Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 07-10 EDAP Regular Session CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- July 10, 1995 EDA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 10, 1995 (following adjournment of City Council meeting) 1. Call to Order - 7 , S' 2. Roll Call C�L , /L � �L /`� ��� �j AL- C) 1 � C,f 0- 3. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda ti( the )co following items are considered to be routine y nomi c Development Authority and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of b Co Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes: June 26, 1995 - Regular Session K—M Commissioners not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining om the vote on the minutes. 4. Commission Consideration Items a. Resolution Approving a Request for Development Proposal for the Area of 69th Avenue North and Brookl Boulevard and Authorizing the Advertising of the Same 5. Adjournment �/ / U- Council Meeting Date July 26, 1995 31 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Number Qi Request For Council Consideration • Item Description: EDA Minutes - June 26, 1995 - Regular Session Department Approval: G. Brad Hoffm , Director of Community Development Manager's Review/Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommended City Council Action: • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) June 26, 1995 - Regular Session Barb Kalli was excused from the meeting and the minutes will reflect her abstention from the vote on these minutes. • 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 26 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 10:44 p.m. ROLL CALL President Myrna Kragness, Commissioners 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, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, Interim City Manager Cam Andre, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Council Secretary Barbara Collman. Commissioner Barb Kalligher was excused from tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA President Kragness inquired if any Commissioner requested any items be removed from the consent agenda. Commissioner Mann requested Item 3(b) be removed from the consent agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JUNE 12 1995 - REGULAR SESSION There was a motion by Commissioner Carmody and seconded by Commissioner Hilstrom to approve the minutes of the June 12, 1995, EDA meeting as printed. The motion passed unanimously. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR THE AREA OF 69TH AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD The Director of Community Development explained this item is back to the Commission for its comments, changes, and modifications. 6/26/95 -1- Commissioner Mann stated she understood the project could be up to 80,000 square feet. The Director of Community Development agreed. Commissioner Mann noted that figure doubles the amount the site can hold. The Director of Community Development said Area A, in theory, could hold 120,000 square feet but 80,000 was the maximum retail which could be supported. Commissioner Mann wondered whether the 60,000 figure seems high. She stated she would not want there to be empty buildings. The Director of Community Development noted the first priority would be a medical facility of up to 100,000 square feet. Then, retail could take up to 80,000 square feet. The senior housing would be involved in Area B. Efforts are being made to see if any developer wants to take on the entire project. Commissioner Carmody asked what area the ISTEA grant covers. The Director of Community Development said the area is 64th Avenue to 71st Avenue, which is the area that will be widened in 1997. Commissioner Carmody asked what the gateways are. The Director of Community Development said the design is not final but will be a play off of the farm theme. There was a motion by Commissioner Carmody and seconded by Commissioner Hilstrom to move the proposal on to the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Director of Community Development ment stated notices have been sent to residents so they are aware of the Planning Commission meeting. RESOLUTIONS AGREEMENT SHARING COSTS Commissioner Mann asked whether this item is urgent or whether it should be tabled until after the upcoming work session next week on the City's role and how money should be spent. The Director of Community Development noted there is some urgency to this item. There is a link between the parking and the development. The project should be completed September 1 and tabling it at this time would delay the deadline. The amount of funding necessary is $2,500. Commissioner Hilstrom asked why the money being put forward is not contingent upon the deal going through. The Director of Community Development said the $2,500 is the maximum potential which could be lost. The rest is tied to the completion of the project. The City Attorney noted the issue has become complicated with documents and legal fees and has been expensive. He said it will be an impediment. The Director of Community Development agreed and said a delay would bring the project right up to the line on the schedule. 6/26/95 -2- Mayor Kragness commented the City's commitment is $2,500. The Assistant City Manager commented she understands the Commission's concern but Staff is trying to move projects forward. Commissioner Mann said she would support the resolution if the commitment is only $2,500 in total expenses and there will not be further costs. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -18 Commissioner Kristen Mann introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 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 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Kathleen Carmody, and the motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Carmody and seconded by Commissioner Mann to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority adjourned at 10:57 p.m. President Recorded and transcribed by: Barbara Collman Timesaver Off Site Secretarial 6/26/95 -3- Council Meeting Date 7/10/95 3 City of Brooklyn Center Agenda Item Numbcr Request For Council Consideration ® Item Description: Resolution Approving a Request for Development Proposal in the Area of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and Authorizing the Advertising of the Same Department Approval: G. Brad Hoffman, Community Develo men ector Manager's Review /Recommendation: No comments to supplement this report Comments below /attached Recommendation: Staff recommends that the EDA approve the RFP and direct staff to seek proposals from potential developers. • Summary Explanation: (supporting documentation attached Yes ) On Monday evening, the development RFP for 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard will be back to the Council for final approval. The RFP delineates specific areas north of 69th Avenue for redevelopment. In essence, it is an invitation to developers to submit redevelopment plans for the areas set out in the plan for the EDA's consideration. The schedule would require proposals to be submitted to the EDA by August 11, 1995. Staff would review the proposals and make a recommendation to the EDA at the August 28th meeting. The EDA would select a developer(s) by the September 11, 1995, meeting. Once a developer is selected, a development agreement would be negotiated setting forth the specific obligations of both the developer and the EDA. The RFP was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its June 29th meeting. A notice was sent to affected property owners and residents within 350 feet of the proposed redevelopment area. Attached is a copy of the notice for your review, along with a copy of the minutes from the June 29, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. The RFP was endorsed by the Planning Commission which recommended EDA approval of the RFP. The Mayor did receive one letter, a copy of which is attached, expressing concern about a potential medical facility. Again, I wish to point out to the EDA that the RFP deliniates redevelopment areas that include homes • on the east side of June Avenue between 69th and 70th Avenues and the west side of Lee Avenue between 69th and 70th Avenues. I will be available on Monday evening to answer your questions about the RFP. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway FORMATIONAL NOTICE TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center will be reviewing a draft Request for Development Proposals for the 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard area at its meeting on Thursday evening, June 29, 1995. The meeting will be held in the City Hall Council Chambers, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. This review should begin at approximately 8:00 p.m. depending upon their scheduled agenda. As part of the review, the Commission will also be given a presentation regarding the preliminary plans for the County widening of Brooklyn Boulevard between 1 -94 and just north of 70th Avenue. This notice is being sent to people potentially affected by these proposals in one of the following categories: 1. Property owners that will be affected because all or a portion of their property will need to be acquired for roadway widening. 2. Property owners whose property may be affected by being included in areas of potential redevelopment. 3. Property w ' p y o Hers within 350 of property which may need to be rezoned to accommodate potential redevelopment. The purpose of the presentation and review is to inform people of these proposals. There have been a number of rumors oin around g g d about the potential redevelopment and the roadway project. Hopefully, questions relating to these matters will be answered. Anyone interested is invited to attend this public meeting, however, notices are being sent only to persons listed in the above categories. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 569 -3300 to make arrangements. Respectfully, / cw.....�� Ll , Ronald A. Warren Planning Commission Secretary 0 C�2 - , - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - _ z 7 - dP n i The Secretary noted that this matt(.r will be referred to the City Council at the July 10, 1995, meeting. 7 e applicant is required to be present at the City Council meeting. If any changes or modifications are made to the plans prior to City Council consideration, they may have to be rought back before the Planning Commission for review. 69TH AVE, E NORTH AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD INFORMATIONAL MEETING Chairpersor Willson introduced the second item of business, an informational meeting to review plan; for widening of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and just north of 70th Avenue North and to also discuss and review a draft Request for Development Proposals for the 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard area. The Secret ry reported about 200 informational notices were sent out to people who will be effected by I 'gist -of -way acquisition, may potentially be effected by redevelopment proposals, and may be within the area effected by the PUD and rezoning that will be necessary. The Secre explained the City has retained a consultant who will be looking at a request for development proposals, once authorized by the Council, to seek developers for redevelopment of three potential areas around Brooklyn Boulevard. He reviewed the three areas iden ' 'ed for redevelopment and reported staff has been approached by one group interested in senior housing on a portion of the St. Alphonus Church property. The Secret then introduced Tony Heppelmann, BRW, who provided a detailed explanation of the Brooklyn Boulevard im rovernents p estimated a $3 million. He explained there s $1.6 million from a Federal Grant and Co remaining $ .4 million will be funded by Hennepin county, Mn/DOT and Brooklyn Center. He further lained there is also an enhancement project estimated to cost $500,000. Chairperson Willson questioned why the east side is being considered for right -of -way acquisition itstead of the west side. Mr. Heppelmann advised the primary considerations are economics, viability of existing business, and the ability to redevelop the property once acquired. In response o Commissioner Boeck, Mr. He 1 jurisdictional agency and the City will be n mann responsible f or uu atingo eg County is the a ors for Boulev acquisition f right -of- -way agreements and handle the enhancements along Br ard. it is determined condemnations proceedings are required, Hennepin Coun Will be responsible for that process. tY Mr' Heppel ann reviewed he anticipated time schedule with the g in 1996, a constructi being completed in 1495 righ t environmental assessment -of -way acquisition beginnin starting in 19 One year has been provided for ri ght -annin acquisition. The Secret ary advised it is a concern of the C ity � , tim to have with negotiation and acquisition. He explained he Council will probably retain c l e s de to negotiate .� ith property owners. Y onultan 6 -29 -95 4 t Mr. Heppe l&nann clarified the construction start date is tied to federal funding, and the redevelop= nt proposals can take place independently of the roadway improvement. Commissior er Boeck asked if acquisition is part of the federal costs. The Secretary advised the grant th City received is only for enhancements. Commissiore r Booth questioned the traffic movement and number of lights, and how this will help the traffic backup situation. Mr. Heppclmann advised there will be two additional this area. lanes in each direction plus a signal coordination system will provide far progression through Chair Willson noted a public hearing is not required since this is an information meeting, but he requested public input or question. Lenny Brey n, 71st & Halifax, asserted this project will take a three lane road and then squeeze it down to two lanes at Noble Avenue. He asked if this would not create accidents when cars aitempt to merge. Mr. Heppclmann pointed out areas where cars will "drop off' the roadway via turning movements which will reduce the traffic volume by Noble Avenue. W. Breyen questioned how much this will cost the City and how much taxpayers will pay. The Director of Public Services, Diane Spector, responded approximately 80%'0 of the total roadwav costs is the responsibility of Hennepin County, 18% is the City's cost, and the remaining isl the responsibility of itii OT. The 18% to the City equates to $250,000 to 5300,000 with the bulk coming from MSA funds which the City receives from state gas tax to reconstruct and maintain collector roadways. The remainder will come from other street constructions funds and part will probably be assessed to abutting property owners on Brooklyn Bc ulevard. She explained that none of the costs will come from general property taxes; it will 0 come from other sources that are strictly designated for street improvements. With regard IIto the City's share of right -of -way costs, Hennepin County will share in some of those cons and the City's share will came from those same three sources and possilbly some from ax Increment Financing since this area is located within the TIF District. With regard to enhancement costs, the City received a $500,000 grant to cover costs for improvemen that Hennepin County will not fund like landscaping, lighting, etc. Since this is a matchin grant, the City will fund 514000 from TIF, Bill Weber, I RW, provided a detailed review of the enhancement project proposed through the FDA. He, noted the City has been studying the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor for several years and believe it is an important element of the City as well as an economic element. Because of economic changes, some of the businesses along Brooklyn Boulevard could b e used more intensively or may not be appropriate because of the traffic volume. Because the proposed' roadway improvement and acquisition involved, the City determined it would be an appropriate time to encourage some redevelopment in the acquisition area. fir. Weber reviewed the three sites identified for redevelopment and potential uses of medium density senio housing, retail commercial and ener $ al office. 6 -29 -95 i 5 I I Commissio d er Boeck asked if the EDA will acquire the property, The Secretary e =lained this is one Possibility or the City could acquire through condemnation if the property can't be acquire through normal processes. He noted the federal grant can not be used for acquisition, Drily for streetscape like landscaping, decorative lighting, sidewalks, and physical improvemen that are not typically part of a County roadway project. COMMiSSiOT er Boeck asked who will transfer the property form the owner to the developer. The Secretary explained this could be handled through the developer selected or the EDA using the ccndemnation process. Mr. Weber dviscd one of the benefits of having the EDA involved is land assembly since there are m Atiple parcels. The Director of Public Services reviewed staff has identified three areas as a concept on how the Iand co Id be packaged. The Request for Proposals (RFP) says to developers the City thinks this area is right for development and ask them what they think would fit into this area and what kind of partnership they would need from the City. Larger developers may not need arty assistance, others may be interested in land assembly help and others may request TIF or a combination. Commissioner Boeck agreed this area has been in need of redevelopment for quite some time but asked what is the "carrot" that will bring development in now outside of giving them something, Ile the land. The Secretary agreed this could be one option. He advised st has reviewe a market analysis indicating there is a market for 80, of neighbor ood retail space and that this area could be successful, to 140 aff ,400 square feet The Direct r of Community Development pointed out the incentive mentioned by Commissioner Boeck is having over 50,400 cars going by that intersection, mostly l c so the land ould serve well for neighborhood retail. He added the City will propose to ocal traffi clear and as emble the land and offer it at competitive market pnc ,-s, if necessary. The Secretary provided further detail on the Possibility of ponds. of senior housing locating by the St. Alphonus Church property and the need for storm He pointed out it is Probably not'possible to retain single family homes on Brooklyn Boulevard, but the Ci still needs to pro ect the neighborhood that backs up to these uses. ty Chairperson illson recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:15 p.m. j Commissioner Boeck thanked . residents for attending the meeting tonight to express their concern andl interest in what is happening in the community He stated this is a Wmmendablt program and he hopes it gets redevelopment started on Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed Put the information tonight is very preliminary and more detail is needed including dew on financing. He commented he shares the comments expressed by residents andlfeIt whatever is offered to developers will be returned throe � service to thc� community. He asked if the final report on this redevelop taxes and p p roject will 6 -29 -95 6 1 i be available in August or September. The Secretary agreed staff will have more detailed information by then. The Plannir g Commission acknowledged a Ietter sent to the Mayor from Rubye Berglund indicating h r belief there is no need for another medical of office building but there is a need for b finesses that serve the neighborhood and a boulevard setting where people can walk and shop. Mr. Breyen I reiterated his Y concern for traffic patterns and narrowing the roadway from three to two lanes, especially if a shopping center, medical office, or senior housing is constructed. Mr. Heppel ann pointed out there will be a right turn lane at 69th Avenue. He explained they currenily do not propose a right turn lane at 70th Avenue but it can be reanalyzed if warranted the level of traffic or development. Mr. Breyen xpressed concern about the proposed redevelopment uses attracting additional, high volume; of traffic into this area. Mr. Heppelmann reviewed the different traffic access options and eir intent to keep traffic self- contained and not let it back into the residential neighborh d. Chairperson Willson noted once the type of development is known, these issues can be more specifically ddressed. The Secret ry explained the types of development being considered would not add appreciable i riiounts of traffic to Brooklyn be more ge�red to nei hborhood re B He explained the development woul ail to serve d g people in that area and will not generate the levels oz traffic experience in the Brookdale Shopping Center area. Also with the roadway irn�rovements, traffic will better move through this area. I Mr. Breyen JUestioned closing 70th Avenue. The Secretary stated he is not in a position to comment on that question. He pointed out the Church would probably have some concern about closing 70th Avenue so there may be other issues involved. Greg Lutger , 7216 Brooklyn Boulevard, advised with this proposal, he will have the last residential house on Brooklyn Boulevard north of 694. He stated he has talked with the Council abort his concerns and believes Hennepin County has soone res 71st Avenue and the Ci ponsibili between tY ty's border. He asserted that with the increase in traffic the v of his house � ill be reduces aloe Julie Berg, 7th and June, questioned the deadline for receipt of propos Willson nevi ed the time schedule. 1 P P P aIs. Chairperson maintenance work but may not want to if Bthis explained she needs to do some deferred shor��Iy, project impacts her house and will occ ur The Secretary noted just because RFP - s are sent out, it does not mean the Citv will e many. He he Secr t informed the City approved a Philips 66 gas station/convenience store use but 3 th e e e develo ary ers has u plans on hold because of the roadway and redevelopment pro ecrs. P p t their I 6 -29 -95 7 I i l � I I The Secretary clarified the City is not doing the redevelopment, but actively seeking redevelopment proposals and trying to spark some interest. if there is no market, the developmen will not happen. Marcella Hz gen, 7015 Kyle, asked who will purchase the property, the City or the developer. Chairperson Willson stated hopefiilly the developer will come in and pay market value for the grope The Secret2 ry explained if a resident's property is needed for right -of -way acquisition, the City will cot t act them. If the property is within a potential redevelopment area, then either the City or a private developer could contact them. John Ev 6936 Mayor Avenue, asked if the Brooklyn Boulevard improvement and property re velopment will occur without a tax increase to him. He did not think the retail development would just serve the neighborhood since it has access to 694. Mr. Evarts questioned t e type of businesses proposed and questioned the need for more retail business due to the V Xant retail space already existing. The Directoi of Community Development explained the retail uses will be oriented to the neighborhood such as a small restaurant, deli, movie rental, drug store, etc, not a Target or WalMart e of use. He then explained Tax Increment Financing and how it works to encourage d velopment. An unidenti ed resident uestioncd the im pact pact on residential homes on Viajor Avenue from Brooklyn Boulevard traffic and noise. The Director of Community Development explained the redevel went will probably involve creating a major buffer for the residential area. Charles Po r, 6933 Lee, questioned the timing of rezoning to commercial and impact on his taxes. Tl�e Secretary explained rezoning would not occur until the redevelopment plan comes forward. He doubted this would effect taxes since the value is based on the use of the property A I N M NDIN APR VA D RE ST FOR EVE i PRQP There was as motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Willson to recommend approval of the preliminary draft, to proce,-d to request e that those pmposals be considered based on the criteria exhibited m d thisreport t a p s close to the time tab e as possible as enumerated in the report, and ftirther that informational meetings be �eld as these development requests come to the City and to provide a more complete financial picture of taxing impact on the City. Commissioner Booth stated he is not opposed to recommending commendin approval royal of th of feel t�e Planning $ AF ere report but id not Commissi��n should d' Council dictate the �.- ounctl to report back to them. Commissionetr Boeck explained the Council d but the Plan�in C o oes not have to follow this recommendation g mmission has the privilege to make a recommendation to them, 6 -29 -95 I 8 i I i i Commissiorer Booth stated on that premises, he has no objection to the motion on the floor. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary noted that this matter will be referred to the City Council at the July 10, 1995, meeting. H invited all to attend the Council meeting and thanked them for coming tonight to provide ' put. PLI AT ON qO. 95009 F BR Chairperson Willson introduced the next item of business, a request from the City of Brooklyn Q nter for a rezoning from I -1 and C-2 to PUID/1 -1 and approval for Planned Unit Development to accommodate appropriate common parking areas for the properties located northwesterly of the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway nd Freewa y Boulevard. The Secreta -y presented the staff re o us and detail see Planning Commission In formation Sheet for rnAppl cation No. l 95009 attached). The Secret advised this type of request is usually referred to the appropriate ltieighborho d Advisory Group; however, in this case the Planning Commission is the Grou for the Industrial Paris Area. He further advised negotiations have been going on for some tune. This matter has been reviewed by the City Attorney and staff recommends approval of the propc resolution. Commissioner Boeck questioned Page 5 which indicates the City wi11 construct 20 parking spaces. The Director of Community Development explained this is on the northeast corner and part of the General Litho Plant. He clarified if the City does construct the parking spaces, the cost would be assessed to the General Litho Plant. BLI N PLi TI N N 9 () Chairperson I Willson asked for a motion to open Om the public hearing on the request for rezoning from 1 -1 and C -2 PUD/I -1 and approval for Planned Unit Development 10 :29 p.m. There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck and seconded by Commissioner Booth too en the public haring. The motion passed unanimously. p Chairperson Willson asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Commission d called for any questions for the applicant or for anyone else to speak at the public heann . No one appeared to address this item. L E P Lz iN There was a otion by Commissioner Booth and seconded the public he�nng at 10:29 p.m. The motion passed unanimously Co m missioner Reem to close 1 5 -29 -95 9 i Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL IN THE AREA OF 69TH AVENUE NORTH AND BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZING THE ADVERTISING OF THE SAME WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center (EDA) desires to redevelop certain parcels of land in and around the area of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has scheduled a road widening and reconstruction project for Brooklyn Boulevard from 65th to 71st Avenue for 1997; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center's Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study identifies the area of 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard as a priority redevelopment area; and WHEREAS, the EDA has retained the firm of BRW to develop a draft Request for Development Proposals (RFP); and WHEREAS, the RFP has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and public comment was solicited on the plan and has been forwarded to the EDA with the commission's endorsement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center that the Request for Development Proposals is approved and staff is directed to solicit development proposals from qualified developers for the EDA's consideration. 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. 3 r DRAFT 6/26/95 REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR THE 69TH AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND 69TH AVENUE Economic Development Authority E 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 bf 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 ad'oinin gparcels are J 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 senior housing, neighborhood commercial, and/or medical or general office uses. The intent of the proposal process is to identify nd select a development fy p t teams) 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 the 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 this 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 the 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 the 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 6.15 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 Avenue. 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 by 70th Avenue on the south, Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, commercial and residential developments on the north, and St. Alphonsus Church and School on the east, is approximately 8.46 acres in size, including the proposed pond. 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 5.70 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 commercial -- 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 the 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 level 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 Timing 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 this proposal, which may be in written format, should describe the developer's approach and proposed development program 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 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Fax: 569 -3494 Request for 69th Avenue Development Proposals $ Redevelopment Area I \� I • Area 101.1 Ar•. N. .,$�•_. 101.1 Ar•. N < 5 c • If 171h AV N. ; Tih Av. T 9 ♦ O \ c ec 95th • _ \ • •t r / 95th Art. 7 93rd 30 N < 30 93rd Ar•. N. : Br oklyn Par • N 11 r ��. ` 9.11 Aw + N. I• 14 < \ U 10, V I• 1f I• I 1 3 \ 95th r. Brooklyn 1O9 .9th Av. N Boulevard" ` t Urd AV* N ]] 19 O•: Corridor fAr• t p • 73 34 . T;th A.. N Maple . o t: _ - I*f, Ar•` N \\ Grove '° "' Study Area a•`r a 'c4�a fsth q fi A �, 9r a 0 Y• a• j 3rd A.• � Tf.a .�. <•. 63%. >r z nrd A.•. N.1 f• 3 and 73rd p, 7t ; , • •{ ,: ,...(''. :: .> .i k.....:;: = • . ::.r ..::.:::::.::.::;K ::::s ;::. 1 l ih A • :::�11tw::::... n • • • {... 94 Eagle Lek rd Ar•. •3r Ar• a .... : . : ..... C =' 4 Crystal - ': � i Airport 9`'R;•::. ��; „�� ...�:: �Siii;;:;: 9ii:S: =; 8 - f ass La AV 8 s a 9 � 10 „ 1•ih • 8 1 .....:::i1�t :2! x 11 . Ih ` •..` 1 1f f ass •. <n:?5?rISC :::ii. .i: ` If Seh ake ew �`+ ♦.. 1t "Nn .. i. w� • RX 52 max. t Hope ry tai q , � , q F1 d<<. N Robbing ale wog i oat Lake Y E e h i •• 2 M• ' PI mouth �l ° < 57 : 23 ;# ' Minneapolis= z Medicine ` Av 4 4 Lake • • 10 .� £. E c. 9 C i � '�s : rt1 •Ih A. •. � M icine '° G o I d e n ,oz = _ - 58 ake „ 26 a k. f: f• 66 t• ..... ai. • isa Valle T ,1f 16 hOodor Sweeney- win E 523 55 _ YI .90h r• < 11 ... Im th Av. •' �•I” • AV irth ` ^ 2 3, A Figure 1 � Area Context North 69th Avenue Redevelopment Project y ,. a 71st.. AVen.ue �, ,te a .,. r a E m wa . > . ,Nf .. s � � r : .'`x. ., ->P , :, .. ��,. g /"'�.*xx t �'k ., .• °" ag. ".. �" a r -_,. .,_ . , . „'< a. .. ,•,�'� -xis .:» - <.: ,.�.. .. >.,-, $ ., m .- :., _ a. as » > MPTM AJ hons _ hate 4 n. • „w a s �'� '• a � , „., w � ,> Y m� m a mso IL Ad IC O,th _ 7 Avae n u e , r _ Y a a i, a r » V V/ x Y ^` x JOK 5f i - ” > - _ . Jo u lL _ Y m a- +dx' &' -d L z r�. �> � 9th A�enu AL �< ,"* mit'l » low .r :a� "» .3e "...,��.�? •�; = rr' gy "`"'m. =, �, � < , f - , � I B MW • -. ,k 1F �[ 401ist _A�v�en u v- i i n ` — � g e 1 toot r. r s m ® h o n „ ... .':. : -d° : ° •�, > ,� �_ flM_ �. re' C h u.rc Ac 8...46 a � � m _ k� 4. .,� °a�,$'a e In ,� -, n d Q era, fool ° Pr o posed . �. r m ��. RL ° �,_ a �2,.G8Acics - ti, = 7 v-1 11 e 1ue 11F I 4 .� �. a,� ra,�<g�. ,�m� �;•', >' >_ � Ord. «� �,F<.t ,,... „a:.* r _ M w # u lots Ar .. <�`.'' _ . , �' � $ '4 ° �< � e€ wY e '^ Vii !, �. � • „� re a ti _ti� 45 � � J � , a � °t • °., � ', .� �, _. LU . 15Acres - r w ra 6 i w m .;. •.- « -- ° �,xw 69th n L ° $ � 9 row' e _ g �a'_ J6 M. lam a H w r f, '.: s , •� as '.^a* �. �' . `�” .: a:"` �'�` °. �i ° i�l � IIII MIME 1` B OW 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. S 1. Redevelopment Project Location at Intersections. Redevelopment projects should be, preferably, located in one 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 single - family residential neighborhoods, which abut the developments along Brooklyn Boulevard, should be protected or screened from adverse Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 65 r --------- - - - - -- Ex ded ptloetd j Rcdeve ptnettt t S Cone 1 . z ..; - ` t•w�rrata� +rasr�satr•s•� / \ Parking Ltteritai 1 Across �ollector 1 � Site �+ a #, S� i f mM tarySIte) % t _ - = �------- 'J^- - - ----J MAO' `,n \ / Minor Arterial Brooklyn Boulevard e I \ Development , Development Location Concept Alternative B O / / Multi - Level, Parking Mixed -Use Pedestrian/ Ramp �/ �y /`.� Development Bicyclist Access i ♦ ♦� j / Parking apOr *� . ��✓ ,k �� o Vehicular\ Access o eri'� CP �i a� � � rrya��� // Parking Below Development Development ` Grade Alternative A Alternative C Figure 26: Redevelopment Patterns S. Corridor Should Have 15. Outdoor Eating Facilities 1. Redevelopment Projects Should be Located in One Physical Design Continuity and Seating Should be Quadrant of Intersection Promoted 6. Ha vbis� ocalroukl 2. Development Densities Should 9. Roofs Should be as Hi as Possible Features Have Vaned Shapes (This Example- Represents 12. All Sides of a Lower - Density Development) a Building Should Have 4. Screening Should be Provided C �;- ±•'` for Adjoining Single - Family Treatment q \cighhoxh000ls" 16. Signs Should Complement ` •� ` Developments 8. Wall Shou M - i _ _ 14. Facilities for be Treated Not Blank Bicyclists _`�..•. _ i Should be 7. Edges of Corridor -i - Provided Should be Well Defined .. .: (Buildings. Landscaping, Fe ,, ..� 3. Vehicular Access noes gs p tog. ) `" - - -- 11'. .� . Points Should be as Far from 11. Materials and Colors 10. Parking Lots Intersections Should he Compatible Should Have .� ` �- as Possible Landscaped Islands Development and Edges 13. Pedestrian Walks Should Enhancement Link All Developments Guidelines Figure 27.• Recommended Development Guidelines Brookiyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 63 • 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 traffic should be directed away from residential streets; and commercial lighting should be directed aw4y 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: • Locating buildings or parts of buildings close to the edge of the street right -of -way • 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. 8. 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, including 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. 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. • Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 67 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 ` a distance through the use of a PP g g 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 landscaping 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 M �•hl Figure i Devel opment Op tion Figure 29: Mixed- Use l f d � / 1 � r � c � r . Devel opment Op tion Br Ookiyn souievard Stree tscape