 10 & Xerxes B B B B Avenue Brooklyn Boulevard & B B - - TH 100 West Ramps Xerxes Avenue & 55th N/A B N/A B Avenue • Xerxes Avenue & 56th N/A N/A N/A B Avenue Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 15 Table 3 • Level of Service at Unsignalized Intersections Existing Future Existing Future Intersection P.M. Peak P.M. Peak Saturday Saturday Xerxes Avenue & 55th B Avenue Xerxes Avenue & 56th B * B Avenue Brooklyn Boulevard & A B - - TH 100 East Ramps * Range limit(s) exceeded Mn/DOT is planning to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Brooklyn Boulevard and the TH 100 East Ramps within the next 5 years. This should not dramatically affect the traffic flow in the Brookdale area. 6.0 Driveway Analysis Traffic can access the mall from City streets via four different driveways. • The driveways were studied to determine if there were any operational issues associated with them. 6.1 Kohl's Driveway (County Road 10 & Shingle Creek Parkway) This driveway will operate essentially the same way as it currently does. There should be plenty of storage for vehicles waiting at the signal. 6.2 Mervyn's Driveway (County Road 10 & Northway Drive) This driveway will also operate essentially the same way as it currently does. The access to the parking lot east of Building No. 3 is not in a desirable location (very close to the entrance at Northway). The parking lot can stay in place, but the access located just west of Northway Drive should be removed or moved as far west as possible. 6.3 Theater Driveway (Xerxes Avenue & 56th Avenue) During the Saturday peak hour, there will be approximately 400 vehicles entering and 400 vehicles exiting Brookdale at this location. As mentioned previously, this intersection may warrant signalization in the future, based on further study. Since a large portion of the traffic using this driveway will be theater oriented, there will be greater peaks than at the other driveways, which will result in higher delay. The distance between Xerxes Avenue and the ring road does not allow enough room to stack the entering or exiting vehicles. The storage problems will mostly be contained on the Brookdale property and should Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 16 not affect the operation of the City streets close to this intersection. If the • backups prove to be unbearable, Brookdale will need to perform mitigation measures in order to alleviate the problems. One option would be to allow a right turn only for entering vehicles. This would remove the conflict between the inbound left turning vehicles and the vehicles on the ring road. This right turn only could be a free right and would eliminate the inbound stacking problem. Vehicles wanting to take a left onto the frontage road from this driveway will need to take a right and drive around the island which is located on the northwest side of the building. The right -turn only will also indirectly lead people to park on the west side of the building where parking is more accessible than the parking north of the food court. A northeast bound left turn lane could be added to the frontage road at this location which would separate the outbound vehicles from the through vehicles on the ring road. This would provide additional storage for outbound vehicles, while not affecting the operation of the ring road. 6.4 Sear's Driveway (Xerxes Avenue & 55th Avenue) During the Saturday peak hour, there will be approximately 800 vehicles entering and 700 vehicles exiting at this location. As mentioned previously, a traffic signal will be warranted at this location based on post - development volumes. This driveway will also be affected by the • theater peak, although the percent of total traffic using this intersection which is generated by the theater is smaller than at 56th Avenue The distance between Xerxes Avenue and the ring road does not allow enough room to stack the entering or exiting vehicles. Similarly to the theater driveway (56th Avenue), the storage problems will mostly be contained on the Brookdale property and should not affect the operation of the City streets close to this intersection. If the backups prove to be unbearable, Brookdale will need to perform mitigation measures in order to alleviate the ' roblems. The Sear 's automotive building g is in direct line with this driveway, which makes mitigation measures difficult. 7.0 Internal Circulation The onsite internal circulation was studied to determine any operational issues that should be addressed. The current site plan reflects modifications made to the internal circulation based on past discussions between the City and the developer. 8.0 Miscellaneous Site Plan Comments 1. From the current site plan, it can not be determined if the ends of the • parking rows are concrete or painted islands. Painted islands are cheaper to install and maintain, but concrete islands help to manage Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 17 the traffic better. Concrete islands on the outer ends of the rows help • to create a defined ring road. They also aid parkers in lining up, if the painted parking stalls are covered with snow or faded. Therefore, it is desirable that concrete islands be installed on the end of the parking rows in sufficient numbers to delineate the drive edge and establish the parking lot pattern. 2. The supply of parking next to the theater entrance of the mall will not be able to accommodate the demand from the theater patrons plus the retail shoppers. A shared parking analysis was completed that stated there would be adequate parking available, but the location of parking relative to the theater entrances and exits would require theater patrons to walk a longer distance. Additional parking on the west side of the mall would ease the parking demand. This could be done by replacing the outlot buildings on the west side with parking, modifying the expansion footprint, or constructing a parking deck. Similar parking decks at Rosedale and Southdale work very well to provide additional parking. Since the theater is on the second floor of the mall, a parking deck would allow for easier access to the theater, but would be relatively expensive to build. 3. The parking area north and west of the food court entrance is • discontinuous, with part of it located outside of the ring road. People parking on the outside of the ring road must cross the ring road to get to the mall, creating conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. The fact that this parking area is very close to the 56th Avenue driveway means that the traffic will be heavier in this location and not very pedestrian friendly. 4. The arkin lot next to Building No. 1 is not e p g g ashy accessible. Since it is very close to the entrance driveway (56th Avenue) and the mall's theater entrance, the traffic in front of the access drive will be heavy. Y This will make it difficult to get into and out of the arkin lot. If it P g were lined up with one of the drive /parking isles, the accessibility would improve. 5. The access to the parking lot east of Building No. 3 is not in a desirable location (very close to the entrance at Northway). The parking lot can stay in place, but the access located just west of Northway Drive should be removed or moved as far west as possible 9.0 Parking A shared parking analysis was completed by the developer to document the amount of parking needed and the amount of parking available during • the busiest times of the season. The City currently requires 5.5 parking Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 18 stalls per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area and 1 parking stall per 3 i movie theater seats. The developer is asking to use 4.5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area and 1 parking stall per 4 movie theater seats. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE) Parking Generation Handbook states that shopping centers of the size of Brookdale have a national average rate of 4.4 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area. SEH contacted three other cities in the metro area where regional shopping centers are located and obtained information on parking rates. Two of the cities have a requirement of 5.0 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area. The City of Minnetonka stated that their requirement is 5.5 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area. The City of Edina stated that Southdale Shopping Center was currently parking at a rate of 5.1 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area. A study of multi- theater parking performed by Parsons Brinkerhoff in 1998 showed that 1 parking stall per 4 movie theater seats is adequate. Two local theaters, in Lakeville and Coon Rapids, were part of the study. Therefore, the assumption of 1 stall per 4 seats is a reasonable change from 1 stall per 3 seats. If the assumptions of 5.0 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet Gross Leasable Area and 1 stall per 4 movie theater seats were used in the shared parking analysis, the overall parking requirements are met. The number of stalls provided is 5,702, and there would be a maximum weekday hourly demand of 5,133. The only concern is the area around the theater entrance. The supply and the layout of parking close to the theater entrance of the mall will not be able to accommodate the demand from the theater patrons plus the retail shoppers. The proposed location of parking relative to the theater entrances and exits would require theater patrons to walk a longer distance. Additional parking on the west side of the mall would ease the parking demand. 10.0 Transit (Bus) There are nine bus routes (almost 500 buses) which currently use the Brookdale Center transit hub. Most of the routes are of the hub and spoke variety, where Brookdale Center is the center hub. One of these routes is an express route into downtown Minneapolis. A park and ride lot used to be located in the southern part of the Brookdale property, but has been moved to the new park and ride location at Brooklyn Boulevard and 65th Avenue North, although there are still cars that park at Brookdale. • Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 19 A transit hub is currently located along the west side of Brookdale Center, near Applebee's restaurant. When the mall is redeveloped, the transit hub will have to be relocated. There are currently three options which are being considered, although numerous other options have been examined. It is not the intent of this report to study these options, but to list them for informational purposes and provide comments. The three locations are described below and shown schematically on Figure 10. 1. The first would be to move the transit hub to the northwest corner of the property (north of Midas). A gas station is currently located on this site. This location would keep the transit hub on the Brookdale property, but further from the mall than it currently is. The direct access to Xerxes Avenue and County Road 10 would be removed. Therefore, the bus would have to circulate through the mall property on the ring road to get to and from this site. 2. The second is to locate the transit hub along the east side of Xerxes Avenue between 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue. This would require a pullout to be constructed along the east side of Xerxes Avenue. This alternative could be constructed as just a one -sided pullout or as a two -sided island. If a two -sided island were constructed, the buses could also use the east side of the curb by driving south along the . shopping center ring road. This may interfere with traffic on Xerxes Avenue, but the volumes on Xerxes Avenue are not large enough to create a major problem. The pedestrian activity across Xerxes Avenue will be high and will need to be accommodated for. Xerxes Avenue is a State Aid street, and it may not be desirable to locate a transit hub on this type of facility. 3. The third option is to move the transit hub across Xerxes Avenue to the Baker's Square property. This option would also create a large amount of pedestrian traffic across Xerxes Avenue destined to the mall. Any of these options will require pedestrian accessibility to the shopping center. One option would be to construct a covered walkway from the transit hub location to the nearest mall entrance. 11.0 Pedestrians It is important that pedestrians be accommodated for, especially between the transit hub and the shopping center. The pedestrian issues will vary slightly, depending on where the transit hub is finally located. They can be accommodated for in a variety of ways including sidewalk, a covered walkway, or a designated pedestrian path through the parking lot. Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 20 • N W E S Z County Road 10 0 .I 3 �a 0� • m w a E F1 LE N0. AB N0. Possible Transit Hub Relocations FIGURE DATE Brookdale Area Traffic Study 10 2/22/99 BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA There is a large amount of pedestrian activity between the Brookdale site • and the properties west of Xerxes Avenue and also across County Road 10 near Northway Drive. There are currently sidewalks at the major intersections, but not along the west side or north side of the mall property. If a sidewalk or trail were built along the perimeter, it would promote more walking and biking to and from Brookdale Center. The Shingle Creek Corridor pedestrian trail currently crosses the Brookdale Center property between the intersection of County Road 10 /Shingle Creek Parkway and the pedestrian bridge across TH 100. This connection should be maintained, although modified, through the reconfigured parking area on the east side of the property. Bicycle parking facilities should also be provided at the major entrances to the mall. The facilities could either be bike racks or bike lockers. 12.0 Summary 1. Based on the 20 -year forecasted turning movement counts at the intersections adjacent to Brookdale Center, there will be no adverse affects on the signalized intersections, due to the mall expansion. The intersections have enough capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic. • 2. The unsignalized intersection at Xerxes and 55th Avenue will meet warrants for a traffic signal with the additional traffic from the Brooklyn Center expansion. The intersection at Xerxes and 56th Avenue may need a signal in the future, which would require additional study. 3. The amount of vehicle storage at the 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue driveways - both inbound and outbound - will not be adequate based on the proposed geometrics. The storage problems will mostly be contained on the Brookdale property and should not affect the operation of the City streets close to this intersection. If the backups prove to be unbearable, Brookdale will need to perform mitigation measures in order to alleviate the problems. Some possible options are discussed in Section 6. 4. The supply and layout of parking next to the theater entrance of the mall will not be able to accommodate the demand from the theater patrons plus the retail shoppers. The proposed location of parking relative to the theater entrances and exits would require theater patrons to walk a longer distance. Additional parking on the west side of the mall would ease the parking demand and allow more convenient access to the movie theater. • Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 22 5. Pedestrians will need to be accommodated for between Brookdale • Center and the new transit hub. It is also desirable to construct a sidewalk or trail along the perimeter of the mall property in order to promote pedestrian activities. 6. Concrete islands should be installed at the end of the parking rows in sufficient numbers to delineate the drive edge and establish the parking lot pattern. 7. The amount and location of parking next to Building No. 1 is not adequate or easily accessible. • • Brookdale Area Traffic Study BROCT9809.00 Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Page 23 0 Appendix The Level -of- Service (LOS) of a signalized intersection is defined in terms of delay, or more specifically, average stopped delay per vehicle. LOS is rated on a scale of A to F, with A being ideal conditions. A brief description of LOS criteria for signalized intersections follows: LOS A - This represents the ideal situation with average delays between 0 and 5 seconds per vehicle. LOS B - This represents good operations and average delays between 5 and 15 seconds per vehicle. LOS C - Traffic operations are still acceptable and average delays are between 15 and 25 seconds per vehicle. LO - S D At this level, it is still likely that each vehicle approaching a signalized intersection will proceed through during one green light. Average delays are between 25 and 40 seconds per vehicle. Level of Service D is the current Metropolitan Council Standard for design of permanent roadway improvements involving 20 -year projections. LOS E - Traffic will begin to break down at this level. It is likely that a signalized intersection can process all the vehicles during one cycle. Average delays are in the range of 40 to 60 seconds per vehicle. . LOS F - This represents a condition where traffic demand exceeds the roadway and intersection supply. Traffic generally has to wait more than one cycle to proceed through the intersection. Average delays are greater than 60 seconds per vehicle. The Level -of- Service (LOS) of an unsignalized intersection is defined in terms of total delay, which is measured from the time a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until it gets through the intersection. LOS is rated on a scale of A to F with A being ideal conditions. The criteria for LOS for stop controlled intersections follows: LOS A - Under 5 seconds /vehicle LOS B - Between 5 and 10 seconds /vehicle LOS C - Between 10 and 20 seconds /vehicle LOS D - Between 20 and 30 seconds /vehicle LOS E - Between 30 and 45 seconds /vehicle LOS F - Over 45 seconds /vehicle • • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Stephen Erdmann, Rex Newman, Sean Rahn, Dianne Reem, and John Whitehead were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, City Engineer Scott Brink, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Mary Mullen. OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Warren administered oath of office to John E. Whitehead, appointed to the Planning Commission for a term that will expire on December 31, 1999. • Mr. Warren noted that with the appointment of Mr. Whitehead, the Planning Commission is now at full membership. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 28. 1999 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve the minutes of the January 28, 1999 meeting as submitted. Commissioner Newman abstained. The motion passed. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 99001 (TALISMAN BR.QQKDALE. LLC) Chair Willson introduced Application No. 99001, a request submitted by Talisman Brookdale LLC for zoning approval for expansion and redevelopment of the Brookdale Shopping Center. Mr. Warren presented the staff report and used overhead transparencies to show the location of the property and describe the proposed site plan submitted by the applicant. (See attached Planning • Commission Application Information Sheet dated 2 -25 -99 for Application No. 99001.) 2 -25 -99 1 • The plan proposed by Talisman Brookdale LLC calls for the demolition and reconfiguration of the main level at the west end of Brookdale Shopping Center as well as a 2nd floor addition above the main level which extends somewhat over the parking lot. The proposed 2nd floor addition will accommodate a 20- screen theater complex while the main floor reconfiguration would include a large food court and retail spaces. The proposal also includes a 13,000 square foot addition at the north end of Brookdale Shopping Center adjacent to Dayton's to include 2 potential restaurant locations, and a 13,000 square foot addition at the southeast corner adjacent to Dayton's to include retail space. The proposal also includes the demolition of the JC Penney Auto Center and the addition of five retail and restaurant out buildings. The applicant is seeking immediate approval for an Applebee's Restaurant on one of the outbuilding sites. The proposed plans for the remaining four outbuildings require conceptual approval only and building elevations, exteriors and actual details must be submitted to the Commission by the applicant before final approval is granted. The plan includes a number of requests for special consideration which are modifications of existing City ordinance requirements which are necessary to facilitate the proposed development of the shopping center. These requests include greenstrip modifications, setback modifications, parking formula considerations, parking standard deviations and sign ordinance modifications. • Mr. Warren stressed the importance of the Commission's consideration of the entire area as Brookdale, although all square footage is not under the same roof, as all the outbuildings involved will impact the gross leasable footage and parking formulas. He stated that Pam Maki and Glenn Van Wormer from Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) were available to answer questions regarding the traffic study completed by their firm. He added that a resolution for the Commission's consideration would be presented and a public hearing was scheduled. Chair Willson called for questions on the application from the Commissioners. Commissioner Boeck requested clarification of several points presented by Mr. Warren in the staff report, expressing his belief that several requests included in the proposal are not required. He stated the Commission must maintain Brookdale as a viable commercial center while at the same time preventing its degradation. He agreed that additional signage on Highway 100 is a necessary marketing ploy. Commissioner Boeck asked whether the setback modification of 5 feet for greenstrip areas applies to buildings as well as pavement, particularly along County Road 10. Mr. Warren clarified that the requested modification was for a 5 ft. greenstrip setback in certain locations and a 35 ft. building setback for one building on Xerxes and one on County Road 10. Commissioner Boeck expressed his concern that the appeal of County Road 10 as a wide boulevard would be lost if buildings were • built closer to the road. 2 -25 -99 2 • Commissioner Boeck asked whether it will be necessary to grant the parking aisle size modifications for the shopping center to accommodate all retailers. He asked whether the fact that some tenants own their property will affect the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Warren stated the application involves multiple ownership as many of the shopping center's retailers, including Sear's Penney's, Dayton's and Mervyn's are separately owned. Commissioner Boeck asked whether the City ordinance for Planned Unit Development requires single ownership. Mr. Warren stated the ordinance requires unified ownership and common agreements have already been established for Brookdale. He noted other owners have been notified of the proposal. Commissioner Boeck asked whether the other owners must be part of the agreement. Mr. Warren stated he was unsure and the issue would be clarified by the City Attorney. He added that Talisman has negotiated with other owners and apparently obtained their approval. Commissioner Newman requested clarification with regard to the 5 foot greenstrip variance. Mr. Warren stated the area in question is along a portion of Xerxes Avenue and a portion of County Road 10. A 15 foot wide green area is required by City ordinance. He added the applicant is requesting a 5 foot greenstrip area to accommodate necessary parking, and the variance does not affect current right -of -ways. Commissioner Rahn asked whether a location had been determined for the transit hub. Mr. Warren stated a transit hub is not part of the current proposal by the applicant, although there is ongoing • discussion with regard to possible transit hub location around the area. In response to a question by Commissioner Reem, Commissioner Boeck stated the applicant is suggesting a retaining wall could be constructed along the boulevard which would not permit much planting, adding this will be a concern for City Engineers when addressing snow removal issues. Commissioner Boeck asked for clarification with regard to the allowance of 20% of gross leasable space due to mixed or shared uses. Mr. Warren stated there are various uses on the proposed site: restaurants, retail, theaters, and each has separate parking requirements. He added restaurant parking formulas are based on seats and employees regardless of square footage which is usually a higher requirement than retail space. He stated that the addition of a restaurant into an already established shopping center generally requires more parking to be added above and beyond the normal retail parking formula. The ordinance, currently allows up to 15 percent of the retail space in a commercial center to be used for restaurant without any additional parking. The modification requested would allow up to 20 percent without requiring additional parking. Commissioner Reem asked whether the issue of Extended Stay was a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Warren confirmed this, stating the underlying zone of Planned Unit Development for extended stay was the industrial park zone where fast food and gas stations were not permitted. He added the shopping center is zoned C -2 and fast food is allowed. He suggested that fast food restrictions would not be appropriate for the food court or perimeter areas of the shopping center as they provide draws • to the area. 2 -25 -99 3 • Commissioner Boeck asked whether the parking stall width proposed complies with current City requirements. Mr. Warren stated the parking space width allowable is 8 feet 8 inches which is what the applicant shows on the plan.. Mr. Brink stated the proposed aisle width is acceptable. Commissioner Boeck asked for clarification with regard to the applicant's request concerning occupancy and the Building Code requirement with regard to tenant mix (Item 11, Talisman Brookdale LLC Application No. 99001). Mr. Warren stated the PUD is concerned with zoning issues. This particular item involves the building code and is not a PUD item. The Building Official. is reviewing the matter and will need to make a determination based on the Building Code. Commissioner_ Boeck asked whether the transit hub could be located in the southwest corner of the property near Sear's. Mr. Warren stated he believes that area is currently used as service parking for the automotive center, but could be used for general parking. He added that parking area will be attractive for theater patrons. Commissioner Boeck asked whether the approval of new traffic signals at 56th Street and Xerxes Avenue would be included in the resolution. Mr. Warren stated that could be added as an additional item. Chair Willson invited Glenn Van Wormer (SEH) to address the Commission and answer questions with regard to the traffic study. Mr. Van Wormer stated the Commission had received draft copies of the traffic report, the final draft of which was presented to the City Engineer that day. He added that the analysis of traffic patterns is an important aspect of the redevelopment of the shopping center. Commissioner Erdmann stated the traffic study references a recommendation of concrete islands installed on outer ends of the traffic rows. He asked whether other regional malls have installed such islands and whether they are effective in delineating parking areas. Mr. Van Wormer stated some malls install concrete islands on some corners and every other parking aisle, adding the purpose is to provide delineation for the drive aisle and provide parking guidance for parkers. He stated these islands are very helpful in winter. Mr. Warren stated there is some delineation at the Northway Drive entrance to the shopping center which was added since Brookdale was built, but there is little delineation throughout the parking lot. He added this aspect is critical to the traffic circulation of the center. Commissioner Erdmann agreed, stating there will also be increased traffic so delineation will be necessary. Commissioner Boeck stated the 63 foot parking aisle was adapted for snow storage and removal, and reducing that to 60 feet will put a burden on the developers to remove snow or reduce the parking space size. Chair Willson stated the traffic study mentions the possibility of a parking deck on the west side of . the shopping center and requested clarification. Mr. Van Wormer stated different opportunities to provide parking were discussed in the final traffic study report, adding another possibility is to entice 2 -25 -99 4 theater patrons to use other mall entrances for a more enjoyable, indoor walk. Chair Willson stated theater patrons will probably not use other mall entrances. Commissioner Boeck asked whether there will be concern or objections from other property owners, such as Mervyn's, when theater patrons park on their property. Mr. Warren stated the property owners do not have the right to determine who parks on their property. He added agreements have been established allowing cross access and parking over the entire shopping center. Mr. Warren stated the Commission has reviewed plans in the past where the parking layout is questionable for efficiency. He added there are numerous parking spaces in the shopping center parking lot which will not be in demand but are necessary to meet peak requirements. He stated that current parking seems to be sufficient to meet the demands of the expanded shopping center and parking issues are the concern of the developer. Mr. Van Wormer agreed, stating major retailers ensure they have sufficient parking for their customers. Chair Willson asked whether the City will strongly enforce parking regulations along Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Warren stated that Xerxes Avenue is a state aid street, parking is not allowed and parking restrictions would be enforced. Mr. Brink confirmed there is parking restriction signage along Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Warren stated theater patron parking could pose potential problems for businesses on the other side of Xerxes Avenue. • Chair Willson asked for clarification with regard to traffic signal proposals. Mr. Van Wormer stated all 7 outside intersections were studied on weekdays and Saturdays, and service levels determined at each intersection. He added a traffic signal would be necessary at the 55th Street and Xerxes Avenue intersection with the proposed expansion and it is highly likely a signal at 56th and Xerxes will be needed, rather than a four -way stop, to provide for proper traffic flow. i Commissioner Boeck stated that the intersection at 55th Street and Xerxes Avenue is the most restrictive area with regard to traffic and stacking. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the addition of a traffic signal will not solve the problem. He added that inbound traffic does not stop at the ring road. Chair Willson asked whether there is enough room for traffic to stack between traffic lights on Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Van Wormer stated there would be some back -up but not enough to cause a problem. Commissioner Boeck stated the 56th Street access supports the idea that an outbuilding should not be permitted just south of 56th Street, and that parking would have to be discontinuous as there is insufficient parking in that area for an outbuilding. He added traffic will be impacted at that access from the mall out to Xerxes Avenue. He suggested the Commission should not allow construction of Building # 1 at that location. Mr. Van Wormer stated that the concern at any ring road is that when the intersection is moved farther in and the ring road situated farther out, pedestrians will have to cross the ringroad and walk • some distance to reach the mall. 2 -25 -99 5 • Commissioner Erdmann expressed concern that this would cause an increased potential for pedestrian conflicts once the bus hub is moved,;possibly on the other side of Xerxes Avenue or further away from Brookdale. He added that a sidewalk or pedestrian walkway to prevent pedestrians moving randomly through the parking lot should be considered. Mr. Van Wormer stated the transit hub had been discussed with the Metropolitan Transit Commission, and wherever it is located there will be pedestrian movement. He added an aisle should be defined for pedestrians. Commissioner Erdmann agreed, stating a single path should be defined between the mall and the bus hub. Commissioner Boeck asked whether the bus shelter could be located across from the mall at the northwest corner. Mr. Van Wormer stated many bus passengers might not cross the street to shop at the mall, although he has no data to support that assumption. Commissioner Whitehead left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ( APPLICATION NO. 99001 - TALI SMAN BROOKDALE LLC) There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Boeck, to open the public hearing on Application No. 99001 at 10:16 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Larry Radzville, Talisman Corporation, Coral Gables, FL, addressed the Commission regarding • traffic issues raised. He stated the delineation of the roadway system currently exists within the shopping center parking lot, and the proposed plan includes sidewalks and an island system which will improve the traffic and pedestrian flow. He added that a series of new light poles along the perimeter road will increase lighting which is currently insufficient. Mr. Radzville stated a parking deck would be an proposition as it would supply more congestion via internal ramps and helixes and would be acceptable by today's standards. He added the developer's hope is to encourage theater patrons to use parking areas which are more distant from the theater but near a mall entrance as the mall. He stated the mall owners have made a commitment with its tenants that the mall will remain open until after the last shows are out. John Guckert, The Traffic Group, Towson, MD, presented a site plan exhibit which depicted the basic layout of the property including the parking field and primary entrance to the theater. He stated the theater will have its peak activity at 8:30 - 9:00 p.m. as mall activity begins to wind down. He added that in the evening during peak times, there will be a maximum amount of parking available in close proximity to the theaters, and the developer feels comfortable that there is sufficient parking even at peak. Commissioner Boeck asked how many total seats the theater will have. Mr. Guckert stated there will be 4,200 seats. • Mr. Radzville referred to a question which had been raised with regard to shared parking and property owners. He stated that as part of the developer's agreement with mall property owners, 2 -25 -99 6 their approval must be obtained prior to redevelopment. He added that each property owner had been met with and all were in agreement. Mr. Radzville stated, with regard to the bus transit area, a walkway will be provided for pedestrians. He added that the best possible site for the transit station is currently under discussion. Commissioner Boeck asked whether Mr. Radzville preferred to have a bus transit area on site. Mr. Radzile stated it is not preferred due to space constraints. Commissioner Boeck asked whether smaller stops at various locations could be provided for buses to transport people to a remote location. Mr. Radzville stated all possibilities are being discussed. Mr. Warren stated the Metropolitan Transit Commission would like to see regional malls as transit hubs because of traffic levels and desirability of travel across suburbs. He added the issue is whether the hub must be located on Brookdale mall property, while taking into consideration the fact that the mall would benefit from being served by mass transit. Commissioner Erdmann stated the proposed plan does not indicate any additional lighting or changes to lighting around the perimeter. Mr. Radzville stated that the modification of parking space sizes would change lighting needs. Commissioner Erdmann stated the use of concrete islands at the end of parking aisles would help • people park properly and keep traffic entering and exiting the ringroad in an orderly manner. Mr. Radzville stated the delineated aisles control traffic and diminish cross -aisle traffic. Commissioner Newman asked whether the developer anticipated any other late night uses of mall property. Mr. Radzville stated the theater will be the last event to take place with the last crew leaving by 1:00 a.m. Commissioner Newman asked for clarification with regard to the type and style of signage to be used along Highway 100. Mr. Radzville stated their company utilizes several types of signs, and the theater sign will be a decorative marquee at the theater entrance without flashing lights. He added that one sign on Highway 100 will be a theater identification LED sign continuously running the features being shown at the theater, and the other will be a regional mall identification sign. John Johannsen, Welsh Companies, Bloomington, MN, spoke in favor of the proposed development by Talisman Brookdale LLC, encouraging the Commission to move ahead with the application. He added that his company has been involved in the redevelopment of 6 strip centers in Brooklyn Center. He expressed his support of signage along Highway 100. Mr. Johannsen stated he is currently involved in the redevelopment of a business on the other side of Xerxes Avenue, and expressed concern that the traffic overflow from the theaters does not spill over into the roads and onto private property. He added the developer should cover all road . improvement and traffic light expenses. 2 -25 -99 7 • Chair Willson asked how theater patrons will access the theater on the 2nd level. Mr. Radzville stated there will be an elevator, escalator and stairway in the development. Chair Willson asked for a timeline with regard to the redevelopment plans. Mr. Radzville stated the only areas slated for future development are the outbuildings, while development of the west end is slated for fall /winter 2000. He added that work will commence on the interior additions at mall entrances in July 1999, demolition in Fall 1999, and exterior work early in 2000. He stated the areas to be developed near Shingle Creek will require further discussion and study. Chair Willson asked whether further changes would be brought before the Commission for approval. Mr. Warren stated the developers will request approval when plans for the outbuildings are finalized. He added since the Commission has concerns with regard to Building #1, that issue should be given more consideration. Mr. Radzville stated that the required 15 foot greenstrip setback will not allow for sufficient building and parking space. He added the development plan includes a landscape scheme proposing a shrub hedge which would provide a natural, visible barrier and would be attractive and green most of the year. Chair Willson expressed his preference of a wall to handle pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Boeck asked what kind of shrub could be maintained in a 5 foot space. David Tupper, Artech Corporation, stated he is the landscape architect for Talisman Brookdale LLC, • and reviewed the proposed landscape plan to include a shrub hedge which would grow to 4 -5 feet in height and would require some trimming as it gets older. He added that fill would be necessary to build the keystone retaining wall, and there is concern over plant loss in that area. Mr. Warren stated a 3 -foot wall would be preferable to attempting to maintain a shrub in a 5 foot area. Commissioner Boeck asked what the grade percentage is from the curb on Xerxes Avenue to the mall property line. Mr. Tupper stated the grade appears to be level to the eye, and is burmed slightly near Midas. Mr. Radzville stated the pedestrian walkway would be developed with the City's help to tie in with the pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Erdmann stated the City Engineer had expressed concern with regard to supporting a drain without piling. He asked whether that will be an issue. Todd McCloud, John Oliver Associates, stated he is the project engineer, adding that borings will need to be completed before the design is finalized. Commissioner Erdmann asked where the new pipe will drain.water off the site. Mr. McCloud stated that the pipe would run parallel to the creek to the existing manhole which drains under Highway 100. • 2 -25 -99 8 • Lance Sturges, Talisman Corporation, Coral Gables, FL, stated he believes much progress has been made, and the outbuildings are important to them for financial reasons. He added he believes the project is a quality development and much hard work has been done. He expressed his company's willingness to cooperate with the Commission through receptiveness to its ideas and comments. He expressed the importance of creating an entity which will withstand competition for years to come. Commissioner Boeck expressed his appreciation of the developer's willingness to comply with and work with the Commission, adding that should be the basis of the Commission's approval. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO. 99001) There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman to close the public hearing at 10:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Warren reviewed the proposed Resolution No. 99 -02 which listed the applicants, square footage and additions under the Planned Unit Development. He added the resolution includes plans for the freestanding Building #1 and conceptual approval for other outbuildings as well as improvements at the north entrance site and south entrance site for retail. Mr. Warren reviewed 15 conditions and considerations listed in the resolution, adding that he wished to present 2 additional conditions for the Commission's review. He stated the 16th condition would require that the cost of any additional traffic signals would be the responsibility of the applicant. • Mr. Warren stated the 17th condition would require plan modification to show a) a 3 to 3 -1/2 foot decorative masonry wall where greenstrip areas are less than 15 feet; b) the elimination of access from the perimeter road to the parking lot east of Building #3; and c) indication of location and continuance of Shingle Creek Regional Trail through the parking lot. ACTION RECOMMEN APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 99 -02 WITH AMENDMENTS There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve Resolution 99 -02 regarding disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC, with the following changes: Page 1, Item 5, approve the addition of three additional freestanding restaurants and/or retail buildings instead of four. Page 2, Item 3, eliminate 2nd bullet, pertaining to a 35 foot non -major thoroughfare setback, in its entirety. Commissioner Erdmann expressed his support of preserving the allowance of the 35 foot setback which is necessary to make this plan economically feasible as it will accommodate required parking. He added County Road 10 is a wide road due to the electricity pylons in the median, and not for an aesthetic boulevard effect as suggested by Commissioner Boeck. • Commissioner Boeck stated the setback allowance should not be based on economics. 2 -25 -99 9 • Commissioner Erdmann stated that a lesser setback should be allowed for various reasons, such as the creation of a more pedestrian- friendly streetscape. He added that 50 foot setbacks would not greatly improve the aesthetics of the area. Voting in favor: Commissioners Boeck and Reem. Voting against: Chair Willson, Commissioners Erdmann, Newman, and Rahn. The motion was denied. Commissioner Boeck suggested that the Commission consider the elimination of the proposed development of building pad #1 from the resolution. Chair Willson stated that Item 3 on Page 2 relates to deviations from the City ordinance. Mr. Warren stated that Item 5 on Page 1 also relates to what the applicant has proposed, not what has been approved. Commissioner Newman asked for clarification with regard to the nature of conceptual approval. Mr. Warren stated such approval is in concept only and actual building plans must be submitted to the Commission and Council for final approval before building permits can be obtained. The location and square footage are all that is approved. ACTION RECOMMENDING? APPROVAL OF ADDITIO OF CONDITION TO RESOLUTION 99 -02 There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann to approve the addition of Condition #16, relating to cost of any additional traffic signals which would be the • responsibility of the applicant. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, OF ADDITION OF CONDITION TO RESOLUTION There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to approve the addition of Condition #17A, relating to plan modification to show a 3 to 3 -1/2 foot high decorative masonry wall where greenstrip areas are less than 15 feet. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ADDITION OF CONDITION TO RESOLUTION There was a motion by Commissioner Erdmann, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to approve the addition of Condition #17B, relating to the elimination of access from the perimeter road to the parking lot east of Building #3. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDTNG APPROVAL OF ADDITION OF CON DITION TO R ESOLUTION 99 -02 _ � There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to approve the . addition of Condition #17C, relating to indication of location and continuance of Shingle Creek Regional Trail through the parking lot. The motion passed unanimously. • ACTION RECOMMENDIN APPROVAL OF ADDITION OF CONDITION TO RF SnLIJTION 99 -02 2 -25 -99 10 • There was a motion by Commissioner Erdmann, seconded by Commissioner Boeck, to approve the addition of Condition #17D, relating to the removal of the development of building pad #1. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVA OF RESOLUTION 99 -02 WITH AMENDMENTS There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve Resolution 99 -02, regarding disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC with amendments approved above. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Warren stated the application will be forwarded the City Council for consideration at their March 8, 1999 regular meeting. Commissioner Newman asked whether the amended resolution would be included in the minutes. Mr. Warren confirmed the resolution would be amended, submitted for signature by the Chair and presentation to the City Council, and included in the minutes. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Willson noted there was no other business to discuss. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Boeck, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 • p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Mary Mullen TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 2 -25 -99 11 Member Graydon Boeck introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. - 99 -02 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 99001 SUBMITTED BY TALISMAN BROOKDALE, LLC. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC proposes a rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /C -2 of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center which is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east and south by T. H. 100 and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building plan approval for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center to include the following; 1. The reconfiguration of the west end of the mall including an 89,650 sq. ft. second floor to include a 20 screen, 4,252 seat theater; 2. An approximate 13,200 sq. ft. addition to the north entrance to the mall for two restaurant sites; 3. An approximate 13,000 sq. ft. addition for general retail use and revised mall entry way along the southerly side of the complex adjacent to Dayton's; 4. A 4,650 sq. ft. freestanding Applebee's restaurant building along Xerxes Avenue North, northerly of the 56th Avenue entrance to the Brookdale Center; 5. Conceptual approval, subject to further Planning Commission and City Council review and approval, of four additional freestanding restaurant and /or retail buildings to be located around the perimeter of the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 25, 1999, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received; and WHEREAS, ffe Planning Commission considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings 1 contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355 and the City's Comprehensive Plan. i 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance and will allow for the redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Mall which is a unique development within the City of Brooklyn Center and whose viability is considered to be vital to the stabilization of other commercial properties within the community. 2. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimen tary P to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the rezoning and Planned -w Unit Development proposal will conform with city ordinance standards for the most part with the exception of the following allowed variations from the zoning ordinance which are considered reasonable standards to apply to this proposal: • Allow 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. greeenstrips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3 '/2 ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects (this standard has been allowed in other areas within the city). • Allow a 35 ft., or non -major thoroughfare setback for certain out building locations based on variances that have been allowed for other commercial buildings along major thoroughfares and seem appropriate in this location as well. • Allow a 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area rather than the 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area required based on the shared parking analysis provided and on Urban Land Institute Methodology indicating a maximum of 5,133 parking spaces as being needed for the Brookdale Mall given the mix of uses and square footages proposed in order to meet the 2 maximum weekday and weekend hourly demand, which is also in keeping with at least two major regional malls in the area. '�.. Allow the 60 ft. wide parking dimension standard for 90 degree parking rather than the 63 ft. required separation based on the fact that Brookdale has previously been allowed to have the 60 ft. parking standard and it appears that it would work in this situation. • Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100 based on the uniqueness of the size, diversity of uses and significance of Brookdale Mall. • Allow an increase from 15 percent to 20 percent of the allowable restaurant use without requiring additional parking at Brookdale based on the uniqueness of Brookdale, the mix of uses and dynamics of multiple stops per person at the Center. 4. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development appear to be a good utilization of the property under consideration and the redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Regional Mall are an important long range use for the existing property and are considered to be an asset to the community. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 99001 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 1 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior 3 to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on- ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The buildings and building additions are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all new landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances with the exception of allowing two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100. 8. Plan approval acknowledges a proof of parking for the Brookdale Shopping Center based on providing 5,700 parking spaces on site. The applicants are allowed to retain the existing parking configuration except where required modifications are to be made based on building expansions or additions. New parking lot construction or reconfiguration shall require concrete parking delineators as approved by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall submit as built surveys of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter in an easement agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. 12. Approval of the application is subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to storm drainage systems. Effective compensating storage shall be approved prior to the construction and filling for the proposed building No. 5 on the site plan. 4 13. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall acknowledge the various modifications to city ordinances and the rationale for allowing such deviations by the City Council and the conditions of approval to assure compliance with the approved development plans. 14. Plan approval is granted for the Applebee's Restaurant building as presented (Building No. 2 on the site plan). 15. Conceptual approval only is granted for three other out buildings shown on the site plan as Building No. 3, Building No. 4 and Building No. 5. Planning Commission review and City Council approval in the form of a Planned Unit Development amendment shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits for these buildings. 16. The costs for traffic signals at the 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue intersections with Xerxes Avenue shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 17. The plans shall be modified to show: a. A 3 ft. to 3 'h ft. high decorative masonry wall in locations other than along T. H. 100 where greenstrips are less than 15 ft. b. The elimination of the access from the perimeter road to the parking lot east of Building No. 3. C. The location of the Shingle Creek Regional Corridor Trail through the Brookdale parking lot. d. The removal of Building No. 1 which is not part of the conceptual approval granted at this time. Date Chair AT EST: Secretary 5 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dianne Reem and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Erdmann, Newman, Rahn and Reem. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 6 • adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 99001 SUBMITTED BY TALISMAN BROOKDALE, LLC. WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC proposes a rezoning from C -2 (Commerce) to PUD /C -2 of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center which is bounded on the north by County Road 10, on the east and south by T. H. 100 and on the west by Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building plan approval for the expansion, redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Shopping Center to include the following; 1. The reconfiguration of the west end of the mall including an 89,650 sq. ft. second floor to include a 20 screen, 4,252 seat theater; 2. An approximate 13,200 sq. ft. addition to the north entrance to the mall for • two restaurant sites; 3. An approximate 13,000 sq. ft. addition for general retail use and revised mall entry way along the southerly side of the complex adjacent to Dayton's; 4. A 4,650 sq. ft. freestanding Applebee's restaurant building along Xerxes Avenue North, northerly of the 56th Avenue entrance to the Brookdale Center; 5. Conceptual approval, subject to further Planning Commission and City Council review and approval, of four additional freestanding restaurant and /or retail buildings to be located around the perimeter of the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 25, 1999, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plan were received; and - WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 99001 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 99 -02 on February 25, 1999; and • • RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 99001 at its March 8, 1999 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the rezoning and site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35 -355, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center to approve Application No. 99001 submitted by Talisman Brookdale, LLC in light of the following considerations: 1. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance and will allow for the redevelopment and rejuvenation of the Brookdale Regional Mall which is a unique development within the City of Brooklyn Center and whose viability is considered to be vital to the stabilization of other commercial properties within the community. 2. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will conform with city ordinance standards for the most part with the exception of the following allowed variations from the zoning ordinance which are considered reasonable standards to apply to this proposal: • Allow 5 ft. rather than 15 ft. greeenstrips at certain locations where an appropriate 3 to 3 lh ft. high decorative masonry wall shall be installed to offset negative effects (this standard has been allowed in other areas within the city). I . RESOLUTION NO. • Allow a 35 ft., or non -major thoroughfare setback for certain out building locations based on variances that have been allowed for other commercial buildings along major thoroughfares and seem appropriate in this location as well. • Allow a 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area rather than the 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area required based on the shared parking analysis provided and on Urban Land Institute Methodology indicating a maximum of 5,133 parking spaces as being needed for the Brookdale Mall given the mix of uses and square footages proposed in order to meet the maximum weekday and weekend hourly demand, which is also in keeping with at least two major regional malls in the area. • Allow the 60 ft. wide parking dimension standard for 90 degree parking rather than the 63 ft. required separation based on the fact that Brookdale has previously been allowed to have the 60 ft. • parking standard and it appears that it would work in this situation. • Allow two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100 based on the uniqueness of the size, diversity of uses and significance of Brookdale Mall. • Allow an increase from 15 percent to 20 percent of the allowable restaurant use without requiring additional parking at Brookdale based on the uniqueness of Brookdale, the mix of uses and dynamics of multiple stops per person at the Center. 4. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The rezoning and Planned Unit Development appear to be a good utilization of the property under consideration and the redevelopment and rejuvenation of Brookdale Regional Mall are an important long range use for the existing property and are considered to be an asset to the community. • • RESOLUTION NO. 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that approval of Application No. 99001 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official _with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all approved site • improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The buildings and building additions are to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all new landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances with the exception of allowing two freestanding signs up to 320 sq. ft. in area along T. H. 100. 8. Plan approval acknowledges a proof of parking for the Brookdale Shopping Center based on providing 5,700 parking spaces on site. . RESOLUTION NO. The applicants are allowed to retain the existing parking configuration except where required modifications are to be made based on building expansions or additions. New parking lot construction or reconfiguration shall require concrete parking delineators as approved by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall submit as built surveys of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter in an easement agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 11. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. 12. Approval of the application is subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to storm drainage systems. Effective compensating storage shall be approved prior to the construction and filling for the proposed building No. 5 on the site plan. 13. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall acknowledge the various modifications to city ordinances and the rationale for allowing such deviations by the City Council and the conditions of approval to assure compliance with the approved development plans. 14. Plan approval is granted for the Applebee's Restaurant building as presented (Building No. 2 on the site plan). 15. Conceptual approval only is granted for three other out buildings shown on the site plan as Building No. 3, Building No. 4 and Building No. 5. Planning Commission review and City Council approval in the form of a Planned Unit Development amendment shall be obtained prior to the issuance of building permits for these. buildings. • RESOLUTION NO. 16. The costs for traffic signals at the 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue intersections with Xerxes Avenue shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 17. The plans shall be modified to show: a. A 3 ft. to 3 '/a ft. high decorative masonry wall in locations other than along T. H. 100 where greenstrips are less than 15 ft. b. The elimination of the access from the perimeter road to the parking lot east of Building No. 3. C. The location of the Shingle Creek Regional Corridor Trail through the Brookdale parking lot. d. The removal of Building No. 1 which is not part of the conceptual approval granted at this time. • 18. Applicant shall enter into a development agreement, in a form approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, that assures that adequate provision will be made to accommodate public mass transit circulating through the parking lot of the center and to allow for passengers to be dropped off and picked up at the center. The applicant shall not be required to provide space or accommodations for mass transit vehicles parking, stacking, or laying over; for parking of privately owned vehicles of mass transit patrons; or for the transfer of passengers between mass transit vehicles. 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. • • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing ill be held on the 12th day of Aril, 1999, at g Y P 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an amendment to Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND (BROOKDALE) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: • Section 35 -1190. COMMERCE DISTRICT (C -2). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (C -2) Commerce District zoning classification: That area bounded by the following: County Road No. 10 on the north; Xerxe Avenue on the east: State Highway No. 100 on the south; �t� g Y � .5� --�' Highway No. 152 ( Brooklvn Boulevard) on the west. Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. 1151. Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development District zoning classification: 4. The following properties are designated as PUD /C -2 (Planned Unit Development /Commerce) : That area bounded by the followin : County Road No. 10 on the nor; State Highway ).Q0 ()n the east and south: Xerxes Avenue on the west, except for Tract A. Registered Land Survev No. 1151. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. • • ORDINANCE NO. Adopted this day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) • • i i City Council Agenda Item No. 9a • • MEMO To: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager / n From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist - Date: March 3, 1999 Subject: Ordinance Prohibiting the Parking of Certain Vehicles You have requested me to provide you with background information relating to the adoption of Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12 of the city ordinances which prohibits the parking and storage of certain vehicles in residential areas within the city. This section of the ordinance was adopted on December 5, 1988, as Ordinance No. 88 -20 and became effective on June 1, 1989. The City Council adopted this ordinance after receiving • citizen complaints and approximately two years of study and deliberation regarding the matter of allowing commercial vehicles to be parked in residential areas. It was part of an overall effort by the City Council that began in about June of 1987 to strengthen and maintain the residential character of the city's neighborhoods and prohibit conditions that were deemed to unreasonably annoy, injure or endanger the safety, health, comfort and repose of members of the public in these residential areas. Other nuisance regulations, such as Sections 19 -103 Subdivisions 13 and 14 were also adopted around this time for the same general reasons. This was a time of major concern on the part of the City Council of what seemed to be a general deterioration of the residential areas within the city and it was really the start of the code enforcement efforts that have expanded and are continuing today. The City Council, prior to adopting Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12, held a number of hearings on this matter. The original ordinance proposal to limit commercial vehicle size began in June, 1988. There was support as well as disagreement over the benefits of the prohibition involving the parking of trucks and commercial vehicles in residential areas. The Council reviewed a number of drafts of possible ordinance language dealing with this question. In fact, two homeowners that were truck drivers that had parked or stored their trucks at home appeared before the City Council to object to the ordinance noting the inconvenience such a prohibition would cause them. Another individual objected claiming the ordinance would put him out of his food delivery business. The City Council considered these opinions as well as other opinions expressed at the various public hearings. After much deliberation, they adopted the current ordinance provision in December of 1988 and established June 1, 1989, as the effective date of • Michael McCauley March 3, 1999 Page 2 the ordinance to give people who parked or stored prohibited vehicles that would be in violation of the newly adopted regulations an opportunity to make necessary arrangements to relocate these vehicles. Attached for your review are copies of City Council minutes relating to the consideration of this ordinance amendment which may give some added insight into the Council's rationale for the adoption of those provisions at that time. The City Council even considered the possibility of allowing the parking of some commercial vehicles which may be associated with a home business. The possibility of establishing a special use permit for such activity was considered but was rejected after further review. It has since been standard for the City Council to establish a condition prohibiting the parking of vehicles which are in violation of the ordinances as part of any consideration of a home occupation. The enforcement of this ordinance began around July, 1989, with people in violation of the ordinance being sent letters giving them 30 days notice to comply or face receiving citations for misdemeanor violations. This has generally been the way the ordinance has been enforced since • the time of its adoption. Compliance has been good; but has caused some inconvenience to people who have had to make various changes or other arrangements for the parking and storage of their vehicles. The ordinance was reaffirmed by the City Council in consideration of an appeal which was submitted in hopes of allowing the parking of a tow truck in a residential area. The City Council in 1991 denied this appeal and also found no compelling reason to amend the ordinance to provide the ability to park such vehicles within the city. It appears that the real question before the City Council is whether or not they wish to allow the parking of vehicles of this type or this size within residential areas within the city on a regular or routine basis. I believe it can be said that this ordinance provision has served the city well over the years and has helped to maintain the residential character of the city's neighborhoods. s • this time. Councilmember Lhotka inquired how much money is taken in at the bowling alley locations each month. Mr. Spies stated approximately $8,000 a month is taken in during the bowling season. He added he believes the Lions Club would make approximately $2,000 off the Dudley Tournament sales. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve the 12 hour sale of pull -tabs at the Dudley Tournament on a trial basis for the year 1988 and to waive the 30 day waiting period. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to amend the motion and to direct staff to review the past resolution pertaining to the other sale locations to make sure there would be no conflicts in approving this permit. Councilmember Theis and Councilmember Scott agreed to this amendment. Upon vote being taken on the foregoing motion and amendment, the motion passed with Councilmember Lhotka opposed. PROGRESS UPDATE -- REFUSE AND RECYC7.ING PROGRAM The City Manager stated basically what is needed this evening is an affirmation of the motion stating the consortium method as the City Council's first choice and the bidding method as the City's second choice. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Scott reaffirming the Council's choices as the consortium method and the bidding method. The motion passed unanimously. I,� NUISANCE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, The City Manager noted the Council received rough drafts of proposed amendments to the nuisance ordinance and noted they were a discussion item this evening, but if the Council so wished they could be given a first reading also this evening. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly went on to explain the amendments to each ordinance and noted staff is not recommending any type of grandfather clause. The Finance Director left the meeting at 10:08 p.m. The City Manager noted there would be a phase -in time allowing people a set amount of time to rectify the situation. Councilmember Theis stated he could not support some of the proposed amendments. Councilmember Lhotka stated he hopes the Council will not approve these ordinance amendments for a first reading tonight because he would like additional time to review the amendments. Councilmember Scott added she does not want to make a hurried decision on this matter either. There was a general consensus among Councilmembers that this item should be placed on the next City Council agenda as a discussion item. Councilmember Theis stated he would also like to see some examples f t p o he more sensitive issues which the Council may be facing if these amendments are approved. DISCUSSION OF WATER USAGE AND WATER RESTRICTIONS The Director of Public Works stated the water use restrictions have been effect since Ma in • y 24, 1988. He noted the City - wide ban i on lawn and garden 6 -13 -88 -11- He noted the cost of the second stud is part of the RFP, but he believes the stud wi • y 11 run between $20,000 and $25,000. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to submit the RFP to various consultants and instructing staff to return to the Council with a final recommendation for awarding the project. The motion passed unanimously. NUISANCE ORDINANCES, The City Manager stated he believes staff has covered all the items with the Council which will have major impacts. He noted there is one part of the ordinance that he would like to suggest the Council give approval for a first reading on this evening. He stated this particular section would pertain to several problem areas of the City and would make many neighborhoods happy. He added this particular section is the section dealing with storage of commercial vehicles. He noted the Council could wait to have a much deeper review of the other ordinance sections because there is no time pressure. The City Manager noted the current ordinance allows one commercial vehicle up to 25 feet in length to be kept on residentially zoned property, providing it is used as transportation to and from work. He noted the proposed change to this ordinance would prohibit the parking of any vehicle in excess of 12,000 pounds gross weight. Councilmember Theis inquired if the vans discussed in the rug cleaning business at the last Council meeting would be acceptable. The City Manager responded affirmatively. • Councilmember Lhotka stated when the Council reviews the other sections of the proposed ordinance changes, he would like to be able to go over them point by point. The City Manager stated he would plan on placing these ordinance amendments on an agenda that did not have many items. There was a motion by Councilmember. Theis and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles and setting a public hearing date for August 8, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 Relating to Hours of Operation for a Bottle Club. He noted this ordinance was first read on June 13, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on June 23, 1988, and is offered this evening for a second reading. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 Relating to Hours of Operation for a Bottle Club and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 Relating to Hours of Operation for a Bottle Club. The motion passed unanimously. 7 -11 -88 _5_ • The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. He explained these ordinances go hand in hand and one cannot be adopted without the other. He noted both ordinances were first read on July 11, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on July 21, 1988, and are offered this evening for a second reading. He noted the Council must ass or den both P y o rdinances. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated he has received a number of phone calls expressing both support and displeasure with the proposed amendments. Councilmember Lhotka stated he too has received some phone calls and noted he has a concern with the ordinance language which would require an individual who owns a semitrailer tractor and is on the road quite often to park this tractor someplace other than the owner's residence. He inquired if there is some wa the wording can be changed in this ordinance to allow the owner to continue parking the tractor at his residence. The City Manager went on to explain the nature of one of the complaints received by staff. He noted there is an owner of a diesel vehicle who quite often allows his truck to run all night long during the winter months, and does all the work on this vehicle. He noted this owner installed lights in his yard so he can work on it at all hours of the day or night. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if some of this complaint does not fall under the noise ordinance. The City Manager explained the staff has had no success in the court system in upholding the noise ordinance. Councilmember Theis inquired if the City is not attacking this problem in the wrong way. He noted it appears neighbors are complaining about the maintenance, noise, and • lighting from the vehicles not the fact they are present. The City Manager noted staff has received both type of complaints. Councilmember Theis stated he would like to see staff address some other methods of controlling the noise and maintenance of these vehicles. The Director of Planning and Inspection ointed out most of P the vehicles are involved with some type of home occupation. He noted, however, staff would have some difficulty in making a legal distinction. The EDA Coordinator entered the meeting at 8:05 p.m. The City Manager explained over one and one -half years ago the Council requested staff to develop ordinance finance amendments 'which would address these problems. He noted in order to solve these roblems everyone p ne must be y treated a g uall and the ordinance must be kept fairly reasonable to allow for enforcement of it. Councilmember Scott stated she received two phone calls from retired people who own small farm type tractors and use these in the spring and fall to supplement their income. She noted under this ordiannce they would not be allowed to keep this equipment. Councilmember tuber Hawes stated there is not only the question of where to park a semitrailer tractor but also where to leave the residential vehicle so the semidriver can get home with it. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances 8 -8 -88 I� by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning District a Public Nuisance. He inquired if, there was anyone present who wished to address • the Council. Mayor Nyquist recognized Ordeen Peterson, 6343 Girard Avenue North. Mr. Peterson stated he is an over - the -road semidriver and parks the tractor in his driveway when he is home. He stated he has asked his neighbors if they have any complaints regarding him parking his tractor at his residence, and they have all stated they do not have a problem with it. He went on to note some of the problems that would occur if he had to find another place to park his tractor. He added he considers the tractor to be a combination of a commercial vehicle and a recreational vehicle because within his vehicle he has a bed a television, and a refrigerator. erator. Councilmember Lhotka tka inquired if Mr. Peterson does the maintenance on his vehicle. Mr. Peterson stated he does change the oil and other minor maintenance items. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if this ordinance does pass what Mr. Peterson will do. Mr. Peterson stated he would have to find a place to park his vehicle, as well as a place where he could change the oil and wash it. Mayor Nyquist recognized d Robert Becker, er, 6433 Fremont Avenue North. He stated ed he too is an over-the-road semidriver and noted he has many concerns with parking his tractor some place other than his residence. He noted his tractor is worth $80,000. He explained it would be a great inconvenience for him and also quite costly if he had to park the tractor somewhere else'and,have another vehicle available for him to travel home in. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Par • g kin of Commercial Vehicles Parking hicles and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka inquired if there would be any way staff could address these issues under the home occupation permits. A discussion then ensued regarding some of the possibilities. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to table An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance to allow for further consideration and staff review. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:22 p.m. and reconvened at 8:38 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COM MISSION APPLICATION N O, $$009 SUBMITTED BYTOYS "R" US REOUESTING SITE AND BU ILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONS TRUCT A 4$.900 So FT. TOY STORE ON THE • 8 -8 -88 _6_ f , • has been a driveway in this location since 1948, and he was quite surprised the City did not ask him if he wished to have a driveway curb cut added in this project. He noted this is a very small piece of land and any use which would be comprehended would not change the location of the driveway. A brief discussion then ensued regarding the property and driveway in question and the past policies of the City. Mayor Nyquist inquired if any Councilmember wished to reconsider the vote. No requests were made, and the Mayor stated the motion stands as passed. The City Manager stated he would have staff review with the Planning Commission the variance possibilities to make this lot a usable lot and other courses of action for Mr. Talmage. ORDINANCES, The City Manager presented the following ordinances: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES BY DECLARING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY RDINANCES REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATIONS INVOLVING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES He noted the first two ordinances were first read on July 11, 1988, published in • the City's official newspaper on July 21, 1988, and were offered for a second reading on August 8, 1988. He explained the public hearing was opened on August 8, 1988, and then tabled. He added the third ordinance also pertains to the first two ordinances. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the report prepared for the third ordinance and stated staff does not recommend adoption of the third ordinance. A discussion then ensued regarding the existing ordinances and whether they can be enforced adequately. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to see enforcement of the existing ordinances so only those parties that-are recalcitrant are penalized. The City Manager stated_ staff and the police department have tried enforcing the existing ordinances, but the attorneys have never had much luck in the court system with these laws. He noted fines are set by the court and an individual could be fined up to $700, but there has never been a fine given for that amount. He added these offenses are misdemeanors. He stated in a lot of cases the court system feels the City is harassing an individual, and the judge has more sympathy for the problem maker than for his neighbors. He noted a number of these complaints require the need for an officer to be present to see or hear the offense. There was a discussion relative to other possible language amendments and whether they would be effective in solving the problem. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to suggest forming a group consisting of one or two Councilmembers, staff, and possibly community volunteers to discuss this issue. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearings on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles, and An Ordinance • Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain 9 -19 -88 _6_ • Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance and to refer the issue to a committee. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 88010 SUBMITTE BY MINNESOTA STATE HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 20.500 SO. FT. OFFICE BUILDING ON TH E VACANT PARCEL OF LAND EAST OF THE HOLIDAY INN ON FREEWAY BOULEVARD AND PLANNING COMMISS APPLICATION NO 880 11 STTRMITTED BY BEISNER LTD. REOUESTING PRELIMINARY R.L.S. APPROVAL TO SUBDIDE INTO TW VI O TRACTS THE 5.6 ACRE PARCEL OF VACANT LAND AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FREEWAY BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY The City Manager noted these items were recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its September 8, 1988, meeting. He noted the Director of Planning and Inspection would review both items at the same time. The Director of Planning and Inspection directed the Mayor and Councilmembers to pages one through four of the September 8, 1988, Planning Commission minutes and information sheets. He briefly reviewed the site location and the conditions recommended for approval of both applications. He added a public hearing has been scheduled and the applicant has been notified. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Planning • Commission Application Nos. 88010 and 88011 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council. There being none, he entertained a motion to close the public hearing. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to'close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application Nos. 88010 and 88011. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Planning Commission Application No. 88010 submitted by Minnesota State High School League subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. • 9 -19 -88 _�_ There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to close the public hearing on Planning Commission Application No. 88017. The motion passed unanimously. A discussion then ensued regarding the different size vehicles which would be parked on site and the number of each size. Councilmember Theis stated he would not like to see eight 22' trucks parked on the site, and he would like to impose a limitation on the number of 22' vehicles. Councilmember Theis stated he believed there should be no more than four vehicles in excess of 20' with no more than eight vehicles total on site. Councilmember Lhotka stated he felt Councilmember Theis was being much too generous and there should be no more than two vehicles 20' with a total of six vehicles on site. Councilmember Hawes added he would like to see screening of the dumpster as one of the conditions. There was a motion by Councilmember Theis and seconded by Councilmember Scott to approve Planning Commission Application No. 88017 subject to the following conditions: 1. Special use permit approval of Application No. 88017 supercedes approval of Application No. 68060. Both trucks and trailers may be stored and rented at the site. However, the total of both trucks and trailers shall not exceed eight (8) in number. 2. Parking of vehicles longer than 20' in length is prohibited in the spaces closest to the access drives serving the site and immediately north of the building. • 3. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 4. Special use permit approval is for truck or trailer storage and rental. No other special use permits are approved by this action. 5. The property owner shall repair and maintain the screen fence along the residentially zoned property in an appropriate manner and provide the necessary maintenance to contain pea rock on the applicant's property. 6. Approval of this application authorizes the parking of no more than four trucks over 20' in length on the site at any one time. 7. The applicant shall provide appropriate opaque screening for the dumpster so that it is properly screened from view. The motion passed with Councilmember Lhotka opposed. ORDINANCES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES • AND 10/24/88 -4- • AN ORDINANCE AME NDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CIT ORDINANCES BY DECLARING THE PARKING, OF CERTAIN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND AN ORDINANC AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARD REOUIREMENTS FOR SPECIAL HOME OCCIIPATIQNS TNVO VI,NG THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES The City Manager noted the first two ordinances were first read on July 11, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on July 21, 1988, and were offered for a second reading on August 8, 1988. He noted the public hearings were opened on August 8, 1988, tabled to the September 19, 1988, meeting and then tabled indefinitely. He stated the first ordinance requires a four - fifths vote by the Council. He noted the third ordinance is offered this evening for a first reading. He explained staff has recently been advised that state law has been modified so as to make some of the proposed ordinance revisions regarding the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones ineffective and perhaps, inoperable. He noted state law has been changed to allow persons to designate their desired vehicle classification rather than for particular vehicles to be classified uniformly in the various weight classifications. He stated if the Council is so inclined to approve the second ordinance, then they must also approve the first ordinance. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed slides of different size trucks and their weights. The City Manager stated if the Council can describe the size limit they wish to enforce then staff will investigate it. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to see staff investigate an ordinance • amendment using the height and length of a vehicle. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to deny An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of'Certain Vehicles in Re 'sidential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to deny for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Requirements for Special Home Occupations Involving the Parking of Certain Vehicles. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9 :13 p.m. The City Manager stated the Mayor had to leave the meeting for another commitment and Mayor Pro tem Hawes would reconvene the meeting. RESOLUTIONS The City Manager presented a Resolution Establishing Water System Improvement Project No. 1988 -22, Accepting Proposal and Approving Contract (Well 10/24/88 -5- • There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -19 Member Rich Theis introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: ORDINANCE EXTENDING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 87 -16 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADULT HALFWAY HOUSES, COMMUNITY BASED RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES AND SIMILAR USES IN THE CITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. (4� The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. He noted this item is offered this evening for a first reading. The Director of Planning and Inspection briefly reviewed the proposed ordinance and noted this ordinance will utilize three criteria for determining which vehicles can be parked in residential zones. He stated the maximum length, maximum height, and maximum gross vehicle weight will be used as the criteria. He then went on to review slides showing the length and height of different vehicles within the City. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like to know the length of the longest van that is manufactured. He stated he feels it is larger than the one shown in the slides. Councilmember Scott pointed out it appears • pp ars that buses would not be allowed to park at churches or schools. Mayor Nyquist recognized Kevin Smith, 6106 Quail Avenue North. Mr. Smith explained that he had recently started a business and would be required to remove his business vehicle from his residence if the ordinance were passed. Mr. Smith stated if he were required to store his vehicle off -site, he would basically be put out of business because he does not have the additional money to pay for storage space. He noted his vehicle is 10' high and 21' long. The City Manager stated staff would try to put together a list of companies which may allow Mr. Smith to store his truck on their property. Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Blaine Fluth who stated he would have a problem with the storage of buses at churches. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated additional exceptions could be written into the ordinance to allow for storage of buses at schools and churches. Councilmember Scott inquired if commercial vehicles would be allowed on the persons' property if they were stored inside a garage. - The Director of Planning and Inspection stated they would not be allowed under these ordinance provisions. Councilmember Lhotka stated he would like staff to survey churches and schools to find out how many store buses on their property, and he would like more information regarding the length of the largest van being manufactured. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to approve for first reading An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning • Districts a Public Nuisance and setting a public hearing date for December 5, 11/7/88 -5- • 1988, at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed with Councilmember Scott opposed. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :32 p.m. and reconvened at 8:48 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMM ISSION APPLICATION NO 88019 SUB MTTTED BY BUETOW AND ASSOCIATES., INC. REOUF_ST SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL T O CONSTRUCT A 20.000 SO. FT. OFFICE BUILDIN FOR THE CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION BETWEEN T HE PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER AND T LEARNING TREE pAY CARE CENTER, The City Manager noted this item was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at its October 27, 1988, meeting. Councilmember Theis stated he is on the supervisory committee for the credit union and would not be participating in any discussion or vote regarding this application. The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the Council to the Planning Commission minutes ,of October 27, 1988, pages one and two. He briefly explained the application and noted there is not a public hearing required for this application. He stated the Planning Commission did recommend approval of this application subject to 11 conditions which he reviewed for the Council. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka to approve Planning Commission Application No. 88019 submitted by Buetow and Associates, Inc. subject to the following conditions: • 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determinediby the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop, mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving • areas. 11/7/88 -6- • RESOLUTION NO. 88 -202 Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY AND WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM (HOME ENERGY CHECKUPS) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Bill Hawes, and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 88 -203 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MINNEGASCO AND WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR A COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM (PROJECT AIR) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Celia Scott, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Manager said the resolution awarding insurance contracts is recommended for approval by staff. The Director of Finance proceeded to highlight and explain information regarding the contracts. Councilmember Theis asked if the City deals through Jerry Coughlin, and the Director of Finance responded affirmatively. • RESOLUTION NO. 88 -204 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AWARDING INSURANCE CONTRACTS The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION BY METRQ W ASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Mayor Nyquist recognized Mr. Art Cunningham, Metro Waste Control Commissioner, who said he represents the precinct which includes Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Osseo, New Hope, and part of Minneapolis. He said his purpose for appearing at this evening's Council meeting is to tell the Council about the Metro Waste Control Commission and explain its rates. Commissioner Cunningham proceeded to provide some history on the commission and discuss its budget and rates for 1988 and 1989. He highlighted three major projects in which the commission is now involved. Commissioner Cunningham thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak before it and said he can be notified at 544 -6020; his office is at Mears Park Centre, 230 East 5th Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55101. ORDINANCES, The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. He said this item was first rezid on November 7, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on November 17, 1988, and is • offered this evening for a second reading. He noted there is a companion 12/5/88 -4- . ordinance with this one, and the Council should pass one or the other of the ordinances. The companion ordinance is An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Parking of Commercial Vehicles. The City Manager said this item was first read on July 11, 1988, published in the City's official newspaper on July 21, 1988, and offered for a second reading on August 8, 1988. It was tabled at the August 8, 1988, September 19, 1988, and October 24, 1988, Council meetings. He reviewed the changes made to the ordinance amending Chapter 19 which were made subsequent to the November 7, 1988, Council meeting. Councilmember Scott asked how the City will determine the difference between a farm vehicle and a yard tractor. The Director of Planning and Inspection said this would be based on size, and the City Manager added that this is subject to some interpretation. Councilmember Lhotka asked for further explanation of Section 12 -e of the ordinance amending Chapter 19, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said this addresses legal commercial nonconforming uses in residential districts. Councilmember Theis referenced section 12 -d, inquiring what "publicly owned structures" are. The Director of Planning and Inspection said buildings like the City's pumphouses, utility buildings, and wells located in residential districts would be considered publicly owned structures. Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. He recognized Mr. Roger Morin, 6107 Scott Avenue North, who said he is self - employed and owns a truck that is 23 feet long, 8 feet wide, and 11 feet 6 • inches in height. He requested the Council to reconsider the size of the vehicle allowed by the proposed ordinance and suggested allowing one vehicle per residence. He added some motor homes are 36 feet long, and he feels if those can be parked at a residence, his truck, which is smaller, should also be able to be parked at his home. Mr. Morin added he starts his truck during regular hours, and he does not do repair work on it at home. He added if he has to park his truck at another location, he will have to purchase another vehicle in order to get to that location. Councilmember Scott asked Mr. Morin what type of truck he has, and Mr. Morin said it is a one and one -half ton straight truck. Mayor Nyquist noted he received a phone call at 11:30 p.m. last night from a resident whose neighbor was running a diesel truck. The City Manager said the rationale behind this ordinance is the more you allow commercial activities in a residential area, the less residential the area becomes. Mayor Nyquist noted he has also received complaints regarding boats parked in residential areas. The City Manager pointed out this is recreational equipment as opposed to commercial equipment, and the City does not receive as many complaints about boats as it does about commercial vehicles. There was a motion by Councilmember Hawes and seconded by Councilmember Scott to close the public hearing on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lhotka asked how long the City has been working on this ordinance, and the Director of Planning and Inspection said it has been more than one year. • 12/5/88 _5_ • Councilmember Lhotka said this is an ordinance in which the City Council and staff have looked at every option, and it boils down to deciding if a residential area is for residents and commercial areas are for commercial business. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -20 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES BY DECLARING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS A PUBLIC NUISANCE The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Rich Theis. Councilmember Lhotka said this amendment includes changes made since the first reading, which include a length of 21 feet and a height of 8 feet, plus other changes made to the ordinance amendment. Councilmember Scott said she will vote against this ordinance amendment. She said initially, the intent was to try to prevent people from bringing semi - trucks home, and the City is going from having no ordinance to one that will be too restrictive. She added there are some people who have small vans which are not the least bit obstructive, and this ordinance will cause a lot of people problems. Councilmember Lhotka disagreed, saying to his knowledge, the ordinance amendment from the start was not strictly for semi - trucks. He said a resident has a right to his yard, activities, and peace of mind. Councilmember Scott said she has received many complaints regarding semi - trucks, but not for smaller vehicles. Councilmember Lhotka said • he did not understand why Councilmember Scott was just now making her objections known, and Councilmember Scott said she has objected to this'in the past. Mayor Nyquist asked about the nuisance ordinances that may control diesel noise and fumes, and the City Manager said the City generally tries to follow through on such complaints. Mayor Nyquist pointed out the initial discussion of the Council included the problems related to noise as opposed to size. The City Manager pointed out that enforcing the noise ordinance is difficult and in reviewing other City's ordinances, gross vehicle weight and size were used to set limits. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted staff presented a number of ordinances to the City Council in April or May of this year, and this ordinance was one the City Council felt was a problem area which needed to be addressed immediately. He added this ordinance amendment was considered to be more direct and easier to deal with than some of the others. Mayor Nyquist asked what the difference is between this ordinance as opposed to the nuisance ordinance, and the City Manager said sound and noise problems are difficult to enforce and measure, while this one would be easier to enforce. Mayor Nyquist suggested if the ordinance is passed, there should be a phase -in period. The City Manager said a six -month period should be adequate for phasing in the ordinance. Councilmember Scott said there are a number of people who work in Brooklyn Center who have to take their vehicles home and would not be able to do so if the ordinance is passed. She said this will create problems for some people. The City Attorney said the Council could specify a later effective date of the • ordinance which does not make the ordinance any less sudden, but people could be 12/5/88 -6- • notified in advance of the changes. The City Manager noted that even if the effective date is delayed, there will still be people who will be surprised by this ordinance. He added the usual progression is to send .a letter requesting compliance, issue a warning, and then finally issue a hard tag. There was some discussion on how people would be notified of the ordinance amendment. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Theis to amend his original motion for approving An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance. The amendment is to change the effective date of the ordinance to June 1, 1989. The .motion passed with Councilmember Scott voting against it. Upon vote being taken on the amended original motion regarding An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances by Declaring the Parking of Certain Vehicles in Residential Zoning Districts a Public Nuisance, the motion passed with Councilmember Scott voting against it. ORDINANCE NO. 88 -21 Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption with the effective date of it as June 1, 1989: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING THE PARKING OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member Rich Theis, and the motion passed unanimously. • The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter ter 19 of g P the City Ordinances by Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances and said this item is offered this evening for a first reading. The Director of Planning and Inspection highlighted this ordinance amendment. Councilmember Lhotka asked how the City would determine if a parking area is gravel, because over time gravel can get washed away. There was some discussion on the use of gravel in driveways, and the City Manager suggested staff may want to look at this further. Councilmember Theis asked how fish houses would fit into this ordinance, and there was discussion of the necessity of screening fish houses from public view. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to table action on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of Declaring Certain Actions as Public Nuisances. The motion h passed y u animously. RECESS The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 8 :25 P.M. and reconvened at 8:40 p.m. ORDINANCES (CONTINUED) The City Manager presented An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding Outside Storage, and he said this item is offered this • evening for a first reading. He noted this ordinance amendment is a result of 12/5/88 _7_ City Council Agenda Item No. 9b PROCLAMATION • DECLARING APRIL 11 THROUGH APRIL 18, 1999, AS DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST WHEREAS, the Holocaust was the state - sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators from 1933 to 1945. Jews were the primary victims — six million were murdered; Gypsies, the handicapped, and Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for racial, ethnic, or national reasons. Millions more, including homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents, also suffered grievous oppression and death under Nazi tyranny; and WHEREAS, the story of the ill -fated voyage of the SS St. Louis offers an opportunity to reflect on the moral responsibilities of individuals, societies, and governments; and WHEREAS, we the people of the City of Brooklyn Center should always remember the terrible events of the Holocaust and should remain vigilant against bigotry and tyranny; and WHEREAS, we the people of the City of Brooklyn Center should continually rededicate ourselves to the principles of equality and justice for all; and WHEREAS, the Days of Remembrance have been set aside for the people of the City of Brooklyn Center to remember the inhumanity of those who perpetrated the Holocaust as well as to reflect upon our own humanity and the need for respect of all peoples; and • WHEREAS, pursuant to an Act of Congress (Public Law 96 -388, October 7, 1980), the United States Holocaust Memorial Council designates the Days of Remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust to be Sunday, April 11, through Sunday, April 18, 1998, including the International Day of Remembrance known as Yom Hashoah, April 13. NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of April 11 through April 18, 1998, as Days of Remembrance in memory of the victims, the survivors, and their liberators and further proclaim that we, as citizens of the City of Brooklyn Center, should strive to overcome intolerance and indifference through learning and remembrance. Date Mayor Attest: City Clerk • n UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM Dear Mayor: The United States Holocaust memorial _Museum in accordance with its Congressional mandate (Public Law 96 -833, 10/7/80) is leading the nation in the annual Days of Remembrance of the Victims of the Holocaust, commemorated this year from Sunday, April 11 through Sunday, April 18. The national Day of Remembrance Ceremony will be held on Tuesday, April 13, in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. This year's theme, "Refuge Denied: The Voyage of the SS St. Louis," marks the 60" anniversary of the St. Louis, an important event in both Holocaust and United States history. Fleeing Nazi terror, over 900 passengers, mostly Jewish, had temporary landing permits for Cuba where they would wait for their applications for entry to the United States to be accepted under rigid immigration quotas. After Cuba decided it would not let the passengers land, they desperately sought refuge in the United States. After weeks of negotiations, the U.S. refused to admit the passengers, forcing them to return to Europe. A few months later World War II began, making possible the eventual systematic murder of Europe's Jews and others. The story • of the ill -fated voyage of the SS St. Louis offers an opportunity to reflect on the moral responsibilities of individuals, societies and governments. Your personal leadership in this national commitment to remember is essential, as you set an example for your city and the nation. Thus, we respectfully encourage you to issue, as was done in the past, a special Days of Remembrance Proclamation for distribution to the citizens of your city. A sample is enclosed for your consideration and convenience. We also invite you to join us in observing these Days of Remembrance. Marian Craig Gilbert of the Museum's Days of Remembrance program will contact you soon to offer suggestions for arranging an appropriate observance. Please feel free to contact Mrs. Gilbert for further information or assistance. Her telephone number is (770) 650 -7712. We are grateful for your leadership and support in this important endeavor. Sincerely, Benjamin Meed Chairman, Days of Remembrance Enclosures • A Project of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW, Washington, DC 20024 -2126, Telephone (202) 488 -0400, Fax (202) 488 -2690 n r �� UNITED STATES • HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM OBSERVANCE OF THE DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE In 1980, a unanimous act of Congress established the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and mandated it to lead the nation in civic commemorations of the victims of the Holocaust, called Days of Remembrance and to encourage appropriate Remembrance observances throughout the country. In 1999, the Days of Remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust will be observed from Sunday, April 11 through Sunday, April 18. The national commemoration ceremony will be held in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on April 13, Yom Hashoah. With the Museum's continued acclaim and increasing national and international prominence as the nation's pre - eminent institution of Holocaust education, Days of Remembrance programs present a special opportunity to reach broader and possibly more diverse segments of the country. Linking the Museum's twin missions of remembrance and education reinforces for the public that commemoration alone is not enough; understanding this pivotal event of our century is a painful reminder that the lessons of the Holocaust have important implications for contemporary society. • The Holocaust is not merely a story of destruction and loss; it is a story of an apathetic world and a few rare individuals of extraordinary courage; and it is a remarkably story of the human spirit and the life that flourished before the Holocaust, struggled during its darkest hours, and ultimately prevailed as survivors rebuilt their lives. This year marks the 60' anniversary of the ill-fated voyage of the SS St. Louis which sailed from Hamburg, Germany, on May 13, 1939, bound for Cuba with over 900 passengers most of whom were Jews fleeing Nazism. After being denied entry into Cuba and turned away from the United States, the passengers were forced to return to the uncertainty of Europe in the months just before World War II began. The fate of the St. Louis passengers reflects on the variety of experiences that befell Holocaust survivors and victims - some hid, some were deported, some worked at forced labor, some were able to escape Western Europe before the Nazi invasion, and many perished at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. What makes their stories different from those of other Holocaust victims is that these particular people were just off the coast of Miami in early June, 1939, when they could have been saved. DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE 1999 "REFUGE DENIED: THE VOYAGE OF THE SS ST. LOUIS" We encourage you to join with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in observing the Days of Remembrance. For further information, please contact: Days of Remembrance, United • States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, S.W., Washington, DC 20024 or see the Museum's website at www.ushmm.gov. A Project of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW, Washington, DC 20024 -2126, Telephone (202) 488 -0400, Fax (202) 488 -2690 REFUGE DENIED: THE VOYAGE OF THE SS ST. LOUIS • When the Hamburg- America Line's SS St. Louis pulled away from the dock at Hamburg with its 937 passengers bound for Cuba on May 13, 1939 it was sailing in very uncertain times on a voyage originally destined for freedom, but ultimately doomed to tragedy. Six months earlier, after years of systematic persecution, the Nazis staged the first large -scale acts of violence against the German Reich's then relatively small Jewish population. These nationwide pogroms became known as "Kristallnacht." Nazi policy at that time aimed to force Jews to emigrate. Unfortunately, many nations, including the United States, refused to accept most of those who sought refuge. Nazi Germany was interested in capitalizing on the propaganda potential of this increasing refusal of most nations to admit Jews into their countries and thus could use the plight of the St. Louis to justify its anti - Jewish policy. The St. Louis passengers were lucky enough to be able to leave Nazi Germany with papers for the New World. They held "landing certificates" sold by the Cuban Immigration Department to the Hamburg- America Line, which had in turn sold them to the passengers. Most expected a short stay in Cuba; the majority had already applied for U.S. visas and had secured affidavits of support from American friends and relatives. They would wait in Cuba until they were allowed into the U.S., in accordance with established immigration quotas. But they did not know that on May 5, 1939 — eight days before the St. Louis sailed — Cuban President Laredo Bru had signed Congressional Decree No. 937, which retroactively invalidated all certificates issued before that date. The decree permitted entry to Cuba only to U.S. citizens and those who already held valid U.S. visas, had posted a $500 bond, and had obtained prior authorization of the Cuban Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Labor. In an instant, their landing certificates had essentially been voided. • When the St. Louis arrived in Havana harbor on May 27, its passengers were not permitted to land, except for 28 persons who held valid Cuban entry visas. The passengers were in part the victims of infighting between two factions of the corrupt Cuban establishment: that of Manuel Benitez, head of the Cuban Immigration Office, and his patron, Cuban Army Chief of Staff (and later dictator) Fulgencio Batista, and President Laredo Bru and his associates, who resented the significant income that Benitez and Batista were realizing from the sale of immigration visas. Money, corruption, and an internal power play, however, were not the only factors that determined the outcome of the St. Louis's tragic voyage. Economic depression had provoked resentment in Cuba not only toward the relatively large number of refugees on the island but also at the prospect of many more to come. With both xenophobic and antisemitic overtones, this indigenous resentment was fanned by German agents. There were already 2,500 Jewish immigrants in Cuba and plans existed for the admission of 25,000 more to be settled permanently on the offshore Isle of Pines. Right -wing movements, such as the Cuban Nazi Party, encouraged xenophobic hostility toward immigrants, and many Cuban newspapers printed allegations that the Jews were Communists. Negative reports about the St. Louis incited a large antisemitic demonstration in Havana on May 8. Attended by 40,000 people, thousands more listened to the rally speeches on the radio. Lawrence Berenson, a prominent New York attorney who served as the President of the Cuban - American Chamber of Commerce and represented the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, arrived in Cuba on May 28, 1939. On June 1, Berenson met with President Bru to negotiate the admission of the passengers. These negotiations failed, however, and Bru ordered the ship out of Cuban waters on June 2. During subsequent meetings with Berenson as the St. Louis sailed toward Miami, Bru's intermediaries demanded an additional 453 000 to issue demand and a reportedly rejected $ e landin permits. Berenson rejected this dema also r o g Pe J P Y ected an J • offer to settle the Jews on the Isle of Pines. Now desperate, the passengers' committee on the St. Louis sent telegrams to President Roosevelt and other world leaders seeking refuge, even as the ship sailed within sight of the lights of Miami. After weeks of negotiations and pleas from various Jewish organizations, on June 5, United States officials indicated that the ship would not be permitted to enter the United States and that the decision had been made by the White 40 House. During the time the ship sailed just off the Florida coast, the St. Louis was shadowed by a U.S. Coast Guard cutter sent to ensure that no one would jump overboard and swim ashore. The St. Louis incident highlights the problems of American immigration policy during that time. In 1939, U.S. government policy was to demonstrate sympathy for refugees from Nazi Germany by urging Latin American countries to admit them but to avoid, wherever possible, permitting refugees entry into the United States. U.S. officials were ultimately reluctant, however, to increase pressure on Cuba to do what the United States itself was unwilling to do. U.S. diplomats made pro forma representations to Cuba asking that the ship be admitted on a "humanitarian" basis. As the crisis dragged on, it became increasingly clear that the United States would not intervene and that this policy originated from the White House itself. To permit the St. Louis passengers entry into the United States required either new immigration legislation or a presidential executive order. The passengers could not be treated as visitors or tourists as they had no home to which to return. The could only be ranted visas at the cost of denying other previous applicants. At least Y Y g Y g P PP a six -year waiting list existed for immigrants from Germany. The State Department bureaucracy, its immigration policy, and its notorious Visa Section were only part of the problem. President Roosevelt and Congress bear equal responsibility for the outcome of the affair; all of them were reacting in part to sentiments they perceived among the U.S. population. Roosevelt was aware of the April 1939 Fortune Magazine poll in which 83 percent of Americans opposed relaxing existing immigration restrictions. Intending to run for reelection in 1940, the president found it difficult to go against popular will. The enormous publicity given to the ship's plight made the issue a test of a policy that had the overwhelming support of the American people. The glare of publicity worked against the interests of the St. Louis passengers. While the St. Louis was searching or refu United States Congress allowed the Wagner-Rogers bill • e, the Un g g g (which would have permitted temporary admission of 20,000 refugee children) to die in committee. Such a Congress was not likely to favor a change in the immigration law. At the risk of making himself unpopular, Roosevelt could have issued an executive order or some other administrative measure in the case of the St. Louis. Likewise, he might have urged increased pressure on any number of Latin American countries to permit the St. Louis passengers to disembark. He chose not to do so. Having failed to gain entry anywhere in the New World, on June 6, 1939 the St. Louis sailed slowly back to Europe. On June 13 after intense negotiations, Morris Troper, European Director for the Joint Distribution Committee, cabled the passengers' committee on board the St. Louis that entry had been secured for them in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. The St. Louis docked at Antwerp on June 17 and was greeted by a hostile demonstration of Belgian youths sympathetic to the Nazis. Belgium took in 214 of the passengers, Great Britain 287, France 224, and the Netherlands 181. Refused entry into Cuba and the United States, the passengers on this ill -fated voyage had returned to a Europe on the brink of war. Less than three months later, the Nazis invaded Poland and World War 11 began. Each of the St. Louis passengers was caught up in the Cataclysmic events now known as the Holocaust. The few who went to Great Britain survived the war; those who remained on continental Europe suffered the fate of Europe's Jews, in which two out of every three perished at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators. The ultimate fate of each of the passengers is the subject of a major research project currently being carried out by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Registry of Holocaust Survivors. For more information about the SS St. Louis documentation project, please visit the Museum's special exhibition or our website at www.ushmm.gov. If you have information about a passenger on the SS St. • Louis, please contact Dr. Scott Miller at (202) 488 -0495, by FAX at (202) 314 -7888 or via the internet at smiller@ushmm. • Chronology of the SS St. Louis December 1938 U.S. Undersecretary of State Sumner Wells warns Jewish organizations not to send too many Jewish refugees to Cuba 24 January 1939 G6ring appoints Heydrich to head Central Office for Jewish Emigration and to rid the Reich of as many Jews as possible 25 January German Foreign Ministry issues circular "The Jewish Question as a Factor in Foreign Policy" seeking to stimulate antisemitism worldwide by "dumping" Jewish emigrants 18 March U.S. Consul Harold Tewell issues report "European Refugees in Cuba" to State Department. Tewell reports that there are 2,500 Jewish refugees in Cuba and plans to settle 25,000 more April Fortune magazine poll reports that 83 percent of Americans are opposed to admitting immigrants 5 May Cuban President Laredo Bru issues Decree 937, invalidating Benitez landing certificates and setting stringent rules for immigrants to Cuba 8 May 40,000 Cubans demonstrate in Havana against Jewish immigration sponsored by former Cuban President Grau San Martin • 13 May SS St. Louis sails from Hamburg with 937 passengers, most holding Benitez Cuban "landing certificates," U.S. quota numbers, and affidavits 15 May SS St. Louis arrives at and departs from Cherbourg, France 19 May SS St. Louis passes Portuguese Azores islands 27 May (4 a.m.) SS St. Louis arrives in Havana Harbor June 1 Berenson meets with President Laredo Bru June 2 SS St. Louis departs Havana, circles off Cuba June 3 SS St. Louis steams slowly between Havana and Miami June 4 SS St. Louis passes Miami going north, then turns south June 5 SS St. Louis passes Miami heading south June 6 Hovering between Miami and Havana, at 11 a.m., the SS St. Louis heads back to Europe June 10 -13 Belgium agrees to admit 214 passengers, the Netherlands 181, France 224, and U.K. • 287 passengers June 17 SS St. Louis ends journey at Antwerp, Belgium Bibliography Breitman, Richard/ Kraut, Allen American Refugee Policy and European Jewry. Bloomington, Ind. 1987. Deschner, Gunther Reinhard Heydrich. New York, 1983. Feingold, Henry. The Politics of Rescue. New York, 1970. Department of State Documents on German Foreign Policy. Series D, Vol. 5. London, 1983. Gellman, Frank "The St. Louis Tragedy," American Jewish Historical Review. 61/2 (December, 1971): 144 -156. Hohne, Hans Canaris. Garden City, N.Y. 1979. Konovitch, Barry J. "The Fiftieth Anniversary of the St. Louis: What Really Happened," American Jewish History. LXXIX /2 (1989 -1990) 203 -210. Levine, Robert Tropical Diaspora. Gainesville, 1993. P P Mendelsohn, John, ed. The Holocaust. Vol.VII. New York, 1982. Morse, Arthur While Six Million Died. New York, 1968. Overy, R.J. Goering. London, 1984. Taylor, Fred (ed. /trans.) Goebbel's Diaries 1939 -1941. New York, 1983. Thomas, Gordon/ Max Morgan Witts Voyage of the Damned. New York, 1974. Wyman, David Paper Walls. 1985. is City Council Agenda Item No. 9c Office of the City Manager City of Brooklyn Center • A great place to start. A great place to stay. Michael I McCauley City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Hilstro asman, lson, Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: March 3, 1999 SUBJECT: Set Date and Time of General Work Session to Meet With Auditor and Possible Joint Meeting with Financial Commission I would request that a general work session be set for Monday, June 21, 1999, at 7 p.m., Conference Room B, City Hall, to meet with City auditor and possibly meet in a joint session with Financial Commission. • • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer City Council Agenda Item No. 9d Office of the City Manager 3 City o f Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. Michael I McCauley City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Hilstrom, Lasman, Nelson, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager DATE: March 3, 1999 SUBJECT: Amend 1999 City Council Meeting Schedule to Schedule 6 p.m. Study Session Before Each Regular Session Council Meeting I would request that a City Council study session be scheduled at 6 p.m., prior to each regular session City Council meeting. Attachment • • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer f City of Brooklyn Center 1999 City Council Meeting Schedule City Council Study Session begins at 6 p.m. in Conference Room B (B) . Informal Open Forum with City Council begins at 6:45 p.m. in Conference Room B (B) Regular Session City Council Business meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers (CC) JANUARY ,JU 11 - New/Past Council Reception, 6:40 p.m. (B) 12 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 11 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 12 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 25 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 12 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 25 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 26 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 26 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) FEBRUARY 26 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 8 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 8 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) AUGUST 22 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 9 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 22 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 9 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 9 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) MARCH 16 - Work Session, 7 p.m. (B) 8 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 23 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 8 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 23 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 22 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 23 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 22 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 30 - Work Session, 7 p.m. (B) 22 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 29 - Work Session w /Commission Chairs, 7 p.m. (B) SEPTEMBER 13 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) • APRIL 13 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 12 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 13 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 12 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 27 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 12 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 27 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 19 - Commission Recognition, 7 p.m. (B) 27 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 26 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 26 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) OCTOBER 26 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 11 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 11 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) MAY 11 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 3 - Board of Equalization, 7 p.m. (CC) 18 - Work Session, 7 p.m. (B) 10 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 25 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 10 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 25 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 10 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 25 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 17 - Work Session, 7 p.m. (B) 24 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) NOVEMBER 24 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 1 - Work Session, 7 p.m. (B) 24 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 8 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 8 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) JUNE 8 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) 14 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 15 - Work Session, 7 p.m. (B) 14 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 22 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 14 - Regular Session, 7 p.m (CC) 22 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) • 28 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 22 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (C) 28 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 28 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) DECEMBER 13 - Study Session, 6 p.m. (B) 13 - Open Forum, 6:45 p.m. (B) 13 - Regular Session, 7 p.m. (CC) City Council Agenda Item No. 9e MEMORANDUM • TO: Michael J. McCauley, EDA Executive Director FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialise DATE: March 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements Brooklyn Center is one of 43 Hennepin County cities in the Urban Hennepin County consortium which receives federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Federal CDBG dollars flow from the federal government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Hennepin County, where funds are allocated to 43 participating cities on a formula basis. One of the requirements of the federal CDBG program is that each participating city must hold a public hearing to provide public comment and input on the proposed use of CDBG funds. The 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was first discussed at the February 8, 1999, City Council meeting. At that meeting, the City Council authorized • the public hearing for the March 8, 1999, City Council meeting. A copy of the public hearing notice is included with this memorandum. OVERVIEW OF URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM Hennepin County has notified the City of Brooklyn Center that its share of the 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement will be approximately $241,308. This amount is $499 more than last year's allocation. The total estimated 1999 Community Development Block Grant allocation for all of Hennepin County if $3,509,940 which is $47,940 more than 1998. The total Hennepin County CDBG allocation from HUD over the past several years is shown by the following: CDBG ALLOCATIONS HENNEPIN COUNTY BROOKLYN CENTER YEAR ALLOCATION ALLOCATION 1995 3,806,962 270,083 1996 3,651,000 259,971 • 1997 3,591,000 247,856 1998 3,462,000 240,809 1999 3,509,940 241,308 . Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley March 2, 1999 Page 2 Brooklyn Center's share of the total County allocation has remained constant over the years at approximately 7 %. FEDERAL CDBG OBJECTIVES Since the CDBG allocation represents federal dollars, the CDBG programs adopted by local jurisdictions must meet one of the following national objectives: • Benefitting low and moderate income persons • Prevention or elimination of slums or blight • Meeting a particularly urgent community development need COUNTY -WIDE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES In addition to the federal objectives, Hennepin County is also required to develop priorities for CDBG funding under its Consolidated Plan Process. The Consolidated Plan Process has been instituted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and provides for consolidated planning for all federal programs for which the County and municipalities are eligible, including CDBG, HOME (the 1990 Cranston - Gonzales Housing Act), and Emergency Shelter Grant programs. • The County -wide housing and community development priorities, as part of the Consolidated Plan, include the following: • Rental and supportive housing: Planning, site acquisition, related infrastructure for development of new units and rehabilitation of existing units for low income households (less than 50% of median income). • Home ownership: Planning, site acquisition related infrastructure, down payment assistance for low income, first -time home buyers, and rehabilitation of existing units occupied by low income households. • Community development: Neighborhood redevelopment/revitalization, senior centers, removal of architectural barriers /ADA compliance, lead -based paint abatement and planning activities to address housing and community revitalization needs. • Public services: Services to senior citizens, disabled persons and youth, child care assistance and transportation services. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS Hennepin County advises that no more than three activities should be undertaken in one community and each activity should have a budget of at least $75,000 although these limits do not apply where funds are committed jointly with other participants, as in the case of the Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) Program. • . Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley March 2, 1999 Page 3 LOW/MODERATE INCOME BENEFIT Seventy percent of the CDBG funds on a County -wide basis must be utilized for activities benefitting very low and low income residents. FUNDING PUBLIC SERVICES Communities will continue to have the flexibility, initially, of using up to 20% of their CDBG planning allocation to fund public services. Proposals that exceed 20% will be reduced by Hennepin County. REVIEW OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S 1998 CDBG PROGRAM The City's 1998 CDBG allocation is shown by the following: Rehabilitation of Private Property $50,000.00 (EDA home rehabilitation deferred loan program) Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) $9,000.00 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project $181,809.00 • Total (1998) $240,8909.00 Staff recommendations for the 1999 CDBG program are summarized below: 1. The 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project was established as a CDBG project at the October 15, 1996, City Council meeting. This CDBG project is designed to be a multi- year project, with CDBG funds to be dedicated to project activities on an annual basis. Activities funded with CDBG dollars in the 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project include acquisition, relocation, demolition, and environmental activities including asbestos abatement and capping of private wells. Staff is recommending an allocation of $232,308 for the 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project for 1999. In addition to the recommendation for the 1999 CDBG allocation, $67,500 in "program income" from the sale of the new police station property is also recommended to be used to reimburse expenses from the 53rd Development and Linkage project. "Program Income" is a federal requirement relative to the CDBG program and is summarized by the following: • The EDA used approximately $250,000 in CDBG funds to purchase four blighted 4- plexes on the new police station site. • Use of the site for a police station is an "ineligible use" in terms of CDBG national objectives. Because the use does not coincide with the CDBG national objectives, the EDA was required to pay the fair market value of the lot and refund this amount to the • City's CDBG fund. In the case of the police station site the fair market value of the vacant land was established at $67,500 and this amount was paid back into the City's CDBG account. This $67,500 is not part of the 1999 CDBG allocation but is included Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley • March 2, 1999 Page 4 in the Resolution Approving Projected Use of Funds for 1999 Urban Hennepin County pP g J pm C y Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and Any Third Party Agreements 2. Staff has received a request from Senior Community Services for the Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) Program in the amount of $9,000. The project has been part of the CDBG program for six years and has proved to be beneficial program. The H.O.M.E. program provides minor maintenance and repair for persons 60 years of age and older and/or permanently disabled individuals. The households are required to a pay a certain amount towards the rehabilitation based on a sliding fee scale according to their income. CDBG dollars are used to bring down the overall cost of repairs. Examples of the repairs included in this program are installation of grab bars, painting (interior and exterior), concrete repair, and carpentry, including door, window and trim repair. Staff is recommending an allocation of $9,000 for the H.O.M.E. program for 1999. Staff estimates 20 -25 project will be completed annually under the H.O.M.E. program. 3. The City has received a request for funding under the 1999 CDBG program from the • Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH). The dollar amount requested from CASH is $1,000. Included with this memorandum is the written request from CASH, along with supporting documentation regarding their CDBG funding requests. Representatives of CASH have been notified of the March 8, CDBG public hearing. At Council direction, staff has sent a letter to CASH informing them of another source of funding for public service activities through the City budget process. ALTERNATIVES TO CDBG FUNDING FOR SINGLE FAMILY REHABILITATION Currently there are approximately 30 to 35 persons on the waiting list for CDBG Home Rehabilitation deferred loans. Persons served with the 1998 CDBG allocation for single family rehabilitation have been on the waitin g list since 1994. All 1998 single family rehabilitation funds have been committed to persons on the waiting list and the program is currently on hold as directed by the Council. No CDBG funds are recommended for the 1999 CDBG program; however, the following is a summary of alternative programs for single family rehabilitation: • Northwest Home vP P t Council Fundin g Im m , Rebate Pr Funded b MH FA and Me ....._�p_ _ _�_ eb o,gram u d y ... .. Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley • March 2, 1999 Page 5 MHFA Funds The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) awarded the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporations (GMMHC) Northwest HousingResource Center $300,000 for rehab assistance to homeowners -- $50,000 will be set -aside for last resort emergency funds for life and safety repairs, and $250,000 will be used as incentive fund grants, up to a maximum of $3,000 per household. The rebate is calculated as a percentage of construction. Homeowners with incomes at or below 50% of median receive a rebate of 15 %, homeowners with incomes between 50 -80% receive 12% and homeowner between 805 and 115% of median receive 10 %. It is expected the dollars will leverage approximately $2 million in renovations. These MHFA funds will be allocated to each city on a prorated basis per population including the Minneapolis seven neighborhoods of Camden. The use of these funds will be city -wide and do not need to be targeted; however, the funds will need to be spent by the end of the year 2000. Prior to the end of the program GMMHC will evaluate the funding and if there are dollars that may not be spent in a particular community, GMMHC may open it up to all cities so they do not have to return funds to the MHFA. • The City of Brooklyn Center can expect to receive approximately $73,410 of the MHFA rebate funds. • Metropolitan Council I_,i.vable Communities Fund. GMMHC has also received $492,000 from the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities Fund for use in the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale. Each city will receive an allocation of $108,625 which can be used for the housing rehabilitation rebate program. Different guidelines apply to the Metropolitan Council money from the MHFA funds. The Met Council fund may be used in a designated neighborhood along transit corridors. • Single Family Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program The GMMHC programs are a to programs and are not loan programs. Homeowners must qualify with regard to income and must qualify for and receive a loan in order to participate in the rebate program. In addition to bank loans, the following is a list of loan programs, most of which qualify for the GMMHC rebate program. These loans are available though the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. The Great Minnesota Fix -Up Fund • Maximum household income - $49,000 • Maximum loan - $25,000 • Maximum term - 20 years (15 years for loans under $15,000) • Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley March 2, 1999 Page 6 • Interest rate 2 percent, 4 percent, 6 percent or 8 percent, depending upon household income • Loans under $5,000 do not require a lien/mortgage against the property Fix -Up Fund Accessibility Loans • Maximum household income - no maximum income • Maximum loan $25,000 • Maximum term - 20 years (15 years for loans under $15,000) Interest rate - 8 percent • Household must include at least one resident who can be certified as being permanently disabled Home Energy Loans (including Manufactured Housing Home Energy Loans) • Maximum household income - no maximum income • Maximum loan - $8,000 • Maximum term - 8 years • Interest rate - 8 percent • Eligible improvements limited to energy conservation measure Community Fix -Up Fund • Only available in targeted neighborhood • Maximum household income - $69,920 • Maximum loan - $25,000 • Maximum term - 20 years (15 years for loans under $15,000) • Interest rate - 8 percent MHFA Deferred Loan - funded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency • Maximum loan $10,000 • Lien - 10 years • Annual adjusted household income cannot exceed $10,000 MHFA Revolving Loan - funded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency • Maximum loan $10,000 • Maximum Term - 15 years • Annual adjusted household income cannot exceed $18,000 SUBRECIPIENT AND THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The resolution included with this memorandum also provides authorization for the City manager and Mayor to execute Subrecipient and Third Party Agreements required for the 1999 CDBG program. The Subrecipient Agreement is between Hennepin County and the City and sets forth the • Memorandum to Michael J. McCauley March 2, 1999 Page 7 administrative requirements for the 1999 CDBG program. Third Party Agreements are executed between the City and program providers such as Senior Community Services, which operates the Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) Program. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS The following list of attachments provide background information relative to the 1999 proposed Community Development Block Grant program. • Copy of Notice of Public Hearing 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. • Senior Community Services Request for Continued CDBG funding for H.O.M.E. program and summary of service for 1998. • Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) request for funding from the city's CDBG allocation and letter to CASH regarding alternate funding sources. • 1999 CDBG allocations by city. • Urban Hennepin County Five Year Priority Needs Summary - This table shows the relative priority of funding needs proposed by Hennepin County. • CDBG Eligible Activities. • • G:\ DEPTS \EDA \RESOLUTI\1999 \CDBG308.MEM City of Brooklyn Center (Official Publication) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 1999 URBAN r o. 4.4Ae .. � COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM • llo.c. *oL 4 papcm Notice is hereby given that the City of Brooklyn Center, in cooperation with Hennepin County, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION amended is holding a public hearing on March 8, 1999, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Hall located at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, STATE OF MINNESOTA) Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The public hearing is on the housing and community de= ss. velopment needs and priorities ofthe City and Urban Hen - nepin County and the City's proposed use of the 1999 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program planning allocation of $241,308. Frank Chilinskl, being duly sworn on an oath states or affirms, that he is the publisher of the In addition, during the July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 pro- gram year, it is estimated that no additional program in- newspaper known as Sun -Post or the presidents designated come from locally funded CDBG activities will be available to the City. agent, and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: The city orBrooklyn center is proposing to undertake the following activities with 1999 Urban Hennepin County (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification as a CDBG funds starting on or about July 1 ,1999: qualified newspaper, as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02, §331A.07, and other applicable ActiA Budeet enueDevelopmentand laws, as amended. H us Outside Maintenance $232,308 for the Elderly (H.O.M.E.) 9,000 (B) The printed public notice that is attached was published in the newspaper once each week Subsequent increases or decreases in the community plan- dng allocation or the budget of any funded activity by the for one successive weeks; it was first published on Wednesday, the 17 day of greater of$10 or 50% ofthe activity budget or change in activity location, beneficiary, or purpose is considered a February , 1999, and was thereafter printed and published on every Wednesday to and substantial change and pursuant to Urban Hennepin County policy will be subject to the amendment process. including Wednesday, the day of 1999; and printed below is a copy of For additional information on the priorities, proposed ac- tivities, level of funding and program performance, contact the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the City of Brooklyn Center at 569 -3300 or the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development at 541 -7080. the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: The public hearing is being held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59. • abcdefghuklmnopgrs - -- - - __ 1 (Feb. 17, 1999) Pl /Block Grant -BKCTR a • Publisher Subscribed and sworn to pr affi fore me on is day of 999. �. C�a�r1! Notari Public 1 ..., RATE INFORMATION (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users $ 2.55 Der line for comparable space (2) Maximum rate allowed by law $ 6.20 Der line (3) Rate actually charged $ 1. Der line • SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone 541 -1019 Fax 541 -0841 BOARD of DIRECTORS Dwight Johnson January 26, 1999 President Laurie Lafontaine Mr. Tom Bublitz, ist ice Preside nt Ist i s (Ik Community Development Specialist 2nd Vice President City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Francis Hagen Treasurer Brooklyn Center, Mn 55430 Mary Henning Secretar Dear Mr. Bublitz: Kevin Krueger Past President Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Brooklyn Peter Coyle Center allocate $9,000 from it's share of Community Development Member -at -Large Block Grant (CDBG) Year XXV funds to support the HOME Aiko Higuchi Program. This is the same amount approved for the current year. Member -at -Large Enclosed is a Hennepin County Request for Funding application Bob Bean filled out for the City to facilitate our request. Tim Bergstedt * hn Boeder Brooklyn Center's CDBG funds will be leveraged from client fees, arty Guritz funding from the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches Gloria Johnson Peggy Kelly (GMCC) and from donations. The HOME Program operates on a Kathleen Miller sliding fee scale. Clients cover approximately one - quarter of the Senator Gen Olson Programs' cost. GMCC funding, utilizing Federal Title III monies, Curtis Pearson helps to subsidize chore services. Friends of HOME, an Neil Peterson Mary Tambornino organization that solicits private donations, helps to fill the Leonard J. Thiel remaining gap between the City's CDBG funds and the total Tom Ticen Program expense. Benjamin F. Withhart Executive Direc &C.E.o. If you have any questions, or if the Mayor and City Council would like to- have an inf orlatio na p resentation,.plea se let me k now. PROGRAMS Sincerely, • Community Senior Groups & Multi - purpose Senior Centers • H.O.M.E. Ron Bloch • Senior Outreach Program Administrator • T' � A united wiv AS-Cy Attachment H.O.M.E. • (Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly) Program Summary SUMMARY PARAGRAPH - The H.O.M.E. Program is a homemaker, maintenance, and chore program designed as a cost - effective alternative to long term care for the elderly currently operating in the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Richfield, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Center and St. Louis Park. Disabled persons are also eligible for the services. The project maintains a core staff of trained individuals to assure prompt, quality service and a skills bank component. Clients are asked to contribute according to their ability to pay, based on a sliding scale. TARGET POPULATION - Consumers of H.O.M.E. services are elderly, residents age 60+ or people with disabilities who live independently and need some affordable in- home services in order to maintain their residence or property. The H.O.M.E. Program serves those clients who need assistance but are not financially capable of paying the full cost of service as well as frail older adults who require services designed to meet the needs of vulnerable elderly. SERVICES - The philosophy of the H.O.M.E. Program is to maintain independence for elderly and avoid premature placement in nursing homes by providing , maintenance, and eh9F a services. Clients are asked to contribute based on a sliding- fee scale. ProPa'& @ry `. Assessments are made and services provided according to the specific needs of each client for type of service, time and frequency. -Glee a home maintenance services include spow removal, 1 n tea, installation of security features, carpentry, minor plumbing, wiRdew wa I g, painting, weatherization, minor roof repair and other maintenance jobs needed to enable elderly residents to remain in their homes, as well as maintaining their homes in an acceptable manner. STAFF - Home maintenance and homemaker services are provided by workers who are trained in the necessary skill areas and techniques for working with older persons. Skills Bank Workers are also utilized to provide chore services. All staff report to the Program Director, who is responsible for the management and supervision of H.O.M.E. Other staff and volunteers provide administrative and clerical support. FACILITY - Services are provided in the homes of elderly residents. The office is located at Creekside Community Center, 9801 Penn Ave. South, Bloomington 55431, and a satellite office is located at the Minnetonka Center. PLACEMENT PROCEDURE - Clients gain access to the program either by a referral from an area agency or by calling the H.O.M.E. office and requesting service. . FUNDING SOURCES - Revenues are derived from client Fees, Hennepin County, the Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches (GMCC), municipalities in which the program operates, the United Way, and contributions from clients and the community through an associated organization called Friends of HOME. • HOME Program 1999 Operating Budget w/ Gov't Revenue Detail REVENUE Contributions 8,500 United Way 42,552 Government Revenue Bloomington (CDBG 20,000 Bloomington (HRA) 17,500 Brooklyn Center 9,000 Eden Prairie 10,067 Edina 17,400 East Edina Housing Foundation 8,600 Greater Mpls Council of Churches 26,584 Hennepin County 83,754 Minnetonka 14,600 Richfield 22,700 Sub -total Gov't Revenue 230,205 Friends of HOME 14,000 Client Fees 95,000 • Total 390,257 EXPENSES ---------- - - - - -- - Salaries & Wages 264,620 Benefits & Taxes 69,919 Office Rent 3,022 Equipment Repair /Maint. 1,249 Telephone 3,515 Postage 2,443 Printing & Publications 4,673 Supplies 14,199 Professional Fees 12,347 Mileage 6,841 Conferences & Meetings 2,723 Insurance 5,864 Membershi ps & Subscriptions 586 Miscellaneous 551 Depreciation 13,509 Allocation of Admin. 23,272 Total 429,333 Net Excess (Deficit) ($39,076) FROM SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PHONE NO. : 541 1019 Feb. 23 1999 03:51PM P2 Sheet1 • HOUSEHOLD AND OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE FOR ELDERLY SUMMARY OF SERVICE 1998 MAINTENANCE HOMEMAKER] TOTAL BLOOMINGTON Customers 192 1201 313 Households 154 102 Jobs 541 1513' 256 2054 Hours 197 35511 5530 1 EDEN PRAIRIE Customers 9 201 ] 29 Households 8 181 26 Jobs 30 254 284 Hours 86 548 634 EDINA Customers 71 94 165 Households 62 89 151 Jobs 243 1140 1383 Hours 7941 2492 3286 I � RICHFIELD 1 Customers 831 70 153 ►Households 721 61 133 1 Jobs 4621 1071 1533 t +Hours 12791 2347 3626 MINNETONKA (Customers 1621 I 34 196 • 1 Households 1211 I 221 _ _ 143 (Jobs 1005 ] 176 1181 Hours I 2036 I 4031 2439 I I 1 I I BROOKLYN Customers 19 i 19 CENTER Households 16 16 Jobs 15 ' I 15 Hours 309 1 1 309 1 ► I �`I I ST. LOUIS PARK Customers 1 51 I I 5 Households 41 I 4 Jobs I ] _ 51 5 Hours 150 � .. 150 MAINTENANCE IHOMEMAKER TOTALS GRAND TOTAL (Customers 54T 338 880 IHouseholdsI I 437 2921 1 729 (Jobs 1 ] 23011 41541 I 6455 ►Hours I 66331 93411 I 15974 • Pagel There's No Place Like ..... . i 9801 PENN AVE SOUTH, ROOM 106', BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437 Household & ' Outside Maintenance for Elderly H.O.M.E. is a non - profit maintenance service for elderly (age 60 +) and disabled residents of Brooklyn Center. Established in 1980, this program enables senior citizens to remain independent in their homes by providing services they are physically or financially unable to do for themselves. H2O,M.E. SERVICES .72 Y i • • Painting Y y • Limited Maintenance i' 1 7 r . O Fees are assessed on a sliding fee scale. The work is guaranteed. Anyone needing service may 0 11 H.O.M.E. at 888 -5530, Monday- Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. TDD #887 -9605. H.O.M.E. rvices are made possible by Senior Community Services in cooperation with the city of Brooklyn Center. Call 888 -5530 for more information Communi A for Suburban Hennepin Community Education January 27, 1999 Community Services Emergency Assistance Mr. Tom Bublitz Homeless Family Support City of Brooklyn Center Homelessness Prevention 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway volunteer Services Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Energy Assistance Dear Mr. Bublitz : ROME This letter is to request funding in the amount of $1,000.00 from the ® 5 0 city's Community Development Block Grant program. The funding will be used to support homeownership programs and tenant information Tenant Hotline and education services. H Tenant Organizing ome Buyer Education I am enclosing data showing use by residents of Brooklyn Center. As Homeowner Counseling you can see, we are serving many low- and - moderate income people in your community. Home Rehab Counseling We appreciate your willingness to consider our request for support. If you have questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me at 612- 933 -9639, extension 203. Very truly yours, f � aron A. Johnson Executive Director ' 33 -10th Avenue S. Enclosures Suite 150 Hopkins, MN 55343 Business (6`12)933 -9639 Tenant Hotline 933 -0017 Energy Assist. 930 -3541 Fax 933 -8016 TDD 935 -4011 is Investing In People, Building community 112t EOUN. NW3 - OyVORTUMIT Community Action for Suburban Hennepin's HOME Line Renters' "Hotline" Brooklyn Center, • Information on calls during the years 1/1/92- 12/31/98 Brooklyn Center Over the past seven years, a total of 1,637 Number of calls by years Brooklyn Center (unduplicated) renters have 00 contacted HOME Line. This represents service to - 286 28 256 approximately 4,093 residents when all family 225 members are counted. 169 Through the help of HOME Line, Brooklyn Center -� 16 tenants have received $4,922.69 back from improperly withheld security deposits and 0 19 1994 1996 1998 $9750.00 in rent abatements (refunds for 1993 1995 1997 substandard conditions.) Brooklyn Centers A vast majority (over 98 %) of Brooklyn Center Callers' Incomes callers to HOME Line are low and moderate income. 1 / 1 / 9 2 - 1213 1 / 9 8 These income categories are those used by the U.S. Department of HUD: Low = incomes below 50% of the Metro median ® Low 87.2% income; ® Moderate 11.3% Moderate = incomes between 50 and 80% of the Metro 45 median; ® Higher 1.5% Higher = incomes above 80% of the Metro median. Community Renters Education Program . HOME Line's Community Renters Education Program provides education to high school students, (primarily seniors) to tenants /staff of area agencies, information booths at community events and trainings to , presentations volunteers /staff from agencies and managers /property owners. Hiah School Presentations. Number of students (Number of presentations) Name of School 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Academy Of Holy Angels 0 0 0 0 85 (3) 30 (1) ton Jefferson 73 3 0 0 22 1 2g 1 0 The high school Bloomington ( ) ( ) ( ) presentation Bloomington Kennedy 90 (3) 0 30 (1) 24 (2) 55 (3) 67 (4) covers the rights Brooklyn Center 46 (2 3 8 j 2 44 0 67 4 0 W and responsibilities of renters. The Champlin Park 40 (2) 0 82 (4) 219 (8) 246 (8) 276 (10) presentation can Rapids 0 0 52 2 178 6 210 7 171 6 an tailored to fit Coon Ra p� ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) arry l oss size. any Crystal 0 0 0 17 (1 ) 23 (1) 0 class needs, and all Eden Prairie 46 (2) 48 (2) 76 (2) 86 (3) 83 (4) 144 (6) class schedules. Edina 38 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 Excelsior 0 0 0 10 (1) 5 (1) 8 (1) Hopkins 156 (6) 26 (2) 82 (3) 110 (7) 111 (5) 86 (4) Mahtomedi 0 0 30 (1) 0 0 0 Minnetonka 0 47 (2) 0 99 (8) 20 (1) 30 (1 ) Orono 0 0 0 0 30 (1) 0 Osseo 0 64 (2) 0 10 (1) 0 114 (4) Osseo -Park Center 3 5 , 1LU 0 0 0 0 Richfield 60 (2) 47 (2) 58 (2) 60 (2) 141 (5) 42 (2) Robbinsdale- Armstrong 62 (2) 0 25 (1) 27 (2) 0 43 (2) Robbinsdale- Cooper 56 (2) 59 (2) 56 (2) 55 (3) 46 (2) 31 (1) Rockford 0 0 0 8 (1) 0 0 St. Anthony 18 1 0 0 0 0 15 1 ( ) ( ) • St. Louis Park 0 12 (1) 15 (1) 86 (4) 55 (2) 0 Wayzata 24 (1) 38 (2) 0 0 60 (2) 167 (6) Westonka 0 0 Q Q 5-0 (2) 0 GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 726 (30) 379 (17) 663 (24) 1,039 (52) 1,199 (51) 1,318 (56) 5324 (226) Other Educational Activities Presentations Communitv Events Traininas ssociation for Rental Crystal Frolics American Indian Housing Pillsbury Neighborhood ilanagement of Brooklyn Corporation, Services/Waite House, Center Mall of America, Minneapolis Minneapolis WCCO Booth Bill Kelly House, Property- owners, Bloomington Managers and Minneapolis Bloomington, Minneapolis Owners Coalition Bandana Square, Bristol Place, St. Paul and Minnetonka Business and Professional Minneapolis Property Managers, Women League of St. Louis Richfield Cattail Days Community Action Bloomington, Park Council, Apple Valley Brooklyn Center, Edina, St. Louis Park Minneapolis, Plymouth, Center for Asians, Knollwood Mall Community Case St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis "Community Bazaar" Corporation, St. Paul Minneapolis Richfield HRA, Richfield Community Resource Center, St. Louis Park Eden Women's Program, Brooklyn Park Party in the Park Minneapolis Salvation Army, Project Breakthrough, Minneapolis Creekside Community Hamline Coalition, St. Scott/Carver /Dakota Center, Bloomington Paul Community Action, Heartland Community Shakopee Crisis Connection, Action, Wilmar olis Simpson Housing, Minneapolis Hope Allianz, Minneapolis Minneapolis Crystal Managers Coalition Sojourner Women's Itasca County Tenant Shelter, Hopkins Edina Community Center Assistance Program, South Eastern MN Housing Grand Rapids Network, Rochester Hennepin County Home Kooch- Itasca Action School, Bloomington, Council, Inc., Grand South West Minnesota Crystal, Excelsior, Rapids Housing Partnership, Minnetonka Slayton Maryland Park Tenants Association, St. Paul Southern Minnesota Minnesota Multihousing Regional Legal Services, Annual Convention Metropolitan Center for St. Paul Independent Living, New Hope, Robbinsdale, Minnetonka St. Anne's Shelter, Minneapolis Crystal Managers Coalition Minnesota Multihousing St. Paul Public Housing Perspectives Transitional Minnesota Fair Housing St. Paul Tenants Union Housing, St. Louis Park Center, Minneapolis St. Stephen's Shelter, NW Community Support Minneapolis Richfield Apartment Program, Crystal Managers' Association, Thorson Family Resource Richfield Overcoming Poverty Room, Crystal Together, Mankato Senior Linkage, Person to Person, Vail Place, Hopkins Robbinsdale Minneapolis Vail Place, Minneapolis Thorson Family Resource Perspectives YWCA of St. Paul Room, Crystal Transitional Housing, St. Louis Park • Womens Resource Network, Pillsbury House, Minneapolis Minneapolis Community Action for Suburban Hennepin Homeownership Programs Annual Report January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin, known as CASH, is a non - profit agency serving low- and - moderate income people in suburban Hennepin County through direct services, crisis intervention, community education and institutional change. CASH is recognized as an expert in the area of housing issues. In 1998, 791 households utilized homeownship services. Pre - Purchase Home Buyer Education and Counseling An eight hour workshop is offered monthly providing information on each step of the home buying process. The curriculum meets or exceeds FHA, MHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac guidelines. Individual homebuyer counseling is also available to help homebuyers in developing an action plan to overcome barriers to homeownership. 82 Brooklyn Center households have participated in Home Buyer Education and Counseling. • Home Maintenance, Repair and Rehab Programs Technical assistance is provided to homeowners in identifying needed repairs, writing specifications, finding qualified contractors, evaluating bids, and working with contractors through job completion. Information is also provided on loan and grant programs that will finance the cost of home repairs and rehab. In addition, workshops covering such topics as weatherization, small plumbing repairs, and basic home repairs are regularly offered. 29 Brooklyn Center homeowners have received assistance from the Home Maintenance, I Repair and Rehab Programs. Foreclosure Prevention Counseling a distressed Technical assistance and emergency loans are ava ilable to hom eowners facing financial situation caused by circumstances beyond their control that may lead to the loss of their home. Since 1993, 223 Brooklyn Center homeowners have requested foreclosure prevention assistance. Foreclosure was averted in approximately 82% of the cases. 160 Brooklyn Center homes were saved. A total of $48,707 in financial assistance was obtained for Brooklyn Center homeowners. • 1 Homeownership Programs Participant Demographics January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998 Approximately 80% of the homeowners and home buyers served by CASH's Homeownership Programs were low to moderate income households. 6% 14 %, HOUSEHOLD INCOME 48% ® Low - 50% of Median Income 32 %, ■ Moderate - 50% - 80% of Median Income ❑High - 80% of Median Income 0 Undisclosed There were minor children in 57% of the households served by CASH's Homeownership • Programs. TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD 9% 34% ®Adults Only 23% ■Single Parent Families 0 Families with Children © Seniors 34% 2 Homeownership Programs Participant Demographics January 1, 1998 - December 31, 1998 (Continued) The main reasons for default related to the foreclosure program was reduction in income or unemployment. Main Reason for Default ® Unemployment or Reduction in Income ■ Health or Health Care Costs 160 ❑ Divorce /Separation 140 120--* ya O Money Mismanagement 100 80 ■ Unexpected Expense 60 40 El Not Affordable 20 • 0 ® Other 1 • 3 City of Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • February 10, 1999 Sharon Johnson Community Action for Suburban Hennepin 33 10th Ave S. Suite 150 Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Ms. Johnson: I have been asked to write and let you know about funding opportunities outside of CDBG funds that might exist through the City of Brooklyn Center. During the development of the annual budget, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center considers applications for general fund support for a few social service agencies. Support granted by the Council has been limited primarily to agencies participating in joint powers agreements or providing services on a regional basis. A policy regarding funding for such contractual services for nonprofit organizations was recommended by the Finance Commission, and adopted by the City Council. Under that policy, agencies must take responsibility for completing the funding request application, and for submitting their applications within the time boundaries set by the City Council. • For the ear 2000 budget, agencies t the application form on or about y g are required to request Monday May 3, 1999. Requests for forms should be directed to my office. The application must be returned by no later than Tuesday, June 1, 1999. All requests are subject to the approval of the City Council. Submission of an application for funding does not mean that funding will be approved. Enclosed, please find a copy of the policy and procedure adopted by the City Council which governs their funding decisions and contains a sample application. Should you have any questions regarding this process, please feel free to call me at 612 -569 -3303. Sincerely, e A. ers Assistant City Manager/HR Director cc: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager • 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer 1999 CDBG ALLOCATIONS BY COII�IYi IUYITY COMMUNITY ALLOCATION* Brooklyn Center 241,308 Brooklyn Park 503,745 Champlin 76,876 Chanhassen 51,320 Crystal 135,610 Eden Prairie 184,712 Edina 182,318 Golden Valley 104,107 Hopkins 149,144 • Maple Grove 149,899 Minnetonka 208,681 Mound 64,646 New Hope 163,203 Richfield 245,449 Robbinsdale 83,786 St. Louis Park 279,047 Community Subtotal: $2,823,851 Consolidated Pool (27 communities) 330,889 Consolidated Pool Subtotal: $330,889 Community Allocation Total: $3,154,740 • Administration (Hennepin County): $348,200 County Total: $3,502,940 *Includes recaptured funds of $20,940. O:�DPUPROGICDBGICDBG t9991ALLOCATS.DOC • URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY Five Year Priority Needs Summary PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Priority Need Level (Households) Percent of Median Household. Income - 0 -30% 31 -50 °l0 ._.....;.,: 51 -80% (very low income) (low income) „(moderate income) Cost Burden > 30% High High Medium Cost Burden > 50% High High Low Small Substandard High High Medium Related Overcrowded Medium Low Low Cost Burden > 30% High High Medium Cost Burden > 50% High High Medium Renter Large I Substandard High High Medium Related Overcrowded High High Medium Cost Burden > 30% High Medium Low Cost Burden > 50% High Medium Low Elderly I Substandard High High Medium Overcrowded Low Low Low Cost Burden > 30% Medium Low Low Cost.Burden > 50% High Medium Low Owner I Substandard High High Medium Overcrowded Low Low Low PRIORITY HOMELESS Priority Need Level.... ' NEEDS Families Individuals Persons w /Special Needs l Assessment/Outreach Medium Medium Medium Emergency Shelter High Medium Medium Transitional Housing High High High • Permanent Supportive High High High Housing Permanent Housing High High High' PRIORITY..COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT Priority Need Level NEEDS PUBLIC! FACILITY NEEDS Senior Centers High Youth Centers Medium Neighborhood Facilities Medium Child Care Centers Low Parks and /or Recreation Facilities Medium Health Facilities Low Parking Facilities Low Other Public Facilities Low INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT Solid Waste Disposal Improvements Low Flood Drain Improvements Low Water Improvements Low Street Improvements Low Sidewalk Improvements Low Sewer Improvements Low Asbestos Removal Low Other. Infrastructure Improvement Needs Low PUBLIC`SERVICE NEEDS Senior Services High Handicapped Services High Youth Services High Transportation Services High Substance Abuse Services Low Employment Training Low • Crime Awareness _ Medium Fair Housing Counseling Medium Tenant/Landlord Counseling Medium Child Care Services High PRIORITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Priority Need Level.. NEEDS Health Services Low Other Public Service Needs Medium ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS (when related to other eligible High housing and /or community development activity) RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS . Low NON - RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS Low ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Commercial- Industrial Rehabilitation Medium Commercial - Industrial Infrastructure Medium Other Commercial - Industrial Improvements Low Micro - Business Medium Other Businesses Low Technical Assistance Low • Other Economic Development Needs Medium OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Energy Efficiency Improvements Medium I Lead Based Paint/Hazards High Code Enforcement Medium PLANNING (when related to other eligible housing and /or Medium community development activity) Defining Need Levels: The level of need is defined as follows: High priority: Funding for these activities will be heavily pursued during the five -year period. Medium priority: If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by the city during the five -year period. Low priority: The city will not fund activities to address this need during the five -year period. • No such need: The city finds there is no need or that this need has already been substantially addressed. ^• CDBG ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES Federal statutes and regulations determine what activities are eligible under the CDBG Program. Generally, three steps are involved in determining if CDBG funds may be used to assist a proposed activity. 1. Determine if the proposed activity meets one of the following national objectives of the program: Benefiting low and moderate (L/M) income persons, Prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or Meeting a particularly urgent community development need. 2. Determine if the activity eli activities in the CDBG ty s included within the listing of eli regulations, as modified b to o' � y statutory amendments. A general list of eli activity categories follows: Acquisition of q Real Property Disposition of Real Property Public Facilities and Improvements Privately Owned Utilities Clearance of Buildings and Improvements • Relocation Public Services Interim Assistance - Urgent Need Removal of Architectural Barriers Housing Rehabilitation Homeownership Assistance Code Enforcement Historic Preservation Commercial or Industrial Rehabilitation Economic Development Activities Special Activities by Subrecipients Planning and Capacity Building 3. Determine if the proposed activity falls within a category of explicitly ineligible activities listed below: Buildings for the General Conduct of Government General Government Expenses Political Activities Purchase of Equipment (generally) Furnishings and Personal Property (generally) Operating and Maintenance Expenses New Housing Construction Income Payments NOTE: The current CDBG Program regulations are contained in 24 CFR Part 570, P ublished September • 6, 1988 as amended. Contact our CDBG representative if you would like a co Y P Y PY • Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1999 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, and held a public hearing on March 8, 1999, to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities on the City's proposed use of $241,308 from the 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County • Community Development Block Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1999 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Pro 'ect Budget Household Outside Maintenance for the Elderly $9,000 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project $232,308 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and its City manager to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 1998 CDBG Program. • • RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council allocates the $67,500 in "program income" from the sale of the EDA owned property at 6715, 6717, 6719 and 6721 Humboldt Avenue North, to the 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project. 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. • • City Council Agenda Item No. 9f i • Office of the City Manager City o f Brooklyn Center A great place to start. A great place to stay. • Michael J. McCauley City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Kragness, Councilmembers Hilstrom, Lasman, Wson, and Peppe FROM: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager Y Y g D AY ATE: March 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Liquor License At Earle Brown Heritage Center Under the terms of the management agreements, the caterers are required to have a liquor license for operations at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. Due to the operation of a partial year, the Earle Brown Heritage Center was required to reimburse D'Amico for the cost of a full year's liquor license in 1999. It • is also required to pay the cost of a pro -rated liquor license for Flik International for the same year. This results in the City of Brooklyn Center receiving from the Earle Brown Heritage Center, in effect, two fees for one operation at the Heritage results in an unanticipated almost doublin g p ge Center. This overlapping fee p PP g of license fees from that particular operation received by the City of Brooklyn Center and a corresponding cost to the Heritage Center. We would propose that the City transfer this excess, unanticipated license fee back to the Earle Brown Heritage Center. This would not result in a refunding of the amounts paid by either of the license holders, but would reflect the fact that the Heritage Center, which is the ultimate operator of the facility, would not in effect be charged almost double for its 1999 operations through its caterers. This would not reduce the anticipated revenue to the City in 1999. The Heritage Center would pay a full license fee of $5,200 for 1999 through its reimbursements of D'Amico caterers, but would receive back $4,357.16 for the Flik pro -rated license fees. This would leave the City with a full 1999 license fee for the Heritage Center. i 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 • City Hall & TDD Number (612) 569 -3300 Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number (612) 569 -3400 • FAX (612) 569 -3494 An Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunities Employer Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF $4,357.16 TO EARLE BROWN HERITAGE CENTER WHEREAS, the Earle Brown Heritage Center is operated by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, pursuant to contracts between the Earle Brown Heritage Center and its caterers, Earle Brown Heritage Center is required to reimburse its caterers for the cost of liquor license fees; and WHEREAS, caterers were changed in 1999; and WHEREAS, both caterers were required to have liquor licenses during 1999, and the City does not provide for a refund on licenses; and WHEREAS, the ultimate supervising entity for operations at the Earle Brown Heritage Center has not changed; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center in its General Fund Budget anticipated • receiving only one liquor license fee for operations at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the sum of $4,357.16 be and hereby is authorized to be transferred from the General Fund to the Earle Brown Heritage Center, representing the overlapping payment of liquor license fees received by the City of Brooklyn Center in 1999 due to liquor operations at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. 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. City Council Agenda Item No. 9g . Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING VARIOUS LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS AFFECTING CITIES WHEREAS, a number of bills are currently pending before the State of Minnesota Legislature; and WHEREAS, a number of these bills directly impact cities; and WHEREAS, some of the concepts being discussed at the Legislature involve multiple bills on the same topic; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center would recommend support and consideration by the City's local legislative delegation of several concepts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that it respectfully request that the City's local legislative delegation strongly consider supporting legislative initiatives currently pending before the State Legislature that • would: 1. Repeal the sales tax on local government. This sales tax unnecessarily increases the cost of local government. 2. Support House File 45 to allow for administrative penalties and streamline ordinance enforcement procedures. 3. Support Year 2000 (Y2k) bills that address issues of immunity and mutual aid. 4. Support House File 220 that would distribute property tax penalties and interest in proportion to the delinquent taxes that are being paid. Currently while cities do not receive unpaid taxes in proportion to their percent of the total tax bill, only counties and school districts receive the interest and penalties levied upon the repayment of delinquent taxes. It is unfair for cities to receive only the nominal amount of unpaid taxes several years late, while assessing penalties and interest on the entire delinquent amount and distributing those penalties only to school districts and counties. 5. Support Senate File 161 to remove the 30 years service cap on volunteer fire fighters. The 30 year cap on volunteer fire fighters relief contributions sets an artificial limitation on participation in relief associations. • RESOLUTION NO. 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. • r MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director DATE: February 16, 1999 SUBJECT: Bills before the State Legislature As I have read the League of Minnesota Cities Bulletin this winter, I have noticed several titles in the summaries of bills before the Legislature which I think could be of interest to the City. I would like to have you review the bill summaries and consider if the City should contact its Senator and Representative regarding them. I have listed the titles below and attached copies of the Bulletin pages containing the summary. Income tax reform; sales tax exemption Municipal administrative penalties authorized Y2K mutual aid; immunity Distribution of property tax penalties and interest • 30 -year service cap eliminated • , Bill ,summaries continued Id Constitutional amendment Green Lake Sanitary Sewer and Three -fifths vote for new state ratification vote changed Water Project WIF funding taxes or tax increases S.F. 19 (Metzen) (Election Laws) H.F. 43 Quhnke) Qobs and Economic H.F. 5 (Wilkin, McElroy Dorman, proposes a Constitutional amendment Development Policy) would appropri- Abrams) (Taxes) would require a that would change the minimum vote ate an amount necessary from state three -fifths vote of the members of required to ratify a Constitutional bond proceeds to the public facilities each house of the Legislature to pass amendment to only a majority of authority for wastewater infrastructure legislation that creates a new tax of those voting.AH funding for the Green Lake Sanitary statewide applicability, increases the Sewer and Water Project. RS general rate or expands the base of the Partisan primary ballot state sales or income tax, or increases consolidated Snowmobiles with metal traction the general education levy. EW S.F. 24 (Betzold) (Election Laws) devices prohibited would consolidate the partisan H.F. 46 (Bakk, Solberg, Anderson, I., Agricultural property tax credit primary ballot and provide for a Marko,Tomassoni) (Environment H.F. 8 (Westfall, Finseth, Swenson, withdrawal of candidates and filling and Natural Resources Policy) would Westrom, Ness) (Taxes) would provide vacancies in nomination.AH modify certain restrictions on the use agricultural property classes 1b, 2a, of snowmobiles with metal traction and 2b with a full credit on the first Environment devices prohibiting their use on any half of property taxes payable in 1999, Snowmobiles with metal, traction paved public state trail except as except for the portion of the tax devices prohibited otherwise provided by a local govern- attributable to a house, garage, and H.F. 6 (Hackbarth, Howes, Fuller, ment with jurisdiction over a trail. RS surrounding acre of land. EW Finseth, Bakk) (Environment and Natural Resources) would modify Finance and Taxes Permanent property tax rebate certain restrictions on the use of Income tax rebate H.F. 30 (Murphy) (Taxes) would snowmobiles with metal traction H.F. 1 (Abrams, Sviggum, Rifenberg, provide a credit in the amount of • devices. Use on any paved public Storm) (Taxes) would provide an 20 percent of the qualified property state trail would be prohibited income tax rebate for taxes paid in tax paid during a taxable year.The except as otherwise provided by a calendar year 1997. Generally, the maximum amount of property tax local government with jurisdiction amount would be 20 percent of the to which the credit applies would be over a trail. Definitions and rule - tax liability with a maximum rebate $5,000.A general fund appropriation making authority would also be of $7,600 for married taxpayers filing in the amount necessary to pay modified. RS joint returns and $3,800 for all others. refunds would be made beginning An appropriation in the amount in fiscal year 2000. EW Snowmobiles with metal traction necessary to pay the rebates would devices prohibition repealed be made from the tax reform and Income tax reform; sales tax H.F. 29 (Tunheim, Kubly, juhnke, reduction account. EW exemption Schumacher, Huntley) (Environment S.F. 28 (Samuelson, Hanson, Sams, and Natural Resources Policy) would Tax reform Lourey, Solon) (Taxes) would modify" repeal the prohibition on the use of H. F. 2 (Dorman, Abrams, Abeler, the income tax amounts and rates, and snowmobiles with metal traction Gerlach, Pawlenty) (Taxes) would would repeal the sales tax on political devices on public lands, roads, and reduce the state income tax rates subdivisions of the state, its agencies, trails.The prohibition on the use of and adjust the brackets, increase the and instrumentalities. Effective after such snowmobiles on paved public exemption amount for the alternative June 30, 1999. EW trails would remain. RS minimum tax, repeal the insurance premiums on health maintenance Sales tax rate reduced All- terrain vehicle operation organizations and nonprofit health . S. F. 36 (Wiener, Robertson) (Taxes) H.F. 33 (Anderson, I.) (Environment service plan corporations, change would reduce the sales tax rate from and Natural Resources Policy) would property tax class rates, increase the 6.5 percent to 6 percent. Effective modify the existing laws governing education homestead credit, and June 30, 1999. EW • the operation of all- terrain vehicles. reduce the general education levy. RS EW January 13, 1999 _ Page 13 Bill summaries continued General Government families.The bill outlines require- On -sale liquor license for the Former legislators prohibited ments for demonstration project Dudley Riggs Theatre , from lobbying plans. Grants would be used to S.F. 31 (Spear) (Commerce) would H.F. 9 (Sviggum, Howes, Otremba, acquire, rehabilitate, or construct authorize the city of Minneapolis to Kielkucki, Harder) (Governmental transitional or permanent housing. issue an on -sale intoxicating liquor Operations and Veterans Affairs A blank general fund appropriation license to the Dudley Riggs Theatre. Policy) would prohibit former would be made to the housing AS legislators from engaging in lobbying development fund. AH activities at the state Legislature for Public Safety a period of one year after leaving Land use Abolishment of Spring Lake office. RS Wabasha County grant for water Park Commission and sewer extension S.F. 9 (Betzold) (Local and Metropoli- Municipal administrative H.F. 44 (Osskopp) Gobs and Eco- tan Government) would abolish the penalties authorized nomic Development Policy) would Spring Lake Park police civil service H.F. 45 (Folliard,Abrams) (Local appropriate 81.94 million from the commission. EW Government and Metropolitan general fund to the Department of Transportation Affairs) would authorize city councils Trade and Economic Development to establish by ordinance procedures for a grant to Wabasha County for Motor vehicle emissions for imposing civil penalties for water and sanitary sewer extension inspection program repealed ordinance violations. AS /RS from the city ofWabasha to the fl ki (Haake, ) (Transportation a t , W unincorporated area of Reads n, Johnsonn) Y2K mutual aid; immunity Landing. RS Polity) would repeal the motor vehicle S.F. 2 (Kelley, S.P., Moe, R.D.) emissions inspection program as of (Local and Metropolitan Govern- Property rights July 1, 2000. RS ment) would include year 2000- Private Property Protection Act Transportation funding reform • related emergencies in the laws S.F. 45 (Stevens, Pariseau, Knutson, H.F. 309 (Lieder, Juhnke) (Transporta- authorizing mutual aid between Sams, Stumpf) Gudiciary) would tion Policy) would dedicate a portion local units of government; provide create the Private Property Protection of the sales tax on motor vehicles to immunity for associations and state Act which would make it a "taking" roads and public transit, and reduce agencies collecting and publishing of private property when any govern- the rate of registration tax on passen- year 2000 solution information; and, ment unit implements a regulatory ger automobdes.The bill also proposes appropriate 820 million from the program, including land use or a Constitutional amendment to pay, general fund for an interest -free loan planning and zoning actions, when from the proceeds of any tax levied fund for local governments to meet the fair market value is reduced on the sale price of new and used costs incurred in addressing year 10 percent or $7,500, whichever motor vehicles, not less than 15 per - 2000- related problems. Loans would is less, for uses that were permitted cent to the highway user tax distribu- have to be repaid in five annual at the time the owner acquired title tion fund and not less than 25 percent installments beginning the year after to the property. Effective)uly 1, 1999. to fund established for public transit receipt of the loan. Effective the day RS assistance. RS following final enactment. RS /AH Liquor High - occupancy vehicle lanes Housing Temporary on -sale liquor license Prohibited Housing for school -age children authorized S.F. 13 (Day) (Transportation) would H.F. 10 (Pawlenty, McElroy, Clark, K.) H.F 32 (Anderson, 1.) (Commerce) prohibit the commissioner of transpor- (K-12 Education Finance) would would authorize the city of Interna- tation from restricting any lanes on allow the establishment of school tional Falls to issue a temporary 1 -35W and I -394 for high - occupancy stability demonstration projects with license for the on -sale of intoxicating vehicles; and would require the the purpose of securing stable housing liquor for a class reunion for the commissioner to designate every for families with school -age children period between June 29 and July 4, formerly restricted lane on 1 -394 as • who have moved frequently or for 2000, on premises designated by the a reversible lane for one direction of children leaving foster care, juvenile city council. Effective upon local travel during peak traffic periods. RS correctional facilities, or unstable approval. AS Page 14 __ LMC Cities Bulletin Bill summaries continued , Cabin class rates reduced Limited market value of finance to use when evaluating H.F. 211 (Abrams, Fuller, Carruthers, S.F. 189 (Larson,Johnson, DJ., Day, political subdivisions' requests for state . Kuisle, Haake) (Taxes) would reduce Samuelson, Murphy) (Local and assistance in the form of state general the class rates on the second tier of Metropolitan Government) would obligation bond proceeds for local noncommercial seasonal residential limit increases in market value capital improvement projects and recreational property. EW according to a new formula. Effective would limit the amount of funding for taxes levied in 1999, payable in to half of the total project costs. AS Property tax reform account 2000, and thereafter. EW repealed Municipal design -build H.F. 225 (Gerlach, Kielkucki) (Taxes) Sales and use tax rate reduced authorization would change income tax rates S.F. 221 (Wiger) (Taxes) would S.F. 178 Qohnson,J.B.,Wiger, and brackets and repeal the property reduce the sales and use tax rate from Vickerman) (Local and Metropolitan tax reform account. Effective for 6.5 percent to 5.5 percent. Effective Government) would authorize taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, for sales made after June 30, 1999. EW municipalities to provide for 1999. EW contract bid specifications, design, General Government and construction standards.AS Ag property tax credit S.F. 155 ohnson, D Stevens, .., Day, Capital project financing ( J J y H.F. 209 (Bishop, Knoblach) (Capital Access easements transferred Vickerman, Dille) (Local and Metro- S.F. 205 (Ourada, Stevens) (Environ- olitan Government Investment) would convert capital P ) would P rovide ment and Natural Resources) a credit for agricultural property project financing from general fund would allow the transfer of access classes 1b, 2a, and 2b(3) for the full cash to general obligation bonding, () authorizes din for public easements from abandoned drainage amount of the first -half of 1999 spending P P ur- systems to storm sewer improvement property taxes payable May 15. EW poses and to acquire and to better districts. RS public land and buildings and other Reduced limited market value public improvements of a capital Specific descriptions for certain • threshold nature with certain conditions. easements S.F. 159 (Cohen,Ten Eyck, Effective the day following final S,F. 233 (Solon,Wiener, Neuville, Robertson) (Local and Metropolitan enactment. RS P Knutson) (judiciary) would provide Government) would reduce the for definite and specific descriptions implementation f threshold for istribution of property tax P lti for certain easements and apply the penalties and interest limited market value treatment to an requirement retroactively to all amount equal to the value determined H.F. 220 (Solberg, Kalis, Winter) q easements whenever created. Such for the recedin (Taxes) would change the distribution P g assessment Y ear of y tax penalties and interest descriptions would be required to pmpert multiplied by the rate of increase in be the minimum necessary for the the consumer rice index. Effective so that each taxing jurisdiction P safe conduct of the business of the for taxes levied in 1999, a able in receives a distribution in the same P Y public service corporation. RS 2000, and thereafter. EW proportion as each jurisdiction's levy is to the total levy. Effective for Metro radio board sunset Limited market value penalties and interest collected after extended five Y ohnson, ears S.F. 167 (Metzen, Solon, June 30, 1999. EW J S.F. 234 (Higgins, Murphy, Anderson, D.E., Novak) (Local and Metropolitan Belanger, Kelley, S.P.) (Local and Government) would limit increases in Standards for state assistance Metropolitan Government) would market value to the estimated market to local capital projects extend the sunset date for the metro- value determined by the assessor for S.F 157 (Cohen.1'rtce, Morse, politan radio board From July 1, 1999, the 1998 assessment year. EW Fredertck%on,Wtener) (Governmental to July 1,2004.AH Operations and Veteran%) would establish criteria for the commissioner Page 12 - -^ -- — LMC Cities Bulletin Bill summaries continued Housing 30 -year service cap eliminated Public safety radio equipment • Youth housing programs S.F. 161 (Wiger, Marry) ( Governmen- grants and loans RE 218 (Tingelstad, Entenza, tat Operations and Veterans) would S.F. 231 (Higgins Kelley, S.P., Murphy, Stanek, Goodno, Wejcman) (Health eliminate the 30 -year service cap on Anderson, Belanger) (Local and and Human Services Finance) would volunteer firefighter relief associations Metropolitan Government) would appropriate $2 million to the com- Providing monthly benefit service appropriate $6.5 million to the appropriate of human services for youth Pensions. Effective July 1, 1999. EW commissioner of public safety for grants and loans for public safety housin g p ro grams. AH Personnel radio equipment. EW Liquor Vets preference rights expanded Five more on -sale licenses in S.F. 219 Vickerman, Metzen, Murphy, Transportation Marshall Betzold, Robertson) (Government Dedicated sales tax on motor H.F. 153 (Seifert, M.) (Commerce) Operations and Veterans) would vehicles would authorize the city of Marshall expand coverage of veterans termina- S.F. 151 Qohnson, J.B.) (Transporta- to issue five additional on -sale tion rights to state employees. RS tion) proposes an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to dedicate intoxicating liquor licenses. Effective Public Safety a portion of the sales tax on motor ' upon local approval. AS Volunteer ambulance attendants vehicles to roads and public transit, reduce the registration tax rate on Pensions H.E 214 (Goodno, Fuller, Davids, passenger automobiles, change the Local government correctional Juhnke, Greenfield) (Health and depreciation schedule for computing service plan Human Services Policy) would registration tax on passenger automo- H.F. 176 (Mares, Smith, Murphy, modify volunteer ambulance atten- bites, and allocate revenues from the dant definition and reimbursement Stang, Rhodes) (Governmental sales tax on motor vehicles. RS Operations and Veterans Affairs provisions. EW Policy) would create a local govern- Transportation trust fund ment correctional service retirement peace officer posttraumatic stress syndrome S.F. 251 Qohnson, DJ.) (Transporta- plan administered by the public tion) would reduce the sales tax rates Skogun employees retirement association. EW H.F. lun d, Carruthers) Gobs and (Stanek, Rhodes, Pugh, on passenger automobiles, create a Economic Development Policy) Minnesota transportation trust fund Special benefits for state fire for highways and transit, require marshals would provide that post- traumatic appropriations for the state patrol to H.F. 227 (Osskopp, Smith, Molnau, stress syndrome, without an accompa- be made from the general fund, and Hasskamp, Skoe, Dempsey, Ness, nying physical injury or cause of the propose an amendment to the Juhnke, Solberg, Kubly, Koskinen) condition, for a peace officer is an Minnesota Constitution to require (Governmental Operations and occupational disease for workers' all proceeds from the sales tax on Veterans Affairs Policy) would provide compensation purposes. EW motor vehicles to be deposited in special benefit coverage for state fire the Minnesota transportation trust marshals. EW fund. RS i January 27, 1999 Page 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael J. McCauley, City Manager FROM: Charlie Hansen, Finance Director DATE: March 1, 1999 SUBJECT: Bills before the State Legislature Earlier, I sent you several titles from the summaries of bills before the Legislature which appeared in the League of Minnesota Cities Bulletin. One of these was the elimination of the 30 -year service cap for members of volunteer firefighter relief associations. You asked me for an analysis of any potential costs resulting from the passage of this bill. We did a limited analysis of this issue last year as part of the study of switching the fire relief association over to a defined contribution plan. This was predicated on the assumption that one way or the other, the fire department would attract and retain its authorized strength of 40 members. The issue is then: does a member who stays beyond 30 years of service require a larger contribution from the city than a new recruit? • The retirement benefit currently s a lump sum of 000 for each Y P 5 $� year of service. For Y either a new recruit or a long serving member, the city's contribution is substantially less than $5,000 per year. For a new recruit, it is assumed that future investment earnings will supplement the city's contribution and result in $5,000 being available for each year of service by the time the member retires and collects the benefit. Good and bad years for investment income will average out over the long run. For a long serving member, a large sum in already built up and invested. In a good year, the investment income could easily exceed $5,000 and result in a zero cost to the city. In a bad year, investment income could be small and the city might need to contribute most of the $5,000. The city's contribution is only adjusted after an actuarial study and so there isn't a need to make up the loss in one year. Since the member is close to retirement, an increase in the contribution would most likely be needed. In conclusion, it isn't possible to give a definitive answer to the question. Depending upon investment income, there may or may not be a cost for keeping a member on for more than 30 years of service. There definitely is a loss of leadership and expertise if these members are forced to leave at exactly 30 years. These are the members who tend to be the officers • and trainers of the fire department.