Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 06-26 EDAP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -'- June 26, 1995 Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract, Improvement Project No. 1995 -11, Contract 95 -E, Corrugated Met ipe Sanitary Sewer Trunk Relining C LL �'( 6-� =�� Woodbine Neighborhood Im m prove nt Pro'ect: Staff ort - ep Issues at 71st and Kyle Avenues }�- �C /U_ - f-h 6/ Selection of Cam Andre as Interim City Manager for the City of Brooklyn Center 0 N` �C L J, of Recruitment of Process for City Manager 1 lC( -_--Itfms Removed from the Consent Agenda Adjournment EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 26, 1995 _ (following adjournment of City Council meeting) ,j: Call to Order ! ';17 �. Roll Call L kC C i �}i �C�i �� r7' ��.� C •tl 1 ,_,3: Approval of Agenda and Consent*Agenda -The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority and will be. enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a C6mmissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration Items. v Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1995 - Regular Session rC - Commissioners not present at meetings will be recorded as ab�taining from the vote on the minutes. Resolution Authorizing the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center to Execute an Agreement Sharing Certain Costs Associated with Conveyance of the entral Parking Area of the Shingle Creek Land Company{, -This is an agree ment share potential expenses for the modification of the Central Parking Area Agreement (General Litho) Commission Consideration Items Request for Development Proposal for the Area of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard 5. Adjournment Council Meeting Date June 26. 1995 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 3 Q� Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: EDA Minutes - June 12, 1995 - Regular Session Department Approva - 6.,62 rj� MZCU G. Bra fman, Director of Community AWelopment Manager's Review /Recommendation: C- �/, No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: ® Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) June 12, 1995 - Regular Session All Councilmembers were present. • 4 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JUNE 12, 1995 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in regular session and was called to order by President Myrna Kragness at 9 p.m. ROLL CALL President Myrna Kragness, Commissioners Barb Kalligher, Kristen Mann, Debra Hilstrom, and Kathleen Carmody. Also present were Assistant City Manager Nancy Gohman, Director of Public Services Diane Spector, Director of Community Development Brad Hoffman, Community Development Specialist Tom Bublitz, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA President Kragness inquired if any Commissioner requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. No requests were made. There was a motion by Commissioner Mann and seconded by Commissioner Carmody to approve the Tune 12, 1995, agenda and consent agenda as printed. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 22 1995 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Commissioner Mann and seconded by Commissioner Carmody to approve the minutes of the May 22, 1995, EDA meeting as printed. The motion passed unanimously. SALE OF EDA -OWNED PROPERTIES Commissioner Kalligher asked whether the land was put out for bids. The Community Development Specialist stated requests for offers on the properties have not gone out. The City was approached regarding it but Staff needed authority to advertise sale of the lots. 6/12/95 - 1 - Commissioner Kalligher noted the Commission has always said it would make the land available to builders. The Community Development Specialist replied that is an option. He explained Staff will be reporting on the Scattered Site Acquisition program policies at the July 1995 work session. At that time, the staff will be discussing various options for the marketing of lots. In the interim, he has been working with an intern to survey other cities to learn various approaches taken to the issue. The Community Development Specialist discussed the City's history in these matters and the process which would be followed after offers are received. The Commission would see the details of this particular sale at least two more times before it was final. Since there has been some interest, he believed the opportunity should be presented. Commissioner Kalligher noted she agrees with the approach the Commission is taking. Commissioner Mann commented she had no problems except she believed the timeframe suggested would not allow enough time for an interested party to prepare a building plan. The Community Development Specialist agreed the schedule is tight with the advertisement not going into the newspaper until June 21, 1995. He said an additional two weeks could be added. Commissioner Mann stated a July 15 cutoff would be preferable. The Community Development Specialist concurred with that date. Commissioner Kalligher asked whether sealed bids would be received. The Community Development Specialist said sealed bids would not be received as it has worked better in the past to allow parties to submit quotes against each other up to the closing date and time. He noted it is also an option to not list the land for sale until the program as a whole has been considered in July. President Kragness asked whether the two lots being discussed are the only ones in this area which would be sold. The Community Development Specialist said there are two more lots. One is worth keeping for a potential access to another area with redevelopment possibilities and the other is very small. President Kragness stated there was no need to delay action since all that is being done is the placement of an advertisement. There is no limitation being made to one person or one company. The Community Development Specialist commented he knew of at least three builders to approach. He mentioned Mr. Brandvold, who has previously completed satisfactory construction in the City. There was a consensus to amend the printed resolution to change the cut -off date for bids to July 15, 1995. 6/12/95 -2- RESOLUTION NO. 95 -16 Commissioner Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF CERTAIN EDA -OWNED PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 6601 BRYANT AVENUE NORTH AND 5900 EMERSON AVENUE NORTH IN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 469.012, SUBD. 7, AND SECTION 469.029 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Barb Kalligher, and the motion passed unanimously as amended. CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRED LOAN Commissioner Mann noted she is pleased to see residents move up on the waiting list. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -17 Commissioner Barb Kalligher introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING ONE (1) BROOKLYN CENTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEFERRED LOAN (FILE NO. H -132 [80581) The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Debra Hilstrom, and the motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS The Assistant City Manager asked the Director of Community Development for a report on this matter. The Director of Community Development explained the process for drafting a proposal. He noted approval would be scheduled for the first July meeting. The proposal would set out criteria. He described three district areas: Area A, for a medical facility and offices; Area B, for senior housing and a medical clinic; and Area C, a commercial or medical area. He noted he is seeking interested developers who would incorporate the guidelines set out in the study. The proposal will be sent to developers and will also be advertised. He noted developers are currently looking for 1996 projects in conjunction with the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Mann expressed concern with the phrase "higher density housing" in the third paragraph of the first page. She said it should be specified as senior or a particular type of housing. The Director of Community Development agreed. Commissioner Mann asked when the proposal would be discussed further. The Director of Community Development said the matter would come back to the Commission in two weeks, then go to the Planning Commission, then return to the Commission at the July 10, 1995, meeting. 6/12/95 - 3 - Commissioner Mann asked what action needs to be taken at this meeting. The Director of Community Development asked for agreement with the schedule of the drafting of the proposal. Commissioner Hilstrom stated she had believed Area C involved a gas station. She wondered if it would be built and then torn down. The Director of Community Development said the property belongs to Phillips 66 but there is indecision on the part of the company as to whether or not the gas station project will continue. Commissioner Kalligher noted the present building has been torn down. President Kragness agreed. Commissioner Carmody mentioned language on page six. She stated she had believed it was lowered to 80. The Director of Community Development stated it was just a rough estimate number. Commissioner Carmody asked the Director of Public Services if there will be two storm drainage ponds since one is mentioned in Area B. The Director of Public Services stated the pond is intended to stand alone. Commissioner Carmody explained she had meant the pond described near the water tower. The Director of Public Services said that pond could be added at a later time. It is possible it will not be needed or that there could be a mega -pond on the water tower site. It is expensive, so it won't be a mega -pond. It will be used for a small area. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Kalligher and seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority adjourned at 9:26 p.m. President Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 6/12/95 -4- Councd Meeting Date 6/26/95 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number 3 L Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Resolution Authorizing the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center to Execute an Agreement Sharing Certain Costs Associated with Conveyance of the Central Parking Area of the Shingle Creek Land Company Department Approval: l�< r Brad Hoffman, Community Develop ent Director Manager's Review /Recommendation: ' No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council A i Y Action: I recommend approval of Resolution Authorizing the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center to Execute an Agreement Sharing Certain Costs Associated with Conveyance • of the Central Parking Area of the Shingle Creek Land Company. Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes Monday evening, the EDA will have as a consent item an agreement with Shingle Creek Land Company and First Industrial which involves the sharing of some up -front costs if the central parking area does not occur by August 15, 1995. This is the effort to relieve the site proposed for General Litho from the parking encumbrances on it. The site is a proof of parking for surrounding developments, as you will recall. At this time, it appears the General Litho deal will not happen. However, it is still in the City's / EDA's interest to conclude the modification to the central parking area agreement. As you know, the EDA authorized the condemnation of the 14 acre site adjacent to Schmidt Music for a hotel /restaurant development. We have been able to link the parking issue with Shingle Creek Land Company to the sale of the land, thus avoiding condemnation. The development of the 14 acre parcel is central to the funding of our new tax increment district and its anticipated activities. I strongly recommend the FDA's authorization of the agreement so that we can conclude the modification of the parking agreement. • I will be available Monday evening should you have any questions about this matter. FIRST INDUSTRIAL, L.P. 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 150 Chicago, Illinois 60606 June 13, 1995 Shingle Creek Land Company c/o Brookstone Real Estate Services, Inc. 3300 Edinborough Way, Suite 207 Edina, Minnesota 55435 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Re: Conveyance of Central Parking Area and Amendment to Easement Agreement Ladies and Gentlemen: First Industrial, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ( "First Industrial "), Shingle Creek Land Company, a Minnesota general partnership "Shingle Creek ") and the City of Brooklyn Center, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the "City") currently contemplate a transaction (the "Transaction ") whereby, among other things, Shingle Creek conveys the property (the "Property ") described on Exhibit A attached hereto to First Industrial and First. Industrial, Shingle Creek, the City and any other necessary parties enter into a Sixth Amendment • to Easement Agreement and Modification of Declarations for Parking. In anticipation of the Transaction, First Industrial may incur certain costs and expenses up to a maximum of $7,500 (collectively, the "Costs") including, without limitation, those relating to obtaining survey of the Property and an environmental assessment of the Property, and title insurance work charges. In consideration for First Industrial incurring the Costs, in the event that the Transaction has not closed by August 15, 1995, the City and Shingle Creek shall, promptly upon the written request of First Industrial, each reimburse First Industrial for one -third of the Costs. FIRST LNDUSTRIAL., L.P., a Delaware limited partnership By: First Industrial Realty Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation and its sole general partner By: Its: AGREED AND ACCEPTED: SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY, a Minnesota general partnership • By: Its: FAHOMEID WATIRTTIRT40 -A. DA3 06/13!95 Shingle Creek Land Company City of Brooklyn Center June 13, 1995 Page 2 i ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its: • • Commissioner introduced the following resolution • and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT SHARING CERTAIN COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONVEYANCE OF THE CENTRAL PARKING AREA OF THE SHINGLE CREEK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (EDA) has sought the development of certain parcels of land currently owned by the Shingle Creek Land Company; and WHEREAS, the EDA, the Shingle Creek Land Company, and First Industrial have identified certain costs that cannot be recovered should the parking issue not be resolved; and WHEREAS, the EDA, the Shingle Creek Land Company and First Industrial have agreed to a maximum cost of $7,500 to be shared in the event the transaction does not close by August 15, 1995. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center that the Executive Director is authorized to enter into an agreement to share up to one -third of the collective maximum cost of $7,500 to facilitate the conveyance of the central parking area owned by the Shingle Creek Land Company to First Industrial. Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Council Meeting Date 6/26/95 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbe Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: Request for Development Proposal for the Area of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard Department Approve G. Brad fman, Communit ev pment Director Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommendation: Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes • Attached is a draft copy of a Request for Development Proposal for the 69th Avenue Redevelopment Project for Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue. This RFP was delivered to Council for its review prior to the June 12, 1995, City Council meeting. Staff is interested in Council's input with regard to this RFP. • DRAFT 6/9/95 REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR THE 69TH AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND 69TH AVENUE Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center July 11, 1995 INVITATION FOR PROPOSALS The Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (EDA) invites developers to submit proposals for the purpose of redeveloping the area around the Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue intersection in the City of Brooklyn Center. The 69th Avenue redevelopment area is located along Brooklyn Boulevard, which is one of the main thoroughfares in Brooklyn Center with an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of close to 47,000 vehicles a day. Brooklyn Boulevard is the City's primary commercial corridor and the project area is within two blocks of the interchange with I -694. Because Brooklyn Boulevard needs to be widened and because some of the adjoining parcels are underutilized or incompatible with the proposed character of the corridor, the City of Brooklyn Center is seeking developers to work with the City in redeveloping the area for higher- density housing, neighborhood commercial, and/or medical or general office uses. The intent of the proposal process is to identify and select a development team(s) which is(are) interested in pursuing, together with the City, the acquisition of the required parcels and the redevelopment of the project properties. All proposals for this redevelopment project should be addressed to Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist, and must be delivered to the office of the City of Brooklyn Center EDA at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center. Minnesota 55430, no later than 4:00 PM, Friday, August 11, 1995. Request for 69th Avenue Development Proposals 2 Redevelopment Area REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS BACKGROUND The Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, which is Hennepin County Road 152, serves as a commercial district, major roadway, gateway, and a community link for Brooklyn Center (Figure 1 - Area Context, identifies the location of die corridor and the project area). Over the years, Brooklyn Boulevard has been undergoing a major transformation from a low- density residential street to a major commercial arterial. Along with dais change have come pressures to accommodate more traffic and to intensify the land uses along the corridor. In order to address the issues in the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, the City conducted a comprehensive . study to provide direction and guidance for improvements and redevelopments in the corridor. The "Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscaping Amenities Study ", dated May 1994 (copies of the study report are available for review from the EDA), documents the study conclusions and recommendations and forms the basis for die proposed redevelopment of the 69th Avenue area. In response to the traffic and land use pressures, four projects are being undertaken in the vicinity of the proposed redevelopment project area and are currently in the planning or design development stages. The first project is the widening by Hennepin County of Brooklyn Boulevard to increase traffic capacity and safety and to improve access to the commercial properties in the corridor. The City and Hennepin County have obtained federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to widen Brooklyn Boulevard from 65th Avenue to 71st Avenue in order to accommodate increases in traffic, which are expected to reach average daily traffic volumes of 54,000 vehicles a day by the year 2010. The widening will occur predominantly on the east side of the roadway, which will require the acquisition and redevelopment of a number of parcels. The second project is die enhancement of Brooklyn Boulevard. The EDA has obtained a $500,000 federal ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) grant for enhancing Brooklyn Boulevard. Request for 69th Avenue Development Proposals 3 Redevelopment Area The enhancements will include new sidewalks, street and ornamental lighting, landscaping treatments along the roadway and at the intersections, and special entry monuments and gateways at the access points to the City. The third project is the construction of a new Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) park - and -ride facility west of Brooklyn Boulevard, just south of I -694. The fourth project, which is the subject of this request for development proposals, is the redevelopment of the Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue intersection area. Completion of these four projects will result in a dramatic upgrading and improvement of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor and are intended to serve as a catalyst for further upgrading of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, as well as the rest of the City. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Conditions The proposed 69th Avenue Redevelopment Project (Figure 2), which is located at the Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue intersection, includes three distinct areas (Figure 3): AREA A Area A, which is bounded by 69th Avenue on the south, Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, 70th Avenue on the north, and the property boundary between June and Indiana Avenues on the east, is approximately acres in size. Currently, the area consists of a mixture of small commercial developments and single- family uses. Due to the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard, all the properties in Area A along Brooklyn Boulevard will be acquired for redevelopment. The acquisition of the rest of the parcels will need to be completed by the developer and the EDA. Primary vehicular access to this area will be from 70th Street. A secondary vehicular access point will be provided from 69th Avenue. Request for 69tH Avenue Development Proposals 4 Redevelopment Area AREA B Area B, which is bounded b 70th Avenue on the south Brooklyn Boulevard on the t m Y y west, commercial and residential developments on the north, and St. Alphonsus Church and School on the east, is approximately acres in size. This area includes a small office building which is owned by the EDA, a small apartment building, two single- family houses, and St. Alphonsus Church and School property. St. Alphonsus Church has expressed an interest to divest itself of some of its excess property and will entertain redevelopment proposals for this area. Primary vehicular access to this area will be from 70th Avenue. A secondary right- in/right -out access point may be developed from Brooklyn Boulevard north of 70th Avenue. AREA C Area C, which is bounded by 69th Avenue on the south, single- family uses on the west, and Brooklyn Boulevard on the northeast, is approximately acres in size. This area includes a gas station and single - family uses. Primary vehicular access to this area will be from Brooklyn Boulevard at 70th Avenue and from 69th Avenue at Lee Avenue. Redevelopment Program All three areas, described above, are slated for redevelopment- For this purpose, the EDA has established a Tax Increment District which encompasses all three parcels. The intent is that the EDA and the selected developer will work as a team to accomplish the area redevelopment. In the preliminary planning, the following types of developments have been identified as desirable for the three redevelopment areas: Request for 69th Avenue Development Proposals 5 Redevelopment Area • Medium - density senior housing -- 100 units • Neighborhood - oriented c mmerci -- o al 60.000 S.F. • Medical or general office -- 80,000 to 100,000 S.F. More specifically, the three areas have been identified for the following uses: Area A for medical clinic/office or neighborhood- oriented commercial; Area B for medium- density senior housing or medical clinic/office; and Area C for neighborhood- oriented commercial or medical clinic/office. The City would look more favorably upon proposals with a significant medical clinic /office component. Although these generalized land uses are considered to be the most desirable, other uses or proposals may be considred by die City. In order to redevelop the three areas to higher- density uses, stormwater storage and treatment needs to be provided. The EDA is developing a comprehensive plan to provide one stormwater storage and treatment pond for all three areas. The proposed stormwater storage and treatment pond, which will be approximately two acres in area, will be located in Area B, with the preferred location being along Brooklyn Boulevard. The pond will be developed as an amenity and a buffer for the proposed residential developments with landscaping treatments around the pond's periphery. The City desires a high - quality development for this area to complement the public infrastructure improvements and to provide new residential opportunities and commercial services for the adjoining neighborhoods. To this end, a set of development guidelines were developed as part of the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study. A copy of the guidelines, including examples of desirable development options, is attached. The developers are encouraged to integrate these guidelines in their proposed developments. The City of Brooklyn Center EDA intends to be an active participant in the implementation of these redevelopment projects. City participation in the projects may include assistance in assembling the sites, assistance in negotiations with property owners, and/or assistance with infrastructure improvements, such as the development of the stormwater storage and treatment ponds. The nature and Ievel of City participation will depend on the quality and value of the developments. The Request for 69th Avenue Development Proposals 6 Redevelopment Area developers may propose developments for any one of the three areas or for any combination of the three areas. Redevelopment Timinc The overall schedule for redevelopment of this area is relatively flexible, except that the City does desire to redevelop Areas A and B in conjuction with the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard, which is scheduled to be completed in 1997. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Submittals for r o this o which proposal. loch ma be in written format should describe developer's Y the a roach PP and ro osed development program P P P p g and project design. Concept plans or schematic diagrams would be helpful, although not essential. In addition, the proposers are asked to include the following: • A description of the expectations the developer has for City/EDA involvement and/or participation in the development project(s) • An outline and description of the development team • A list of related development experience and projects • References EVALUATION CRITERIA The proposals will be evaluated on the developer's ability to meet the City's overall development objectives, the project's fiscal impact on the City, the developer's history and experience in successfully completing similar projects, and the general quality and character of the proposed developments as well as completed. projects. Request for 69th Avenue Development Proposals 7 Redevelopment Area The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to amend and/or adjust the development program and selection criteria based on the type of proposals received and their ability to satisfy overall City goals and objectives. DEVELOPER SELECTION AND TIME FRAME The City of Brooklyn Center/EDA staff will review all proposals which are submitted in response to this Request for Development Proposals. In preparing the proposals, the developers are encouraged to meet with the City/EDA staff and/or to submit qestions or requests for additional information in writing. The City/EDA staff will recommend from one to three developers to the City Council, acting as the EDA Board, for further consideration. The EDA Board will select a developer, or more than one developer if different developers make proposals for different areas, to enter into an Exclusive Development Agreement. The City Council may interview or direct City/EDA staff to interview one or all of the recommended development teams. The proposed selection schedule is as follows: • Issuing of Request for Development Proposal July 11, 1995 • Submittal of Proposals August 11, 1995 • Recommendation to EDA Board August 28, 1995 • Selection of Developer(s) September 11, 1995 For further information please contact: Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist (612) 569 -3300 6301 Slungie Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Fax: 569 -3494 Request for 69th Avenue Development Proposals $ Redevelopment Area Y it : r < Area 17 � ,7tw ., r 3 71.4•• .I� 11 i N I C� r,tw 1 � — Y . ' . V'iilxw- .-•.i+ {a.• 30 M < yr. •.• I r :Br oklyn Park i♦ u i . �r 03 It � 14 ' Brooklyn '" " t° lew.•r x 8� � i . 23 1• r 71 i rf :.•.. r. • Boulevard °• Maple: _ ... r. 3° •7>twa „_.•• • Corridor. Grove, . .cp Stud Area a .. Y r • .• 7 aH w•• _ fire '� � \: � � al Tar. �w•• r 1`) . f, 1 Tar. I nd t n tla o a •f � •'• <', . ?p.>M6 #:aiK {i2 .: ►i' 5 r aiee{1tY Iw . - 61 94 i :ti•. n 63, ♦•• aka •,, o ' � ( -•. •i s Crystal 'sa iw• �c. ••.• w 8 stile assf 10 1 4 Lake 81 s it •nw •.. t Schmidt . r 13• s kasx:. : :.i:i i:." site New ' a2 ¢':: :,� ::.y. _ 4w. •" i .1.• r 52 �y Nape ry ,, 4 . 9 . 9 ` "• "��. Robbins le 0 )Los Lake :s a ii j i '•• qu 2 57 I A 0. 1.23 Plymouth _ , L �� Minneapolis; Medicine w . ',p -" .\ Lake 1 If30 t 4i �� • ,. icine e ke 1O= :.�. f: •1• t e ll =, , ,3. V61 I e i b b '•j- -, ;� x.11.. ' i e• : 1., .• a �I Theodor• .. Y n 1• t; - 5 5 Sweeney- win 52 ♦ 'h♦ N ...0 ♦. O �•. - e aka ... ,. 1 nom\ \\ " ` o'' ♦• • 7 �� v �,i.,. � � � �a ' - .. . • .0 Pero 1' •� Figure 1: Area e Cont I � ert Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study g • • VZA A4. PttoIa e4� • � C S9 A'j rz-kRu F. 8 �oe�r�.oPner+.r �3; S IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Recommended Development Guidelines In many cases, the City may not be able to select, unless it is a participant in the redevelopment process, the types of developments which occur or the site layouts. However, the one area where the City can exert some control is in development guidelines which could be applied to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. Development guidelines, applied to redevelopment projects or new developments, could help mitigate undesirable features and create the type of environment the City desires for the Brook- lyn Boulevard Corridor. The proposed development guidelines are illustrated 'in a sample development (Figure 27), which consists of a single -story commercial retail complex located at an intersection. This example is not meant to represent a recommended development. It is being used to demonstrate how the guidelines might be applied to a typical situation in today's marketplace. Following are the recommended development guidelines for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. I. Redevelopment Project Location at Intersections. Redevelopment p projects on., jects should be, referable, located in quadrant of an intersection, or at least on one side of Brooklyn Boulevard, not both. A project should not try to link both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard with pedestrian circula- tion. 2. Development Densities. Development densities and site coverage in the Corridor should be generally increased. The appearance of the corridor should become somewhat more "urban." The increased densities should be complemented by improved design details, landscaping, lighting and signage. 3. Vehicular Access Points. Vehicular access points should be set back from major street intersections and other driveways as far as possible, according to individual site conditions and accepted traffic engineering standards. As a general rule, driveways on Brooklyn Boulevards should be at least 150 feet from major intersections. Vehicles should be able to circulate, as much as possible, between adjoining sites so as to minimize congestion on the public streets. 4. Adjoining Single - Family Neighborhoods should be Protected. Any i single- family residential neighborhoods, which abut the developments along Brooklyn Boulevard, should be protected or screened from adverse Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 65 Q Y ~ t ! Ex p dcd I . i Redcve pmttnt Rcticvctlpmcnt i ConeQw�dren�Clntersect}otil I S t�acato fa I / \ `Internal f (Across ollector �- Sttc U i from Priglary Site) Csrculatiot$ = = f 9 Systt�a r Q , . - f fl 1 I n Minor Arterial Brooklyn Boulevard Development I Development e Location Concept I Alterna B / \tulti•Lcvcl, Itam Parkin Mixed-Use Development Bit.vclist =� / ,� �%• Access /i � +• \. G j ',��� �� �% d Parkin L \�✓ h ��i /,p / ®�t "'chiculn: rl� V 00 � ` \d Access Parking Development ° 0 Development �� �Md Alt ernative A i Alternative C ° d am Figure 26. Redevelopment Patterns � I 1 5. Corridor Should Have 15. Outd.wr Eating Facilities _ r� 1. Redcvelopmcnt Projects Should be Located in. One Physical Design Continuit} and Seating Should be ,1' "-' 1 Quadrant of Intersection Pronu,tcd �• �1 �. 6. Developments Should --- � pr: _ -: • Iiavc Visual Focal 9. 10.>L is should a� La +�. `+� 2. Develupcnt Densities Should .'• nt Feantres - Ilave a'aricd be as High as Possible Shapes iThis Example Represents 12. All Sidcs of —� �.• _` - ;i a Lower- Dcnsin• Development) a Building t f..- •'�'- Should tlavc I I - • • . 7 j r � v. Screening Should be Provided Consistent _ P -•!� 1 . .- ' for ;adjoining Single- Family Treatment I I ;r• -v-v' I tt j Ncighborboods -Jr d ' t • �� ~ �. t_ •. s 4t:•`.. /` 16. Signs Should 'fi. • __ - t aQ. 11. l' Completnrnt \ ..Ii C•.i� // 1til�2 I. It •i. i S. Walls Should - jg?•.,� N / tl be Treated - 14. Facilities for �' Bicyclists Not Blank _ Should be '. Edges of Corridor \ Provided Should be Well Defined \ \ Ar ' ' •� (Buildutgs, Landscaping, Fences) \ \ L 10 I i• Vehicular Access '\ 1 N r. Points Should I be as Far front 11. Jtaterials and Colors 10. PnrUit: Lots > Intersecuons Should be Compatible Should Have I as Possib ie m I Lwdscalxd Isl:ut•1s Developent and Edge. J / j� L13. Unk Web Shouid Enhancement / \/ Lint: A.1 I ll D e.•elopmcnu Guideline � \ Figure 27: Recommended Development Guidelines Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 63 t IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM visual impacts. Building heights and massing should be reduced adjacent to single- family housing. In all cases, landscaping, berming and /or fencing should separate commercial and residential activities; commercial a traffic should be directed away from residential streets; and commercial lighting should be directed away from housing. Hours of business operation near housing should be regulated in cases where they may have a negative impact on the housing. 5. Physical Design Continuity. There should be physcial design continuity along the Corridor within the public right -of -way as well as the private developments. This should be achieved primarily through the public landscaping and lighting improvements, but should be supplemented by private landscaping, parking lot screening, -and facade and roofline treatments. 6. Visual Focal Features. Major private developments should include a visual focal feature, such as a clock tower, entry arch, or other architec- tural element, to serve as memorable and meaningful landmarks. 7. Corridor Edge Treatments. The edges of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should be clearly defined. This can be accomplished by several means: 6 Locating buildings or parts of buildings close to the edge of the street right -of -way A Locating a building at the point of each intersection corner • Buffering the edges of parking lots with berming, plantings, and /or fencing When a building is set back from the street right -of -way, there should be no more than one bay of parking between the sidewalk along the street and the building. Also, building setbacks not separated from the street by parking should be landscaped. S. Building Wall Treatments. Building walls along Brooklyn Boulevard should not be blank. All walls facing streets or walkways should include windows, doors, openings, or other treatments which would help mitigate the "unfriendly" appearance of blank walls. At a minimum, display windows should be used. This will improve the aesthetic environment for both motorists and pedestrians. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 66 IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 9. Roof Shapes. Roofs of buildings in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should not be flat. Sloping, peaked, gabled, or shed roof designs would add visual variety and would help to reinforce the "Earl Brown Heritage Center Theme ", which has been selected for the Corridor. 10. Parking Lot Treatments. Islands in parking lots should be landscaped for visual relief and enhancement. All parking lots which adjoin Brooklyn Boulevard, includin the lots of automobile dealerships, should be screened with a continuous row of dense landscaping, at least two feet tall, or an ornamental fence or railing. 11. Materials and Colors. A degree of compatibility, but not uniformity, should be brought to new private developments through the use of materials and colors selected from a recommended common palette. The major concern should be regarding low- quality materials and garish colors. 12. Treatment Consistency. The appearance of all sides of a building should be consistent in terms of the quality of materials and finishes. Screen walls and landscaping may be used as a substitute for a change of materi- als on rear walls, or walls which may not be visible by the general public. 13. Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrians should be able to move with comfort and security between the public sidewalks and private developments and between buildings on the same site. As much as possible, pedestrian walks should be provided directly between adjoining developments to encourage more pedestrian use. Pedestrian routes from the street to the building entrances and through. each site should be clearly defined using building massing and architec- ture, sidewalks, landscaping and lighting. Awnings and arcades over windows and doors should be employed to protect pedestrians from the elements. 3 14. Bicyclist Facilities. Each development should include a bicycle rack(s), and sidewalk ramps should be installed at curbs for both bicyclists and the disabled. 15. Outdoor Eating and /or Seating. Developers should be encouraged to incorporated, whenever possible, outdoor eating facilities, such as sidewalk cafes or outdoor eating for restaurants, and outdoor seating. 9 i s Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 67 Y IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 16. Signs. Signs along Brooklyn Boulevard should be designed to comple- ment and enhance the Corridor. • Freestanding signs should have a limited number of names and /or logotypes (a maximum of three). They should be designed to appear as a single sign from a distance through the use of a framework of materials consistent with the building facade. • Wall signs should not be white backlit plastic; individual letters are preferred; colored plastic panels with white or colored letters may also be acceptable. No bulletin signs (either portable or perma- nent) should be allowed. In addition to the relative large site used in the above example, consideration needs to be given to the development of smaller sites, which most likely will become more available along the Corridor, as well as mixed -use developments. • Small Site Developments. Figure 28 illustrates how a small, linear site along the Boulevard might be developed utilizing the recommended development guidelines. The site is approximately 2.5 acres and the development represents a small neighborhood- oriented retail strip and a free- standing restaurant. The example illustrates desirable building massing, vehicular circulation, pedestrian circulation with an internal link between the buildings, screen- ing for adjoining single - family residential uses, a site focal feature, and extensive landscapina and edge treatments along Brooklyn Boulevard. • Mixed -Use Developments. Figure 29 illustrates a mixed -use development on a 3 -acre site with commercial retail facilities on the lower level and residential units or offices above. The development has enclosed parking for the residential units or offices. This example illustrates the same desirable site development features as the Small Site Development and in addition it shows how a taller develop- ment could be stepped down towards adjoining single- family uses. Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 68 !:.!- j,s �f..r. :. 1• M � �$ �`� �' � � y �_ ���� � ��� n � f i `„ i � /,. .� �� � 'w 4;'�'� � r k /� � - ��,� \� i / \\ -� / _ _[3�W dr •.._ - 7. ' = L Y T r11 t' 3 /� �� - J� � � �{Y' ^t♦ , �J�r fir � � � � .� z � . .. � v s• 4 i. ry- � . ' a '' � � F���-�* d ip , ? �• ^ � , ''° p, ''-"` � � `1" � \ <: +� ,{ _^ �.: yS. ` \� '� � y;i :B ©W ' � �• Ii .. .. - .-