Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 02-22 CCP Work Session I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 22, 1994 7 p. m. Council Work Session COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Presentation: a. Publicorp will Review Current Tax Increment Law and Essential Function Bonds and Their Use in Brooklyn Center 4. Discussion Items: a. Willow Lane Redevelopment b. 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Y P C. Financial Implication of Redevelopment Projects d. Council Development Concerns /Desires Discussion of Projects and Priorities Council would like Community Development to Address e. Humboldt Stop Sign Layout f. Tombstone Tobacco Advertising for Centerbrook Golf Course and Liquor Stores (Requested by Councilmember Rosene) 5. Adjournment i To: City Council NEMoRANDuM From: Brad Hoffman Date: February 18, 1994 Re: Community Development Worksheet Brooklyn Center as a community is at a crossroads and, as such, the community and specifically the Council will be faced with increasing complex problems. The problems to be addressed by the Community Development Department are primarily physical in nature, but their relationship to other problems (social, etc.) are often obvious. Such problems including physical problems (buildings, streets, water and redevelopment) as well as social problems (crime, poverty, etc.) are interrelated and competing for public attention. As a community and as Council members, you are going to be asked to make decisions allocating very limited resources to competing needs. The priorities established by the City over the next year are going to have long term, significant impact on the financial well-being of the community, and more importantly, the desirability of Brooklyn Center as a choice of residence in the future. Tuesday evening, I have asked representatives from Publicorp to give the Council a background on the current status of tax increment finances, as it exists in Minnesota, and Brooklyn Center's ability to use this tool. Tax increment will play a significant role in most future redevelopment projects, however, it is not nearly as effective as a tool as it once was. Still it is important that you, as Council members, have an understanding of its applications, its limitations and potential benefit to the City. Publicorp will also be covering essential function bonds and how Brooklyn Center might use these to finance some projects. As a first step in addressing all of our redevelopment needs throughout the City, o n it C u c will be asked to designate the entire City a redevelopment project area as well as a g tY P P J housing project area. This will allow you to use up to 25 percent of all tax increment monies generated within any tax increment district in the City anywhere within the City. If this were in place today, and we had surplus funds from our district (we don't), the most likely place to use them would be Willow Lane. I will cover this Tuesday and I will recommend that the Council, by motion, direct staff to bring the appropriate resolutions for Council approval to designate the entire City a redevelopment project area and housing area. Of most immediate concern, Tom Bublitz will review the Willow Lane redevelopment area. Publicorp has run some performas for discussion Tuesday. Tom's memo will provide you with more detail on that project. I would like to emphasis that to truly proceed forward, we need to establish that there is a viable market for the concepts we will be discussing. It is important that staff be directed, by motion, to bring a proposal for your acceptance for a market study for both Willow Lane and 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. You are going to find that the EDA has very limited dollars available to it to take on the projects that need to be addressed. Projects such as Willow Lane, the Lynbrook Bowl area, Brookdale Ten, Brookdale, Brooklyn Boulevard, the acquisition of single family houses (approximately 8), 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard (Town Center) as well as other projects will require significant public funding to make them happen. Tax increment, special assessments, grants, and bond issues will all be part of the solution to the City's financial participation in its redevelopment. However, it will not be the total picture. The EDA may levy for economic development under 469.107 Subdivision 2, subject to a reverse referendum. It is robable that such a le may be necessary to take on the P �'Y y �' Willow Lane and 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard projects. Obviously, Council is not going to be asked to commit to such a levy. However, I believe on Tuesday evening we should have some discussion about it. If Brooklyn Center is serious about addressing its redevelopment needs, i.e. reinvesting in itself, you need to be considering a levy of approximately $400,000 per year. Such a levy would translate to an approximate $16.00 per year on a $75,000 home. Any levy needs to be considered from the overall perspective of community need. But community development needs cannot be deferred indefinitely. Ron Warren will review 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The County widening of Brooklyn Boulevard from 64th north will start in 1996. The implications of that are significant from a financial perspective and a design perspective. It is also a timing issue with Willow Lane. We will be asking you for direction in several areas including the potential acquisition of homes on the east side of 69th and June (two are currently for sale), the potential of working with the Lanes as the area developer and a general development design concept. Here again we will need to prove the existence of a market before we proceed much further. Finally, there are numerous areas of activity being undertaken by Community Development. Willow Lane and 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard are two of the most pressing. If there are other areas the Council would like us to address in the near future, or consider as a future budget item, Tuesday would be a good time to alert us to these. I I-la-11 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Todd Paulson and City Councilmembers Y Y FROM: Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist% DATE: February 18, 1994 SUBJECT: Potential Redevelopment of South Willow Lane Area This report is a preliminary outline and discussion of redevelopment and related issues affecting the south Willow Lane area in Brooklyn Center. Specifically, the properties included in this discussion are located south of 66th Avenue North, north of I -694, east of T.H. 252, and west of Willow Lane. A map showing the proposed redevelopment area is included as Attachment 1 at the end of this report. Specific parcels in the proposed redevelopment area are as follows: 1. WILLOW RIVER APARTMENTS. The Willow River Apartments (Ketroser building) are located at 6525, 6527, and 6529 Willow Lane North on a 1.13 acre parcel. The building is an 18 -unit apartment building and has been purchased by the Brooklyn Center EDA. ' The cost of acquisition for this property was $338,302. Additional costs related to this parcel will include asbestos abatement on the property estimated at $40,000 which includes the preparation of plans and specifications, project management and monitoring, and the actual asbestos removal. After completion of the asbestos abatement, the property will be demolished at an estimated cost of $40,000. The asbestos abatement work and demolition work will be put out for bid so the costs referenced here are only estimates at this point. The source of revenues for the asbestos abatement and demolition will be paid from existing EDA reserve funds as was the acquisition of the building. The total estimated cost for acquisition and demolition of this property is $418,000. 2. BROOKDALE MOTEL. The Brookdale Motel is located at 6500 West River Road. It is a two- story, 24 -unit motel located on a 1.35 acre site. The 1994 assessed market value of the property, including land and building, is $337,500. The motel was built in 1954. 3. PREMIER MECHANICAL. Premier Mechanical is located at 6550 West River Road and is located on a 1.1 8 acre site. The owner owns both the P arcel on which the building is located as well as an adjacent vacant parcel which is .83 acres. The building is a one -story structure that was built in 1979. The 1994 assessed market value of the property with the building is $284,400. The adjacent vacant parcel has a 1994 assessed market value of $108,000. 4. LYN RIVER APARTMENTS. The Lyn River Apartments are located at 201, 207, and 215 65th Avenue North, and 6425, 6417, 6409, and 6401 Willow Lane North on a 5.55 acre site. Lyn River is an 84 -unit apartment complex consisting of seven separate apartment buildings. There are 63 one - bedroom units and 21 two - bedroom units. All of the buildings were built in 1962. Each of the seven 1 arce s including the land and prop P � g P P Y, has a 1994 assessed market value of $210,000 for a total value of the complex at $1,465,000. Over the past four years, the value of the land has been increasing but the value of the buildings has been decreasing. The 1994 assessor's market value of the buildings on each parcel is $150,000 (per 12 units) and the land value is $60,000 per parcel. The 1991 assessor's market value of the buildings was $179,700 per 12 unit building, and the land value was $36,000 per parcel. The total 1994 assessor's market value of land and buildings of the Lyn River Apartments is $1,465,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON REDEVELOPMENT AREA 1. In 1993, the Brooklyn Center EDA acquired the 18 -unit apartment complex known as Willow River Apartments formerly owned by Irwin Ketroser. This building had been a chronic enforcement problem for the City and had been operating marginally for many years. The primary -2- I purpose for acquiring this property was to eliminate a problem property within the City. 2. Another factor influencing the redevelopment scenario is the proposed sale of the Premier Mechanical property to Holiday Gas Stations for a gas station /convenience store and the subsequent lawsuit in response to the City denial of this application. 3. Emergence of a neighborhood organization formed in response to the proposed development at the Premier Mechanical site. This neighborhood group represents the homeowners in the Willow Lane neighborhood from south Willow Lane up to 73rd Avenue North. The primary focus of this neighborhood group is to assure that any development or redevelopment of the area adjacent to their neighborhood will be compatible with their existing neighborhood. 4. The Brooklyn Center EDA has just been notified that the EDA has been awarded a grant of $275,000 as part of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) Community Rehabilitation Fund Grant Program. The grants were funded on a competitive basis statewide, and the Brooklyn Center EDA received the largest rant award ranted b the MHFA g g g Y under this program. The grant funds were awarded to assist in the acquisition of property in the redevelopment area. 5. The redevelopment of the south portion of Willow Lane is noted as a high priority in the City's Maxfield Housing Study. The study points out that "redevelopment with commercial uses on the west side of T.H. 252 and multifamily on the east side would upgrade the image in this area and increase the tax base". REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES 1. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS OVER DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA. Based on communications from the Willow Lane neighborhood organization, there is general opposition to any commercial development on the east side of T.H.252 in the Willow Lane area. There does appear to be support for senior housing to be built in this area with assurances -3- it will remain senior housing which in effect implies City or EDA ownership of the project. 2. The existing lawsuit presents some issues with regard to timing of the redevelopment of the area. The schedule of the lawsuit must be taken into account when planning any redevelopment of this area. 3. Redevelopment of the area is complicated by the fact that the construction of any new project cannot be separated from the acquisition, relocation, and demolition costs associated with the area. All these issues complicate the redevelopment financing for this area. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The project proposed is construction of a senior citizen housing project for the Willow Lane area. The input staff has received from the Willow Lane neighborhood organization has indicated that a senior citizen housing project with assurances that it will remain a senior project would be acceptable to the neighborhood. Also, the grant award from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency in the amount of $275,000 is contingent upon construction of affordable senior citizen housing in the Willow Lane area. The definition of affordable under the MHFA guidelines for this grant program is quite generous and only requires that the units be affordable to persons earning an income of 115 % over the metro area median income. This essentially includes the majority of senior citizens looking for this type of housing. The specific project proposed for discussion purposes would consist of 100 to 120 units of senior housin g three-story g in a three -sto building or 80 units in a townhous (quad unit) design. The three -story building would include an underground garage. The approximate construction costs for the three -story project would be approximately $30,000 per unit or $3,600,000 for 120 units with $1 million additional for site improvements for a total of $40,000 per unit. For the townhouse model, the cost would be approximately $5 million with an additional $2 million for site improvements. This proposal is also in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the City's Maxfield Housing Study which recommends multifamily housing redevelopment for this portion of Willow Lane. -4- ACQUISITION AND CLEARANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR WILLOW LANE AREA Property Acquisitions $2,575,000 Legal Expenses 13,500 Appraisal Fees and Administration 18,500 Demolition Cost (Lyn River, Premier, and Brookdale Motel) 165,000* Demolition Cost (Ketroser Bldg.) 40,000 Relocation Expenses (Lyn River) 750,000 Relocation Administrative Services (Lyn River) 75,000 Asbestos Abatement (Ketroser Bldg.) 40,000 $ 3,677 , 000 *Demolition costs do not include any asbestos abatement costs If asbestos is found in any of the buildings, demolition costs may increase substantially. NOTE: A detailed breakdown of the acquisition and clearance costs is shown in Attachment 2. REVENUE SOURCES MHFA Grant $275,000 EDA Reserve 750,000 The remainder of the project including acquisition and construction must be financed from other sources. COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED TO PROCEED WITH PROJECT FEASIBILITY In order to begin to determine the feasibility of a senior housing project, staff is recommending the Council authorize a market study to determine the need and market for senior housing. In addition to defining the senior housing needs of the area, the market study is essential in order for any possible bond financing to be part of the project. Underwriters require market studies before they can consider any financing. The estimated cost of a marketing study is $6,500 _5_ i ACQUISITION AND FINANCING OPTIONS The costs indicated in this memorandum include the acquisition and development costs associated with the entire redevelopment area in the south portion of Willow Lane. There are additional options available which would contemplate a smaller or phased in approach to the project. They would include the following: 1. Acquisition of the Premier Mechanical and Brookdale Motel site with development of this parcel, along with the Willow River site. 2. Acquisition of the Premier Mechanical and Brookdale Motel site and delay development on the parcel to wait for a tax increment financing district to be formed when we have a suitable project for tax increment redevelopment. I Acquisition of the Premier Mechanical and Brookdale Motel site and development of a financial plan to acquire the Lyn River property at some time in the future. 0 0 1111 11, I i . own ■■■ 'i♦ ♦ ♦♦ ...;; 111111r��� ������� : ��, ♦�� � �� ■ X11/ ■ E ) 11. 1 11111 ������� ♦� ��� ■ ; ■1��1 1111 ■1k .�11� ■■i 11 11111111 r� 1 ► 1 � = � ♦ ♦ ♦� ♦ ♦ ♦" ♦"� ♦� �.1/ /1111 11111 ■ , ., 11 " 11111 �■ II _ ; ,. 1 � 1111 � 1� 1111 ��� ♦� ♦� ♦� ♦����� ♦� ti , . ,1111 � ■I ■■ � 11 �1 11111 ■�► ►���,• ♦��_��►�► •rr.►ie ■ ■ _ � 1111 I ., '���e I II ' ' . - 1 111111 ■11111 III;�Iii ��� ; 4 �� •�� � . 11111 I. I �"""" � 11 11 � 1111111 �� � ♦ �� 11 X1111 111111 11111 � 11 � 111111 IIIiI� � ♦� ��'© �� 111 �� 11 1 1111 : II,r X11 _ _�:�_�► `� , ,■ .... 11 1111 i �� 1111111 � =111 11■ ■.. 11 11 ■■ 111 _ =� 1■ 1 � V �►� m WIN 11 11 I LIIIIII■► 11 11111111 11111 ������ .11 /I� �_ ■ 1111■ y' V I 11 11� X11 I ■111111( � ��� +�' ♦��`� 1■ ■1 11 1 1111 , 1 �• '11111 11 111111 / '' li !� ��� 11111 + 111111 11 !;:!:: �■� ■ 111 1�� - � -� -- ... -iii �111�► � �11 ��� 11 ■■1 will =►•� _ - - - . � �� ■� 't. � ■��■ 1 111. �' /�1■ - � ��� - r ��ll -'��I■ 111 •� - r �r 11 r _� C ZTY OF YWY • ATTACHMENT 2 DETAIL OF ACQUISITION AND CLEARANCE COSTS FOR WILLOW LANE AREA ::. :.:..:: :..:: . 99::.::;.:::::.;:.::.::: Esi�rnated DmoSzt on iegt hosts A €sal << Asses sad ::.: >:: >:: >:: >:: >::::< A usttto:: Cvs. <:: < :: >:::_ »::> . <>::: ><:::: > >::: >::. >:: <:::::. ague ...:: . : :::::::.:::::. ::os..::::..::: :................ ............................:A . us�tion.....::... :::::::::. Brookdale $337,500 $425,000 $40,000 $4,000 $5,500 Motel 6500 W. River Road Premier $284,400 $450,000 $20,000 $4 $5,500 Mechanical 6550 W. River Road Vacant $108,000 $200,000 NA $1,500 $1,000 parcel adjacent to Premier Mechanical Lyn River $1,465,000 $1,500,000 $105,000 $4,000 $6,500 Apartments 6401, 6409, 6417 and 6425 Willow Ln. N. and 201, 207 and 215 - 65th Ave. N. x::: »: < ' T i, f7LS ::;: <:::: >::: 1: 4 QQ $2 UE $165 OOd ::: >:> :::`:' $13 SO.. $.l 50t? . : :....:.:....:.::::.:::.:::::::.:::::::::. a:::::::..::::::.::..... :. :....::::.:.�.:...::.::::::.. Additional Costs Asbestos Abatement (Ketroser Building) $40,000 Demolition (Ketroser Building) 40,000 Relocation (Lyn River) 750,000 Relocation Administration Services 75,000 905 000 yb MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director /� FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Speciali��^, DATE: February 17, 1994 SUBJECT: 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Area You have requested a report relating to redevelopment potential and issues involving the 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard area. Specifically, we are looking at the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard from 68th Avenue northerly to just south of the site of the Boulevard Office Condominiums (north of 70th Avenue). Attached is an area map highlighting the entire area this report refers to. The City and Hennepin County are jointly seeking Federal funds to assist in the upgrading and widening of Brooklyn Boulevard in this area and all of the parcels abutting Brooklyn Boulevard in the above outlined area will potentially be impacted by such a project. It appears that most of the parcels will have to be acquired in their entirety for such a project to proceed. The City has for some time attempted to encourage redevelopment in this area, particularly the land at the northeast quadrant of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The City's Comprehensive Plan comprehends the expansion of the General Commerce Zoning District (C -2) in this area to encourage such redevelopment. The Brooklyn Boulevard upgrading /widening project will create potential opportunities for redevelopment much like the widening /upgrading of 69th has done the same in the area where the Tires Plus, Orbit TV and Saba Flower buildings had to be removed to accommodate the widening of the street. In our discussions we have divided the area into three general sub- areas: 1. The area south of 69th 2. The area north of 69th to 70th and east to June 3. The area north and easterly of 70th avenue. The upgrading /widening of Brooklyn Boulevard in sub -area 1 would appear to necessitate the acquisition of the Pit Stop /Car X site; the Big Wheel /Rossi site; the Total petroleum site; and Pilgrim Cleaners. It would seem to be beneficial to also include, for redevelopment purposes, the old American Bakery site currently owned by Brookdale Pontiac (to the east of Pilgrim Cleaners) along with the remnant parcels left after taking to make for a larger more viable redevelopment site, which could provide some acceptable access from 69th Avenue as well as Brooklyn Boulevard. The northeast quadrant of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard (sub -area 2) would also be impacted by the potential upgrading /widening. It appears all of the parcels abutting Brooklyn Boulevard in this area would need to be acquired and cleared to accommodate the roadway plans. As pointed out earlier, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of the C -2 Zoning District easterly to June Avenue to accommodate redevelopment of the area. We would also like to encourage a large unified or phased redevelopment of this entire area. This would necessitate the need to acquire and assemble the remaining parcels in this triangular area including the building where Viking Enterprises is located, the Legion Club site, and three single family homes along the west side of June Avenue. In looking at a redevelopment in this area, it also appears that it may be beneficial to allow general commerce expansion to also include the first tier of lots along the east side of June Avenue. This would provide for more depth to a commercial parcel or parcels allowing for better circulation around such a site, more desirable commercial building sites, and the potential for access to the property from 69th Avenue. Access to this area from 69th westerly of June will not work and would not be allowed. Expanding the redevelopment site further to the east would allow a safe access to be provided from 69th and also would allow the ability to create a buffer /screening area for the homes backing up to such a development. It may also be possible to extend the screening /landscaping /berming design, which is provided along the north side of 69th Avenue as a means of separation along the expanded zoning line. The area north of 70th Avenue to just south of the Boulevard Office Condominiums (sub- area 3) is another potential redevelopment area. It appears, again, that acquisition of parcels abutting Brooklyn Boulevard will be necessary to accommodate the upgrading /widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. Expansion of the redevelopment area to the east would create a number of potential options. We have had preliminary contact with representatives of St. Alphonsus Church. The may have some interest in disposing of what the believe may be Y Y Po g Y Y surplus Church property given their current and projected church /school needs. They will be reviewing these matters within their organization over the next few months. As part of the Brooklyn Boulevard Enhancements Study being undertaken by BRW for the City, Arijs Pakalns has provided a redevelopment alternative that would include a major redevelopment i t n this are involving approximately 110 000 to 120 000 P g PP Y square feet of retail q office and restaurant space (the vast majority of which would be retail) along with an approximate 100 unit high - density senior citizen housing project. (See attached Concept A, Alternatives for 69th Avenue Special Study Area prepared by BRW.) This is a preliminary concept only and has been shared with representatives of St. Alphonsus and also a developer representing a property owner in the area who is trying to put together a redevelopment project. This concept has potential, particularly if the City is willing to provide tax increment financing as an incentive for the redevelopment. Obviously, a number of issues are raised with the redevelopment possibilities indicated above, not the least of which is costs. The City and County will have to share in the acquisition costs for right -of -way along Brooklyn Boulevard. The City could also become involved in assisting in the acquisition of other property in an attempt to assemble parcels for redevelopment. It is projected that the land acquisition and relocation costs for acquiring all of the property in the BRW Concept along with property in the area south of 69th and east of Brooklyn Boulevard, would be approximately $5.19 million. This number is broken down by the following areas: South of 69th/east of Brooklyn Boulevard = $1.898 million. $1,335,000 for right -of -way acquisition, plus $563,000 for additional land. 69th to 70th: Brooklyn Boulevard to June = $2.349 million. $772,000 for right -of -way acquisition, plus $1,054,000 for additional land west of June Avenue, plus $523,000 for land east of June. North of 70th and east of Brooklyn Boulevard = $945,000. $586,000 for right -of -way acquisition, plus $359,000 for additional land. As indicated previously, we have had discussions with a developer representing the owner of a number of parcels in the northeast quadrant of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, who has an interest in doing a redevelopment project involving a retail development on their land. They are willing to pursue land acquisition for an expanded site, but are seeking City involvement and assistance in the redevelopment. Attached is a letter from Peter Carlson, Chesapeake Partners, indicating items that are critical to them to pursue a redevelopment in this area. One of the most critical issues is whether the City will assist in acquisition of properties through condemnation, if necessary, provided some property owners refuse to sell property at a reasonable rice. They increment p ey also seek creation of a redevelopment district and tax incre e t financing, among other things. Carlson projects pursuing the land acquisition through this year, plan approvals in early 1995 and development in the spring /summer of 1995, if possible. Carlson has also seen the BRW concept and may have some interest in pursuing it or at least stage or phase their development so as to be compatible with the larger redevelopment concept. Before committing to pursuing such a redevelopment project, I believe it is essential that we obtain professional input on whether or not the market can absorb the additional commercial uses and a senior citizen housing proposal. I have contacted Tom Melchior of Maxfield Research Group ho conducted the commercial/ industrial market stud for the City a few P Y tY years ago. He believes they can provide an update to our study providing market absorption projections for commercial development at a cost of approximately $5,000. Tom Bublitz has contacted Melchior regarding a housing study involving market absorption for senior housing in the Willow Lane area and this area also. The approximate cost of such a study would be $6,500. The City also must be cognizant of the Brooklyn Boulevard upgrading /widening plan and the use of ISTEA funds. Acquisition of right -of -way must be timed in such a way as to not jeopardize Federal funding. This must be coordinated with any redevelopment proposals and plans. The direction or actions I believe we will need from the City Council are the following: 1. Contract with Maxfield Research Group o conduct an economic analysis P Y involving the ability to absorb approximately 110,000 to 120,000 square feet of additional commercial retail space in the City. 2. Determine if the City Council is willing to condemn property, if necessary, to assemble together the properties necessary for the redevelopment. This may include condemning single family homes and possibly some church property as well as commercial property. 3. Determination on whether or not the BRW concept for redevelopment of an expanded area is an acceptable concept that should be pursued. 4. Determine the willingness on the part of the City Council to consider expanding the general commerce area east to include homes along the east side of June Avenue. 5. Determine the willingness of the City Council to pursue the amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan to accommodate expanded commercial or mixed use development in these areas. 6. Determine the willingness of the City Council to consider the establishment of a tax increment financing district as a tool to assist in this redevelopment. I hope this report adequately describes the potential redevelopment in this area and outlines sufficiently the issues raised that need to be addressed. If I can provide additional information, comments or recommendations please advise me. �� !. "� - : � r 1.1 11111111 11111 • _ ��►�� I`;►� '� ; ;; .1 �' �� � i ■ r .. 1111111 11111 .__.. ----- � �; ,1 ■� /� /�� 111111 11111111 `��� �/w - n. / // // ■ 11111111111 �i :um - v 1�`:� i�q t. / 1 r ■ /■ ■� ■ 11 : 1111 " ..;� � _�: ` ��.;:i' = r'�� . ■. ■/ ■ ■ 1111 z 111 ����� �� _ \�. ■� ,.� ■ � 111 1 1 �.,: ��` v %�.: _ - l� ' 111 � \/I 111►• .. r I .� / �� •111111111 � �,,� ,�o�. ; ,� /1111 111,... ►�♦ ♦ :11 11 111111 � _ ..11 111111 � '�' �j ♦♦ _ ♦j ,■,P , "111 1 /..., .. �♦ ♦�� � 1= ♦ 1 -. - 1/ ■111111 ♦� � s ♦♦ ♦ � � ♦ - �� 11 I 1 . 111111111 - '�� ► % 1111 1/11111 11 �1 1111 : : ; i ' �. ���':::. _ ®- � w /1 s . 1111 1 1 � . � " � . �� � /i /1% /., - X11► ���" : . � 11 1111 11111 � ���, 1 111111 r �� : 1111111 � ilk/ � � 1111E � .� � 111111 111 a 111111 11111 111111 1 1111. 111 MA ,� `� �� 11111 11 Ike VIII 1111111 �1 111 ��,�, f 111111 1111111 111 _ 11N■ 11 11 1 � � ,� :..,. .111111 111 ■ � �111111111+�111�1 �: �� 11► 11111 ,� �� 11111111 /� 1 /// �� Qi 11 m m �� .. - ;� : 1 � '1111111 111 ■� � ��IEl�118�� ��� ,�� i� ,� 1 �� 1111�I'.1/1111111111�� .� ♦ ♦♦� ♦♦ 11 m m 1111111111�� ♦♦ ♦� �� Mill ,���..'� 11/1111/ 1 • °� 4 . . � ��� , . � �� ,� - 11 � 111 11111 4 ` � �� � �.� ,. • 11 ■a��Y 111111 1 � ■1/ ' .. � � 1%! 'r® � }},,ry, i 1,,,� x r • t t::: �1 f� 1'; C d7 * t'.. i+�� _ Y t$" i '� '�"'t ; ''� t �,�,r4 { - ^ .r . '• I ._ ry h'. "t \•..a`::, �:dltd`:iT,w"f:iV• ar�pr«.1�a � ^^ �:'•'' i.' _ ...;:... ,p ; "�..�. R 1 vnVY� e. ,•,$� �1k �1p ! K• � �' .,� �1.. r �Ra 9� bj 1e as =. ,, J V f' 1 1 va d ' •k.. `+yam 3; I N �'h �c .»i . G'.. �' ` t •p r• ��' is h .i }. 1 - 1 ... �� V��7,4 a r8i g • .1 - ., ,_ '��������+ +'. �� ✓�i p G� �' . \ . �e.. .l . ,.. i. 41':i � I i '� IA dI r �. 7 y < °d'S` N� ht..� •ey.4x ' i t�if 1 •� i y J. � p !3'�1+' /!`��.�•' s .ln '.1 1° �� �,� 1;,,,, t , a , .. .�i i .� at � 1 -..r'9 � � \ Ti+rf!••:w.:.J� �._. .mot—.: �` � is _ O ���., \G���i�� r._; J ' S' `• • � � I ...^.. ; { .y_�ir+y --tj l: �f�...• O , 1 P. h n ✓t tom+ r k IV 4 I - ..�i:�}. �;; • fir' • : - y ,, •_ t ., b. I yR r� !"�•x. sy. 1��k�� p ',. j �. r�, a ' t,,, i .N'., ~ 9w >i i3t I:, 1 L` ��.y " ^ ,1%v. :r r t �.,: ?�� rA:,:•. •r- p 4 a a k�l... - 3. � v: � ��': _ ('. j ,.t.� .•�. 1 yy„ FT :. }. e s X. � f7l .. - n r �-- •- f /,wr--_•v..^• —* '' Jl�{�++ c 'U'�— : �- - t l -' � \....,— ,,. .. a.L '!� / �'_ -'� pis .:..., �� _ �•� � - .-:i:: .t",... —�. ..-. -. • _. _... .. ie .,_s -.a .r= 1's r� .., .m* ,._.�_' �. __. _ � .. --- - - s r l: z•L'4*C•.OUC y._......tit_,.. -.... i�'�� ' 1 .;1: � x:e�� r. '__ _ � ll � �,.. - � � �rti �r I!] I ii '4 �7 4 xl' C' ,�R'R 3 ?�.. i r 9i�` Y � � �•j•� 4 n . �� i . � � r � 1 ; gat°i+ I r _ � f . � �° � 3' ^, � --�� i . 't • Y ' ' .. Y [ i ......� _ C ` , e ' f �t 1ef C S4• 1. i't f : L 'S .?e ,.: ., 4 ;� CORCAPT A Alternatives Brooklyn Boulevard 69th Avenue North Speol Study Area 2 1 8 J 9+ ; 0 100 200 400 January 25, 1994 Mr. Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning City Of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, NN 55430 Dear Ron: Pursuant to our meeting, we are enclosing a summary of items we believe are critical to the proposed redevelopment project. 1. City will create a Redevelopment District for this project. 2. City and Developer will approve a mutually acceptable Development Agreement. 3. City shall allow the Developer to capture tax increment to coverall legal Qualifying Costs that the project incurs. The City shall receive all additional tax increment for the life of the district. City shall use their bonding capacity to fund the full amount of the Qualifying Costs to the Developer at the time of closing on the project. 4. City will create a PUD for this project. 5. City will approve a preliminary concept/site plan. The City agrees to process the necessary City approvals in a timely manner without material changes or requirements as long as we conform to the City's project approval process within the PUD ordinances. 6. City will not require EAW or EIS studies for the project. 7. City will use its condemnation powers in a timely manner if some property owners refuse to sell us their property at a reasonable price. 8. Developer agrees to cooperate with the County and the City regarding the proposed condemnation of frontage (15') along Brooklyn Blvd. 9. Developer agrees to cooperate with the City's landscaping plans as long as it doesn't damage the site lines to stores that is crucial to retailers and a key element to securing tenant leases. CHESAPEAKE PARTNERS OF MINNEAPOLIS, INC. • 1880 LINCOLN CENTRE • 333 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 • (612) 333 -1360 Mr. Ronald A. Warren January 25, 1994 Page Two We are looking orward to discussing these issues we you in more detail. g g Y Yours trul Peter C. Carlson President MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 1994 TO: Gerald Splinter, City Manager FROM: Mark J. Maloney, City Engineer it RE: Proposed Stop Sign Installations Attached are drawings which show proposed stop sign locations for the intersections of Humboldt Avenue North with 67th, 70th and 72nd (east leg), and the intersection of 73rd Avenue North with Dupont Ave. This report is in response to the Council motion(s) of February 14, 1994, which directed staff to develop a "study regarding stop sign placement which would not impede ingress or egress from any driveway". As you can see from the drawings, the placement of stop signs in any of the contemplated intersections will in fact have an impact on driveways, especially if you consider the traffic queue during the rush hour periods. The drawings provided show sign placement locations which are in conformance with the most recent Minnesota Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD), which is considered to be the definitive (and legally cited) reference for guidelines for sign placements. I have attached the portion of the manual which relates to stop signs ns for your reference. As you can see from the drawings, none of the intersections lend themselves to optimum stop sign placement as conflicts with driveways will result. Also, at the Humboldt /67th Avenue intersection, there is a legitimate question of whether one stop sign in the boulevard is adequate for each direction of traffic (there is no median for an additional sign) given the traffic volume. Because the introduction of a stop sign at this location would be initially a surprise for drivers, and because drivers in the "inside" lanes may have their view of the sign obstructed by vehicles in the adjacent lane, there exists a potential for a pedestrian safety hazard. In summary, I have proposed stop signs in locations which I feel best meet the instructions given by the City Council at their February 14, 1994 meeting while still conforming to the location standards cited in the MMUTCD. 0 _6637 6715 6721 1501 APT'S. APT'S. APT'S.. APT'S. , ' R8 -3a 12 1 Ix12' _ -. EXISTING PED CROSSING PANELS ' PROPOSED STOP SIGN i� 15 � -- . ,tea - 5 1•AH ism OSTMH HUMBOLO — TA VE. NO. - -- C -- t V 5' SIDEWAL j PROPOSED- _ STOP SIGN i a 12 1 Sx 12" I R8 -3a 12 "x 12" EXISTING STOP SIGN Z APARTMENTS w APARTMENTS > 1 6640 Q 6700 , (D HUMBOLDT /67TH. AVE. RS SHALL NOTIFY TF.LEPFION'E INTERSECTION RI ('ABLE T.V. CWPANIES FOR AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 2/18./94 7013 7012 7007 E7006 7001 ti 7000 • T PROPOSED STOP SIGN EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING EXISTING DRIVEWAY 70 TH AVE NO PROPOSED STOP SIGN I K C � O a ,I HUM80LDT /70 TH. AVE.. INTERSECT /ON T 2//9/94 X to Z '• rn m o z v b. D cn f o b cn 4 t Pr ) V. r ' 0 ® i v PC ' C ® I r• I , t NI b�' • � 5• II I G 2p 2 1 O HUMBOLDT AVE. N0. _ I I FRI •`r , 1 4 r ILI 10 �i'NlLV cn ( rn v z 7208 CAI (� . 7200 7204 7 7212 C o, o y cn m y 0 Z --1 r ril O z n N 0 f i \ Z G i 4 M, HUMSOL D T A VE. NO. i W EXISTING Q �� STOP SIGN PROPOSED Z STOP SIGN O J M m 0 a m a m o O w 73RD AVE. �a � m WWJ d LLJ > O > "N» Q EXISTING (-- PROPOSED STOP SIGN STOP SIGN z O 0.. 0 - 73RD /DUPONT AVE. INTERSECTION 2/18/94 :op is not necessary at all times. Periodic reviews of existing n installati 1 � 4e (c1 ma 3 be desirable to determine whether, because f ch anged con o s asv. Y o ch g the use of less restrictive control or no control could accommodate traffic demands safely and more effectively. ST O STOP signs should never be used on the through roadways of expressways. Properly designed expressway interchanges provide for the continuous flow of traffic, making STOP signs unnessary even on the entering roadways. Where at -grade intersections are temporarily justified for local traffic in sparsely populated areas, STOP signs should be used on RI -1 R1-3 RI-4 the entering roadways to protect the through traffic. STOP signs may also 30" x 30" 12" x 6" 18!'x 6" be required at the end of diverging roadways at the intersection with other highways n g ys of designed as expressways. In most of these cases, the speeds 2B -4 Stop Sign (RI-1) will not warrant any great increase in the sign sizes. STOP signs are intended for use where traffic is required to stop. The STOP signs shall not be erected at intersections where traffic control STOP sign shall be an octagon with white message and border on a red signals are operating. The conflicting commands of two types of control background. The standard size shall be 30 x 30 inches. Where greater devices are confusing. If traffic is required to stop when the operation of emphasis or visibility is required, a larger size is recommended. On low- the stop- and -go signals is not warranted, the signals should be put on volume local streets and secondary roads with low approach speeds, a 24 flashing operation with the red flashing light facing the traffic that must X 24 inch size may be used, stop. At a multiway stop intersection (sec. 213-6), a supplementary plate Where two main highways intersect, the STOP sign or signs should (R1 -3) should be mounted just below each STOP sign. If the number of normally be posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. approach legs to the intersection is three or more, the numeral on the traffic engineering studies, however, may justify a decision to install a supplementary plate shall correspond to the actual number of legs, or the STOP sign or signs on the major street, as at a three -way intersection legend ALL -WAY (RI 4) may be used. The supplementary plate shall where safety considerations may justify stopping the greater flow of have white letters on a red background and shall have a standard size of 12 traffic to permit a left - turning movement. X 6 inches (R1 -3) or 18 x 6 inches (R1 -4). STOP signs may be used at selected railroad - highway grade crossings A STOP sign beacon or beacons may be used in conjunction with a only after their need has been determined by a detailed traffic engineering p 2 STOP sign as described in section 4E -4, study. Use of the STOP sign at railroad- highway grade crossings is Secondary messages shall not be used on STOP sign faces. described in Section 8B -9. Portable or part -time STOP signs shall not be used except for 2B -5 Warrants for Stop Sign emergency purposes. Also, STOP signs should not be used for speed Because the STOP sign causes a substantial inconvenience to motorists, control. it should be used only where warranted. A STOP sign may be warranted at 28 -6 Multiway Stop Signs an intersection where one or more of the following conditions exist: The "Multiway Stop" installation is useful as a safety measure at some 1. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on application of the normal right -of -way rule is unduly hazardous. the intersecting roads is approximately equal. A traffic control signal is 2. Street entering a through highway or street. more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. 3. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. Any of the following conditions may warrant a multiway STOP sign 4. Other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted installation (sec. 2B-4): view, and serious accident record indicates a need for control by the STOP 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the sign. iultiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to Prior to the application of these warrants, consideration should be given control traffic while arrangements are being made for t signal to less tive measures, such as the YIELD sign (213-7) where a full I installation. Rev. 3 Rev. 9184 28 -2 2B -3 Rev. 9184 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a multiway stop installation in a 12 -month period. Such accidents include right- and left -turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but (c) When the 85- percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. 2B -7 Yield Sign (R1 -2) The YIELD sign assigns right -of -way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need stop only when necessary to avoid interference with other traffic that is given the right -of- way. The YIELD sign shall be a downward pointing, equilateral triangle having a red border band and a white interior and the word YIELD in red inside the border band. The standard size shall be 36 x 36 x 36 inches. YIELD 2B -8 Warrants for Yield Signs The YIELD sign may be warranted: 1. At the entrance to an intersection where it is necessary to assign ri right-of-way and where the safe a p R­ 10 � ��1 g y approach speed on the entrance exceeds miles per hour. 2. On the entrance ramp to an expressway where an acceleration lane is not provi0 28 -4