Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 06-10 CCP Regular SessionAGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 10, 2013 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions 2.Miscellaneous 3.Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits 4.Adjourn CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center June 10, 2013 AGENDA 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council — 6:45 p.m. —provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2.Invocation — 7 p.m. 3.Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4.Roll Call 5.Pledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1.May 28,2013 — Study Session 2.May 28,2013 — Regular Session 3.May 28,2013 — Work Session b.Licenses c.Approval of 2013 Professional Audit Services RFP d. Resolution Adopting Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2012 e. Resolution Declaring the City of Brooklyn Center's Participation in the State Performance Measurement System for 2013 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 10, 2013 f. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 and Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Allowance of Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) to Public Places and Uses and Adding Definitions of Public Uses -Motion to approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing on July 8, 2013. 7.Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations —None. 8.Public Hearings —None. 9. Planning Commission Items a.Planning Commission Application No. 2013-001 Submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and HSB Architects. Request for Site and Building Plan Approval of the New Panda Express Restaurant in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1520 Shingle Creek Crossing). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 30, 2013, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2013-001 Submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. & HSB Architects Requesting Site and Building Plan Approval of the New Panda Express Restaurant in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1520 Shingle Creek Crossing) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. b.Planning Commission Application No. 2013-003 Submitted by MBC II, LLC/Paul Hyde. Request for an Amendment to the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit Development Project (Former Howe Fertilizer Site — 4821 Xerxes Avenue N). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 30, 2013, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2013-003 Submitted by MBC II, LLC/Paul Hyde for an Amendment to the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit Development Project (Former Howe Fertilizer Site — 4821 Xerxes Avenue N) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. c. Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 Submitted by Omar Ansari of Surly Brewing Company. Request for a Special Use Permit to Allow the Retail Sales of Products Manufactured or Processed at a Site Located in the 1-2 General Industry District (4811 Dushaime Drive). The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 30, 2013, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 10, 2013 1. Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 Submitted by Omar Ansari of Surly Brewing Company for Special Use Permit to Allow the Retail Sales of Products Manufactured or Processed at a Site Located in the 1-2 General Industry District (4811 Dusharme Drive). Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Consideration of Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 6400 Quail Avenue North Requested Council Action: —Receive staff report. —Motion to open hearing. —Receive testimony from applicant. —Motion to close hearing. —Take action on rental license application and mitigation plan. 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment City Council Agenda Item No. 6a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 28, 2013 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Fire Chief Lee Gatlin, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Ryan requested the following correction to the Work Session minutes of May 13, 2013: Page 2, Third Paragraph from Bottom: Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated that this closely; he might not have chosen the specific height that is in the ordinance; however, it is in the ordinance and needs to be enforced. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to accept the correction the May 13, 2013, Work Session minutes. Councilmember Ryan requested discussion on agenda item 6.c, in particular, clarification on the final payment amount of $10,008.35. City Manager Curt Boganey explained that the original award amount was estimated at $1,656,282.41. With the final payment of $10,008.35 the final project cost will be $1,583,295.12, which is lower than the original estimate. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested discussion on item 10.a, in particular the issue highlighted in the proposed resolution to eliminate the remaining single-family units in the study area along Brooklyn Boulevard. Mayor Willson explained that over time, the City has purchased a number of properties in this corridor. He stressed that the elimination of single-family units in this corridor will not involve -1- DRAFT05/28/13 the use of eminent domain, condemnation, etc., and that over time individuals may be willing to sell these properties for fair or appreciative market value. Mr. Boganey noted that the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study Plan that will be adopted by the proposed resolution is a goal and a vision, but not the detail on specific strategies that would be employed. The likely options available for the elimination of single family uses in this corridor are attrition, voluntary sales, etc. Councilmember Myszkowski requested discussion on items 6.d and 6.e, in particular clarification on the statement in the staff report "Given the nature of the delay, staff is recommending that a twelve month extension be granted..." Mr. Boganey explained that "Given the nature of the delay" refers to the City working with the developer to allow them to meet their platting requirements, and that staff does not want to put the developer in the position of starting the platting process over again given that the developer is working towards completing the required work. He stated he would characterize this as a technicality, and that it is not reflective of issues or concerns with the development in and of itself. In answer to the broader question, the marketing of the project may not be going as swiftly as the developer would have hoped, but construction is ongoing with buildings expected to be completed by mid-fall with tenants expected in many of those buildings before the holidays. There is an item coming before the Planning Commission for a Panda Express that should be under construction this year. The City received a revised plan today from the developer proposing substantial modifications to the food court, which will be coming before the City Council shortly. Council Members expressed their support to review changes the developer feels are needed to make the project successful, while ensuring that any changes are deemed appropriate for the site. MISCELLANEOUS Stabilized and Improved Residential Neighborhoods Report / Vacant Properties Councilmember Kleven requested verification on the time period for the 16 homes listed in the Stabilized and Improved Residential Neighborhoods Report as having closings. Mr. Boganey stated he believes the timeframe is within the past 12 months and he will confirm this with the Council. Councilmember Kleven stated she has been informed that the vacant house next to her home will have activity by August 1 st of this year. Potential Sister City Relationship Councilmember Myszkowski stated she was approached to see if the City has an interest in a potential sister city relationship with Kenya, Africa. Mayor Willson stated his preference to see the current sister city relationship through to fruition prior to initiating a new sister city relationship. 05/28/13 -2- DRAFT Positive Community Survey Results Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson commented on the positive responses received on the recent community survey in relation to Grandview Park. Potential African American Center Mayor Willson stated he has been approached regarding the potential of locating an African American Center in one of the City's less than utilized strip malls. Things mentioned were small businesses, meeting places, and non-profits. He stated he finds the premise appealing with what he heard while in New York and what other cities are doing with immigrant small businesses. He requested that Mr. Boganey schedule a Study Session item on the topic. City Emergency Plan Councilmember Kleven questioned if the City is prepared for an emergency situation like an F4 tornado, noting the recent tragedy in Oklahoma. Mayor Willson noted that the City has a full emergency plan that the Fire Chief and Police Chief are involved in. In addition, the City has a number of mutual aid agreements with other cities and tries to keep a reserve in the General Fund for emergencies. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS JOINT FIRE SERVICE STUDY UPDATE Fire Chief Lee Gatlin presented an overview of the Executive Summary of the Emergency Services Consulting International Shared Services Study incorporating the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Osseo, Plymouth, Robbinsdale, and the West Metro (serving Crystal and New Hope). ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to reconvene the Study Session at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. JOINT FIRE SERVICE STUDY UPDATE — CONTINUED 05/28/13 -3- DRAFT Mr. Gatlin continued the presentation and answered questions of the City Council on the Executive Summary of the Emergency Services Consulting International Shared Services Study. Discussion on this item continued and reached conclusion during the May 28, 2013, Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Study Session at 7:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/28/13 -4- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 28, 2013 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1.INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Fire Chief Lee Gatlin, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:46 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2.INVOCATION Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested a moment of silence and personal reflection as the Invocation. 3.CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:00 p.m. 4.ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Fire 05/28/13 -1- DRAFT Chief Lee Gatlin, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6.APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the Work Session minutes of May 13, 2013, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.May 6, 2013 — Joint Work Session with Financial Commission 2.May 13,2013 — Study Session 3.May 13,2013 — Regular Session 4.May 13,2013 — Work Session 6b. LICENSES GARBAGE COLLECTION VEHICLE Dick's Sanitation Service, Inc. 8984 215 th Street W., Lakeville FIREWORKS — PERMANENT STRUCT Walgreens Walmart Store #5625 URE 6390 Brooklyn Boulevard 1200 Shingle Creek Parkway FIREWORKS — TEMPORARY STAND TNT Fireworks: Cub Location Walmart Store #5625 MECHANICAL Elias Plumbing Friendly Heating & Air Conditioning Heating & Cooling Design Marsh Heating & A/C MMH Plumbing, Inc. Neil Heating & Air Resource Plumbing & Heating St. Marie Sheet Metal, Inc. RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE — one-year license) 5325 Knox Avenue N. INITIAL (TYPE II — two-year license) 3245 County Road 10 1200 Shingle Creek Parkway 3853 155 th Street W., Rosemount 13050 Arthur Street, Rogers 10830 Able Street NE, Blaine 6248 Lakeland Avenue N., Brooklyn Park 3060 62 nd Street SW, Waverly P.O. Box 29292, Minneapolis 2109 Oakridge Street, St. Paul P.O. Box 32148, Fridley Donovan Gilbret 05/28/13 -2- DRAFT 5240 Ewing Avenue N. 5131 Howe Lane 7013 Unity Avenue N. 5937 Vincent Avenue N. RENEWAL (TYPE — one-year license) 6730 Perry Avenue N. RENEWAL (TYPE II— two-year license) 7206-12 West River Road 5701 Bryant Avenue N. 6436 June Avenue N. 5312 Newton Avenue N. RENEWAL (TYPE I— three-year license) 5319 Queen Avenue N. 3125 66 th Avenue N. 7044 Drew Avenue N. 7217 Unity Avenue N. Mark Gettinger Rafik Moore — RTO Investment, LLC Scott Lauderdale Jack Johnson Thinh Nguyen Missing CPTED and 1 ARM Meeting Jason Ingbretson Lin Shuang, LLC Jenny Pham On Time Contractors Karen Pelak Danny Vo Jennifer Lenhart/Jan Mohrfeld Ghulam Pyarali 6c.RESOLUTION NO. 2013-56 AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, PROJECT NOS. 2007-01, 02, 03, AND 04, FREEWAY BOULEVARD AND SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 6d.RESOLUTION NO. 2013-57 PROVIDING A TWELVE MONTH EXTENSION TO THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE RECORDING OF THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 2 ND ADDITION FINAL PLAT 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-58 PROVIDING A SIX MONTH EXTENSION TO THE TIME PERIOD FOR THE RECORDING OF THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3 RD ADDITION FINAL PLAT Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-59 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF DELLA YOUNG FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE SHINGLE CREEK AND WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSIONS Mayor Willson read in full a Resolution expressing recognition and appreciation of Della Young for her dedicated public service on the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. 05/28/13 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2013-59 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Della Young for Her Dedicated Public Service on the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions. Motion passed unanimously. 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. 9.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a.RESOLUTION NO. 2013-60 ADOPTING THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR STUDY PLAN AS A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDE FOR BROOKLYN BOULEVARD FROM 1-94 TO 49 TH AVENUE NORTH Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug introduced the item, discussed the history, and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution. He provided a brief overview of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study Final Executive Summary Report dated May 2013. There was discussion on the adoption of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study Plan providing the momentum to continue working towards the design goals for this corridor. It was noted that previous work and discussion by the Planning Commission is affirmed in this study and that the study moves the process closer to joint sharing responsibilities along the corridor. Members of the Council and City Manager Curt Boganey commended Mr. Lillehaug and staff for their work on moving the study forward. Mr. Boganey noted a significant step with this study is that it goes beyond the planning to the implementation requirements with the involvement of key funding partners. Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2013-60 Adopting the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study Plan as a Planning and Development Guide for Brooklyn Boulevard from 1-94 to 49 th Avenue North. Motion passed unanimously. 10b.CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 5619 KNOX AVENUE NORTH Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide 05/28/13 -4- DRAFT testimony on this rental license. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a motion. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for 5619 Knox Avenue North, with the requirement that the mitigation plan and all applicable ordinances must be strictly adhered to before a renewal rental license would be considered. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REP ORT Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following events and provided information on the following upcoming events: •May 16, 2013, African Immigrant Services (AIS) Planning Committee Meeting. •May 21, 2013, Grandview Park Neighborhood Meeting. •Upcoming forum in St. Paul with Metropolitan Council officials on aspects of the Thrive MSP 2040 Plan. •Upcoming Town Hall Meeting scheduled for June 1, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. with Representatives Hilstrom and Nelson and State Senator Eaton at the Brooklyn Center Constitution Hall located in the Community Center. Councilmember Kleven reported on her attendance at the following and provided the following information: •May 14, 2013, Brooklyn Center's Women's Club where three scholarships were given to three deserving young women. •May 14, 2013, family/community fun night at the Brooklyn Center High School. •May 21, 2013, Earle Brown Days Committee Meeting. •May 21, 2013, Grandview Park Neighborhood Meeting. •The Restaurant Depot will be moving into the former Best Buy building; Jammin Wings will be moving into the former Oak City location by August 1 st ; three buildings are under construction in Shingle Creek Crossing and should be finished by the middle of July; L.A. Fitness should be complete by August 1st; and Earle Brown Days events will be coming next month. Councilmember Myszkowski reported on her attendance at the following: •May 14, 2013, Housing Commission Meeting. •May 17, 2013, Crime Prevention Golf Tournament Dinner. •May 21, 2013, Earle Brown Days Meeting. •May 21, 2013, Grandview Park Neighborhood Meeting. •May 21, 2013, Brooklyn Center High School Orchestra and Choir Concert. •Congratulations to Brooklyn Center High School seniors who will be graduating. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson reported on her attendance at the following events and provided information on the following upcoming events: 05/28/13 -5- DRAFT •May 17, 2013, Brooklyn Center High School Academic Awards Ceremony. •May 17, 2013, Crime Prevention Golf Tournament Dinner •May 18, 2013, wedding of the best friend of her daughter's organ donor. •May 21, 2013, Grandview Park Neighborhood Meeting. •May 21, 2013, Park and Recreation Commission Meeting. •May 24, 2013, Odyssey Academy Board Meeting. •May 24, 2013, BCBA Luncheon. •Upcoming Town Hall Meeting scheduled for June 1, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. with Representatives Hilstrom and Nelson and State Senator Eaton at the Brooklyn Center Constitution Hall located in the Community Center. •Upcoming going away reception for Keith Lester at the Brooklyn Center High School scheduled for May 30, 2013, from 3-5 p.m. •Upcoming Brooklyn Center High School Graduation scheduled for June 6, 2013. Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following: •May 18, 2013, Welcoming Address to the National Association of Administrative Professionals. •May 24, 2013, meeting with a nonprofit organization anticipating an African American Center in one of the vacant strip malls in Brooklyn Center. There are a number of details to come forward before the City Council begins to discuss the idea. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 7:35 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/28/13 -6- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION MAY 28, 2013 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Fire Chief Lee Gatlin, and Carol Hamer, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MISCELLANEOUS League of Minnesota Cities Centennial Ceremony City Manager Curt Boganey informed the Council that former Mayor Cohen has inquired if any Council Members plan to attend the upcoming League of Minnesota Cities Centennial Ceremony. It was noted that Councilmember Ryan and possibly Councilmember Myszkowski plan to attend and will be in contact with former Mayor Cohen. JOINT FIRE SERVICE STUDY UPDATE Fire Chief Lee Gatlin continued the presentation and answered questions of the City Council on the Executive Summary of the Emergency Services Consulting International Shared Services Study. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was that it would not be beneficial for the City of Brooklyn Center to proceed with service consolidation approach. Fire Chief Gatlin noted that pay plans and training are areas where information may be beneficial for the City of Brooklyn Center to review. City Manager Curt Boganey commented that other things can be done short of consolidation that could be beneficial to the City, and the study identifies opportunities for efficiencies and improved service. Staff intends to review the data for areas where the City can improve performance by working in cooperation with many of the other cities. 05/28/13 -1- DRAFT AMPHITHEATER UPDATE Mr. Boganey requested discussion and direction from the City Council regarding the request to allocate $100,000 in the 2014 capital budget towards the construction of the Civic and Veterans Memorial Amphitheater. He noted that consideration of the funding request could become part of the 2014 budget process. There was discussion on the following in relation to the Civic and Veterans Memorial Amphitheater: •Concern by the EDA/Council Members of using City funds for the project. •Developing a broader, more defined image relating to the potential civic asset, with the potential of the structure falling under the Park and Recreation Department for uses such as musicals for children, weddings, bands, etc. Administration of rental agreements and maintenance would also fall under the Park and Recreation Department. •The potential use of LGA funds as a one-time allocation to be included in the 2014 budget. •The potential revenue stream for renting the structure for use by residents. •Incorporating the structure into Capital Improvements in relation to the current plans for renewing and repairing the Civic Center. •The importance that the structure would stand the test of time as an enduring asset for the City and be flexible for the potential users. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to consider the funding request for the construction of the Civic and Veterans Memorial Amphitheater as a one-time expenditure in the 2014 budget process. Mr. Boganey advised it should be noted that the current request of $100,000 is based on an estimated project cost of $335,000, which is only an estimate at this time. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence- Anderson seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 8:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/28/13 -2- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses at its June 10, 2013. Background: The following businesses/persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business/person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. AMUSEMENT DEVICES American Amusement Arcades AMF Earle Brown Lanes Davanni's Metro Coin of Minnesota, Inc. Brooklyn Center Community Center Theisen Vending Company Family Dollar Store #4514 Family Dollar Store #5110 GARBAGE COLLECTION VEHICLE Ace Solid Waste, Inc. Curbside Waste T & L Sanitation Service, Inc. 2100 West 96 th Street, Bloomington 6440 James Circle N 5937 Summit Drive 14940 28' Avenue N, Plymouth 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 2335 Nevada Avenue N, Golden Valley 6211 Brooklyn Boulevard 2105 57 th Avenue N 6601 McKinley Street NW, Ramsey 4465 Trenton Lane #210, Plymouth P.O. Box 49695, Blaine LIQUOR — BREWER TAPROOM AND SUNDAY Surly Brewing Company 4811 Dusharme Drive Subject to meeting the conditions and considerations for the Special Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission and City Council LIQUOR — ON-SALE INTOXICATING, SUNDAY, AND 2 AM Jammin Wings, LLC 2590 Freeway Boulevard Subject to submittal of Liquor Liability and Workers' Compensation Insurance Certificate and payment of property taxes. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM MECHANICAL DLS Services, LLC Ductworks Heating & Air Hoffman Refrigeration Knight Heating and Air Linn Star Logistics, LLC Little Igloo HVAC, Inc. Optimum Mechanical Systems Tonna Mechanical 2145 128 th Lane NE, Blaine 6108 Olson Memorial Hwy, Golden Valley 5660 Memorial Avenue N, Stillwater 13535 89 th Avenue NE, Otsego 9995 W 69 th Street, Eden Prairie 1829 135 th Avenue NW, Andover. 3030 Centerville Road, Little Canada 2411 7 th Street NW, Rochester RENTAL See attached report. SIGN HANGER Phoenix Signs 10856 Cty Road 81, Maple Grove Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Rental License Category Criteria Policy — Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category (Based on Property Code Only) Number of Units Property Code Violations per Inspected Unit Type I — 3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+ units 0-0.75 Type 11-2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 Greater than 0 .75 but not more than 1.53+ units Type III — 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 Greater than 1 5 but not more than 33+ units Type IV —6 Months 1-2 units 3+ units Greater than 8 Greater than 3 License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category Impact 1-2 0-1 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more unitsGreater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 Categories 1-2 Greater than 3 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public Eco6. 0o0.a.)0Ccl.)--.- 0a =---....z To..,-0 ca, CD+., s-(')=coa, a) F.= N Lo073 0C '5ca II ED.u o. T.5.. a,_ca) 4-,0 L_a,o -o4- cv, 0=co v)o co04, L_ OD 0J .0 › - CUL)IO T-1 Cc.)t II = (1)a. CLas a) >-.4-, 0. I-O >,.. 0C F— --,.,_0 uls—CO 01u. +a..n co coa) a)U) >- 47L.,ca) N C.-0 II ,___I-.ZI = ----. To 01 Z0- :..kj.>.C I- CL-r.... >.4-,>. CD-6 v)O as... 01U) 03 .001 (110C ›- Ln0a, mu o '....G)To I:I) ‘___ a) L_>" as. ,c sa, occ -cs .c i:)- . a, 0O4-,4- v)0a) 0 cubA'5,_ c .- CU • .7.1tv 8 • cuCD v)LL CI. C>. CDv) H .0(-73 a)u 0 cocIt a,(...) u E 0 **** * co 4-, 'CD0. CL CO 0 4-, .3) CO V) .4= Ct10. 20. 0c a,o. 0- =>>=_==== cu :c a)Cci_Wci.u >,it '_1 1- --===== ==-=--=- •o LLci. 0 <---.Z <-,-...Z <-----Z <---,Z <---..Z o oo o o 000 a,0c cucu 0.LI >,_7.1 l- ========-=--_- CUC Z c0,a) .17; o 415) -6L_ o . -a_ 0 > tn nt n:I•a-I ct r-.tf)N ,-I m ,-4 to o =.0 , C 03,_F.„c,c0-J a)ttora cii..cCl. 490'c..c0 co ca-E(1)I—ta,0L.)V) C2c_C0 =alCI- h nEco> bpcas)- ai -J toccaCI. 3 ..' -Cc%-:I- a. EZ >•••aL..cuV) cu-Jv) (13Eo..c/- b.0 5 c 2= c:C< CC ,-1__ h n r.) E‘-. .,-5"0 0c_...I. 4-E'tio 20 0_woc0 u 3a,Z -6o-1-02 ca''Z'•Z >,..v)-co8 CP- 0 (1.1C U. 7-1a) E C - C) "CC 0 co+-5E- ro IPE- co7-,E- co ..r,E- -colin'E- co CUC CC CO 0C CC0)0)0)11) CI3 OiCa)CC ("0 a.)Ccl)CC CO a)C(1)CC CD a)Ccl)CC CO (1)CCUCC CO OJC01CC ( U5,LC--) I- coL1 CO YU )c17) U.. 0.) WOci7) . >- asu_a, T10c17) . >- asLLa, TI. 0ci7) .EE EEEEEEE U..a) WOci7) > . • COLLw -a-oc17) >, 03U- 017). oc17) > . COLLa,To bc'05 >-. coLL.cu -CI oc17) >.• EcoU-a)Zs) .c(7) >. EcoU-a) -tic)ci7) >-. EcoU- CU -t 7. oc17) >, ECOLL CU -Eac17) -6--0 01a. <C Za) -..".c0 < L40to Zcu,-..c0%-: < ,L90LO L..0c0(2Lii .7')roN Za)>< xSSC (-8toL0) Za,><a) 3 (5.;ntto za)>< ts(.9to ,r1mco Zci, < -Cti,,to '8r--.N c -I Zoi.,»< -(rt., LO 8mM Za,>< 4-,c a, 0 8toLO Z >CD< 4-,Tsoso E=2N.Nr---LO N0M< Za,><4-J-IDo_o E=2Cl)0,‘--IcoLO ca--)>-"1:30-,00toUl Za,><c'''''t'c'o Nmlf)tr) City Council Agenda Item No. 6c COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: 28 May 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Finance SUBJECT: 2013 Professional Audit Services Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council review and, if necessary, modify the attached document requesting proposals for professional audit services. Approval of the document as presented or modified is requested so that it may be distributed to audit firms wishing to make proposals. Background: Requirements for obtaining audit services for the City financial reports are found in Section 2.80 of the City Council Code of Policies. It states that "[s]pecifications tailored to the professional service...will be prepared by Staff, reviewed by the Financial Commission, and approved by the City Council." The attached Request for Proposals lays out the specifications for an auditor. The document is substantially the same document used in 2007, updated for any new regulations implemented since that time. It was reviewed and recommended by the Financial Commission on Thursday evening, 21 March 2013, and is being passed on for consideration by the City Council at its 10 June 2013 regular meeting. The term of an agreement for the firm chosen in this process will be six years; three at a price to be established immediately and three negotiated following the initial commitment. At the expiration of that six year period another RPF will be written and the process will again be opened to multiple auditing firms. The current incumbent, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich and Company, LLC, was the successful proposer in the last round of proposals through this process. Proposals will be due in the Finance Department by 4:00 on Thursday, 22 August 2013. As specified in the Code of Policies the initial review of proposals will be done by staff. The proposals meeting requirements for consideration will then be considered by a committee of City Council members, Financial Commission members, the City Manager, and the Finance Director. From that committee review, which may include interviews with some proposers, a recommendation will be made to the City Council for adoption of a multi-year engagement with the recommended firm. In addition, a two page document titled "Audit Procurement" is attached. This document is part of the Government Finance Officers Association collection of Recommended Practices for local governments. The document makes several recommendations for the procurement of auditing services, many of which have been included in Brooklyn Center's RFP document. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: Over the past six years the budget and actual expenditures for audit have been as follows: Budget Actual General Audit Actual Single Audit Total Cost 2007 $ 43,050 $ 38,725 -0-$ 38,725 2008 $ 42,910 $ 38,575 -0-$ 38,575 2009 $ 41,020 $ 38,615 -0-$ 38,615 2010 $ 43,000 $ 38,446 $ 9,500 $ 47,946 2011 $ 55,300 $ 38,473 $ 5,600 $ 44,073 2012 $ 57,200 $ 38,500 $ 6,500 $ 45,000 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust City of Brooklyn Center Minnesota Request for Proposals Professional Auditing Services June 2013 Daniel Jordet Director of Finance 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (763) 569-3345 djordet@ci .brooklyn—center.mn.us I. INTRODUCTION General Information The City of Brooklyn Center is soliciting proposals from qualified certified public accounting firms for audit of its financial statements for the three (3) fiscal years ending December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015 with the option of auditing its financial statements for each of the three (3) subsequent fiscal years. These audits are to be performed in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to fmancial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Inquiries about the engagement or the request for proposal should be addressed to: Daniel Jordet Director of Finance djordet@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us (763) 569-3345 Nine (9) copies of the proposal must be received at: 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 by 4:00 PM on Thursday, August 22, 2013. The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right, where it may serve the City of Brooklyn Center's best interest, to request additional information or clarification from proposers. Following a review of the proposals a recommendation for award will be made by the Financial Commission to the City Council. A final decision for award of the work will be made by majority vote of the City Council. The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted. Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposal, unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the letter of engagement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the firm selected. Term of Engagement The City's goal is a three-year engagement understanding with three additional one-year engagements subject to the annual review and the satisfactory negotiation of terms (including a price acceptable to both the City 2 of Brooklyn Center and the selected firm), the concurrence of the City Council and the annual availability of an appropriation. SERVICES REQUESTED A.Scope of Work to be Performed The City of Brooklyn Center will retain the accounting firm to audit its financial processes, records and statements in order to express an opinion on the fairness of the presentation of its government-wide, governmental major fund, business-type major fund and aggregate remaining non-major governmental and business-type fund financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The auditor shall also perform the tests and procedures involving required supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) as mandated by generally accepted auditing standards. The City of Brooklyn Center also desires the firm to review the presentation of the statistical section of the financial statements insofar as current generally accepted auditing standards require such review. The auditor is not required to audit the schedule of expenditures of federal awards if such audit is not triggered by the threshold of funding received by the City for the fiscal period. B.Auditing Standards to be Followed To meet the requirements of this request for proposal, the audit shall be performed in accordance with generally accepting auditing standards as set forth by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the standards for fmancial audits set forth in the US General Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards (1994), the provisions of the Single Audit Act of 1996 and the provisions of US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133. Financial statements will be held to the standards promulgated by the Government Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting edition effective for the year being audited. C. Reports to be Issued Following the completion of the audit of the fiscal year's fmancial statements, the auditor shall issue the following reports: 3 1.An Independent Auditor's Report expressing an opinion on the presentation of the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 2.A Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Other Matters based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards. 3.An Independent Auditor's Report on Expenditures of Federal Awards in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133, if applicable. 4.A Report on Compliance with Minnesota State Laws and Regulations. 5.A Management Letter 6.Any other requested or required reports agreed upon in the annual engagement letter by the City and the Auditor. In the required Report on Internal Controls, the auditor shall communicate any reportable conditions found during the audit. Reportable condition(s) shall be defmed using the standards promulgated by the Statements of Auditing Standards (SAS) in effect for the fiscal year being audited. Non-reportable conditions discovered by the auditors shall be reported in the separate Management Letter, which shall be referred to in the Report on Internal Controls. Auditors shall be required to make an immediate, written report of all irregularities and illegal acts or indications of illegal acts of which they become aware to the City Manager. Reporting to the City Council. Auditors shall assure that the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center's City is informed of each of the following: •The auditor's responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards. •Significant accounting policies. •Management judgments and accounting estimates. •Significant audit adjustments. •Other information in documents containing audited financial statements. •Disagreements with management. •Management consultation with other accountants. •Major issues discussed with management prior to retention. •Difficulties encountered in performing the audit. 4 D. Special Conditions I. The City of Brooklyn Center will send its comprehensive annual financial report to the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for review in their Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting program. It is anticipated that the auditor will not be required to provide special assistance to the City of Brooklyn Center to meet the requirements of that program. However, the city will accept suggestions and assistance in this regard. 2.The schedule of expenditures of federal awards, if applicable, and related auditor's report, as well as the reports on the internal controls and compliance, are not to be included in the comprehensive annual fmancial report, but are to be issued separately. 3.The City currently anticipates it will prepare one or more official statements in connection with the sale of debt securities which will contain the general purpose financial statements and the auditor's report thereon. The auditor shall be required, if requested by the fiscal advisor and/or the underwriter, to issue a "consent and citation of expertise" as the auditor and any necessary "comfort letters" as maybe required or requested. E. Working Paper Retention and Access to Working Papers All working papers and reports must be retained, at the Auditor's expense, for a minimum of three (3) years following the issuance of an opinion, unless the firm is notified in writing by the City of Brooklyn Center of the need to extend the retention period. The auditor will be required to make working papers available, upon request, to the following parties or their designees: •City of Brooklyn Center •Federal Cognizant Agency •US General Accounting Office (GAO) •Parties designated by the federal or state governments or by the City of Brooklyn Center as part of an audit quality review process. •Auditors of entities of which the City of Brooklyn Center is a sub- recipient of grant funds. In addition, the firm shall respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting significance. 5 Ill DESCRIPTION OF THE GOVERNMENT A.Principal Contact The Auditor's principal contact with the City of Brooklyn Center will be the Director of Fiscal and Support Services, who will coordinate the assistance to be provided by the City of Brooklyn Center to the auditor. B.Background Information The City of Brooklyn Center is a northern suburban community located in Hennepin County, in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and encompasses approximately 8.5 square miles The 2010 census population of the City is 30,104. Moody's Investors Service has assigned an AA rating for city debt instruments. Brooklyn Center is a municipal corporation under Minnesota Statutes "Plan B" form of government. The City's governing body consists of a Mayor and four Council members, all elected at large. Council members serve overlapping terms of office. The present Mayor and Council members and there respective terms are: Tim Willson Mayor December 31, 2014 Dan Ryan Council Member December 31, 2014 Carol Kleven Council Member December 31, 2014 Lyn Myszkowski Council Member December 31, 2016 Kris Lawrence-Anderson Council Member December 31, 2016 The City Manager is responsible for the daily management of city business and the administration of policy as directed by the Council. Cornelius L. Boganey is the City Manager and has served in this capacity since 2006. Prior to this he had served as the Assistant City Manager for Brooklyn Center. Daniel Jordet has been with the City as the Fiscal and Support Services Director since 2004. He was previously the City Administrator for the City of Saint Peter and Deputy City Manager for the City of Mankato. Clara Hilger, the Assistant Finance Director, has been with the City since 2005 having previously served as the Fiscal Analyst for the City of BlaMe C. Budgetary Basis of Accounting The City of Brooklyn Center prepares its budgets on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. 6 D.Pension Plans The City of Brooklyn Center participates in the following pension plans: PERA — A defined benefit program with employer and employee contributions. Fire Relief Association — A defined benefit program with employer contributions. E.Component Units The City of Brooklyn Center is defined, for financial reporting purposes, in conformity with the Governmental Accounting Standards Board's Codification of Governmental Accounting and Financial Reporting Standards, Section 2100. Using these criteria, two component units are included in the City of Brooklyn Center financial statements. The management of the City of Brooklyn Center identified the following component units for inclusion in the City of Brooklyn Center's financial statements: •Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (HRA) •Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (EDA) The Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association is a nonprofit organization that provides pensions and other benefits to its members in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Its Board of Directors is elected by the membership. Because the association is able to fund its programs independently of the City it is excluded from the reporting entity. F. Personnel Assigned The Finance Department is headed by the Director of Finance and consists of five employees. The principal functions performed and the number of employees assigned to each is as follows: Function Number of Employees Assistant Finance Director 1 Accountant 1 Finance Technician 1 Utility Billing Technician 1 7 G. Technology Infrastructure: Optical fiber connects most city facilities to the central information processing facility located at City Hall. Brooklyn Center is a member of LOGIS; a technology consortium of 26 cities that share hardware and software operations and equipment. Brooklyn Center has been a LOGIS member since 1977. The following fmance related software applications are provided through LOGIS: •General Ledger •Budget •Payroll •Utility Billing •Permits •Special Assessments •Fire •Police •GIS •Parks and Recreation H. Internal Audit Function The City of Brooklyn Center does not maintain an independent internal audit function other than internal checks performed by the Finance Department. I. Availability of Prior Audit Reports and Working Papers Interested proposer's who wish to review prior years' audit reports and management letters should contact : Daniel Jordet, Director of Finance 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center Minnesota 55430 djordet(&,ci.brooklyn-center.mn us 763-569-3345 The City of Brooklyn Center will assert its best efforts to make prior audit reports and supporting working papers available to proposers if requested. IV. TIME REQUIREMENTS A. Proposal Calendar Thursday, August 1, 2013: Last date for submission of questions. Thursday, August 22, 2013: Proposals to be submitted to the City. 8 B. Schedule for the 2013 Fiscal Year Audit O Detailed Audit Plan: The auditor shall provide City of Brooklyn Center both a detailed audit plan and a list of all schedules to be prepared by the City of Brooklyn Center no later than December 1, 2013. •Fieldwork: The auditor shall complete all fieldwork by April 10, 2014. A schedule for interim work, fieldwork and draft reports will be determined upon completion of the auditor selection process. C. Entrance Conference and Exit Conferences At a minimum the following conferences should be held by the dates indicated on the schedule. These dates may be changed by mutual agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center and the selected auditor. No Later than the Week of March 31, 2014: Entrance conference with Director of Finance and the Assistant Finance Director to commence field audit work. No Later than the Week of April 29, 2014: Exit conference with City Manager and Director of Finance. The purpose of this meeting will be to summarize the results of the field work and to review results and findings. A time schedule will be developed for audits of future fiscal years. D. Date Final Report is Due The Finance Department shall prepare draft financial statements, notes and all required supplementary schedules and statistical data for the 2013 Fiscal Year by or before March 15, 2014. The auditor shall provide all recommendations, revisions and suggestions for improvement to the Director of Finance no later than April 18, 2014 for the audit of the 2013 Fiscal Year. A revised report, including draft auditor's report(s), shall be delivered to the Director of Finance no later than May 1 of each year. The final report should be delivered to the Director of Finance at 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430. Such report(s) may be delivered in Microsoft Word 2010 form or Adobe Acrobat .pdf form via e-mail. The Auditor shall make at least one of its senior staff available for an evening meeting of approximately two hours to review the reports and findings with 9 the City Council and the Financial Commission of the City. City staff will assist with preparations for this meeting. V. ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDITOR AND REPORT PREPARATION A.Finance Division and Clerical Assistance The finance division staff and responsible management personnel will be available during the audit to assist the firm by providing information, documentation and explanations. The preparation of confirmations will be the responsibility of the City of Brooklyn Center using the format provided by the auditor. B.Work Area The City of Brooklyn Center will provide the auditor with reasonable workspace, table and chairs. The auditor will also be provided with access to the Internet and to appropriate files on the City's internal network for conduct of the audit, a telephone, photocopying facilities and a fax machine. Access to the auditor's working network may be arranged with the Information Technology staff during field work. C. Report Preparation COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT: Report preparation, editing, printing and binding shall be the responsibility of the City of Brooklyn Center. ALL OTHER REPORTS: Report preparation and editing shall be the responsibility of the Auditor. Digital copies of these reports will be delivered to the Director of Finance for reproduction and distribution VI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS A. General Requirements Responses to this Request should include the following information in the order prescribed. Submissions must be received by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 22, 2013 for a proposal/response to be considered by the City: •Title Page: Title page showing the request for proposal subject; the firm's name; the name, address and telephone number of the contact person; and the date of the proposal. •Table of Contents 10 •Transmittal Letter: A signed letter of transmittal which briefly states the proposers' understanding of the work to be done, the commitment to perform the work within the time period, a statement why the firm believes itself to be best qualified to perform the engagement and a statement that the proposal is a firm and irrevocable offer for the three year period. •Technical Proposal: The Technical Proposal should follow the order set forth in Section VI— B (below). •Dollar Cost Proposal: The Dollar Cost Proposal should follow the order set forth in Section VI. — C (below). •An executed copy of Proposer Warranties, attached to this Request for Proposal (Appendix A). Proposers should send five (5) completed proposal packets to the following address: Daniel Jordet Director of Finance City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Please mark the package as an "Audit RFP". B. Technical Proposal General Requirements: The purpose of the Technical Proposal is to demonstrate the qualifications, competence and capacity of the firms seeking to undertake an independent audit of the City of Brooklyn Center in conformity with the requirements of this request for proposal. As such, the substance of proposals will carry more weight than their form or manner of presentation. The Technical Proposal should demonstrate the qualifications of the firm and of the particular staff to be assigned to this engagement. It should also specify an audit approach that will meet the request for proposal requirements. The Technical Proposal should address all the points outlined in the request for proposal (excluding any cost information which should only be included in the sealed dollar cost bid). The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward, concise description of the proposer's capabilities to satisfy the requirements of the request for proposal. While additional data may be presented, the following items must be 11 included. They represent the criteria against which the proposal will be evaluated. Independence: The firm should provide an affirmative statement that it is independent of the City of Brooklyn Center as defined by generally accepted auditing standards the US General Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards (1994). The firm also should provide an affirmative statement that it is independent of all of the component units of the City of Brooklyn Center as defined by those same standards. The firm should also list and describe the firm's professional relationships involving the City of Brooklyn Center or its component unit for the past five years, together with a statement explaining why such relationships do not constitute a conflict of interest relative to performing the proposed audit. In addition, the firm shall give the City of Brooklyn Center written notice of any professional relationships entered into during the period of this agreement. License to Practice in Minnesota: An affirmative statement should be included that the firm and all assigned key professional staff are properly licensed to practice in Minnesota. Firm Oualifications and Experience: The proposer should state the size of the firm, the size of the firm's governmental audit staff the location of the office from which the work on this engagement is to be performed and the number and nature of the professional staff to be employed in this engagement on a full-time basis and the number and nature of the staff to be so employed on a part-time basis. The firm shall also provide information on the results of any federal or state desk review of field reviews of its audits during the past three (3) years, In addition, the firm shall provide information on the circumstances and status of any disciplinary action taken or pending against the firm during the past three (3) years with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations. Partner, Supervisory and Staff Qualifications and Experience: Identify the principal supervisory and management staff, including engagement partner, managers, other supervisors and specialists, who would be assigned to the engagement. Indicate whether each such person is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in Minnesota. Provide information on the government auditing experience of each person. 12 Provide information regarding the number, qualifications and experience of the specific staff to be assigned to this engagement. Indicate how the quality of the staff, over the term of the engagement, will be assured. The proposer should identify the extent to which staff to be assigned to the audit reflect the City of Brooklyn Center's commitment to Affirmative Action. Engagement partners, managers, other supervisory staff and specialists may be changed if those personnel leave the firm, are promoted or are assigned to another office. Consultants and firm specialists mentioned in response to this request for proposal can only be changed with the express prior written pemlission of the City of Brooklyn Center, which retains the right to approve or reject replacements. Other audit personnel may be changed at the discretion of the proposer provided that replacements have substantially the same or better qualifications or experience. Prior Engagements with the City of Brooklyn Center: List separately all engagements within the last five years, ranked on the basis of total staff hours, for the City of Brooklyn Center by type of engagement (i.e., audit, management advisory services, other). Indicate the scope of work, date, engagement partners, total hours, the location of the firm's office from which the engagement was performed and the name and telephone number of the principal client contact. Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities: For the firm's office that will be assigned responsibility for the audit, list the most significant engagements (maximum-five) performed in the last five years that are similar to the engagement described in this request for proposal. These engagements should be ranked on the basis of total staff hours. Indicate the scope of work, date, engagement partners, total hours and the name and telephone number of the principal client contact. For city engagements, indicate whether or not the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for the most recent audit Specific Audit Approach: The proposal should set forth a work plan, including an explanation of the audit methodology to be followed to perform the services required in Section II of this request for proposal. In developing the work plan, reference should be made to such sources of information as the City of Brooklyn Center's budget and related materials, organizational charts, manuals and programs, and financial and other management information systems. 13 Proposers will be required to provide the following information on their audit approach: o Proposed segmentation of the engagement o Level of staff and number of hours to be assigned to each proposed segment of the engagement o Sample size and the extent to which statistical sampling is to be used in the engagement o Extent of use of EDP software in the engagement o Type and extent of analytical procedures to be used in the engagement o Approach to be taken to gain and document an understanding of the City of Brooklyn Center's internal control structure •Approach to be taken in determining laws and regulations that will be subject to audit test work o Approach to be taken in drawing audit samples for purposes of tests of compliance Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems: The proposal should identify and describe any anticipated potential audit problems, the firm's approach to resolving these problems and any special assistance that will be requested from the City of Brooklyn Center. Report Format: The proposal should include sample formats for required reports. C. Sealed Dollar Cost Proposal Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price: The sealed dollar cost proposed should contain all pricing information relative to performing the audit engagement as described in this request for proposal. The total all-inclusive maximum price to be bid is to contain all direct and indirect costs including all out-of-pocket expenses. The City of Brooklyn Center will not be responsible for expenses incurred in preparing and submitting the technical proposal or the sealed dollar cost bid. Such costs should not be included in the proposal. The following information should be included the Dollar Cost Proposal: o Name of Firm o Certification that the person signing the proposal is entitled to represent the empowered to submit the bid, and authorized to sign a contract with the City of Brooklyn Center. 14 •A total all-inclusive Maximum Price for each year of the three (3) year engagement which shall include: •Rates by Partner, Specialist, Supervisory and Staff Level Times Hours Anticipated for Each •A schedule of professional fees and expenses, presented in the format provided in the attachment Appendix B, which supports the total all- inclusive maximum price for each year. The cost of special services should be disclosed as separate components of the total all- inclusive maximum price. •Out-of-pocket Expenses Included in the Total All-inclusive Maximum •Price and Reimbursement Rates: All reimbursable expenses by category as included in the total all-inclusive maximum price submitted by the firm. •Rates for Additional Professional Services: If it should become necessary for City of Brooklyn Center to request the auditor to render any additional services to either supplement the services requested in this RFP or to perform additional work as a result of the specific recommendations included in any report issued on this engagement, then such additional work shall be performed only if set forth in an addendum to the contract between City of Brooklyn Center and the firm. Any such additional work agreed to between City of Brooklyn Center and the firm shall be performed at the same rates set forth in the schedule of fees and expenses included in the sealed dollar cost bid. •Manner of Payment: The City expects that progress payments will be made on the basis of hours of work completed during the course of the engagement and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in accordance with the firm's dollar cost proposal. Interim billing shall cover a period of not less than a calendar month. Payment of the final billing will be held by the City pending the delivery of the firm's final reports. VII. EVALUATION PROCEDURES A.Review of Proposal The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted and use any idea in a proposal regardless of whether that proposal is selected. B.Evaluation Criteria Proposals will be evaluated using three sets of criteria. Firms meeting the mandatory criteria will have their proposals evaluated for both technical qualifications and price. The selection process will include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: 15 1. Mandatory Elements •The audit firm is independent and licensed to practice in Minnesota.•The firm has no conflict of interest with regard to any other work performed by the firm for the City of Brooklyn Center.•The firm adheres to the instructions in this request for proposalon preparing and submitting the proposal. •The firm submits a copy of its last external quality control review report and the firm has a record of quality audit work. 2. Technical Quality •Expertise and ExperienceoThe firm's past experience and performance on comparable government engagements.o The quality of the firm's professional personnel to be assigned to the engagement and the quality of the firm's management support personnel to be available for technical consultation o The firm's expertise with the GFOA Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting. •Audit ApproachoAdequacy of proposed staffing plan for various segments of the engagement o Adequacy of sampling techniquesoAdequacy of analytical procedures 3. Price •Cost will be a factor in the selection of an audit firm. However, price will not be the dominating factor in the selection process. C. Oral Presentation During the evaluation process, the City may, at its discretion, request any or all firms to make oral presentations. Such presentation will provide firms with an opportunity to answer any questions the Financial Commission or their designee may have on a firm's proposal. Not all firms may be asked to make such oral presentations. 16 D.Right to Reject Proposals Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the firm of the conditions contained in this request for proposal unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between the City of Brooklyn Center and the firm selected. The City of Brooklyn Center reserves the right without prejudice to reject any or all proposals. E.Disclaimer There is no expressed or implied obligation for the City of Brooklyn Center to reimburse responding firms for any expenses incurred in preparing proposals in response to this request. 17 APPENDIX A CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PROPOSER WARRANTIES A.Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to comply with State of Minnesota laws with respect to foreign (non-state of Minnesota) corporations. B.Proposer warrants that it is willing and able to obtain an errors and omissions insurance policy providing a prudent amount of coverage for the willful or negligent acts or omissions of any officers, employees or agents thereof C.Proposer warrants that it will not delegate or subcontract its responsibilities under an agreement without the prior written permission of the City of Brooklyn Center. D.Proposer warrants that all information provided in connection with this proposal is true and accurate. E. The proposer certifies that it can and will provide and make available at a minimum, all services set forth in Section II, Nature of Services Required. Signature of Official : Name (typed): Title: Firm: Date: 18 APPENDIX B CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2013 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE: The rate quoted should not be presented as a general percentage of the standard hourly rate or as a gross deduction from the total all-inclusive maximum price. Hours Standard Hourly Rates Quoted Hourly Rates Total Partners Managers Supervisory Staff Other (Specify) Subtotal Out-of-Pocket 1_1)c enses Meals and Lodging -WM Transportation Other (Specify) Total All- inclusive Price for 2013 Audit Services 19 APPENDIX B CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2014 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE: The rate quoted should not be presented as a general percentage of the standard hourly rate or as a gross deduction from the total all-inclusive maximum price. Hours Standard Hourly Rates Quoted Hourly Rates Total Partners Managers $ Supervisory Staff $ Other (Specify)$$$ Subtotal Out-of-Pocket Expenses Meals and Lodging $ Transportation $ Other (Specify)$ Total All- inclusive Price for 2014 Audit Services 20 APPENDIX B CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SCHEDULE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE 2015 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS NOTE: The rate quoted should not be presented as a general percentage of the standard hourly rate or as a gross deduction from the total all-inclusive maximum price. Standard Quoted Hourly Hourly Hours Rates Rates Total Partners Managers Supervisory Staff Other (Specify) Subtotal Out-of-Pocket Expenses Meals and Lodging Transportation Other (Specify) Total All- inclusive Price for 2015 Audit Services 21 GFOA Recommended Practice Audit Procurement (1996 and 2002) Backeround. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has long recommended that state and local governmental entities obtain independent audits of their financial statements performed in accordance with the appropriate professional auditing standards. Properly performed audits play a vital role in the public sector by helping to preserve the integrity of the public finance functions and by maintaining citizens' confidence in their elected leaders. Recommendation. GFOA makes the following recommendations regarding the selection of auditing services: •The scope of the independent audit should encompass not only the fair presentation of the basic financial statements, but also the fair presentation of the financial statements of individual funds and component units. The cost of extending full audit coverage to the financial statements of individual funds and component units can be justified by the additional degree of assurance provided. Nevertheless, the selection of the appropriate scope of the independent audit ultimately remains a matter of professional judgment. Accordingly, those responsible for securing independent audits should make their decision concerning the appropriate scope of the audit engagement based upon their particular government's specific needs and circumstances, consistent with applicable legal requirements. •Governmental entities should require in their audit contracts that the auditors of their financial statements conform to the independence standard promulgated in- the General Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards even for audit engagements that are not otherwise subject to generally accepted government auditing standards. •Governmental entities should enter into multiyear agreements of at least five years in duration when obtaining the services of independent auditors. Such multiyear agreements can take a variety of different forms (e.g., a series of single-year contracts), consistent with applicable legal requirements. Such agreements allow for greater continuity and help to minimize the potential for disruption in connection with the independent audit. Multiyear agreements can also help to reduce audit costs by, allowing auditors to recover certain "start- up" costs over several years, rather than over a single year. •Governmental entities should undertake a full-scale competitive process for the selection of independent auditors at the end of the term of each audit contract, consistent with applicable legal requirements. Ideally, auditor independence would be enhanced by a policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract, as is often the case in the private sector. Unfortunately, the frequent lack of competition among audit firms fully qualified to perform public-sector audits could make a policy of mandatory auditor rotation counterproductive. In such cases, it is recommended that a governmental entity actively seek the participation of all qualified firms, including the current auditors, assuming that the past performance of the current auditors has proven satisfactory. Except in cases where a multiyear agreement has taken the form of' a series of' single-year contracts, a contractual provision for the automatic renewal of the audit contract (e.g., an automatic second term for the auditor upon satisfactory performance) is inconsistent with this recommendation. •Professional standards allow independent auditors to perform certain types of nonaudit services for their audit clients. Any significant nonaudit services should always be approved in advance by a governmental entity's audit committee. Furthermore, governmental entities should routinely explore the possibility of alternative service providers before making a decision to engage their independent auditors to perform significant nonaudit services. •The audit procurement process should be structured so that the principal factor in the selection of an independent auditor is the auditor's ability to perform a quality audit. In no case should price be allowed to serve as the sole criterion for the selection of an independent auditor. • References: •Audit Management Handbook, Stephen .3. Gauthier, GFOA, 1989. •An Elected Official's Guide to Auditing, Stephen J. Gauthier, GFOA, 1992. •Governmental Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting (GAAFR), Stephen J. Gauthier, GFOA. •Model Audit RFP Diskette, GFOA. • •CPA Audit Quality: A Framework for Procuring Audit Services, General Accounting Office, August 1987. Approved by the Committee on Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting June 15, 2002 Adopted by Executive Board, *October 25, 2002 Memorandum Date: To: From: Re: 19 March 2013 Financial Commission Daniel 3ordet, Director of Finance RFP for Auditing Services Attached is a draft Request for Proposals soliciting independent auditing services for the City for 2013; 2014 and 2015. This will include an option to continue the engagement over an additional three years. The last RFP process pursued for these services was done in 2007. It is required by City Council Policy 2.80.3 that the Financial Commission review this RFP and recommend it, or an edited and improved version, to the City Council. The Council will then approve the RFP prior to distribution. Staff will distribute this RFP to firms providing independent auditing services who are also associate members of the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association. If other firms should make themselves known to the City and request a copy of the RFP they will be given the chance to respond to the RFP as well. The selection process for the successful proposer includes review of the proposals by a Committee made up of members of the City Council, Financial Commission and Staff, all appointed by the Mayor in consultation with the Chair of the Financial Commission. Interviews of the finalists will be conducted by the Committee between 5 September 2013 and 10 September 2013. A final decision will be recommended to the City Council on Monday, September 21, 2013. Please review this proposed RFP and bring questions and/or comments to the March 2013 meeting. Financial Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 21 March 2013 1.Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Mr. Newman at 6:35 PM Members Present: Commissioners Newman, Landis, Glenn, and Schueller. Members Absent: Kragness (excused), Van Der Werf (excused), Hollingshead (excused). Council Liaison Kleven was present. Staff present was Director of Finance Jordet. 2.Adoption of the Agenda Without objection, Mr. Newman declared the agenda adopted. 3.Minutes Mr. Landis moved adoption of the minutes from the 21 February 2013 meeting. Mr. Schueller seconded the motion. With all voting in favor, the motion was adopted. IMSSIMMLIZMW2, 4.RFP for Audit Services Mr. Jordet reviewed the City Council Policy requiring that the Request for Proposal (RFP) process be followed for securing financial statement audit services every six years. Mr. Jordet then reviewed the RFP for Auditing Services that was distributed with the meeting packet. Discussion ensued concerning the schedule for the RFP, the composition of the committee that will evaluate responses and make a recommendation to the City Council, the criteria and weighting for the factors in the evaluation and the cost details requested from proposers. Mr. Landis moved that the Commission recommend the RFP for Auditing Services to the City Council as presented. Mr. Schueller seconded the motion. With all voting in favor, the motion was adopted. 5. Other Business Commissioners were made aware that the City Council will host an Open House/Forum session with all Citi Commissions on Wednesday, April 10, 2013 beginning at 6:00 PM in Constitution Hall at the Community Center. Adjournment With no other business to transact, Mr. Newman adjourned the meeting at 7:07 PM. 1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A "REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS" DOCUMENT FOR PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by its City Council Code of Polices to periodically solicit proposals for performance of the annual audit of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; and WHEREAS, a form for obtaining those proposals, the Request for Proposals; Professional Auditing Services" dated June 2013 has been developed by the Finance Director and reviewed and recommended by the Financial Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to obtain a fair and impartial review of the financial statements of the City of Brooklyn Center at the most reasonable cost possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that that the "Request for Proposals; Professional Audit Services", dated June 2013, is approved and should be distributed to firms wishing to prepare proposals for performance of the annual audit. June 10, 2013 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 6d COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: 5 June 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Finance SUBJECT: 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Background: On Monday evening, 6 May 2013, the City Council and Financial Commission met in a joint working session to hear from James Eichten of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., the City's auditors, about the results of their audit of the City's financial statements for the period ended 31 December 2012. This assembly of financial statements and data is known as the 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or 2012 CAFR. During the session Mr. Eichten reviewed the purpose of the audit process and the results of his firm's audit of the 2012 CAFR. Most importantly, the City received an unqualified opinion on the presentation of the 2012 financial information, also known as a clean opinion. This indicates that the accounting and reporting systems for the City conform in all material aspects to the regulations and practices of the Government Finance Officers Association, the Government Accounting Standards Board, and generally accepted accounting principles. Supplemental opinions on Legal Compliance with State of Minnesota regulations and Internal Control and Operational issues indicated that there was an issue to be addressed on timeliness of invoice payments. By State law, all invoices must be paid within 35 days of receipt of invoice or service. Four of the invoices sampled exceeded this requirement and should have been paid with an additional 1.5% as a self-imposed penalty. The City also received more than $ 500,000 in Federal financial assistance during 2012. This triggers an additional audit procedure known as the A-133 or Single Audit. It looks for proper receipt, use, recording and reporting on federal financial assistance. The City's awards were for public safety programs through the U.S. Department of Justice, CDBG funds used for local assistance and code enforcement activities, and grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation to assist in enforcing DWI and seat belt laws. In total, the City received $ 786,539 in Federal funding for 2012. The Single Audit found no discrepancies or internal control issues and expressed an unqualified opinion on the presentation of the financial statements for purposes of the A-133 regulations. Overall, the information in the 2012 CAFR reveals a City in good financial condition that should continue to monitor itself to ensure its continued fiscal good health. The attached resolution ratifies the work done by City staff and accepts the CAFR, Audit Opinion, and related materials. Budget Issues: The information from the 2012 CAFR will be used in preparing forecasts and projects for future budgets. However, the 2012 CAFR has no direct impact on the budget. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required by State Statute and City Charter to annually produce financial statements for submission to the Office of the State Auditor by June 30 each year; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to provide an auditor's opinion as to the representations in the annual financial statements; and WHEREAS, the financial statements have been audited by the independent CPA firm of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. as required; and WHEREAS, Malloy, Montague, Kamowski, Radosevich & Co., P.A. opined that the general purpose financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City of Brooklyn Center as of December 31, 2012. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the City of Brooklyn Center for the calendar year ended December 31, 2012, and all supporting documentation, is hereby adopted as the official financial record for the 2012 fiscal year. June 10, 2013 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 6e COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 10, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager V 4 )FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director Building & Community Standards SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring the City of Brooklyn Center's Participation in the State Performance Measurement System For 2013 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution declaring the City of Brooklyn Center's participation in the State Performance Measurement System for 2013. Background: In 2010, the Minnesota Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation that developed a set of ten performance measures for cities and counties to measure the efficacy of basic services provided. The Minnesota State Performance Measurement System is voluntary. However, cities and counties that choose to participate in the new standards measure program may be eligible for a reimbursement in Local Government Aid (LGA) of $0.14 per capita. However, participation in the plan does not exempt cities from the new 2013 property tax levy limits. Cities and counties could choose to follow the standard ten performance measures established by the Council on Local Results and Innovation or submit their own for consideration of approval by the State. Since the City of Brooklyn Center had existing goals and measures that met or exceeded the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Sections 6.90 and 6.91 Local Performance Measurement and Reporting, they were submitted and approved by the State in June of 2011. The Minnesota State Performance Measurement System requires annual reporting. In order to receive the per capita reimbursement in 2013 for calendar year 2013, the city must file a report with the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2013. This report must include: 1) A resolution approved by the city council declaring that: •The city has adopted and implemented the minimum 10 performance measures developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation (PDF format). •The city has implemented a local performance measurement system as developed or approved by the Council on Local Results and Innovation (PDF format). •The city has or will report the results of the adopted measures to its residents before the end of the calendar year through publication, direct mailing, posting on the entity's website, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input allowed (PDF format). Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life foral/people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • The city has or will survey its residents by the end of the calendar year on the services included in the performance benchmarks (PDF format). 2) The actual results of the performance measures adopted by the city (PDF format) since we were certified for the program in 2011. The following actions have been or will be taken to meet program requirements: 1.The resolution is attached for Council consideration. The City Council adopted the goals and measures by resolution on March 26, 2012. 2.A copy of the goals and measures document will be available on the city website for review. 3.Residents are surveyed at the Neighborhood Area Meetings for certain measures. In addition, an online survey will be available on the City website. In 2012 a Resident Community Survey was also conducted through a market and research firm. 4.A copy of the actual results will be sent to the Office of the State Auditor with the report. Budget Issues: The City will receive approximately $4,200 in Local Government Aid and any levy limit exemption limits under Minnesota Statutes Sections 275.70 to 275.74 for participating in the Performance Measurement Program. Council Goals: Ongoing: 3. We will move toward maintaining or lowering the level of the City's property taxes Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR 2013 WHEREAS, in 2010, the Minnesota Legislature created the Council on Local Results and Innovation (CLRI); and WHEREAS, in February 2011, the CLRI released a standard set of performance measures for cities that will aid residents, taxpayers, and state and local elected officials in determining the efficacy of cities in providing services, and measure resident's opinions of those services; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center's existing goals and measures met or exceeded the State's standard set of measures and were approved by the State in June of 2011 for use in this program; and WHEREAS, in February 2012, the CLRI created a comprehensive performance measurement system for cities to implement in 2012; and WHEREAS, participation in the state Performance Measurement System is voluntary; and WHEREAS, cities that choose to participate in the new standards measure program may be eligible for reimbursement in LGA and exemption from levy limits. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1.The city had adopted and implemented performance measures as approved by the CLRS; and 2.The city is in the process of implementing a local performance measurement system as prescribed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation; and 3.The city will report the results of the adopted measures to its residents before the end of the calendar year through publication, direct mail, posting on its website, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input allowed; and 4.The city will survey its residents by the end of the calendar year on the services included in the performance benchmarks; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the actual results of the performance measures adopted by the city for the program in 2012 will be reported to the Office of the State Auditor by July 1, 2013. RESOLUTION NO: June 10, 2013 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. 6f COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 10, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending and Repealing Certain Sections of Chapter 34 (Signs) and Chapter 35 (Zoning) related to Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) with Public Uses Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider and approve the First Reading of the attached ordinance amendment, and schedule the Second Reading and Public Hearing for July 8, 2013. Background: At the May 13, 2013 meeting, staff presented a draft ordinance amendment to Chapter 34 — the Sign Code, specifically to allow dynamic message signs (DMS) for public uses in residential areas. This item included a request for first reading and setting a public hearing on this matter. Upon the presentation and discussion that followed, the Council raised some concerns with allowing DMS' in residential areas, and felt added measures should be incorporated to provide notification to adjacent residents or neighborhoods. The Council pulled this item from the agenda and sent it back to the Planning Commission for further consideration, specifically to address incorporating a special use permit process for any new DMS in residential districts. After the May 13 th Council meeting, planning staff worked with the city attorney in formulating new and specific language into the draft ordinance. The new language includes the special use permit process for DMS type signs for public uses in residential districts. It should be pointed out that for any special use permit request in a residential district, all adjacent properties within 150-ft. of the subject site receive a mailed public hearing notice, while those in the commercial districts are notified within 350-ft. from a subject site. At the May 30, 2013 meeting, the Planning Commission again considered this item under a new, and fully notified public hearing (i.e. individual notices were again mailed to schools, churches and all sign hangers licensed in the city). Additional public comments and concerns were noted for the record. One significant comment was a request to reduce the message timing interval standard from 8-seconds to 5 seconds, but the Planning Commission chose not to change the 8- second standard at this time. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Upon close of the public hearing and discussion of the comments and new ordinance amendment language, the Planning Commission felt the revised standards as noted in the attached Draft Ordinance were acceptable, and a favorable (4-0 vote) recommendation was made by the Commission to the City Council on this updated ordinance amendment. Attached for the Council's review is the proposed Ordinance - Draft #9 as recommended by the Planning Commission, along with the minutes (draft excerpts) from the May 30, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Should the City Council elect to move this forward, the Second Reading of this Ordinance and the Public Hearing will be conducted at the July 8, 2013 regular meeting. If the Council so chooses, public hearing notices will be mailed again to all stakeholders noted herein. A directive by the Council on this matter is requested. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 2 We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods 6. We will increase the engagement of all segments of the community Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DRAFT#9 Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 2013, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 34 and Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the allowance of dynamic message signs (DMS) to public places and uses, and adding new definitions of public uses. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at (763) 569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 AND CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE REGULATION OF DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS (DMS) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 34-110 of the Brooklyn Center City Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition: Public Uses — uses, facilities and properties owned or operated by a school district, a municipality, county, state, or other governmental units, and any religious institutions such as churches, chapels, temples, synagogues and mosques. Section 2. Section 34-140, paragraph 1 is amended by adding new paragraph 1 as follows: Section 34-140. PERMITTED SIGNS. 1. General Requirements and Standards for Permitted Signs 1. A dynamic messages sign "DMS," with a Public Use in all districts where they are allowed shall be approved by a special use permit, which procedure for approving said permit shall be the same as forth in Section 35-220 of the Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center. A DMS is also subject to the requirements of Section 34-140.3.D of this ordinance. Section 3. Section 34-140, paragraph 3D is amended as follows: D. Public and Semi Public Places Uses (All Districts Where Public Uses Are Allowed) 1. Freestanding Signs Churches, synagogues and temples may have the following signs: 424754v2 BR291-16 1 a. One freestanding sign with the sign area not to exceed 36 square feet. The sign shall not extend more than 10 feet above the ground level. There may be a second such sign if the use abuts two or more streets. Properties entitled to a second freestanding sign may elect to erect a single freestanding sign not exceeding 72 square feet in area or 15 feet in height. 2. Wall Signs a.b-.- One wall sign not to exceed 36 square feet. be One wall sign immediately above or beside each public entrance to that part of the building whiththat is used as a school and meets the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Education, or as a day care facility and is licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare. The sign area shall not exceed 10 square feet. 2. Other public and semi public uses, including private clubs and lodges. a.Freestanding signs as specified above for churches, synagogues and temples. b.One wall sign, the maximum area not to exceed 36 square feet-7 3. Dynamic Message Signs DMS A DMS owned or operated by a Public Use located in all districts where Public Uses are allowed may be approved by a special use permit. The procedure for approving said permit shall be as set forth in Section 35-220 and the DMS shall meet the following additional standards: a.the DMS shall only be allowed on a freestanding sign aligned perpendicular to the adjacent roadway system. This roadway must either be a collector or arterial street as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. b.the area of a DMS sign is limited to an area equal to 50% of the maximum allowable size of the freestanding sign. c. the DMS message must remain stationary or static for 8 424754v2 BR291-16 2 seconds or more; the DMS shall be located no closer than 50 feet from any residential dwelling. e. the DMS must have dimming technology that automatically adjusts its brightness in direct correlation with ambient light conditions. Brightness shall not exceed 0.3 foot- candles above ambient li ht as measured from a sreset distance depending on the sign size, as indicated in the table below: DMS Sign Measurement Distance AREA of SIGN MEASUREMENT (sq. ft.)(Distance — ft.) 10 32 15 39 20 45 25 50 30 55 35 59 40 63 45 67 50 71 55 74 60 77 65 81 70 84 75 87 80 89 85 92 90 95 95 97 100 100 Measurement Calculation =Al (Sign Area x 100) Section 4. Section 35-900 of the Brooklyn Center City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Public Uses — uses, facilities and properties owned or operated by a school district, a munici • alit count state or other overnmental units and an reh tous institutions such as churches, chapels, temples, synagogues and mosques. 424754v2 BR29I -16 3 Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 2013. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (stPileetA=te3,it indicates matter to be deleted, while double underline text indicates new matter) 424754v2 BR291-16 4 DRAFT RECONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 34 (SIGNS) AND CHAPTER 35 (ZONING) OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS (DMS) TO PUBLIC PLACES AND USES, AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF "PUBLIC USES" TO THE CITY CODE. Mr. Benetti explained the City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations at their May 13, 2013 meeting and was favorable toward the recommendation and draft ordinance. However, the Council was concerned with allowing DMS' in residential areas and felt added measures should be incorporated to provide notification to adjacent neighbors through the special use permit review process. He added if the City were to adopt the special use permit process into the proposed ordinance, an applicant seeking to install a DMS on a public use site would be required to submit a planning application, pay a $200 fee and provide a response that addresses special use standards. He added property owners within 150 ft. of the property would be notified of the request for a special use permit to allow a DMS on a public site. Mr. Benetti reviewed the language being proposed amending Chapter 34 and 35 of the City Ordinance and the process for a special use permit approval. Commissioner Christensen asked if the ordinance amendment could state a distance greater thanl 50 ft. distance from residential properties be notified. Mr. Eitel replied the current standards state any special use permit approval requires a notice within 150 ft. of the property when abutting a residential property. Chair Burfeind stated since there are current locations with non-conforming DMS signs, would they be required to go thru the special use process in order to be compliant, or are they grandfathered in and allowed to remain. Mr. Benetti responded that existing signs are grandfathered in but they must meet all ordinance standards including the requirement to remain static for eight seconds or more. He added if an existing sign is being modified other than just changing out the face on the sign or cabinet, it must go through the special use peimit process. PUBLIC HEARING - RECONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 34 (SIGNS) AND CHAPTER 35 (ZONING) OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS (DMS) TO PUBLIC PLACES AND USES AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF "PUBLIC USES" TO THE CITY CODE. There was a motion by Commissioner Christensen, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to open the public hearing on a Proposed Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 34 (Signs) and Chapter 35 (Zoning) of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the allowance of dynamic message signs (DMS) to public places and uses, and adding new definitions of "Public Uses" to the City Code, at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Burfeind called for comments from the public. Page 10 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT Tom, Chair of Church Council, Brookdale Covenant Church, asked if existing signs are grandfathered specifically related to the 8 second rule? Mr. Benetti responded all existing signs will be considered lawful signs but must meet all current and proposed standards. Chair Burfeind responded the eight second rule was based on information gathered by staff. Mr. Benetti stated the initial recommendation by the Commission was to go one hour and after hearing from a number of churches, they went from one hour to an eight second rule which is typical for the industry standards in residential areas. He added currently a two second rule exists in the commercial areas and staff is considering reviewing that also. Tom asked about the process for approval. Mr. Benetti stated if a favorable recommendation is provided by the Planning Commission, this will be presented to the City Council at the June 10 th meeting. He continued there is then a 1 st and 2 nd reading and could take up to 60 days. The ordinance is then published and 30 days later becomes effective. Mr. Eric Faegere, Unity Temple Church, asked if they are free to work different animations in the sign after the eight seconds. Mr. Benetti replied the message must stay static or stationary for eight seconds and cannot scroll, transition or move. Mr. Faegere asked if it could go from eight to five seconds. Mr. Benetti replied that there was a lot of discussion amongst the Planning Commission and it was Unity Temple Church that requested the eight seconds. He encouraged Mr. Faegere to attend the City Council public hearing if he wishes to pursue the five seconds. Pastor McKinley Moore, Jehovah Jireh Church, 6120 Xerxes Ave, stated they do not currently have a DMS sign. He asked about the Commission's rationale with suggesting the eight second static sign requirements. He agrees five seconds seems more acceptable for the message to remain static and asked for information regarding brightness standards on the signs. Mr. Benetti replied the city has not tested if existing signs meet brightness standards but they feel the signs are okay at this point. He added most signs can be adjusted for brightness and clarity of the message. He also stated the city has not received any complaints at this point and if there were any complaints, the City would respond and ask the sign to be dimmed to meet city's standards. Mr. Moore asked about the limitation of 50% of the sign. Chair Burfeind responded that if the sign is a DMS, only 50% of the sign can be allotted for the DMS part, the rest of the sign could be lighted but the message cannot move or change. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Christensen, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 34 (SIGNS) AND CHAPTER 35 (ZONING) OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS (DMS) Page 11 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT TO PUBLIC PLACES AND USES AND ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS OF "PUBLIC USES" TO THE CITY CODE. There was a motion by Commissioner Freedman, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter 34 (Signs) and Chapter 35 (Zoning). Voting in favor: Chair Burfeind, Commissioners Christensen, Freedman, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the ordinance amendment at its June 10, 2013 meeting. Page 12 PC 5-30-13 City Council Agenda Item No. 9a COUNCIL ITEM EMORANDU Vf DATE: June 13, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialis THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development .A SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2013-001 Submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. & HSB Architects Requesting Site and Building Plan approval of the New Panda Express Restaurant in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1520 Shingle Creek Crossing) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this planning application item, adopt the Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2013-001 Submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. & HSB Architects Requesting Site and Building Plan approval of the New Panda Express Restaurant in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1520 Shingle Creek Crossing) Background: On May 30, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 2013-001 submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. & HSB Architects Requesting Site and Building Plan approval of the New Panda Express Restaurant in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1520 Shingle Creek Crossing). Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-03, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of the Site and Building Plan approval. Excerpts from the May 30, 2013 Commission meeting minutes, as related to this consideration of this matter, are also attached. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans. 4. We will improve the city's image. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community drat enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public tntst Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-001 SUBMITTED BY PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. & HSB ARCHITECTS REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF THE NEW PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT IN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1520 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2013-001 submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., ("Applicant") and their consultants HSB Architects, and in cooperation with Gatlin Development Company, owners of Shingle Creek Crossing, are requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan of a proposed Panda Express Restaurant, to be sited on the new Building C pad site inside the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, located at 1520 Shingle Creek Crossing ("Subject Property"), and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements constructed under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 30, 2013 to fully consider Planning Application No. 2013-001, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed Panda Express Restaurant and other related site improvements; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did find the Site and Building plans are consistent with the General Development Plans of the overall Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of the proposed Panda Express Restaurant, also identified as Building Site C of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2013-001, be approved based upon the following conditions: 1.Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 24, 2013. 2.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The new trash enclosure with same building materials as those used to construct the principal building. 5.An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs and any individual monument sign, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved (or amended) Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. 7.Applicant shall provide a final lighting plan with accent lighting on the new restaurant building, and incorporate pedestrian or bollard style lighting for the outdoor patio and pedestrian walkways. Final approval of this plan and light standards shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 8.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9.Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. 10.All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Site and Building Plan of the proposed Panda Express Restaurant, also identified as Building Site C of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2013-001, is hereby approved subject to the conditions memorialized herein. June 10, 2013 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Cur,,! 1,B1?crwleL.ERIAT Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 30, 2013 O Application Filed 12/18/12 O Application Deemed Complete: 05/15/13 O Review Period (60-day)Deadline: 07/14/13 e Extension Declared: N/A o Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2013-001 Applicant: HSB Architects, on behalf of Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. Gatlin Development Company (Owner) Location: 1520 Shingle Creek Crossing Request: Site & Builidng Plan — Building C (Panda Express Restaurant) INTRODUCTION HSB Architects, on behalf of Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Gatlin Development Company, is requesting review and consideration of a Site and Building Plan approval of a new 2,210 sf. Panda Restaurant facility, located at 1520 Shingle Creek Crossing. This site plan is being considered as part of the proposed "Building C" pad site, which was previously approved under the August 2012 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD) Master Plan Update. This site plan does not require a public hearing, but can be considered under a standard public meeting review, whereby comments from the general public may be allowed or noted for the record. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2011 the City Council approved the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD for the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall properties. The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD included an overall Master [Development] Plan, which guides the future development planned for this site, and included a number of approved variations from the zoning ordinance. This master plan included the development of a 182,000 sf. Wal-Mart retail store, the remodeling of the old Brookdale Mall food court building, and fifteen new building pad sites for retail and service uses, three of which were identified as restaurant sites. Construction of the new Wal- Mart store is complete and other site/utility improvements are nearing completion. Building sites G, H, K, and L have been approved and nearing shell build-out, and LA Fitness (to the west of this site) is approximately 50% complete. The subject site was originally targeted for a "bank" or similar financial institution with a drive- thru service lane. Last September 2012, an HSB Architect representative met with city staff to discuss potential development* of this Bldg. C pad site with a new Panda Express restaurant. The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD site was originally zoned as PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) district. This zoning remains in place and is not subject to any changes or modifications at this time. As part of the PUD Agreement, any new building within this PUD must be reviewed under separate site and building plan review. App. No. 2012-021 Page 1 of 8 PC 10/25/12 •/ J • „ --W0.-moom Coo 0 0-0-0-1 'il , _cos PYLONSIGN . PAOPOSED 1 „ COUNTY ROADTs-7,Th : •PROPOSED MON UP.IENT SIGN .t, 9) • _;2C9D-Dlab CM OW °C)-(1 - MO------- -----------z COUNTY ROAD N. • fr) PYLON SIGN LIONUMENT SIGN SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS Building C was originally identified under the 2011 SCC-PUD plans as Building B, which was planned to be 9,100 sf. building on a 1.2 acre pad site with 41 parking spaces (assigned to the lot). This pad site was platted as Lot 8, Block 1, Shingle Creek Crossing. As part of the recent amendments No. 2 and 3 approved by the City Council, this original Bldg. B site was re-labeled to Building C. The new Bldg. C (lower right) is shown as a significantly smaller building of approximately 2,200 sf. ORIGINAL PUD PLAN AMENDED PUD (SEPTEMBER 2011) (SEPTEMBER 2012) The original Bldg. B site was platted as a 1.2 acre lot. Gatlin Company submitted a separate application to replat this and other areas of the PUD site, which resulted in the reduction of this particular building pad site 0.85 acres, and 27 parking spaces. This replat was approved by the City Council as Shingle Creek Crossing 3 rd Addition'. This plat has not yet been recorded and the lot still remains as it was platted under the original Shingle Creek Crossing Addition. The new Panda Express building is shown as 38' x 56' footprint, or 2,210 sq. ft. GFA. Parking is located along her front, back and side areas, with a drive-thru lane located on the east side of the building. The interior is broken up between a typical restaurant facility, with approximately one-half dedicated to dining and the other for kitchen/service areas. The outside front area will accommodate outdoor seating area, which is acceptable provide no alcohol is served in this area. The new site plan layout for this new Panda restaurant facility matches closely with the approved PUD planned layout. The site incorporates a new one-way drive-thru service lane along the east and north sides of the building. The specifics of this drive-thru will be addressed later in this report. App. No. 2012-021 Page 2 of 8 PC 10/25/12 The building is connected to the existing interior walkway systems provided by Gatlin Development as part of the Shingle Creek Crossing "pedestrian friendly" plans for this area. The site is interconnected to the LA Fitness site to the west, and the new Building H site to the east. A walkway located between this Panda and Bldg. H will provide a nice connection for pedestrians up to the walkway/trail system along County Road 10. The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was approved with an overall "Architectural Design Guideline" plan to provide examples of approved architecture and building materials. The key element of this plan was that all new buildings would need to provide 4-sided architecture in their designs, meaning all four elevations must provide a nice, consistent use of material on all four sides of the buildings, including rear elevations. The new building appears to match most of these approved building materials. Although the building does not entirely match the overall "architectural theme" that is present or planned for in the overall Shingle Creek Crossing PUD, it has been generally accepted by Planning Staff and Gatlin Development that some development sites would need to meet certain "franchise" motif's or standards of their own. As is required in all new development sites not being built by Gatlin, all new buildings must be previewed and approved prior to city submittal, whereby then layout, design, and architectural standards must be met and approved by Gatlin Company. Gatlin has indicated to city planning staff that this building is acceptable. App. No. 2012-021 Page 3 of 8 PC 10/25/12 CI' .,—:,■,..'''.:'3.n ' 1 1 '. Vi'''' 0 i'.:17.V."''''''' •• 4, E.=>.1 -1.-4.' ,.= .. - . . -a, • I —6-1-.---,---Q,, 4....7..;t1 -• 1, ..I I , L H 1 4 -I.....:.„:.,.g..-1, j.::-...7..-y..- - - - j 1„ _.11,----!, L ...':-.7...f....."?..,-, i......: ,...- SOUTH E VAT10211 2 1 cf.).,...... ,--,!._:1A, .. .. . -...,. . . ... ,, :.. - -I --- - — , J 1 -I ...tv,.;....^..1, ..."..:-.7.- ....A.:0,4...t:-..i.- NOR I H ELTLA. i:Ciji A:21.0. The new building is designed to accept a large, interior mural inside the upper glass window box above the main entryway. The Architectural/Site Plans had a detail note of "Panda Mural on Interior Behind Glass", as shown on the illustration below left. Staff had some concerns that this "Panda" mural was too consistent with the Panda branding and logo, and would need to be treated as signage. As such, the large scale panda mural would exceed the signage allotment prescribed by the Shingle Creek PUP Sign Plan, and needed to be revised. EISB Architects came up with a reasonable solution by replacing the panda mural with a "Great Wall of China" mural design (above tight), which staff felt was acceptable. App. No. 2012-021 Page 4 of 8 PC 10/25/12 I DRIVE-THRU ACCESS & PARKING The new Site and Building Plan for Building C (Lot 4, Block 1, SCC 3 rd Addn) is noted in the diagram below. Plans call for 27 parking spaces on this development lot, which calculates to a 10.85 parking ratio. All restaurant uses were required to provide a minimum of 10 spaces per 1,000 sf1 of gross floor space. Access into these parking areas is made from the main east/west access road serving this PUD site. Visitor parking is located along the front, side (west) and rear portion of the building. The access on the right side (east) of the building provides an entryway into the drive-thru lane and rear parking area. This entry was recommended to be designed to accept only one vehicle at a time, with vehicles having the choice to move over to the left into the drive-thru lane or proceed straight to the rear parking area. Even though this access point was illustrated as a dual access point on the PUD Master Plan App. No. 2012-021 Page 5 of 8 PC 10/25/12 (Aug. 2012), city staff determined this single lane access provides a much safer design for pedestrians to cross between this Panda Express and adjacent Bldg. H site. .4.>. LANDSCAPING The Applicant has submitted a landscape plan which appears to be consistent with the approved PUD Master Plan. Plans call for the installation of various deciduous trees (maples and Quaker aspens) in and around the green space areas to the rear and the various parking islands of this building site. Other smaller (ornamental) trees and shrubs will be placed in and around the building and parking islands, and used to screen the rear area of the trash enclosure. All landscaped and turf areas must be irrigated per City Code and the SCC-PUD requirements. +) LIGHTING/TRASH The photometric plan indicates the parking areas will be provided with appropriately spaced, down-cast luminaires on 22-ft. high light poles. The plan indicates some spill-over of lighting from the this site across adjacent property lines, but is fairly minimal and acceptable in this case, due to the overall "shared" nature this Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was intended to serve. There does not appear to be any wall-mounted lights on the building, except for one small overhead light above a service door. Staff assumes Panda designers have taken into account that enough lighting or source from the overhead standards will provide adequate on-site lighting around the building. The photo elevations provided in this report of other Panda restaurants, indicate evidence of some accent lighting around the buildings, specifically the faux bamboo pole decorative features near the entry-ways, and the bollard style lighting around the outdoor patio seating areas. Staff would recommend Panda provide additional (similar) decorative lighting along the building and patio areas, in order to highlight (no pun intended) the nice architectural features and designs of the building; to provide nice, ambient lighting for the outdoor sitting/eating area, and additional safety lighting for pedestrians maneuvering in and around this restaurant site. The plans illustrate one outdoor trash enclosure, with two, front-end loading dumpster type receptacles. As noted in previous site plan reviews, the original SCC Master Plan did not illustrate or indicate the placement of any trash enclosure areas within this PUD site. The plans did not provide a "typical trash enclosure" detail; however, as the City did in previous site plan approvals, these accessory structures shall be approved contingent upon their construction shall match the same materials and colors with the main buildings. Metal, wood or composite material fences or doors are allowed, but must be opaque or completely screen the receptacles inside the enclosure. These enclosures will be required to be well maintained and gates closed at all times (except during unloading times). CITY ENGINEER REVIEW The City Engineer has provided his review and comments regarding this application, which is noted in the attached May 24, 2013 City Engineer's Review Memorandum to planning staff. Most of these comments and conditions reflect the improvements approved under the PUD Plan amendment. Some of these conditions may be applicable at time of future building permit review and approvals. App. No. 2012-021 Page 6 of 8 PC 10/25/12 RECOMMENDATION Since the original submittal of this site plan application last December, Panda Express representatives, Gatlin Development (and their consultants), along with city staff have gone back and forth tweaking, re-designing and revising certain features and elements of this proposed restaurant site. Staff is confident this new restaurant meets the overall design, spirit and intent of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD, and should provide a nice new amenity to this PUD development and the community. With that said, Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2013-05, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2013-001, the Site and Building Plan for proposed Panda Express Restaurant, located at 1520 Shingle Creek Crossing, and also identified as "Building C" - Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 24, 2013. 2.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3.The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4.Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The new trash enclosure with same building materials as those used to construct the principal building. 5.An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs and any individual monument sign, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved (or amended) Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. 7.Applicant shall provide a final lighting plan with accent lighting on the new restaurant building, and incorporate pedestrian or bollard style lighting for the outdoor patio and pedestrian walkways. Final approval of this plan and light standards shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 8.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. App. No. 2012-021 Page 7 of 8 PC 10/25/12 9.Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. 10.All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. Attachments O Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-05 O City Engineer's Review Memo — dated May 24, 2013 O Panda Express — Civil/Architectural and Interior Plans O Shingle Creek Crossing Master PUD Plan (Aug. 2012) O Panda Express Photos-Elevations (Mural Designs) App. No. 2012-021 Page 8 of 8 PC 10/25/12 __L :.".•_'s",..... ig..,--17-7 .1....7.; ,-. ....=.!--A.W.E.±.44.... . , it.i.. — - •-'' — - :- : -'1.77‘"...*=:' $.,. L i.-- -........-,....—.. )\1 7 7 I _7_ -',:-•-•-•`. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 24, 2013 T Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Steven J. Jankowski, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works Review — Panda Express Preliminary Site Plan Review Public Works Department staff has reviewed the submissions enumerated below for the above project prepared by Michael A. Jackson, PE of Hengst Streff Bajko Architect & Engineers: C1.0 Cover Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet 1 of 9 Certified 11-9-2013 C1.1 Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet 2 of 9 No date C1.2 Details Sheet 3 of 9 No date C2.0 Utility Plan Sheet 2 of 2 No date C2.1 Details Sheet 5 of 9 No date C2.2 Details Sheet 6 of 9 No date C3.0 Erosion Protection Plan Sheet 7 of 9 No date C3.1 Erosion Protection Details Sheet 8 of 9 No date C4.0 Horizontal Control plan Sheet 9 of 9 No date The following comments and recommendations are offered: General Sheet Items 1.All recommendations and requirements approved as part of previous actions pertaining to all prior PUD/PUD amendment approvals, Preliminary Plan approvals and Final Plat approvals relative to this development and/or portions thereof are withstanding and must be incorporated into the final plans. 2.All sheets should note the original date of preparation along with subsequent revision dates noting changes. 3. Sheet C2.0 is labeled as Sheet 2 of 2. Revise and label as Sheet 4 of 9. Public Works Review Memo — Panda Express Preliminary Site Plan Page 2 May 24, 2013 Sheet C1.1 4.The trash enclosure must be better separated and protected from traffic and parking spaces (e.g. curb and gutter). 5.The curb tie-in location on the east side of the site appears to require the removal of existing curb. The details of the modification from existing to proposed needs to be clarified and include restoration and sidewalk tie-in requirements. 6.A low point of 853.85P exists in the north curb line of the site parking lot. Revise plans to show adequate drainage details for this low point. 7.A low point of 845.00P exists in the curb line west of the restaurant. Revise plans to show adequate drainage details for this low point. Sheet C2.0 8.A water service has been stubbed to a location southwest of the building. If this service is not used, it needs to be removed and plugged at the tee connecting to the main. Add a 6" gate valve after the tee at the connection point into the existing water main. A wet tap of the main should be considered in lieu of sleeved connection. 9.Provide water shutoff and valve details before entering the building so that domestic service can continue should the fire line need to be serviced. 10.The developer is responsible to ensure that the 6" water main is adequate to prove the required fire flow demand. 11.The domestic and kitchen sanitary sewer lines should be reevaluated to minimize distance and number of bends between the building and the grease trap. Manholes are recommended to be used at the proposed cleanout locations and at the sanitary sewer connection point. Sheet C3.0 12.Inlet protection must also be provided for the existing catch basin located in the southwest corner of the site. General Items: 13.Provide detailed vehicle turning and tracking movement diagrams for delivery vehicles and garbage trucks demonstrating specific and actual routes. 14.The final construction plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota and submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to a land disturbance permit being issued. 15.This development is required to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. All current City and Watershed storm drainage, treatment and infiltration standards are required to be met. 16.All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. The City's standard details must be included in the final site plans. 17.A general project phasing and sequencing plan must be provided for the development. 18.A development agreement is required that includes all conditions contained herein. 19.During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings Public Works Review Memo — Panda Express Preliminary Site Plan Page 3 May 24, 2013 20.are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. 21.Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures, and provide certified record drawings for any associated private and/or public improvements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 22.Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer's design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer's immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as- built drawings. 23.Irrigation is required for the site. A copy of the irrigation plan needs to be provided. 24.The proposed site is located adjacent to Hennepin County right-of-way. Any work within the County right-of-way will require a permit from Hennepin County. Prior to the issuance of a land alteration s ermit the following conditions must be met: 25.A copy of the recorded development agreement must be submitted. 26.A copy of the approved final construction plans and specifications must be submitted to the City Engineer. 27.A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 28.A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance provisions. A $5,000 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. 29.Private site appurtenances (e.g. light poles, signs, etc.) must not encroach on public easement areas. If such an encroachment exists and is determined by the City to be not adverse to the public interest, such encroachments will require an Encroachment Agreement. Anticipated Permitting: 1.A City of Brooklyn Center sewer and water permit is required. 2.A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 3.A MPCA NPDES permit is required. . 4.A Hennepin County permit is required for work within Hennepin County right-of-way. 5. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) plan review and approval are required. Public Works Review Memo — Panda Express Preliminary Site Plan Page 4 May 24, 2013 6.Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warranted. 7.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. The aforementioned comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be farther prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined by the City prior to issuance of permits. Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-03 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-001 SUBMITTED BY PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. & HSB ARCHITECTS REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF THE NEW PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT IN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1520 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2013-001 submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., ("Applicant") and their consultants HSB Architects, and in cooperation with Gatlin Development Company, owners of Shingle Creek Crossing, are requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan of a proposed Panda Express Restaurant, to be sited on the new Building C pad site inside the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, located at 1520 Shingle Creek Crossing ("Subject Property"), and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements constructed under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 30, 2013 to fully consider Planning Application No. 2013-001, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed Panda Express Restaurant and other related site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Site and Building plans are consistent with the General Development Plans of the overall Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of the proposed Panda Express Restaurant, also identified as Building Site C of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2013- 001, be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2.The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development proposed on the Subject Site, will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of this site, will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; 3. The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 property and will conform with ordinance standards; 4.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 5.The Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and 6. Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013-001 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 24, 2013. 2.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3.The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4.Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The new trash enclosure with same building materials as those used to construct the principal building. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs and any individual monument sign, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved (or amended) Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. 7. Applicant shall provide a final lighting plan with accent lighting on the 2 of 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 new restaurant building, and incorporate pedestrian or bollard style lighting for the outdoor patio and pedestrian walkways. Final approval of this plan and light standards shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 8.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9.Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. 10. All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. May 30, 2013 Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair, Commissioners , „ and. and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 3 of 3 , „ • ".k/Vt•g1-3t.:3q-e3.73.9-9 1\11 HS. -:-.....z,.. <____ 0 /0 ° "0 /0 •• ' , 60 •o . ioo - P :•!2 soir i le o' ''. '.4)cs V.4 4 7,--,„., ' - ---- 7 ' r .. :,-..i.../... ,„ ,-,,. ,===.-------- .c ,_ ,.. ........, : -6*-- -:- •- ,Jo., i . .4. - j: ;1 ___,,Qq,• o. 8-, „ t , . - • ., ,,, . „. . '5E 2 6 2 E'si^:, Re,PdPidPu, w 2tJ-1 0 2 IJJ MOWILC4I2 ttil L4, gg =9 2e,10'4 2 2 d[L' E 0,6 777T7T7r1-000000000ILii ui 0 .2Z _Ja_5— < ZU -?-=m awma_ 0 Lum 6 ? i 5 5 E r :iia LIR2ri ::5, gri p.jgnK N'a h V N HE5i i ,":t :-...?i g i g 4ac 1§ , 6-- --re --- 0 !, '' P ;3 r& z E .143 uApiao-iu - •q,_SSMidXA VONIV/c1 .: •:: jh '1`E'iti•;g,§5 —___.....„,< c<?-gt .3 /,'-'2 P e 9 - , _ ii g "E' P5 i 5, C NN E g .5 i , ag g9.' 6 E k P.r a g g g4E Z; F, El 6 ; i 5 N S 6. tlii) 4 'Z' 1 ''' t3 4 -:' 8 ,-,.- I 0 p, 5 ” . '=-N- .'.! .s! 0 aaag ,, 6 a 5 s g o 5:, i 1 g, g g g F g8 6 1 g c'g 5 1 I - 1 8 ;8 f . 5 g ! ig I ,I,P 1 'gr- 1 5 g E r, & ! g i g ;" g '4 b. 3.4 = r, g F, 1 :-. I Eg n 0 0 p -.3 P.C p .'5' i :-. 5 .... a g r N N N 6 '65 5 .6 e 6 i ii i 1 ,, ,, !oeci00000000eeee®eeoeeeeeeeee®ooecio® ix ..-1 cnN 'FL'5gg >-.4 I-Yj5- 8 L:.t0 Elz .Na ...6 z ,4,.----tu gV....\--/ 4 000 0 ,-"" 00 0 00 ./ (I. caz.5.==.--cla .11 4'14111_,_""""ALB <=. le --t1 - ' ION t , 1 0 NW111111.------' 0 1 SW ®el 0 Ess, 000 00 ' mg 1 ,.......,....Hirs ID ' —...s...9510 \ N s 1 , i -'...4 igilli1 4D V._ SLURs ,. ,,...-„A nim,„° °"- V4"; IV ' doi 7. . ra ' 1 $111111111111111111 0 MN",ft .‹. 4. Ma 00i ' OWcjuliektON" w'""K ` 00 ' ' l' - - - " Ill■ gi______I,lo, ° 115111------ \ 011....0„ ..' . *4■o iro .. .. ....*- •4,0.....- AK.* .... .\ „..„..- ..., _ „,,,,, — ,....- , ,.0.. 0 ---- - , (\ , \N \ .,..,. \ \ -.b4otro ,....\ de) ...9.7,-----,*t 4$1111I ....- ---- ..---""IN 111% 0,41 4 C- ,14 ,4 \ NII--■l* \4 \\4\\ ....,ca) v.— 0 Lum 6 ? i 5 5 E r :iia LIR2ri ::5, gri p.jgnK N'a h V N HE5i i ,":t :-...?i g i g 4ac 1§ , 6-- --re --- 0 !, '' P ;3 r& z E .143 uApiao-iu - •q,_SSMidXA VONIV/c1 .: •:: jh '1`E'iti•;g,§5 —___.....„,< c<?-gt .3 /,'-'2 P e 9 - , _ ii g "E' P5 i 5, C NN E g .5 i , ag g9.' 6 E k P.r a g g g4E Z; F, El 6 ; i 5 N S 6. tlii) 4 'Z' 1 ''' t3 4 -:' 8 ,-,.- I 0 p, 5 ” . '=-N- .'.! .s! 0 aaag ,, 6 a 5 s g o 5:, i 1 g, g g g F g8 6 1 g c'g 5 1 I - 1 8 ;8 f . 5 g ! ig I ,I,P 1 'gr- 1 5 g E r, & ! g i g ;" g '4 b. 3.4 = r, g F, 1 :-. I Eg n 0 0 p -.3 P.C p .'5' i :-. 5 .... a g r N N N 6 '65 5 .6 e 6 i ii i 1 ,, ,, !oeci00000000eeee®eeoeeeeeeeee®ooecio® ix ..-1 cnN 'FL'5gg >-.4 I-Yj5- 8 L:.t0 Elz .Na ...6 z ,4,.----tu gV....\--/ 4 000 0 ,-"" 00 0 00 ./ (I. caz.5.==.--cla .11 4'14111_,_""""ALB <=. le --t1 - ' ION t , 1 0 NW111111.------' 0 1 SW ®el 0 Ess, 000 00 ' mg 1 ,.......,....Hirs ID ' —...s...9510 \ N s 1 , i -'...4 igilli1 4D V._ SLURs ,. ,,...-„A nim,„° °"- V4"; IV ' doi 7. . ra ' 1 $111111111111111111 0 MN",ft .‹. 4. Ma 00i ' OWcjuliektON" w'""K ` 00 ' ' l' - - - " Ill■ gi______I,lo, ° 115111------ \ 011....0„ ..' . *4■o iro .. .. ....*- •4,0.....- AK.* .... .\ „..„..- ..., _ „,,,,, — ,....- , ,.0.. 0 ---- - , (\ , \N \ .,..,. \ \ -.b4otro ,....\ de) ...9.7,-----,*t 4$1111I ....- ---- ..---""IN 111% 0,41 4 C- ,14 ,4 \ NII--■l* \4 \\4\\ ....,ca) v.— 0 Lum 6 ? i 5 5 E r :iia LIR2ri ::5, gri p.jgnK N'a h V N HE5i i ,":t :-...?i g i g 4ac 1§ , 6-- --re --- 0 !, '' P ;3 r& z E .143 uApiao-iu - •q,_SSMidXA VONIV/c1 .: •:: jh '1`E'iti•;g,§5 —___.....„,< c<?-gt .3 /,'-'2 P e 9 - , _ ii g "E' P5 i 5, C NN E g .5 i , ag g9.' 6 E k P.r a g g g4E Z; F, El 6 ; i 5 N S 6. tlii) 4 'Z' 1 ''' t3 4 -:' 8 ,-,.- I 0 p, 5 ” . '=-N- .'.! .s! 0 aaag ,, 6 a 5 s g o 5:, i 1 g, g g g F g8 6 1 g c'g 5 1 I - 1 8 ;8 f . 5 g ! ig I ,I,P 1 'gr- 1 5 g E r, & ! g i g ;" g '4 b. 3.4 = r, g F, 1 :-. I Eg n 0 0 p -.3 P.C p .'5' i :-. 5 .... a g r N N N 6 '65 5 .6 e 6 i ii i 1 ,, ,, !oeci00000000eeee®eeoeeeeeeeee®ooecio® ix ..-1 cnN 'FL'5gg >-.4 I-Yj5- 8 L:.t0 Elz .Na ...6 z ,4,.----tu gV....\--/ 4 000 0 ,-"" 00 0 00 ./ (I. caz.5.==.--cla .11 4'14111_,_""""ALB <=. le --t1 - ' ION t , 1 0 NW111111.------' 0 1 SW ®el 0 Ess, 000 00 ' mg 1 ,.......,....Hirs ID ' —...s...9510 \ N s 1 , i -'...4 igilli1 4D V._ SLURs ,. ,,...-„A nim,„° °"- V4"; IV ' doi 7. . ra ' 1 $111111111111111111 0 MN",ft .‹. 4. Ma 00i ' OWcjuliektON" w'""K ` 00 ' ' l' - - - " Ill■ gi______I,lo, ° 115111------ \ 011....0„ ..' . *4■o iro .. .. ....*- •4,0.....- AK.* .... .\ „..„..- ..., _ „,,,,, — ,....- , ,.0.. 0 ---- - , (\ , \N \ .,..,. \ \ -.b4otro ,....\ de) ...9.7,-----,*t 4$1111I ....- ---- ..---""IN 111% 0,41 4 C- ,14 ,4 \ NII--■l* \4 \\4\\ ....,ca) v.— 6 E 41)LU LU U)LU el 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 000 000000 - t0000 00 1 a 000 0 0 a co "Vr II/ a_ (1) 111 111111 :111111111111 111111111111111:1111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111111 III•1111111111111111 1•1 II 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111 III111101001111111110110 msormonorrein 111111111111111111111111 111111111911111111 IIIN MINEEMMI IIIFt MMIImmiffilim11 IliMmumilmmum 111111111111111111111•111 ,fl •111111111011111111 11111111111111111111111111N 111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111II 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111111E11111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111MilifillinifininiariMEMMINEM11111111111111111111 1111101111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 111111111 NIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111§MEIN111111111111111 IIIIIIIIMERIMEN11111 IIIMENN 1 1111111111011 IMES I ki 11161inimmlimmij in u"•11111111111111111 11111111H1111111111 11 Inimmirmonn10111111110110111 10 11111111111111111111H II 111111111111111111 11 111116111IN H1111111119111111 H i. n ...............••momilimm n minumnimmonilimminm 1111111111119111111 II 11111111111111111 1111111111 II 111111111111111111 II 1 1111011111111 11 1111M1 11,11,191ummumimi u miggggreirmig111111 ii eemumensidmmieemmu 1 '1" LU LU C.) U) LU LU 1111111111MMEINNI111111M111111MMEIB 1111111/11111111111001via gaga • ID 00 -g" s a a a 14gri Eilti 5 E 5.II 5 a c 2 5 5 UI a 5 a 5 s 5gaUJ C-) U.) z gi 3[1 Eg acca $) t, 0 g 5 a .1111■9 0 cc ME" w a5 E'f- 0 n 4=k4 ;IcroQ0 LU 0 0 0 Cl) COUJ ‘15' <`FL'M <a. g E E ii .0 . oCNI N ., 0 t > Lu—I "(1) , 1 ik' E k — -6' I 00,- N•=t 0 - -,', Lu—' UJ I IF-1 ii-yili i,i ,9i[:1-1141 ,11 -itim- , ,J0:1 :yat /1 ;1.,-,I i l oil, )14114'1111.1i yrillQ i k.4 liiiill'1":&111ii '1 1.1141 1 11 11 11/11 1•1!I 1.11111 l'i 11;iPiitiliqiiii.:AviotpliND,-.J/IP0 0. l ' 7 l k -.' K, ..1411 ,4iiiiiqTYr,c ,s mom y li .--- 1 .4,4 1 1 1 1HIM.Iii i'l lill'l ,''1 )11:11' isql] ,,,,,i :f0 ,„,l , Hil l i i l i f i l l111 ITEIVIllililiII' P1'11111,i 111111 I I 1.1IIJ.!, ;.0tb''. I :' 1M ,. Ill E- -4-D , -,1,1111ii,P,1111111ily111 i I,,, i 1 load'', . M I II lilt I i,111.ill a i, 0 III, riY ill "ItA i tli filt i l$1 1,1 1.4k1111 01 11 iiilitt1111).,'ai ,..,L I).11 I II . rimilltill-t it I ill Jb- 1, , 1-1 .,.1 ,. .IN I l'Hilil1- E 'If 14(II,1 Mt .11,1, jiAu/ r II II, ,,1.1514410 141,, 314InI I . /'i'1411111:11111'ilillrilitilliillilL 1 InC.111.'\\''l11,1■11t 'l 1 1 .1 1.,J1 ttlt iioti oil ,. l'i rifillitliiii1-111111iiii!ri A,1- ,1,711"1111•IT ql,-.77.- 1.111t 111,11 111111' iiiiiiiiiit T hl II ,..1 1 1 01 1 09;1 1 1 :1 1-iti 10, ',1!t!t!t lit ilt 1,1 0 ,11 1 (1 • i i-i - ftiiiitlill-illit1 ) 1111 Li ! h 1 1 1.1 111 1 1,1mLyi141.:11,111,1 1r lilsi .1 1 ;11 /1.1110, 1 ',. th-whp , 1 ,1!;.1.0 1 111 I i ,!Ha,. if 417 ,no]41411 ,111 ,1110 ',Iii lliniiit tliiisrimilli 1 11 1 :1111 .1. yi •-t 0,11 f.,11,11 1!11,11!thi ,11.iiiiit iiii i ,s1;t ,r1T, )1 i i 1 i !II N` 1 Ico 'Ili IA ii: it t11 1111j1 111 111#.1.11111IIII IwiloirigNo tu —_t-i )!,..,1,,v2III i.-1,,i,:itit ,:i:lil 1,,, -„1 ■ , it,- -ithi 1 1 011 ,1:: 1 ,'itleiltHilitill 1 '.' ! till •1 i 1,y , iy,,,,,to,.t hyt, • - _ -„V-PA11111114,0111.1ii. . , 1i H. ai1,1 1 1 tiiiie; 31- j: ■1 II; III' 't I"IS '1441), I -= 5i,IIIIIPLI I i -=-7-./I, MI pilly, -.- I ti lit4t,!1.14 1. I re/1.1 to1 1.4,'r I --: r 0 ,(1> ,- -1 • .._ -, - - -. 1- - I-! 7,1I- --0 ..;--.- , , _ -, - ,- —1 F Er- 7 7 _ _., _ r _T -,-,,,, ,., „_ , .---' 0E . ii - . e 8CO N•='CCOZr2T '''o e a LU> el -•—1 e 1 e I el - --- CC00ieo 2 i •,,,,0 e 0 - 0e ---- I-elLoi ;.; ,2. --01 §n ....j °A8 ta 21 0551 „ L., ,ell .-r l CID 1 i - 1 0 4D 5II 4D - (.--).5 g 14D e 62. .4D . . . 2 s ' 0 .•!, 96008 k= :1 . .. ...-- --.......41). A ,''-§ XaXxx -x g g g0 0 - 0 ' . ' ona °.11 1±1 E° Inxc..)_, 02' g g g 2 g 1 g0 co0 r "-8 E.Z ox . - V 8 g E. nS 2g g g g 'I' ‘6 —8 8 0 : -- 0 E22 2 52 8 85 `11EYv) E = m AV"virt, @ © 0 e 0 en:,c r )u _ ,'o CD v)°R A,_, d g. . g , 5 _ 5 g a g E a ..f 7: ,-. g g ., a a a _ 14 :I :e r-. ,t := ..1 -41111111111W-.1111W-- ■ cr,0 3. / razgg...."21' NM 101.3.=1 R.. _ ,- c,or 1refm,siteto.lers,,, 0\ MAOlt ( 5..•%Iiiviry fi, i .)- IOW '1*.V.k-SZU1 ni I \01111_,...""Infant wou niumunr.- Ifigm‹ L'-?., Enen?glat3W' "' VW/ 't Ile 1 ....__i \ , X , ' ', X 1 . '' : '-/ raWkinalLM --:.-.31M. -"n" -00,—.......,writtitillwow- v..-------00***,%.00 - ..... -- .yr ---- d w _------ o - o .41 If, ..' .• 4 ---- 40°---',--- ,.-----;---„-.>, lip ‘ ‘,./‘-------------- ..-- ,..--.,-- .,---- \ ---- \ db_A * 44-1.2.I‘ -- -- * 4■..* \ 40,A-■ -11*--,-40/ A■ "ILK Engineering . Landscape Architecture . Planning . Surveying . Traffic ( INCORPORATED ) Creating extraordinaryCommunities MEMORANDUM , TO: Justen Cassidy, HSB Architects & Engineers FROM: Steve Manhart, P.E., PTOE, PTP DATE: April 30, 2013 jcassidv@hsbarch.com smanhart@rlkinc.00111 RE: Review of Drive-Thru Operation Panda Express, Brooklyn Center, MN — HSB Architects & Engineers RLK Project No. 2012-049-M RLK Incorporated has been requested to review the operation of a proposed drive-thru lane for a Panda Express Restaurant in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. The restaurant is being designed by HSB Architects and Engineers. The question of drive-thru operation was raised by City staff during the preliminary plan review. Subsequently, RLK was hired to perform an analysis of projected drive-thru operation for the site so as to RLK has discussed this matter with the City of Brooklyn Center, and has responded to the following items requested for review: 1. Conduct an analysis at a comparable drive-thru: Four Leanne Chin Restaurants exist in the Twin Cities that have drive-thru windows. RLK will conduct a noon hour (peak A.M.) and 5-6 P.M. (peak P.M.) analysis of study. Response: RLK conducted analyses at two Lee Ann Chin restaurants with drive- through windows in the northern metropolitan area of the Twin Cities. The tables attached describe the results of this field analysis. At no time during the analysis (both noon peak and p.m. peak hours) were there more than two vehicles in the queue at the order board. Similarly, at no time during the field observation times were there more than three vehicles at the pay/pick-up window. It should be noted that these short queues were despite instances where vehicles waited in excess of nine minutes for orders to be completed. (952) 933-0972 • 6110 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 . Minnetonka, MN 55343 • FAX (952) 933-1153 Equal Opportunity Employer 2. Review Site Plan: Tim Benetti has provided PDFs of the site plan(s). Response: RLK reviewed the site plan provided by the City. It appears that three vehicles can stack behind the order board, and another three can stack behind the pick-up window. There is no separate pay window, as is sometimes provided at higher volume restaurants. Also, this layout does provide an escape lane in case customers decide to leave the queue. 3. Research other community standards for comparisons: Brooklyn Center does not have a specific standard for drive-thru stacking; however, the Panda Express falls under a PUD that provides the City latitude to ensure the drive-thru is well designed with adequate stacking space. With that said, the comparable drive-thru study (Leanne Chin) is a good approach and a second approach would be to provide a comparison to another community indicating what their design standard might be for a similar drive-thru as discussed. Response: RLK reviewed the municipal codes of four other cities within the Twin Cities metro area. Those cities, and their corresponding ordinances, include: •Minneapolis City Code — Section 541.390. In addition to the parking required for such use, an establishment with a drive-through facility shall provide a minimum number for each drive-through station. For Restaurant Drive-Through, minimum of 4 stacking spaces required as measured form the pick-up window. Each stacking lane shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide, and each stacking space shall be 18 feet in length. Stacking lanes shall not be located within required driveways, internal circulation driveways, loading areas or parking aisles and shall not interfere with parking and ingress and egress from a public street. •Saint Paul City Code — Section 65.513. Stacking spaces shall be provided for each drive-through lane. Banks, credit unions and fast-food restaurants shall provide a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces per drive- through lane. Stacking spaces for all other uses shall be determined by the zoning administrator. •Bloomington City Code — Section 21.301.05. Unless otherwise indicated... at least six stacking spaces must be provided per drive-through lane, beginning behind the first point at which the vehicle must stop (which may be the order board, a pre-order board, or payment/pick-up window). Required width for vehicle drive aisles may not be allocated toward stacking spacing or stacking lanes. Each stacking space must be a minimum of 10 feet by 20 feet in size. Each drive-through lane must be clearly defined and designed so as not to conflict with access for drive aisles. •Eagan City Code — Section 152.144. All drive-through service windows must contain room for a minimum stacking if six cars from the serving window and stacking must not extend into drive lanes. RLK Incorporated Page 2 of 7 April 30, 2013 Panda Express - Brooklyn Park, MN 2013-049-M This brief review of municipal codes from other cities indicates a general drive- through requirement for restaurants of four to six car lengths of stacking behind the pick-up window. While statistically inconclusive, our field analysis of similar Chinese restaurants indicates there may be a trend that drive-through traffic demand is less than that of other types of fast-food restaurants. This may be because Chinese food items are less "hand-based" (e.g., hamburger, burrito, etc.), and thus, are less likely to be eaten while driving. 4. Review Site limitations/concerns: a.City is concerned with vehicles queuing into external site drive aisle — this concern must be evaluated as indicated above. Response: The distance between the order board and the pay/pick-up window is approximately 75 feet. Assuming a stacking space of 18 feet (as utilized by the City of Minneapolis above), there is room for four vehicles in the queue between the order board and the pay/pick-up window. The distance between the order board and the point of beginning of the queue for the order board is approximately 75 feet — again, this is stacking distance for four vehicles. Given the comparative drive-through demand at other Chinese restaurants, it appears that these queue lengths will provide adequate space during noon and P.M. peaks, and will not impact the drive aisles as shown in the City's modified layout. b.The design has been modified to a single width access off of this main drive aisle, but the applicant designed the drive aisle to immediately be directed into the drive-thru lane. This could be redesigned where the access would be directed into the bypass/thru lane with the drive-thru being introduced off of this thru lane (see attached sketch). This would alleviate the developer's concerns with the traffic hitting the drive-thru's height restriction bar. Response: A revised layout has been designed by HSB Architects (see Figure 1), which is superior to the previous layouts. Having a dedicated drive-thru lane and a separated drive aisle benefits the overall traffic flow and accessibility on the site. While pedestrians must cross a wider driveway on the southeast corner of the site, drive-thru traffic will not be so heavy as to block pedestrian movements. In conclusion, it appears that the dedicated drive-through lane and separated drive aisle as designed by HSB Architects, will provide adequate stacking space for a Chinese restaurant. The stacking space at the order board and at the pay/pick-up window meets requirements adopted by other cities in the Twin Cities metro. Because drive-through service appears less common than other restaurant types, the drive-through operation as proposed will be acceptable. Pedestrian accessibility is also acceptable. GAPanda Restaurant Group \ 2013-049-NR_Technical Data \Drive Thru Merno_043013.docx RLK Incorporated Page 3 of 7 April 30, 2013 Panda Express - Brooklyn Park, MN 2013-049-M Figure 1 Layout of Dedicated Drive-Thru Lane and Separated Drive Aisle Source: HSB Architects, April 29, 2013 RLK Incorporated Page 4 of 7 April 30, 2013 Panda Express —Brooklyn Park, MN 2013-049-M Table 1 — Site 1 Noon Peak Hour Analysis DRIVE - THRU DATA COLLECTION Location:Leeann Chin, Brooklyn Park, MN Date:4/17/2013 Observer:Ethan Peterson Time:12:00 PM - 1:00 PM Time (mins) # of Vehicles at Order Board # of Vehicles at Window Time to Serve Last Vehicle 0 0 0 - . 2 0 0 - 4 2 1 3:19 6 0 2 3:19 (Same Vehicle) 8 0 1 1:25 10 0 0 12 0 0 - 14 0 0 - 16 0 2 1:13 18 0 0 - 20 2 0 5:23 22 0 3 6:22 24 0 3 6:22 (Same Vehicle) 26 1 1 4:04 28 1 2 2:43 30 1 2 2:48 32 1 1 1:25 34 2 0 3:59 36 1 2 5:10 38 0 2 5:10 (Same Vehicle) 40 2 1 6:08 42 2 1 9:40 44 1 3 9:01 46 0 3 9:01 (Same Vehicle) 48 0 3 11:00 50 0 3 11:00 (Same Vehicle) 52 1 2 11:21 54 0 2 11:21 (Same Vehicle) 56 0 2 11:21 (Same Vehicle) 58 0 2 11:21 (Same Vehicle) 60 0 0 - RLK Incorporated Page 5 of 7 April 30, 2013 Panda Express — Brooklyn Park, MN 2013-049-M Table 2 — Site 1 P.M. Peak Hour Analysis DRIVE - THRU DATA COLLECTION Location:Leeann Chin, Brooklyn Park, MN Date:4/17/2013 Observer:Ethan Peterson Time:5:00 PM - 6:00 PM Time (mins) 11 of Vehicles at Order Board tt of Vehicles at Window Time to Serve Last Vehicle 0 0 0 - 2 1 0 7:37 4 1 0 7:37 Same Vehicle 6 0 1 7:37 Same Vehicle 8 0 1 7:37 Same Vehicle 10 0 0 - 12 1 0 2:02 14 0 0 - 16 0 0 - 18 0 0 - 20 0 0 - 22 1 0 2:21 24 0 1 2:21 Same Vehicle 26 0 0 - 28 0 0 - 30 0 0 32 0 0 - 34 0 0 - 36 0 0 - 38 0 0 - 40 0 0 - 42 0 0 - 44 0 0 - 46 0 0 48 0 0 - 50 0 0 - 52 0 0 54 0 0 - 56 2 0 5:00 58 1 1 5:00 Same Vehicle 60 0 1 5:00 Same Vehicle RLK Incorporated Page 6 of 7 April 30, 2013 Panda Express - Brooklyn Park, MN 2013-049-M Table 3 — Site 2 Noon Peak Hour Analysis DRIVE - THRU DATA COLLECTION Location:Leeann Chin, Blaine, MN Date:4/18/2013 Observer:Ethan Peterson Time:12:00 PM - 1:00 PM 15 vehicles through drive-thru, 18 vehicles for eat-in Time (mins) # of Vehicles at Order Board # of Vehicles at Window Time to Serve Last Vehicle 0 0 1 2:48 2 0 1 2:48 (Same vehicle) 4 0 0 - 6 1 0 2:31 8 0 2 2:00 10 0 0 - 12 0 0 14 0 0 - 16 0 0 18 0 0 - 20 0 0 22 2 1 9:09 24 1 2 9:09 (Same vehicle) 26 0 2 9:09 (Same vehicle) 28 0 1 9:09 (Same vehicle) 30 0 3 11:57 32 1 2 7:15 34 0 2 7:15 (Same vehicle) 36 0 1 7:15 (Same vehicle) 38 1 0 3:15 40 0 1 3:15 (Same vehicle) 42 1 2 7:02 44 1 2 9:12 46 0 3 9:12 (Same vehicle) 48 0 2 9:12 (Same vehicle) 50 0 1 9:12 (Same vehicle) 52 0 1 9:12 (Same vehicle) 54 1 0 2:56 56 0 1 2:56 (Same vehicle) 58 0 0 - 60 0 0 - NOTE: No P.M. Peak Hour analysis was conducted at this location due to incehnent weather. RLK Incorporated Page 7 of 7 April 30, 2013 Panda Express — Brooklyn Park, MN 2013-049-M METRO EXAMPLES OUTSIDE OF BROOKLYN CENTER Wendy's — 13588 83 rd Way North, Maple Grove, MN Burger King Rockford Service Drive, Plymouth, MN Wendy's and Taco Bell — Rockford Service Road, Plymouth, MN 1 Dairy Queen & KFC - Bass Lake Road, Crystal, MN Taco Bell — East of York Avenue, Edina, MN McDonald's — N. 42' Ave & Winnetka, New Hope, MN McDonalds — East of York Avenue, Edina, MN Wendy's — 7839 Market Blvd., Chanhassen, MN ( McDonalds - 3235 Northdale Blvd, Coon Rapids, MN BROOKLYN CENTER EXAMPLES Taco Bell — Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, MN McDonald's - 5568 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN Starbuck's Coffee — Brooklyn Blvd. & 69 th Ave N., Brooklyn Center, MN Burger King -- 3219 Bass Lake Road, Brooklyn Center, MN Wendy's - 5594 Xerxes Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN CVS Pharmacy, Brooklyn Blvd., & Bass Lake Road, Brooklyn Center, MN utIlIZAte _ 751. SIMILAR CHINESE FOOD RESTAURANTS WITH DRIVE-THRU LANES Leeann Chin, 8065 Brooklyn Blvd., Brooklyn Park, MN - -----Wf:,11___!..„ ...._: li v _..,-,;,■;---7k (1,1.111.. _ -- ------4‘,.. --- - As' .r•-:-Enririr .-irt...E.--il ill' ti II 11.4.,,..:4-ii 1- kfi,i1 11110:11_1111111111 Leeann Chin — 89 th Ave NE & University Ave NE, Blaine, MN Leeann Chin - 2071 Cliff Rd, Eagan, MN Leeann Chin —963 W. 78 th Street, Chanhassen, MN Commissioner Christensen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-03 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-001 SUBMITTED BY PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. & HSB ARCHITECTS REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF THE NEW PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT IN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1520 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 2013-001 submitted by Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., ("Applicant") and their consultants HSB Architects, and in cooperation with Gatlin Development Company, owners of Shingle Creek Crossing, are requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan of a proposed Panda Express Restaurant, to be sited on the new Building C pad site inside the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, located at 1520 Shingle Creek Crossing ("Subject Property"), and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements constructed under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 30, 2013 to fully consider Planning Application No. 2013-001, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed Panda Express Restaurant and other related site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Site and Building plans are consistent with the General Development Plans of the overall Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of the proposed Panda Express Restaurant, also identified as Building Site C of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2013- 001, be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; 2.The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development proposed on the Subject Site, will facilitate the redevelopment and improvement of this site, will allow for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; 3.The improvements and utilization of the property as proposed under the planned redevelopment of this site is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards; 4.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; 5.The Site and Building Plan proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this proposed development can be considered an asset to the community; and 6.Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating and approving a Site and Building Plan as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the site proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013-001 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 24, 2013. 2.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 3.The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing systems to meet NFPA standards and connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the city ordinances. 4.Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The new trash enclosure with same building materials as those used to construct the principal building. 5.An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 6.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs and any individual monument sign, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved (or amended) Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. 2 of 3 7.Applicant shall provide a final lighting plan with accent lighting on the new restaurant building, and incorporate pedestrian or bollard style lighting for the outdoor patio and pedestrian walkways. Final approval of this plan and light standards shall be made by the City's Business and Development Director. 8.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9.Any major changes or modifications made to this PUD Development/Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to this PUD, which shall include an updated Development/Site Plan if necessary. 10.All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. May 30, 2013 Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Freedman, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Burfeind , Commissioners Christensen, Freedman, and Schonning . and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 3 of 3 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA May 30, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Burfeind at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Scott Burfeind, Commissioners Randall Christensen, Benjamin Freedman, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmember Carol Kleven, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Carlos Morgan and Michael Parks was absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 16, 2013 There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Christensen, to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2013 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Burfeind explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2013-001 — PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP INC./HSB ARCHITECTS 1520 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING Chair Burfeind introduced Application No. 2013-001, site and building plan approval of a new 2,210 sq. ft. Panda Express restaurant facility for Building C site as illustrated and planned under the 2012 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Master Development Plan. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-30-2013 for Application No. 2013-001.) Mr. Benetti provided a background on the development taking place at the Shingle Creek Crossing site. He stated this site was originally planned for a financial institution with a drive- thru service lane. He added the architect met with staff to discuss potential development of this site with a new Panda Express restaurant and as part of the PUD Agreement, any new building within this PUD must be reviewed under separate site and building plan review. Mr. Benetti further explained Building C was originally planned to be 9,100 sq. ft. building on a 1.2 acre pad site with 41 parking spaces and as part of the recent amendments No. 2 and 3 approved by the City Council, Building B was re-labeled to Building C and is a significantly smaller building of approximately 2,200 sq. ft. Page 1 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT Mr. Benetti stated the new Panda Express building is shown with 38' x 56' footprint (2,210 sq. ft.) and parking is located along the front, back and side areas with a drive-thru lane located on the east side of the building. He added the site will accommodate an outdoor seating area and the new site plan layout matches closely with the approved PUD planned layout. Mr. Benetti described how the building is connected to the existing interior walkway systems as part of the Shingle Creek Crossing "pedestrian friendly" plans for this area and is interconnected to the LA Fitness site to the west and the new Building H site to the east and provides a connection for pedestrians up to the walkway/trail system along County Road 10. Mr. Benetti explained the original plans showed a "Panda" mural was too consistent with the Panda branding and logo and would need to be treated as signage, however, the size of the mural would exceed the signage allowed. He added an alternative mural with a "Great Wall of China" design was submitted and staff felt it was acceptable. Mr. Benetti further reviewed access and parking, landscaping, and lighting/trash, and he stated Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2013-03, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2013-001, the Site and Building Plan for proposed Panda Express Restaurant, located at 1520 Shingle Creek Crossing. Commissioner Christensen stated he would like to see the trash enclosure along County Road 10 adequately screened. Mr. Benetti replied that originally it was understood that all trash enclosures would be inside the buildings and all areas along County Road 10 heavily screened and match the materials used on the building. He added once the building is in place and all landscaping grown, the trash enclosures will be barely noticeable. Chair Burfeind stated he also had concerns about outdoor trash enclosures but feels if it is adequately screened, he is okay with it. Commissioner Christensen asked if there are any concerns with headlights from the site along County Road 10. Mr. Benetti replied neither he nor the City Engineer had any concerns, however, additional landscaping could be required by the Commission. Commissioner Schonning stated he feels it is one of the better drive-thru layouts that he has seen. He added, if possible, could they add a berm along County Road 10. Mr. Benetti replied that berms can be somewhat tricky but it could be a requirement if additional landscaping does not meet the desired outcome for screening. Mr. Benetti further explained he provided a traffic study tonight for the Commission's review and it gave some support with a dual drive-thru lane, however, the City Engineer felt the single lane drive-thru was much safer for getting pedestrians around the site. He added traffic layout and design was a bit challenging on the site. Mr. Justin Cassidy, HSB Architects, explained a single lane would cause issues with emergency vehicles and garbage trucks in the area. He stated he has an alternative solution that he would like to present to the Commission that would widen the drive lane. Page 2 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT Mr. Steve Manhart, Sr. Transportation Engineer, RLK, Inc., 6110 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota, stated he spoke with the City Engineer and has looked at alternatives for the driveway on the site to assure pedestrian and driver safety on the site to address the concerns of the City Engineer. He pointed out there appears to be a dual drive lane on the LA Fitness site. He added it is the driver's responsibility to yield to a pedestrian at all times. He feels there are benefits to the dual drive lane which allows those who wish to drive around to do so while allowing those waiting for drive-up window service the ability to get in line. Commissioner Freedman asked if the only concern with the drive lanes is so emergency vehicles can get around the site. Justin Cassidy replied it would be a tight swing around the corner for emergency vehicles and garbage trucks with a single lane which could cause damage to the pavement. Chair Burfeind stated he appreciates the applicant's stand on the dual drive lanes, however, the site has been designed to allow pedestrian traffic from building to building and should be safe for ease of movement on foot. He added he would have a hard time going against what the City Engineer recommends. Justin Cassidy replied that he appreciates the City's stance on the drive lane issue and they will design the site as the City desires. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-03 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-001 SUBMITTED BY PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP INC. & HSB ARCHITECTS REQUESTING SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL OF THE NEW PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT IN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1520 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) There was a motion by Commissioner Christensen, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-03. Commissioner Christensen stated he would like a condition added to allow additional landscaping on the site specifically along County Road 10. Mr. Cassidy responded they will add additional low level shrubs on the north side of the site. Voting in favor: Chair Burfeind, Commissioners Christensen, Freedman, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 10, 2013 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. Page 3 PC 5-30-13 City Council Agenda Item No. 9b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 13, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialis THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2013-003 Submitted by MBC II, LLC/Paul Hyde for an Amendment to the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit Development Project (Former Howe Fertilizer Site — 4821 Xerxes Avenue N) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this planning application item, adopt the Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Application No. 2013-003 Submitted by MBC II, LLC/Paul Hyde for an Amendment to the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit Development Project (former Howe Fertilizer Site — 4821 Xerxes Avenue North). Background: On May 30, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 2013-003 submitted by MBC II, LLC/Paul Hyde for an Amendment to the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit Development Project (Former Howe Fertilizer Site — 4821 Xerxes Avenue North). Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-04, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment. Excerpts from the May 30, 2013 Commission meeting minutes, as related to this consideration of this matter, are also attached. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans. 4. We will improve the city's image. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2013-003 SUBMITTED BY MBC II, LLC / PAUL HYDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2008 MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING CENTER II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FORMER HOWE FERTILIZER SITE —4821 XERXES AVENUE N.) WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center previously considered Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC, which approved the rezoning from 1-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest comer of 49 th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, commonly known as the former Howe Fertilizer Site and addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the 2008 Planned Unit Development rezoning also considered the acceptance and approval of a new PUD development plan for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse facility on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Council, upon favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission, did adopt City Resolution No. 2008-23, which in effect approved the original 2008 Planned Unit Development of the Minneapolis Business Center II Project for the for the Subject Property ; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2013, the Planning Commission also considered Planning Application No. 2013-003, submitted by MBC II, LLC (the successors and assigns of Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC of the Subject Property), which application comprehends the approval of an Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development, whereby requesting certain and additional modifications and allowances from the 2008 PUD approvals, including: 1.enlarging a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; 2.allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel; 3.reducing certain boundary setbacks; and 4.allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 30, 2013, whereby this item was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding this planning application, all of which were received and noted for the record. AND WHEREAS, upon due and proper consideration of this matter, and in light of all testimony received, utilizing the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Advisory Commission did fonnulate a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013-003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal keeps and maintains for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3.The utilization of the property as proposed under the 2008 Planned Unit Development Rezoning remains a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards, including those allowed under City Resolution No. 2008-23, which remain in effect or modified herein by this approval. These modifications and standards are contained in the updated 2013 Minneapolis Business Center II Project development/site plans. 4.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013-003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based upon the following additional allowances and conditions: 1. All previous conditions memorialized in City Resolution No. 2008-23, including those not affected by these new allowances, shall remain in effect and complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals, which are noted as follows: a)The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. b)Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. c)A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. d)B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. e) Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The buildings shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. h) Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. j)The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. k)The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly disconnected from city systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer prior to the demolition of existing buildings on the site. 1) Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits from the City Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications. m)All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. n)The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. o) Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I-1 underlying zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development site. This site, however, may not be used as an "adult establishment" as indicated in Section 35-330, Subdivision 1 a, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within this Planned Unit Development. q)The owner shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building petinits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the I-1 underlying zoning district as well as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. r)The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this site in the City of Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2nd Addition so that it shall not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shall be filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. s) The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Allow a revision from the 2008 MBC II PUD Plans to increase the proposed office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; 3.Allow the minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel as shown or indicated on the 2013 MBC II PUD Plan set; 4.Allowing the reduced boundary setbacks of the parking area from 15-feet to 10-feet in certain locations; 5.Allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. 6.The Applicant shall provide a paved pedestrian/bicycle connection between the parking lot area near the front entryway leading out to the existing sidewalk along Osseo Road. 7.All conditions or requirements as noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum, dated May 23, 2013 and referenced herein shall be complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals 8.Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 9. A final landscape and screening plan must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2013-003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, is hereby approved subject to the conditions memorialized herein. June 10, 2013 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. BROOKLYN CENTER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 30, 2013 •Application Filed: 03/28/13 *Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 05/27/13 •Extension Declared: 05/16/13 •Extended Review Period Deadline: 07/26/13 Application No. 2013-003 Applicant: MBC II, LLC (Paul Hyde) Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North (former Howe Fertilizer site) Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment to Enlarge Planned Building Area and Reduce Certain Setbacks INTRODUCTION Mr. Paul Hyde, acting on behalf of MBC II, LLC is requesting a planned unit development (PUD) amendment to a previously approved Howe Fertilizer Site PUD redevelopment plan. The requested amendments consist of a number of changes or additions, which are noted as follows: a.enlarging a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; b.allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel; c.reducing certain boundary setbacks for the parking area; and d.allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. This site was originally approved for a PUD on February 25, 2008, to be known as "Minneapolis Building Center II". The MBC II plans called for smaller 51,000 sq. ft. spec office/warehouse facility with on-site parking and loading areas. An updated development plan set, dated March 26, 2013 (city stamped 03/28/13) are included as part of this report and provides a general illustration of these proposed amendments. BACKGROUND The former Howe Fertilizer site was originally developed with a number of different buildings used for the manufacturing, storage and distribution of various fertilizers, insecticides, and agricultural related chemicals from 1940 to approximately 2001. The site also contained a full- service gas station from- 1946 to 1970. The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers at this site officially ceased in 1994, while use of the site for distribution of agricultural chemicals continued. The subject site today contains three commercial grade buildings, which are functionally obsolete, vacant and awaiting future demolition. The site was subject to a major industrial accident when one of the storage/manufacturing buildings caught fire, and the resulting fire suppression caused a massive contamination of the site from water runoff of the site. Mr. Hyde is currently working with MPCA and US Department of Agriculture in obtaining funds and clearance to clean and mitigate the site, a practice Mr. Hyde is very well versed and experienced App. No. 2013-003 05/30/13 /Page 1 in this community and other metro cities. Mr. Hyde has undertaken a number of these clean-up and redevelopment projects, most notably the clean-up and redevelopment of the old Joslyn Pole Yard located off Lakebreeze and Azelia Avenues; the Minneapolis Business Center located directly across (east) from the subject site; and most recently the former Lifetime Fitness site, which was redeveloped with a new 90,000 sf. office/warehouse facility. The original 2008 PUD Plan called for a 51,000 sf. office/warehouse facility with parking to accommodate 120 vehicles. This site was originally zoned 1-2 (General Industry), but approved for rezoning in 2008 to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park). This PUD allowed certain modifications to the 100-ft. and 50-ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut residential zoned properties, either at the property line or the street lines. The 2008 PUD approvals included an allowance to reduce the 100-foot buffer along a portion of the west side of the site to 50-ft. in order to provide a drive-lane for accessing the rear loading areas of the building and additional parking area. The other allowance was a reduced buffer on the north side of the site from 50-ft. to a 25-ft. setback, also for a secondary drive lane accessing vehicle parking on the north and east sides of the proposed building site. The impacts created by these reduced buffer areas were planned to be offset by additional screening by means of landscaping, berming and fencing. The 2008 plan also indicated that all parking and building locations would meet all required setbacks, which are noted as follows: Building *:Front Yard = 50-ft. Side Yard = 10 ft. Rear Yard = 25-ft. Comer=50-ft. Parking: 15-ft. from any street right-of-way line (* Building setbacks based on 1-1 Zone standards) Since 2008, the project has been stalled due to Mr. Hyde attempting to secure all approvals necessary to begin clean-up of this contaminated site. Mr. Hyde has indicated that MPCA has signed off on his remediation plans for the site; and is still attempting to work with and secure the US Department of Agriculture's approval, which have proven to be very arduous and difficult up to this point. Mr. Hyde remains confident that these approvals will be forthcoming, and he can begin the work of redeveloping this site very soon. After the 2008 PUD approval, Mr. Hyde was informed by prospective tenants and other office/warehouse providers in this market, that larger buildings of this nature (office/warehouse) may be warranted due to the increased needs and demands throughout the Twin Cities region. Mr. Hyde approached city staff almost two years ago with a plan to expand this PUD site by enlarging the building with 9,000 sf. of additional area. This enlargement would require the building to be shifted slightly more to the east towards Brooklyn Boulevard (Osseo Road), in order to maintain as much of the 50-foot reduced buffer area to the west. The shift would also create the need to request a reduction from the 15-foot setbacks to a proposed (revised) 10-ft. setback. This PUD Amendment addresses this request to enlarge the original proposed building by 9,000 sq. ft.; reaffirms or allows the reduced buffers, and approve the reduced parking setbacks for this redevelopment site. App. No. 2013-003 05/30/13/ Page 2 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS A Planned Unit Development proposal involves the rezoning of land with a PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the Planned Unit Development. Rules and regulations governing that district (in this case, I-1- Industrial Park) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City the needed flexibility in addressing development and/or redevelopment problems that may be associated when presenting the site for review. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. As mentioned in this case, the Applicant is seeking to increase the previous 2008 PUD approved building size; allow for the minor relocation of said building; allow for a reduced parking boundary setback; and allow for a slight increase to the buffer areas previously approved in this site. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENTS) 1. Enlarge a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft. The original 2008 plan approved a new office/warehouse facility of 51,000 sq. ft. The layout is virtually similar to the new layout as noted on the diagram insert below, but more visible and detailed in the attached (updated) PUD Site Plan set. 2008 Site Plan App. No. 2013-003 05/30/13 /Page 3 2013 Site Plan The current PUD Ordinance contained in the City Code regarding PUD standards and requirements, allows for buildings to be increased by no more than 5% after official city approvals have been given. The request from 51,000 sf. to 60,000 sf. enlargement represents a 17.5% increase, which is somewhat considerable, but easily addressed or approved in this PUD Amendment process. The additional building area and the need to shift it slightly more towards Brooklyn Boulevard, does not negatively affect the general layout or intended scope, nature and operations this 2008 PUD called for on this site. The increased building size should be viewed as a reasonable request and positive impact, due to the potential increased tax base the larger building would generate for the betterment of the community. Staff has no concerns or objections to this building size increase. 2. Allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel; The original 2008 Plan indicated the new 51,000 sf. building would be setback 179 feet from the westerly lot line (shown below). App. No. 2013-003 05/30/13 / Page 4 PROPOS).D GREEN. kltAtiOtiCANE I;UFFER I • •smix Rs=,,Eful f.0 ................ JiPROFOSED GREEN LANOSCPE BUFFER 7 3. The new 2013 Plan calls for a setback of approximately 167-feet from this same line. The impact of this shift is that the parking areas along the west side of the building are reduced form 15-feet to 10-feet, which will be addressed later in this report. Even with this building shift, the setbacks are still easily met and impact remains very minor. Staff has no concerns or objections to this building shift request. 3. Reducing certain boundary setbacks for the parking area. As noted previously, the minor shift of the new building impacts the required parking areas along the easterly edge of the site. The original 2008 Plans called for a 15-ft. setback, which would have met City Code. The new 2013 Plan calls for a 10-ft. setback, which encroaches 5-feet into this setback area from the street right-of-way. This impacted area is only in the 11-space parking area near the northeast corner of the building site. This area of the site is also where the grades along this Brooklyn Blvd./Osseo Road right-of-way edge begin to develop upwards due to the roadway bridge overpass over the adjacent railroads to the south. This 5-foot parking encroachment in this area appears minor, and with the added screening measures to be provided by the retaining wall and landscaping, this area should be well protected and screened from any headlight wash onto Brooklyn Blvd./Osseo Road, Staff has App. No. 2013-003 05/30/13 / Page 5 no concerns or objections to this reduced parking boundary setback. The 2013 site plan calls for a retaining wall at this location, along with some landscaping, both of which would provide adequate and reasonable screening of these vehicles in this area. However, planning staff noticed on the new grading plans that a small berm is planned, with no retaining wall. The City Engineers noticed the same and made similar comment in their own review that this wall versus berm matter must be resolved to eliminate this inconsistency. As part of our ongoing (but not official) policy addressing Active Living Programming in our community, city staff would suggest the Applicant forgo the retaining wall (if not needed) and make a pedestrian walkway connection from his parking lot area to the sidewalk located along Osseo Road. Furthermore, we would request the Applicant provide a bicycle parking/rack area located near the front entryway of the building. City staff will work with the Applicant in reducing parking spaces (if needed) as part of this walkway and bicycle parking area and adjusting the landscaping plan accordingly to accommodate this walkway. 4. Allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. As also noted previously, the 2008 PUD Plans approved the required 100-foot buffer area along the westerly boundary lines to be reduced to 50-feet. This approval was established based on the Applicant's proposal to provide adequate screening measures in this area through means of landscaping and an 8-foot high cedar-wood fence. The original 2008 plan called for a drive lane that had a slight curve inward towards the building, along with a "bulge" where the parking area and loading area separate. This new 2013 PUD Plan removes this curved roadway and now comes straight into the site from 49 th Avenue. The bulge is also eliminated and the parking area is slightly extended into the 50-foot buffer area to accommodate a parking edge line. This small hard-surfaced area is to provide enough . movement to and from the loading dock space shown directly across from this new encroachment area. The 2008 and 2013 Plans call for an 8-foot high cedar wood fence within this buffer area to provide protection and screening from the adjacent residential neighbors. This new fence would begin just south of the intersection of this 49 th Avenue access, extending down into the site by approximately 120-feet, then tie into an existing boundary line fence on this property. The Plans call for this "existing fence to remain". Staff has inspected this fence and feels it is in poor shape, near the end of its life expectancy and should be replaced. As part of our recommendations, the City is requesting the entire westerly boundary fence be replaced with an opaque, 8-foot high cedar wood fence. Staff would suggest the Applicant move the designated "*-foot high" fence as shown on these plans form the outside edge of the parking to the far west edge of the site, and next to the abutting property line boundary. Because this buffer encroachment is again minor in scope and impact, Staff has no concerns or objections to this slight increase into the approved parking buffer area, provided the Applicant agrees to install the landscaping as illustrated on these 2013 Plans, and modifies the fence and locations per the recommendations of city planning staff. App. No. 2013-003 05/30/13 /Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2013-04, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2013-003, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit Development Project, subject to the following conditions and allowances: 1.Allow a revision from the 2008 MBC II PUD Plans to increase the proposed office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; 2.Allow the minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel as shown or indicated on the 2013 MBC II PUD Plan set; • 3.Allowing the reduced boundary setbacks of the parking area from 15-feet to 10-feet in certain locations; 4.Allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. 5.The Applicant shall provide a paved pedestrian/bicycle connection between the parking lot area near the front entryway leading out to the existing sidewalk along Osseo Road. 6.All previous conditions memorialized in City Resolution No. 2008-23, including those not affected by these new allowances, shall remain in effect and complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals; 7.All conditions or requirements as noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum, dated May 23, 2013 and referenced herein shall be complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals 8.Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. Attachments ▪2013 MBC II Planned Unit Development Plan Set ▪PC Resolution No. 2013-04 . ▪City Resolution No. 2008-23 App. No. 2013-003 05/30/13 /Page 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 23, 2013 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Steven J Jankowski, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works — MID Review for HOWE PUD Public Works Department staff has reviewed the submissions enumerated below for a PUD application, prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers Inc.: CS Cover sheet 1/17/08 • A1.1 Architectural Site Plan 3/26/13 A2.1 Architectural Floor Plan 3/26/13 A3.1 Building Elevations 3/26/13 L1.0 Landscape Concept Plan 3/26/13 ES 1.0 Photometric Site Plan 3/26/13 • C1.0 Existing Conditions Plan 3/16/13 C4.0 Preliminary Grading, Drainage Plan 3/16/13 C5.0 Phase 1 SWPPP .3/16/13 , C5.1 Phase 2 SWPPP 3/16/13 C5.2 SWPPP Notes and Details 3/16/13 C6.0 Utility Plan 3/16/13 C8.0 Detail Sheet 3/16/13 PUD Public Works Review Memo — Howe Property Page 2 May 23, 2013 We are also in receipt of a Storm Water Management Plan for Minneapolis Business Center II prepared by Jared Jones PE of MRFA dated March 26, 2013. We offer the following comments: Sheet CS O The drawing index needs to be revised to be consistent with the plan sheets submitted as noted above. Sheet L1.0 e A retaining wall is proposed along the north side of the eastern drive entrance; however, a berm is shown along this area on sheet C4.0. The plans shall be modified to eliminate this inconsistency. Sheet C4.0 •The sizes of the storm sewer and structure inverts need to be added to the plan. O A review of city documents indicates that a storm sewer may exist draining from the rear yard of 3135 49th Avenue (two lots west of the site) easterly through the southern portion of the site. An effort should be made to verify the existence of this line and if its existence is confirmed to redirect the discharge into the storm pond. O Typical cross section of the storm pond basins need to be provided showing side slopes and safety benches. •The location of the silt fence identified on sheet C5.0 is in nearly the identical location of the proposed storm sewer along the southern boundary of the site. Redesign or explain how this installation will be possible. •Plans and specifications for any retaining wall greater than 4 feet shall be designed by a registered professional engineer. o Slopes along turfed area shall be no greater than the 3:1 proposed on the plan. Sheet C6.0 o The area of the site immediately west of the drive access contains a hydrant, hydrant valve and a water meter manhole which are not shown on the plan. In addition there is a 12" gate valve located in 49th Avenue which is not shown. These features should be located and added to the plan. The hydrant, valve and meter manhole shall be removed as part of the site redevelopment. The existing service line will need to be removed back to the 12" main and plugged at the service tee. •Storm water treatment from the site consists of on-site ponding along with an infiltration basin. The rules of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission regarding abstraction (infiltration) for storm water are contained in Section 3 (h) (2) (vi)(e) of Rule D of Appendix C of the Third generation plan and state as follows: "(vi) Constructed bio retention and infiltration practices such as rain gardens, infiltration trenches and infiltration benches shall not be used when (e) sites contain contaminated soils or groundwater" PUD Public Works Review Memo — Howe Property Page 3 May 23, 2013 This site is known to have a number of contaminations issues and the proposed infiltration basin may not be acceptable. A summary of the known commination issues need to be documented along with an assessment of the degree of remediation which the developer anticipates to achieve. This data will be utilized by the Watershed in their review to determine whether infiltration is appropriate for this project. • As mentioned above there will need to be removals of existing water main and appurtenances. A new hydrant should be added on the 8" service main near the western site entrance to provide fire coverage for the northwest quadrant of the site. Below are additional requirements for the redevelopment of this site: General Items: 1.The proposed plat is located adjacent to Hennepin County right-of-way. Minnesota Statutes require that the City submit the PUD to Hennepin County Transportation for written comments and recommendations. All Hennepin County comments will be conditions of approval. 2.The final construction plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota to the City Engineer for approval. 3.This development is required to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. All City and Watershed storm drainage, treatment and infiltration (if applicable) standards are required to be met. 4.All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's standard specifications and details. The City's standard details must be included in the final site plans. 5.A general project phasing and sequencing plan must be provided for the development. 6.During construction of the site improvements and until the permanent turf and plantings are established, the developer will be required to reimburse the City for the administration and engineering inspection efforts. 7.Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures, and provide certified record drawings for any associated private and/or public improvements prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The survey must also verify that all property corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the City Engineer. 8.Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer's design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formally certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer's immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as- built drawings. 9.Irrigation is required for the site. A copy of the irrigation plan needs to be provided, 10.Vehicle turning movement diagrams need to be submitted documenting the adequacy the paved area in front of the loading area. PUD Public Works Review Memo — Howe Property Page 4 May 23, 2013 Easements, Agreements and Plat: 1.Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing easements. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated and proposed easements must be dedicated. 2.A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance provisions. A $5,000 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. 3.A PUD Development Agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 4.An overall easement agreement is required that will provide the City perpetual accessibility to all private utilities and storm drainage areas to inspect and enforce proper utility service and maintenance for the entire site. This easement agreement also includes private inspection, maintenance and reporting responsibilities and must be executed prior to issuance of building and land alteration permits. 5.A 10-ft drainage and utility easement must be dedicated around the entire perimeter of the site. 6.The applicant shall be responsible for coordinating site development plans with all private utility companies (Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications, etc.). Easements necessary to provide utility service to the proposed site development should be dedicated as necessary. 7. Private site appurtenances (e.g. light poles, signs, etc.) must not encroach on public easement areas. If such an encroachment exists and is determined by the City to be not adverse to the public interest, such encroachments will require an Encroachment Agreement. Anticipated Permitting: 1.A City of Brooklyn Center sewer and water disconnect permit is required. 2.A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 3.A MPCA NPDES permit is required. 4.A Minnesota Department of Health department permit is required for the watermain extension. 5.A Hennepin County permit is required for work within Hennepin County right-of-way. 6.Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) plan review and approval are required. 7.A portion of this project will require construction on the adjacent railroad property. Documentation must be submitted showing authorization for this activity. 8.Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warranted. 9. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-04 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2013-003 SUBMITTED BY MBC II, LLC / PAUL HYDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2008 MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING CENTER II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FORMER HOWE FERTILIZER SITE — 4821 XERXES AVENUE N.) WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center previously considered Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC, which approved the rezoning from 1-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of 49 th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, commonly known as the former Howe Fertilizer Site and addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the 2008 Planned Unit Development rezoning also considered the acceptance and approval of a new PUD development plan for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse facility on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Council, upon favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission, did adopt City Resolution No. 2008-23, which in effect approved the original 2008 Planned Unit Development of the Minneapolis Business Center II Project for the for the Subject Property ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also considered Planning Application No. 2013-003, submitted by MBC II, LLC (the successors and assigns of Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC of the Subject Property), which application comprehends the approval of an Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development, whereby requesting certain and additional modifications and allowances from the 2008 PUD approvals, including: 1.enlarging a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; 2.allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel; 3.reducing certain boundary setbacks; and 4.allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 30, 2013, whereby this item was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding this planning application, all of which were received and noted for the record. AND WHEREAS„ upon due and proper consideration of this matter, and in light of all testimony received, utilizing the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Advisory Commission did formulate a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013- 003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal keeps and maintains for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3.The utilization of the property as proposed under the 2008 Planned Unit Development Rezoning remains a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards, including those allowed under City Resolution No. 2008-23, which remain in effect or modified herein by this approval. These modifications and standards are contained in the updated 2013 Minneapolis Business Center II Project development/site plans. 4.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013-003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based upon the following additional allowances and conditions: 1. All previous Conditions memorialized in City Resolution No. 2008-23, including those not affected by these new allowances, shall remain in effect and complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals, which are noted as follows: a) The building plans are subject to review and approval by the •Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. b) Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. e) Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The buildings shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central• monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. g)Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. h)Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. i)The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. j)The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. k) The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly disconnected from city systems in a manner approved by the City •Engineer prior to the demolition of existing buildings on the site. 1) Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits frOm the City Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications. m)All work performed and materials" used for construction of utilities shall confoim to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. n)The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. o) Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I-1 underlying zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development site. This site, however, may not be used as an "adult establishment" as indicated in Section 35-330, Subdivision la, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within this Planned Unit Development. The owner shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the I-1 underlying zoning district as well as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. r)The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this site in the City of Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2nd Addition so that it shall not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shall be filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. s)The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of building permits. 2.Allow a revision from the 2008 MBC II PUD Plans to increase the proposed office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; 3.Allow the minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel as shown or indicated on the 2013 MBC II PUD Plan set; 4.Allowing the reduced boundary setbacks of the parking area from 15-feet to 10-feet in certain locations; 5.Allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. 6.The Applicant shall provide a paved pedestrian/bicycle connection between the parking lot area near the front entryway leading out to the existing sidewalk along Osseo Road. 7.All conditions or requirements as noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum, dated May 23, 2013 and referenced herein shall be complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals 8. Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. May 30, 2013 Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair , Commissioners 5 5 5 and and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. adoption: Member Kay Lasman introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2008-001 SUBMITTED BY REAL ESTATE RECYCLING ACQUISITIONS, LLC WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC proposes rezoning from 1-2 (General Industry) to PUD/1-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard and currently addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and development plan approval for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse facility on that lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on February 14, 2008 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and development plan were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 2008-001 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-01 on February 14,2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered Application No. 2008-001 at its February 25, 2008 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this Planned Unit Development request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission's recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC. be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2.The Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization of the land in •question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding •land. RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23 3.The utilization of the property as proposed under the Planned Unit Development Rezoning is considered a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards except for allowing drive lane encroachments into the 100 ft. and 50 ft. buffer requirements where industrial uses abut R.-,1 zoned property at a property line and a street line respectively. These modifications from the I- I standards are justified on the basis of the development being an appropriate redevelopment of this area and that they are offset or mitigated by various factors contained in the approved site plan. 4.The Planned Unit. Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5.The Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. 6.Based upon the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Application No. 2008-001 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2.Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3.A. site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. 4.B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 5.Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6.The buildings shall be equipped with an automatic fire .extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. .• 7. Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23 8.Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9.The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. • 11. The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly disconnected from city systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer prior to the demolition of existing buildings on the site. 12.Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits from the City Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications. 13.All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 14.The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 15.Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 16.Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the I-1 underlying zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development site. This site, however, may not be used as an "adult establishment" as indicated in Section 35-330, Subdivision la, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within this Planned Unit Development. 17.The owner shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the I-1 underlying zoning district as well as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. 18. The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this sitein the City of Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23 proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2 nd Addition so that it shall not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shall be filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. 19. The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of building permits. February 25,2008 Date Mayor The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dan Ryan and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Tim Willson, Ray .lasman, Mary 0' Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich; and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1 ,,,,,,,, g (I) t AI - -1 r; 76 i 0 a ruW , 0 0 -8 6 i -1 !_i° , D I- u z "-I it, 0 10,8 1q501'.i!,1.r .14 -A \ 1 I co31- 1 r3 4 IP‘,CO 0 . z im A-1. ifil. 1E.§2!1 1 !.! \': 1 a 915, p, ct‘-tir, g igEtill * 2g RpAhi, „.2.< CO Ci8 . - ,1 faill:n I i I\ kV,Voi-R (.1 <I> 0-591 —k .Z SI... Cs' )----* 1 I, . 1:AIII I .; ; )-- ; )--- ) IIIMII , . . .... O fealM/INIIEINE•EHTI IFIS 1=1.1IEEE =EmuMEWEMEMI I III MI EllMI EMIIEEENEEEKE MEWENEMEM •111111111MI INEM! Ell rowUII !L U 10131111mai O mug •KMmaiommiONELmowum* 0 impaziLaIwimpNM WI ELIE 0- 0- 0— 0001>0. a •1 0000.00 autI IMMIIIMI 11111111 91 11niMIENm1111111111111.0m_MEW-EE11111MEN%141119 MEP1111 AIMIMI I11111.1112: NBAEMIL IMEIMP1 Ell HE111111.1 1111111Nownummaw NENEUllilifihiMEMUlUIIIUIEMMY-m1111111Esmok a a 0-- 0-- 9--- 0— etO P= 07- 0-- EA ig 1n P: IL' © ;,i,t llii(go 1 Et,REPiF,1 Vi: g .1. 1 1 3 ;;IV la, ... . ii lie =i itI c: 7gg V .°.F6 \t'iA 7'.\'a' a pm .g 0 E,,_ co= s O'n aiz -S3 6..-nac) 2o g"ir7atu CO< g a El MISTHEE 0 II IJ O NEEMEMMEEIEEE EEL IikW1111REM -o NEMMEEGERMEINEMIMEoEINE - - 0- k fs. 64 !at?.. P. g !Ss'11 -.---4.S. .., 1 iqiWixIt -.jail IP:, .:iii ill z:_fr .11 Hii,i I . ft .g1iI g &V•tcX11\ ,,,,, Rio) =g'ffi 1 -g,',u,... it, t (Iw w 185 0, T.__I / I II .,vi t gm 6A.. .„..d0 H:<0 .i.I=.!Iiiiigi 9 a a ..A ti3 h Ms P:A. ..t0 gEED Iil!. i1 - .0;2' 6a ga tgE!”,10 .-. -1 1.:- r,,,.114S ..1. !I % I; 11 14. I ' -: !_-2,o 0 .,a ,1 zflliRL,S ..,) g-'-LT.tii CD ‘—COuj1 k e . 0000000 ; 1 3 ; o AAAAA ; ; ; . ; .1 2 2 24 3 a _LLL -)1-''' .. . : ; . -- *V: ' 2 7 7 2 2 2 2 ; ; 7 • • • • ,,,,,, ; ;o* . ..-- •--'"--d-'; ; ; 2 1 •-'3, X k A 1 Ald=t ,...,..r.., A ,....-0_.; :.,„, , ' 2 . 7 1 7. 7 7 ; 3 l ; 7 . 0 3 1 3 *2., 7 i R9iI 7_71n/7:, 7 a ; WP,L,? .... .,;!.32 A A;;;;;222 22 0 '' '.. 2;222,2A2 ft 42.1; ; 9 ,J .,9 \A ‘,..2 \ 21,31.! 2 2 a 2 2 a .2 a 2 2, 2 2 222 2-2L-r- ; ; 2.4,, . -,, A • ', J.....,.";- ;A a a A ; a 1 2 a a , , , " „ , A ; ; 7 :.2 ir ; ; r:-1, 1.7.....ii...0.■■." .,•-•—• --.1--•-11-33....7 ; 3 7 7 . . e 7 3,74 A a.....1 I 2 1 a • ; 2 ' A 7 7' 7 :7 ; ; ; I • 2- * `7'ft •• ; o • •.7 1 2 .1, .7 7.7 0.••*.3.* -.;-; ; ; ; .2 7„:7„.•-•..9,7 •3 :37.'7 -7 i ; 2. l'7••;••0 .3•••.7'.2 -7 ‘7, .0 ; ; 0 •7 ,7,-7. 4.1 i• ; ; '3 3 ft.-'.'l ft ; ; ; i.,—S--;--;- •;. ; ,:. ; .1":; .1 ..0 .1; ;-*; .; !I• ;: .1 ; ,.) • ;:; .; z,ACA......„,.....,,A.3 .,...C.AA.;:.1 a al aa -I ; i';';..:41 -2 2 ..;•; 3,1 0 *7::.; 717 ..3.; *ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft fti 'TT'ftft 7271.2 .2,'' *;.;*771 1 2;17222Al ift ; a ; ; ; 227;7; ; A : !I A II "'; ft .::; 2 ;;;;07.;3';;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 2 ' ;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;2;;A 2; AS; ; . -Lir !I 1-1_3_9_1 ; 3 7 a-r-a-;-;-....-;-:-...; ; 22;f2J, ;;;; 7.1; as;;; 97; 7.; .3 l i§ 2;9•32;;;;;;;;;;;;;;22; 7;2\;;;;;22 .;;;;;;;;12 A 2; a a , ; ; ; ; 7;2:;21.771; a. : i" ;;;;;. ;Ali...2;;; •••;;;( ;;;;;;;121 A ;;;;;;; C ;AA;;;;;2;7 ;;;;;;;;;; Ar 7;;;;;11 *---.9 7 _ I-" . 1 ; ; ;-••••••...1.4 ft ft ElEd 1-14,1, 3els Warn i Ivo,.z•-=II --. — Is VS -_,4 g '5F:D. .Ag 0 g479' i it!1117119 0 , i 4. pl., it•iiii R3111111 ,t-----Illili ,0 lin I ii :.... A '.w:-, E Pu3 i izill2 g IEW,611. . 21vi)z 0110. T0 i R 1TOi HAili. .. I 'It'l 1.!q .tt ._.,i = tg _rotiiiiitrdil a !II = il ri-!R.0.- 0 R '‘.¢ Wz 0. (5 0 C L ',. A0 81; --I-it11111 ufSIN. ti _ 1.11I II4- . ■6 T KS z a giLii:1FEi a o i(11.._ _ . ..q to,11 1 HZ1d1.• A 2 Oa .. I I 7 7 v 1,.., IC,I v I 7 ' ' V/• i Li I ,..,i, pli,.1-) / 1 , / i/ c_91 , 1 ,7 - ' 10 ---',,,-/ I i , ---1 i 4 -7,,, / i ----- — _J r --,---.- '—',- -----; he ,6 _,:t i ,.....,5 i \ \ \ i k --r--- 8 \ i I\ \ \ I 11/1 10111111111111uuiuuiiiuiuu011111111111101111111111115111111111111011111111111101111111111110111111111111011111111111101111111111110111111111111111111111111101111111H111011111111111101111111111110111111M11101111111111H0111111111111 1 \ \\ - .40 _ -a-,i- I 211111,1 01111dff 11 1 EM9i.i: 1;Pil1 iS- I -1 En:1 End dPo 1 0 I i id I:(' I ‘1) ,M -' ea. 1 - 0 eig0 ei. TIT] I / w..14 ---- -iI g "Pr i 17 In cii ta= tgO. Bk0 8-,N ,!IL:MIiiii 4 i ' 10 1 pm,-- I ;hi I !IN taf I i 0. i leq i-IM ' 0 I €g ilEcu3 li v2, ,o —ce6113 wZ ui 12 g Nw o_f.0 EL- Ll.g 0 g i___0 ...._ _____li it;g 1 NIvr'."ni... e/sIn ..avi E__=n -V gCL .:5, E I'5 'I ' MI lifIl '41=111111cif EI1 Lti i 'ir i 1 ; ,i on 1 0 CO = ,g '..., . It €uAl p..., ; 0 a cnEten4 - —N-I1. 14-511(1'0 gl ii:i I 1;" Ngq.k=,-1,.1g a______i i E a a 1 Haali.i:.1,..,Agthmo .hozo 11a " 3 1 '.1tit 9.tt i q.vi 4.4A ii I- Oil 1 7.211 1 111 La Fr .,,U=.g :,Ø.„ E 0 0'fM LEla. Vgq0 cs-,74 0 EHIfhmt. Eill141 j'e•IP-'4-111",!!! &1v ri 1 "I !i i.g g l1 ialila.i.I Z... ile1 ti, En lit'OE i11"Ki—Z .6!g jiga- 1gi ._._,1- -•0 -vvi glm -gt-fa. -.',140 g-E ,-Ail!4 I 41-7--fitt.11-Pil111 MI PHI1—I lia `1-11ill ear I 1 1; De pi I a= i gE. (.3.2--- k_'''z,„.,_z ;;,.c t,-"=1 1 0 i a 1.11.141LI!1 .-Limit 1 Ø 6 I it .,pegg = 11 ;. lig , I e iiilill i i ° a■ aa.I 2 "11 1 &a.. —4 P i wii 1 '\ 0 1 rti= t ' 1122:4 col , ,.. 1 zg E li 1 rolI I.1 11, le g1 gE{ tgi gi e.. iili .2ii 1r il /I ., . v ii 1;all 'tiv,,„,, liari II :i-, i t ..7-A Igr ,Piii i s■ . *- ,I1 .iiititill .' 0 ' - iii ii 2 1 Hi 1 1 1111. 1,1 e 1 __ . - va 1I 1,4 i; P pr, 4 v tgpNg t IF ----_-_--,--- c:( 11cc li...i.. k5.4-s!.,"ae& r,i'z:I,,oi ■,:ii .f.2.,..""k■ , ati21=1.2219a 1177/A-O di::; g a! a l ;._ .4.14 • 1 ' :. ., k 11 ill hi, ii!la 2. ,iii=OM....-,—... ImEmial 1g IROMNI■•••• '.11111111111131rAlliV.s°.?=V.1---- II:eai ilii ill A ili1 hill .g .-1 1I i2g'42 1a r 20 I l81 ':Is ; i1 i gi1 • ,, wE .1-1 g ii ..giii:- - !. g ii ..: p ,i .t 4 10 P 1 15 , 11 g i 1 ilh E g:p:SI.0P.gg; ,..7,,, 4111 1011.-kiimaran iliMNECill mums aceasasawin1SPr0 6111 2 ag. ig 1 , bi ii Hi° 114$ill NA N mis..4`44--: 931°1I11\ -w r5- . i 5 h S; a.'t gi II I' - i d°114itgol ... 1 -- —1 41.4Nt•-■ I I I ta ft. a 2 '• • " 4 1 gii &I Iril 3;44I /- a. ql EMI tiii 4 .'14hi tr ii WI _ IAttiii•-r V 111 o !;D.. ; . E2; ;1 `I I II MI 1 :lb- 2 .' i.1ii I, . . riE.. 1 ,1 '!....;v pkgrmassimirErreem,' .iFFEILESEENVA Ieel 1011111IntAMIN15Filt Mr = g s ,,I i 1 lligI giv:!;::1-...,MI Ewa v.—0 l'.UZt,ii „.„, lan MO 1.--1.-414.1, 0.1 Ia. 5 1 - - ,taolik, IFIgZ 211 ' r ...1 il X 4 . 1i v i 1E iti-vi .' u =1 1r &..= , TO ii hi 11 1 8 8111 _-J ;,1 ,T I- .. 5! I I 1 •11 1 ill ,., 01N I25 I131E i0 0 1 a a -\ .1 k) tAt :; . 71 a .1 ' V - rc r.i n.....i!E d.) [ 51, hi • , 4 ike,iiiit,., 32 1 111! ;,-: i l q!il in imodg 1,4.., II lifig-cal'1 rlatu Member Christensen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-04 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 2013-003 SUBMITTED BY MBC II, LLC / PAUL HYDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2008 MINNEAPOLIS BUILDING CENTER II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FORMER HOWE FERTILIZER SITE — 4821 XERXES AVENUE N.) WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center previously considered Planning Commission Application No. 2008-001 submitted by Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC, which approved the rezoning from 1-2 (General Industry) to PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) of a 5.03 acre site located at the southwest corner of 49 th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, commonly known as the former Howe Fertilizer Site and addressed as 4821 Xerxes Avenue North ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the 2008 Planned Unit Development rezoning also considered the acceptance and approval of a new PUD development plan for a 51,000 sq. ft. office/industrial/warehouse facility on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Council, upon favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission, did adopt City Resolution No. 2008-23, which in effect approved the original 2008 Planned Unit Development of the Minneapolis Business Center II Project for the for the Subject Property ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also considered Planning Application No. 2013-003, submitted by MBC II, LLC (the successors and assigns of Real Estate Recycling Acquisitions, LLC of the Subject Property), which application comprehends the approval of an Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development, whereby requesting certain and additional modifications and allowances from the 2008 PUD approvals, including: enlarging a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; 2.allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel; 3.reducing certain boundary setbacks; and 4. allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 30, 2013, whereby this item was given due consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public testimony regarding this planning application, all of which were received and noted for the record. AND WHEREAS„ upon due and proper consideration of this matter, and in light of all testimony received, utilizing the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35- 208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the provisions of the Planned Unit Development ordinance contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Advisory Commission did formulate a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013- 003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. 2.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal keeps and maintains for the utilization of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3.The utilization of the property as proposed under the 2008 Planned Unit Development Rezoning remains a reasonable use of the property and will conform with ordinance standards, including those allowed under City Resolution No. 2008-23, which remain in effect or modified herein by this approval. These modifications and standards are contained in the updated 2013 Minneapolis Business Center II Project development/site plans. 4.The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city. 5. The Amendment to the 2008 Planned Unit Development proposal appears to be a good long range use of the existing land and this development can be considered an asset to the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, recommends to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2013-003 as submitted by MBC II, LLC, requesting approval of an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development, specifically the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Project, be approved based upon the following additional allowances and conditions: 1. All previous conditions memorialized in City Resolution No. 2008-23, including those not affected by these new allowances, shall remain in effect and complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals, which are noted as follows: The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. b)Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. c)A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits to assure completion of all required site improvements. d)B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. e)Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. The buildings shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. g)Underground irrigation shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. h)Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. i)The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. j)The owner of the property shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems as approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. k) The existing water and sanitary sewer services shall be properly. disconnected from city systems in a manner approved by the City Engineer prior to the demolition of existing buildings on the site. 1) Driveway entrance construction is subject to the issuance of permits from the City Engineering Department and compliance with city standards and specifications. m)All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. n)The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion control during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department and obtain an NPDES construction site erosion control permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. Storm water drainage systems and the detention pond plan shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. p) Approval of this Planned Unit Development acknowledges the 1-1 underlying zoning district as authorizing allowable used generally within this development site. This site, however, may not be used as an "adult establishment" as indicated in Section 35-330, Subdivision 1 a, 13. Such uses are specifically prohibited within this Planned Unit Development. The owner shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City of Brooklyn Center to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property and shall acknowledge the specific modifications to the I-1 underlying zoning district as well as all other conditions of approval. The agreement shall further assure compliance with the development plans submitted with this application. r)The owner of the property shall execute a deed restriction, as approved by the City Attorney, requiring a small parcel of land lying easterly of this site in the City of Minneapolis and identified as Parcel 2 on the land survey submitted with this proposal binding it to Lot 1, Block 1, Howe, Inc. 2nd Addition so that it shall not be used, sold or conveyed as a separate parcel. Said deed restriction shall be filed with the titles to the properties prior to the issuance of building permits for this project. s)The applicant shall provide the City with assurance that their plan to remediate hazardous substances and petroleum products that present a threat to public health or the environment is acceptable with Minnesota Department of Agriculture and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards prior to the issuance of building permits. 2.Allow a revision from the 2008 MBC II PUD Plans to increase the proposed office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; 3.Allow the minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel as shown or indicated on the 2013 MBC II PUD Plan set; 4.Allowing the reduced boundary setbacks of the parking area from 15-feet to 10-feet in certain locations; 5.Allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 District. 6.The Applicant shall provide a paved pedestrian/bicycle connection between the parking lot area near the front entryway leading out to the existing sidewalk along Osseo Road. 7.All conditions or requirements as noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum, dated May 23, 2013 and referenced herein shall be complied with as part of this 2013 PUD Amendment approvals 8.Execution of a PUD Amendment agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. 9.A final landscape and screening plan must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the building permit Chair /7.0/ May 30, 2013 Date Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Schonning and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Burfeind, Commissioners Christensen, Freedman, and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DRAFT APPLICATION NO. 2013-003 — MBC II, LLC (PAUL HYDE) 4821 XERXES AVE N Chair Burfeind introduced Application No. 2013-003, Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment of the former Howe Fertilizer Site by enlarging a pre-approved office/warehouse building from 51,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft.; allowing a minor relocation of the new building on the subject parcel; reducing certain boundary setbacks; and allowing a small expansion of new driveway/parking areas, which would impact the required buffer areas required under the established PUD/I-1 (Planned Unit Development/Industrial Park) District. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-30-2013 for Application No. 2013-003.) Mr. Benetti explained the site was originally approved for a PUD on February 25, 2008 for a smaller 51,000 sq. ft. spec office/warehouse facility with on-site parking and loading areas. He reviewed the history of the site and stated that today the site contains three commercial grade buildings, which are functionally obsolete, vacant and awaiting future demolition. He added Mr. Hyde is currently working with MPCA and US Department of Agriculture in obtaining funds and clearance to clean and mitigate the site and has undertaken a number of these clean-up and redevelopment projects, including the old Joslyn Pole Yard located off Lakebreeze and Azelia Avenues; the Minneapolis Business Center located directly across (east) from the subject site; and most recently the former Lifetime Fitness site. Mr. Benetti further stated the project has been stalled due to attempts to secure all approvals necessary to begin clean-up of the contaminated site. He added Mr. Hyde is still attempting to secure the US Department of Agriculture's approval and is confident he can begin redeveloping the site very soon. Mr. Benetti explained Mr. Hyde approached city staff almost two years ago with a plan to enlarge the building by 9,000 sq. ft. of additional area. He added this would require the building to be shifted slightly more to the east towards Brooklyn Boulevard (Osseo Road) in order to maintain the 50-foot reduced buffer area to the west and the shift would also create the need to request a reduction from the 15-foot setbacks to a proposed 10-ft. setback. Mr. Benetti reviewed the impact on parking resulting from the minor shift to the building which calls for a 10-ft. setback and encroaches 5-feet from the street right-of-way. He added the 5-ft. parking encroachment is minor and with added screening measures provided by the retaining wall and landscaping, this area should be well protected and screened. Mr. Benetti pointed out it was noticed on the new grading plans that a small berm is planned with no retaining wall and the wall versus berm matter must be resolved to eliminate this inconsistency. He added staff suggests in lieu of a retaining wall (if not needed), a pedestrian walkway connection be created from the parking lot area to the sidewalk located along Osseo Road and staff also requests consideration of a bicycle parking/rack area located near the front entryway of the building. Mr. Benetti explained the 2008 PUD Plans approved the required 100-foot buffer area along the westerly boundary lines to be reduced to 50-feet. This approval was based on the Applicant's proposal to provide adequate screening measures by means of landscaping and an 8-foot high cedar-wood fence. He added the 2008 plan called for a drive lane that had a slight curve inward towards the building along with a "bulge" where the parking area and loading area separate. He Page 4 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT explained the 2013 Plan indicates the roadway comes straight into the site from 49 t Avenue and provides enough movement to and from the loading dock space Mr. Benetti stated both plans call for an 8-foot high cedar wood fence in the buffer area to provide protection and screening from the adjacent residential neighbors. This new fence would begin just south of the intersection of the 49 th Avenue access, extending down into the site by approximately 120-feet, then tie into an existing boundary line fence on this property. He added the plan shows the existing fence to remain, however, staff feels the fence is in poor condition and is requesting the entire westerly boundary fence be replaced with an opaque 8-foot high cedar wood fence. Mr. Benetti stated Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2013-04, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2013-003, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the 2008 Minneapolis Building Center II Planned Unit Development Project. Commissioner Christensen asked if the area proposed for the fence will contain a berm? Mr. Eitel replied there is a berm on the north side of the property and the fence located on the west side does not sit on a berm. He added proper screening (8 ft.) is required between residential property and Industrial zoned property. Chair Burfeind stated the Commission has studied the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor and he is happy to see the 10 ft. setback to allow safe pedestrian traffic along the Boulevard. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2013-003 There was a motion by Commissioner Christensen, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2013-003, at 7:53 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Burfeind called for comments from the public. Mr. Tim McLaughin, 3129 49 th Avenue N, stated he is concerned the existing fence does not follow the property line. Mr. Benetti replied the city is recommending the entire fence be replaced and an 8 ft. opaque screening be provided along all the residential properties that abut the site. Mr. Eitel added the fence and additional landscaping will be added to the site and will be located on the applicant's property to provide buffering and screening. Mr. Benetti stated the City and Applicant would work with Mr. McLaughin for appropriate placement of the fence and landscaping. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Christensen, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2013-003. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Page 5 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT Commissioner Christensen stated he recommends staff works with Mr. McLaughin regarding the screening and landscaping near his home. Mr. Benetti stated a recommendation could be added showing a revised landscape plan and can be provided back to the Commission for review. Commissioner Christensen stated he likes the idea of adding a sidewalk on the corner of the site. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-04 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-003 SUBMITTED BY MBC II, LLC/PAUL HYDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2008 MINESPOLIS BUILDING CENTER II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FORMER HOWE FERTILIZER SITE — 4821 XERXES AVENUE N) There was a motion by Commissioner Christensen, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-04. Voting in favor: Chair Burfeind, Commissioners Christensen, Freedman, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 10, 2013 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. Page 6 PC 5-30-13 City Council Agenda Item No. 9c C GUN C IL Al ME VW RAN hUM DATE: June 13, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist(g - THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 Submitted by Omar Ansari of Surly Brewing Company for Special Use Permit to Allow the Retail Sales of Products Manufactured or Processed at a Site Located in the 1-2 General Industry District (4811 Dusharme Drive). Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this planning application item, adopt the Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 Submitted by Omar Ansari of Surly Brewing Company for Special Use Permit to Allow the Retail Sales of Products Manufactured or Processed at a Site Located in the 1-2 General Industry District (4811 Dusharme Drive). Background: On May 30, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 submitted by Omar Ansari of Surly Brewing Company for Special Use Permit to Allow the Retail Sales of Products Manufactured or Processed at a Site Located in the 1-2 General Industry District (4811 Dusharme Drive). Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-05, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of the Special Use Permit approval. Excerpts from the May 30, 2013 Commission meeting minutes, as related to this consideration of this matter, are also attached. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will proceed aggressively with implementation of City's redevelopment plans. 4. We will improve the city's image. - - _ Mission: Ensuring WI attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of lift for all people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2013 - RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-004 SUBMITTED BY OMAR ANSARI OF SURLY BREWING COMPANY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE RETAIL SALES OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED OR PROCESSED AT A USE SITE LOCATED IN THE 1-2 GENERAL INDUSTRY DISTRICT (4811 DUSHARME DRIVE) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 submitted by Omar Ansari with Surly Brewing Company ("Applicant"), requesting a Special Use Permit approval for the property located at 4811 Dusharme Drive ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the proposed special use permit would allow the Applicant to sell at retail products manufactured or processed at the Subject Property, specifically hand-crafted beer products and as part of a Taproom license; and WHEREAS, this Special Use Permit is being requested under allowances granted under a Brewer Taproom License standards, established under City Ordinance No. 2013-01 and to those holders of a brewer's license under Minnesota Statutes 340A.301, Subdivision 6(c), (i), or (g).; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 30, 2013, whereby a staff report and public testimony regarding the special use permit were received and noted for the record; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request, and in light of all testimony received, and reviewing and considering the guidelines and standards for evaluating this special use permit as contained in City Zoning Code Section 35-220, that this special use permit meets the general standards for issuing or approving said permits, and complies with the goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2013-004, a special use permit submitted by Omar Ansari with Surly Brewing Company be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 2.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor 1 substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 3.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 5. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2013-004 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.The taproom facility must be posted with the maximum occupancy load as determined by the City Building Official and City Fire Chief. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and complying with this occupancy level during operations of this taproom and brewery. 2.The taproom is only allowed to operate Wednesday through Friday, 3:00 to 10:00 PM; and on Saturdays and Sundays from 12:00 Noon to 10:00 PM. 3.The Applicant must demonstrate or optimize off-street parking for visitors and employees on the subject property site, similar to what is illustrated on the "Surly Brewing Co. — Proposed Parking Plan Layout" (dated May 30, 2013). Parking for visitors and employees in the Dusharme Drive right- of-way should be discouraged. However, in the event the on-site parking area is full or at capacity due to a special event occasionally sponsored by Surly Brewing Co., the City will allow on-street parking within the Dusharme Drive right-of-way. The Applicant shall be responsible for making sure all access points, drive lanes and fire hydrants remain open and accessible to any emergency vehicles. 4.Should the Applicant arrange for any shared, off-site parking arrangement with other adjacent properties of the subject site, relevant information including the number of parking spaces, type of agreement or arrangements (hours, numbers, availability, etc.), and owner contact information must be provided to the City. 5.This Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 6.Any taproom improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 7.If required, necessary permits for any beer servicing and food servicing must be received from Hennepin County Health Department prior to the issuance of peimits. 8.This Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all new signage requests, which are subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Application No. 2013-004, a special use permit submitted by Omar Ansari with Surly Brewing Company, and as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2013-004, is hereby approved subject to the conditions memorialized herein. June 10, 2013 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CAr f BROOKLYN CENTER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 30, 2013 O Application Filed: 04/17/13 O Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 06/16/13 o Extension Declared: N/A o Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2013-004 Applicant: Surly Brewing Co./Omar Ansari Location: 4811 Dusharme Drive Request: Special Use Permit to Allow the Retail Sales of Products Manufactured or Processed at a Use Site Located in the 1-2 (General Industry) District INTRODUCTION Mr. Omar Ansari, owner and operator of Surly Brewing Company, is requesting a Special Use Permit, which would authorize and approve the retail sales of products manufactured or processed at the approved use site, specifically hand-crafted beers and malt-liquor products. This Special Use Permit is being requested under allowances granted under a Brewer Taproom License standards, established under City Ordinance No. 2013-01 and to those holders of a brewer's license under Minnesota Statutes 340A.301, Subdivision 6(c), (i), or (g). Mr. Ansari has provided a narrative that identifies the needs and limitations of the proposed taproom facility, along with some interior diagrams which illustrate the interior layout of the taproom area and interior perspectives. This report will provide background information, an analysis, and suggested recommendations to this special use permit request. This item is being presented under a public hearing, with proper notice published in the local newspaper and mailed to the surrounding property owners. ZONING The subj ect property is zoned 1-2 (General Industry) District. The 1-2 District is established to provide for manufacturing and wholesaling uses, along with some high intensive service uses and truck terminals. Surly Brewing is operating as a Beverage (beer, wine and distilled alcohol) Manufacturer, which is a peimitted use. A special use permit is required to sell any products manufactured or wholesaled on an approved 1-2 site. This special use permit would allow Surly to offer to the general public beer samples, with some limited snacks and non-alcoholic beverages. Prior to the recent adoption of State legislation ("Brewer Taproom License" - per Minnesota Statutes 340A.301, Subdivision 6(c), (i), or (g)), brewers and micro-breweries similar to Surly Brewing were prohibited from selling their beer products on their own brewery or manufacturing sites. This taproom license now allows brewers such as Surly to sell their products on-site, instead of shipping to off-site retail uses, such as liquor stores, restaurants, bars and other facilities. This special use permit would also not be possible without adoption of this legislation, since the retail sell of the products must comply with all other applicable laws. Surly Brewing SUP Page 1 05/30/13 TAPROOM LAYOUT & OPERATION The brewery facility consists of 23,380 gross sf. floor area, most of which is dedicated to beer manufacturing and storage; a separate 1,140 sq. ft. office area near the southwest corner of the building; and a larger 2,242 sf. area dedicated for offices, restrooms, merchandise room, and common area, which is slated to become the future taproom. Mr. Ansari's diagram indicates the taproom occupies a space of 45' x 30', or 1,350 sf. of this southeast corner of the brewery. The interior diagrams illustrate nine, 24-inch cafe style tables, with a stainless steel drink rail along the perimeter of the interior wall. Assuming that 3 to 4 chairs (seats) could be accommodated at each table, and approximately 10-12 seats along the drink rail, the taproom could safely seat approximately 37 to 48 patrons. As indicated by the diagram, some patrons may stand and simply mingle within the space, or they may filter in and out of the main brewery/manufacturing area for an up-close tour of the facility (according to Mr. Ansari's narrative). The narrative further indicates the taproom will only be open from Wednesday to Friday, 3:00 to 10:00 PM; and on Saturdays/Sundays from 12:00 Noon to 10:00 PM. The taproom is intended to be open after the larger, regular beer manufacturing employees complete their shift, which is 3:00 PM Daily. The taproom will be professionally staffed and serve only beer (no liquor or wine), and other non-alcoholic beverages and pre-packaged snacks. City records indicate the building site was constructed in 1961. The brewery currently has a large parking area to the south of the main building, which is served by an access from Dusharme Drive. The cul-de-sac (right-of-way) portion of Dusharme extends almost to the front edge of the brewery building, which means this building encroaches into the required 35-foot front yard setbacks and creates an obvious non-conforming situation for the subject property. Staff was unable to determine why or how this building was ever allowed or approved to be built in such a manner. The current parking lot is trapezoidal in shape, which makes a standard parking design somewhat difficult to stripe or lay out. Most of the main employee parking is confined to the outer (southern and western) lot lines, consisting of approximately 26-28 parking spaces, with 6 vehicle spaces near the main front entryway. The central part of the parking lot is unstriped, due to the need for truck deliveries and movements inside the site. As part of a cooperative working relationship with Mr. Ansari on this issue, city planning staff prepared a mock illustration of a proposed parking plan layout, which includes keeping and expanding the outer parking areas, and creating new 60-degree angled parking area in the main center portion of the lot. This layout is based on a one-way movement through the parking lot. The new layout provides up to 50 on-site parking spaces. Because Dusharme does not have any parking restrictions, there is room (potentially) for an additional 19 spaces. With the 50 on-site and 19 off-site, this property up to a total of 69 potential spaces. Surly Brewing SUP Page 2 05/30/13 COMPLIANCE FOR STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS A Special Use Permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: a.The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. b.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. c.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. d.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. The existing lot is located within an area of the city that was developed and guided for general or heavy industrial type users. The subject site is surrounded by Allied Blacktop Materials to the east; Sela Roofing, Midwest Screw Company and Bergman Machine Works to the south; the now vacant Allied Building Products to the west; and the Canadian-Pacific railroad to the north. Staff is of the opinion that this taproom approval would essentially be similar to what they were operating as before; the only difference is they are now able to charge or sell their beer on the brewery site. This use as a brewery and allowances for tours and free samples has been demonstrated for a number of years not to be an issue with the surrounding uses, and the City has not received any complaints or issues related to the general operation of the Surly brewery. Staff further believes the operation of the taproom and selling of beer on this site will be limited (as per the wishes of the owner), and this limitation should lessen any impacts to the surrounding uses, especially during normal working hours. The establishment of this use will not impact this normal and orderly development of this area. As for parking, the owner has indicated in his narrative that this taproom will be limited to certain days and times, which would not impose on the current regular production work shifts that typically end at 3:00 PM each day. By the time patrons begin to arrive for the tours or taproom facility, the parking areas located along the south and west edge should be available. The parking area in the central part will also be available, as trucks will no longer need to load/unload at this time of the day. The taproom *appears to have 37 to 48 seats available for patron seating. Based on its size, the taproom is slated to have an occupancy load of 100 persons. City Parking Code requires at least I space for every 2 seats, plus 1 for every 2 Surly Brewing SUP Page 3 05/30/13 employees. This would require or 24 spaces plus another 3-4 spaces for employees (assuming 6-10 employees), or 28 spaces total. It appears the site will be able to accommodate these numbers, however, the City must also recognize or acknowledge that parking would still be allowed on Dusharrne Drive if the site needs overflow parking. The end portion of this cul-de- sac is virtually an extension of the Surly property; and parking along both sides of the street leading up to this area is used daily by employee vehicles for the Sela Siding company next door. Once these employees leave their employment base, this frees up 18-19 on-street spaces. The new taproom will ultimately comply with the local City Ordinance No. 2013-01, once the taproom provision created under Minnesota Statutes 340A.301, Subdivision 6(c), (i), or (g) is officially adopted. This statute is slated to be official at the end of August 2013. This special use permit will allow the selling of beer to Surly patrons in conjunction with this new taproom law. SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION With that brief summary, Planning Staff recommends approval of the special use permit based on the grounds that the new standards for granting special use permit have been or will be met; and the special use permit appears to be an appropriate and fitting use with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. If the Planning Commission accepts this recommendation, the Commission should elect to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-03, which memorializes the findings in granting this special use permit, and provides for the conditions of approval as follows: 1.The taproom facility must be posted with the maximum occupancy load as determined by the City Building Official and City Fire Chief. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and complying with this occupancy level during operations of this taproom and brewery. 2.The taproom is only allowed to operate Wednesday through Friday, 3:00 to 10:00 PM; and on Saturdays and Sundays from 12:00 Noon to 10:00 PM. 3. The Applicant must demonstrate or optimize off-street parking for visitors and employees on the subject property site, similar to what is illustrated on the "Surly Brewing Co. — Proposed Parking Plan Layout" (dated May 30, 2013). Parking for visitors and employees in the Dusharme Drive right-of-way should be discouraged. However, in the event the on-site parking area is full or at capacity due to a special event occasionally sponsored by Surly Brewing Co., the City will allow on-street parking within the Dusharme Drive right-of-way. The Applicant shall be responsible for making sure all access points, drive lanes and fire hydrants remain open and accessible to any emergency vehicles. Surly Brewing SUP Page 4 05/30/13 5.Should the Applicant arrange for any shared, off-site parking arrangement with other adjacent properties of the subject site, relevant information including the number of parking spaces, type of agreement or arrangements (hours, numbers, availability, etc.), and owner contact information must be provided to the City. 6.This Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 7.Any taproom improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 8.If required, necessary permits for any beer servicing and food servicing must be received from Hennepin County Health Department prior to the issuance of permits. 9. This Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all new signage requests, which are subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS O Surly Brewing Co. Narrative O Interior Diagrams of the Taproom Facility O Surly Brewing Co. — Proposed Parking Plan Layout" — dated May 30, 2013 O Photos of the Property Surly Brewing SUP Page 5 05/30/13 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-05 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-004 SUBMITTED BY OMAR ANSARI OF SURLY BREWING COMPANY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE RETAIL SALES OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED OR PROCESSED AT A USE SITE LOCATED IN THE 1-2 GENERAL INDUSTRY DISTRICT (4811 DUSHARME DRIVE) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 submitted by Omar Ansari with Surly Brewing Company ("Applicant"), requesting a Special Use Permit approval for the property located at 4811 Dusharme Drive ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the proposed special use permit would allow the Applicant to sell at retail products manufactured or processed at the Subject Property, specifically hand-crafted beer products and as part of a Taproom license; and WHEREAS, this Special Use Permit is being requested under allowances granted under a Brewer Taproom License standards, established under City Ordinance No. 2013-01 and to those holders of a brewer's license under Minnesota Statutes 340A.301, Subdivision 6(c), (i), or (g).; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 30, 2013, whereby a staff report and public testimony regarding the special use permit were received and noted for the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request, and in light of all testimony received, and reviewing and considering the guidelines and standards for evaluating this special use permit as contained in City Zoning Code Section 35-220, that this special use permit meets the general standards for issuing or approving said permits, and complies with the goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2013-004, a special use permit submitted by Omar Ansari with Surly Brewing Company be approved based upon the following considerations: 1. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 2: The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the 1 neighborhood. 3.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 5. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2011-007 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.The taproom facility must be posted with the maximum occupancy load as determined by the City Building Official and City Fire Chief. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and complying with this occupancy level during operations of this taproom and brewery. 2.The taproom is only allowed to operate Wednesday through Friday, 3:00 to 10:00 PM; and on Saturdays and Sundays from 12:00 Noon to 10:00 PM. 3.The Applicant must demonstrate or optimize .off-street parking for visitors and employees on the subject property site, similar to what is illustrated on the "Surly Brewing Co. — Proposed Parking Plan Layout" (dated May 30, 2013). Parking for visitors and employees in the Dusharme Drive right- of-way should be discouraged. However, in the event the on-site parking area is full or at capacity due to a special event occasionally sponsored by Surly Brewing Co., the City will allow on-street parking within the Dusharme Drive right-of-Way. The Applicant shall be responsible for making sure all access points, drive lanes and fire hydrants remain open and accessible to any emergency vehicles. 4.Should the Applicant arrange for any shared, off-site parking arrangement with other adjacent properties of the subject site, relevant information including the number of parking spaces, type of agreement or arrangements (hours, numbers, availability, etc.), and owner contact information must be provided to the City. 5.This Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 6.Any taproom improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 7.If required, necessary permits for any beer servicing and food servicing must be received from Hennepin County Health Department prior to the issuance of permits. 8.This Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all new signage requests, which are subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. May 30, 2013 Date Chair ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair , Commissioners , and . and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Surly Brewing Company is excited to have the opportunity to open a taproom in our Brooklyn Center brewery location! I hope to show below what are plans are for our new taproom and how that differs from what we have being doing for the last seven years. We went to get our first permit for brewery and tasting room construction in 2005. The plan was to change our old industrial manufacturing facility into a microbrewery that would have public tours and tastings. We quickly realized that our facility was not up to code in accessibility into the brewery, restroom ADA code and fire exits. Because we always planned on having the public in our brewery and a tasting room, we made these changes at that time. Currently, the brewery does have wheelchair accesability, ADA restrooms, and proper emergency exit doors and markings per the Brooklyn Center zoning department. In 2012, our fire alarm system was upgraded to the entire facility and is monitored 24/7 by Armour Security. Since 2007, we have been offering tours 2-4 times per week. The tours would occur on Friday and Saturday and would average between 100450 people per tour. Individuals would not be charged for their tour registration. In other words, the beer they consumed was free. Each tour goer had their ID verified to ensure they were over 21. The only individuals under 21 would have to be accompanied by their parent. Those of drinking age would receive a wristband with 5 tabs that entitled them to 5 — seven ounce beers. All our staffing was done by volunteers; id checker and door person, merchandise salesperson, beer pouring, cleaning staff and tour leader. In the six years that we have been doing tours, we have only needed to ask one person to be removed due to behavior, no parking issues with our neighbors, no complaints from neighbors, no complaints or issues from city or police. The biggest difference between our old tour set up and the new plan, is that we will finally be able to charge visitors for beer. Our plan is to have the taproom open form Wednesday to Friday, 3:00-10:00, Saturday and Sunday noon — 10:00. The taproom will no longer be staffed by volunteers, but by paid servers that have industry experience. All servers will be TIPS (Training for Intervention ProcedureS) trained. We plan on checking IDs and age when individuals enter the building. They will be wrist banded to ensure to pouring staff they are of legal drinking age. Under 21 will not be allowed to enter unless accompanied by a parent. We will sell glasses of beer at the current bar area. Beers will be offered in 16, 10 and 8 ounce sizes. We will allow patrons to enter the brewery after 7:00 and look around. The work areas will be taped off and we will have an employee stationed in the brewery area to answer brewing questions and monitor guests. 481 1 Dusharme Drive Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 tel 763.535.3330 fax 763.535.2708 www.surlybrewing.com Linda Haug will be our taproom manager. She has owned Cafe Twenty-Eight, a neighborhood bistro, in Linden Hills for ten years. She managed a staff of 15 and we feel her experience in the food and alcohol serving will be a great asset to the taproom team. In addition to beer, we will also offer non-alcoholic drinks for sale; sodas, jucies, root beer, water. All packages will be kept in a separate refrigerated unit for sale in the taproom. Packaged snacks will also be available for sale, chips, pretzels, etc. We have looked into a food truck on-site during weekends if the demand warrants them. We will also be installing a drink rail in the taproom, a new coat rack and additional bike parking outside. We believe that the parking demands for this taproom will be less that our existing tour needs. Being that we are open only 4 hours a week for tours, we have a crush of people and cars at those times. We feel that spreading out our open hours will spread out that demand for parking. The majority of parking demand for our taproom will be in the evening and weekend. Those are the times when the businesses in the industrial park are not operating. As stated previously, we have never had a problem with parking spaces during our tour. I feel that the situation would be the same for our taproom. If the parking demand for parking exceeds the available on-site and on-street parking we can handle it in one of two ways: -Secure additional parking spaces from a neighboring business -limit the number of guests that can enter the taproom, effectively "turning away" customers and cars Please contact Omar Ansari with any additional questions or concerns about the taproom. , UI 0 LU Lti v 77 ..... . 4:) tit Ato .0 q- d 0 First Floor 23360' 55' 1 0.Office F) 2242' 18' Li' 352, Office Osgo'131' 62'Office 768' 4,r - - '•-• 40' 30' Printed: 5/17/2013 Page: 1City of trooklyn CenterReport Name: Images PID: 10-118-21-42-0021 Property Images 215' Sketch by Apax Mad'na. -TOT14 ( i‘ Member Freedman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-05 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-004 SUBMITTED BY OMAR ANSARI OF SURLY BREWING COMPANY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE RETAIL SALES OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED OR PROCESSED AT A USE SITE LOCATED IN THE 1-2 GENERAL INDUSTRY DISTRICT (4811 DUSHARME DRIVE) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2013-004 submitted by Omar Ansari with Surly Brewing Company ("Applicant"), requesting a Special Use Permit approval for the property located at 4811 Dusharme Drive ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the proposed special use permit would allow the Applicant to sell at retail products manufactured or processed at the Subject Property, specifically hand-crafted beer products and as part of a Taproom license; and WHEREAS, this Special Use Permit is being requested under allowances granted under a Brewer Taproom License standards, established under City Ordinance No. 2013-01 and to those holders of a brewer's license under Minnesota Statutes 340A.301, Subdivision 6(c), (i), or (g).; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 30, 2013, whereby a staff report and public testimony regarding the special use permit were received and noted for the record; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request, and in light of all testimony received, and reviewing and considering the guidelines and standards for evaluating this special use permit as contained in City Zoning Code Section 35-220, that this special use permit meets the general standards for issuing or approving said permits, and complies with the goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2013-004, a special use permit submitted by Omar Ansari with Surly Brewing Company be approved based upon the following considerations: 1.The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. 2.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor 1 substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. 3.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. 5. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooldyn Center to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 2013-004 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.The taproom facility must be posted with the maximum occupancy load as determined by the City Building Official and City Fire Chief. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining and complying with this occupancy level during operations of this taproom and brewery. 2.The taproom is only allowed to operate Wednesday through Friday, 3:00 to 10:00 PM; and on Saturdays and Sundays from 12:00 Noon to 10:00 PM. 3.The Applicant must demonstrate or optimize off-street parking for visitors and employees on the subject property site, similar to what is illustrated on the "Surly Brewing Co. — Proposed Parking Plan Layout" (dated May 30, 2013). Parking for visitors and employees in the Dusharme Drive right- of-way should be discouraged. However, in the event the on-site parking area is full or at capacity due to a special event occasionally sponsored by Surly Brewing Co., the City will allow on-street parking within the Dushanne Drive right-of-way. The Applicant shall be responsible for making sure all access points, drive lanes and fire hydrants remain open and accessible to any emergency vehicles. 4.Should the Applicant arrange for any shared, off-site parking arrangement with other adjacent properties of the subject site, relevant information including the number of parking spaces, type of agreement or arrangements (hours, numbers, availability, etc.), and owner contact information must be provided to the City. 5, This Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation, thereof, may be grounds for revocation. 6.Any taproom improvement plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes through the building permit process. 7.If required, necessary permits for any beer servicing and food servicing must be received from Hennepin County Health Department prior to the issuance of permits. 8. This Special Use Permit approval is exclusive of all new signage requests, which are subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 o t e City Ordinances. May 30, 2013 Date ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Schonning and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Burfeind, Commissioners Christensen , Freedman, and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DRAFT APPLICATION NO. 2013-004 — SURLY BREWING CO/OMAR ANSARI 4811 DUSHARME DRIVE Chair Burfeind introduced Application No. 2013-004, Special Use Permit to authorize the establishment of a new "Taproom" (pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2013-01 Minnesota Statutes 340A.301, Subdivision 6(c), (i), or (g).) which would also approve the retail sales of products manufactured or processed at a facility located in the 1-2 (General Industry) District. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-30-2013 for Application No. 2013-004.) Mr. Benetti stated the property is zoned 1-2 (General Industry) and provides for manufacturing and wholesaling uses along with some high intensive service uses and truck terminals. He added Surly Brewing is operating as a Beverage (beer, wine and distilled alcohol) Manufacturer and is a permitted use. A special use permit would allow Surly to offer to the general public beer samples with limited snacks and non-alcoholic beverages. Mr. Benetti explained with the recent adoption of State legislation, a taproom license now allows brewers to sell their products on-site instead of shipping to off-site retail uses. He pointed out the brewery facility consists of 23,380 gross sq. ft. consisting of beer manufacturing and storage, an office area, restrooms, merchandise room, and common area, which is slated to become the future taproom. He added Mr. Ansari's diagram indicates the taproom occupies a space of 45' x 30', or 1,350 sq. ft. of the southeast corner of the brewery. Mr. Benetti explained the taproom will be open from Wednesday to Friday, 3:00 to 10:00 p.m. and on Saturdays and Sundays froth 12:00 Noon to 10:00 p.m. and is intended to be open after the larger, regular beer manufacturing employees complete their shift, which is 3:00 p.m. He added the taproom will be professionally staffed and serve only beer. Mr. Benetti provided information regarding the building and lot layout including: • The building site was constructed in 1961 and has a large parking area to the south of the main building, which is served by an access from Dusharme Drive. The cul-de-sac portion of Dusharme extends almost to the front edge of the building and encroaches into the required 35-foot front yard setback which creates a non-conforming situation. 0 The current parking lot is trapezoidal in shape which makes a standard parking design somewhat difficult to stripe or lay out. Most of the main employee parking is confined to the outer (southern and western) lot lines, consisting of approximately 26-28 parking spaces, with six vehicle spaces near the main front entryway. The central part of the parking lot is unstriped due to the need for truck deliveries and movements inside the site. Mr. Benetti also explained staff prepared a proposed parking plan layout which includes keeping and expanding the outer parking areas and creating new 60-degree angled parking area in the main center portion of the lot with 50 on-site parking spaces and 19 off-site spaces. He added the brewery has provided tours over the years and parking has not been an issue with the surrounding uses. Page 7 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT Mr. Benetti stated Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2013-05 approving the special use permit based on the grounds that the new standards for granting a special use permit have been or will be met and the special use permit appears to be an appropriate and fitting use with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Linda Haugh, representing Surly Brewery Company, introduced herself to the Commission. Chair Burfeind asked if the taproom might change the number of events that Surly has on site. Ms. Haugh stated Surly would anticipate continuing the special events twice a year. Mr. Benetti added when Surly has their special events, permission is granted by adjoining property owners for parking and there have not been issues in the past. He added the addition of the taproom would not affect the other special events they have on the property. Commissioner Freedman stated he is excited about the taproom and asked if there are any concerns with traffic flow since employees will be leaving at the same time the taproom opens. Ms. Haugh replied they are open to changing the hours but did not anticipate any issues with traffic flow on the site. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2013-004 There was a motion by Commissioner Christensen, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2013-004, at 8:18 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Burfeind called for comments from the public. There were no persons that appeared for the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Christensen, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2013-004. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Chair Burfeind stated he doesn't feel with the numbers proposed there would be any issues with parking on the site. Mr. Benetti replied that people usually come in groups for the tours and events and it is very spotty traffic. He added the owner wants to make sure there are no issues with parking and he is confident he will manage the site appropriately. Mr. Eitel added the City would like to take every opportunity to make sure Surly stays in the city and the business continues to grow and flourish. Chair Burfeind stated he feels having Surly in the City is a huge asset to the City and draws positive attention. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013-05 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING Page 8 PC 5-30-13 DRAFT COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2013-004 SUBMITTED BY OMAR ANSARI OF SURLY BREWING COMPANY FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE RETAIL SALES OF PRODUCTS MANUFACTURED OR PROCESSED AT A USE SITE LOCATED IN THE 1-2 GENERAL INDUSTRY DISTRICT (4811 DUSHARME DRIVE) There was a motion by Commissioner Freedman, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-05. Voting in favor: Chair Burfeind, Commissioners Christensen, Freedman, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 10, 2013 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. ( Page 9 PC 5-30-13 City Council Agenda Item No 10a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 10, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk AVINWrittA, SUBJECT: Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 6400 Quail Ave N Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the Mitigation Plan and issuance of a Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License for 6400 Quail Ave N. The applicant or representative has an opportunity to present evidence regarding the submitted Mitigation Plan. If the Council chooses to modify or disapprove the Mitigation Plan, it is recommended that the motion be to direct staff to prepare proposed findings for disapproval of the Mitigation Plan and notify the license applicant of any pending license actions to be taken at a subsequent Council Meeting. Background: This owner is applying for a renewal rental license. The previous rental license was a Type II rental license. The property is a single family dwelling. This property qualifies for a Type IV provisional rental license based on 9 property code violations found during the initial rental license inspection and zero validated police incidents/nuisance calls for the past twelve months. Staff from Administration, Building & Community Standards and Police Departments worked with the property owner regarding a mitigation plan, which requires Phase I, II and III of the Crime Free Housing Program, and other items included by City ordinance for a Type IV License. A Mitigation Plan has been developed addressing the requirements of the ordinance and any issues specific to the property. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Type IV Rental License on condition of adherence to the Mitigation Plan. Please refer to the attached copy of the Mitigation Plan for more information. The following is a brief history of the license process actions: 12-26-2012 01-23-2013 02-21-2013 03-19-2013 03-19-2013 The Owner, Pavel Sakurets of On Time Contractors Real Estate Division, LLC, applied for renewal of the rental dwelling license for 6400 Quail Ave N, a single family dwelling. An initial rental inspection was conducted. Nine property code violations were cited, see attached rental criteria. A second rental inspection was conducted and failed. A follow up rental inspection was conducted and failed. A $100 reinspection fee was charged to the property owner. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 04-15-2013 04-15-2013 04-30-2013 05-02-2013 05-02-2013 05-23-2013 05-31-2013 A follow up rental inspection was conducted and passed. The $100 reinspection fee was paid. City records indicate zero validated police incident/nuisance calls occurred in the past twelve months. The previous rental license expired. A letter was sent to the owner(s) notifying of qualification for Type IV 6-Month Provisional Rental License, including additional requirements to obtain a rental license. I.e. submit mitigation plan, completion of Phases I, II, and III of Crime Free Housing Program, etc. A Mitigation Plan was submitted. The Mitigation Plan was finalized. A letter was sent to the owner notifying that the hearing before the Council will be held June 10, 2013. If approved, after six months, a new rental license is required. The license process will begin immediately. The new license will be based on the property code violations found during the initial renewal license inspection and the number of validated police calls for services for disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in 12-911. The terms of the mitigation plan must also be met. Excerpt from Chapter 12 of City Code of Ordinances: Section 12-913. TYPE IV PROVISIONAL LICENSES. 1.Rental properties that meet the provisional licensing criteria as described in Section 12- 901 are eligible only for provisional licenses. 2.The City will provide by mail to each licensee a monthly report of any police and fire calls and incidents and applicable property Code violations as described in Section 12- 901. 3.Mitigation Plan. The applicant for a provisional license must submit for Council review a mitigation plan for the license period. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police and fire calls and/or the property Code issues described in Section 12-901 and 12-911 to a level that qualifies for a Type I, II, or III license. The mitigation plan may include such steps as changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, security personnel, and time frame to implement all phases of the Crime Free Housing Program. 4.Council Consideration. The application with a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a recommendation by the City Manager or the Manager's designee as to the disposition thereof. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the application and the mitigation plan. If the Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves it with conditions, it shall Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life .ffor all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM state its reasons for so doing in writing. In evaluating a mitigation plan, the Council will consider, among other things, the facility, its management practices, the nature and seriousness of causes for police and fire incidences and/or property Code issues and the expected effectiveness of measures identified in the plan to reduce the number of police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. In evaluating a mitigation plan submitted by an applicant already under a provisional license, the Council will also consider the effectiveness of measures identified in the applicant's previous mitigation plan and the need for different or additional measures to reduce police and fire incidences and/or property Code violations. 5. Compliance with Mitigation Plan. The licensee shall comply with the mitigation plan as approved or modified by the Council. No later than the tenth day after each calendar month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City Manager a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding month. Rental License Category Criteria Policy — Adopted by City Council 03-08-10 1.Determining License Categories. License categories are based on property code and nuisance violations noted during the initial or renewal license inspection or for a category verification inspection, along with excessive validated police service calls occurring over a year. License categories are performance based and more accurately depict the condition of the property and the City costs of service. 2.Fees. Fee amounts are determined by the costs of the city to license, inspect, monitor and work with the property to ensure category conditions are met. License fees do not include reinspection fees, late fees, charges for criminal or civil enforcement actions, or other penalties. 3.Category Conditions. The licensee or designated agent must meet the category conditions in the time period specified by the City. A licensee must meet all original conditions required by the License Category, even if a subsequent license category is achieved. 4.License Category Criteria. a. Property Code and Nuisance Violations. Property code violation rates will be based on the average number of property code violations per unit identified during the licensing inspection or category verification inspection. Property code violations for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include violations of property code and nuisances as defined in Chapter 12, 19, 7 and other applicable local ordinances. The City may, upon complaints or reasonable Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM concerns that the establishment no longer complies with the license category criteria, perform a category verification inspection to the same standards as the license renewal inspection as indicated below. Inspections will be conducted in conjunction with established department policies. In cases where 100% of the units are not inspected, the minimum inspection standards will be established as follows: •At least 75% of units will be inspected for properties with 15 or less units. •At least 25% of units, to include a minimum of 12 units, will be inspected for properties with 16 or more units. Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category (Based on Property Code Only) Number of Units Property Code Violations per Inspected Unit Type I — 3 Year 1-2 units 0-1 3+ units 0-0.75 Type 11-2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III — 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 3+ units ,Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV — 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 8 3+ units Greater than 3 b. Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category Impact 1-2 0-1 3-4 units 0-0.25 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 5 or more units 0-0.35 1-2 3-4 units 5 or more units Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 Greater than 3 3-4 units Greater than 1 Decrease 2 Categories 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: - We will ensure a safe and secure community We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Attachment - Mitigation Plan Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Phone: 763-569-3300 TTY 714041 Fax: 763-569-3360 < *54 4/3www.cityofbrooklyncentenorgICity of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Fr: AIIIIMIESESIBRXM-7-..aralINVEREESSAWMTW:43. .='77777-7. Rental License Mitigation Plan--Type IV Rental License Handwritten plans will not be accepted. Please type or useliftable form on a, website. _a i7A- Property Informati*".. Pro p ert'y A(.14fe-.6400.,Cluil Ave N Brooklyn 6enfer, MN 85480 P wh e r°N6ii16 : On Time Contractors, Real Estate Division, LW Local Agent Komisar. c.hik...,... w.pe00100-.s: . . ,, -- lMainstroet, Hopkins MN 55343' -Agent Address:. '809 MãiiigrOet4lopkinp, MN 55343 'allillierACTP:-651 26.8672 - ' "APnt,'Iligji:. 612 214.0644-... ... Owner Bmitilili3k,,z; -:. vpi u:ntirnecontractors.con)Agent Entaihji•el.F,4:- .l.-oimoontimapopOrtymanagement.corn Rental License:: 1 1 New r1 Renewal: Current_j4eense *Pending ., .. :l .. (Six monthi . -',N: bate 4130/2013..piratiOn.:. . . _ ..•i • Type IV License'ExP. Date:MG/2043— jvi)i.. //)fi-onrcyn'ent licenie.'47iliation) Based on property conditions and/or validated police nuisance incidents, the above referenced property qualifies for a Type IV Rental License. Before your license application can be considered by the City Council, a Mitigation Plan must be completed and reviewed by City staff. A fully completed Mitigation Plan must be submitted immediately to ensure timely completion of the license application process. The Mitigation Plan should indicate the steps being taken to correct identified violations and the measures that will be taken toensure ongoing compliance with City Ordinances and applicable Codes. The Mitigation Plan-provides an opportunity to review property concerns and identify possible solutions to improve the overall conditions and management of the property. NOTICE: Time is Running Out--You must TAKE ACTION NOW in order to meet all the city ordinance and Mitigation Plan requirements within this *pending license period and avoid legal actions. iggio IT;;;Auglifabodiiiilei44.,. ...' . .. ,...ISubmit the following documents with the Mitigation Plan for approval: •I 1 Crime Free Housing Program Training Certificate (if completed, if not completed, includeplease date in Section C.scheduled 1 2. Copy of Lease including Minnesota Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum1 1 3. Submit written report by 10 111 of each month (after license approval). . Sed:COMMiiinteMilonSing_Prtigrafilailiiikiirien S 1-1111 e 1I. Use written lease including. Crime Free Housing Lease Addendum. [ 1 I 2. Conduct criminal background check for all prospective tenants. Provide documentation to City if requested.I 1 1 3 Pursue the eviction of tenants the terms the leasewho violate of or any addendums. Page 1 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 4. Attend City approved eight hour Crime Free Housing course. • Date Course Completed: $/14/2011 or Date Course Scheduled: Phase HL/ Complete Security Assessment and implement all security improvements recommended by the Brooklyn Center Police Department. Date Scheduled; ea 3- /3 /1 3 Improvements to be completed by: et- Phase ill1 1 1 I will attend the ARM meetings scheduled for: 11/15/2012- -1/ & I 11 /) I will attend a minimum of 50% of the ARM meetings (two). A- Do 'these t wo meeting dates occur before the *Pending Type .111 License expiration date? El Yes Ell No (*See'Section A) If no, you will only be able to qualify for a Type IV Rental License upon renewal. 1 1 I will have no repeat code violations previously documented within the past year. For properties with four or more units:I 11 I will conduct resident training annually that includes crime prevention techniques. I will hold regular resident meetings. . , S.Z.dion D:Lbiraerm Based on condition and age, estimated replacement dates are provided for common capital items. Funding should be considered accordingly. However, items broken, worn or otherwise in violation prior to the estimated replacement date will require earlier corrections. Date Last Replaced Estimated Replacement Date Furnace/AC-111/2020 Water Heater-1012020 Kitchen Appliances-1/1/2020 Laundry Appliances-1/1/2020 Exterior -Paint/Siding, fascia, trim 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 -Windows 1/112020 -Roof 1/112020 -Fence 5/1.I2020 -Shed 1/1/2020 -Garage .10/2020 -Driveway •1/1/2020-Sidewalks 1/1/2020 Smoke Alarms & Carbon Monoxide Alarms 4/15/2013 Other(s) .-Seettolf-Ea-Atelf§:tcoliftpro*e'M WoirieliCaritl:teondifiolA 4:11M.ropertS0=7,_ Implementing the following best practices may assist in the management of your property.B c/clang the boxes below, you agree to: I Check in with tenants every 30 days. 2. Drive by property to check for violations twice a month.II -1 Page 2 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 IIn 1F-1 Pot City Use—Mitigation Man Approved By: kb Al Police Department /Title Wale mu 'ty Standards Department / Title Date / 3 Evict tenants in violation of the lease and all addendums. 4.Provide lawn/snow service. 5.Provide garbage service. 6.Install security system,All Mechanical Services 7.Provide maintenance service plan for appliances. Name of service co.: I am and will remain current on payment of utility fees, taxes, assessments, fines, penalties and other financial claims due to the City. Other(s): La 8- I 9. Please read thoroughly: If the Type IV Rental License is approved by the City Council, the Licensee must comply with the *roved Mitigation Plan and all applicable city codes. No later than the 10 th of each calendar month, the licensee must submit to the Building and Community Standards Department a written report describing all steps taken to comply with the Mitigation Plan. I verify that all information provided above is true and accurate. I understand that if I do not comply with an approved Mitigation Plan, comply with all applicable ordinances within the license period, or operate beyond the license expiration date; enforcement actions such as citations, formal complaint or license review may result. Vadim Komisarchik/Property Manager Owner or Agent Name and Title (Please Print) I 4/24/2013 Owner or Agent Signature Date Additional Owner or Agent Name and Title (([applicable) (Please Print) Additional Owner or Agent Signature ('((applicable,) Date Page 3 Type IV Mitigation Plan Rev 11-16-11 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 10, 2013 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1.Complete Streets Policy 2.Highway 100 Bridge at Brooklyn Boulevard Re-Decking Project 3.Commercial Vehicle Regulations 4.Update on Landscape and Screening Plans for Honda and Toyota Dealerships 5. Brooklyn Bridge Alliance Meeting Space Request PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.African Assistance Program Zoning Issues — June 24, 2013 2.Strategic Plan 2013 Retreat Follow Up — June 24, 2013 a.Values and Mission b.Key Performance Indicators 3.Comprehensive Overview of Capital Needs and Debt Funding Plans — July 22, 2013 4.BC University 5.Assessment Hearing Policy 6.Strategic Plan Annual Report for Year Ending 2012 7.Inclusion and Diversity Follow Up — Community Engagement Strategies 8.Manganese Follow Up Parking Lot Issues 1. Joint Meeting with Charter Commission Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 MEIVORAN CO Nal WORK SESSION DATE: June 4, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer lr SUBJECT: Complete Streets Policy Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding a Complete Streets policy. Background: Brooklyn Center was primarily developed in the 1950's, 1960s and 1970s during a time in which the personal automobile dominated land use and transportation planning practices and policies while road building focused on moving as many cars as possible, as quickly as possible. Safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders have too often been left out or addressed inadequately. In an effort to address these issues and as part of an initiative through our Active Living Hennepin County partnership, the City agreed to pursue and adopt a "Complete Streets" policy. "Complete Streets" is a term used to describe transportation planning and design policies and processes that emphasize safety and accessibility needs for all transportation users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders as well as motorists. The policy is intended to ensure that the ages and abilities of all users are taken into account in the design and operation of transportation facilities. In addition to providing transportation alternatives, Complete Streets policies encourage the integration of physical activity into daily routines through activities such as biking, walking and/or taking transit. Such activities promote multiple benefits that include: improved physical and mental health; decreased risk of chronic disease and associated medical costs; reduced transportation costs and pollution; improved air quality; and encourages safer, stronger communities. Adoption of this policy will commit the City to evaluate elements that would encourage all modes of travel when considering capital improvement street and trail projects and specifically identifies new construction, reconstruction and changes in allocation of existing pavement space as specific triggers for Complete Streets implementation. The policy recognizes the connection between various transportation modes and between multiple governmental jurisdictions and transportation providers. This policy commits the City to work closely and foster strong relationships with other jurisdictions, particularly Three Rivers Park District, Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. It should be noted that both Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota have adopted Complete Streets policies. As a result, any funding for projects passing through either of these agencies to the city should follow a Complete Streets approach. ••■-•• •`+` • -4 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people m u/preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Flexibility is incorporated into the policy by acknowledging that it will not be possible or even desirable to accommodate all modes on all roads and therefor has specifically dedicated a section of the policy for identifying the circumstances and conditions when alternative transportation accommodations might not be considered. The policy identifies specific design resource guidelines that will be employed and lists specific types of improvements that will be considered in achieving policy goals. Finally, the policy acknowledges that certain resources will be required for successful implementation of the policy and that planning and public engagement are to be encouraged to develop a shift toward a complete streets culture. This policy was presented to the Planning Commission for review and comment on May 16, 2013. The Planning Commission was supportive of adoption of the policy. The policy is scheduled to be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 18, 2013, and its comments will be forwarded to the Council prior to consideration of the policy for formal and final adoption. Policy Issues: Does the City Council support the "Complete Streets" policy? Does the City Council desire to formally adopt the "Complete Streets" policy? Council Goals: Strategic: 7.We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements 8.We will encourage citywide environmental sustainability efforts Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Complete Street Policy of the City of Brooklyn Center Irdit lune 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 1 INTRODUCTION During the past 50 years, road building has focused on moving as many cars as possible, as quickly as possible. Safety and accessibility for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders have too often been left out or addressed inadequately. "Complete Streets" is a term used to describe transportation planning and design policies and processes that emphasize safety and accessibility for all users. A Complete Streets policy ensures that the needs and safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities are taken into account in the design and operation of roads. The implementation of complete streets is an outgrowth of recent trends, such as the following: •About 40 percent of Minnesotans do not drive, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and people who cannot afford a vehicle. Complete streets helps to ensure that everyone has safe access to transportation options to lead active and independent lives. •Minnesota has an aging population. As people age, their dependence on transportation modes beyond vehicles increases. Roads that can support biking and walking to community destinations and transit will help an aging population meet its transportation needs. •The population of the United States is increasingly concentrated in urban areas with this trend projected to increase into the future, which will result in increased transportation demand that can be efficiently served through a multi- modal transportation system. •Governmental agencies are required to bring the transportation system into compliance with the ADA to facilitate safe and convenient access for those with disabilities. •An increased number of Minnesotans are overweight or obese. If left unchecked, obesity will add another $3.7 billion in health care expenses for Minnesotans by 2020. By building infrastructure that support more walking and biking, communities can help create opportunities for people to be more physically active, while improving public health and reducing health care costs. •Gas prices are increasing, causing people to move to alternative modes of transportation beyond the single occupancy vehicle. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 2 o Government agencies need to do more with less. Roadways need to be planned and designed using a comprehensive process to ensure that costly future roadway retrofits are avoided. In addition to providing transportation alternatives, complete street policies encourage the integration of physical activity into daily routines through activities such as biking, walking and/or taking transit. Such activities promote active living which has the following benefits: o Improves physical and mental health o Decreases risk of chronic disease o Reduces medical costs associated with chronic disease o Reduces transportation costs o Reduces pollution and improves air quality o Builds safer, stronger communities o Increases quality of life The City of Brooklyn Center joined Active Living Hennepin County (ALHC), a partnership of cities, businesses, state and local agencies, and the county. The goals of ALHC members are; increasing opportunities for active living in their communities through policy change, infrastructure planning, marketing and communications, mentoring new and potential organizations, and hosting workshop events. The funding provided by ALHC through Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and the State Health Improvement Program (SHIP) was instrumental in the development of this policy which was considered and adopted through City Council resolution on June 24, 2013. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 3 BACKGROUND History Brooklyn Center was primarily developed in the 1950's, 1960s and 1970s during a time in which the personal automobile dominated land use and transportation planning practices and policies. As a result, the city is highly auto-oriented and some areas lack adequate connections to adjoining neighborhoods, parks, commercial areas and community institutions. Since then, our economy, demographics and personal attitudes have changed drastically - we face rising gas prices, growing senior and immigrant populations, and large proportions of the population want to live in bicycle friendly and walkable neighborhoods. We must therefore ensure our design practices address the transportation needs of a changing world. Complete Streets is, in a sense, a return to the pedestrian-oriented streets of the past, while at the same time, a view into our future. Benefits The benefits to adopting and implementing a Complete Streets policy are immense, as well as measurable and immeasurable. Those benefits include: •Promotes Safety. Currently, many Minnesotans do not feel safe walking or biking in their neighborhoods. In many neighborhoods, there is no dedicated space for pedestrians and bicyclists and cars travel too fast and too close. In the ten year period ending in 2008 more than 500 pedestrians and bicyclist have been killed in Minnesota (MnDOT office of Traffic Safety and Technology). Providing for adequate space for all users will reduce accidents and increase a sense of security. o Improves transportation equity. Not everyone uses a personal vehicle as their means of transportation. In fact, 40% of Minnesotans do not drive because they are too young, too old, cannot afford a car, have a disability or choose not to drive (Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota). It is important to provide alternative and reasonable choices for everyone. •Improves public health and fitness. As the reliance on the personal vehicle has increased, so has the rate of obesity. Currently, more than 60% of Minnesotans are overweight, which, if left unchecked will result in $3.7 billion additional health care costs by 2020 (Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Health). By providing residents and workers with options to bike and walk, more may be willing to do so, helping to reduce health care costs and obesity rates. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 4 oLessens oil dependence. Alternative transportation options include those which are more energy efficient. o Improves environmental health. Reducing vehicle use consequently diminishes noise impacts and emission pollutants that negatively impact air and water quality. o Supports an efficient transportation system. An integrated transportation system increases overall capacity and reduces congestion. o Supports community and economic development. The desire to live and work in highly walkable neighborhoods, especially by both empty nesters and young professionals, is a highly documented phenomenon that occurred in the last two decades. In fact, now major real estate agencies provide "walkability scores" on home listings as this has become such an important aspect of finding a home to homebuyers. Homeowners are searching for neighborhoods with great accessibility, local amenities and attractions and exciting, lively commercial areas. In fact, a national study has shown that home values in more walkable neighborhoods have higher values. Additionally, businesses that provide access to all users and a safe design attract more business. •Fosters strong communities. Neighborhood vibrancy is increased by opportunities for community residents to interact and reach community destinations such as schools and parks. o Cost effectiveness. Complete Streets aims to design road projects with all users in mind from the beginning. This ensures that roads are built with pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders in mind the first time, rather than retrofitted after a tragedy has occurred and when costs will be much greater. Also, including amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders from the beginning of a design project, rather than mid-way or near the end of a project, reduces time and costs related to engineering design. There may also be ways to save costs through design of smaller roads. Challenges The implementation of complete streets must also address a number of challenges: •Requiring public outreach and education to enhance user understanding and overcome resistance to change (e.g., construction of sidewalk in street right-of- way perceived as encroachment in residential front yards) o Encouraging public participation during the planning process. o Requiring staff training on new planning, design and operations approaches. o Developing design solutions for locations with constrained conditions and/or right-of-way widths or natural barriers. O Balancing the needs of multiple transportation modes safely and efficiently. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 5 o Addressing variability within modes (e.g., commercial vehicles versus smart cars, commuter versus recreational bicyclists). o Funding potential increases in associated operation and maintenance costs. o Funding potential property acquisitions. o Funding potential increased initial construction costs on select projects. o Complying with design standards associated with roadway construction funding sources. o Re-evaluating long established paradigms about transportation investment and design priorities. o Resolving cross-jurisdictional issues. The implementation of complete streets is voluntary for many local governments and an agency cannot be "forced" to implement a complete streets approach. o Re-evaluating multi-jurisdictional cost sharing and maintenance agreements. Effectively involving regional interests in project level public engagement processes. o Overcoming the perception that a wider road is always a safer road. o Maintaining adequate space for snow storage for all modes of transportation. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 6 This policy includes the following elements: Vision. In order to create a Complete Streets network, all streets and trail projects, including design, planning, reconstruction, rehabilitation, maintenance, or operations by the City of Brooklyn Center shall be designed and executed in a responsible, equitable and financially reasonable way to accommodate and encourage travel by bicyclists, pedestrians, public transportation, emergency and commercial vehicles in a balanced manner. Additionally, the Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy is intended to: o Benefit the community by improving safety, transportation options, public health, community and economic development, cost effectiveness, and the environment. o Inspire the community to transform social norms and bring the community together. o Prepare Brooklyn Center for the future with respect to changing demographics and economics. All Modes, Purposes and Users. This Complete Streets policy recognizes the different transportation users , modes and purposes and encourages city leaders and staff, as well as residents and business owners, to consider the range of needs and recognize the importance of planning and designing transportation systems for all modes, purposes and users. Connectivity. While it is important to create an interconnected transportation system in which users can easily and safely reach many potential destinations, this policy recognizes Complete Streets is not "all modes on all roads" but rather allows for the balancing of the needs of all users. Jurisdiction. The transportation network within the city consists of transportation systems constructed, maintained and operated by different units of government including the city, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit, the State of Minnesota and the federal government. This policy applies only to the transportation systems under the jurisdiction of the City of Brooklyn Center and will be encouraged by the City on all other jurisdictional roadways within the city as feasible. Both Hennepin County and the state of Minnesota have adopted Complete Streets resolutions. As a result, any funding for projects passing through either of these agencies to the city should follow a Complete Streets approach. Additionally, this policy commits the city to work closely and foster strong relationships with other jurisdictions, including the above referenced jurisdictions within the city and neighboring communities, particularly the cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Robbinsdale, and Minneapolis in creating multimodal and interconnected transportation systems that serve the city and extend beyond its borders. Finally, in the event of development or redevelopment within the city, all private roads should aim to follow this Complete Streets policy. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 7 Phasing. As Brooklyn Center is a fully developed community, constructing a Complete Streets network will not be easily accomplished. The existing transportation and land use framework will, in some instances, limit the extent to which Complete Streets can be immediately implemented. Therefore this policy acknowledges that planning recommendations shall be considered a valid step toward meeting this policy's goals. Planning efforts may include such elements as easements and development agreements to incorporate future complete street projects. Planning in this manner is intended to avoid costly retrofits. Exceptions & Flexibility. While Complete Streets intends to make accommodations for all modes and users of the transportation network, it is acknowledged that it is not always possible to make such accommodations in every instance. Therefore, this policy allows for the following exceptions: a)The project involves a transportation system on which certain modes and users are prohibited, either by law or significant safety reasons. Examples include interstate freeways, bike and pedestrian trails, or malls. In the case that a particular use or mode is prohibited, an effort shall be made to accommodate that use or mode elsewhere nearby. b)The cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. c)The corridor has severe topographic, environmental, historic or natural resource constraints. d)A well-documented absence of current and future need. e) Other exceptions are allowed when recommended by the Public Works, Building & Community Standards, Parks and Recreation, and Police and Fire departments, and approved by the City Council. Exceptions granted to this policy should be approved at a senior level and be documented with supporting data that indicates the basis for the decision. Design. When designing Complete Streets projects, the City of Brooklyn Center will utilize the wide variety of design resources which includes but are not limited to: o National Complete Streets Coalition O Safe Routes to Schools o American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) o Minnesota Department of Transportation o Institute of Transportation Engineers •Americans with Disabilities Act •Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines o Hennepin County Complete Streets Policy •Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 8 There are a number of design options and tools available to implement Complete Streets, each with a unique set of benefits and disadvantages. A Complete Street may include: o Sidewalks o Bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders) o Special bus lanes o Comfortable and accessible public transportation stops o Frequent and safe crossing opportunities o Median islands o Accessible pedestrian signals o Curb extensions/bump outs o Narrower travel lanes/road diets o Roundabouts o Traffic calming improvements o Improvements to create safer and more comfortable pedestrian spaces including buffer space, pedestrian-scaled lighting, street furniture, refuge islands, landscaping and public art o Wayfinding signage o Environmental improvements such as tree planting, storm water ponding and pervious space The city will generally follow accepted or adopted design standards from the resources listed above when implementing improvements to fulfill this policy but will consider innovative or non-traditional design options where a comparable level of safety for users is present. Considering innovative or new ideas is especially important when working within the context of a fully developed city. The city should consider adopting its own design guidelines as a way to reflect the unique needs of Brooklyn Center. Context Sensitivity. The Minnesota Complete Streets legislation states Complete Streets should be designed "in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings." This policy agrees with that statement. In the city's case, the context is different at the neighborhood level, that is, Complete Streets may be designed different in residential, commercial, industrial and mixed use neighborhoods. Context sensitivity is to be considered alongside network connectivity, flexibility, innovation and the unique needs of various users. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 9 Performance Standards. Complete Streets should be continuously evaluated for success and opportunities for improvement. This policy encourages the regular reporting of the implementation of Complete Streets through the following performance measures: o User data — bike, pedestrian, transit and traffic o Crash data o Use of new projects by mode o Compliments and complaints o Linear feet of pedestrian accommodations built o Number of ADA accommodations built o Miles of bike lanes/trails built or striped o Number of transit accessibility accommodations built o Number of street trees planted o Number of exemptions from this policy approved Project Triggers The following projects types shall be reviewed for Complete street review and implementation types shall include: •New construction •Reconstruction •Some types of rehabilitation •Resurfacing and changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway (e.g., removal of on-street parking or reduction in the number of travel lanes). Projects which are typically classified as routine maintenance project shall not be subject to the policy review process. Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 10 0 riri plementation Planning Establishing plans and protocols is a critical step in creating a community-supported, safe, comfortable and convenient transportation network that serves all modes. Effective planning results in design guidance and implementation clarity that allows the community and project designers to efficiently move forward on individual complete streets projects in a collaborative and cost-efficient manner. The culture of complete streets must be integrated throughout the City and institutionalized through planning documents, operations, and design manuals. Complete streets concepts should be incorporated into visioning and planning documents, including comprehensive plans, neighborhood plans, active living plans, and transportation plans. A community's zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinances, and/or design policies should be updated to reflect the community's complete streets approach as those documents are scheduled for updating. Ideally, all modes of transportation should be integrated into one design policy, as this will reinforce the complete streets methodology of considering all modes of transportation early in the design process. Development Resources The implementation of this Complete Streets policy will require city resources and staff time. A summary of anticipated activities along with their timing and frequency is present in the table below: Process Element Timing / Frequency Staff training Continuous Adopt design standards Update periodically Amendments to the City Code & Comp Plan Consider when updating code & plan Implement and evaluate performance measures Periodically Coordinate with other jurisdictions Continuous Regularly apply for grants Continuous Review feasible funding sources and adopt revisions to city CIP Annually with CIP update Staff training. It is important for the city's staff to be up to date and aware of new laws, funding sources, best practices, trends and tools related to Complete Streets. Staff should be encouraged to attend topically related training and education events and opportunities. Adopt design guidelines. The city should consider adopting its own design guidelines as a way to reflect the unique needs of Brooklyn Center and to provide a consistent baseline from which projects can be designed. Amendments to the City Code and Comprehensive Plan. The City Code and Comprehensive Plan may require revisions to allow for Complete Streets or to make it easier to implement. In particular, the Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 11 Subdivision and Platting chapters should be reviewed for possible changes. This policy should be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Implement and evaluate performance measures. Staff should periodically evaluate Complete Streets programs and provide updates and recommendations to the City Council and advisory committees. Coordinate with other jurisdictions. Staff and Council should keep an open line of communication between other jurisdictions including the cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Hennepin County, and Three Rivers Park District, Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit, the state of Minnesota, and the federal government toward the goal of implementing joint projects, creating network connections and maximizing grant opportunities. Regularly apply for grants to implement this policy. Increasingly, transportation grant programs are requiring municipalities to have adopted Complete Streets policies. By adopting this policy, the city will be able to apply for a wider variety of grant programs and should do so as a means to fund new or expanded improvements. Review feasible funding sources and adopt revisions to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). As the city does routinely, staff should review the CIP for possible ways to implement Complete Streets. This will include a review of funding sources and prioritization of projects according to need and benefit. Staff recommendations shall be reviewed with Council and open to review by the public. Public Engagement Complete streets is an approach to design, which benefits from communication with project stakeholders. Effective public engagement is necessary throughout the entire implementation process, including both the planning phase and project phase. In the planning phase, public engagement ensures that community and agency stakeholders have a chance to participate in the development of broader policy and planning documents, such as comprehensive plans, transportation plans and modal network plans. In the project phase, public engagement allows stakeholders to provide feedback on specific complete streets projects. Whether planning documents are being developed or a specific project is being designed and constructed, there are typically three communication phases to a project: •Informing stakeholders of the upcoming planning study or construction project. •Active participation of stakeholders in planning or project design. •Formalized public meetings and hearings. Construction projects should also include a communication plan to keep stakeholders informed of construction issues that may impact them. The specific stakeholders and communication approaches will vary depending on the complexity of the planning study or project and anticipated impacts. Early identification of stakeholders and their concerns will aid in the development of an appropriate public engagement plan. Potential stakeholders include: Draft — lune 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Page 12 O Facility users (include all modes) o Adjacent residents and neighborhood organizations o Adjacent businesses and business associations o Elected officials and local/county boards and commissions o Other city/county departments o Regional planning organizations O Regional transit authorities o State agencies (e.g., DNR, DOT, SHPO) oFederal agencies (e.g., FHWA, NPS) o Watershed districts/management organizations 0 Advocacy and special interest groups (e.g., bicycling organizations, preservation organizations) o Local emergency responders O Utilities and railroads Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Appendix A Complete Streets Worksheet This Complete Streets Worksheet is intended to serve as a guide when reviewing a roadway's ability to accommodate all modes of transportation (pedestrian, bicyclists, transit riders, freight, and automobiles) and people of all abilities in a cost-effective manner, while promoting safe operation for all users. Complete streets address the design of the entire street right-of-way to determine the best allocation of space between the various transportation modes. Complete streets may be achieved through single projects or incrementally through a series of smaller improvements or maintenance activities over time. This worksheet was developed to facilitate implementing the complete streets process and to help sort through potentially conflicting modal priorities. The worksheet is also available in an electronic format that allows responses to by typed directly into the worksheet. Please reference the following materials when filling out the checklist: •City and/or County Comprehensive Plans that cover the project area •Transportation Plans that cover the project area (e.g., City, County, and/or State) •Bicycle or Pedestrian Master Plans that cover the project area (e.g., City, Park district, County, and/or State) •City and/or County ADA Transition Plans that cover the project area •Area specific studies •A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO "Green Book") •AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition •MnDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual •Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD) •ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) •Proposed Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) •Hennepin County Complete Street Policy •State of Minnesota Complete Street Policy Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy fl In dilialin Project Location (municipality): Roadway Jurisdiction: Project/Roadway Name: Project Start Point: Project End Point: Project Manager Define Existing and Future Land Use and Urban Design Context 1.Do any adopted plans call for the development of bicycle, pedestrian, transit or roadway facilities on, crossing, or adjacent to, the proposed project? If yes, list the applicable plan(s). Guidance: Possible sources of this information include Comprehensive Plans, Transportation Plans, Bicycle or Pedestrian Master Plans or area-specific studies developed by applicable City, County and/or State Agencies. 2.Are there any local, county, statewide or federal policies that call for incorporating multimodal facilities? Guidance: Policies at the state and federal level may impact a project due to funding sources. A-2 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE Draft—lune 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy 3.Describe the study area. Guidance: What are the predominant land uses along the corridor? What is the community character? (e.g., tree-lined streets, historic, new development) Are there any planned redevelopment areas in the project area? 4.What trip generators (existing and future) are in the vicinity of the project that might attract walkers, bikers or transit users? Guidance: For example, large employers, downtown or shopping districts, schools, parks, community centers, medical centers, transit stations, government buildings and senior care facilities. Define Existing and Future Transportation Context 5. Describe existing and projected modal volumes, if available. __..Vkl, esia .@.kig).' I. big , ItkiWit Prcilep100.(Year) • . Average Daily Traffic Pedestrian Counts Bicycle Counts Truck Volumes Transit Volumes APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A-3 Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy 6. Existing vehicle speed conditions. a.What is the posted speed limit for the project and associated intersecting streets? b.Provide speed data, if available. c. Are excessive speeds an issue in the project area? 7. Describe crash data, if available, and known conflict locations. Guidance: Crash data will likely not be available for pedestrians and bicycles. Crash trends and known conflict points should include neighboihood input and antidotal data, such as areas of known"near misses", or areas where seasonal activities cause safety issues, such as sports arenas or fairgrounds. -Thoompcil'ation ,,. Z e ,Iklkiiilk--4? , . Vehicles Pedestrians Bicycles a.Are there any crash trends between specific modes? b.Are there known conflict points between specific modes? A-4 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy 8. Describe Classifications. a.What is the road functional classification? b.Does the street cross any high functional classification roads? (yes/no) If so, please list. c. Does the roadway have other classifications (e.g., truck route, transit route, bicycle route, emergency vehicle route)? (yes/no) If so, please list. 9. Sketch in or attach the existing cross-section(s). Guidance The existing cross-section should include the full right-of-way and be clearly dimensioned. Additional cross-sections are advisable to illustrate specific situations or if corridor segments greatly vary. Example Cross Section I LAME LANE, TAP-V- Whtr 66' (ailis -1-oct ri-DO) APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A-5 Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy 10.What multimodal accommodations exist in the project and on streets that it intersects? Guidance: iviultimodat accommodations may include transit routes, sidewalks, trails, and designated on-street bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, sharrows or signed bike routes. 11.If there are no multimodal accommodations, how far away are the closest parallel facilities? Guidance: Designated transit routes or bikeways may not exist within the community, and therefore, may not be applicable. 12.What multimodal amenities exist in the project? Guidance: multimodal amenities may include benches, bike racks/lockers, trash receptacles, crosswalks, traffic signals, mature tree canopy, transit stops/shelters, and wayfinding signage. 13.Describe any particular user needs/challenges along the project corridor that you have observed or have been informed of. Guidance: User needs may consist of lack of facilities (worn dirt pathways), traffic congestion, difficulty accessing bus stops or sidewalks due to snow piles at intersections, at-grade crossings of railroads or high volume roadways, and steep terrain. A-6 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy 14.Are the existing facilities ADA and PROWAG compliant? Guidance: Reference resources include the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), Proposed Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PRO WAG), and IvinDOT Accessibility Design Tools tvebsite. Identify Existing Deficiencies 15.Based on the land use and transportation context analysis, describe existing and anticipated future deficiencies to full multimodal transportation that the project could/should address. Describe Future Objectives 16.Develop objectives regarding how multimodal facilities will be integrated into the project and how identified deficiencies will be addressed. Guidance: The objectives will form the basis for the street design. Recommend Area Typology/Street Typology and Test Cross-section(s) 17.Complete the following questions if your community has developed Area Typologies and Street Typologies (See page 21, "Roadway Classification versus Settings" for a description of area and street typologies.) Guidance: If applicable, list document that contains your agency's Area Typologies and Streerhpologies a.What is the recommended Area Typology? b.What is the recommended StreetTypology? APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A-7 Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy 18. Sketch in or attach the initial cross-section(s) that depicts desired street elements. Guidance: Initial cross-section should be clearly dimensioned and indicate any additional right-of-way required. Additional cross-sections are advisable for specific situations or if corridor segments greatly vary. Example Cross Section 1 551...VP 15 1 r viza. 105-m- ritg-K If JW DT 47-1 LOU-1 if 1ef.CEILISTI NS Cs (LAW vevoED /0 1 (Firrurt-E-P-o) 19.Describe any constraints associated with the initial cross-section. Guidance: Potential constraints include lack of right-of-way, existing structures, existing mature trees or environ- mental features, topography or number of driveways. 20.Sketch in or attach alternative cross-sections. Guidance: Alternative cross-sections should be modifications of the initial cross-section that respond to identi- fied constraints. All modes should receive equal consideration and accountability in the development of alternatives. A-8 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE Draft —June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Describe Tradeoffs and Select Cross-section 21.Describe tradeoffs associated with the alternative cross-sections. Guidance: Examples of tradeoffs include removal of mature vegetation, narrower travel lanes, removal of on-street parking (one or both sides), right-of-way acquisition costs, and provision of bikeway facility on an adjacent parallel street. 22.Sketch in or attach the selected cross-section(s). Guidance: Selected. cross-section should be clearly dimensioned and indicate any additional right-of-way required. Additional cross-sections are advisable for specific situations or if corridor segments greatly vary. 23. If the project does not accommodate all modes, list reasons why facilities for that mode are not provided, Guidance: For example, the cost of the facility will be disproportionately high in relation to number of projected users; adequate right-Of-way does not exist and acquisition of additional right-of-way would create adverse impacts to valued community assets; a bikeway facility is being planned on an adjacent parallel route that can service bicyclists' needs. APPENDIX A: COMPLETE STREETS WORKSHEET A-9 Draft—June 4, 2013 City of Brooklyn Center Complete Streets Policy Implementation 24.Identify project milestones, roles and responsibilities for project implementation 25.How will access for all modes be maintained during project construction? Guidance: Reference resource includes MnDOT Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) Webinai; Maintaining Pedestrian Access Through Construction & Maintenance Work Zones 26. Facility Maintenance a.What agency will be responsible for on-going maintenance for each mode? b.What specific seasonal and long-term maintenance is needed for each mode? Al 0 COMPLETE STREETS IMPLEMENTATION RESOURCE GUIDE Draft—June 4, 2013 6/5/2013 Complete Streets By Steve Jankowski May 16, 2013 What Is Complete Streets ? Design policy that emphasis safety and accessibility for all users. Pedestrians Transit Users Bicyclists Motorists 1 Why adopt Complete Streets ? 40% of Minnesotans do not drive Children Seniors People with disabilities People who can't afford a car Why adopt Complete Streets ? Improves Health & Safety Environmental Health - Noise, Air Emissions, Water Quality Promotes Active Lifestyle - Decrease Obesity, Lower health Care Costs Provides Increased Separation from Motorists 6/5/2013 2 Why adopt Complete Streets? Community Benefits Creates walkable neighborhoods Connects residents to local destinations - schools, libraries parks & churches Creates an integrated, efficient transportation network Policy Elements 6/5/2013 3 When will Complete Streets be considered ? •New construction •Reconstruction •Maintenance Activities 6/5/2013 Is the Policy flexible ? Exceptions are allowed in the following situations: •Certain transportation modes are prohibited by law •Cost of accommodation is excessively disproportionate to need or probable use •Well documented absence of need )>. When recommended by city departments & approved by City Council 4 Lower Cost Design Options Bike lanes Special bus lanes Comfortable public transportation stops Accessible pedestrian signals Street furniture Landscaping Public art Way finding signage 6/5/2013 (uction / Reconstruction Design Options Sidewalks Narrower traffic lanes Curb extensions & bumpouts Median islands Roundabouts Traffic calming improvements 5 equired Reso,!rces Train staff Adopt design guidelines Update city code & comp plan amendments Evaluate performance Coordination with other jurisdictions Apply for grants Incorporate into CIP Questions & Comments 6/5/2013 6 Work Session Agenda Item No, 2 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 4, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Highway 100 Bridge at Brooklyn Boulevard Re-decking Project Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff pertaining to the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT) Highway 100 bridge redecking project at Brooklyn Boulevard, specifically the aesthetic and trail improvements and the City's funding participation. Background: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has programmed the replacement of the Highway 100 bridge deck at Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) in 2014. The bridge is a combination of four bridges: two separate roadway bridges and two separate pedestrian bridges. All bridges fall under the jurisdiction of MnDOT as part of the Highway 100 corridor, and Brooklyn Boulevard (roadway portion leading up to the bridge) falls under Hennepin County. As part of the recently completed Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study, this bridge rehabilitation project was identified as a priority project due to the fact that MnDOT already had the project programmed. While MnDOT has a certain level of aesthetic treatment planned in their project for the bridge, this project provides the City an opportunity to further enhance the aesthetics of the bridge as desired and documented in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study. Under that study, this interchange location was identified as a primary node announcing the arrival and entrance to the City. Based on this role as a gateway to the City, this primary intersection area is planned to receive the highest level of streetscape treatment. The aesthetic enhancements specific to the bridge included decorative street lighting and banners/flags, architectural stone surfacing and ornamental rails. City and County staff have been working with MnDOT over the past several months evaluating several different configurations and options for different levels of architectural treatments. Attached are three exhibits depicting and outlining the options as follows: Option 1 •Maintains the exiting bridge superstructure, limiting the amount of additional weight that can be added to the outer pedestrian bridges. Due to the design weight restriction, only ornamental rails could be added and installed on the pedestrian bridges (no stone wall). •The architectural stone wall and lighting would be constructed on the roadway bridge. The stone wall would be behind the ornamental railing, which would partially obstruct the visibility of the stone wall. •Existing trail width would be maintained at about 8-ft. on each pedestrian bridge. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION O There would be no cost under this option to the City as all improvements would fall under the allotment budgeted by MnDOT. Option 2 O Adds an additional girder to the pedestrian bridge structures. This allows additional weight to be added to the outer side of the pedestrian bridges, allowing the architectural stone wall section to be moved to the very outside of the pedestrian bridge with the ornamental railing and lighting on top of the stone wall. This option eliminates any visual obstruction of the stone wall. •Trails would maintain the existing width of approximately 8-ft. O Due to the enhancement of architectural elements and exceeding MnDOT's allotment for architectural elements, additional local funding sources would be needed for this option in the amount of approximately $227,000. Option 3 O The key improvement under this option includes a wider 12-ft. trail on the south/west side of bridge, meeting recommended trail design guidelines. o Both pedestrian bridges would be removed entirely, an entirely new pedestrian bridge on south/west side, and the sidewalk/trail would be moved to roadway bridge on the north/east side by reconfiguring the roadway. O Due to the enhancement of architectural elements and exceeding MnDOTs allotment for architectural elements, additional local funding sources would be needed for this option in the amount of approximately $433,000. There would also be additional costs to accommodate lane reconfigurations outside the bridge area for needed roadway lane transitions and intersection improvements due to eliminating a lane on the roadway bridge under this option. Based on the minimal added benefit of an additional 4-ft. trail width on the south/west bridge under Option 3 (compared to Option 2), and the obstruction of the stone wall under Option 1, Option 2 is being recommended by staff. If the City authorizes participation under Option 2 or 3, it is expected that MnDOT will prepare a Construction Cooperative Agreement that details the construction, funding, operation and maintenance responsibilities of each party, similar to the agreement for Highway 100 at the Bass Lake Road/County Road 57 bridge. The City's responsibilities would generally include maintaining the sidewalks/trails, streetscaping improvements and street lighting. Funding is identified in TIF District 2 for Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor improvements and there is an adequate balance to fund Option 2 ($227,000). While this might eventually be the only local source of funding, staff will be approaching the County to discuss funding partnering opportunities available and their possible contribution to the required local share amount. Policy Issues: Does the City Council support Option 2 for the bridge improvements? Does the City Council support funding the local participation portion of the improvements for Option 2 through available TIF District 2 funding? Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Goals: Strategic: 4. We will improve the city's image 7. We will continue to maintain the city's infrastructure improvements Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Work Session Agenda Item No. 3 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 10, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager 1/(75FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards SUBJECT: Commercial Vehicle Regulations Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council give direction to staff regarding current commercial vehicle regulations. Background: At the May 13, 2013 City Council meeting, a request was made at Open Forum to relax the requirements for commercial vehicles stored at residential properties. The majority consensus of the City Council/EDA was to direct staff to investigate the State of Minnesota commercial vehicle designations, the number of commercial vehicle violations issued in the last 12 months, and the date this ordinance was last updated or adopted. A brief summary of the current regulations is provided. The most recent City ordinance amendment to Chapter 19-103.12 occurred on November 17, 1988. The effective date of the ordinance change was June 1, 1989. Commercial vehicles are defined in the City Ordinances and are not based on the Department of Motor Vehicles definition of commercial vehicles. Each type of regulation serves a different purpose. Minnesota Department of Motor Vehicle Regulations: •According to the Minnesota Commercial Truck and Passenger Regulations 2012 Handbook, exceptions went into effect on August 1, 2011 for one-ton pickup trucks for non-commercial use. This legislation established a distinction in registration and license plate display. A person who registered their pickup truck as 'personal/non-commercial use only' can register in the "Y" non-commercial truck class for registered weights of 10,001, 12,000, and 15,000 pounds. This allows the owner to declare non-commercial use and exemption from USDOT number requirement. •The Minnesota Commercial Truck and Passenger Regulations 2012 Handbook states the maximum dimension of a vehicle that can operate on Minnesota highways without a permit is 8'6" in width and 13'6" in height. The length varies on the type of vehicle and trailer attached. All paved routes in Minnesota are 10-ton routes unless the route indicates a lesser axle weight limit. All unpaved routes in Minnesota are 9-ton routes unless the route indicates a lesser axle weight limit Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION • The vehicle at 4300 65 111 Ave N is registered for 10,000 pounds. According to the State Patrol Commercial Vehicle Enforcement unit, a vehicle that is less than 10,001 pounds is registered as a non-commercial vehicle regardless of use, for the purpose of MNDOT regulations and inspections on public roads. The City enforces the City Ordinance 19-103.12 during proactive neighborhood sweeps and when a complaint is received. During proactive sweeps, staff may determine that a violation does not exist or the vehicle is not present and no enforcement action is required. When a complaint is received, specific information is gathered to determine the alleged violations, when and how often the vehicle is present, and the length of time that it is present. Staff will then visit the property to determine if a violation exists. In either situation, if it is found that the property is in violation, a Compliance Notice is issued and staff works with the property owner to achieve compliance. Below is a chart showing the number of actions that the City has taken in regards to City Ordinance 19-103.12. Actions for Commercial Vehicle Violations by Year* Action 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 (As of 05/15/13) Violations 25 19 15 15 8 Administrative Citation 0 0 3 4 9 County Citation 1 0 0 0 0 Formal Complaint 2 0 0 0 0 Customer Complaints 4 5 2 3 2 *Due to inspection database changes, some commercial vehicle violations may not be available. A complaint regarding vehicles in violation of City ordinance was provided to the City Council at the May 13, 2013 Council meeting. An inspection of the vehicles was completed and Compliance Notices were sent to property owners where violations existed. Pictures are attached for informational purposes. Policy Issues: Are the current regulations regarding commercial vehicles reasonable for the community? If the regulations are viewed as unreasonable, in your view what changes would make them more reasonable? What information would you need to help make this determination? Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive comniunity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Council Goals: Strategic: 3. We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Attachments: Attachment I - City Ordinance Section 19-103.12 Attachment II - Minnesota State Statute 168.002 Attachment III — Summary of Commercial Vehicle Complaints Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Attachment I - City Ordinance Section 19-103.12 The section of the city ordinance pertaining to parking of commercial vehicles is provided below: Section 19-103. PUBLIC NUISANCES FURTHER DEFINED. It is hereby declared to be a public nuisance to permit, maintain, or harbor any of the following: 12. The parking and/or storage of construction equipment, farm vehicles and equipment, or a commercial vehicle with a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 pounds, continuously for more than two hours on any property within a residential zoning district or being lawfully used for residential purposes or on any public street adjacent to such properties. Such equipment and vehicles shall include, but are not limited to, the following: dump trucks, construction trailers, back hoes, front-end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, faim trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck-tractors, step vans, cube vans and the like. The prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: a)Any equipment or vehicle described above being used by a public utility, governmental agency, construction company, moving company or similar company which is actually being used to service a residence not belonging to or occupied by the operator of the vehicle. b)Any equipment or vehicle described above which is actually making a pickup or delivery at the location where it is parked. Parking for any period of time beyond the time reasonably necessary to make such a pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit shall be unlawful. c)Any equipment or vehicle exceeding the above described length, height or weight limitations, but which is classified as recreation equipment as specified in Minnesota Statutes 168.011, Subdivision 25. d)Any equipment or vehicle described above which is parked or stored on property zoned residential and being lawfully used as a church, school, cemetery, golf course, park, playground or publicly owned structure provided the equipment or vehicle is used by said use in the conduct of its normal affairs. e) Any equipment or vehicle described above which is parked or stored on property which is zoned residential and the principal use is nonconforming within the meaning of Section 35-111 of the City Ordinances, provided such parking or storage is not increased or expanded after the effective date of this ordinance Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for alipeople and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Attachment II - Minnesota State Statute 168.002 2012 Minnesota Statutes 168.002 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1.Words, terms, and phrases. Unless the language or context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended, the following words, terms, and phrases, for the purposes of this chapter, shall be given the meanings subjoined to them. Subd. 2.A11-terrain vehicle. "All-terrain vehicle" has the meaning given in section 84.92, subdivision 8. Subd. 3.Application for registration; listing for taxation. "Application for registration" shall have the same meaning as "listing for taxation," and when a motor vehicle is registered it is also listed. Subd. 4.Bus; intercity bus. (a)"Bus" means (1) every motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 15 passengers including the driver and used for transporting persons, (2) every motor vehicle that is (i) designed for canying more than ten passengers including the driver, (ii) used for transporting persons, and (iii) owned by a nonprofit organization and not operated for hire or for commercial purposes, or (3) every motor vehicle certified by the Department of Transportation as a special transportation service provider vehicle and receiving reimbursement as provided in section 256B.0625, subdivision 17. (b)"Intercity bus" means any bus operating as a common passenger carrier over regular routes and between fixed termini, but excluding all buses operating wholly within the limits of one city, or wholly within two or more contiguous cities, or between contiguous cities and a terminus outside the corporate limits of such cities, and not more than 20 miles distant measured along the fixed route from such corporate limits. Subd. 5.Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Subd. 6.Dealer. "Dealer" means any person, firm, or corporation regularly engaged in the business of manufacturing, or selling, purchasing, and generally dealing in new and unused motor vehicles having an established place of business for the sale, trade, and display of new and unused motor vehicles and having in possession new and unused motor vehicles for the purposes of sale or trade. "Dealer" also includes any person, firm or corporation regularly engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling, purchasing, and generally dealing in new and unused motor vehicle bodies, chassis mounted or not, and having an established place of business for the sale, trade Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION and display of such new and unused motor vehicle bodies, and having in possession new and unused motor vehicle bodies for the purposes of sale or trade. Subd. 7.Distributor. "Distributor" means a person, firm, or corporation which has a bona fide contract or franchise with a manufacturer to distribute the new motor vehicles of that manufacturer to licensed new motor vehicle dealers, but does not include a dealer. Subd. 8.Farm truck. (a)"Farm truck" means all single-unit trucks, truck-tractors, tractors, semitrailers, and trailers used by the owner thereof to transport agricultural, horticultural, dairy, and other farm products, including livestock, produced or finished by the owner of the truck, and any other personal property owned by the farmer to whom the license for the truck is issued, from the farm to market, and to transport property and supplies to the farm of the owner. Trucks, truck-tractors, tractors, semitrailers, and trailers registered as "farm trucks" may be used by the owner thereof to occasionally transport unprocessed and raw farm products, not produced by the owner of the truck, from the place of production to market when the transportation constitutes the first haul of the products, and may be used by the owner thereof, either farmer or logger who harvests and hauls forest products only, to transport logs, pulpwood, lumber, chips, railroad ties and other raw and unfinished forest products from the place of production to an intermediate or final assembly point or transfer yard or railhead, which transportation may be continued by another farm truck to a place for final processing or manufacture located within 200 miles of the place of production and all of which is deemed to constitute the first haul of unfinished wood products; provided that the owner and operator of the vehicle transporting planed lumber shall have in immediate possession a statement signed by the producer of the lumber designating the governmental subdivision, section, and township where the lumber was produced and that this haul, indicating the date, is the first haul thereof. The licensed vehicles may also be used by the owner thereof to transport, to and from timber-harvesting areas, equipment and appurtenances incidental to timber harvesting, and gravel and other road-building materials for timber haul roads. (b)"Farm trucks" shall also include only single-unit trucks that, because of their construction, cannot be used for any other purpose and are used exclusively to transport milk and cream en route from a farm to an assembly point or place for final manufacture, and for transporting milk and cream from an assembly point to a place for final processing or manufacture. This section shall not be construed to mean that the owner or operator of the truck cannot carry on usual accommodation services for patrons on regular return trips, such as butter, cream, cheese, and other dairy supplies. Subd. 9.Final-stage manufacturer. "Final-stage manufacturer" means a person, firm, or corporation which performs manufacturing operations on an incomplete motor vehicle or a van-type motor vehicle so that it becomes a type A, B, or C motor home. Subd. 10.First year of life. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public 1111St MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION "First year of life" means the year of model designation of the vehicle, or, if there be no year of model designation, it shall mean the year of manufacture. Subd. 11 .First-stage manufacturer. "First-stage manufacturer" means a person, firm, or corporation which manufactures, assembles, and sells new motor vehicles for resale in this state. Subd. 12.Fleet. "Fleet" means a combination of 50 or more vehicles and trailers owned by a person solely for the use of that person or employees of the person and registered in this state under section 168.127. It does not include vehicles licensed under section 168.187. Subd. 13.Gross weight. (a)"Gross weight" means the actual unloaded weight of the vehicle, either a truck or tractor, or the actual unloaded combined weight of a truck-tractor and semitrailer or semitrailers, or of the truck-tractor, semitrailer and one additional semitrailer, fully equipped for service, plus the weight of the maximum load which the applicant has elected to carry on such vehicle or combined vehicles. (b)The term gross weight applied to a truck used for towing a trailer means the unloaded weight of the truck, fully equipped for service, plus the weight of the maximum load which the applicant has elected to carry on such truck, including the weight of such part of the trailer and its load as may rest upon the truck. (c)The term gross weight applied to school buses means the weight of the vehicle fully equipped with all fuel tanks full of fuel, plus the weight of the passengers and their baggage computed at the rate of 100 pounds per passenger seating capacity, including that for the driver. The term gross weight applied to other buses means the weight of the vehicle fully equipped with all fuel tanks full of fuel, plus the weight of passengers and their baggage computed at the rate of 150 pounds per passenger seating capacity, including that for the driver. For bus seats designed for more than one passenger, but which are not divided so as to allot individual seats for the passengers that occupy them, allow two feet of its length per passenger to determine seating capacity. (d)The term gross weight applied to a truck, truck-tractor or a truck used as a truck-tractor used exclusively by the owner thereof for transporting unfinished forest products or used by the owner thereof to transport agricultural, horticultural, dairy and other farm products including livestock produced or finished by the owner of the truck and any other personal property owned by the farmer to whom the license for such truck is issued, from the farm to market, and to transport property and supplies to the farm of the owner, as described in subdivision 8, shall be the actual weight of the truck, truck-tractor or truck used as a truck-tractor or the combined weight of the truck-tractor and semitrailer plus the weight of the maximum load which the applicant has elected to carry on such vehicle or combined vehicles and shall be licensed and taxed as provided by section 168.013, subdivision 1 c. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION (e)The term gross weight applied to a truck-tractor or a truck used as a truck-tractor used exclusively by the owner, or by a for-hire carrier hauling exclusively for one owner, for towing an equipment dolly shall be the actual weight of the truck-tractor or truck used as a truck-tractor plus the weight of such part of the equipment dolly and its load as may rest upon the truck-tractor or truck used as a truck-tractor, and shall be licensed separately and taxed as provided by section 168.013, subdivision le, and the equipment dolly shall be licensed separately and taxed as provided in section 168.013, subdivision id, which is applicable for the balance of the weight of the equipment dolly and the balance of the maximum load the applicant has elected to carry on such combined vehicles. The tern -i "equipment dolly" as used in this subdivision means a heavy semitrailer used solely by the owner, or by a for-hire carrier hauling exclusively for one owner, to transport the owner's construction machinery, equipment, implements and other objects used on a construction project, but not to be incorporated in or to become a part of a completed project. (f)The term gross weight applied to a tow truck or towing vehicle defined in section 168B.011, subdivision 12a, means the weight of the tow truck or towing vehicle fully equipped for service, including the weight of the crane, winch and other equipment to control the movement of a towed vehicle, but does not include the weight of a wrecked or disabled vehicle towed or drawn by the tow truck or towing vehicle. Subd. 14.Highway. "Highway" has the meaning given "street or highway" in section 169.011, subdivision 81. Subd. 15.Limousine. "Limousine" means a luxury passenger automobile that is not a van or station wagon and has a seating capacity of not more than 12 persons, excluding the driver. Subd. 16.Manufactured home. "Manufactured home" has the meaning given it in section 327.31, subdivision 6. Subd. 17.Motor home. (a)"Motor home" means a recreational vehicle designed to provide temporary living quarters. The motor home has a living unit built into as an integral part of, or permanently attached to the chassis of, a motor vehicle or van. (b)A motor home must contain permanently installed, independent, life-support systems that meet the American National Standards Institute standard number A119.2 for recreational vehicles and provide at least four of the following facilities, two of which must be from the systems listed in clauses (1), (5), and (6): (1) a cooking facility with liquid propane gas supply, (2) a refrigerator, (3) a self-contained toilet or a toilet connected to a plumbing system with a connection for external water disposal, (4) a heating or air conditioning system separate from the motor vehicle engine, (5) a potable water supply system including a sink with a faucet either self-contained or with connections for an external source, and (6) a separate 110-125 volts electrical power supply. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION (c)For purposes of this subdivision, "permanently installed" means built into or attached as an integral part of a chassis or van, and designed not to be removed except for repair or replacement. A system that is readily removable or held in place by clamps or tie-downs is not permanently installed. (d)Motor homes include a: (1)type A motor home, which is a raw chassis upon which is built a driver's compartment and an entire body that provides temporary living quarters as described in paragraph (b); (2)type B motor home, which is a van that conforms to the description in paragraph (b) and has been completed or altered by a final-stage manufacturer; and (3) type C motor home, which is an incomplete vehicle upon which is permanently attached a body designed to provide temporary living quarters as described in paragraph (b). (e) A motor vehicle with a slip-in camper or other removable equipment that is mounted into or on a motor vehicle is not a motor home, is not a recreational vehicle, and must not be registered as a recreational vehicle under section 168.013. Subd. 18.Motor vehicle. (a)"Motor vehicle" means any self-propelled vehicle designed and originally manufactured to operate primarily on highways, and not operated exclusively upon railroad tracks. It includes any vehicle propelled or drawn by a self-propelled vehicle and includes vehicles known as trackless trolleys that are propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires but not operated upon rails. It does not include snowmobiles, manufactured homes, or park trailers. (b)"Motor vehicle" includes an all-terrain vehicle only if the all-terrain vehicle (1) has at least four wheels, (2) is owned and operated by a physically disabled person, and (3) displays both disability plates and a physically disabled certificate issued under section 169.345. (c)"Motor vehicle" does not include an all-terrain vehicle except (1) an all-terrain vehicle described in paragraph (b), or (2) an all-terrain vehicle licensed as a motor vehicle before August 1, 1985. The owner may continue to license an all-terrain vehicle described in clause (2) as a motor vehicle until it is conveyed or otherwise transferred to another owner, is destroyed, or fails to comply with the registration and licensing requirements of this chapter. (d)"Motor vehicle" does not include an electric personal assistive mobility device as defined in section 169.011, subdivision 26. (e)"Motor vehicle" does not include a motorized foot scooter as defined in section 169.011, subdivision 46. (f)"Motor vehicle" includes an off-highway motorcycle modified to meet the requirements of chapter 169 according to section 84.788, subdivision 12. Subd. 19.Motorcycle. "Motorcycle" has the meaning given in section 169.011, subdivision 44. Subd. 20.Motorized bicycle. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive comnamity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION "Motorized bicycle" has the meaning given in section 169.011, subdivision 45. Subd. 21 .Neighborhood electric vehicle. "Neighborhood electric vehicle" has the meaning given in section 169.011, subdivision 47. Subd. 21a.Noncommercial vehicle. "Noncommercial vehicle" means a one-ton pickup truck registered under section 168.013, subdivision le, with a 15,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating and for which the owner has made a declaration that the vehicle will be operated exclusively for personal use. The declaration must be based on one or more of the following: (1)a change of vehicle use; (2)registration of a new vehicle; (3)transfer of vehicle ownership; or (4)registration renewal. Subd. 21b.One-ton pickup truck. "One-ton pickup truck" means any truck resembling a pickup truck with a manufacturer's nominal rated carrying capacity of one ton. If the manufacturer's nominal rated carrying capacity is not provided or is not known, then the value specified by the manufacturer as the gross vehicle weight rating as indicated on the manufacturer's certification label must be 10,001 pounds or more, not to exceed 15,000 pounds, in accordance with the definition of "commercial motor vehicle" in Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, section 390.5. Subd. 22.0wner. "Owner" means any person owning or leasing a vehicle, or having the exclusive use of the vehicle, under a lease or otherwise, for a period greater than 30 days. Subd. 23 .Park trailer. "Park trailer" means a trailer that: (1)exceeds 8-1/2 feet in width in travel mode but is no larger than 400 square feet when the collapsible components are fully extended or at maximum horizontal width; and (2)is used as temporary living quarters. "Park trailer" does not include a manufactured home. Subd. 24.Passenger automobile. (a)"Passenger automobile" means any motor vehicle designed and used for carrying not more than 15 individuals, including the driver. (b)"Passenger automobile" does not include motorcycles, motor scooters, buses, school buses, or commuter vans as defined in section 168.126. (c) "Passenger automobile" includes, but is not limited to: (1) a vehicle that is a pickup truck or a van as defined in subdivisions 26 and 40; Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION (2)neighborhood electric vehicles, as defined in section 169.011, subdivision 47; and (3)medium-speed electric vehicles, as defined in section 169.011, subdivision 39. Subd. 25.Person. "Person" has the meaning given in section 168A.01, subdivision 14. Subd. 26.Pickup truck. "Pickup truck" means any truck with a manufacturer's nominal rated carrying capacity of three-fourths ton or less and commonly known as a pickup truck. If the manufacturer's nominal rated carrying capacity is not provided or cannot be determined, then the value specified by the manufacturer as the gross vehicle weight as indicated on the manufacturer's certification label must be less than 10,000 pounds. Subd. 27.Recreational vehicle. (a)"Recreational vehicle" means travel trailers including those that telescope or fold down, chassis-mounted campers, motor homes, tent trailers, and converted buses that provide temporary human living quarters. (b)"Recreational vehicle" is a vehicle that: (1)is not used as the residence of the owner or occupant; (2)is used while engaged in recreational or vacation activities; and (3) is either self-propelled or towed on the highways incidental to the recreational or vacation activities. Subd. 28.Registered owner. "Registered owner" means any person, other than a secured party, having title to a vehicle. If a passenger automobile is under lease for a term of 180 days or more, the lessee is deemed to be the registered owner, for purposes of registration only; provided that the application for renewal of the registration of a passenger automobile is sent to the lessor. Subd. 29.Registrar. "Registrar" means the registrar of motor vehicles designated in this chapter. Sub d. 3 0 . Semitrailer. "Semitrailer" means a vehicle of the trailer type so designed and used in conjunction with a truck-tractor that a considerable part of its own weight or that of its load rests upon and is carried by the truck-tractor and shall include a trailer drawn by a truck-tractor semitrailer combination. For the purpose of registration, trailers coupled with a truck-tractor, semitrailer combination are semitrailers. Subd. 31 .Special mobile equipment. (a) "Special mobile equipment" means every vehicle not designed or used for the transportation of persons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, except vehicles described in paragraph (b). Special mobile equipment includes, but is not limited to: ditch-digging apparatuses, pump hoists and other water well-drilling equipment registered Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION and licensed under chapter 1031, other road construction or road maintenance machinery, aggregate processing and conveying equipment, truck-mounted log loaders that are used exclusively for commercial logging, and self-propelled cranes. (b) "Special mobile equipment" does not include: (1)machinery that has been temporarily or permanently mounted on a commercial motor vehicle chassis that is used only to provide a service and is not able to haul goods for resale; or (2)dump trucks. Subd. 31 a.Special plates. Unless otherwise specified, "special plates" or "special plate" means plates, or a single motorcycle plate, that are designed with wording or graphics that differ from a regular Minnesota passenger automobile plate or motorcycle plate. Subd. 32.State. "State" means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Subd. 33.Tax. "Tax" means the annual registration tax imposed on vehicles in lieu of all other taxes, except wheelage taxes which may be imposed by any city, and gross earnings taxes paid by companies. The annual tax is both a property tax and a highway use tax and shall be on the basis of the calendar year. Subd. 34.Tractor. "Tractor" means any motor vehicle designed or used for drawing other vehicles but having no provision for carrying loads independently. Subd. 35.Trailer. "Trailer" means any vehicle designed for carrying property or passenger on its own structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle but shall not include a trailer drawn by a truck- tractor semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary axle on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached. For the purpose of registration, trailers coupled with a truck-tractor, semitrailer combination are semitrailers. Subd. 36.Travel trailer. "Travel trailer" means a trailer, mounted on wheels, that: (1)is designed to provide temporary living quarters during recreation, camping, or travel; (2)does not require a special highway movement permit based on its size or weight when towed by a motor vehicle; and (3) complies with sections 169.80, subdivision 2, and 169.81, subdivision 2. Subd. 37.Truck. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION "Truck" means any motor vehicle designed and used for carrying things other than passengers, except pickup trucks and vans included within the definition of passenger automobile in subdivision 24. Subd. 38 .Truck-tractor. "Truck-tractor" means: (1)a motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and not constructed to carry a load other than a part of the weight of the vehicle and load drawn; and (2)a motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles used exclusively for transporting motor vehicles and capable of carrying motor vehicles on its own structure. Subd. 39.Unloaded weight. "Unloaded weight" means the actual weight of the vehicle fully equipped without a load. Subd. 40.Van. "Van" means any vehicle of box-like design with no banier or separation between the operator's area and the remainder of the cargo-carrying area, and with a manufacturer's nominal rated carrying capacity of three-fourths ton or less. If the manufacturer's nominal rated carrying capacity is not provided or not known, then the value specified by the manufacturer as the maximum gross weight or gross vehicle weight rating as indicated on the manufacturer's certification label must be less than 10,000 pounds. Subd. 41 .Van converter or modifier. "Van converter or modifier" means a person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of modifying, completing or converting van-type vehicles into multipurpose passenger vehicles which are not motor homes as defined in subdivision 27. Subd. 42.Vehicle. "Vehicle" has the meaning given in section 168A.01, subdivision 24. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Attachment III — Summary of Commercial Vehicle Complaints (All pictures provided by resident at May 13, 2013 City Council Meeting Open Forum) Findings: Cube van vehicle is in violation of City ordinance 19-103 as a result of the vehicle more than 8ft in height. Several other vehicles on site- the white trailer needs verification yet, the boat/trailer is not in violation, the truck is not in violation, the flatbed trailer is not in violation, the vehicle dolly trailer is not in violation, red railing trailer unknown status (Not all vehicles shown in picture below) Violation Type Date Activity Commercial Vehicle Parking 5/13/2013 5/21/2013 Complaint Received Inspected vehicle, vehicle over 9 ft. in height Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: The trailer was determined to be in violation of City Ordinance 19-103 since it exceeds 8 ft. in height. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial 5/13/13 Complaint Received Vehicle Parking 5/17/13 Inspection — Trailer not present 5/24/13 Inspection — Trailer 9 feet tall 5/24/13 Compliance Notice sent ^ Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive comnutnity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: The vehicle was determined to be in violation of City Ordinance 19-103 since it exceeds 8 ft. in height. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial 5/13/2013 Complaint Received Vehicle Parking 5/17/2013 Inspection — vehicle not present at time 6/06/2013 Inspection verified vehicle on site Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: The semi-truck was determined to be in violation of City Ordinance 19-103 since the vehicle exceeds 9,000 lbs. GVW and 8ft in height. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial 5/10/2013 Complaint Received Vehicle Parking 5/10/2013 Inspection — Semi-truck present 5/10/2013 Notice sent 5/22/2013Follow up inspection — Semi-truck removed - Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive comnutnity that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: The cargo truck was determined to be in violation of City Ordinance 19-103 since it exceeds 8 ft. in height and more than 9,000 lbs. GVW. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial 5/13/2013 Complaint Received Vehicle Parking 5/17/2013 Inspection — cargo truck not present 5/24/2013 Inspection — Cargo truck present 5/24/2013 Compliance Notice Sent 5/29/2013 Phone call — Owner stated that it is parked over night and weekend. Owner was informed he cannot park truck on the property. — Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: Vehicle does not violate City ordinance 19-103 as a result of the vehicle being less than 9,000 lbs. GVW, 8ft in height, and 21ft in length. The vehicle is not considered construction equipment. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial Vehicle Parking 5/13/2013 5/21/2013 Complaint Received Inspection verified truck Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: Vehicle does not violate City Ordinance 19-103 as a result of the vehicle being less than 9,000 lbs. GVW, 8ft in height, and 21ft in length. It does not exceed the size requirement and the vehicle is a residential style vehicle. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial Vehicle Parking 5/13/2013 5/21/2013 Complaint Received Inspection — Vehicle not present at time of inspection Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: Trailer is in violation of City Ordinance 19-103 since it exceeds 21ft in length and is more than 8ft in height. It does not exceed the size requirement and the vehicle is not considered commercial or farm equipment. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial 5/13/2013 Complaint Received Vehicle Parking 5/17/2013 Inspection — trailer inspected 5/21/2013 Inspection — trailer exceeds 21ft long Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: The address provided was not the correct. The trailer does not violate City Ordinance 19- 103 as a result of the trailer being less than 9,000 lbs. GVW, 8ft in height, and 21ft in length. It does not exceed the size requirement and it is not considered commercial or farm equipment. This property was previously under investigation for other property code violations, such as accumulation of junk/debris in the open trailer. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial 5/13/2013 Complaint Received Vehicle Parking 5/21/2013 Inspection — wrong address provided Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Findings: The cargo truck is not considered in violation of City Ordinance 19-103 based on the vehicle being registered as a Recreational Vehicle, an exception provided for in the ordinance. Violation Type Date Activity Commercial 5/13/2013 Complaint Received Vehicle Parking 5/21/2013Inspection —cargo truck not present at time of inspection 5/24/2013Inspection — cargo truck is registered as a RV, license plate #RV A0150 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for ailpeople and preserves the public trust Work Session Agenda Item No. 4 lk UM - COUNCIL WORK SESS ON DATE: June 10, 2013 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business SUBJECT: Update on the Landscape and Screening Plans for the Honda and Toyota Dealerships and opportunity to upgrade an 8 foot wood fence to an 8-10 foot masonry wall thorough the use of TIF 3 Housing Funds. Recommendation: It is recommended that following an informational update on status of the Luther Auto Group's Planned Unit Development Plans for the Honda and Toyota Dealerships at 6800 & 6900 Brooklyn Boulevard; that the City Council considers providing direction to staff regarding the opportunity of using TIF District 3 Housing Funds to enhance the 8 foot screening fence along the eastern property line to a 10 foot masonry. . Background: On July 28, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-81, a resolution which accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation on a request by Luther Company LLLP to rezone 5 contiguous lots from C-2 (Commerce) and R-3 (Multiple Family) to PUD/C-2 (Planned Unit Development/Commerce) and approved the General Development Plans for a Honda and Toyota Dealerships. On June 13, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-92, a resolution which accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation and approved the preliminary plat of Bri Mar 2 m1 Addition and the Site and Building Development Plans for the construction of the Honda and Toyota Dealerships, consistent with the 2008 PUD/C-2 approved General Development Plans. On November 5, 2012, certificate of occupancy permits were issued to the new Honda Dealership at 6900 Brooklyn Boulevard and the new Toyota Dealership at 6800 Brooklyn Boulevard with the provision that the following landscaping and screening improvements would occur in 2013: -Replacement of approximately 960 feet of the existing fence along the common rear lot lines of 4 single family lots and the Victoria Townhome Development; -The construction of a new fence along the side lot line of 4007 69 th Ave.; -Replacement of approximately 580' of decorative fence along 69 th Ave.; and -The landscaping along the eastern lot line. The Development Agreement is secured by a $670,000 letter of credit and includes a completion date of July 15, 2013. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, sup, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust MEMO NDUM - COUNCIL WO SESSION The delay in completing these improvements, specifically related to the following: 1.The developer was able to acquire the adjoining single family residence at 4007 69 th Ave. in July of 2012 and in May, 2013 has completed the acquisitions of the remaining two residential properties at 4001 and 3955 69 th Ave. N. The Luther Auto Group is in the process of making application to amend the PUD for the Honda lot to include these three properties. 2.The developer has been working with the Planning Staff on the opportunities of using TIF 3 Housing Funds to improve their required 8 foot high cedar screening fence to an optional 8-10 foot masonry wall that would enhance buffering and generally improve the quality of life for the adjacent residential properties. Attached for your reference is a copy of the PUD landscape plan, cost estimates and photographs of the cedar fence and optional masonry wall. Additionally, included is a photograph of a masonry wall used to buffer/screen a residential development in Eden Prairie. Tax Increment District No. 3, includes the Luther Auto Dealerships and the adjacent residential properties, with the exception of the Victoria Townhome Project. The 2013 assessed valuation of the new Honda and Toyota dealerships is $23,430,000 and the Frozen Market Value for these two dealership sites is $5,096,400. The additional $18,333,600 of new valuation, equates to a tax capacity of $366,672 which based on the frozen tax rate of 1.45044 equals approximately $531,835 of new tax increment revenue to this district. Fifteen percent of this new increment or approximately $80,000 annually is required to be placed in the TIF 3 Housing Fund and the balance is used to pay off the outstanding bonds/debt. Based on the fence quotes from the developer, the additional cost of approximately $160 per linear foot or approximately $153,600 would be necessary to upgrade the required 8 foot cedar fence to a 10 foot high masonry wall. Based on the 2013 assessed valuation, this would be less than two years of this project's TIF contributions to the Housing Fund. Policy Issues: Does the City Council wish to consider using eligible TIF 3 Housing Funds to upgrade the screening and landscape plans for the Honda and Toyota PUD? Will the improvements to the neighborhood justify the use of TIF Housing Funds for this purpose? Council Goals: Strategic: 2 We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods 4. We will improve the city's image illission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive conununhy that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public (nisi •12J.c SMF 11'4! "41.4". - • •`"■:It'--„. - " ' - EfRODAI.V.V 12 ° 1 5L ' •rTh WilergiESMAXSENK a =7, ?kr ,!:•% ":" I' see sr-er 1.7.707 4.0 TOYOTA 52.140 SP FOOTPRINT FFE =,866.00 PAD =t65.00 5 —, —1 e alfi gyn. r-xnai rPre-:41,K11: )M0 ' '4"'4'7 .5.4.4r 1 DECIDUOUS razzs 0 f,V"' (2;).7040 , Pt4II ....... ''''" .......... .40.0 70 40 U.f0 DO DIU torl .307 9 0.1 . 35... .10717.1001 {,,,,,Cp ,.... CDSTFESDUS TRE-Es . 0 :2,,.., . 001.04 Va .11 . V. 00 ND *555 .V 0.7 / OR 007 000, f7505*5 rotn DRNARENTAI. TREES 5,04 00., CIIN .......0 01.00 /07 7 64 t,,c,t2I CLCS NM DECIDUOUS SHRUBS 0 07.0, ..•[..a.C004.07.0 •2.,—.....7.;lt".. V13.1,1 .11.1...7.0 77.f77%0°07'k 7 01. 7 04. r. 1.7 .■ . 117 4.1. 0 M40 700. 740 H•ilos COHIPEROUS SHRUBS•v.....r.,4 ... 0.7 OP .-,--= V.,1,-7.,-.;*'.... 'MM' '2 40. 7 . 7-., PO 707 wr It ..11, .7 • 7 .7 50.30 DU= Tit: OAT 14,04.0 SCP/S 5 .100 Option #1 and #2: Option #3: Fencing Options - REV. II — GENERAL CONTRACTORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS 725 HIGHWAY 169 NORTH • PLYMOUTH, MN 55441-6403 PHONE: (763) 525-0109 • FAX: (763) 525-1261 Equal Opportunity Employer/Contractor June 11, 2012 Motors Management Corporation 3701 Alabama Ave S St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Attn: Linda McGinty RE: Luther Brookdale Honda & Toyota - Fencing Options — REVISION #2 Dear Linda: Please see the budgets below for the different fencing options discussed thus far, for the above referenced project. Three options have been considered for the East property line. East Property Line: Option #1 = 8' Precast Fence: Total $223,414 Value of fence abutting Public Housing (675 LF) $125,67017 '6(.0 '":‘tOption #2 = 10' Precast Fence: Total $258,287 Value of fence abutting Public Housing (675 LF) $145 28 16 cole5 Option #3 = 8' Cedar Fence: Total $ 66,539 Value of fence abutting Public Housing (675 LF) ,$ 37,428 5 5, Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this budget proposal. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, D. J. KRANZ CO., INC. Daniel L. Reckard Project Manager Fencing Options - REV. II Work Session Agenda Item No. 5 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: Thursday, June 06, 2013 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana SUBJECT: Brooklyn Bridge Alliance- Office Space Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council/EDA consider providing direction to staff regarding a request from the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance to lease the Inn at the Earle Brown Heritage Center for Office Space. Background: Recently the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance Board determined that the success of the organization requires staffing beyond a single full time Director. The original commitment from the County was to provide limited office resources at the Hennepin County Resource Center to support The Alliance. With the addition of a full time project coordinator and two part-time/ seasonal interns, the current space at the HCRC is not feasible or adequate (attached memo). As we have reviewed the request from the BBA, these are the primary issues and responses as we see them: Issue The Alliance has requested a minimum 24 month agreement. Response Given that the EBHC is generating no revenue form the Inn and other prospects are not evident we believe that at 24 1h agreement is not um-easonable. Issue Extending service for phone and computer service would be required. Response We have no estimate at this time but we would expect these costs would not exceed $1,000. Service of the systems would be added to the City staff and we don't believe the burden would be unusual or excessive. Issue One bathroom would need to be converted to handicap accessibility. Estimated Cost $5-7,000. Response This is a cost that we would have to incur in the future if we were to begin leasing the space for office or meeting room space. It is typical that this cost would be built into the lease agreement. Issue Custodial service would be needed. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality Qf far all people and preserves the public trust MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION Response Issue Response Issue Response While custodial services could be provided by the City our preference would be for the tenant to provide separate service that meets their needs. Currently the utilities are not separately metered. The EBHC has provided utilities to the building for three years to help maintain its condition. We believe the added utility cost would be fairly marginal. The Inn has been vacant for several years and the rental market for this property seem very limited. We believe that an occupant would help to preserve the condition of the building. Our experience is that over time vacant buildings tend to deteriorate. Policy Issues: Is the use of the Inn as an office space for the BBA a reasonable alternative to seeking another tenant or converting the space to an alternative use such as additional meeting space? If the space is provided should it be an in-kind contribution? Should the EDA seek cost reimbursement or some form of rent payment? Council Goals: Select not more than two. Strategic: 6. We will increase the engagement of all segments of the community Mission: 1 .;:nsuring an attractive,, clean, sal, inclusive community that enhances the quality of for all people and preserves the public frust MEMORANDUM DATE: May 30, 2013 TO: Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority FROM: Rebecca Gilgen, Executive Director - Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth SUBJECT: Request for utilization of property The Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth (Alliance) is a two year joint powers agreement between the City of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Hennepin County, and the school districts of Osseo, Brooklyn Center, Robbinsdale and Anoka-Hennepin. Ex Officio Members include: Hennepin Technical College & North Hennepin Community College. Our shared vision is to assure the success of all youth by challenging the conditions that diminish their hope, by ensuring that all youth are connected to a trusted adult who is vested in their success as measured by educational success and mastery of essential skills. Since the establishment of the funded joint powers in January of 2013 the Alliance has sought permanent space for operations. Over the last three months Alliance partners have reviewed each organizations physical resources and only two options have emerged for housing the important work of improving outcomes for youth. In this exhaustive search a space operated by the EDA that is not currently in use was identified. After and tour and discussion with the City Manager and Earle Brown General Manager regarding the possibility of this collaboration the Alliance is requesting the use of the Guest House at Earle Brown Farm for a nominal cost. We are seeking a location that can ensure that shared resources brought together by the joint powers focuses on implementing the strategic plan rather than overhead costs related to housing. The Alliance would use this building for the offices of two full-time staff, two part-time interns and host Alliance related work sessions and meetings. The Alliance has access to several other large meeting spaces that will supplement this property. These additional spaces will be needed for community gatherings, ongoing programming or conferences. Thus, "wear and tear" on the property will be minimal. The Alliance proposes that: •The Guest House be made available for a nominal cost so that collaborative resources can focus on service delivery. •The City of Brooklyn Center establishes a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alliance such that this property be made available for the guarantee of 1 year. •The MOU specify that if there is a market-rate offer for the property that the Alliance will re-negotiate the MOU or move out of the space. •Costs related to preparing the property, updating the space and modifying space to meet ADA requirement be incurred by the City. Costs related to office equipment, move in and ongoing maintenance or repair be incurred by Alliance partners. •That the EDA approve the Alliance use of this facility for immediate use. Approval from the EDA would allow the Alliance for Youth to focus on our purpose which is to cooperatively support positive youth development in out-of-school-time opportunities for all youth in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park. Use of the Guest House would be a tremendous asset to the Alliance and would allow us to establish a functional center for the Alliance work. Thank you for your consideration. Finding Office Space for the Alliance ELT Conversation May 1, 2013 Background -At the August 2012 Alliance meeting Kimberly assisted in identifying space in the new Hennepin County Resource Center as "home base" for the new E.D. of the Alliance. Space at the Hennepin County office is flexible — designed for people who do not need a permanent space/desk/office. Working space will include a docking station and phones for use, and meeting space. -From here, Jamie Verbrugge worked with staff at the HUB to set up the MOU for using the space. When the ED came on board in January, Rebecca took over responsibility for establishing the MOU. Upon review, details emerged regarding space utilization. o There were concerns about access to printing and other needs. Rebecca requested changes to the standard MOU. o While waiting for a county decision about access, the Hub staff has been used for a few meetings and as a 'mailbox' for the Alliance. Room reservation requests are handled by HSPHD staff who book rooms on their system. o Also, during this time, Rebecca has a temporary space at Brooklyn Park City Hall -Over the last 3 months the following changes and needs have been identified: o There will be an additional Full-time staff. This staff will need office space as well as the ED. o The Alliance will utilize interns, youth interns, volunteers, project teams and members in order to accomplish our goals. We need flexible space that allows for youth access, seating/desks for interns and meeting rooms for project teams. As well as space for permanent full-time Alliance staff offices. •This includes ongoing space for the Brooklyns Youth Council to work. They meeting regularly at the BP Community Activities Center. They do not need to change locations immediately. They will likely need space to convene starting July 1 as they prepare their program re-design. o Access (preferable on site) to storage space for Alliance activities such as Outreach, Marketing materials, meeting supplies, signage etc. o Ad-Hoc space for convening board meetings, community forums and summits. These do not need to be where the offices are. o Easy access for Alliance members and community partners. Both from a location perspective (in-between the two cities) and from a building perspective (extended hours, open doors/reception area) o Office space needs: desks, chairs, lighting, tables, access to printing, and office with privacy for confidential or private conversations. Current IT is supported by City of Brooklyn Park as a part of the fiscal agent agreement. An Prepared for the Executive Leadership Team May 6, 2013 -Over the last 3 months the following has been clarified regarding the Hub space: o Hub space was for Executive Director Use only. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Hennepin County HSPHD and the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park provides for use of the hub's flexible office workspace by the Executive Director of the Alliance only. o Additional Alliance staff and interns may not use this space. HSPHD is not open to revising the MOU with the Alliance due to internal department demands on the use of the space at the hub. Interns are a part of both our strategic direction for providing youth leadership opportunities AND as a part of our staffing model for getting work done. Inability to accommodate these staff makes convening a team very challenging. o Printing access is not available. The ED would have to bring a portable printer, store it, and use it as needed. o Meeting rooms are difficult to access. With the exception of the Community room, meeting rooms are in a secured access area. -Regarding Ad-Hoc space needs: City Council chambers will be used for Alliance Board meetings. Hennepin Tech and other Alliance members have large spaces for community forums and summits as needed. The Brookdale library also has large meeting rooms available for public use — although they require a set-up fee. -At this time it is recommend that we survey Alliance members to see what additional space might be available to house the ED, Staff (July 2013) and 2 interns (August 2013). o Both city managers have offered space at their city halls. This is a good option — given that we will be working closely with both cities. o An ideal location would be one that meets the Alliance operational needs and contributes to strengthening our partnerships. •Neutral location •Access to students (for internship opportunities) -Establishing a permanent workspace in the next 30-60 days is imperative. Focused conversation What other information would you add to this timeline? What else is important to consider in resolving this issue? What are all the options? Which of these options best meet the operational needs of the Alliance? What are the next steps? Prepared for the Executive Leadership Team May 6, 2013