Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 06-09 CCP Regular SessionAGENDA CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION June 9, 2014 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 9, 2014 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 27, 2014— Study Session 2.May 27, 2014 — Regular Session 3. May 27, 2014 — Work Session b. Licenses c.Resolution Providing for Notice of Withdrawal by the City of Brooklyn Center from the Five Cities Senior Transportation Project d.An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Taproom Sunday Sales —Approve first reading and set second reading and Public Hearing for July 14, 2014. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- June 9, 2014 e.Resolution Adopting Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year Ended December 31, 2013 f.Resolution Approving Continuance of the Sub Recipient Agreement with Hennepin County for Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (MHFA NSP3 and HUD NSP3) g. Resolution Approving a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Park Regarding Use of the City of Brooklyn Center's Detention Center 7.Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations —None. 8.Public Hearings a.Proposal for the Issuance of Health Care Facility Revenue Notes (Maranatha Care Center Project) 1. Resolution Giving Host Approval to the Issuance of Health Care Facility Revenue Notes (Maranatha Care Center Project) —This item was published in the official newspaper on May 22, 2014; and is offered this evening for Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: —Motion to open Public Hearing. —Take public input. —Motion to close Public Hearing. —Motion to adopt resolution. b.An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land (7100 Camden Avenue North) —This item was first read on May 12, 2014; published in the official newspaper on May 22, 2014; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing. Requested Council Action: —Motion to open Public Hearing. —Take public input. —Motion to close Public Hearing. —Motion to adopt ordinance. 9. Planning Commission Items a. Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005 Submitted by Robbinsdale Area School District No. 281. Request for Approval of Site Plan for New Parking and Bus Turn-Around Areas for Northport Elementary School Located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 29, 2014, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- June 9, 2014 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005 Submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools — ISD No. 281 Requesting Site Plan Approval for Certain Parking Lot Improvements for Northport Elementary School (5421 Brooklyn Boulevard) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. b.Planning Commission Application No. 2014-006 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company. Request for Approval of Amendment No. 6 to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, to Allow the Reconfiguration of Certain Buildings and Lot Lines, and Allow Future Drive-thru Lane for New Building. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 29, 2014, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-006 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company Requesting Approval for a Planned Unit Development Amendment No. 6 to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. c.Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company. Request for Approval of Site and Building Plan Amendment for Buildings No. 9 and 10, Originally Approved Under Planning Application No. 2013-020, in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 29, 2014, meeting. 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company Requesting the Approval of an Amendment to the Approved Site and Building Plan to Allow the Reconfiguration of Proposed Buildings 9 and 10 Within the Brookdale Mall Food Court Reconstruction Area and Which is Part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1300 Shingle Creek Crossing) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. d. Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company. Request for Approval of Site and Building Plan for Building R, a New 5,400 sq. ft. Restaurant Building Pad Site in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 29, 2014, meeting. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- June 9, 2014 1. Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008 Submitted by Gatlin Development Approving the Site and Building Plan for Proposed Building R within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (Future Address 1390 Shingle Creek Crossing) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. e. Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company. Request for Approval of Site and Building Plan for Building T, a New 5,500 sq. ft. Restaurant Building Pad Site in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application at its May 29, 2014, meeting. 1 Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009 Submitted by Gatlin Development Approving the Site and Building Plan for Proposed Building T within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (Future Address 1380 Shingle Creek Crossing) Requested Council Action: —Motion to adopt resolution. 10.Council Consideration Items —None. 11.Council Report 12. Adjournment AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 9, 2014 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. Review of Civil Legal Services PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.BC University 2.Consideration of Modifying Setback Requirements for Front Porches 3.Citywide Environmental and Sustainability Efforts Update 4.Sister City Voinjama Visit Update Parking Lot Issues 1. Joint Meeting with Charter Commission City Council Agenda Item No. 6a MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER rN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 27, 2014 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 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, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Kleven requested the following correction to the resolution in the City Council packet, under Regular Session Agenda Item 7a, Page 2, 2' paragraph, first line - replace "Jeannie" with "Jeannine." MISCELLANEOUS Surly Request for Sunday Taproom Sales City Manager Curt Boganey reviewed a letter from Surly Brewing Company requesting the City Council's consideration of an ordinance amendment to allow Sunday liquor sales at the Surly Taproom in Brooklyn Center. He added breweries that have a taproom are allowed by State law to sell beer on Sundays if approved by the local municipality. He requested the City Council's comments and direction with regard to this issue. Mayor Willson stated this use is allowed by State law and there is no reason not to change the ordinance to allow Surly to open their taproom on Sundays. Councilmember Kleven asked whether the Sunday liquor sales would be temporary until Surly's new Minneapolis establishment is open for business. She added a condition could be added to the amendment. Mr. Boganey stated it would be unnecessary to add a condition, as a brewery is allowed to have only one taproom open on Sundays in Minnesota. Councilmember Ryan asked whether Surly plans to include a taproom at its brewery/restaurant in Minneapolis. Mr. Boganey stated he understands that Surly's Minneapolis establishment will include a taproom. 05/27/14 -1- DRAFT It was the majority consensus of the City Council to direct City staff to draft an amendment to the ordinance allowing Sunday liquor sales in Brooklyn Center. Request for Single Cigar Sale Moratorium Mr. Boganey stated the City Council recently heard from several individuals during the May 12, 2014, Open Forum. He added these individuals, representing commercial businesses in Brooklyn Center, requested a six-week moratorium on the ordinance related to sales of tobacco products. He noted they felt they had not been given an opportunity to present their concerns to the City Council before the ordinance was drafted. He requested the City Council's response to this request and direction for City staff. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she has no intent of retracting her original position in support of the ordinance. She reviewed notes of thanks that she has received from high school students. She added she is proud that Brooklyn Center is a leader in this initiative. She noted that she hopes to provide support for the City's youth, and protection from nicotine addiction. She spoke in personal telms about the effect that tobacco abuse has had on her family. She expressed her firm resolve in support of the new ordinance. Councilmember Kleven stated she has also received notes of thanks and support from local high school students. She referred to a recent editorial column in the Sun Post newspaper, in which a resident of Brooklyn Park commended the Brooklyn Center City Council for using great wisdom in enacting legislation that makes tobacco more expensive. She added she believes the City Council would send the wrong message by placing a moratorium on the newly passed ordinance. Councilmember Myszkowski stated she will continue to support the ordinance, and the Brooklyns Youth Council was firmly in favor of the ordinance as well, expressing their support at a recent meeting. She expressed pride in the actions the City Council has taken by showing its commitment to the young people of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Ryan stated he does not support a moratorium, and he thanked Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson for her leadership on this issue. Councilmember Willson read an excerpt from the Sun Post editorial article referenced by Councilmember Kleven, which was very positive, and which praised the City Council for proposing the updated ordinance language. He added he does not support a six-week moratorium. Councilmember Myszkowski stated Brooklyn Center might consider raising the minimum legal age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21, similar to a new ordinance recently enacted in New York City. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated that is worth exploring, and Public Works staff should be given guidance regarding the use of e-cigarettes in parks and public spaces. Mayor Willson agreed, adding another consideration would be to ban smoking in public places. He requested that City staff review the issue and provide information to the City Council on prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in parks and other public places. 05/27/14 -2- DRAFT Councilmember Kleven stated, with regard to the Shingle Creek Crossing development, she has received questions from residents about the new building to be constructed at the Food Court location. Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning stated permits will be issued soon, with project scheduled for completion by fall 2014. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS CENTENNIAL CIVIC AND VETERANS MEMORIAL AMPHITHEATER Mr. Boganey introduced Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe and invited him to address the City Council. Mr. Glasoe provided an update on the amphitheater project and requested feedback and comments from the City Council with regard to changes in design and location. He requested the Council's consideration of a new plan to locate the amphitheater partially in the parking lot. Mayor Willson stated the trees near the amphitheater will not obstruct the view for concert- goers, and the trees in that area should not be removed. He added the amphitheater could face the park, and there is enough space that it would be unnecessary to remove trees. Mayor Willson stated that he had noticed soil borings in the parking lot. He asked whether sub- soil conditions were a consideration in making the decision to use the parking lot area. Mr. Glasoe confirmed this. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Mayor Willson adjourned the Study Session to Informal Open Forum at 6:47 p.m. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Mayor Willson reconvened the Study Session at 6:50 p.m. CENTENNIAL CIVIC AND VETERANS MEMORIAL AMPHITHEATER - continued Councilmember Ryan expressed his confidence in the Amphitheater Committee members and their commitment to a quality architectural feature. Councilmember Kleven asked whether brick pavers are still being sold as a fundraiser for the project. Mr. Glasoe confirmed this. Councilmember Kleven asked whether there is a market for used show mobiles, as referenced in City staff's memo of May 15, 2013. Mr. Glasoe stated he is unsure as it is difficult to speculate. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested clarification regarding the photo in the City Council packet, which depicts the amphitheater in the current parking lot area. Mr. Glasoe confirmed that the stage would be constructed in what is now the paved parking area. 05/27/14 -3- DRAFT It was the majority consensus of the City Council to direct City staff to move forward with plans and specifications for the Centennial Civic and Veterans Memorial Amphitheater, with the intent of taking bids in fall 2014. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Willson adjourned the Study Session at 6:59 p.m. 05/27/14 -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 27, 2014 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, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, Asst. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. No one wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2.INVOCATION Mayor Willson requested a moment of silence to remember the victims of the recent shootings in Santa Barbara, California. 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. 05/27/14 -1- DRAFT 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, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, Asst. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 5.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.May 12, 2014 — Study Session 2.May 12, 2014 — Regular Session 3.May 12, 2014— Work Session 4.May 12, 2014 — Executive Session 6b. LICENSES AMUSEMENT DEVICES American Amusements Arcades MECHANICAL Dean's Professional Plumbing General Heating & Air Conditioning Heating & Cooling Design Liberty Comfort Systems Noah Acquisitions/Ben Franklin Plumbing Plumb Right United Heating and A/C Yale Mechanical RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE — one-year license) 3401-3413 47 th Avenue N Ryan Lake Apartments 6031 Colfax Avenue N 5937 Summit Drive 6440 James Circle N 7400 Kirkwood Court N, Maple Grove 11081 Chaparral Avenue, Shakopee 1830 Able Street NE, Blaine 627 E. River Road, Anoka 1424 3' Street N, Minneapolis 1216 82 nd Avenue N, Brooklyn Park 1295 Hackamore Road, Medina 220 W. 81 st Street, Bloomington Royal Property Mgmt Steven Sapourn 05/27/14 -2- DRAFT INITIAL (TYPE II — two-year license) 1605 56 th Avenue N 5547 Humboldt Avenue N RENEWAL (TYPE — one-year license) 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue4100 6lstAvenueN RENEWAL (TYPE Il—Iwo-year license) 401 Bellvue Lane 501 Bellvue Lane 2406 Ericon Drive 5742 Fremont Avenue N 2800 Nash Road Passed w/Weather Deferral 6730 Perry Avenue N 7208 Perry Ct. E RENEWAL (TYPE I— three-year license) 6325 Brooklyn Boulevard 7208 Bryant Avenue N 6114 Dupont Avenue N 5443 Irving Avenue N 2907 Ohenry Road Gavin Kleinknecht Steven Sapourn Mindy Mazzuco Emmanual Coker Robert Hildreth Dragon Property Mgmt Gary Brummer Bruce Goldberg Douglas Mangel Thinh Nguyen Vincent Okonkwo Lien Kim Vo Prosperous Property LLC Douglas Wahl Douglas Wahl Sarah Vogt Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a.RESOLUTION NO. 2014-66 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF JEANNINE PFANN FOR OVER 17 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Mayor Willson read in full a Resolution recognition and appreciation of Jeannine Pfann. Councilmember Kleven moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2014-66 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Jeannine Pfann for Over 17 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center Motion passed unanimously. 7b.RESOLUTION NO. 2014-67 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF PEGGY LYNN FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE HOUSING COMMISSION Mayor Willson read in full a Resolution expressing recognition and appreciation of Peggy Lynn. 05/27/14 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated as Chair of the Housing Commission, she worked closely with Ms. Lynn. She added Ms. Lynn was extremely dedicated and her work was vital to the Commission. Councilmember Kleven stated she appreciated Ms. Lynn's help when they worked together handing out packets. Councilmember Myszkowski expressed her appreciation for all Ms. Lynn has done for the City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2014-67 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Peggy Lynn for her Dedicated Public Service on the Housing Commission Motion passed unanimously. 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS -None. 9.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-004 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 5TH ADDITION Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti provided an overview of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-004 and advised the Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at its May 15, 2014, meeting. Mr. Benetti answered questions of the City Council regarding the request for preliminary plat approval. He added this is a request to for a new plat for the building pads near the vacant food court building lot area as well as building pads to the west. He noted the request will be considered by the City Council at its June 23, 2014, meeting. Mayor Willson stated he would not be able to attend the City Council's June 23, 2014, meeting, as he will be attending the US Mayors conference in Washington. He added he would like to be in attendance when this issue is addressed. Mr. Benetti stated the developer has stressed the urgent nature of this request, to allow for publication schedules as dictated by statute. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-004 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 5 TH ADDITION 05/27/14 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2014-68 Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-004 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company Requesting Approval for Preliminary Plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 5 th Addition. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a.CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6800 DUPONT AVENUE NORTH Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide testimony on this rental license. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a motion. Councilmember Myszkowski moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for 6800 Dupont 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. 10b.CONSIDERATION OF TYPE IV 6-MONTH PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE FOR 6937 UNITY AVENUE NORTH Mayor Willson polled the audience and asked whether anyone was in attendance to provide testimony on this rental license. Seeing no one coming forward, Mayor Willson called for a motion. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to approve the issuance of a Type IV six-month provisional rental license and mitigation plan for 6937 Unity 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 REPORT Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •May 16, 2014, Crime Prevention Association Golf Tournament Fundraiser •May 17, 2014, "Celebration of Babies" Early Childhood Health Event, Hennepin County Service Center •May 20, 2014, Centerbrook Neighborhood Meeting, Lions Park •May 21, 2014, MN Highway 252 Corridor Study Open House 05/27/14 -5- DRAFT Councilmember Kleven reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •May 13, 2014, Brooklyn Center Women's Club Luncheon; scholarships presented to 3 Brooklyn Center students: Wendy Geronimo, Robbinsdale Cooper High School; Winny Nyakaru, Champlin Park High School; and Thu Nguyen, Park Center High School •May 13, 2014, Crime Prevention Association fundraiser planning meeting •May 16, 2014, unable to attend Crime Prevention fundraiser •May 21, 2014, MN Highway 252 Corridor Study Open House •May 22, 2014, Brooklyn Center Business Association meeting featuring legislative update by guest speaker Senator Chris Eaton •May 26, 2014, Memorial Day Ceremony at Mound Cemetery Councilmember Kleven announced that she will not seek City Council re-election due to family health concerns. Councilmember Myszkowski reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •May 15, 2014, CEAP Volunteer Breakfast at Edinburgh USA Golf Course •May 17, 2014, "Celebration of Babies" Early Childhood Health Event, Hennepin County Service Center •May 20, 2014, Earle Brown Days Committee meeting •May 20, 2014, Centerbrook Neighborhood Meeting at Lions Park •May 20, 2014, Park and Recreation Commission meeting •May 21 2014, CEAP Annual Meeting featuring guest speaker Tony Hudson, Director of Educational Equity for Osseo Area Schools •May 23, 2014, met with Steve Antolak, Three Rivers Park District Commissioner Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson reported on her attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •May 15, 2014, 1 st session of FBI Citizen's Academy •May 16, 2014, Crime Prevention Association's fundraiser golf tournament dinner •May 20, 2014, Earle Brown Days Committee meeting •May 20, 2014, Centerbrook Neighborhood Meeting at Lions Park •May 22, 2014, 2" session of FBI Citizen's Academy •May 23, 2014, Odyssey Academy Arbor Day, planted 2 trees from the City Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the following and provided information on the following upcoming events: •May 17, 2014, threw out first pitch at Brooklyn Center National Little League's game, Lions Park •May 20, 2014, Centerbrook Neighborhood Meeting at Lions Park •May 21, 2014, MN Highway 252 Corridor Study Open House •May 22, 2014, Dangerous Dog Panel hearing 05/27/14 -6- DRAFT 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 7:32 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/27/14 -7- 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 27, 2014 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 7:33 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, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building & Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY STUDY UPDATE City Manager Curt Boganey reviewed a study completed by Inclusion, Inc., regarding inclusion and diversity in Brooklyn Center, including cross-cultural communication and learning; diversity on the City's Commissions; awareness of available translation services. He added a recommended long-term goal is the development of a recruitment strategy focused on bi-lingual talent and accountability for leaders. Mayor/President Willson stated, with regard to the survey feedback, he was struck by the difference between male and female respondents. He added less favorable responses were received from women in many instances. He noted efforts should be made to recruit diverse candidates for the City's Commissions to ensure fair representation of the community and its residents. Mr. Boganey requested the City Council/EDA's comments regarding continuation of this diversity initiative considering the lack of sufficient resources. He added this effort will require ongoing, regular attention, and could not be added to any City staff members' workload with continued efficiency. Mayor/President Willson stated this is an important initiative for the City, and resources should be made available to ensure its success. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski agreed, adding the cost will be greater for future community leaders if these issues are not addressed. She stressed the importance of making people feel respected, valued and engaged. She added extra effort is often required to make such a meaningful structural change. She noted she is 05/27/14 -1- DRAFT concerned about the efficacy of online training, and also the perception of newcomers to the community, and whether they feel welcomed and valued. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski expressed her excitement and trepidation regarding this important effort. She added she feels it is important to address interactions between community members and perceptions of the value of diversity rather than simply changing the current language. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan requested clarification regarding a recommendation for an Internal Diversity and Inclusion Council. Mr. Boganey stated that refers to an internal team of staff that would provide oversight for the implementation of recommendations. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stressed the importance of equal investment in and support of all of the City's population. He noted he would recommend that City staff should identify items that will provide the most leverage for the cost. Mayor/President Willson stated he supports reaching out to organizations within the community to increase representation and involvement. He added he would be reluctant to hire an outside consultant on a long-term basis, but he would support hiring a dedicated staff person to address these issues. Mr. Boganey stated a consultant could bring the expertise to implement a well-defined program, identify priorities, and facilitate implementation. He indicated it would be helpful for the City Council/EDA to review and participate in some of the online diversity training, and provide feedback to City staff. Councilmember/Comrnissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated the "accountability" section of the poll had some positive responses, but could be improved. She added City administration should provide open communication so residents know what has been done, and what is planned for the future. Mayor/President Willson agreed, adding many communication issues have been addressed in the past few years. Mr. Boganey agreed that accountability is important so there are clear expectations across the organization. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated, with regard to artwork for City Hall, students and teachers in art classes at local schools could be solicited for works of art that would be special and personal. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski agreed, adding a rotation of artwork would allow more students' work to be shown. She added it would be difficult for teachers to focus on such a project when they have curriculum to follow. Mayor/President Willson stated he recently saw a world map on display at Northview Junior High School, on which students were able to write their name and put a mark next to their place of origin. He added he thinks that would be nice in City Hall, to recognize the origins of Brooklyn Center's diverse community. Councilmember/Cornmissioner Ryan stated he is pleased with the efforts of City staff with regard to this audit. He added it will be important to get the best possible results with the resources that are available. Mr. Boganey agreed, adding consistency is the most important 05/27/14 -2- DRAFT factor, as even small changes can make an impact over time. Mayor/President Willson stated the City's residents will be positively affected if the City's culture and government is welcoming and enabling. Councilmember/Commissioner Myszkowski thanked Mr. Boganey and City staff for their hard work on this review. Mr. Boganey stated it is a worthwhile and important opportunity, and City staff plans to keep the City Council/EDA informed of progress. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Kleven seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 8:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 05/27/14 -3- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b COUNCIL ITEM MEN - RAN UM DATE: June 3, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk -111 2- SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses on June 9, 2014. 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. FIREWORKS - PERMANENT Walmart 5625 (TNT Fireworks) 1200 Shingle Creek Crossing MECHANCIAL General Sheet Metal Company Hillard Heating & Cooling Metro Heating & Cooling Neil Heating and A/C Recher HVAC Weld & Sons Plumbing RENTAL See attached report. 2330 Louisiana Avenue N, Minneapolis 13790 26 th Avenue N, Zimmerman 255 Roselawn Ave E #41, Maplewood P.O. Box 29292, Minneapolis 1125 Mississippi Drive N, Champlin 3410 Kilmer Lane N, Plymouth ------- - --- Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Property Address Dwelling Type Renewal or Initial Owner Property Code Violations License Type Police CFS * Final License Type ** Previous License Type *** Unpaid Utilities Unpaid Taxes Tax ID 5500 Bryant Ave N 1 Bldg 4 Units Initial Terrence Magill 10 2.50/Unit III N/A III OK OK OK 6807, 6813, 6819 Humboldt Ave N 3 Bldgs 36 Units Initial Mindy Mazzuco 61 1.69/Unit III N/A III OK OK OK 2012 55th Ave N Single Family Initial Invitation Homes 0 II N/A II OK OK OK 1330 67th Ln N Single Family Initial Mark Sibilev 6 III N/A III OK OK OK 5315 71st Ave N Single Family Initial Jolayne Williams 4 II N/A II OK OK OK 5548 Logan Ave N Single Family Initial Gavin Kleinknecht 4 II N/A II OK OK OK 1100 69th Ave N 1 Bldg 7 Units Renewal Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master 19 2.71/Unit III 0 III I OK OK OK 5415 69th Ave N Maranatha Place 1 Bldg 63 Units Renewal Center Park Senior Apts 39 .62/Unit I 0 I I OK OK OK 2926 53rd Ave N Single Family Renewal Nita Morlock 4 II 0 II II OK OK OK 800 62nd Ave N Single Family Renewal John Herbes Did not meet plan requirements; missing ARM and CPTED Follow Up 2 II 0 III III OK OK OK 2918 65th Ave N Single Family Renewal Hong Yang 7 III 0 III II OK OK OK 1401 73rd Ave N Single Family Renewal J Thomas Equities LLC 2 II 0 II I OK OK OK 6443 Emerson Ave N Single Family Renewal Deepak Nath 2 II 0 II I OK OK OK 5325 France Ave N Single Family Renewal David Goeske 4 II 0 II II OK OK OK 5315 Fremont Ave N Single Family Renewal David Barnhard 1 I 0 I II OK OK OK 5332 Knox Ave N Single Family Renewal Ira Kovalsky 1 I 0 I II OK OK OK 5421 Lyndale Ave N Single Family Renewal Dragon Property Mgmt 1 I 0 I I OK OK OK 6718 Perry Ave N Single Family Renewal Gregory Oothoudt 1 I 0 I IV OK OK OK 4501 Winchester Ln Single Family Renewal Sandeep Dani 3 II 1 II II OK OK OK * CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.) ** License Type Being Issued Type I = 3 Year Type II = 2 Year Type III = 1 Year *** Initial licenses will not show a previous license type Rental Licenses for Council Approval on June 9, 2014 All are current on City utilities and property taxes Greater than 1 Greater than 3 3-4 units 1-2 0-11-2 unitsType I — 3 Year 3+ units 0-0.75 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 11-2 Year 1-2 units 3+ units Greater than 1 but not more than 4 Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III — 1 Year 1-2 units 3+ units Greater than 4 but not more than 8 Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV —6 Months 1-2 units 3+ units Greater than 8 Greater than 3 Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) License Category Number of Units No Category Impact 1-2 3-4 units 0-1 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 3-4 units Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 Categories 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 trust City Council Agenda Item No. 6c COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 2014 TO: City Council FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag SUBJECT: Resolution providing notice of withdrawal from the Five Cities Senior Transportation Project Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of the enclosed resolution providing notice of withdrawal by the City of Brooklyn Center from Five Cities Senior Transportation Project. Background: Since 1985 the City of Brooklyn Center has been member of the Five Cities Transportation Project in cooperation with Crystal, Golden Valley, new Hope and Robbinsdale. The purpose of this program was to meet the transportation need of seniors (age 60 and older). The program was designed to provide weekly retail shopping trips and occasional special activity trips. A copy of the Joint Powers Agreement is enclosed. Since 1995 the demand for this service has continued to decline. As demand decreased the subsidy per person has increased. At the end of 2012 the cost per ride was $9.37 and the subsidy per ride ranged from $7.37- $7.62. I have enclosed a copy of the 2013 ridership for the City of Brooklyn Center. There were a total of 420 round trips provide. The number of individuals served each moth ranged from 8 to 18. In the fall 2013 we were notified by PRISM our service provider that they would no longer provide the service and that they would be terminating the service contract at year end. The Board of directors met and reviewed the options available. The service was temporarily discontinued at the first of the year. During this time we surveyed and shared information with riders regarding other transportation options available such as dial-a-ride, general bus service, taxi, meal delivery services, apartment owned bus service, etc. Based on the feedback from customers and our analysis of historical trends the Board concluded that over time, there had been many dramatic changes in transportation options for seniors. More seniors continue drive beyond the age of 60 and most senior needs are being met by the various transportation options available. Since 1995 the service demand has consistently declined. The response or lack of response from riders during our discontinuation also suggested that Five Cities was no longer perceived as an essential service. As of this date at least three of the Five Cities have adopted a withdrawal resolution. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, sole, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for people and preserves the public !MS/ COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: In 2014 the City budgeted $13,000 for this activity. These funds will available for other recreational programing needs. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people ant/preserves the public trust 0 a) a) CO 0 0. 0'4= 117, a) CO Cl CS '-4 2 Lf) 71- CO CO -0 (13 ,24 5-1 en 0 -C Ca -C CO CS en -CLi S..CO CO CS 00 .7t 71- -0 cti 0.0 0 .C2 co -0 -0 UUU C C CC I I I1"--•en co coob -0 .10 -0 UUU 000.0 _0 0C C C (5 (5(5COCC CC CC co LO 0 71-71-0 en 71-71-en -C CO -C s-CO a) co -0 Lao C2 CS co 0-0 .C6 -0 -0 I.-CS s-ro CO N s-O3 6 Lit%-1ir)0 0Le)71-7t 0 ▪ .ct71-CO 0en Lnenc.4 -0 0 0-0.0 CTS -C CO -C 5-00 -CLI co CS CS.0 -0 .0 -0a -0 -0 (1) -0 0.1 (-4 CS en CS-0(1)0.)U-1 coU-010 en 0(.0 (.0 71-en 71-71-71-0 4-,0. c.%) 0_(.10071-0CnCO en en en LflCO -0 -0 cocc (1)te) 0 a)0. 0 5/1 0.)br)L-a)-C2 CL) 0 a)CI 00S- (13 tr) 4-, (T3 CS CD -0 -to -0 -0 5-0. (4) s-0.0.co„2.1 CO 1).) CO0.14-,co C1 co_CO 08 LC)CO CO U") en N NN a) 0 0- 0 0 %-1 0 en 0 0 0 0 0 enCOCOCO U .-CLCL0 vs 0. ▪ )ttO5.-(SF-5.-a)0- (r) 0 -0 ea -o(1.)ttO to 0 -0 C.) CO 0.a) L)0 0. (C)en o_ LC) 0_ L') en 0- VI)0.) a) (!)to VI)Li;)LC) 0 0 0N-1 Le)CO CO 0.4-,0. .4770 a ▪ ) 0 a) 4-,0. rt ▪ s a) 4-, 0 0 0 en en en enCO V) OJ -0 0 a)0 13)co -0a) -a 0.0 co 4-,L- CS COLL -a 00LL .0 0> „Li rts 5-1 -0 -0 txo 00 (.4 %-1 ttO ttO (it.) ttO (4.1 %-1 r ▪ a (oh en Lfl a) 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0(0Lf)CO Cr)C." Lf1 0 0 0 0 0r-I en U")en enCOCO CO -0 CO V) 4-)a) -C co _c S-oo PI)ea (1) (1) 0 0LL -0 +-, 0 -0 0 0U- M 0 -0 0 0 -0 4-, 0 (-4 -0 0 0 4-, 0ob 0 ea C U) -o aa ea -oa)b.0 -0 ra a)0 CO bo -a 04-,-C4-4 ro CO 4-) 0ob 4-) 0 Lfl CA a) co 0,3 Lfldr)5-1 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT This AGREEMENT is being made and entered into as of the /1 day of , 1985, by and between the cities of Brooklyn Center, Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale, all municipal corporations of the State of Minnesota, (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Five Cities and individually as City). WHEREAS, the Five Cities lie in close proximity to each other; and WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities have determined that their respective populations age 60 and older have unmet transportation needs; and WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities currently sponsor and support programs for their populations age 60 and older pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 471.15, et. seq.; and WHEREAS, it would be a benefit to each and all of the Five Cities to combine resources for the purpose of providing a senior transportation program on a limited basis and have determined that it is in their best interests to undertake this project as a joint and cooperative project under Minn. Stat. section 471.59; and WHEREAS, the program would meet specific needs for the populations of 60 years and older and would complement existing transportation programs provided by other area agencies; and WHEREAS, an executive committee, consisting of the City Managers from the Five Cities, or representatives of the City sr 1 Manager, would administer the Senior Transportation Program; and WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities would have equal representation on the committee; and WHEREAS, each of the Five Cities would receive a minimum of 15% of the availability of the Senior Transportation Program services for its residents. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties to this Agreement agree as follows: SECTION 1 GENERAL PURPOSE It is the general purpose of the parties to this Agreement to jointly and cooperatively plan, provide, and administer a senior transportation program in order to reduce to the greatest practical extent the public expenditures necessary to provide such a program. SECTION 2 FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2.1 Establishment. There is hereby established the "Five Cities Senior Transportation Executive Committee" (Committee) whose membership shall be appointed in accordance with the provisions of this section and whose duties shall be to carry out the purposes contained herein. 2.2 Membership; Appointment. The governing body of each of the Cities shall appoint their City Manager and one additional representative as members of the Committee to administer the Senior Transportation Program. Each member shall have one vote. Appointment to the Committee shall be evidenced by a certified 2 copy of a resolution of the governing body of each City, filed with the City Manager of the City of New Hope. 2.3 Lead City. A Lead City will be determined by a majority vote of the Committee. The Lead City shall assume the responsibility for fiscal management and daily operations of the Senior Transportation Program pursuant to the by-laws established by the Committee. 2.4 Term. Members of the Committee shall not have a fixed term but serve at the pleasure of the governing body of the City appointing the member. 2.5 Vacancies. A vacancy on the Committee shall be filled by the City whose representative position on the Committee is vacant. A vacancy on this Committee shall occur by reason of any events specified in Minn. Stat. Section 351.04 or by action of a City removing the member from this Committee. 2.6 Compensation and Expenses. Committee members shall not be entitled to compensation or reimbursement for expenses incurred in attending meetings, except to the extent that the City appointing a member determines to compensate or reimburse the expenses of the member in which case the obligation to make such payments shall be that of the City and not that of the Committee. 2.7 Officers. The Committee shall elect from its membership a chair, vice-chair, a secretary and a treasurer and such other officers as it deems necessary to reasonably carry out the purposes of this Agreement. All officers shall hold office for a term of one year or until their successors have been elected by the Committee. An officer may serve only while a duly 3 appointed member of the Committee and may be re-elected to an office. A vacancy in an office shall be filled from the membership of the Committee by election for the remainder of the unexpired term of such office. 2.8 Quorum. A majority of the Committee shall constitute a quorum, but less than a quorum may adjourn a scheduled meeting and from time to time. 2.9 Meeting. Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held at least once per year on a day selected by the Committee. Special meetings will be held at the call of the chair or by any three members by giving not less than 48-hours written notice of the time, place and purpose of the special meeting delivered or mailed to the residences of the Committee members. SECTION 3 COMMITTEE POWERS AND DUTIES 3.1 Employment. The Committee may contract for services, may utilize, upon consent of the City and upon such terms as may be agreed upon by the Committee and the City, existing staff of a City, and may employ such other persons as it deems necessary. Where staff services of a City are utilized, such services shall not reduce the financial commitment of such City to the the Committee. 3.2 By-Laws. The Committee shall adopt by-laws for conducting its business, including but not limited to the establishment of sub-committees and their duties, the duties and responsibilities of the officers, the detailing of meeting 4 procedures, the notice thereof, and preparation of minutes and other related staff functions. 3.3 Financial Matters. 3.31 Method of Operation. The Committee may collect and receive money and services subject to the provisions of this Agreement from the Five Cities and from any other sources approved by the Committee and it may incur expenses and make expenditures and disbursements necessary and.incidental to effect the purposes of this Agreement. Funds may be expended by the Committee in accordance with procedures established herein. Order-checks and drafts shall be signed by the treasurer and either the chair or vice-chair or delegated to the Lead City. If this responsibility is delegated to the Lead City, the procedures of the Lead City for approving such expenditures shall be followed. Other legal instruments shall be executed on behalf of the Committee by the chair and secretary. 3.32 Operating Funds. On or before July 1 of each year, the Committee shall prepare an operating budget for the following year for the purpose of providing funds to operate the Committee's business. The budget shall be recommended and referred to the City for ratification only upon 2/3rds of approval of all members of the Committee. After approval, the secretary shall certify the recommended budget to each City on or before September 1 of each year, together with a statement showing the amounts due from each City. Each City shall pay over to the Committee the amount owing in two equal installments, the first on or before January 31 and the second on or before July 31 of the following year. 5 3.4 Audit and Annual Reports. The Committee shall cause to be made an annual audit of its books and accounts and shall make and file an annual report to the Five Cities once each year. The audit shall include the following information: a.the financial condition of the Committee; b.the status of all Committee projects; c. the business transacted by the Committee and other matters which affect the interests of the Committee. Copies of the annual report shall be transmitted to the clerk of each City. All of the Committee's books, reports and records shall be available for and open to examination by any member or to an official of a City at all reasonable times. 3.5 Gifts, Grants, Loans. The Committee may, within the scope of this Agreement, accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other property from the United States, the State of Minnesota, a unit of government or other governmental unit or organization, or any person or entity for the purposes described herein; may enter into any reasonable agreement required in connection therewith; may comply with any laws or regulations applicable thereto; and may hold, use and dispose of such money or property in accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto. 3.6 Contracts. The Committee may make such contracts and enter into any such agreements as it deems necessary to make effective any power granted to it by this Agreement in accordance with the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Minn. Stat. Section 471.59 and Uniform Municipal Contracting Act, Minn. Stat. Section 471.345. 6 3.7 Level of Service. The level of Senior Transportation Program service in the Five Cities and in each City shall be determined by the Committee, but in no event shall any City receive less than 15% (as determined by the by-laws) of the total transportation service provided by the Committee. SECTION 4 TERMINATION, WITHDRAWAL This Agreement may be terminated by action of four Cities occurring within a ninety (90) day period commencing with the action of any one City. Withdrawal of any member may be accomplished by filing written notice with the Committee chair and City managers of the other Cities. Withdrawal shall become effective 60-days after proper notice has been given. No withdrawal from this Agreement shall be effective until the withdrawing member has met its full financial obligations to the Committee for the year of withdrawal and prior years. The withdrawal of four Cities constitutes termination of the Committee and this Agreement. SECTION 5 DISSOLUTION OF COMMITTEE The Committee shall be dissolved by termination of this Agreement or upon unanimous agreement of all members. Upon dissolution, all personal property of the Committee shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand after payment of all obligations, shall be distributed to the Cities. Such distribution of assets shall be made in 7 proportion to the total contributions to the Committee for such costs made by each City. All payments due and owing from a City for operating costs or other unfulfilled financial obligations, shall continue to be the lawful obligation of the City. The withdrawal of Four Cities constitutes a termination of the Committee and this Agreement. SECTION 6 AMENDMENT The Committee may recommend and refer amendments to this Agreement to the Cities. Any amendments to this Agreement shall be approved by unanimous vote of the Five Cities and shall be acted upon by the members within 90-days of referral and failure of a City to approve an amendment within the 90-day period is deemed a disapproval by that City. Action on amendments shall be evidenced by appropriate resolutions of the members filed with the Committee and if approved shall become effective as of the date all such filings have been completed unless a different effective date is otherwise stated in the amendment. SECTION 7 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement and any amendment may be executed in several counterparts and all so executed shall constitute one Agreement or amendment, binding on all of the parties hereto notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory to the original of the same counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day of completed execution hereof by the parties. B Seal: Dated:October 21 ( 1985 By Seal: Dated: Seal: Dated:erat/b1 CIS" Seal: Dated: 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FROM THE FIVE CITIES SENIOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a signatory to that certain "Joint Powers Agreement for the Establishment of the Five Cities Senior Transportation Project" (the "JPA"), along with the cities of Crystal, Golden Valley, New Hope, and Robbinsdale; and WHEREAS, the JPA was implemented in 1985 to address the lack of transportation opportunities for seniors, and was thus intended to assist seniors in the five cities with transportation needs to complement existing transportation programs by other area agencies (the "Five Cities Project"); and WHEREAS, over the years new and existing public senior transportation programs now offer a variety of senior transportation services, resulting in the Five Cities Project duplicating existing services; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center's participation in the Five Cities Project is no longer necessary to provide effective transportation services for seniors; and WHEREAS, the JPA permits the withdrawal of a member city, upon notice to the other member cities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that this resolution provides notice of the City's intent to withdraw from the Five Cities Project effective as of July 30, 2014. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city manager is directed to transmit this Notice of Withdrawal to the other member cities, and is further directed to insure that Brooklyn Center has met its full financial obligation to the Five Cities Project by the effective date of withdrawal. June 9, 2014 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk City Council Agenda Item No. 6d COUNCIL I EM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 2, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk )11/114.Ä4 -VOINt414 SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances Relating to Taproom Sunday Sales Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approving first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances relating to taproom Sunday sales and setting second reading and Public Hearing for July 14, 2014. Background: In the eighty-eighth session of the Minnesota Legislature, S.F. No. 2336 relating to liquor laws was approved and signed by the Governor on May 13, 2014. Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.301, subdivision 6b was amended to allow a taproom to be open and conduct on-sale business on Sundays if authorized by the municipality. Surly Brewing Company has submitted a request that the City Code be amended to allow its taproom to be open for on-sale business on Sunday. At its May 27, 2014, Study Session, the City Council discussed Surly's request and directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow for a taproom to conduct on-sale business on Sunday and it is attached. If approved, second reading and Public Hearing would be held July 14, 2014; effective date would be August 23, 2014. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission: Ensuring mi attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances Iii e quality of life for people and preserves the public intst CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of 2014 at 7 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance amending Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances relating to taproom Sunday sales. 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 11 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO TAPROOM SUNDAY SALES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 11-107 (5) is amended as follows: 5. Sunday On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. This license may be issued only to an establishment that holds an On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License and that serves Liquor only in conjunction with the service of food and to holders of a brewer taproom license. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of 2014. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication: Effective Date: (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.) City Council Agenda Item No. 6e COUNCT ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director WY, SUBJECT: 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Background: On June 3, 2014 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 December 31, 2013. During the session Mr. Eichten reviewed the purpose of the audit process and the results of his firm's audit of the 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most importantly, the City received an unmodified opinion, which is commonly referred to as a "clean audit opinion". This means that, in the auditor's opinion, the financial statements conform with applicable accounting standards. In addition to formulating an opinion on the City's financial statements, the auditors reviewed the City's internal controls, legal compliance and financial management practices. Those results were included in the Special Purpose Report which is issued under a separate cover. The City also received more than $500,000 in Federal financial assistance during 2013. 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 federal awards that were subject to the audit included Community Development Block Grants used for housing rehabilitation and neighborhood revitalization activities. The Single Audit found no discrepancies or internal control issues and expressed an unmodified opinion on the presentation of the financial statements for purposes of the A-133 regulations. Overall, the information in the 2013 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 2013 CAFR conveys the fiscal condition of the City as of December 31, 2013 and lays the groundwork for understanding the financial resources available to the City when planning for the future. Strategic Priorities: • Financial Stability Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life Jar all 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, 2013 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, Karnowski, 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, 2013. 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, 2013, and all supporting documentation, is hereby adopted as the official financial record for the 2013 fiscal year. June 9, 2014 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 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Continuance of the Sub Recipient Agreement with Hennepin County for Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (MHFA NSP3 and HUD NSP3) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of the Resolution approving continuance of the Sub Recipient Agreement with Hennepin County for Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (MHFA NSP3 and HUD NSP3). Background: The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was authorized by the Housing and Recovery Act of 2008 (HRA). The programs consist of NSP1, NSP2, and NSP3. The City of Brooklyn Center's involvement with NSP 1, through its Economic Development Authority, began in October 2008 with the approval of a Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County. NSP funds flow from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to Hennepin County (Recipient) then to participating cities (Subrecipient). Detailed information is provided for the NSP3 program being considered for Council action for continuance. NSP3 Fund Allocation Hennepin County has awarded a total allocation to Brooklyn Center in the amount of $1,152,750 plus $25,000 in administration expenses with the following breakdown: •$677,750 from HUD direct allocation plus $12,500 in Administration Expenses •$475,000 from MHFA NSP3 allocation plus $12,500 in Administration Expenses Expenditure Requirements Expenditures of NSP1 and NSP3 funds in Brooklyn Center are limited to specific geographic areas of the City as determined by HUD's foreclosure impact formulas. Maps identifying the eligible NSP3 areas are attached. NSP3 funds will continue to be administered in the same manner. The following is a summary of NSP3 funding requirements for the City of Brooklyn Center: •Eligible activities and expenditure requirements include acquisition and rehabilitation of approximately 12 single family homes with 75 percent sold to buyers at 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) or less and 25 percent sold to buyers at 50 percent AMI. As with NSP1, the required NSP3 allocation for 50% AMI households is based on a 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 statutory requirement allocating specific dollar amounts rather a specific number of homes set aside for 50% AMI buyers. •Eligible areas include the majority of the City's southeast neighborhood and a portion of the City's central neighborhood. (See attached maps.) Timeline The timeline for NSP3 is as follows: •Currently all the initial funds have been expended for the program. However, program income funds will continue to fund the program. All program income funds are to be expended by March 11, 2019. NSP1 NSP1 funds have been used to purchase and rehabilitate multiple properties within program- specific geographic areas. The initial funding of NSP1 resulted in the purchase of nine properties through the Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC). All homes have been completely rehabilitated. As of May 30, 2014, all original NSP1 properties have been sold. Income from the sales of previous NSP1 houses has been used to purchase two additional homes under NSP 1, which are currently undergoing rehabilitation. NSP2 The NSP2 program has been administered by Hennepin County. Hennepin County's NSP2 Homebuyer Assistance Program provides financial assistance for income-qualified non- homeowners to become homeowners. The target areas are various census tracts located within the City of Brooklyn Center. The NSP2 program has ended as the funds have been expended. NSP3 For the NSP3 program, currently twelve properties have been purchased for rehabilitation. Of these twelve properties- two have closed, two have a purchase agreement, one is for sale, and the other seven are under construction. Budget Issues: The NSP3 program is funded through a federal grant. Strategic Priorities: •Vibrant Neighborhoods Attachments: Attachment I- Resolution Attachment II- NSP3 Map Attachment III- NSP3 Sub Recipient Agreement HUD (Due to the size of the document Exhibit 3 Federal Register Notice, Exhibit 4 Hennepin Housing Consortium Affirmative Marketing Policy, and Exhibit 5 Hennepin Housing Consortium Construction and 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 Rehabilitation Standards are available by pdf or by hard copy upon request.) Attachment IV- NSP3 Sub Recipient Agreement MHFA (Due to the size of the document Exhibit 3 Federal Register Notice, Exhibit 4 Hennepin Housing Consortium Affirmative Marketing Policy, and Exhibit 5 Hennepin Housing Consortium Construction and Rehabilitation Standards are available by pdf or by hard copy upon request.) Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust Attachment I- Resolution Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUANCE OF THE SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 3 (MHFA NSP3 AND HUD NSP3) WHEREAS, Hennepin County (Recipient) has received grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) under Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-203, approved July 21, 2010, Dodd — Frank Act or "The Act") as amended, for emergency assistance for redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and residential properties; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of The Act, Hennepin County has proposed Subrecipient Agreements for Hennepin County Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3, including HUD NSP3 and MHFA NSP3 (Subrecipient Agreements), for execution by the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, recipient has approved use of $677,750 of HUD NSP3 funds and $475,000 of MHFA NSP3 funds for the City of Brooklyn Center (Subrecipient) for the Implementation of Eligible and Fundable NSP activity (ies) as set forth in the Subrecipient Agreements; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center's designated activity under the NSP3 program includes the following: 1.Eligible use "E" Redevelopment ($677,750 from HUD NSP3) 2.Eligible use "E" Redevelopment ($475,000 from MHFA NSP3) WHEREAS, pursuant to the Subrecipient Agreements between the City of Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County, the City agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the utilization of NSP3 funds pursuant to the Subrecipient Agreements; and WHEREAS, approval of the Subrecipient Agreements by the City of Brooklyn Center is required in order to receive NSP3 funding from Hennepin County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that it approves the Subrecipient Agreements from Hennepin County for Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreements. RESOLUTION NO. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to approve any revisions to the Subrecipient Agreements as required by Hennepin County, said revisions shall not constitute a revision that will substantially affect the nature or intent of the Subrecipient Agreement. June 9, 2014 Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 71 i +JJ...■•• 720 1'414 ... o a ; Amy Le .1 t TetS Ave N tt ao II. Kr% ,. c 3 ak Cil 730 • ../>.ft A%1 N z Jcato Ln 1 t lrod Ape s t'•z t ,i 4 F;Io it ',IA N 6091 Ave r-p Ev( 11/216 Attachment II- NSP3 Map NSP3 Project Area Map Date: 8/22/2012 Hennepin County Agreement A140589 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT No. 2 HENNEPIN COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 3 (NSP3) THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the city of BROOKLYN CENTER, hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430, said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, RECIPIENT received a grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) funding under Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-203, approved July 21, 2010) (Dodd-Frank Act or the Act), as amended, for emergency assistance for redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and residential properties. Unless the Act states otherwise, such grants are to be considered Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 14.218). The grant program under the Act is commonly referred to as the CDBG Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3); and WHEREAS, RECIPIENT had approved the use of NSP3 funds by the SUBRECIPIENT, all of which was expended by the March 11, 2014 deadline and in accordance with the budget of $677,750 was for the implementation of eligible NSP3 redevelopment activities. To date they have completed the purchase of 7 homeownership opportunities, of which 5 will be sold to households below 120% Area Median Income (AMI), and of which two will be sold to 50% AMI households; and WHEREAS, there are additional units funded with the original allocation and program income that are under construction or on the market for sale that still need to be sold to a homeowner; and WHEREAS, there has been program income generated by the original allocation and there may be additional program income generated; and WHEREAS, additional activities will be completed, as set forth in EXHIBIT 1 to this Agreement, with the anticipated program income as a result of the sale of the properties. The program income needs to be used to create additional opportunities until it is all spent and RECIPIENT can complete the official close out of the program with HUD; and WHEREAS, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities in the approved target areas described in EXHIBIT 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 2008, executed between RECIPIENT and the city of Brooklyn Park, and in the Hennepin County Consortium 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, as amended, and in the Certifications contained herein as EXHIBIT 2; and 1 WHEREAS, except as otherwise provided in the Act and the October 19, 2010 Federal Register Notice of Formula Allocation and Program Requirements for Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Grants with Docket No. FR-5447—N-01 (the Notice), attached as EXHIBIT 3, statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CDBG Program, as applicable, shall apply to the use of the funds. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A.Except as described in the Notice, statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CDBG Program, including those at 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts A, C, D, J, K, and 0, as appropriate, shall apply to the use of the funds. The SUBRECIPIENT shall expend all or any part of the funds only on those activities identified in EXHIBIT 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in this Agreement. B.The SUBRECIPIENT shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in this Agreement, but to comply with any requests by the RECIPIENT in that connection; it being understood that the RECIPIENT is responsible to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The SUBRECIPIENT also will promptly notify the RECIPIENT of any changes in the scope or character of the activities which it is implementing. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is March 11, 2014. The Agreement shall expire on March 11, 2019. Upon expiration, the SUBRECIPIENT shall relinquish to the RECIPIENT all program income funds unexpended and uncommitted, and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of the funds for the activities described in EXHIBIT 1, as may be amended. 3.TIMELINESS OF USE OF AND EXPENDITURE OF THE FUNDS The RECIPIENT may reduce the Grant amount or cancel this Agreement and demand reversion of funds if RECIPIENT determines in its sole discretion that the start and expected completion of the Activities is not within the above described timeframe. RECIPIENT will periodically review SUBRECIPIENT'S progress towards expected outcomes and may reduce or cancel funding for one or all Activities for lack of adequate progress. Adequate progress will be determined by RECIPIENT in its sole discretion. 4.REPORTING If requested, on a form to be provided or approved by the RECIPIENT, SUBRECIPIENT shall submit performance reports beginning after the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until all the funds have been expended and those expenditures are included in a report to HUD. 2 5.THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The SUBRECIPIENT may subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the RECIPIENT and only through a written THIRD PARTY or DEVELOPER Agreement acceptable to the RECIPIENT. The SUBRECIPIENT shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the RECIPIENT. 6.AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed, approved, and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. Any amendments to the approved activities, budgets or target area in EXHIBIT 1, which constitute a substantial amendment, will require public notice by the SUBRECIPIENT and an opportunity for public comment for 15 days prior to action on the proposed amendment by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. A substantial amendment is defined in and must follow the process described in Citizen Participation Plan, which is Appendix B of the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan for the Hennepin County Consortium. In order to ensure that all the funds are expended as required, changes that are not substantial, will be coordinated by County staff subject to the review and approval of the Manager of Housing Development and Finance and the Director of Housing, Community Works and Transit. 7.PAYMENT OF FUNDS The RECIPIENT agrees to provide the SUBRECIPIENT with the funds not to exceed the Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the SUBRECIPIENT to carry out its NSP3- eligible activities as described in EXHIBIT 1. It is understood that the RECIPIENT shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of the funds under this Agreement. The RECIPIENT shall therefore make no payments to the SUBRECIPIENT prior to having received a request for reimbursement for expenses incurred from the SUBRECIPIENT on a form to be provided by the RECIPIENT. In addition to the request form, SUBRECIPIENT shall provide copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the SUBRECIPIENT has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. The RECIPIENT will provide reimbursement within 30 days of receipt and approval of all documents required under this section. 8.INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. The SUBRECIPIENT does hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the RECIPIENT, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of SUBRECIPIENT and property of SUBRECIPIENT, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement. 3 B.In order to protect SUBRECIPIENT and RECIPIENT from liability and to effectuate the indemnification provisions hereinabove, each SUBRECIPIENT that is not self- insured agrees that during the term of this Agreement it will carry a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial general liability policy in an amount equal to, but shall not be required to carry coverage in excess of, claim limits specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04, as amended. C.This section shall in no way be intended by the parties hereto as a waiver of the liability limits specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04, as amended. 9.CONFLICT OF INTEREST A. In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the SUBRECIPIENT, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110 shall apply. In all other cases, the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the conflict of interest provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.87-471.88, and subpart K of 24 CFR 570.611. 10.DATA PRIVACY The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the RECIPIENT, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the SUBRECIPIENT'S unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. 11. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION A.If the SUBRECIPIENT materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and default. Unless the SUBRECIPIENT'S default is excused by the RECIPIENT, the RECIPIENT may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately canceling this Agreement in its entirety. B.The RECIPIENT'S failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C. This Agreement may not be terminated or withdrawn without cause by either party while this Agreement remains in effect. Funds allocated to the SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the SUBRECIPIENT following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the RECIPIENT. 4 12. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT shall transfer to the RECIPIENT any NSP3 or program income funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of the funds, including the funds provided to the SUBRECIPIENT in the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the SUBRECIPIENT that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1)For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County. (2)For any other SUBRECIPIENT, five years after expiration of this Agreement; or B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the SUBRECIPIENT shall pay to the RECIPIENT an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non- NSP3 or program income funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the RECIPIENT. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 13. AFFORDABILITY PERIOD For homeownership properties, the RECIPIENT has chosen to use the Qualifications as Affordable Housing: Homeownership requirements found in the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) at §92.254. This section of the HOME regulations includes the required use of a RESALE or RECAPTURE provision. For this Agreement, as in the first Agreement, the RECAPTURE provision is being applied and is secured by providing the homebuyer a soft second, buyer assistance financing documents. The appropriate documents will be signed and filed at the close of the financing with the buyer. At a minimum, the term of loans will be based on periods of affordability in the table below, as required in §92.252 and §92.254. Homeownership assistance NSP3 amount per-unit NSP3 Loan Term Under $15,000 5 $15,000 to $40,000 10 Over $40,000 15 14. PROCUREMENT The SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activities. As applicable, procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 5 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The SUBRECIPIENT shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents, enter into all contracts, and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The RECIPIENT shall provide advice and staff assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT to carry out its funded activities. 15. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND DISPLACEMENT A.The SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activities. The SUBRECIPIENT shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with requirements under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (URA) (49 CFR Part 24), except where it conflicts with section 2301(d)(1) or any other section of THE ACT, in which case THE ACT requirements shall prevail over the URA for purposes of the assisted acquisitions of foreclosed-upon homes or residential properties. The RECIPIENT shall provide advice and staff assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT to carry out its funded activities. B.The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the URA as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) (note exception in next paragraph) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act. As an exception under THE ACT to URA requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2), as implemented at 24 CFR42.375, the SUBRECIPIENT will not be required to meet the requirements for one-for-one replacement of low and moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted in connection with activities assisted with the funds. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The RECIPIENT shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the RECIPIENT to accomplish this task. A release from the RECIPIENT must be received by the SUBRECIPIENT, prior to closing on a property for it to be eligible. 17. LABOR STANDARDS, EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING When applicable, the RECIPIENT shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests 6 for HUD for wage rate determinations on the activities undertaken by the SUBRECIPIENT. The SUBRECIPIENT shall notify the RECIPIENT prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The RECIPIENT will provide technical assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT to ensure compliance with these requirements. No funds shall be used directly or indirectly to employ, award contracts to, or otherwise engage the services of, or fund any contractor or SUBRECIPIENT during any period of debarment, suspension, or placement in ineligibility status under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 24. Prior to awarding a contract the SUBRECIPIENT shall promptly notify the RECIPIENT. The RECIPIENT shall be responsible for determining the status of the contractor under this requirement, and shall notify SUBRECIPIENT if the contractor is or is not prohibited from doing business with the Federal government as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. 18. PROGRAM INCOME If the SUBRECIPIENT generated any additional program income, as defined in 24 CFR 570.500(a), as a result of the expenditure of funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, except as modified under Title III Division B of the Act and any subsequent amendments or in guidance provided by HUD or RECIPIENT, as well as the following specific stipulations: A.The SUBRECIPIENT will notify the RECIPIENT of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with the funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of the funds used. B.On a form to be provided by the RECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT will document amounts received as program income are properly determined, calculated and supported. The RECIPIENT will subsequently review and verify documentation to assure Federal requirements are met. C.Any such program income must be paid to the RECIPIENT by the SUBRECIPIENT as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the SUBRECIPIENT is permitted to retain program income. D.Program income returned to the RECIPIENT shall be credited to the grant authority of SUBRECIPIENT, whose project generated the program income, and shall be used for fundable and eligible activities consistent with this Agreement. E.The SUBRECIPIENT further recognizes that the RECIPIENT has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate record keeping by the SUBRECIPIENT and reporting to the RECIPIENT by the SUBRECIPIENT on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the SUBRECIPIENT. The RECIPIENT agrees to provide technical assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT in establishing an appropriate and proper record-keeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. F.In the event of close-out or change in status of the SUBRECIPIENT, any program 7 income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to RECIPIENT as soon as practicable after the income is received. The RECIPIENT agrees to notify the SUBRECIPIENT, should closeout or change in status of the SUBRECIPIENT occur. G. RECIPIENT reserves the right to subtract the HUD allowed amount of Ten (10) percent from any program income it receives from the SUBRECIPIENT to be used for general administration of NSP3. 19.USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the SUBRECIPIENT that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using the funds: A. The SUBRECIPIENT shall use the real property for single family property. The SUBRECIPIENT must inform and receive permission from the RECIPIENT at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements, including disposition. The SUBRECIPIENT will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. If any modification or change in the use of the real property is approved by the RECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT shall reimburse the RECIPIENT in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-NSP3 funds) of property acquired or improved with the funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the NSP3 requirements. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the RECIPIENT at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) (Reversion of Assets) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The RECIPIENT will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the Agreement between the RECIPIENT and the SUBRECIPIENT shall be repaid to the RECIPIENT at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 20.ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the RECIPIENT shall apply to all activities undertaken by the SUBRECIPIENT provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 21. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the Hennepin County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall 8 be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. B. The SUBRECIPIENT will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 22. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A.The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the SUBRECIPIENT receiving assistance from the RECIPIENT under Section 106 and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B.When and where applicable, the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101-336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 23. LEAD-BASED PAINT The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR Part 35 as referenced in 24 CFR Part 570.608. 24.FAIR HOUSING To assure compliance with requirements of section 104(b) and section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and other applicable laws, by signing the certification in Exhibit 3 SUBRECIPIENT certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing within its jurisdiction. Should HUD make a determination that the SUBRECIPIENT has not affirmatively furthered fair housing or has impeded action by the RECIPIENT to comply with its fair housing certification, the RECIPIENT shall exercise its authority, as contained in the Joint Cooperation Agreement, to prohibit the SUBRECIPIENT from receiving HUD funding for any activities until the violation has been remedied. 25.AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING The SUBRECIPIENT hereby covenants and agrees that it shall comply with the Hennepin County Affirmative Marketing Policy attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4. SUBRECIPIENT will submit for approval to RECIPIENT an affirmative market plan to ensure affirmative marketing of all NSP3-assisted units for the duration of this Agreement. 9 26.INCOME ELIGIBLITY SUBRECIPIENT agrees that all the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by RECIPIENT shall be used to house individuals and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income. Further, SUBRECIPIENT agrees that a minimum of 25 percent of all program income be made available by RECIPIENT under this agreement shall be used to house individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. 27.PURCHASE DISCOUNT SUBRECIPIENT agrees that each "foreclosed-upon home or residential property", as defined in the NSP regulations, shall be purchased at a discount of at least one percent from the current market-appraised value of the home or property. The current market appraised value will be determined by an appraisal ordered by the RECIPIENT. 28. VICINITY HIRING SUBRECIPIENT shall take the appropriate actions to provide for the hiring of employees who reside in the vicinity or contract with small businesses that are owned and operated by persons residing in the vicinity of projects funded with the funds, to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, SUBRECIPIENT shall o Provide community outreach via city newsletters, etc; •Advertise, identify and select qualified developers from inside the target area, when possible; o Require developers to identify and solicit bids from qualified contractors from the target area, when possible; •Require contractors to hire qualified job applicants from inside the target area, when available Vicinity for this Agreement is the target area(s) listed on EXHIBIT 1. 29. LOBBYING A No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the SUBRECIPIENT, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement SUBRECIPIENT will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 10 30.USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SUBRECIPIENT has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 31.OTHER CDBG and NSP3 POLICIES The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church/State Activities), Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-203, approved July 21, 2010) ("Dodd- Frank Act"), title XII of the Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5, approved February 17, 2009) ("Recovery Act"), and Sections 2301 — 2304 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-289, approved July 30, 2008) ("HERA"). 32.MINNESOTA HOUSING NSP3 POLICIES INTENTIONALLY OMITTED 33.CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION STANDARDS SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the Hennepin Housing Consortium HOME Investment Partnerships Program Construction and Rehabilitation Standards attached hereto as EXHIBIT 5. 34.TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The RECIPIENT agrees to provide technical assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT in the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding NSP3 procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the SUBRECIPIENT and at other times at the initiative of the RECIPIENT when new or updated information concerning the NSP3 is received by the RECIPIENT and deemed necessary to be provided to the SUBRECIPIENT. 35.RECORD-KEEPING The SUBRECIPIENT shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A- 110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the RECIPIENT for inspection/s and audit/s by the RECIPIENT or its representatives, HUD. If a financial audit/s determines that the SUBRECIPIENT has improperly expended funds, resulting in HUD disallowing such expenditures, the RECIPIENT reserves the right to recover from the SUBRECIPIENT such disallowed expenditures from non-NSP3 sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 37 of this Agreement. 36. ACCESS TO RECORDS 1 1 The RECIPIENT shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the SUBRECIPIENT in implementation of this Agreement, and the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the RECIPIENT to request such information from the SUBRECIPIENT for the purpose of reviewing the same. 37. AUDIT The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide RECIPIENT with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1996, and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A-133 "Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Institutions." A.The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide RECIPIENT with an annual audit consistent with the requirements as stated in the first paragraph of this section above. The audit shall be completed and submitted to RECIPIENT within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or nine months after the end of the audit period. B.RECIPIENT will issue a management decision on audit findings within six months after receipt of the audit report and ensure that the RECIPIENT takes appropriate and timely corrective action. C.In those instances where less than $500,000 in assistance is expended from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year, and a single audit is not required, the RECIPIENT requests the following information within the same timeframe as in A., above: (1) annual financial statements, (2) independent auditor's report on internal control over financial reporting based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards, and (3) the Management Letter. D.The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from THE funds. E The RECIPIENT reserves the right to recover from the SUBRECIPIENT'S non- NSP3 funds any NSP3 expenses which are disallowed by an audit. 38. CERTIFICATIONS To conform with changes under Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-203, approved July 21, 2010) ("Dodd-Frank Act"), title XII of the Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5, approved February 17, 2009) ("Recovery Act"), and Sections 2301 —2304 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-289, approved July 30, 2008) ("HERA"), an alternative set of certifications to those contained in the current Consolidated Action Plan, as amended, is required. The alternative certifications are tailored to NSP3 grants and remove certifications and references that are appropriate only to the annual CDBG formula program. By signing EXHIBIT 3 the SUBRECIPIENT certifies it will utilize the funds in compliance with these requirements identified. 39. WITHHOLDING 12 For state funding awarded to the RECIPIENT and passed-through to the SUBRECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT must comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 290.9705 by either: A.Depositing with the State, 8 percent of every payment made to non-Minnesota construction contractors, where the contract exceeds $100,000; or B.Receiving a waiver from this requirement from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. 40.SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS NSP3 funds may not be used to pay any part of special assessments, except as authorized by the Act and ANY subsequent notice from HUD, and approved by the RECIPIENT. 41.WORKERS COMPENSATION For funding awarded to the RECIPIENT and passed-through to the SUBRECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT certifies that it is in compliance with Minnesota Statute 176.181 Subd.02, pertaining to worker's compensation insurance coverage. The SUBRECIPIENT'S employers and agents will not be considered state employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Worker's Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State's obligation or responsibility. 42.GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION AND VENUE For funding awarded to the RECIPIENT and passed-through to the SUBRECIPIENT; Minnesota law, without regard to its choice for law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate State or Federal court with competent jurisdiction in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 43.TENANT PROTECTIONS SUBRECIPIENT shall ensure that it and its subrecipients comply with tenant protections specified in Division A, Title XII of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111-5) under the heading "Community Planning and Development Community Development Fund." 44. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the SUBRECIPIENT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing. Assistant County Attorney 13 RECIPIENT EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 2014 pursuant to Resolution No. , and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the RECIPIENT agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to form COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and execution STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of Its County Board Date: ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of County Board Date: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Date: And: Assistant County Administrator Public Works Date: Recommended for Approval: Department Director, Housing, Community Works and Transit Date : Assistant County Attorney Date: 14 SUBRECIPIENT EXECUTION SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement and the SUBRECIPIENT'S governing body having authorized such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, SUBRECIPIENT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. By entering into this Agreement the SUBRECIPIENT certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either the federal government or the State of Minnesota as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. SUBRECIPIENT: (Place city seal here) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Its: And: Its: Attest: Title: Date: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: D Plan A CI Plan B Charter 15 EXHIBIT BUDGET, ACTIVITY and TARGET AREA DESCRIPTION Activities Activity Name 9.0 Neighborhood Revitalization -- BROOKLYN CENTER Uses Select all that apply: LII Eligible Use A: Financing Mechanisms Eligible Use B: Acquisition and Rehabilitation Eligible Use C: Land Banking LI Eligible Use D: Demolition Eligible Use E: Redevelopment CDBG Activity or Activities 24 CFR 570.201 (a)Acquisition, (b)Disposition, (c) Public facilities and improvements, (e) Public services for housing counseling, but only to the extent that counseling beneficiaries are limited to prospective purchasers or tenants of the redeveloped properties, (i) Relocation, and (n) Direct homeownership assistance (as modified below). 24 CFR 570.202 Eligible rehabilitation and preservation activities for demolished or vacant properties. 24 CFR 570.204 Community based development organizations. Any of the activities listed above may include required homebuyer counseling as an activity delivery cost. New construction of housing is eligible as part of the redevelopment of demolished or vacant properties. National Objective Low Moderate Middle Income Housing (LMMH) TARGET AREA Description Census Tract Census Tract 203.04 Block Groups 1 and 3 Census Tract 205.00 Block Group 2 and 3 Source of Funding NSP3 Program Income Performance Measures The County, city partners or developers will acquire, redevelop and resell at least two additional single family homes to create homeownership opportunities for households at or below 120% AMI, with 25% of the funds expended for homes to be sold to households at or below 50% of AMI. EXHIBIT 1 - Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 CERTIFICATIONS FOR STATE AND ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES (1)Affirmatively furthering fair housing. The jurisdiction certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard. (2)Anti-displacement and relocation plan. The applicant certifies that it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan. (3)Anti-lobbying. The jurisdiction must submit a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part. (4)Authority of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction certifies that the consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable, is authorized under state and local law (as applicable) and that the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations and other program requirements. (5)Consistency with plan. The jurisdiction certifies that the housing activities to be undertaken with NSP funds are consistent with its consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable. (6)Acquisition and relocation. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, except as those provisions are modified by the notice for the NSP program published by HUD. (7)Section 3. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. (8)Citizen participation. The jurisdiction certifies that it is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of Sections 24 CFR 91.105 or 91.115, as modified by NSP requirements. (9)Following a plan. The jurisdiction certifies it is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. [Only States and entitlement jurisdictions use this certification.] (10)Use of funds. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 by spending 50 percent of its grant funds within 2 years, and spending 100 percent within 3 years, of receipt of the grant. (11) The jurisdiction certifies: a. that all of the NSP funds made available to it will be used with respect to individuals and families whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of area median income; and EXHIBIT 2 — Page 1 b. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low- and moderate- income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if NSP funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with NSP funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. In addition, with respect to properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (but not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than NSP funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks NSP or CDBG funds to cover the assessment. (12) Excessive force. The jurisdiction certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing: a.A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and b.A policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to, or exit from, a facility or location that is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. (13) Compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The jurisdiction certifies that the NSP grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. (14)Compliance with lead-based paint procedures. The jurisdiction certifies that its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R of this title. (15)Compliance with laws. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with applicable laws. (16)Vicinity hiring. The jurisdiction certifies that it will, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for hiring of employees that reside in the vicinity of NSP3 funded projects or contract with small businesses that are owned and operated by persons residing in the vicinity of NSP3 projects. (17)Development of affordable rental housing. The jurisdiction certifies that it will be abide by the procedures described in its NSP3 Abbreviated Plan to create preferences for the development of affordable rental housing for properties assisted with NSP3 funds. Signature/Authorized Official Date Title EXHIBIT 2 — Page 2 Hennepin County Agreement A140587 SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT No. 2 HENNEPIN COUNTY NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 3 (NSP3) THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the city of BROOKLYN CENTER, hereinafter referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430, said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, RECIPIENT received a grant from the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MN Housing) through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) funding under Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-203, approved July 21, 2010) (Dodd- Frank Act or the Act), as amended, for emergency assistance for redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes and residential properties. Unless the Act states otherwise, such grants are to be considered Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds according to the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 570 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 14.218). The grant program under the Act is commonly referred to as the CDBG Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3); and WHEREAS, RECIPIENT had approved the use of NSP3 funds by the SUBRECIPIENT, all of which were expended by the March 11, 2014 deadline and in accordance with the original budget of $475,000 for the implementation of eligible NSP3 redevelopment activities. To date the SUBRECIPENT hascompleted the purchase of five homeownership opportunities, of which four will be sold to households below 120% Area Median Income (AMI) and, if possible, one will be sold to a 50% AMI household; and WHEREAS, there are additional units funded with the original allocation and program income that are under construction or on the market for sale that still need to be sold to a homeowner; and WHEREAS, there has been program income generated by the original allocation and that there may be additional program income generated; and WHEREAS, additional activities will be completed, as set forth in EXHIBIT 1 to this Agreement, with the anticipated program income as a result of the sale of the properties. The program income needs to be used to create additional opportunities until it is all spent and RECIPIENT can complete the official close out of the program with HUD; and WHEREAS, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved activities in the approved target areas described in EXHIBIT 1, said responsibilities being specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 2008, executed between RECIPIENT and the city of Brooklyn Park, and in the Hennepin County Consortium 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, as amended, and in the Certifications contained herein as EXHIBIT 2; and 1 WHEREAS, except as otherwise provided in the Act and the October 19, 2010 Federal Register Notice of Formula Allocation and Program Requirements for Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Grants with Docket No. FR-5447—N-01 (the Notice), attached as EXHIBIT 3, statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CDBG Program, as applicable, shall apply to the use of the funds. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A.Except as described in the Notice statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CDBG Program, including those at 24 CFR Part 570 Subparts A, C, D, J, K, and 0, as appropriate, shall apply to the use of the funds. The SUBRECIPIENT shall expend all or any part of the funds only on those activities identified in EXHIBIT 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and the stipulations and requirements set forth in this Agreement. B.The SUBRECIPIENT shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in this Agreement, but to comply with any requests by the RECIPIENT in that connection; it being understood that the RECIPIENT is responsible to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring compliance with such requirements. The SUBRECIPIENT also will promptly notify the RECIPIENT of any changes in the scope or character of the activities which it is implementing. 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT The effective date of this Agreement is March 11, 2014. The Agreement shall expire on March 11, 2019. Upon expiration, the SUBRECIPIENT shall relinquish to the RECIPIENT all program income funds unexpended and uncommitted, and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of the funds for the activities described in EXHIBIT 1, as may be amended. 3.TIMELINESS OF USE OF AND EXPENDITURE OF THE FUNDS The RECIPIENT may reduce the Grant amount or cancel this Agreement and demand reversion of funds if RECIPIENT determines in its sole discretion that the start and expected completion of the Activities is not within the above described timeframe. RECIPIENT will periodically review SUBRECIPIENT'S progress towards expected outcomes and may reduce or cancel funding for one or all Activities for lack of adequate progress. Adequate progress will be determined by RECIPIENT in its sole discretion. 4.REPORTING If requested, on a form to be provided or approved by the RECIPIENT, SUBRECIPIENT shall submit performance reports beginning after the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until all the funds have been expended and those expenditures are included in a report to HUD. 2 5.THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS The SUBRECIPIENT may subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the RECIPIENT and only through a written THIRD PARTY or DEVELOPER Agreement acceptable to the RECIPIENT. The SUBRECIPIENT shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior consent of the RECIPIENT. 6.AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed, approved, and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. Any amendments to the approved activities, budgets or target area in EXHIBIT 1, which constitute a substantial amendment, will require public notice by the SUBRECIPIENT and an opportunity for public comment for 15 days prior to action on the proposed amendment by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. A substantial amendment is defined in and must follow the process described in Citizen Participation Plan, which is Appendix B of the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan for the Hennepin County Consortium. In order to ensure that all the funds are expended as required, changes that are not substantial, will be coordinated by County staff subject to the review and approval of the Manager of Housing Development and Finance and the Director of Housing, Community Works and Transit. 7.PAYMENT OF FUNDS The RECIPIENT agrees to provide the SUBRECIPIENT with the funds not to exceed the Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the SUBRECIPIENT to carry out its NSP3- eligible activities as described in EXHIBIT 1. It is understood that the RECIPIENT shall be held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of the funds under this Agreement. The RECIPIENT shall therefore make no payments to the SUBRECIPIENT prior to having received a request for reimbursement for expenses incurred from the SUBRECIPIENT on a form to be provided by the RECIPIENT. In addition to the request form, SUBRECIPIENT shall provide copies of all documents and records needed to ensure that the SUBRECIPIENT has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. The RECIPIENT will provide reimbursement within 30 days of receipt and approval of all documents required under this section. 8.INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE A. The SUBRECIPIENT does hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the RECIPIENT, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or corporation, including employees of SUBRECIPIENT and property of SUBRECIPIENT, which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement. 3 B.In order to protect SUBRECIPIENT and RECIPIENT from liability and to effectuate the indemnification provisions hereinabove, each SUBRECIPIENT that is not self- insured agrees that during the term of this Agreement it will carry a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial general liability policy in an amount equal to, but shall not be required to carry coverage in excess of, claim limits specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04, as amended. C.This section shall in no way be intended by the parties hereto as a waiver of the liability limits specified in Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04, as amended. 9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST A.In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the SUBRECIPIENT, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110 shall apply. B.In all other cases, the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the conflict of interest provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.87-471.88, and subpart K of 24 CFR 570.611. 10. DATA PRIVACY The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the RECIPIENT, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the SUBRECIPIENT'S unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. 11. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION A. If the SUBRECIPIENT materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute noncompliance and default. Unless the SUBRECIPIENT'S default is excused by the RECIPIENT, the RECIPIENT may take one or more of the actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately canceling this Agreement in its entirety. The RECIPIENT'S failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. C.This Agreement may not be terminated or withdrawn without cause by either party while this Agreement remains in effect. D.Funds allocated to the SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement may not be obligated or expended by the SUBRECIPIENT following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the SUBRECIPIENT under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically revert to the RECIPIENT. 4 12. REVERSION OF ASSETS Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT shall transfer to the RECIPIENT any NSP3 or program income funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use of the funds, including the funds provided to the SUBRECIPIENT in the form of a loan. Any real property under the control of the SUBRECIPIENT that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for the general conduct of government until: (1)For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of Urban Hennepin County. (2)For any other SUBRECIPIENT, five years after expiration of this Agreement; or B. Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the SUBRECIPIENT shall pay to the RECIPIENT an amount equal to the current market value of the property less any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non- NSP3 or program income funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income to the RECIPIENT. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A. above. 13. AFFORDABILITY PERIOD For homeownership properties, the RECIPIENT has chosen to use the Qualifications as Affordable Housing: Homeownership requirements found in the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) at §92.254. This section of the HOME regulations includes the required use of a RESALE or RECAPTURE provision. For this Agreement, as in the first Agreement, the RECAPTURE provision is being applied and is secured by providing the homebuyer a soft second, buyer assistance financing documents. The appropriate documents will be signed and filed at the close of the financing with the buyer. At a minimum, the term of loans will be based on periods of affordability in the table below, as required in §92.252 and §92.254. Homeownership assistance NSP3 amount per-unit NSP3 Loan Term Under $15,000 5 $15,000 to $40,000 10 Over $40,000 15 14. PROCUREMENT The SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activities. As applicable, procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The SUBRECIPIENT shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents, enter into 5 all contracts, and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The RECIPIENT shall provide advice and staff assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT to carry out its funded activities. 15. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND DISPLACEMENT A.The SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real property necessary for implementation of the activities. The SUBRECIPIENT shall conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public, governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall hold title to all real property purchased. The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with requirements under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 (URA) (49 CFR Part 24), except where it conflicts with section 2301(d)(1) or any other section of THE ACT, in which case THE ACT requirements shall prevail over the URA for purposes of the assisted acquisitions of foreclosed-upon homes or residential properties. The RECIPIENT shall provide advice and staff assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT to carry out its funded activities. B.The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the URA as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) (note exception in next paragraph) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; the relocation requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section 104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act. As an exception under THE ACT to URA requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2), as implemented at 24 CFR42.375, the SUBRECIPIENT will not be required to meet the requirements for one-for-one replacement of low and moderate income dwelling units demolished or converted in connection with activities assisted with the funds. 16. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The RECIPIENT shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The SUBRECIPIENT shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public notices to the RECIPIENT to accomplish this task. A release from the RECIPIENT must be received by the SUBRECIPIENT, prior to closing on a property for it to be eligible. 17. LABOR STANDARDS, EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING When applicable, the RECIPIENT shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage rate determinations on the activities undertaken by the SUBRECIPIENT. The SUBRECIPIENT shall notify the RECIPIENT prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the 6 provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The RECIPIENT will provide technical assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT to ensure compliance with these requirements. No funds shall be used directly or indirectly to employ, award contracts to, or otherwise engage the services of, or fund any contractor or SUBRECIPIENT during any period of debarment, suspension, or placement in ineligibility status under the provisions of 24 CFR Part 24. Prior to awarding a contract the SUBRECIPIENT shall promptly notify the RECIPIENT. The RECIPIENT shall be responsible for determining the status of the contractor under this requirement, and shall notify SUBRECIPIENT if the contractor is or is not prohibited from doing business with the Federal government as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. 18. PROGRAM INCOME If the SUBRECIPIENT generated any additional program income, as defined in 24 CFR 570.500(a), as a result of the expenditure of funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, except as modified under Title III Division B of the Act and any subsequent amendments or in guidance provided by HUD or RECIPIENT, as well as the following specific stipulations: A.The SUBRECIPIENT will notify the RECIPIENT of any program income within ten (10) days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is generated by an activity only partially assisted with the funds, the income shall be prorated to reflect the percentage of the funds used. B.On a form to be provided by the RECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT will document amounts received as program income are properly determined, calculated and supported. The RECIPIENT will subsequently review and verify documentation to assure Federal requirements are met. C.Any such program income must be paid to the RECIPIENT by the SUBRECIPIENT as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the SUBRECIPIENT is permitted to retain program income. D.Program income returned to the RECIPIENT shall be credited to the grant authority of SUBRECIPIENT, whose project generated the program income, and shall be used for fundable and eligible activities consistent with this Agreement. E.The SUBRECIPIENT further recognizes that the RECIPIENT has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The responsibility for appropriate record keeping by the SUBRECIPIENT and reporting to the RECIPIENT by the SUBRECIPIENT on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the SUBRECIPIENT. The RECIPIENT agrees to provide technical assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT in establishing an appropriate and proper record-keeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. F.In the event of close-out or change in status of the SUBRECIPIENT, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to RECIPIENT as soon as practicable after the income is received. The RECIPIENT agrees to notify the SUBRECIPIENT, should closeout or change in 7 status of the SUBRECIPIENT occur. G. RECIPIENT reserves the right to subtract the HUD allowed amount of Ten (10) percent from any program income it receives from the SUBRECIPIENT to be used for general administration of NSP3. 19. USE OF REAL PROPERTY The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the SUBRECIPIENT that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using the funds: A.The SUBRECIPIENT shall use the real property for single family property. The SUBRECIPIENT must inform and receive permission from the RECIPIENT at least thirty (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the time of acquisition or improvements, including disposition. The SUBRECIPIENT will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected citizens. B.If any modification or change in the use of the real property is approved by the RECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT shall reimburse the RECIPIENT in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-NSP3 funds) of property acquired or improved with the funds that is sold or transferred for a use which does not qualify under the NSP3 requirements. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the RECIPIENT at the time of sale or transfer of the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) (Reversion of Assets) are met and satisfied. Fair market value shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The RECIPIENT will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the initial appraisal. C. Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the Agreement between the RECIPIENT and the SUBRECIPIENT shall be repaid to the RECIPIENT at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. 20. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the RECIPIENT shall apply to all activities undertaken by the SUBRECIPIENT provided for in this Agreement and to any program income generated therefrom. 21. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY A. During the performance of this Agreement, the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the Hennepin County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national 8 origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. B. The SUBRECIPIENT will furnish all information and reports required to comply with the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity. 22. NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY A.The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by the SUBRECIPIENT receiving assistance from the RECIPIENT under Section 106 and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. B.When and where applicable, the SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with, and make best efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101-336 Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said Act. 23. LEAD-BASED PAINT The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR Part 35 as referenced in 24 CFR Part 570.608. 24.FAIR HOUSING To assure compliance with requirements of section 104(b) and section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and other applicable laws, by signing the certification in Exhibit 3 SUBRECIPIENT certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing within its jurisdiction. Should HUD make a determination that the SUBRECIPIENT has not affirmatively furthered fair housing or has impeded action by the RECIPIENT to comply with its fair housing certification, the RECIPIENT shall exercise its authority, as contained in the Joint Cooperation Agreement, to prohibit the SUBRECIPIENT from receiving HUD funding for any activities until the violation has been remedied. 25.AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING The SUBRECIPIENT hereby covenants and agrees that it shall comply with the Hennepin County Affirmative Marketing Policy attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4. SUBRECIPIENT will submit for approval to RECIPIENT an affirmative market plan to ensure affirmative marketing of all NSP3-assisted units for the duration of this Agreement. 26. INCOME ELIGIBLITY SUBRECIPIENT agrees that all the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 9 RECIPIENT shall be used to house individuals and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income. Further, SUBRECIPIENT agrees that a minimum of 25 percent of all program income be made available by RECIPIENT under this agreement shall be used to house individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. 27.PURCHASE DISCOUNT SUBRECIPIENT agrees that each "foreclosed-upon home or residential property", as defined in the NSP regulations, shall be purchased at a discount of at least one percent from the current market-appraised value of the home or property. The current market appraised value will be determined by an appraisal ordered by the RECIPIENT. 28.VICINITY HIRING SUBRECIPIENT shall take the appropriate actions to provide for the hiring of employees who reside in the vicinity or contract with small businesses that are owned and operated by persons residing in the vicinity of projects funded with the funds, to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, SUBRECIPIENT shall •Provide community outreach via city newsletters, etc; •Advertise, identify and select qualified developers from inside the target area, when possible; •Require developers to identify and solicit bids from qualified contractors from the target area, when possible; •Require contractors to hire qualified job applicants from inside the target area, when available Vicinity for this Agreement is the target area(s) listed on EXHIBIT 1. 29. LOBBYING A.No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the SUBRECIPIENT, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B.If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement SUBRECIPIENT will complete and submit Standard Form- LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions. 30. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SUBRECIPIENT has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive 10 force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 31.OTHER CDBG and NSP3 POLICIES The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions Concerning Church/State Activities), Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-203, approved July 21, 2010) ("Dodd-Frank Act"), title XII of the Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-5, approved February 17, 2009) ("Recovery Act"), and Sections 2301 — 2304 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-289, approved July 30, 2008) ("HERA"). 32.MINNESOTA HOUSING NSP3 POLICIES The SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with all MHFA NSP3 program guidelines and requirements contained in the Minnesota Housing NSP1 and NSP3 Program Procedural Manual, which may be updated from time to time and is available at www.mnhousing.gov , which is attached hereto by reference. 33.CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION STANDARDS SUBRECIPIENT shall comply with the Hennepin Housing Consortium HOME Investment Partnerships Program Construction and Rehabilitation Standards attached hereto as EXHIBIT 5. 34.TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE The RECIPIENT agrees to provide technical assistance to the SUBRECIPIENT in the form of oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding NSP3 procedures and project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the SUBRECIPIENT and at other times at the initiative of the RECIPIENT when new or updated information concerning the NSP3 is received by the RECIPIENT and deemed necessary to be provided to the SUBRECIPIENT. 35. RECORD-KEEPING The SUBRECIPIENT shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with OMB Circular A- 110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon request of the RECIPIENT for inspection/s and audit/s by the RECIPIENT or its representatives, HUD. If a financial audit/s determines that the SUBRECIPIENT has improperly expended funds, resulting in HUD disallowing such expenditures, the RECIPIENT reserves the right to recover from the SUBRECIPIENT such disallowed expenditures from non-NSP3 sources. Audit procedures are specified below in Section 37 of this Agreement. 11 36.ACCESS TO RECORDS The RECIPIENT shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by the SUBRECIPIENT in implementation of this Agreement, and the SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the RECIPIENT to request such information from the SUBRECIPIENT for the purpose of reviewing the same. 37.AUDIT The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide RECIPIENT with an annual audit consistent with the Single Audit Act of 1996, and the implementing requirements of OMB Circular A-133 "Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Institutions." A.The SUBRECIPIENT agrees to provide RECIPIENT with an annual audit consistent with the requirements as stated in the first paragraph of this section above. The audit shall be completed and submitted to RECIPIENT within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or nine months after the end of the audit period. B.RECIPIENT will issue a management decision on audit findings within six months after receipt of the audit report and ensure that the RECIPIENT takes appropriate and timely corrective action. C.In those instances where less than $500,000 in assistance is expended from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year, and a single audit is not required, the RECIPIENT requests the following information within the same timeframe as in A., above: (1) annual financial statements, (2) independent auditor's report on internal control over financial reporting based on an audit of financial statements performed in accordance with government auditing standards, and (3) the Management Letter. D.The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from THE funds. E. The RECIPIENT reserves the right to recover from the SUBRECIPIENT'S non-NSP3 funds any NSP3 expenses which are disallowed by an audit. 38.CERTIFICATIONS To conform with changes under Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-203, approved July 21, 2010) ("Dodd-Frank Act"), title XII of the Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111- 5, approved February 17, 2009) ("Recovery Act"), and Sections 2301 — 2304 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-289, approved July 30, 2008) ("HERA"), an alternative set of certifications to those contained in the current Consolidated Action Plan, as amended, is required. The alternative certifications are tailored to NSP3 grants and remove certifications and references that are appropriate only to the annual CDBG formula program. By signing EXHIBIT 3 the SUBRECIPIENT certifies it will utilize the funds in compliance with these requirements identified. 39.WITHHOLDING 12 For state funding awarded to the RECIPIENT and passed-through to the SUBRECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT must comply with Minnesota Statutes, Section 290.9705 by either: A.Depositing with the State, 8 percent of every payment made to non-Minnesota construction contractors, where the contract exceeds $100,000; or B.Receiving a waiver from this requirement from the Minnesota Department of Revenue. 40.SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS NSP3 funds may not be used to pay any part of special assessments, except as authorized by the Act and ANY subsequent notice from HUD, and approved by the RECIPIENT. 41.WORKERS COMPENSATION For funding awarded to the RECIPIENT and passed-through to the SUBRECIPIENT, the SUBRECIPIENT certifies that it is in compliance with Minnesota Statute 176.181 Subd.02, pertaining to worker's compensation insurance coverage. The SUBRECIPIENT'S employers and agents will not be considered state employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Worker's Compensation Act on behalf of these employees and any claims made by any third party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of these employees are in no way the State's obligation or responsibility. 42.GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION AND VENUE For funding awarded to the RECIPIENT and passed-through to the SUBRECIPIENT; Minnesota law, without regard to its choice for law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate State or Federal court with competent jurisdiction in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 43.TENANT PROTECTIONS SUBRECIPIENT shall ensure that it and its subrecipients comply with tenant protections specified in Division A, Title XII of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111-5) under the heading "Community Planning and Development Community Development Fund." 44. OPINION OF COUNSEL The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement, hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that the SUBRECIPIENT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly-assisted housing. Assistant County Attorney 13 RECIPIENT EXECUTION The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on , 2014 pursuant to Resolution No. , and the proper County officials having signed this Agreement, the RECIPIENT agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to form COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and execution STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chair of Its County Board Date: ATTEST: Deputy Clerk of County Board Date: And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator Date: And: Assistant County Administrator Public Works Date: Recommended for Approval: Department Director, Housing, Community Works and Transit Date : Assistant County Attorney Date: 14 SUBRECIPIENT EXECUTION SUBRECIPIENT, having signed this Agreement and the SUBRECIPIENT'S governing body having authorized such approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, SUBRECIPIENT agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. By entering into this Agreement the SUBRECIPIENT certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either the federal government or the State of Minnesota as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. SUBRECIPIENT: OF BROOKLYN CENTER (Place city seal here) By: Its: And: Its: Attest: Title: Date: CITY MUST CHECK ONE: The City is organized pursuant to: D Plan A III Plan B El Charter 15 EXHIBIT 'I BUDGET, ACTIVITY and TARGET AREA DESCRIPTION Activities Activity Name 9.0 Neighborhood Revitalization -- BROOKLYN CENTER Uses Select all that apply: El Eligible Use A: Financing Mechanisms 0 Eligible Use B: Acquisition and RehabilitationLiEligible Use C: Land Banking III Eligible Use D: Demolition Eligible Use E: Redevelopment CDBG Activity or Activities 24 CFR 570.201 (a)Acquisition, (b)Disposition, (c) Public facilities and improvements, (e) Public services for housing counseling, but only to the extent that counseling beneficiaries are limited to prospective purchasers or tenants of the redeveloped properties, (i) Relocation, and (n) Direct homeownership assistance (as modified below). 24 CFR 570.202 Eligible rehabilitation and preservation activities for demolished or vacant properties. 24 CFR 570.204 Community based development organizations. Any of the activities listed above may include required homebuyer counseling as an activity delivery cost. New construction of housing is eligible as part of the redevelopment of demolished or vacant properties. National Objective Low Moderate Middle Income Housing (LMMH) TARGET AREA Description Census Tract 206.00 Block Group 1 and 2 Census Tract 202.00 Block Group 3 Source of Funding NSP3 Program Income Performance Measures The County, city partners or developers will acquire, redevelop and resell at least one additional single family home to create homeownership opportunities for households at or below 120% AMI, with 25% of the funds expended for homes to be sold to households at or below 50% of AMI. EXHIBIT 1 - Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 CERTIFICATIONS FOR STATE AND ENTITLEMENT COMMUNITIES (1)Affirmatively furthering fair housing. The jurisdiction certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard. (2)Anti -displacement and relocation plan. The applicant certifies that it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan. (3)Anti -lobbying. The jurisdiction must submit a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part. (4)Authority of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction certifies that the consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable, is authorized under state and local law (as applicable) and that the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations and other program requirements. (5)Consistency with plan. The jurisdiction certifies that the housing activities to be undertaken with NSP funds are consistent with its consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable. (6)Acquisition and relocation. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, except as those provisions are modified by the notice for the NSP program published by HUD. (7)Section 3. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. (8)Citizen participation. The jurisdiction certifies that it is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of Sections 24 CFR 91.105 or 91.115, as modified by NSP requirements. (9)Following a plan. The jurisdiction certifies it is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. [Only States and entitlement jurisdictions use this certification.] (10)Use of funds. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 by spending 50 percent of its grant funds within 2 years, and spending 100 percent within 3 years, of receipt of the grant. (11) The jurisdiction certifies: a. that all of the NSP funds made available to it will be used with respect to individuals and families whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of area median income; and EXHIBIT 2 — Page 1 b. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low- and moderate- income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if NSP funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with NSP funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. In addition, with respect to properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (but not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than NSP funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks NSP or CDBG funds to cover the assessment. (12) Excessive force. The jurisdiction certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing: a.A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and b.A policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to, or exit from, a facility or location that is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. (13) Compliance with anti-discrimination laws. The jurisdiction certifies that the NSP grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. (14)Compliance with lead-based paint procedures. The jurisdiction certifies that its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R of this title. (15)Compliance with laws. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with applicable laws. (16)Vicinity hiring. The jurisdiction certifies that it will, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for hiring of employees that reside in the vicinity of NSP3 funded projects or contract with small businesses that are owned and operated by persons residing in the vicinity of NSP3 projects. (17)Development of affordable rental housing. The jurisdiction certifies that it will be abide by the procedures described in its NSP3 Abbreviated Plan to create preferences for the development of affordable rental housing for properties assisted with NSP3 funds. Signature/Authorized Official Date Title EXHIBIT 2 — Page 2 EXHIBIT 3 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE October 19, 2010 [Docket No. FR–5447–N–01] BEGINS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE 64322 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices number for this notice (USCG–2010– 0212) in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and then click ‘‘Search.’’ Procedural This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair’s discretion, members of the public may make brief oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Assistant to the Chairman no later than November 12, 2010. Written material (no more than 2 full pages) for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than November 12, 2010. If you would like a copy of your material (no more than 2 full pages) distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Assistant to the Chairman no later than November 12, 2010. The transcript of the meeting, including all comments received during the meeting, will be posted to http:// www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316). Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the Chairman as soon as possible. Authority: This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Dated: October 14, 2010. J.R. Caplis, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Incident Management & Preparedness. [FR Doc. 2010–26287 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR–5447–N–01] Notice of Formula Allocations and Program Requirements for Neighborhood Stabilization Program Formula Grants AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, HUD. ACTION: Notice of allocation method, waivers granted, alternative requirements applied, and statutory program requirements. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the allocation formula and allocation amounts, the list of grantees, alternative requirements, and the waivers of regulations granted to grantees under Section 2301(b) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–289, approved July 30, 2008) (HERA), as amended, and an additional allocation of funds provided under Section 1497 of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–203, approved July 21, 2010) (Dodd-Frank Act) for additional assistance in accordance with the second undesignated paragraph under the heading ‘Community Planning and Development—Community Development Fund’ in Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5, approved February 17, 2009) (Recovery Act), as amended, for the purpose of assisting in the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes. Except where provided for otherwise, these amounts are distributed based on funding formulas for such amounts established by the Secretary in accordance with HERA. The additional allocation represents the third round of Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding and is referred to throughout this notice as NSP3. HERA provided a first round of formula funding to States and units of general local government, and is referred to herein as NSP1. The Recovery Act provided a second round of funds awarded by competition and is referred to herein as NSP2. The three rounds of funding are collectively referred to as NSP. As described in the Supplementary Information section of this notice, HUD is authorized by statute to specify alternative requirements and make regulatory waivers for this purpose. This notice also notes statutory issues affecting program design and implementation. Note: This notice is intended to provide unified program requirements for grantees of the two formula NSP grant programs, NSP1 and NSP3. The allocation and application information under Section I.A and Section II.B below is only applicable to NSP3 grants. For NSP1, HUD awarded grants to a total of 309 grantees including the 55 states and territories and selected local governments to stabilize communities hardest hit by foreclosures and delinquencies. For the allocation formula and application process for NSP1, please see the October 6, 2008 Federal Register Notice (73 FR 58330), as amended by the June 19, 2009 ‘‘Bridge’’ Notice (74 FR 29223), and Appendix A attached hereto. For NSP2, HUD awarded a combined total $1.93 billion in NSP2 grants to 56 grantees nationwide on January 14, 2010. Funds under NSP2 were distributed by competition under criteria described in the May 4, 2009 Notice of Funding Availability. Where requirements differ between the rounds of funding, it is so noted. DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2010. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: Stanley Gimont, Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7286, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202–708–3587. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 800–877–8339. FAX inquiries may be sent to Mr. Gimont at 202–401–2044. (Except for the ‘‘800’’ number, these telephone numbers are not toll-free.) SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Program Background and Purpose Recipients will use the funds awarded under this notice to stabilize neighborhoods whose viability has been, and continues to be, damaged by the economic effects of properties that have been foreclosed upon and abandoned. In 2008, Congress appropriated funds for neighborhood stabilization under HERA. In 2009, Congress appropriated additional neighborhood stabilization funds under the Recovery Act. In 2010, Congress appropriated a third round of neighborhood stabilization funds in the Dodd-Frank Act. When referring to a provision of the first appropriations statute, this notice will refer to HERA; when referring to a provision of the second appropriations statute, this notice will refer to the Recovery Act; and when referring to the third appropriations statute this notice will refer to the Dodd-Frank Act. When referring to the grants, grantees, assisted activities, and implementation rules under the Dodd-Frank Act, this notice will use the term ‘‘NSP3.’’ When referring to the grants, grantees, assisted activities, and implementation rules under the Recovery Act, this notice will use the term ‘‘NSP2’’. When referring to the grants, grantees, assisted activities, and implementation rules under HERA, this notice will use the term ‘‘NSP1.’’ Collectively, the grants, grantees, assisted activities, and implementation rules under these three rounds of funding is referred to as NSP. NSP is a component of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program (authorized under Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) (HCD Act)). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00080Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64323 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices Program Principles Programs under NSP should aim to integrate the following principles: •Retain CDBG distinctive requirements. Congress gave HUD broad waiver and alternative requirement authority, which HUD used in designing NSP program requirements. However, distinctive characteristics of the CDBG program including the objectives of the HCD Act, financial accountability, local citizen participation and information, grantee selection of activities within broad Federal policy parameters, and income targeting of beneficiaries were retained. All of these elements are required in NSP1, NSP2, and NSP3. •Target and reconnect neighborhoods. Invest funds in programs and projects that will revitalize targeted neighborhood(s) and reconnect those targeted neighborhoods with the economy, housing market, and social networks of the community and metropolitan area as a whole. •Rapidly arrest decline. Support NSP uses and activities that will rapidly arrest the decline of a targeted neighborhood(s) that has been negatively affected by abandoned or foreclosed properties. •Assure compliance with the NSP ‘‘deep targeting’’ requirement. No less than 25 percent of the funds shall be used to house individuals and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. •Ensure longest feasible continued affordability. Invest in affordable housing that will remain desirable and affordable for the longest feasible period. •Support projects that optimize economic activity, and the number of jobs created or retained or that will provide other long-term economic benefits. •Build inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination. •Coordinate planning and resources. Integrate neighborhood stabilization programs with other Federal policy priorities and investments, including energy conservation and efficiency, sustainable and transit-oriented development, integrated metropolitan area-wide planning and coordination, improvements in public education, and access to healthcare. •Leverage resources and remove destabilizing influences. Augment neighborhood stabilization programs with other Federal, public and private resources. Eliminate destabilizing influences, such as blighted homes, that can prevent programs from producing results. •Set goals. Set aggressive, but achievable, goals for outputs and outcomes. •Ensure accountability. Ensure accountability for all programs, keep citizens actively informed, and provide all required NSP reporting elements. Objectives and Outcomes 1. Objectives. The primary objective of the CDBG program is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity, principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. NSP grantees must strive to meet this objective in neighborhoods that are in decline (or further decline) due to the negative effects of a high number and percentage of homes that have been foreclosed upon. The first goal is to arrest the decline. Then the grantee must stabilize the neighborhood and position it for a sustainable role in a revitalized community. 2. Outcomes. Measurable NSP short term program outcomes may include, but are not limited to: •Arresting decline in home values based on average sales price in targeted neighborhoods, and •Reduction or elimination of vacant and abandoned residential property in targeted neighborhoods. The long term outcomes may include, but are not limited to: •Increased sales of residential property in targeted neighborhoods, and •Increased median market values of real estate in targeted neighborhoods. Authority To Provide Alternative Requirements and Grant Regulatory Waivers The Dodd-Frank Act states that, except where provided for otherwise, assistance shall be provided in accordance with the same provisions applicable under the NSP2 authorization. In turn, the Recovery Act provides that assistance shall be made available as authorized under HERA. The Recovery Act authorizes the Secretary to specify waivers and alternative requirements for any provision of any statute or regulation in connection with the obligation by the Secretary or the use of funds except for requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment (including lead-based paint), upon a finding that such a waiver is necessary to expedite or facilitate the use of such funds. The Secretary finds that the following alternative requirements are necessary to expedite the use of these funds for their required purposes. Except as described in this notice, statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CDBG program, including those at 24 CFR part 570 subpart I for states, and those at 24 CFR part 570 subparts A, C, D, J, K, and O for CDBG entitlement communities, as appropriate, shall apply to the use of these funds. The State of Hawaii will be allocated funds and will be subject to part 570, subpart I, as modified by this notice. Other sections of the notice provide further details of the changes, the majority of which deal with adjustments necessitated by statutory provisions, simplify program rules to expedite administration, or relate to the ability of state grantees to act directly instead of solely through distribution to local governments. Additional guidance and technical assistance will be available at http://www.hud.gov/nspta. Table of Contents I. Allocations A. Formula: NSP3 Allocation B. Formula: Reallocation II. Alternative Requirements and Regulatory Waivers A. Definitions for Purposes of the CDBG Neighborhood Stabilization Program B. NSP3 Pre-Grant Process 1. General 2. Contents of an NSP Action Plan Substantial amendment or abbreviated plan 3. Continued affordability 4. Citizen participation alternative requirement 5. Joint requests 6. Effect of existing cooperation agreements governing joint programs and urban counties C. Reimbursement for Pre-Award Costs D. Grantee Capacity and Grant Conditions E. Income Eligibility Requirement Changes F. State Distribution to Entitlement Communities and Indian Tribes G. State’s Direct Action H. Eligibility and Allowable Costs I. Rehabilitation Standards J. Sale of Homes K. Acquisition and Relocation L. Note on Eminent Domain M. Timeliness of Use and Expenditure of NSP Funds N. Alternative Requirement for Program Income (Revenue) Generated by Activities Assisted With Grant Funds O. Reporting P. FHA First Look Q. Purchase Discount R. Removal of Annual Requirements S. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing T. Certifications U. Additional NSP3 Requirements— Preferences for Rental Housing and Local Hiring V. Note on Statutory Limitation on Distribution of Funds W. Information Collection Approval Note X. Duration of Funding VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00081Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64324 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices I. Allocations A. Formula: Allocation. Grants awarded under NSP1 were allocated to States and local governments according to the formula described in Attachment A. The Dodd-Frank Act makes available an additional $1 billion that is generally to be construed as CDBG program funds (NSP3) for the communities and in the amounts listed in Attachment B to this notice. B. Formula: Reallocation. 1.a. Failure to Apply (NSP3). To expedite the use of NSP3 funds, the Department is specifying alternative requirements to 42 U.S.C. 5306(c). If a unit of general local government receiving an allocation of NSP3 funds under this notice (as designated in Attachment B) fails to submit a substantially complete application for its grant allocation by March 1, 2011, or submits an application for less than the total allocation amount, HUD will notify the jurisdiction of the cancellation of all or part of its allocation amount and proceed to reallocate the funds to the state in which the jurisdiction is located. b. If a state or insular area receiving an allocation of funds under this notice fails to submit a substantially complete application for its allocation by March 1, 2011, or submits an application for less than the total allocation amount, HUD will notify the state or insular area of the reduction in its allocation amount and proceed to reallocate the funds to the 10 highest-need states based on original rankings of need. 2.a. Failure to Meet 18-Month Obligation Deadline (NSP1). Consistent with the August 23, 2010 Notice of NSP Reallocation Process Changes (Docket No. FR–5435–N–01), HUD will block each grantee’s ability to obligate NSP1 grant funds in the Disaster Recovery Grant Reporting System (DRGR) on the first business day after the statutory 18- month deadline for use of funds. HUD will notify the grantee of this action by electronic mail. Grantees will not be able to obligate grant funds after the deadline without requesting and receiving permission from HUD, and HUD determines that the grantee is not high risk consistent with this notice. The grantee will still be able to expend grant funds obligated before the deadline. Receipt and use of any program income will also be unaffected. b. Grantees that fail to obligate an amount equal to or greater than its initial grant amount may submit information to HUD, for up to 30 days following its 18-month deadline, documenting any additional obligation of funds not already recorded in the DRGR system and demonstrating to HUD that the obligation occurred on or before the 18-month deadline. Before the 18-month deadline, each grantee should also review its recorded obligations and notify HUD within 30 days following the deadline of any necessary adjustments to the amount and the reason for such an adjustment. For example, the grantee has become aware that an obligation amount that was previously recorded for an acquisition will not proceed, therefore a downward adjustment is necessary. c. After the deadline, if a grantee needs to decrease or increase the amount of grant funds obligated to an activity, it must first ask HUD to remove the DRGR block on changing the amount obligated. If the amount of decrease is more than 15 percent of the obligation for any activity, the grantee must submit to HUD a written request that clearly demonstrates with compelling information that factors beyond the grantee’s reasonable control caused the need to adjust after the deadline. If HUD agrees to grant the request, it will restore the grantee’s ability to obligate grant funds in DRGR. If HUD does not grant the request, the grantee must either complete the activity as originally obligated or the amount previously obligated for that activity will be recaptured. HUD may also remove the obligations block following risk assessment of the grantee or a review of some or all of a grantee’s obligation documentation. d. Before HUD determines the appropriate corrective action or recaptures grant funds, HUD will review the submitted information, consider the grantee’s capacity as described in 24 CFR 570.905 and 24 CFR 570.493, and the grantee’s continuing need for the funds. e. Following the review and consistent with the procedures described in 24 CFR 570.900(b), HUD will proceed to notify the grantee of the selected corrective action it is required to undertake. f. HUD will recapture and reallocate up to $19.6 million from any state grantee with unused NSP1 grant funds. Additional corrective actions may be taken related to any amount of unused funds greater than $19.6 million. g. HUD will reallocate recaptured NSP1 grant funds in accordance with the reallocation formula described in a separate reallocation notice. A grantee receiving a reallocation must apply for the grant in accordance with the NSP1 Notice or this notice, as applicable. A nonentitlement grantee that is not required to submit a consolidated plan to HUD under the CDBG program will prepare an abbreviated plan. The substance of an abbreviated plan must include all the required elements that entitlement communities provide as part of an NSP Action Plan substantial amendment as described under Section II.B.2 of the NSP1 Notice or this Notice, as applicable. h. Each grantee must meet the statutory requirement to expend 25 percent of its grant amount for activities that will provide housing for households whose income is at or under 50 percent of area median income. This cannot occur unless the funds are first obligated to activities for this purpose, or program income is received and used for eligible activities. Therefore, if a grantee fails to obligate or record program income use of at least 25 percent of its original grant amount for activities that will provide housing for households whose income is at or under 50 percent of area median income, HUD may issue a concern or a finding of noncompliance. Consistent with the procedures described in 24 CFR 570.900(b), HUD will require as a corrective action that the grantee either adjust its remaining NSP1 planned activities to ensure that 25 percent of the original NSP1 formula grant amount and program income supports activities providing housing to households with incomes at or under 50 percent of area median income, or make a firm commitment to provide such housing with nonfederal funds in an amount sufficient to offset any deficiency to comply with the requirement before the expenditure deadline for the NSP1 grant. i. The NSP1 Notice allows each grantee to use up to 10 percent of its NSP1 grant for general administration and planning activities. If HUD recaptures funds from a grant, this percentage limitation will still apply to the remaining grant funds, reducing the amount available for administration activities. 3. Failure to Meet Expenditure Deadline for NSP3. NSP3 grantees must expend 50 percent of their grants within 2 years and 100 percent of their grants within 3 years. HUD will recapture and reallocate the amount of funds not expended by those deadlines or provide for other corrective action(s) or sanction. Further guidance will be issued prior to the deadline. II. Alternative Requirements and Regulatory Waivers This section of the notice briefly provides a justification for alternative requirements, where additional explanation is necessary, and describes VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00082Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64325 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices the necessary basis for each regulatory waiver. This section also highlights some of the statutory requirements applicable to the grants. This background narrative is followed by the NSP requirements. While program requirements across the three rounds of NSP funding are similar, certain requirements differ in accordance to statutory provisions. Each grantee eligible for an NSP grant that already receives annual CDBG allocations has carried out needs hearings, has a consolidated plan, an annual action plan, a citizen participation plan, a monitoring plan, an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice, and has made CDBG certifications. The consolidated plan already discusses housing needs related to up to four major grant programs: CDBG, HOME, Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). A grantee’s annual action plan describes the activities budgeted under each of those annual programs. HUD is treating a state and entitlement grantee’s use of its NSP grant to be a substantial amendment to its current approved consolidated plan and 2010 annual action plan. The NSP grant is a special CDBG allocation to address the problem of abandoned and foreclosed homes. Treating NSP3 as a substantial amendment will expedite the distribution of NSP3 funds, while ensuring citizen participation on the specific use of the funds. HUD is waiving the consolidated plan regulations on the certification of consistency with the consolidated plan to the extent necessary to mean NSP funds will be used to meet the congressionally identified needs of abandoned and foreclosed homes in the targeted areas set forth in the grantee’s substantial amendment. In addition, HUD is waiving the consolidated plan regulations to the extent necessary to adjust reporting to fit the requirements of HERA and the use of DRGR. Non-entitlement local government grantees receiving NSP3 funds that are not required to submit a consolidated plan to HUD under the CDBG program will prepare an abbreviated plan. The substance of an abbreviated plan must include all the required elements that entitlement communities provide as part of an NSP Action Plan substantial amendment as described under Section II.B.2. The waivers, alternative requirements, and statutory changes apply only to the grant funds appropriated under NSP and not to the use of regular formula allocations of CDBG, even if they are used in conjunction with NSP funds for a project. They provide expedited program implementation and implement statutory requirements unique to the covered NSP appropriations. A. Definitions for Purposes of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Background Certain terms are used in HERA that are not used in the regular CDBG program, or the terms are used differently in HERA and the HCD Act. In the interest of clarity of administration, HUD is defining these terms in this notice for all grantees, including states. For the same reason, HUD is also defining eligible fund uses for all grantees, including states. States may define other program terms under the authority of 24 CFR 570.481(a), and will be given maximum feasible deference in accordance with 24 CFR 570.480(c) in matters related to the administration of their NSP programs. Requirement Abandoned. A home or residential property is abandoned if either (a) mortgage, tribal leasehold, or tax payments are at least 90 days delinquent, or (b) a code enforcement inspection has determined that the property is not habitable and the owner has taken no corrective actions within 90 days of notification of the deficiencies, or (c) the property is subject to a court-ordered receivership or nuisance abatement related to abandonment pursuant to state or local law or otherwise meets a state definition of an abandoned home or residential property. Blighted structure. A structure is blighted when it exhibits objectively determinable signs of deterioration sufficient to constitute a threat to human health, safety, and public welfare. CDBG funds. CDBG funds means, in addition to the definition at 24 CFR 570.3, grant funds distributed under this notice. Current market appraised value. The current market appraised value means the value of a foreclosed upon home or residential property that is established through an appraisal made in conformity with either: (1) The appraisal requirements of the URA at 49 CFR 24.103, or (2) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), or (3) the appraisal requirements of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) or a government sponsored enterprise (GSE); and the appraisal must be completed or updated within 60 days of a final offer made for the property by a grantee, subrecipient, developer, or individual homebuyer. However, if the anticipated value of the proposed acquisition is estimated at $25,000 or less, the current market appraised value of the property may be established by a valuation of the property that is based on a review of available data and is made by a person the grantee determines is qualified to make the valuation. Date of Notice of Foreclosure. For purposes of the NSP tenant protection provisions described at Section K, the date of notice of foreclosure shall be deemed to be the date on which complete title to a property is transferred to a successor entity or person as a result of an order of a court or pursuant to provisions in a mortgage, deed of trust, or security deed. If none of these events occur in the acquisition of a foreclosed property (e.g. in a short sale), in order to ensure fair and equitable treatment of bona fide tenants and consistency with the NSP definition of foreclosed, the date of notice of foreclosure shall be deemed to be the date on which the property is acquired for the NSP-assisted project. Note: This definition does not affect or otherwise alter the definition of ‘‘foreclosed’’ as provided in this notice. Foreclosed. A home or residential property has been foreclosed upon if any of the following conditions apply: (a) The property’s current delinquency status is at least 60 days delinquent under the Mortgage Bankers of America delinquency calculation and the owner has been notified; (b) the property owner is 90 days or more delinquent on tax payments; (c) under state, local, or tribal law, foreclosure proceedings have been initiated or completed; or (d) foreclosure proceedings have been completed and title has been transferred to an intermediary aggregator or servicer that is not an NSP grantee, contractor, subrecipient, developer, or end user. Land bank. A land bank is a governmental or nongovernmental nonprofit entity established, at least in part, to assemble, temporarily manage, and dispose of vacant land for the purpose of stabilizing neighborhoods and encouraging re-use or redevelopment of urban property. For the purposes of NSP, a land bank will operate in a specific, defined geographic area. It will purchase properties that have been foreclosed upon and maintain, assemble, facilitate redevelopment of, market, and dispose of the land-banked properties. If the land bank is a governmental entity, it may also maintain foreclosed property that it does not own, provided it charges the owner of the property the full cost VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00083Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64326 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices of the service or places a lien on the property for the full cost of the service. Subrecipient. Subrecipient shall have the same meaning as at the first sentence of 24 CFR 570.500(c). This includes any nonprofit organization (including a unit of general local government) that a state awards funds to. Use (for the purposes of HERA section 2301(c)(1)). Funds are used when they are obligated by a state, unit of general local government, or any subrecipient thereof, for a specific NSP activity; for example, for acquisition of a specific property. Funds are obligated for an activity when orders are placed, contracts are awarded, services are received, and similar transactions have occurred that require payment by the state, unit of general local government, or subrecipient during the same or a future period. Note that funds are not obligated for an activity when subawards (e.g., grants to subrecipients or to units of local government) are made. Vicinity. For the purposes of NSP3, HUD defines ‘‘vicinity’’ as each neighborhood identified by the NSP3 grantee as being the areas of greatest need. B. NSP3 Pre-Grant Process Background With this notice, HUD is establishing the NSP3 allocation formula, including reallocation provisions, and announcing the distribution of funds. CDBG grantees receiving NSP3 allocations may immediately begin to prepare and submit action plan substantial amendments for NSP3 funds, in accordance with this notice. (Insular areas should follow the requirements for entitlement communities.) Non- entitlement local government grantees will follow entitlement requirements except for the submission of an abbreviated plan rather than a substantial amendment or as otherwise explained in this notice. To receive NSP3 funding, each grantee listed in Attachment B must submit an action plan substantial amendment or abbreviated plan to HUD in accordance with this notice by March 1, 2011. HUD encourages each grantee to carry out its NSP activities in the context of a comprehensive plan for the community’s vision of how it can make its neighborhoods not only more stable, but also more sustainable, inclusive, competitive, and integrated into the overall metropolitan fabric, including access to transit, affordable housing, employers, and services. HUD also encourages grantees to incorporate green and sustainable development practices, such as the examples in Attachment C. HUD encourages each local jurisdiction receiving an allocation to carefully consider its administrative capacity to use the funds within the statutory deadline. Jurisdictions may cooperate to carry out their grant programs through a joint request to HUD. HUD is providing regulatory waivers and alternative requirements to allow joint requests among units of general local government and to allow joint requests between units of general local government and a state. Any two or more contiguous units of general local government that are in the same metropolitan area and that are eligible to receive an NSP grant may instead make a joint request to HUD to implement a joint NSP program. A jurisdiction need not have a joint agreement with an urban county under the regular CDBG entitlement program to request a joint program for NSP funding. Similarly, any community eligible to receive an NSP grant may instead make a request for a joint NSP program with its state. An NSP joint request under a cooperation agreement results in a single combined grant and a single action plan substantial amendment. Potential requestors should contact HUD as soon as possible (as far as possible in advance of publishing a proposed NSP substantial amendment) for technical guidance. The requestors will specify which jurisdiction will receive the funds and administer the combined grant on behalf of the requestors; in the case of a joint request between a local government jurisdiction and a state, the state will administer the combined grant. (Grantees choosing this option should consider the Consolidated Plan and citizen participation implications of this approach. The lead entity’s substantial amendment or abbreviated plan will cover any participating members. The citizen participation process must include citizens of all jurisdictions participating in the joint NSP program, not just those of the lead entity.) Given the rule of construction in HERA that NSP funds generally are construed as CDBG program funds, subject to CDBG program requirements, HUD generally is treating NSP3 funds as a special allocation of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 CDBG funding. This has important consequences for local governments presently participating in an existing urban county program, and for metropolitan cities that have joint agreements with urban counties. HUD will consider any existing cooperation agreements between a local government and an urban county governing FY2010 CDBG funding (for purposes of either an urban county or a joint program) to automatically cover NSP funding as well. These cooperation agreements will continue to apply to the use of NSP funds for the duration of the NSP grant, just as cooperation agreements covering regular CDBG Entitlement program funds continue to apply to any use of the funds appropriated during the 3- year period covered by the agreements. For example, a local government presently has a cooperation agreement covering a joint program or participation in an urban county for Federal FYs 2009, 2010 and 2011. The local government may choose to discontinue its participation with the county at the end of the applicable qualification period for purposes of regular CDBG entitlement funding. However, the county will still be responsible for any NSP3 projects funded in that community, and for any NSP3 funding the local government receives from the county, until those funds are expended and the funded activities are completed. A third method of cooperating is also available. A jurisdiction may choose to apply for its entire grant, and then enter into a subrecipient agreement with another jurisdiction or nonprofit entity to administer the grant. In this manner, for example, all of the grantees operating in a single metropolitan area could designate the same land-bank entity (or the state housing finance agency) as a subrecipient for some or all of their NSP activities. Each NSP3 grantee will have until March 1, 2011, to complete and submit a substantial amendment to its annual action plan or an abbreviated plan. A grantee that wishes to submit its action plan amendment to HUD electronically in the DRGR system rather than by paper may do so by contacting its local field office for the DRGR submission directions. Paper submissions to HUD also will be allowed, although each grantee must set up its action plan in DRGR prior to the deadline for the first required performance report after receiving a grant. HUD encourages grantees, during development of their action plan amendments or abbreviated plans, to contact HUD field offices for guidance in complying with these requirements, or if they have any questions regarding meeting grant requirements. Normally, in the CDBG program, a grantee takes at least 30 days soliciting comment from its citizens before it submits an annual action plan to HUD, which then has 45 days to accept or reject the plan. To expedite the process and to ensure that the NSP grants are VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00084Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64327 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices awarded in a timely manner, while preserving reasonable citizen participation, HUD is waiving the requirement that the grantee follow its citizen participation plan for this substantial amendment. HUD is shortening the minimum time for citizen comments and requiring the substantial amendment or abbreviated plan to be posted on the grantee’s official Web site as the materials are developed, published, and submitted to HUD. A grantee will be deemed by HUD to have received its NSP grant at the time HUD signs its NSP grant agreement (or amendment thereof, in the case of a state that later receives reallocated grant funds). Grantees are cautioned that, despite the expedited application and plan process, they are still responsible for ensuring that all citizens have equal access to information about the programs. Among other things, this means that each grantee must ensure that program information is available in the appropriate languages for the geographic area served by the jurisdiction. This will be a particular issue for states that make grants covering regular CDBG entitlement areas (or to entitlement grantees). Because regular State CDBG funds are not used in entitlement areas, State CDBG staffs may not be aware of limited English proficient (LEP) speaking populations in those metropolitan jurisdictions. HUD will review each grantee submission for completeness and consistency with the requirements of this notice and will disapprove incomplete and inconsistent action plan amendments or abbreviated plans. HUD will allow revision and resubmission of a disapproved amendment or abbreviated plan in accordance with 24 CFR 91.500(d) so long as any such resubmission is received by HUD 45 days or less following the date of first disapproval. In combination, the notice alternative requirements provide the following expedited steps for NSP grants: •Proposed action plan amendment or abbreviated plan published via the usual methods and on the Internet for no less than 15 calendar days of public comment; •Final action plan amendment or abbreviated plan posted on the Internet and submitted to HUD by March 1, 2011 (grant application includes Standard Form 424 (SF–424) and certifications); •HUD expedites review; •HUD accepts the plan and prepares a cover letter, grant agreement, and grant conditions; •Grant agreement signed by HUD and immediately transmitted to the grantee; •Grantee signs and returns the grant agreements; •HUD establishes the line of credit and the grantee requests and receives DRGR access (if it does not already have access); •After completing the environmental review(s) pursuant to 24 CFR part 58 and, as applicable, receiving from HUD or the state an approved Request for Release of Funds and certification, the grantee may draw down funds from the line of credit. In consideration of the shortened comment period, it is essential that grantees ensure that affected parties have sufficient notice of the opportunity to comment. The action plan substantial amendment or abbreviated plan and citizen participation alternative requirement will permit an expedited grant-making process, but one that still provides for public notice, appraisal, examination, and comment on the activities proposed for the use of NSP3 grant funds. Note: HUD believes an adequate and acceptable substantial amendment or abbreviated plan should be no longer than 25 pages. A plan should provide sufficient detail for citizens and HUD reviewers. Internet address links can be provided to longer elements that may change, such as detailed rehabilitation standards. Requirement 1. General. Except as described in this notice, statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CDBG program for states and entitlement communities, as applicable, shall apply to the use of these funds. Except as described in this notice, non-entitlement local government grantees receiving a grant directly from HUD shall follow statutory and regulatory provisions governing the CDBG program for entitlement communities. 2. Contents of an NSP Action Plan substantial amendment or abbreviated plan. The elements in the NSP substantial amendment to the Annual Action Plan or an abbreviated plan required for the CDBG program under part 91 are: a. General information about needs, distribution, use of funds, and definitions: i. Each grantee must use the HUD Foreclosure Need Web site as linked to from http://www.hud.gov/nsp to submit to HUD the locations of its NSP3 areas of greatest need. On this site, HUD provides estimates of foreclosure need and a foreclosure related needs scores at the Census Tract level. The score rank need from 1 to 20, with 20 being census tracts with the HUD-estimated greatest need. ii. The neighborhood or neighborhoods identified by the NSP3 grantee as being the areas of greatest need must have an individual or average combined index score for the grantee’s identified target geography that is not less than the lesser of 17 or the twentieth percentile most needy score in an individual state. For example, if a state’s twentieth percentile most needy census tract is 18, the requirement will be a minimum need of 17. If, however, a state’s twentieth percentile most needy census tract is 15, the requirement will be a minimum need of 15. HUD will provide the minimum threshold for each state at its Web site http://www.hud.gov/nsp. If more than one neighborhood is identified in the Action Plan, HUD will average the neighborhood NSP3 scores, weighting the scores by the estimated number of housing units in each identified neighborhood. iii. A narrative describing how the distribution and uses of the grantee’s NSP funds will meet the requirements of Section 2301(c)(2) of HERA, as amended by the Recovery Act and the Dodd-Frank Act; iv. For the purposes of the NSP3, the narratives will include: (A) A definition of ‘‘blighted structure’’ in the context of state or local law; (B) A definition of ‘‘affordable rents;’’ (C) A description of how the grantee will ensure continued affordability for NSP-assisted housing; and (D) A description of housing rehabilitation standards that will apply to NSP-assisted activities. b. Information by activity describing how the grantee will use the funds, identifying: i. The eligible use of funds under NSP3; ii. The eligible CDBG activity or activities; iii. The areas of greatest need addressed by the activity or activities; vi. The expected benefit to income- qualified persons or households or areas; v. Appropriate performance measures for the activity (e.g., units of housing to be acquired, rehabilitated, or demolished for the income levels represented in DRGR, which are currently 50 percent of area median income and below, 51 to 80 percent, and 81 to 120 percent); vi. Amount of funds budgeted for the activity; VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00085Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64328 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices vii. The name and location of the entity that will carry out the activity; and viii. The expected start and end dates of the activity. c. A brief description of the general terms under which assistance will be provided, including: i. Range of interest rates (if any); ii. Duration or term of assistance; iii. Tenure of beneficiaries (e.g., renters or homeowners); and vi. If the activity produces housing, how the design of the activity will ensure continued affordability; v. How the grantee shall, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for the hiring of employees who reside in the vicinity of NSP3 projects or contract with small businesses that are owned and operated by persons residing in the vicinity of such project, including information on existing local ordinances that address these requirements; vi. The procedures used to create preferences for the development of affordable rental housing developed with NSP3 funds; and vii. Whether the funds used for the activity are to count toward the requirement to provide benefit to low- income persons (earning 50 percent or less of area median income). d. The action plan narrative should specifically address how the grantee’s program design will address the local housing market conditions. e. Information on how to contact grantee program administrators, so that citizens and other interested parties know whom to contact for additional information. 3. Continued affordability. Grantees shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and for the longest feasible term, that the sale, rental, or redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed-upon homes and residential properties under this section remain affordable to individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of area median income or, for units originally assisted with funds under the requirements of section 2301(f)(3)(A)(ii) of HERA, as amended, remain affordable to individuals and families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. a. In its NSP action plan substantial amendment, a grantee will define ‘‘affordable rents’’ and the continued affordability standards and enforcement mechanisms that it will apply for each (or all) of its NSP activities. HUD will consider any grantee adopting the HOME program standards at 24 CFR 92.252(a), (c), (e), and (f), and 92.254, to be in minimal compliance with this standard and expects any other standards proposed and applied by a grantee to be enforceable and longer in duration. (Note that HERA’s continued affordability standard is longer than that required of subrecipients and participating units of general local government under 24 CFR 570.503 and 570.501(b).) b. The grantee must require each NSP- assisted homebuyer to receive and complete at least 8 hours of homebuyer counseling from a HUD-approved housing counseling agency before obtaining a mortgage loan. If the grantee is unable to meet this requirement for a good cause (e.g., there are no HUD- approved housing counseling agencies within the grantee’s jurisdiction, or there are no HUD-approved housing counseling agencies within the grantee’s jurisdiction that engage in homebuyer counseling), the grantee may submit a request for an exception to this requirement to the responsible HUD field office, and the HUD field office has the authority to grant an exception for good cause. The grantee must ensure that the homebuyer obtains a mortgage loan from a lender who agrees to comply with the bank regulators’ guidance for non-traditional mortgages (see, Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Department of the Treasury, and National Credit Union Administration, available at http:// www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/ 5000–5160.html). Grantees must design NSP programs to comply with this requirement and must document compliance in the records, for each homebuyer. Grantees are cautioned against providing or permitting homebuyers to obtain subprime mortgages for whom such mortgages are inappropriate, including homebuyers who qualify for traditional mortgage loans. 4. Citizen participation alternative requirement. HUD is providing an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5304(a)(2) and (3), to expedite distribution of grant funds and to provide for expedited citizen participation for the NSP substantial amendment. Provisions of 24 CFR 91.105(k), 91.115(i), 570.302 and 570.486, with respect to following the citizen participation plan, are waived to the extent necessary to allow implementation of the requirements below. a. Initial Allocation. To receive its grant allocation, a grantee must submit to HUD for approval an NSP3 application by March 1, 2011. This submission will include a signed SF– 424, signed certifications, and a substantial action plan amendment or abbreviated plan meeting the requirements of paragraph b below. (24 CFR 91.505 is waived to the extent necessary to require submission of the substantial amendment to HUD for approval in accordance with this notice.) Reallocation. To receive an NSP reallocation, a grantee must submit to HUD for approval an NSP application by the deadline indicated in a reallocation announcement. This submission will include a signed standard Federal form SF–424, signed certifications, and a substantial action plan amendment or abbreviated plan meeting the requirements of paragraph B.3.b below. (24 CFR 91.505 is waived to the extent necessary to require submission of the substantial amendment to HUD for approval in accordance with this notice.) b. Each grantee must prepare and submit its annual Action Plan amendment or abbreviated plan to HUD in accordance with the consolidated plan procedures under the CDBG program as modified by this notice, or HUD will reallocate the funds allocated for that grantee. HUD is providing alternative requirements to 42 U.S.C. 5304(a)(2) and waiving 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2), 91.105(k), 91.115(c)(2), and 91.115(i) to the extent necessary to allow the grantee to provide no fewer than 15 calendar days for citizen comment (rather than 30 days) for its initial NSP submission and any subsequent substantial NSP action plan amendment, and to require that, at the time of submission to HUD, each grantee post its approved action plan amendment and any subsequent NSP amendments on its official Web site along with a summary of citizen comments received within the 15-day comment period. After HUD processes and approves the plan amendment and both HUD and the grantee have signed the grant agreement, HUD will establish the grantee’s line of credit in the amount of funds included in the Action Plan amendment, up to the allocation amount. 5. Joint requests. To expedite the use of funds, HUD is providing an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5304(i) and is waiving 24 CFR 570.308 to the extent necessary to allow for additional joint programs described below. a. Unit of General Local Government Joint Agreements. Two or more contiguous jurisdictions that are eligible to receive a NSP allocation and are located in the same metropolitan area VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00086Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64329 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices may enter into joint agreements. All members to the joint agreement must be eligible to receive NSP1 or NSP3 funds, and one unit of general local government must be designated as the lead entity. The lead entity must execute the NSP grant agreement with HUD. Consistent with 24 CFR 570.308, the lead entity must assume responsibility for administering the NSP grant on behalf of all members, in compliance with applicable program requirements. The lead entity’s substantial amendment to the action plan or abbreviated plan will include all participating communities. b. Joint agreements with a state. Any jurisdiction that is eligible to receive an NSP allocation may enter into a joint agreement with its state. The state shall be the lead entity and must assume responsibility for administering the NSP grant on behalf of the local government, in compliance with applicable program requirements. The substantial amendment to the state’s action plan will include any participating unit of general local government. c. Local jurisdictions receiving reallocation funds may enter into joint agreements in accordance with paragraph B.5.a. or b., regardless of whether the local jurisdiction had a joint agreement for the original NSP allocation. 6. Effect of existing cooperation agreements governing joint programs and urban counties for NSP3 (see NSP1 Notice for parallel language for NSP1 grantees). Any cooperation agreement between a unit of general local government and a county, concerning either a joint program or participation in an urban county under 24 CFR 570.307 or 570.308, and governing CDBG funds appropriated for Federal FY 2010, will be considered to incorporate and apply to NSP3 funding. Any such cooperation agreements will continue to apply to the use of NSP3 funds until the NSP3 funds are expended and the NSP3 grant is closed out. Grantees should note that certain provisions in existing cooperation agreements that govern CDBG funding may be inconsistent with parts of HERA, the Recovery Act, the Dodd-Frank Act or this notice. For instance, set minimum and/or maximum allocation amounts may conflict with priority distributions to areas of greatest need identified in the grantee’s action plan substantial amendment. Conforming amendments should be made to existing cooperation agreements, as necessary, to comply with NSP statutory requirements and this notice. C. Reimbursement for Pre-Award Costs Background NSP grantees will need to move forward rapidly to prepare the NSP substantial amendment or abbreviated plan and to undertake other administrative actions, including environmental reviews, as soon as allocations are known. Therefore, HUD is granting permission to states and jurisdictions receiving a direct allocation of NSP funds to incur pre- award costs as if each was a new grantee preparing to receive its first allocation of CDBG funds. Requirement HUD is waiving 24 CFR 570.200(h) to the extent necessary to grant permission to jurisdictions receiving a direct NSP allocation under this notice to incur pre- award costs as if each was a new grantee preparing to receive its first allocation of CDBG funds. Similarly, in accordance with OMB Circular A–87, Attachment B, paragraph 31, HUD is allowing states to incur pre-award costs as if each was a new grantee preparing to receive its first allocation of CDBG funds. NSP grantees will be allowed to incur costs necessary to develop the NSP substantial action plan amendment and undertake other administrative actions necessary to receive its first grant, prior to the costs being included in the final plan, provided that the other conditions of 24 CFR 570.200(h) are met. (For units of general local government applying to the state (including entitlements not receiving a direct NSP allocation under this notice), 24 CFR 570.489(b) applies unmodified. Units of general local government receiving direct NSP allocations may incur pre-award costs as would an entitlement community.) D. Grantee Capacity and Grant Conditions Background In the October 6, 2008 Notice, HUD encouraged each local jurisdiction receiving an allocation to carefully consider its administrative capacity to use the funds within the statutory deadline. To support this consideration, HUD will provide each grantee a self- assessment tool that grantees may find useful in better understanding their capacity to undertake and manage NSP activities. This is essentially the same self-assessment tool that is used for NSP Technical Assistance purposes and it will allow HUD to more rapidly identify capacity gaps and technical assistance needs and to provide appropriate technical assistance. Although HUD suggests that every NSP grantee complete and submit the self- assessment with its substantial amendment or abbreviated plan, HUD will require some grantees to complete and submit such a self-assessment as a special condition of receiving funding. Requirement For NSP grantees that HUD determines are high risk in accordance with 24 CFR 85.12(a), HUD will apply additional grant conditions in accordance with 24 CFR 85.12(b). E. Income Eligibility Requirement Changes Background The NSP program includes two low- and moderate-income requirements at HERA section 2301(f)(3)(A) that supersede existing CDBG income qualification requirements. Under the heading ‘‘Low and Moderate Income Requirement,’’ HERA states that: all of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this section shall be used with respect to individuals and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income. This provision does two main things. First, for the purposes of NSP, it effectively supersedes the overall benefit provisions of the HCD Act and the CDBG regulations, which allow up to 30 percent of a grant to be used for activities that meet a national objective other than low- and moderate-income benefit. Thus, NSP allows the use of only the low- and moderate-income benefit national objective. Activities may not qualify under NSP using the ‘‘prevent or eliminate slums and blight’’ or ‘‘address urgent community development needs’’ objectives. Second, this provision also redefines and supersedes the definition of ‘‘low- and moderate-income,’’ effectively allowing households whose incomes exceed 80 percent of area median income but do not exceed 120 percent of area median income to qualify as if their incomes did not exceed the published low- and moderate-income levels of the regular CDBG program. To prevent confusion, HUD will refer to this new income group as ‘‘middle income,’’ and keep the regular CDBG definitions of ‘‘low-income’’ and ‘‘moderate income’’ in use. Further, HUD will characterize aggregated households whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of median income as ‘‘low-, moderate-, and middle-income households,’’ abbreviated as LMMH. For the purposes of NSP only, an activity may meet the HERA low- and moderate- income national objective if the assisted activity: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00087Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64330 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices •Provides or improves permanent residential structures that will be occupied by a household whose income is at or below 120 percent of area median income (abbreviated as LMMH); •Serves an area in which at least 51 percent of the residents have incomes at or below 120 percent of area median income (LMMA); or •Serves a limited clientele whose incomes are at or below 120 percent of area median income (LMMC). HUD will use the parenthetical terms above to refer to NSP national objectives in program implementation, to avoid confusion with the regular HCD Act definitions. Land banks are not allowed in the regular CDBG program because of the very high risk that the delay between acquiring property and meeting a national objective can be excessively long, attenuating the intended CDBG program benefits by delaying benefit far beyond the annual or even the 5-year consolidated plan cycles. In the regular CDBG program (and in NSP other than in an eligible land-bank use), a property acquisition activity is dependent on the subsequent re-use of the property meeting a national objective in order to demonstrate program compliance. Given this, the HERA direction that assistance to land banks is an eligible use of NSP funds requires an alternative requirement and policy clarification. For grantees choosing to assist land banks or demolition of structures with NSP funds, the change to the income qualification level for low-, moderate- and middle-income areas will likely include most of the neighborhoods where property stabilization is required. If an assisted land bank is not merely acquiring properties, but is also working in an area in which other activities are being carried out that are intended to arrest neighborhood decline, such as maintenance, demolition, and facilitating redevelopment of the properties, HUD will, for NSP-assisted activities only, accept that the acquisition and management activities of the land bank may provide sufficient benefit to an area generally (as described in 24 CFR 570.208(a)(1) and 570.483(b)(1)) to meet a national objective (LMMA) prior to final disposition of the banked property. HUD notes that the grantee must determine the actual service area benefiting from a land bank’s activities, in accordance with the regulations. However, HUD does not believe the benefits of just holding property are sufficient to stabilize most neighborhoods or that this is the best use of limited NSP funds absent a re-use plan. Therefore, HUD requires that a land bank may not hold a property for more than 10 years without obligating the property for a specific, eligible redevelopment of that property in accordance with NSP requirements. Note that if a state provides funds to an entitlement community, the entitlement community must apply the area median income levels applicable to its regular CDBG program geography and not the ‘‘balance of state’’ levels. Other than the change in the applicable low- and moderate-income qualification level from 80 percent to 120 percent and this notice’s change to the calculation at 570.483(b)(3), the area benefit, housing, and limited clientele benefit requirements at 24 CFR 570.208(a) and 570.483(b) remain unchanged, as does the required documentation. The other NSP low- and moderate- income related provision, as modified by the Dodd-Frank Act, states that: ‘‘not less than 25 percent of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this section shall be used to house individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income.’’ The Dodd-Frank Act struck language in HERA that specified that funds meeting the 25 percent requirement must be used specifically for the purchase and redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes or residential properties. This means that, as of the effective date of the Dodd- Frank Act, any NSP eligible activity used to house individuals or families at or below 50 percent area medium income may be used to satisfy this requirement (i.e., vacant properties that are not abandoned or foreclosed may be used to meet the requirement as well as eligible commercial properties that are reused to house individuals and families at or below 50% AMI). However, NSP1 and NSP2 funds already obligated or expended prior July 21, 2010, do not retroactively satisfy this requirement. HUD advises grantees to take note of this threshold as they design NSP activities. This provision does not have a parallel in the regular CDBG program. Grantees must document that an amount equal to at least 25 percent of a grantee’s NSP grant (initial allocation plus any program income) has been budgeted in the initial approved action plan substantial amendment or abbreviated plan for activities that will provide housing for income-qualified individuals or families. Prior to and at grant closeout, HUD will review grantees for compliance with this provision by determining whether at least 25 percent of grant funds have been expended for housing for individual households whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. HUD is providing a waiver and alternative requirement to allow grantees to determine low- and moderate income benefit on a unit basis to allow greater support of mixed income housing than the structure basis required by 24 CFR 570.483(b)(3). (Under the cited regulation, the general rule is that at least 51 percent of the residents of an assisted structure must be income eligible.) Under the unit approach, one or more of the units in a structure must house income-eligible families, but the remainder of the units may be market rate, so long as the proportion of assistance provided compared to the overall project budget is no more than the proportion of units that will be occupied by income-eligible households compared to the number of units in the overall project. Under the unit approach, the number of income- eligible units is proportional to the amount of assistance provided. Note that this approach may only be used if the units are generally comparable in size and finishes. Based on HUD experience, this approach is generally more compatible with large-scale development of mixed-income housing than the structure approach under which a dollar of CDBG assistance to a structure means that 51 percent of the units must meet income requirements. For the purposes of NSP, adopting the unit basis continues to benefit individuals and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income by limiting the proportion of the funding to the proportion of units that are being assisted with NSP funds. This approach also helps to avoid displacing existing over-income tenants in a building being treated with NSP. Finally, it promotes the type of mixed-income developments that experience shows to be more successful both economically and socially. Therefore, the waiver and alternative requirements allow the grantee a choice. The grantee may measure benefit within a housing development project (1) according to the existing CDBG requirements, (2) according to the HOME program requirements at 24 CFR 92.205(d) or (3) according to the modified CDBG alternative requirements specified in this notice, which extend the CDBG exception noted above. The grantee must select and use just one method for each project. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00088Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64331 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices Requirements 1. Overall benefit supersession and alternative requirement. The requirements at 42 U.S.C. 5301(c), 42 U.S.C. 5304(b)(3)(A), 24 CFR 570.484 (for states), and 24 CFR 570.200(a)(3) that 70 percent of funds are for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons are superseded and replaced by section 2301(f)(3)(A) of HERA. One hundred percent of NSP funds must be used to benefit individuals and households whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income. NSP shall refer to such households as ‘‘low-, moderate-, and middle-income.’’ 2. National objectives supersession and alternative requirements. The requirements at 42 U.S.C 5301(c) are superseded and 24 CFR 570.208(a) and 570.483 are waived to the extent necessary to allow the following alternative requirements: a. for purposes of NSP only, the term ‘‘low- and moderate-income person’’ as it appears throughout the CDBG regulations at 24 CFR part 570 shall be defined as a member of a low-, moderate-, and middle-income household, and the term ‘‘low- and moderate-income household’’ as it appears throughout the CDBG regulations shall be defined as a household having an income equal to or less than 120 percent of area median income, measured as 2.4 times the current Section 8 income limit for households below 50 percent of median income, adjusted for family size. A state choosing to carry out an activity directly must apply the requirements of 24 CFR 570.208(a) to determine whether the activity has met the low-, moderate-, and middle-income (LMMI) national objective and must maintain the documentation required at 24 CFR 570.506 to demonstrate compliance to HUD. b. The national objectives related to prevention and elimination of slums and blight and addressing urgent community development needs (24 CFR 570.208(b) and (c) and 570.483(c) and (d)) are not applicable to NSP-assisted activities. c. Each grantee whose plan includes assisting rental housing shall develop and make public its definition of affordable rents for NSP-assisted rental projects. d. An NSP-assisted property may not be held in a land bank for more than 10 years without obligating the property for a specific, eligible redevelopment of that property in accordance with NSP requirements. e. Not less than 25 percent of any NSP grant shall be used to house individuals or families whose incomes do not exceed 50 percent of area median income. f. HUD will consider assistance for a multi-unit housing project involving new construction, acquisition, reconstruction, or rehabilitation to benefit LMMI households in the following circumstances: (i)(A) The NSP assistance defrays the development costs of a housing project providing eligible permanent residential units that, upon completion, will be occupied by income-qualified households; and (B) if the project is rental, the units occupied by income-qualified households will be leased at affordable rents. The grantee or unit of general local government shall adopt and make public its standards for determining ‘‘affordable rents’’ for this purpose; and (C) The proportion of the total cost of developing the project to be borne by NSP assistance is no greater than the proportion of units in the project that will be occupied by income-qualified households; or (ii) When NSP assistance defray the development costs of eligible permanent residential units, such assistance shall be considered to benefit LMMI persons if the grantee follows the provisions of 24 CFR 92.205(d); or (iii) The requirements of 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) or 570.483(b)(3) are met, as applicable. (iv) The grantee must select and use just one method for each project. (v) The term ‘‘project’’ will be defined as in the HOME Program at 24 CFR 92.2. (vi) If the grantee applies option (i) or (ii) above to a housing project, 24 CFR 570.208(a)(3) or 570.483(b)(3), as applicable, is waived for that project. F. State Distribution to Entitlement Communities and Indian Tribes Background This notice includes an alternative requirement to the HCD Act and a regulatory waiver allowing distribution of funds by a state to CDBG regular entitlement communities and Tribes. This is consistent with the provision of HERA that specifically sets distribution priorities for areas with the greatest need, including ‘‘metropolitan areas, metropolitan cities, urban areas, rural areas, low- and moderate-income areas ***.’’ Therefore, states receiving allocations under this notice may distribute funds to or within any jurisdiction within the state that is among those with the greatest need, even if the jurisdiction is among those receiving a direct formula allocation of funds from HUD under the regular CDBG program or this notice. Requirement Alternative requirement for distribution to CDBG metropolitan cities, urban counties, and Tribes. In accordance with the direction of HERA that grantees distribute funds to the areas of greatest need, HUD is providing an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(7) (definition of ‘‘nonentitlement area’’) and waiving provisions of 24 CFR part 570, including 24 CFR 570.480(a), that would prohibit states electing to receive CDBG funds from distributing such funds to units of general local government in entitlement communities or to Tribes. The appropriations law supersedes the statutory distribution prohibition at 42 U.S.C. 5306(d)(1) and (2)(A). Alternatively, the state is required to distribute funds without regard to a local government status under any other CDBG program and must use funds in entitlement jurisdictions if they are identified as areas of greatest need, regardless of whether the entitlement receives its own NSP allocation. G. State’s Direct Action Background In the State CDBG Program, states receiving CDBG funds may not directly use the funds for activities, but must distribute them to units of general local government, which then use the funds for program activities. HUD also notes the language of HERA section 2301(c) that says, in part, that: ‘‘Any State *** that receives amounts pursuant to this section shall *** use such amounts to purchase and redevelop ***.’’ This clearly speaks to the states using funds directly for projects and supersedes the HCD Act direction for states to only distribute funds to nonentitlement areas. Direct use of funds by a state may also result in more expeditious use of NSP funds. Therefore, a state receiving NSP funds may carry out NSP activities directly for some or all of its assisted grant activities, just as CDBG entitlement communities do under 24 CFR 570.200(f), including, but not limited to, carrying out activities using its own employees, procuring contractors, private developers, and providing loans and grants through nonprofit subrecipients (including local governments and other public nonprofits such as regional or local planning or development authorities and public housing authorities). VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00089Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64332 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices For those activities a state chooses to carry out directly, HUD strongly advises the state to adopt the recordkeeping required for an entitlement community at 24 CFR 570.506 and the subrecipient agreement provisions at 24 CFR 570.503. Also, in such cases, as an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5304(i), the state may retain and re-use program income as if it were an entitlement community. HUD is granting regulatory waivers of State CDBG regulations to conform the applicable management, real property change of use, and recordkeeping rules when a state chooses to carry out activities as if it were an entitlement community. Requirements 1. Responsibility for state review and handling of noncompliance. This change conforms NSP requirements with the waiver allowing the state to carry out activities directly. 24 CFR 570.492 is waived and the following alternative requirement applies: The state shall make reviews and audits, including on-site reviews of any subrecipients, designated public agencies, and units of general local government as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 5304(e)(2), as amended, as modified by this notice. In the case of noncompliance with these requirements, the state shall take such actions as may be appropriate to prevent a continuance of the deficiency, mitigate any adverse effects or consequences, and prevent a recurrence. The state shall establish remedies for noncompliance by any designated public agencies or units of general local governments and for its subrecipients. 2. Change of use of real property for state grantees acting directly. This waiver conforms the change of use of real property rule to the waiver allowing a state to carry out activities directly. For purposes of this program, in 24 CFR 570.489(j), (j)(1), and the last sentence of (j)(2), ‘‘unit of general local government’’ shall be read as ‘‘unit of general local government or state.’’ 3. Recordkeeping for a state grantee acting directly. Recognizing that the state may carry out activities directly, 24 CFR 570.490(b) is waived in such a case and the following alternative provision shall apply: State Records. The state shall establish and maintain such records as may be necessary to facilitate review and audit by HUD of the state’s administration of NSP funds under 24 CFR 570.493. Consistent with applicable statutes, regulations, waivers and alternative requirements, and other Federal requirements, the content of records maintained by the state shall be sufficient to: (1) Enable HUD to make the applicable determinations described at 24 CFR 570.493; (2) make compliance determinations for activities carried out directly by the state; and (3) show how activities funded are consistent with the descriptions of activities proposed for funding in the action plan. For fair housing and equal opportunity purposes, and as applicable, such records shall include data on the racial, ethnic, and gender characteristics of persons who are applicants for, participants in, or beneficiaries of the program. 4. State compliance with certifications for state grantees acting directly. This is a conforming change related to the waiver to allow a state to act directly. Because a state grantee under this appropriation may carry out activities directly, HUD is applying the regulations at 24 CFR 570.480(c) with respect to the basis for HUD determining whether the state has failed to carry out its certifications, so that such basis shall be that the state has failed to carry out its certifications in compliance with applicable program requirements. 5. Clarifying note on the process for environmental release of funds when a state carries out activities directly. Usually, a state distributes CDBG funds to units of local government and takes on HUD’s role in receiving environmental certifications from the grantees and approving releases of funds. For NSP, HUD allows a state grantee to also carry out activities directly instead of distributing them to other governments. According to the environmental regulations at 24 CFR 58.4, when a state carries out activities directly, the state must submit the certification and request for release of funds to HUD for approval. H. Eligibility and Allowable Costs Background Most of the activities eligible under NSP are correlated with CDBG-eligible activities under 42 U.S.C. 5305(a). This correlation reduces implementation risks, because it ensures that the NSP grants are administered largely in accordance with long-established CDBG rules and controls. The table in the requirements paragraph below shows the eligible uses under NSP and the eligible activities from the regulations for the regular CDBG entitlement program that HUD has determined best correspond to those uses. If a grantee creates a program design that includes a CDBG-eligible activity that is not shown in the table to support an NSP- eligible use, the Department is providing an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) that HUD may allow a grantee an additional eligible-activity category if HUD finds the activity to be in compliance with NSP statutory requirements. As under the regular CDBG program, grantees may fund costs, such as reasonable developer’s fees, related to NSP-assisted housing rehabilitation or construction activities. Only NSP1 funds may be used to redevelop acquired property for nonresidential uses, such as public parks, commercial uses, or mixed residential and commercial uses. Redevelopment activities using NSP2 and NSP3 funds must be for housing. The annual entitlement CDBG program allows up to 20 percent of any grant amount plus program income may be used for general administration and planning costs. The State CDBG Program is also subject to the 20 percent limitation, but within that cap up to 3 percent may be used by the state for state administrative costs and technical assistance to potential local government program grantees, with the remainder available to be granted to local government grantees for their administrative costs. Because some of the costs usually allocated under these caps are not applicable to NSP grants (for example, the costs of completing the entire consolidated plan process), these amounts seem excessive to HUD in the context of the NSP program. On the other hand, HUD wants to encourage and support expeditious, appropriate, and compliant use of grant funds, and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of funds. Therefore, HUD is providing an alternative requirement that an amount of up to 10 percent of an NSP grant provided to a jurisdiction and of up to 10 percent of program income earned may be used for general administration and planning activities as those are defined at 24 CFR 570.205 and 206. For all grantees, including states, the 10 percent limitation applies to the grant as a whole. The regulatory and statutory requirements for state match for program administration at 24 CFR 570.489(a)(i) are superseded by the statutory direction at section 2301(e)(2) of HERA that no matching funds shall be required for a state or unit of general local government to receive a grant. Requirements 1. Use of grant funds must constitute an eligible use under HERA. 2. In addition to being an eligible NSP use of funds, each activity funded under NSP must also be CDBG-eligible under VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00090Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64333 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) and meet a CDBG national objective. 3.a. Certain CDBG-eligible activities correlate to specific NSP-eligible uses and vice versa. 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) and 24 CFR 570.201–207 and 570.482(a) through (d) are superseded to the extent necessary to allow the eligible uses described under section 2301(c)(4) of HERA in accordance with this paragraph (including the table and subparagraphs below) or with permission granted, in writing, by HUD upon a written request by the grantee that demonstrates that the proposed activity constitutes an eligible use under NSP. All NSP grantees, including states, will use the NSP categories and CDBG entitlement regulations listed below. NSP-eligible uses Correlated eligible activities from the CDBG entitlement regulations (A) Establish financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed upon homes and residential properties, including such mechanisms as soft-seconds, loan loss reserves, and shared-equity loans for low- and moderate-income homebuyers. •As part of an activity delivery cost for an eligible activity as defined in 24 CFR 570.206. •Also, the eligible activities listed below to the extent financing mech- anisms are used to carry them out. (B) Purchase and rehabilitate homes and residential properties that have been abandoned or foreclosed upon, in order to sell, rent, or re- develop such homes and properties. •24 CFR 570.201(a) Acquisition (b) Disposition, (i) Relocation , and (n) Direct homeownership assistance (as modified below); •24 CFR 570.202 eligible rehabilitation and preservation activities for homes and other residential properties. •HUD notes that any of the activities listed above may include re- quired homebuyer counseling as an activity delivery cost. (C) Establish and operate land banks for homes and residential prop- erties that have been foreclosed upon. •24 CFR 570.201(a) Acquisition and (b) Disposition. •HUD notes that any of the activities listed above may include re- quired homebuyer counseling as an activity delivery cost. (D) Demolish blighted structures ..............................................................•24 CFR 570.201(d) Clearance for blighted structures only. (E) Redevelop demolished or vacant properties as housing.*.................•24 CFR 570.201(a) Acquisition, (b) Disposition, (c) Public facilities and improvements, (e) Public services for housing counseling, but only to the extent that counseling beneficiaries are limited to pro- spective purchasers or tenants of the redeveloped properties, (i) Re- location, and (n) Direct homeownership assistance (as modified below). •24 CFR 570.202 Eligible rehabilitation and preservation activities for demolished or vacant properties. •24 CFR 570.204 Community based development organizations. •HUD notes that any of the activities listed above may include re- quired homebuyer counseling as an activity delivery cost. *NSP1 funds used under eligible use (E) may be used for nonresidential purposes, while NSP2 and NSP3 funds must be used for housing. b. HUD will not consider requests to allow foreclosure prevention activities, or to allow demolition of structures that are not blighted. Neither will it allow purchase of residential properties and homes that have not been abandoned or foreclosed upon, except under paragraph (E) of the eligible use chart above. HUD does not have the authority to permit uses or activities not authorized by HERA. c. New construction of housing is eligible as part the redevelopment of demolished or vacant properties as provided in paragraph (E) of the eligible use chart above. d. 24 CFR 570.201(n) is waived and an alternative requirement provided for 42 U.S.C. 5305(a) to the extent necessary to allow provision of NSP-assisted homeownership assistance to persons whose income does not exceed 120 percent of median income. e. No NSP2 or NSP3 funds may be used to demolish any public housing (as defined by Section 3 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a)). f. For NSP2 and NSP3, a grantee may not use more than 10 percent of its grant for demolition activities under HERA sections 2301(c)(4)(C) and (D), unless the Secretary determines that such use represents an appropriate response to local market conditions. NSP2 and NSP3 grantees seeking to use more than 10 percent of their grant amounts on demolition activities must request a waiver from HUD. 4. Alternative requirement for the limitation on planning and administrative costs. 24 CFR 570.200(g) and 570.489(a)(3) are waived to the extent necessary to allow each grantee under this notice to expend no more than 10 percent of its grant amount, plus 10 percent of the amount of program income received by the grantee, for activities eligible under 24 CFR 570.205 or 206. The requirements at 24 CFR 570.489 are waived to the extent that they require a state match for general administrative costs. (States may use NSP funds under this 10 percent limitation to provide technical assistance to local governments and nonprofit program participants.) I. Rehabilitation Standards Background HERA provides that any NSP-assisted rehabilitation of a foreclosed-upon home or residential property shall be to the extent necessary to comply with applicable laws, codes, and other requirements relating to housing safety, quality, and habitability, in order to sell, rent, or redevelop such homes and properties. HUD is also imposing this requirement for NSP3-assisted new construction. This imposes a requirement that does not exist in the CDBG program. This means that each grantee must describe or reference in its NSP action plan amendment what rehabilitation standards it will apply for NSP-assisted rehabilitation. As a reminder, grantees are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Fair Housing Act, including their respective provisions related to physical accessibility standards for persons with disabilities. See 24 CFR part 8; 24 CFR 100.205. See also 24 CFR 570.487 and 24 CFR 570.602. HUD will monitor to ensure the standards are implemented. HERA defines rehabilitation to include improvements to increase the energy efficiency or conservation of such homes and properties or to provide a renewable energy source or sources for such homes and properties. Such improvements are also eligible under the regular CDBG program. HUD strongly encourages grantees to use NSP funds not only to stabilize neighborhoods in the short-term, but to strategically incorporate modern, green VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00091Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64334 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices building and energy-efficiency improvements in all NSP activities to provide for long-term affordability and increased sustainability and attractiveness of housing and neighborhoods. At minimum, NSP3 grantees must have the rehabilitation standards required below. See Appendix C for examples of green and energy-efficiency actions. Additional resources related to sustainable and energy-efficient construction are available on the NSP Resource Exchange Web site (http://www.hud.gov/nspta). Requirement. For NSP3, HUD is requiring that all gut rehabilitation (i.e., general replacement of the interior of a building that may or may not include changes to structural elements such as flooring systems, columns or load bearing interior or exterior walls) or new construction of residential buildings up to three stories must be designed to meet the standard for Energy Star Qualified New Homes. All gut rehabilitation or new construction of mid -or high-rise multifamily housing must be designed to meet American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1–2004, Appendix G plus 20 percent (which is the Energy Star standard for multifamily buildings piloted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy). Other rehabilitation must meet these standards to the extent applicable to the rehabilitation work undertaken, e.g., replace older obsolete products and appliances (such as windows, doors, lighting, hot water heaters, furnaces, boilers, air conditioning units, refrigerators, clothes washers and dishwashers) with Energy Star-labeled products. Water efficient toilets, showers, and faucets, such as those with the WaterSense label, must be installed. Where relevant, the housing should be improved to mitigate the impact of disasters (e.g., earthquake, hurricane, flooding, fires). J. Sale of Homes Background Section 2301(d)(3) of HERA directs that, if an abandoned or foreclosed-upon home or residential property is purchased, redeveloped, or otherwise sold to an individual as a primary residence, then such sale shall be in an amount equal to or less than the cost to acquire and redevelop or rehabilitate such home or property up to a decent, safe, and habitable condition. (Sales and closing costs are eligible NSP redevelopment or rehabilitation costs). Note that the maximum sales price for a property is determined by aggregating all costs of acquisition, rehabilitation, and redevelopment (including related activity delivery costs, which generally may include, among other items, costs related to the sale of the property). Requirements 1. In its records, each grantee must maintain sufficient documentation about the purchase and sale amounts of each property and the sources and uses of funds for each activity so that HUD can determine whether the grantee is in compliance with this requirement. A grantee will be expected to provide this documentation individually for each activity. 2. In determining the sales price limitation, HUD will not consider the costs of boarding up, lawn mowing, simply maintaining the property in a static condition, or, in the absence of NSP-assisted rehabilitation or redevelopment of the property, the costs of completing a sales transaction or other disposition to be redevelopment or rehabilitation costs. These costs may not be included by the grantee in the determination of the sales price for an NSP-assisted property. 3. For reporting purposes only, for a housing program involving multiple single-family structures under the management of a single entity, HUD will permit reporting the aggregation of activity delivery costs across the total portfolio of projects until completion of the program or closeout of the grant with HUD, whichever comes earlier. K. Acquisition and Relocation Background Acquisition of Foreclosed-Upon Properties. HUD notes that section 2301(d)(1) of HERA conflicts with section 301(3) of the URA (42 U.S.C. 4651) and related regulatory requirements at 49 CFR 24.102(d). As discussed further, section 2301(d)(1) of HERA requires that any acquisition of a foreclosed-upon home or residential property under NSP be at a discount from the current market-appraised value of the home or property and that such discount shall ensure that purchasers are paying below-market value for the home or property. Section 301(3) of the URA, as implemented at 49 CFR 24.102(d), provides that an offer of just compensation shall not be less than the agency’s approved appraisal of the fair market value of such property. These URA acquisition policies apply to any acquisition of real property for a federally funded project, except for acquisitions described in 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1) through (5) (commonly referred to as ‘‘voluntary acquisitions’’). As the more recent and specific statutory provision, section 2301(d)(1) of HERA prevails over section 301 of the URA for purposes of NSP-assisted acquisitions of foreclosed-upon homes or residential properties. NSP Appraisal Requirements. Section 2301(d)(1) of HERA requires an appraisal for purposes of determining the statutory purchase discount. This appraisal requirement applies to any NSP-assisted acquisition of a foreclosed- upon home or residential property (including voluntary acquisitions). As noted above, section 301 of the URA does not apply to voluntary acquisitions. While the URA and its regulations do not require appraisals for such acquisitions, the URA acquisition policies do not prohibit acquiring agencies from obtaining appraisals. Appendix A, 49 CFR 24.101(b)(1)(iv) and (2)(ii), acknowledges that acquiring agencies may still obtain an appraisal to support their determination of fair market value. One-for-One Replacement. HUD is providing an alternative requirement to the one-for-one replacement requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2), as implemented at 24 CFR 42.375. The Department anticipates a large number of requests from grantees for whom the requirements will be onerous given the pressing rush to implement NSP, and several of the major housing markets affected by the foreclosure crisis have a surplus of abandoned and foreclosed-upon residential properties. The additional workload of reviewing requests under 42 U.S.C. 5304(d)(3) and 24 CFR 42.375(d) could cause a substantial backlog at HUD and delay NSP program operations. Therefore, the alternative requirement is that an NSP grantee is not required to meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 5304(d), as implemented at 24 CFR 42.375, to provide one-for-one replacement of low- and moderate- income dwelling units demolished or converted in connection with activities assisted with NSP funds. Alternatively, each grantee must submit the information described below relating to its demolition and conversion activities in its action plan substantial amendment or abbreviated plan. The grantee will report to HUD and citizens (via prominent posting of the DRGR reports on the grantee’s official Internet site) on progress related to these measures until the closeout of its grant with HUD. HUD reminds grantees to be aware of the requirement to have and follow a residential antidisplacement and relocation plan for the CDBG and HOME programs. This requirement is not waived for those programs and VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00092Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64335 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices continues to apply to activities assisted with regular CDBG and HOME funds. Relocation Assistance. HUD is not waiving or specifying alternative requirements to the URA’s relocation provisions. Those requirements that do not conflict with HERA continue to apply. HUD is not specifying alternative requirements to the relocation assistance provisions at 42 U.S.C. 5304(d). Guidance on meeting these requirements is available on the HUD Web site and through local HUD field offices. HUD urges grantees to consider URA requirements in designing their programs and to remember that there are URA obligations related to voluntary and involuntary property acquisition activities, even for vacant and abandoned property. Tenant Protections. The Recovery Act included tenant protections applicable to NSP grants. First, the Recovery Act included a provision applicable to any foreclosed upon dwelling or residential real property that was acquired by the initial successor in interest pursuant to the foreclosure after February 17, 2009 and was occupied by a bona fide tenant at the time of foreclosure. The use of NSP funds for acquisition of such property is subject to a determination by the grantee that the initial successor in interest complied with these requirements. Second, NSP grantees may not refuse to lease a dwelling unit in housing with such loan or grant to a participant under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C 1437f) because of the status of the prospective tenant as such a participant. Requirements One for One Replacement Requirements. 1. The one-for-one replacement requirements at 24 CFR 570.488, 570.606(c), and 42.375 are waived for low- and moderate-income dwelling units demolished or converted in connection with an activity assisted with NSP funds. As an alternative requirement to 42 U.S.C. 5304(d)(2)(A)(i) and (ii), each grantee planning to demolish or convert any low- and moderate-income dwelling units as a result of NSP-assisted activities must identify all of the following information in its NSP substantial amendment or abbreviated plan: (a) The number of low- and moderate- income dwelling units reasonably expected to be demolished or converted as a direct result of NSP-assisted activities; (b) The number of NSP affordable housing units (made available to low-, moderate-, and middle-income households) reasonably expected to be produced, by activity and income level as provided for in DRGR, by each NSP activity providing such housing (including a proposed time schedule for commencement and completion); and (c) The number of dwelling units reasonably expected to be made available for households whose income does not exceed 50 percent of area median income. The grantee must also report on actual performance for demolitions and production, as required elsewhere in this notice. Tenant Protections. 2. The following requirements apply to any foreclosed upon dwelling or residential real property that was acquired by the initial successor in interest pursuant to the foreclosure after February 17, 2009 and was occupied by a bona fide tenant at the time of foreclosure. The use of NSP funds for acquisition of such property is subject to a determination by the grantee that the initial successor in interest complied with these requirements. a. The initial successor in interest in a foreclosed upon dwelling or residential real property shall provide a notice to vacate to any bona fide tenant at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice. The initial successor in interest shall assume such interest subject to the rights of any bona fide tenant, as of the date of such notice of foreclosure: (i) Under any bona fide lease entered into before the date of notice of foreclosure to occupy the premises until the end of the remaining term of the lease, except that a successor in interest may terminate a lease effective on the date of sale of the unit to a purchaser who will occupy the unit as a primary residence, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90-day notice under this paragraph; or (ii) without a lease or with a lease terminable at will under State law, subject to the receipt by the tenant of the 90-day notice under this paragraph, except that nothing in this section shall affect the requirements for termination of any Federal- or State-subsidized tenancy or of any State or local law that provides longer time periods or other additional protections for tenants. b.i. In the case of any qualified foreclosed housing in which a recipient of assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C 1437f) (the ‘‘Section 8 Program’’) resides at the time of foreclosure, the initial successor in interest shall be subject to the lease and to the housing assistance payments contract for the occupied unit. ii. Vacating the property prior to sale shall not constitute good cause for termination of the tenancy unless the property is unmarketable while occupied or unless the owner or subsequent purchaser desires the unit for personal or family use. iii. If a public housing agency is unable to make payments under the contract to the immediate successor in interest after foreclosure, due to (A) an action or inaction by the successor in interest, including the rejection of payments or the failure of the successor to maintain the unit in compliance with the Section 8 Program or (B) an inability to identify the successor, the agency may use funds that would have been used to pay the rental amount on behalf of the family—(1) to pay for utilities that are the responsibility of the owner under the lease or applicable law, after taking reasonable steps to notify the owner that it intends to make payments to a utility provider in lieu of payments to the owner, except prior notification shall not be required in any case in which the unit will be or has been rendered uninhabitable due to the termination or threat of termination of service, in which case the public housing agency shall notify the owner within a reasonable time after making such payment; or (2) for the family’s reasonable moving costs, including security deposit costs. c. For purposes of this section, a lease or tenancy shall be considered bona fide only if: (i) the mortgagor under the contract is not the tenant; (ii) the lease or tenancy was the result of an arm’s length transaction; and (iii) the lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent that is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property. See Section II.A for the definition of date of notice of foreclosure. d. The grantee shall maintain documentation of its efforts to ensure that the initial successor in interest in a foreclosed upon dwelling or residential real property has complied with the requirements under section K.2.a. and K.2.b. If the grantee determines that the initial successor in interest in such property failed to comply with such requirements, it may not use NSP funds to finance the acquisition of such property unless it assumes the obligations of the initial successor in interest specified in section K.2.a. and K.2.b. e. Grantees must provide the relocation assistance required pursuant to 24 CFR 570.606 to tenants displaced as a result of an NSP-assisted activity and maintain records in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of that section. For purposes VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00093Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64336 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices of clarification, grantees need to be aware that the NSP tenant protection requirements under the Recovery Act are separate and apart from the obligations imposed on grantees by the URA. The URA applies to any person displaced as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or demolition of real property for a federally-assisted project. Eligibility determinations under the URA and the required notices and relocation assistance requirements are separate and distinct from the NSP tenant protections in the Recovery Act. Grantees cannot assume that a person entitled to the NSP tenant protections under the Recovery Act is also eligible for assistance under the URA (or vice versa). Any tenant lawfully occupying the property evicted by the owner/mortgagor in order to facilitate an acquisition under the NSP program (including short sales) is most likely eligible for URA relocation assistance and payments as a displaced person. 3. The grantee of any grant or loan made from NSP funds may not refuse to lease a dwelling unit in housing with such loan or grant to a participant under the Section 8 Program because of the status of the prospective tenant as such a participant. 4. This section shall not preempt any Federal, State or local law that provides more protections for tenants. L. Note on Eminent Domain Although section 2303 of HERA appears to allow some use of eminent domain for public purposes, HUD cautions grantees that HERA section 2301(d)(1) may effectively ensure that all NSP-assisted property acquisitions must be voluntary acquisitions as the term is defined by the URA and its implementing regulations. Section 2301(d)(1) of HERA directs that any purchase of a foreclosed-upon home or residential property under NSP be at a discount from the current market appraised value of the home or residential property and that such discount shall ensure that purchasers are paying below-market value for the home or property. However, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court has ruled that a jurisdiction must pay fair market value for the purchase of property through eminent domain. A grantee contemplating using NSP funds to assist an acquisition involving an eminent domain action is advised to consult appropriate legal counsel before taking action. M. Timeliness of Use and Expenditure of NSP Funds Background One of the most critical NSP1 provisions is the HERA requirement at section 2301(c)(1) that any grantee receiving a grant: ‘‘*** shall, not later than 18 months after the receipt of such amounts, use such amounts to purchase and redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes and residential properties.’’ HUD has defined the term ‘‘use’’ in this notice to include obligation of funds. A further complication is that HERA clearly expects grantees to earn program income under this grant program. As provided under 24 CFR 85.21, entitlements grantees and subrecipients shall disburse program income before requesting additional cash withdrawals from the U.S. Treasury. States are governed similarly by 24 CFR 570.489(e)(3) and 31 CFR part 205. This requirement is reflected in the regulations governing use of program income by states and units of general local government under the CDBG program. This means that a grantee that successfully and quickly deploys its program and generates program income may obligate, draw down, and expend an amount equal to its NSP1 allocation amount, and still have funds remaining in its line of credit, possibly subject to recapture at the 18-month deadline. On consideration, the Department chose to implement the NSP1 use test based on whether the state or unit of general local government has expended or obligated the NSP1 grant funds and program income in an aggregate amount at least equal to the NSP1 allocation. HUD also imposed a deadline for expending NSP1 grant funds because the intent of these grants clearly is to quickly address an emergency situation in areas of the greatest need. NSP2 and NSP3 grants follow the statutory expenditure deadlines described under the Recovery Act, which provides that grantees: ‘‘shall expend at least 50 percent of allocated funds within 2 years of the date funds become available to the [recipient] for obligation, and 100 percent of such funds within 3 years of such date.’’ NSP2 and NSP3 expenditure timelines are tighter than under NSP1. In the NSP2 NOFA, HUD required NSP2 grantees to expend their entire grant, including program income, within the statutory timeframes. Upon reflection, HUD has determined that the better interpretation would be similar to the NSP1 requirement that requires the expenditure of grant funds and program income in an aggregate amount at least equal to the NSP2 or NSP3 allocation. HUD is therefore including a revision to the NSP2 NOFA program requirements in this Notice. If any NSP grantee fails to meet the requirement to expend an amount equal to its grant within the relevant timelines, HUD, on the first business day after that deadline, will notify the grantee and restrict the amount of unused funds in the grantee’s line of credit. HUD will allow the grantee 30 days to submit information to HUD regarding any additional expenditure of funds not already recorded in DRGR. Then HUD may proceed to recapture the unused funds or provide for other corrective action(s) or sanction. Requirements 1. Timely use of NSP1 funds. At the end of the statutory 18-month use period, which begins when the NSP grantee receives its funds from HUD, the state or unit of general local government NSP grantee’s accounting records and DRGR information must reflect outlays (expenditures) and unliquidated obligations for approved activities that, in the aggregate, are at least equal to the NSP allocation. (The DRGR system collects information on expenditures and obligations.) Grantees receiving a reallocation of NSP1 funds must also comply with the 18-month use requirement. 2. Timely expenditure of NSP1 funds. The timely distribution or expenditure requirements of sections 24 CFR 570.494 and 570.902 are waived to the extent necessary to allow the following alternative requirement: All NSP1 grantees must expend on eligible NSP activities an amount equal to or greater than the initial allocation of NSP1 funds within 4 years of receipt of those funds or HUD will recapture and reallocate the amount of funds not expended. 3. Timely expenditure of NSP2 and NSP3 funds. The timely distribution or expenditure requirements of sections 24 CFR 570.494 and 570.902 are waived to the extent necessary to allow the following alternative requirement: NSP2 and NSP3 grantees must expend on eligible NSP activities an amount equal to or greater than the 50 percent of the initial allocation of NSP funds within 2 years of receipt of those funds and 100 percent of the initial allocation of NSP funds within 3 years of receipt of those funds or HUD will recapture and reallocate the amount of funds not expended or provide for other corrective action(s) or sanction. A grantee will be deemed by HUD to have received its VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00094Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64337 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices NSP grant at the time HUD signs its NSP grant agreement. N. Alternative Requirement for Program Income (Revenue) Generated By Activities Assisted With Grant Funds Requirement 1. Revenue (i.e., gross income) received by a state, unit of general local government, or subrecipient (as defined at 24 CFR 570.500(c)) that is directly generated from the use of CDBG funds (which term includes NSP grant funds) constitutes CDBG program income. To ensure consistency of treatment of such program income, the definition of program income at 24 CFR 570.500(a) shall be applied to amounts received by states, units of general local government, and subrecipients. 2. Cash management. Substantially all program income must be disbursed for eligible NSP activities before additional cash withdrawals are made from the U.S. Treasury. 3. Agreements with subrecipients. States and units of general local government must incorporate in subrecipient agreements such provisions as are necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. O. Reporting Background HUD is requiring regular reporting on each NSP grant in the DRGR system to ensure the Department has sufficient management information to follow-up promptly if a grantee lags in implementation and risks recapture of its grant funds. For NSP, HUD is waiving the annual reporting requirements of the consolidated plan to allow HUD to collect more regular information on various aspects of the uses of funds and of the activities funded with these grants. HUD will use the reports to exercise oversight for compliance with the requirements of this notice and for prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse of funds. The regular CDBG performance measurement requirements will not apply to the NSP funds. HUD has configured DRGR performance measures to fit the NSP activities and will provide additional guidance on NSP performance measures. To collect these data elements and to meet its reporting requirements, HUD is requiring each grantee to report on its NSP funds to HUD using the online DRGR system, which uses a streamlined, Internet-based format. HUD will use grantee reports to monitor for anomalies or performance problems that suggest fraud, waste, and abuse of funds; to reconcile budgets, obligations, fund draws, and expenditures; to calculate applicable administrative and public service limitations and the overall percent of benefit to LMMI persons; and as a basis for risk analysis in determining a monitoring plan. The grantee must post the NSP report on a Web site for its citizens when it submits the report to HUD (DRGR generates a version of the report that the grantee can download, save, and post). The Office of Management and Budget has established October 1, 2010 as the deadline for Federal agencies to initiate sub-award reporting in compliance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Pub. L. 109–282) (FFATA). NSP3 grantees will be required to comply with this additional reporting requirement. Additional HUD guidance on compliance with the FFATA requirements is forthcoming. Requirements 1. Performance report alternative requirement. The Secretary may specify the form and timing of reports provided by the grantee under both 42 U.S.C. 5304(e) (the HCD Act) and 42 U.S.C. 12708 (NAHA). Therefore, the consolidated plan regulation at 24 CFR 91.520 is waived and the alternative reporting form and timing for the NSP funds is that: a. Each grantee must enter its NSP Action Plan amendment or abbreviated plan into HUD’s web-based DRGR system in sufficient detail to meet the NSP action plan content requirements of this notice and to serve as the basis for acceptable performance reports. b. NSP1 and NSP3 grantees must submit a quarterly performance report, as HUD prescribes, no later than 30 days following the end of each quarter, beginning 30 days after the completion of the first full calendar quarter after grant award and continuing until the end of the grant. In addition to this quarterly performance reporting, beginning three months prior to its use or expenditure deadline, as applicable, each grantee will report monthly on its NSP use and expenditure of funds, and continuing monthly until reported total uses or expenditure of funds are equal to or greater than the total NSP grant or the deadline occurs. After HUD has accepted a report from a grantee showing such use or expenditure of funds, the monthly reporting requirement will end. Quarterly reports will continue until all NSP funds (including program income) have been expended and those expenditures are included in a report to HUD, or until HUD issues other instructions. Each report will include information about the uses of funds, including, but not limited to, the project name, activity, location, national objective, funds budgeted and expended, the funding source and total amount of any non-NSP funds, numbers of properties and housing units, beginning and ending dates of activities, beneficiary characteristics, and numbers of low- and moderate-income persons or households benefiting. Reports must be submitted using HUD’s web-based DRGR system and, at the time of submission, be posted prominently on the grantee’s official Web site. c. Additional reporting requirements consistent with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act will be required for NSP3 Grantees. HUD guidance on these requirements is forthcoming. P. FHA First Look Program The Department notes that it is an eligible use of NSP grant funds to acquire and redevelop FHA foreclosed properties. The Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) First Look sales method provides NSP grantees exclusive access to review and purchase newly conveyed FHA real estate-owned (REO) properties that are located in their designated areas. Grantees will have the opportunity to make a purchase offer on a property prior to it being made available to other entities. NSP grantees can purchase these properties at up to a 10% discount from the appraised value. Further information about First Look was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2010 (75 FR 41225), and is also available online at: http:// edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/ 2010-17335.pdf. HUD will provide technical assistance on its Web site regarding how these programs can effectively interact. Grantees may also contact their local HUD FHA field office for further information. Q. Purchase Discount Background HERA Section 2301(d)(1) limits the purchase price of a foreclosed home or residential property, as follows: Any purchase of a foreclosed upon home or residential property under this section shall be at a discount from the current market appraised value of the home or property, taking into account its current condition, and such discount shall ensure that purchasers are paying below-market value for the home or property. To ensure that uncertainty over the meaning of this section does not delay program implementation, HUD is VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00095Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64338 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices defining ‘‘current market appraised value’’ in this notice. For mortgagee foreclosed properties, HUD is requiring that grantees seek to obtain the ‘‘maximum reasonable discount’’ from the mortgagee, taking into consideration likely ‘‘carrying costs’’ of the mortgagee if it were to not sell the property to the grantee or subrecipient. HUD has adopted an approach that requires a minimum discount of one percent for each foreclosed upon home or residential property purchased with NSP funds. Requirements 1. Individual purchase transaction. Each foreclosed-upon home or residential property shall be purchased at a discount of at least one percent from the current market-appraised value of the home or property. 2. An NSP grantee may not provide NSP funds to another party to finance an acquisition of tax foreclosed (or any other) properties from itself, other than to pay necessary and reasonable costs related to the appraisal and transfer of title. If NSP funds are used to pay such costs when property owned by the grantee is conveyed to a subrecipient, homebuyer, developer, or other jurisdiction, the property is NSP- assisted and subject to all program requirements, such as requirements for NSP-eligible use and benefit to income- qualified persons. This section does not preclude payment of tax liens on property that is not owned by the grantee or payment of current taxes while the property is being redeveloped or held in a land bank. 3. The address, appraised value, purchase offer amount, and discount amount of each property purchase must be documented in the grantee’s program records. The address of each acquired property must be recorded in DRGR. R. Removal of Annual Requirements Requirement Throughout 24 CFR parts 91 and 570, all references to ‘‘annual’’ requirements such as submission of plans and reports are waived to the extent necessary to allow the provisions of this notice to apply to NSP funds, with no recurring annual requirements other than those related to civil rights and fair housing certifications and requirements. S. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Nothing in this notice may be construed as affecting each grantee’s responsibility to carry out its certification to affirmatively further fair housing. HUD encourages each grantee to review its analysis of impediments to fair housing choice to determine whether an update is necessary because of current market conditions or other factors. Non-entitlement local government grantees must affirmatively further fair housing by adopting and following procedures and requirements to affirmatively market NSP3-assisted housing opportunities. This means that they will affirmatively market NSP3 assisted units and carry out NSP3 activities that further fair housing through innovative housing design or construction to increase access for persons with disabilities, language assistance services to persons with limited English proficiency (on the basis of national origin), or location of new or rehabilitated housing in a manner that provides greater housing choice or mobility for persons in classes protected by the Fair Housing Act, and maintain records reflecting the actions in this regard. T. Certifications Background HUD is substituting alternative certifications. The alternative certifications are tailored to NSP3 grants and remove certifications and references that are appropriate only to the annual CDBG formula program. NSP1 and NSP2 certifications have already been submitted to HUD in accordance with the requirements of the NSP1 Notice and the NSP2 NOFA. Requirements 1. Certifications for states and for entitlement communities, alternative requirement. Although the NSP3 is being implemented as a substantial amendment to the current annual action plan, HUD is requiring submission of this alternative set of certifications as a conforming change, reflecting alternative requirements and waivers under this notice. Each jurisdiction will submit the following certifications: 1. Affirmatively furthering fair housing. The jurisdiction certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing, which means that it will conduct an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting the analysis and actions in this regard. 2. Anti-displacement and relocation plan. The applicant certifies that it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan. 3. Anti-lobbying. The jurisdiction must submit a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part. 4. Authority of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction certifies that the consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable, is authorized under state and local law (as applicable) and that the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations and other program requirements. 5. Consistency with plan. The jurisdiction certifies that the housing activities to be undertaken with NSP funds are consistent with its consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable. 6. Acquisition and relocation. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, except as those provisions are modified by the notice for the NSP program published by HUD. 7. Section 3. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. 8. Citizen participation. The jurisdiction certifies that it is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of Sections 24 CFR 91.105 or 91.115, as modified by NSP requirements. 9. Following a plan. The jurisdiction certifies it is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. [Only States and entitlement jurisdictions use this certification.] 10. Use of funds. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 by spending 50 percent of its grant funds within 2 years, and spending 100 percent within 3 years, of receipt of the grant. 11. The jurisdiction certifies: a. That all of the NSP funds made available to it will be used with respect to individuals and families whose VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00096Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64339 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices incomes do not exceed 120 percent of area median income; and b. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low- and moderate-income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if NSP funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with NSP funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. In addition, with respect to properties owned and occupied by moderate- income (but not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than NSP funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks NSP or CDBG funds to cover the assessment. 12. Excessive force. The jurisdiction certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing: a. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and b. A policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to, or exit from, a facility or location that is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 13. Compliance with anti- discrimination laws. The jurisdiction certifies that the NSP grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601– 3619), and implementing regulations. 14. Compliance with lead-based paint procedures. The jurisdiction certifies that its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R of this title. 15. Compliance with laws. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with applicable laws. 2. Certifications for Non-Entitlement Local Governments, alternative requirement. For non-entitlement local government grantees that do not have annual action plans to amend, NSP3 is being implemented through the submission of an abbreviated plan under 25 CFR 91.235. HUD is requiring submission of this alternative set of certifications as a conforming change, reflecting alternative requirements and waivers under this notice. Each jurisdiction will submit the following certifications: 1. Affirmatively furthering fair housing. The jurisdiction certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing. 2. Anti-displacement and relocation plan. The applicant certifies that it has in effect and is following a residential anti-displacement and relocation assistance plan. 3. Anti-lobbying. The jurisdiction must submit a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part. 4. Authority of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction certifies that the consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable, is authorized under state and local law (as applicable) and that the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations and other program requirements. 5. Consistency with plan. The jurisdiction certifies that the housing activities to be undertaken with NSP funds are consistent with its consolidated plan or abbreviated plan, as applicable. 6. Acquisition and relocation. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24, except as those provisions are modified by the notice for the NSP program published by HUD. 7. Section 3. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135. 8. Citizen participation. The jurisdiction certifies that it is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of Sections 24 CFR 91.105 or 91.115, as modified by NSP requirements. 9. Use of funds. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and Title XII of Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 by spending 50 percent of its grant funds within 2 years, and spending 100 percent within 3 years, of receipt of the grant. 10. The jurisdiction certifies: a. That all of the NSP funds made available to it will be used with respect to individuals and families whose incomes do not exceed 120 percent of area median income; and b. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds, by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low- and moderate-income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if NSP funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with NSP funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. In addition, with respect to properties owned and occupied by moderate- income (but not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than NSP funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks NSP or CDBG funds to cover the assessment. 11. Excessive force. The jurisdiction certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing: a. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations; and b. A policy of enforcing applicable state and local laws against physically barring entrance to, or exit from, a facility or location that is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction. 12. Compliance with anti- discrimination laws. The jurisdiction certifies that the NSP grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601– 3619), and implementing regulations. 13. Compliance with lead-based paint procedures. The jurisdiction certifies that its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of part 35, subparts A, B, J, K, and R of this title. 14. Compliance with laws. The jurisdiction certifies that it will comply with applicable laws. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00097Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64340 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices U. Additional NSP3 Requirements— Preferences for Rental Housing and Local Hiring The NSP3 allocation included statutory language requiring grantees to ‘‘establish procedures to create preferences for the development of affordable rental housing for properties assisted with NSP3 funds.’’ HUD is requiring grantees to describe such procedures as part of their substantial amendments or abbreviated plans as described in Section II.B. above. Grantees also ‘‘shall, to the maximum extent feasible, provide for the hiring of employees who reside in the vicinity, as such term is defined by the Secretary, of projects funded under this section or contract with small businesses that are owned and operated by persons residing in the vicinity of such projects.’’ For the purposes of administering this requirement, HUD is adopting the Section 3 applicability thresholds for community development assistance at 24 CFR 135.3(a)(3)(ii). Note: The NSP3 local hiring requirement does not replace the responsibilities of grantees under Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 135, except to the extent the obligations may be in direct conflict. For the purposes of NSP3, HUD defines ‘‘vicinity’’ as each neighborhood identified by the NSP3 grantee as being the areas of greatest need. See section II.B.2. Small business means a business that meets the criteria set forth in section 3(a) of the Small Business Act. See 42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(23). V. Note on Statutory Limitation on Distribution of Funds Section 2304 of HERA and 1479(a)(7)(A) of the Dodd-Frank Act states that none of the funds made available under this Title or title IV shall be distributed to an organization that has been convicted of a violation under Federal law relating to an election for Federal office; or an organization that employs applicable individuals. Section 1479(a)(7)(B) defines applicable individuals. W. Information Collection Approval Note HUD has approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 3520). OMB approval is under OMB control number 2506–0165. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless the collection displays a valid control number. X. Duration of Funding The appropriation accounting provisions in 31 U.S.C. 1551–1557, added by section 1405 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Pub. L. 101–510), limit the availability of certain appropriations for expenditure. Such a limitation may not be waived. The appropriations acts for NSP1 and NSP3 grants direct that these funds be available until expended. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for grants made under NSP are as follows: 14.218; 14.225; and 14.228. Finding of No Significant Impact A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)(2)). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410–0500. Establishment of Formula The funding formula set out in Attachment B to this notice was established by HUD on August 18, 2010. Dated: October 13, 2010. Mercedes M. Ma´rquez, Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. Attachments A—Formula Allocation B—NSP3 Formula and Allocation of Funds C—Recommended Green and Sustainable Practices Attachment A HUD’s Methodology for Allocating the Funds for Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSP1) HERA calls for allocating funds ‘‘to States and units of general local government with the greatest need, as such need is determined in the discretion of the Secretary based on— (A) The number and percentage of home foreclosures in each State or unit of general local government; (B) the number and percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgage related loan in each State or unit of general local government; and (C) the number and percentage of homes in default or delinquency in each State or unit of general local government.’’ It further directs that ‘‘each State shall receive not less than 0.5 percent of funds’’. The allocation formula operates as follows. In this formula, the primary data on foreclosure rates, subprime loan rates, and rates of loans delinquent or in default come from the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey (MBA–NDS). Because the MBA–NDS may have uneven coverage from state-to-state in respect to the total number of mortgages reported, the total count of mortgages is calculated as the number of owner-occupied mortgages from the 2006 American Community Survey increased with data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act to capture the proportion of total mortgages made within a state made to investors between 2004 and 2006. The first step of the allocation is to make a ‘‘statewide’’ allocation using the following formula: Statewide Allocation = $3.92 billion* {[0.70* (State’s number of foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters)*........... National number of foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters.......................... (Percent of all loans in state to enter foreclosure last 6 quarters)+ Percent of all loans in nation to enter foreclosure last 6 quarters 0.15* (State’s number of subprime loans)*............................................. National number of subprime loans.......................................................... (Percent of all loans in state subprime)+ Percent of all loans in nation subprime 0.10* (State’s number of loans in default (90+ days delinquent).* National number of loans in default.......................................................... (Percent of all loans in state in default)+ Percent of all loans in nation in default 0.05* (State’s number of loans 60 to 89 days delinquent).* National number of loans 60 to 89 days delinquent................................ Percent of all loans in state 60 to 89 days delinquent)]* National percent of all loans 60 to 89 days delinquent (Pct of all addresses in state vacant in Census Tracts where more than 40% of the 2004 to 2006 loans were high cost)} Pct of all addresses in nation vacant in Census Tracts where more than 40% of the 2004 to 2006 loans were high cost VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00098Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64341 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices This formula allocates 70 percent of the funds based on the number and percent of foreclosures, 15 percent for subprime loans, 10 percent for loans in default (delinquent 90 days or longer), and 5 percent for loans delinquent 60 to 90 days. The higher weight on foreclosures is based on the emphasis the statute places on targeting foreclosed homes. The percentage adjustments, the rate of a problem in a state relative to the national rate of a problem, are restricted such that a state’s allocation based on its proportional share of a problem cannot be increased or decreased by more than 30 percent. Because HERA specifically indicates that the funds are needed for the ‘‘redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed upon homes and residential properties,’’ HUD has included a variable to proxy where abandonment of homes due to foreclosure is more likely, specifically each state’s rate of vacant residential addresses in neighborhoods with a high proportion (more than 40 percent) of loans in 2004 to 2006 that were high cost. Information on vacant addresses is based on United States Postal Service data as of June 30, 2008 aggregated by HUD to the Census Tract level. The residential vacancy adjustment factor reflects a state’s vacancy rate relative to the national average and cannot increase or decrease a state’s proportional share of the allocation based on foreclosures, subprime loans, and delinquencies and defaults by more than 10 percent. Finally, if a statewide allocation is less than $19.6 million, the statewide grant is increased to $19.6 million. Because this approach will result in a total allocation in excess of appropriation, all grant amounts above $19.6 million are reduced pro-rata to make the total allocation equal to the total appropriation. From each statewide allocation, a substate allocation is made as follows: •Each state government is allocated $19.6 million •If the statewide allocation is more than $19.6 million, the remaining funds are allocated to FY 2008 CDBG entitlement cities, urban counties, and non-entitlement balance of state proportional to relative need. •If a local government receives less than $2 million under this sub-allocation, their grant is rolled up into the state government grant. Note that HUD has determined that HERA’s direction that a minimum of $19.6 million be allocated to the state means that a minimum grant must be provided to each state government of $19.6 million. As a result, this approach provides state governments with proportionally more funding than their estimated need. As such, state governments should use their best judgment to serve both those areas not receiving a direct grant and those areas that do receive a direct grant, making sure that the total of all funds in the state are going proportionally more to those places (as prescribed by HERA): •‘‘With the greatest percentage of home foreclosures; •With the highest percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgage related loan; and •Identified by the State or unit of general local government as likely to face a significant rise in the rate of home foreclosures.’’ For the amount of funds above each state’s $19.6 million, the remaining funds are allocated among the entitlement communities and non-entitlement balances using the following formula: Local Allocation = (Statewide Allocation¥$19,600,000)* [(Local estimated number of foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters)* State total number of foreclosure starts in last 6 quarters Local vacancy rate in Census Tracts with more than 40% of the loans High-cost)] State vacancy rate in Census Tracts with more than 40% of the loans High-cost Where: The residential vacancy rate adjustment cannot increase or reduce a local jurisdiction’s allocation by more than 30 percent and the estimated number of foreclosures is calculated based on a predicted foreclosure rate times the estimated number of mortgages in a community. HUD analysis shows that 75 percent of the variance between states on foreclosure rates can be explained by three variables available from public data: •Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) data on change in home values as of June 2008 compared to peak home value since 2000. •Percent of all loans made between 2004 and 2006 that are high cost as reported in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). •Unemployment rate as of June 2008 (from Bureau of Labor Statistics). Because these three variables are publicly available for all CDBG eligible communities and they are good predictors of foreclosure risk, they are used in a model to calculate the estimated number of foreclosures in each jurisdiction within a state. The formula used is as follows: Predicted Foreclosure Rate = ¥2.211 ¥(0.131 × Percent change in MSA OFHEO current price relative to the maximum in past 8 years) + (0.152*Percent of total loans made between 2004 and 2006 that are high cost) + (0.392*Percent unemployed in the place our county in June 2008). This predicted foreclosure rate is then multiplied times the estimated number of mortgages within a jurisdiction (number of HMDA loans made between 2004 and 2006 times the ratio of ACS 2006 data on total mortgages in state/HMDA loans in state). This ‘‘estimated number of mortgages in the jurisdiction’’ is further adjusted such that the estimated number of foreclosures from the model will equal the total foreclosure starts in the state from the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey. As noted above, for entitlement cities and urban counties that would receive an NSP allocation of less than $2 million, the funds are allocated to the state grantee. The District of Columbia and the four Insular Areas receive direct allocations and are not subject to the minimum grant threshold. Because this funding is one-time funding and the eligible activities under the program are different enough from the regular program, HUD believes that a grantee must receive a minimum amount of $2 million to have adequate staffing to properly administer the program effectively. In addition, fewer grants will allow HUD staff to more effectively monitor grantees to ensure proper implementation of the program and reduce the risk for fraud, waste, and abuse. Attachment B HUD’s Methodology for Allocating the Funds for Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP3) FUNDING UNDER DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORMAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT State Grantee NSP3 Grant Alaska.........................................................................................State of Alaska...........................................................................$5,000,000 Alabama......................................................................................State of Alabama.......................................................................5,000,000 Birmingham................................................................................2,576,151 Alabama Total........................................................................7,576,151 Arkansas.....................................................................................State of Arkansas......................................................................5,000,000 Arizona........................................................................................Avondale City.............................................................................1,224,903 State of Arizona.........................................................................5,000,000 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00099Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64342 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP3) FUNDING UNDER DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORMAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT—Continued State Grantee NSP3 Grant Chandler.....................................................................................1,332,011 Glendale.....................................................................................3,718,377 Maricopa County........................................................................4,257,346 Mesa..........................................................................................4,019,457 Mohave County..........................................................................1,990,744 Peoria City.................................................................................1,198,780 Phoenix......................................................................................16,053,525 Pinal County...............................................................................3,168,315 Surprise City..............................................................................1,329,844 Tucson.......................................................................................2,083,771 Arizona Total..........................................................................45,377,073 California.....................................................................................Apple Valley...............................................................................1,463,014 Bakersfield.................................................................................3,320,927 State of California......................................................................7,777,019 Compton.....................................................................................1,436,300 Contra Costa County.................................................................1,871,294 Corona.......................................................................................1,317,310 Fontana......................................................................................2,695,735 Fresno........................................................................................3,547,219 Fresno County...........................................................................2,739,766 Hemet.........................................................................................1,360,197 Hesperia.....................................................................................1,785,047 Imperial County..........................................................................1,708,780 Indio City....................................................................................1,092,071 Kern County...............................................................................5,202,037 Lancaster...................................................................................2,364,566 Long Beach................................................................................1,567,935 Los Angeles...............................................................................9,875,577 Los Angeles County...................................................................9,532,569 Madera County..........................................................................1,659,017 Merced.......................................................................................1,196,182 Merced County...........................................................................2,705,877 Modesto.....................................................................................2,951,549 Monterey County........................................................................1,284,794 Moreno Valley............................................................................3,687,789 Oakland......................................................................................2,070,087 Ontario.......................................................................................1,872,853 Orange County...........................................................................1,004,948 Palmdale....................................................................................2,310,023 Perris City..................................................................................1,342,449 Pomona......................................................................................1,235,629 Rialto..........................................................................................1,936,370 Richmond...................................................................................1,153,172 Riverside....................................................................................3,202,152 Riverside County........................................................................14,272,400 Sacramento................................................................................3,762,329 Sacramento County...................................................................4,595,671 San Bernardino..........................................................................3,277,401 San Bernardino County.............................................................10,438,181 San Joaquin County..................................................................4,398,543 Santa Ana..................................................................................1,464,113 Solano County...........................................................................1,622,757 Stanislaus County......................................................................4,175,947 Stockton.....................................................................................4,280,994 Tulare County............................................................................2,845,529 Vallejo........................................................................................1,744,593 Victorville....................................................................................2,159,937 California Total.......................................................................149,308,651 Colorado......................................................................................Adams County...........................................................................1,997,322 Aurora........................................................................................2,445,282 State of Colorado.......................................................................5,098,309 Colorado Springs.......................................................................1,420,638 Denver........................................................................................2,700,279 Greeley.......................................................................................1,203,745 Pueblo........................................................................................1,460,506 Weld County..............................................................................1,023,188 Colorado Total........................................................................17,349,270 Connecticut.................................................................................Bridgeport...................................................................................1,215,150 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00100Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64343 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP3) FUNDING UNDER DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORMAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT—Continued State Grantee NSP3 Grant State of Connecticut..................................................................5,000,000 Hartford......................................................................................1,029,926 New Haven................................................................................1,041,579 Waterbury...................................................................................1,036,101 Connecticut Total...................................................................9,322,756 District of Columbia.....................................................................Washington, DC.........................................................................5,000,000 Delaware.....................................................................................State of Delaware......................................................................5,000,000 Florida.........................................................................................Boynton Beach...........................................................................1,168,808 Brevard County..........................................................................3,032,850 Broward County.........................................................................5,457,553 Cape Coral.................................................................................3,048,214 Charlotte County........................................................................2,022,962 Citrus County.............................................................................1,005,084 Clearwater..................................................................................1,385,801 Collier County............................................................................3,884,165 Coral Springs.............................................................................1,657,845 Davie..........................................................................................1,171,166 Daytona Beach..........................................................................1,127,616 Deerfield Beach.........................................................................1,183,897 Deltona.......................................................................................1,964,066 Escambia County.......................................................................1,210,487 State of Florida..........................................................................8,511,111 Ft Lauderdale.............................................................................2,145,921 Ft Myers.....................................................................................1,539,941 Hernando County.......................................................................1,953,975 Hialeah.......................................................................................2,198,194 Hillsborough County...................................................................8,083,062 Hollywood...................................................................................2,433,001 Indian River County...................................................................1,500,428 Jacksonville-Duval County.........................................................7,102,937 Kissimmee..................................................................................1,042,299 Lake County...............................................................................3,199,585 Lakeland.....................................................................................1,303,139 Lauderhill....................................................................................1,500,609 Lee County.................................................................................6,639,174 Manatee County.........................................................................3,321,893 Margate......................................................................................1,148,877 Marion County............................................................................4,589,714 Martin County.............................................................................1,563,770 Melbourne..................................................................................1,257,986 Miami..........................................................................................4,558,939 Miami Beach..............................................................................1,475,088 Miami Gardens City...................................................................1,940,337 Miami-Dade County...................................................................20,036,303 Miramar......................................................................................2,321,827 North Miami................................................................................1,173,374 Orange County...........................................................................11,551,158 Orlando......................................................................................3,095,137 Osceola County.........................................................................3,239,646 Palm Bay....................................................................................1,764,032 Palm Beach County...................................................................11,264,172 Palm Coast City.........................................................................1,375,071 Pasco County.............................................................................5,185,778 Pembroke Pines.........................................................................2,330,542 Pinellas County..........................................................................4,697,519 Plantation...................................................................................1,216,427 Polk County................................................................................5,443,116 Pompano Beach........................................................................1,500,572 Port St Lucie..............................................................................3,515,509 Sanford.......................................................................................1,037,697 Sarasota.....................................................................................1,038,811 Sarasota County........................................................................3,949,541 Seminole County........................................................................3,995,178 St Petersburg.............................................................................3,709,133 St. Lucie County........................................................................1,947,657 Sunrise.......................................................................................1,775,162 Tamarac.....................................................................................1,427,857 Tampa........................................................................................4,691,857 Titusville.....................................................................................1,005,731 Volusia County...........................................................................3,670,516 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00101Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64344 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP3) FUNDING UNDER DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORMAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT—Continued State Grantee NSP3 Grant West Palm Beach......................................................................2,147,327 Florida Total...........................................................................208,437,144 Georgia.......................................................................................Atlanta........................................................................................4,906,758 Augusta-Richmond County........................................................1,161,297 Carroll County............................................................................1,190,390 Clayton County..........................................................................3,796,167 Cobb County..............................................................................2,415,784 Columbus-Muscogee County.....................................................1,128,174 Dekalb County...........................................................................5,233,105 Douglas County.........................................................................1,628,471 Fulton County.............................................................................3,094,885 State of Georgia.........................................................................18,679,977 Gwinnett County........................................................................2,065,581 Henry County.............................................................................1,217,736 Macon........................................................................................1,503,897 Paulding County.........................................................................1,372,214 Savannah...................................................................................1,027,553 Georgia Total..........................................................................50,421,988 Hawaii.........................................................................................State of Hawaii...........................................................................5,000,000 Iowa.............................................................................................State of Iowa..............................................................................5,000,000 Idaho...........................................................................................State of Idaho............................................................................5,000,000 Illinois..........................................................................................Chicago......................................................................................15,996,360 Cook County..............................................................................7,776,324 State of Illinois...........................................................................5,000,000 Lake County...............................................................................1,370,421 Illinois Total............................................................................30,143,105 Indiana........................................................................................Anderson....................................................................................1,219,200 Elkhart........................................................................................1,022,717 Elkhart County...........................................................................1,193,194 Fort Wayne................................................................................2,374,450 Gary...........................................................................................2,717,859 Hammond...................................................................................1,243,934 State of Indiana..........................................................................8,235,625 Indianapolis................................................................................8,017,557 Kokomo......................................................................................1,014,327 Lake County...............................................................................1,613,168 Muncie........................................................................................1,148,363 South Bend................................................................................1,708,707 Indiana Total...........................................................................31,509,101 Kansas........................................................................................Kansas City................................................................................1,137,796 State of Kansas.........................................................................5,000,000 Kansas Total..........................................................................6,137,796 Kentucky.....................................................................................Commonwealth of Kentucky......................................................5,000,000 Louisiana.....................................................................................State of Louisiana......................................................................5,000,000 Massachusetts............................................................................Commonwealth of Massachusetts.............................................5,000,000 Springfield..................................................................................1,197,000 Worcester County......................................................................1,190,994 Massachusetts Total..............................................................7,387,994 Maryland.....................................................................................State of Maryland.......................................................................5,000,000 Prince George’s County.............................................................1,802,242 Maryland Total........................................................................6,802,242 Maine..........................................................................................State of Maine............................................................................5,000,000 Michigan......................................................................................Dearborn....................................................................................1,027,354 Detroit.........................................................................................21,922,710 Flint............................................................................................3,076,522 Genesee County........................................................................2,663,219 Grand Rapids.............................................................................1,378,788 Jackson County.........................................................................1,162,482 Lansing.......................................................................................1,162,508 Macomb County.........................................................................2,536,817 State of Michigan.......................................................................5,000,000 Muskegon County......................................................................1,071,900 Oakland County.........................................................................2,080,700 Pontiac.......................................................................................1,410,621 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00102Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64345 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP3) FUNDING UNDER DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORMAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT—Continued State Grantee NSP3 Grant Saginaw.....................................................................................1,242,318 Southfield...................................................................................1,084,254 St. Clair County..........................................................................1,129,355 Warren.......................................................................................1,735,633 Wayne County...........................................................................7,839,293 Michigan Total........................................................................57,524,473 Minnesota....................................................................................Anoka County............................................................................1,226,827 Hennepin County.......................................................................1,469,133 Minneapolis................................................................................2,671,275 State of Minnesota.....................................................................5,000,000 St Paul.......................................................................................2,059,877 Minnesota Total......................................................................12,427,113 Missouri.......................................................................................Kansas City................................................................................1,823,888 State of Missouri........................................................................5,000,000 St Louis......................................................................................3,472,954 St. Louis County........................................................................2,813,762 Missouri Total.........................................................................13,110,604 Mississippi...................................................................................State of Mississippi....................................................................5,000,000 Montana......................................................................................State of Montana.......................................................................5,000,000 North Carolina.............................................................................State of North Carolina..............................................................5,000,000 North Dakota...............................................................................State of North Dakota................................................................5,000,000 Nebraska.....................................................................................State of Nebraska......................................................................5,000,000 Omaha.......................................................................................1,183,085 Nebraska Total.......................................................................6,183,085 New Hampshire..........................................................................State of New Hampshire............................................................5,000,000 New Jersey.................................................................................Essex County.............................................................................1,851,984 Newark.......................................................................................2,018,637 State of New Jersey..................................................................5,000,000 Paterson.....................................................................................1,196,877 Union County.............................................................................1,574,051 New Jersey Total...................................................................11,641,549 New Mexico................................................................................State of New Mexico..................................................................5,000,000 Nevada........................................................................................Clark County..............................................................................16,156,114 North Las Vegas........................................................................4,097,147 Henderson..................................................................................3,901,144 Las Vegas..................................................................................10,450,623 State of Nevada.........................................................................5,000,000 Reno...........................................................................................1,973,724 Washoe County.........................................................................1,735,918 Nevada Total..........................................................................43,314,669 New York....................................................................................Islip Town...................................................................................1,429,561 Nassau County..........................................................................2,116,070 New York...................................................................................9,787,803 State of New York......................................................................5,000,000 Suffolk County............................................................................1,501,506 New York Total.......................................................................19,834,940 Ohio.............................................................................................Akron..........................................................................................2,674,298 Butler County.............................................................................1,327,123 Canton........................................................................................1,233,756 Cincinnati...................................................................................3,160,661 Clark County..............................................................................1,105,306 Cleveland...................................................................................6,793,290 Columbus...................................................................................4,843,460 Cuyahoga County......................................................................2,551,533 Dayton........................................................................................3,115,780 East Cleveland...........................................................................1,068,142 Euclid.........................................................................................1,031,230 Hamilton County........................................................................1,469,242 Lorain County.............................................................................1,619,474 Montgomery County...................................................................1,145,712 State of Ohio..............................................................................11,795,818 Richland County.........................................................................1,022,278 Toledo........................................................................................3,591,715 Trumbull County.........................................................................1,143,889 VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00103Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64346 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP3) FUNDING UNDER DODD-FRANK WALL STREET REFORMAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT—Continued State Grantee NSP3 Grant Youngstown...............................................................................1,096,328 Ohio Total...............................................................................51,789,035 Oklahoma....................................................................................State of Oklahoma.....................................................................5,000,000 Oregon........................................................................................State of Oregon.........................................................................5,000,000 Pennsylvania...............................................................................Commonwealth of Pennsylvania...............................................5,000,000 Puerto Rico.................................................................................Commonwealth of Puerto Rico..................................................5,000,000 Rhode Island...............................................................................Providence.................................................................................1,309,231 State of Rhode Island................................................................5,000,000 Rhode Island Total.................................................................6,309,231 South Carolina............................................................................State of South Carolina.............................................................5,615,020 South Carolina Total..............................................................5,615,020 South Dakota..............................................................................State of South Dakota...............................................................5,000,000 Tennessee..................................................................................Memphis.....................................................................................5,195,848 State of Tennessee....................................................................5,000,000 Tennessee Total.....................................................................10,195,848 Texas..........................................................................................Dallas.........................................................................................2,356,962 Dallas County.............................................................................1,364,426 Harris County.............................................................................1,925,917 Hidalgo County..........................................................................1,716,924 Houston......................................................................................3,389,035 State of Texas............................................................................7,284,978 Texas Total.............................................................................18,038,242 Utah.............................................................................................State of Utah..............................................................................5,000,000 Virginia........................................................................................Richmond...................................................................................1,254,970 Commonwealth of Virginia.........................................................5,000,000 Virginia Total..........................................................................6,254,970 Vermont.......................................................................................State of Vermont........................................................................5,000,000 Washington.................................................................................State of Washington..................................................................5,000,000 Wisconsin....................................................................................Milwaukee..................................................................................2,687,949 State of Wisconsin.....................................................................5,000,000 Wisconsin Total......................................................................7,687,949 West Virginia...............................................................................State of West Virginia................................................................5,000,000 Wyoming.....................................................................................State of Wyoming......................................................................5,000,000 Insular Areas...................................................................................................................................................................................300,000 Total....................................................................................970,000,000 Overview The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 provided an additional $1 billion for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) that was originally established under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The statute calls for allocating funds to States and local governments with the greatest need, as determined by: (A) ‘‘The number and percentage of home foreclosures in each State or unit of general local government; (B) ‘‘The number and percentage of homes financed by a subprime mortgages in each State or unit of general local government; and (C) ‘‘The number and percentage of homes in default or delinquency in each State or unit of general local government.’’ The statute also requires that a minimum of 0.5 percent of the appropriation, $5 million be provided to each state. The Department has determined that for NSP3, the states and local governments with the greatest need for neighborhood stabilization funding are those communities that have high numbers of foreclosed and/or vacant properties in the neighborhoods with the highest concentrations of foreclosures, delinquent loans, and subprime loans. The basic formula allocates funds based on the number of foreclosures and vacancies in the 20 percent of U.S. neighborhoods (Census Tracts) with the highest rates of homes financed by a subprime mortgage, are delinquent, or are in foreclosure. This basic allocation is adjusted to ensure that every state receives a minimum of $5 million. The net result is that these funds are highly targeted to communities with the most severe neighborhood problems associated with the foreclosure crisis. Estimating Greatest Need To target the funds to States and local communities with the greatest need, HUD estimated the number of loans 90 days delinquent or in foreclosure for each Census Tract in America. This estimate was based on a model that was comprised of three factors that explain most foreclosures and delinquent loans (see note 1): •Rate of Subprime Loans. This is measured with HMDA data on high cost and high leverage loans made between 2004 and 2007. These data are available at the Census Tract (neighborhood) level. •Increase in Unemployment Rate between March 2005 and March 2010. These data are from the BLS Local Area Unemployment Statistics, at the city and county level. •Fall in Home Value from Peak to Trough. Home value data at the Metropolitan Area level is available quarterly through March 2010 from the Federal Housing Finance Agency Home Price Index. In addition to wanting to capture loans that are currently delinquent or in the foreclosure process, HUD sought to capture the aggregate impact of the foreclosure crisis on individual neighborhoods between 2007 and 2010. To do this, HUD estimated for each neighborhood the number of foreclosure starts between January 2007 and March 2010 as well as the number of foreclosure VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:35 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00104Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64347 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices 1 This less than the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey rate of 9.54 percent for March 2010 and slightly more than the McDash Analytics rate of 8.39 percent as of July 2010. completions between January 2007 and June 2010 (see note 2). Each neighborhood was assigned the larger of the two estimates. Finally, HUD has administrative data from the United States Postal Service on addresses not picking up mail for 90 days or longer. These data are very good current indicators of neighborhood stress from vacant housing. This number is adjusted using Census 2000 tract level data to remove vacant vacation properties from the count. The Formula Using the estimated rate of loans in foreclosure or delinquent, HUD identified the 20 percent of neighborhoods likely to be most distressed. This equates to an estimated serious delinquency rate (90 days delinquent or in foreclosure) of greater than 17.8 percent. Using the methodology described above, the national rate was estimated at 8.9 percent.1 For each place and balance of county in the United States we add up only from the 20 percent of neighborhoods with the greatest need the number of foreclosed homes between 2007 and 2010 and separately the number units 90 days or more vacant in March 2010. This ‘‘jurisdiction level’’ file is then used to run a formula to allocate the funds available, $969,700,000. Sixty percent of these funds are allocated based on each jurisdiction’s share of foreclosures and 40 percent of the funds are allocated based on each jurisdiction’s share of vacancies. Minimum Grant Threshold If a place gets less than HUD’s established minimum grant threshold of $1 million, its grant is rolled up into the county grant. If the county grant is less than the minimum grant threshold of $1 million, its grant is rolled up into the state grant. State Minimum Grant of $5 million For any state government that would receive less than $5 million, its grant is increased to $5 million with all grant amounts above the minimum grant threshold reduced on a pro-rata basis to only allocate the amounts available. Note 1: Identifying Census Tracts with High Rates of Foreclosures, Delinquencies, and Subprime Loans: To estimate which neighborhoods are likely to have high rates of foreclosures, delinquencies, and subprime loans, HUD used a July 2010 extract of county level serious delinquency rates from McDash Analytics to develop a predictive model using public data that was available for every Census Tract in the United States. The predictive model, which was weighted on number of mortgages in each county, was able to predict most of the variance between counties in their serious delinquency rate (R- square of 0.821). The model used is as follows: 0.523 (intercept) +0.476 Unemployment Change 3/2005 to 3/ 2010 (BLS LAUS) ¥0.176 Rate of low cost high leverage loans 2004 to 2007 (HMDA) +0.521 Rate of high cost high leverage loans 2004 to 2007 (HMDA) +0.090 Rate of high cost low leverage loans 2004 to 2007 (HMDA) ¥0.188 Fall in Home Value Since Peak (FHFA Metro and Non-Metro Area) The predictive rate of seriously delinquent mortgages was multiplied times the number of loans made between 2004 and 2007 in a Census Tract to estimate the number of seriously delinquent loans in a Census Tract. Note 2: Calculating Number of Foreclosures at the Neighborhood Level: To estimate the number of homes in a neighborhood that have completed, or are at risk of becoming Real Estate Owned in a Census Tract, was done by allocating the statewide total of the greater of the sum of all foreclosure completions between January 2007 and June 2010 (from RealtyTrac) or the sum of all foreclosure starts between January 2007 and March 2010 (from the Mortgage Bankers Association) based on each Tracts share of a states estimated number of seriously delinquent loans. The estimated number of seriously delinquent loans was calculated by multiplying the estimated rate of seriously delinquent loans times the number of mortgages made between 2004 and 2007 (from Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data). Attachment C NSP Recommended Energy Efficient and Environmentally-Friendly Green Elements HUD strongly recommends that your proposed NSP3 program incorporate the following energy efficient and environmentally-friendly Green elements. No specific element is required. HUD encourages thoughtful, achievable consideration and implementation of energy efficient and environmentally friendly elements inside your NSP3 program. HUD is providing the guidance below because the Department has become aware during the implementation of NSP1 that many grantees are not aware that many of their common community development practices, such as trying to help police and teachers live in the neighborhood in which they work, are also considered sustainable and environmentally friendly. Similarly, most affordable housing units are also smaller and can easily be made more energy efficient than larger units. The increased energy efficiency then serves to increase the long-term affordability of the units. Transit Accessibility Select NSP target areas that are transit accessible, for example those that are in a census tract with convenient bus service (local bus service every 20 minutes during rush hour or an express commuter bus); or bordering a census tract with a passenger rail stop or station (including, for example, commuter rail, subway, light rail, and streetcars). Green Building Standards Comply with the required NSP rehabilitation standards and also fund new construction and gut rehabilitation activities that will exceed the Energy Star for New Homes standard. Ensure that moderate rehabilitation or energy retrofits will purchase only Energy Star products and appliances. You may go further and require NSP homes to achieve an established environmental or energy efficiency standard such as Green Communities or equivalent. Re-Use Cleared Sites Re-use cleared sites in accordance with a comprehensive or neighborhood plan. Plan to re-use all demolition sites within the term of your NSP grant as replacement housing, for use as a community resource, or to provide an environmental function. Examples include community gardens, pocket parks, or floodplain impoundment areas. Deconstruction Deconstruction means salvaging and re- using materials resulting from demolition activities. It recycles building materials, and provides employment. Renewable Energy 1. Passive Solar. Orient the building to make the greatest use of passive solar heating and cooling. 2. Photovoltaic-ready. Site, design, engineer and wire the development to accommodate installation of photovoltaic panels in the future. Sustainable Site Design 1. Transportation Choices. Locate projects within a one-quarter mile of at least two, or one-half mile of at least four community and retail facilities. 2. Connections to Surrounding Neighborhoods. Provide three separate connections from the development to sidewalks or pathways in surrounding neighborhoods. 3. Protecting Environmental Resources. Do not locate the project within 100 feet of wetlands; 1,000 feet of a critical habitat; or on steep slopes, prime farmland or park land. 4. Erosion and Sediment Control. Implement EPA’s Best Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control during construction. 5. Sustainable Landscaping. Select native trees and plants that are appropriate to the site’s soils and microclimate. 6. Energy Efficient Landscaping. Locate trees and plants to provide shading in the summer and allow for heat gain in the winter. Water Conservation 1. Efficient Irrigation. Install low volume, non-spray irrigation system (such as drip irrigation, bubblers, or soaker hose). Energy Efficient Materials 1. Durable Materials. Use materials that last longer than conventional counterparts such as stone, brick or concrete. 2. Resource Efficient Materials. Use layouts and advanced building techniques that reduce the amount of homebuilding material required. 3. Heat Absorbing Materials. Use materials that retain solar heat in winter and remain cool in summer. 4. Solar-Reflective Paving. Use light- colored/high-albedo materials and/or open- VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00105Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S 64348 Federal Register /Vol. 75, No. 201/Tuesday, October 19, 2010/Notices grid pavement with a minimum Solar Reflective index of 0.6 over at least 30 percent of the site’s hardscaped areas. 5. Local Source Materials. Use materials from local sources that are close to the job site. 6. Green Roofing. Use Energy Star- compliant and high-emissive roofing, and/or install a Green (vegetated) roof for at least 50 percent of the roof area; or a combination of high-albedo and vegetated roof covering 75 percent of the roof area. Healthy Homes 1. Green Label Certified Floor Covering. Do not install carpets in basements, entryways, laundry rooms, bathrooms or kitchens; if using carpet, use the Carpet and Rug Institute’s Green Label certified carpet and pad. 2. Healthy Flooring Materials: Alternatives. Use non-vinyl, non-carpet floor coverings in all rooms. 3. Healthy Flooring Materials: Reducing Dust. Install a whole-house vacuum system with high-efficiency particulate air filtration. 4. Sealing Joints. Seal all wall, floor and joint penetrations to prevent pest entry; provide rodent and corrosion proof screens (e.g., copper or stainless steel mesh) for large openings. 5. Termite-Resistant Materials. Use termite- resistant materials in areas known to be infested. 6. Tub and Shower Enclosures: Moisture Prevention. Use one-piece fiberglass or similar enclosure or, if using any form of grouted material, use backing materials such as cement board, fiber cement board, fiber- glass reinforced board or cement plaster. 7. Green Maintenance Guide. Provide a guide for homeowners and renters that explains the intent, benefits, use and maintenance of Green building features, and encourages additional Green activities such as recycling, gardening and use of healthy cleaning materials. 8. Resident Orientation. Provide a walk- through and orientation to the homeowner or new tenants. [FR Doc. 2010–26292 Filed 10–18–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement [Docket No. BOEM–2010–0052] BOEMRE Information Collection Activity: 1010–0182, Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the OCS NTL, Extension of a Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), Interior. ACTION: Notice of an extension of an information collection (1010–0182). SUMMARY: To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), BOEMRE is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns the paperwork requirements in Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) ‘‘No. 2010–N05, Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the OCS.’’ DATES: Submit written comments by December 20, 2010. FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: Cheryl Blundon, Regulations and Standards Branch at (703) 787–1607. You may also contact Cheryl Blundon to obtain a copy, at no cost, of NTL No. 2010–N05 that requires the subject collection of information. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods listed below. •Electronically: go to http:// www.regulations.gov. In the entry titled ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter docket ID BOEM–2010–0052 then click search. Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and related materials available for this collection. BOEMRE will post all comments. •E-mail cheryl.blundon@boemre.gov. Mail or hand-carry comments to the Department of the Interior; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement; Attention: Cheryl Blundon; 381 Elden Street, MS–4024; Herndon, Virginia 20170–4817. Please reference ICR 1010–0182 in your comment and include your name and return address. SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Title: Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the OCS, NTL No. 2010–N05. OMB Control Number: 1010–0182. Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to manage the mineral resources of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease, right-of-use and easement, and pipeline right-of- way. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation’s energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; preserve and maintain free enterprise competition; and ensure that the extent of oil and natural gas resources of the OCS is assessed at the earliest practicable time. 43 U.S.C. 1332(6) states that ‘‘operations in the outer Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.’’ To carry out these responsibilities, BOEMRE issues regulations to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protect the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases. In addition, we also issue NTLs that provide clarification, explanation, and interpretation of our regulations. These NTLs are also used to convey purely informational material and to cover situations that might not be adequately addressed in our regulations. The latter is the case for the information collection required in the NTL. Because of the unusual nature of this information collection, issuing an NTL is the appropriate means to collect the information at the time of the event. The subject of this ICR is an NTL based on the recommendations in the May 27, 2010, Report from the Secretary of the Interior to the President of the United States, Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (Report). BOEMRE issued NTLs for operators to comply with the requirements and recommendations of the report as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This collection pertains to one NTL, covered under the regulations at 30 CFR part 250, subparts, A, D, E, and F. The primary information collections for these regulations are approved under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Numbers 1010–0114, 1010–0141, 1010- 0067, and 1010–0043, respectively. However, BOEMRE believes that the paperwork burdens in the NTL are in addition to those currently approved. Only one of the requirements in the NTL has not yet been fully met; therefore, we are renewing that requirement in this collection to allow operators and/or lessees more response time than allowed by the original emergency OMB request. BOEMRE issued this NTL for lessees and operators to comply with the requirements and recommendations of VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:24 Oct 18, 2010Jkt 223001PO 00000Frm 00106Fmt 4703Sfmt 4703E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM19OCN1ms t o c k s t i l l o n D S K H 9 S 0 Y B 1 P R O D w i t h N O T I C E S Affirmative Marketing Policy EXHIBIT 4 HENNEPIN HOUSING CONSORTIUM AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING POLICY Hennepin Housing Consortium HOME Investment Partnerships Program AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING POLICY Affirmative Marketing Policy Page 1 It is the policy of the Hennepin Housing Consortium, which includes Hennepin County, the City of Bloomington, City of Eden Prairie, the City of Minnetonka and the City of Plymouth, to provide fair housing opportunities regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, status with regard to receipt of public assistance or disability. The Affirmative Marketing Policy incorporates fair housing marketing practices as addressed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In order to administer the HOME Program in conformity and to meet the requirements of the regulations at 24 CFR Part 92 92.351, the Hennepin Housing Consortium has established the following guidelines for HOME assisted rental and homebuyer projects: I. Information to Owners, Tenants and Others A. Copies of the Affirmative Marketing Policy and a description of the existing fair housing laws shall be provided to all interested parties, including owners, their agents and tenants. B. All applicable fair housing laws, policies and procedures shall be discussed with and provided to owners and/or their agents to give to applicants as part of the screening process. C. The Equal Housing Opportunity Logo and/or equal opportunity language shall be included in all media announcements and advertisements, and conspicuously displayed in management offices or other appropriate places. D. Owners and/or their agents, tenants, and others shall be provided with the name and telephone number of a contact person if there are questions or concerns about the Affirmative Marketing Policy or other areas of the HOME Program. A TDD number will also be provided. E. Owners and/or their agents will be encouraged to keep on hand available copies of the Affirmative Marketing Policy to give to tenants or others upon request. F. The Equal Housing Opportunity Logo or language will be used in press releases and solicitations for owners, and written communications to fair housing and other groups. G. The Affirmative Marketing Policy may be published in other languages if it is deemed necessary. II. Special Outreach Owners and/or their agents shall be required to solicit applications for vacant units from persons in the housing market who are least likely to apply without special outreach efforts. In general, persons who are not of the race/ethnicity of the current residents in the neighborhood in which the project is located shall be considered least likely to apply. Efforts may include, but not be Affirmative Marketing Policy Page 2 limited to, the use of community organizations, churches, employment centers, housing counseling of referral agencies, the local housing authorities (HRAs), brochures, leaflets, signs, personal contacts, radio, newspapers (including neighborhood, city, and minority/ethnic newspapers or newsletters), local governmental offices, and advocacy or special needs groups. III. Record Keeping A. Owners, and/or their agents shall maintain records of efforts made to affirmatively market units in order to assess their impact. Hennepin County, as Lead Agency for the Consortium, will maintain records. Records shall include information concerning race, ethnicity, gender of applicants and copies of efforts undertaken by Consortium members, owners, and/or their agents to attract tenants and the results of those who apply as well as any referrals received from other sources, i.e., community organizations, radio, newspapers, etc. B. Owners, and/or their agents shall maintain records such as copies of advertisements, letters or contacts with organizations, interviews with organizations, the media, prospective tenants, etc., public service announcements, and all other marketing efforts undertaken to rent units. The records may be inspected at any time it is deemed necessary, but no less than annually. C. Owners, and/or their agents shall maintain records on tenants and prospective tenants. The records will include race, ethnicity, income level and gender of tenants and prospective tenants when possible. These records must be made available upon request, but no less than annually. D. All records shall be maintained for the period of affordability as specified by the agreement between the owner and the Hennepin Housing Consortium. E. Hennepin County shall maintain current records for HOME assisted projects. Where possible, a separate Affirmative Marketing File should be set up for each HOME assisted project. IV. Assessment of Marketing Efforts Marketing efforts of owners shall be monitored by the Hennepin Housing Consortium, by comparing occupancy data before and after efforts are made. Flagrant or continued noncompliance with policies or regulations may result in sanctions being imposed, such as repayment of the loan or any other corrective action deemed necessary by the Hennepin Housing Consortium. Affirmative Marketing Policy Page 3 Certification Receipt for the HENNEPIN HOUSING CONSORTIUM AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING POLICY and Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Guidelines/Regulations, Booklets, Posters, and/or Logos I, _________________________ of __________________________________ (Name of person responsible for program) (Name of organization receiving HOME funds) hereby certify that I have received the above mentioned documents and/or materials. Organization By: ________________________________ (Authorized signature) Title: _______________________________ Date: _______________________________ Construction & Rehabilitation Standards EXHIBIT 5 HENNEPIN HOUSING CONSORTIUM CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION STANDARDS Hennepin Housing Consortium HOME Investment Partnerships Program CONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION STANDARDS January 2011 Construction & Rehabilitation Standards TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introductions ........................................................................................ 1 II. Model Codes, Ordinances and Construction Regulations Model Codes ........... 1 III. Energy Codes and Standards .................................................................. 3 IV. Fair Housing and Handicapped Accessibility Regulations and Statutes ........... 5 V. Material Standards and Installation .......................................................... 6 VI. Additional Construction and Rehabilitation Standards Required .................... 7 VII. Asbestos, Radon and Other Environmental Hazards ................................... 7 VIII. Lead Hazard Evaluation and Reduction .............................................. 9 EXHIBIT A Four Approaches to Implementing Lead Hazard Evaluation and Reduction ............................................................................. 19 EXHIBIT B Summary of Lead Based Paint Requirements by Activity ............. 20 EXHIBIT C Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3) Requirement ........ 21 Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 1 I. Introduction The Construction and Rehabilitation Standards adopted by the Hennepin Housing Consortium (HHC) for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) shall apply to all housing projects assisted with funding. The Construction and Rehabilitation Standards define a standard and code compliance level for the construction and rehabilitation necessary to correct health, safety and building code violations to achieve decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing and. All housing constructed or rehabilitated with HOME funds must meet all applicable local codes, rehabilitation standards, ordinances and zoning ordinances at the time of project completion, except as provided in paragraph (b) of 24 CFR 92.251. In the absence of a local code for new construction or rehabilitation, HOME assisted new construction or rehabilitation must meet the State of Minnesota adopted, Uniform Building Code (ICBO). All other HOME funded projects (e.g. acquisition) must meet the State or local housing quality standards and code requirements in absence of a standard or code projects, at a minimum, shall meet the Section 8 Housing Quality Standards (HQS) found in 24 CFR 982.401 at the time of completion. Moreover, other improvement that goes beyond the HQS criteria shall be undertaken when it is necessary to correct other substandard conditions or deficiencies. These improvements may pertain to, but shall not be limited to, work for structural integrity, functional performance of the systems (electric, plumbing and HVAC), and protection from weather exposure, energy efficiency, accessibility and hazardous material abatement. As stated in paragraph (b) of Section 92.251, if rehabilitation will occur after the transfer of ownership interest, then before the transfer of the homeownership interest, HHC must:  Inspect the housing for any defects that pose a danger to health; and  Notify the prospective purchaser of the work needed to cure the defects and the time by which defects must be cured an applicable property standards met. Then, the housing must be free from all noted health and safety defects before occupancy and not later than six (6) months after the transfer. And, the housing must meet the standards in the third paragraph above not later than two (2) years after the transfer of the ownership interest. All referenced codes, standards and regulations shall refer to the latest publication. Applicable codes, standards and regulations are not restricted to those listed in this document. II. Model Codes, Ordinances and Construction Regulations The Section 8 Housing Quality Standards shall regulate the minimum standards required for all the projects that will be funded by HHC. The minimum standards may be varied to reflect climatic and geological conditions, security measures, building and fire code Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 2 compliance, energy conservation and other pertinent housing issues, which may directly affect the living conditions of the household. Housing Quality Standards:  Sanitation – A flush toilet in a separate and private room, a fixed basin with hot and cold running water, and a shower or tub with hot and cold running water shall be present in each dwelling unit and be in working order.  Food Preparation and Refuse Disposal – A cooking stove or range, refrigerator with freezer compartment and sink with hot and cold running water shall be present in each dwelling unit and be in working order. Space shall contain adequate area to store, prepare and serve foods in a sanitary manner.  Space and Security – Living room, kitchen, bathroom and one sleeping room or living sleeping room be present. Exterior doors and windows accessible from outside of unit shall be lockable.  Thermal Environment – Each dwelling unit shall have a heating system that adequately supplies safe heat to all habitable areas and that will be capable of maintaining a thermal environment healthy for the human body.  Illumination and Electricity – Living and sleeping rooms each shall be with a minimum of one window. Bathroom and living area shall be with a ceiling or wall type light fixture in working order. A minimum of two electric outlets, one of which may be an overhead light, shall be present and operable in living, kitchen and bathroom areas.  Structure and Materials – Ceilings, walls and floors shall not have any serious defects such as severe bulging or leaning, large holes, loose materials, severe buckling or noticeable movement under walking stress, missing parts or other serious damage. Roof structure shall be firm and weather tight. Exterior wall structure and surface shall not have any serious defects such as serious leaning, buckling, sagging, cracks or holes, loose siding, or other serious damage. Interior and exterior stairways, halls, porches, walkways, etc., shall not present a danger of tripping or falling.  Interior Air Quality – Dwelling unit shall be free from dangerous levels of air pollution from carbon monoxide, sewer gas, fuel gas, dust, and other harmful air pollutants. Bathroom shall have at least one operable window or other adequate exhaust ventilation.  Water Supply – Water supply shall be free from contamination.  Lead-Based Paint – Dwelling unit shall be in compliance with HUD Lead Based Paint regulations. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 3  Access – Proper means of egress shall be provided. The dwelling unit shall be usable capable of being maintained with unauthorized use of other private properties.  Site and Neighborhood – Site and neighborhood shall be reasonably free from disturbing noises and reverberation and other hazards to the health, safety and general welfare of the occupants.  Sanitary Condition – The dwelling unit and its equipment shall be free of vermin and rodent infestation. Inspections and compliance are required both as a condition of application and upon project completion for release of HHC funds or to start the required affordability period. The local building official shall regulate all permits required by code or ordinance requirements and shall issue the certificate of occupancy after the construction/rehabilitation have been completed. Applicants should arrange with the local building official or HHC staff for a code review or site inspection early in the project planning and budgeting phases, so as to assure that all code deficiencies are identified, budgeted and correctly resolved. In those instances where various codes and regulations govern a given condition, the terms of the highest or most restrictive standard shall apply. When work is performed on a component of an existing system, the entire system shall be required to meet minimum standards and local code requirements. New construction shall be in accordance with local building code requirements. Final disbursement of HHC funds may be withheld until all code related improvements have been approved by the local building official and/or all other identified deficiencies have been corrected and inspected by HHC. References:  2000 International Building Code.  MN State Building Code, Chapter 1300-1370, 2003.  MN Statute Chapter 326 (Licensing of building and remodeling contractors)  HUD Housing Quality Standards, 24 CFR, Chapter 8, Article 882.109  MN Plumbing Code, Chapter 4715, 2003  Uniform Mechanical Code, 1991.  MN Amendments Uniform Mechanical Code.  National Electrical Code, 2002  Any applicable local, municipal, county state codes, ordinances, zoning regulations, or housing maintenance standards. III. Energy Codes and Standards Energy-efficiency features that are considered as cost effective, given consideration to local climatic conditions and fuel prices, shall be required with the funding of HHC projects. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 4 New construction shall be governed by the energy codes and standards of the State of Minnesota. Energy improvements proposed as part of the rehabilitation may be restricted in structures that do not permit accessibility or become exposed during the rehabilitation and which are not practical when considering economic feasibility, program needs and the material and type of construction involved. For existing multi-family structures, three or more dwelling units, HHC may require that the owner/applicant contract with an energy auditor who is certified by the State of Minnesota or licensed as a mechanical engineer to perform an energy audit on the structure and to identify energy saving measures and costs. The following building components shall be evaluated for energy and cost savings (with the exception of those that are not appropriate for the building type or equipment):  Quantities and costs of current energy consumption, by fuel type  Attic, walls, crawl space and foundation insulation  Heat loss through windows and doors  Caulking and weather-stripping  Vapor barriers, vapor transmission and venting, and moisture condensation  Hot water and forced-air heating systems and equipment  Domestic water systems and fixtures  Heating/venting/air conditioning systems, equipment, motors, controls and metering  Electrical service and metering  Interior and exterior common area lighting Where the energy audit identifies excessive energy consumption or alternatives for energy conservation, the applicant/owner shall perform all those conservation measures that will provide seven years or better payback. Other conservation measures with a seven-to-ten payback shall be eligible and considered viable for HHC funding. References:  MN Energy Code, Chapters 7670, 7672, 7674  International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2000)  HUD Regulations 24 CFR part 39: “Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency (Conservation) Standards for Rehabilitation of Residential Properties” HHC also encourages funded project to include the following design features to help reduce energy expenditures, enhance the health, well-being and productivity of the building occupants in funded projects: Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 5  Minnesota Housing Overlay to the MN Green Communities Criteria. www.mnhousing.gov  Sustainable Design. www.sustainabledesignguide.umn.edu  Energy Star products, standards and building certification. www.energystar.gov  The Principals of Universal Design. “The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.” More information can be found at The Center for Universal Design. www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ IV. Fair Housing and Handicapped Accessibility Regulations and Statutes Projects may require certain design provisions and/or construction features to accommodate accessibility and occupancy by mentally or physically disabled persons. Federal Regulations 24 CFR Part 8, which implements Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, stipulates for other rehabilitation projects “…alterations to dwelling units in a multi-family housing project (including public housing) shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be made to be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. If alterations of single elements or spaces of a dwelling unit, when considered together, amount to an alteration of a dwelling unit, the entire dwelling unit shall be made accessible. Once five percent of the dwelling units in a project are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with mobility impairments, then no additional elements of dwelling units, or entire dwelling units, are required to be accessible under this paragraph. Alterations to common areas or parts of facilities that affect accessibility of existing housing facilities shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be made to be accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. For purposes of this paragraph, the phrase “to the maximum extent feasible” shall not be interpreted as requiring that the recipient (including a PHA) make a dwelling unit, common area, facility or element thereof accessible if doing so would impose undue financial and administrative burdens on the operation of the multifamily housing project.” When the anticipated cost of a rehabilitation project consisting of 15 units or more is at least 75 percent of the project replacement cost (excluding land), the accessibility and adaptability requirements are the same as new construction. New construction projects must be designed to meet the UFAS standards. The also must be constructed with five percent of the dwelling units (a minimum of one unit) shall be accessible and adaptable to persons with physical mobility impairments and two percent (a minimum of one unit) shall be accessible to hearing or vision-impaired persons. These units cannot be the same units. References:  Fed. Reg., 29 U.S.C. 794: “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973”  Fed. Reg., 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619: “Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968” Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 6  Fed Reg., 24 CFR Part 8: “Non-discrimination Based on Handicap in Federally Assisted Programs and Activities; Final Rule; June 2, 1968”  Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) (Fed. Std. 795, April 1, 1988)  American National Standard Specifications for Making Buildings and Facilities Accessible to and Usable by Physically Handicapped People (ANSI 117.1, 1980)  MN State Building Code, Chapter 1340: “Facilities for the Handicapped”  Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988  Americans with Disabilities Act, July 26, 1990 V. Additional Construction and Rehabilitation Standards Required HHC reserves the right, where deemed appropriate, to require a standard of quality and performance that may exceed the minimum standards of applicable codes, ordinances or regulations. A work write-up that identifies the improvements and specifies the type of work needed to meet the Construction and Rehabilitation Standards shall be required for all HOME projects. All projects require an inspection of the subject property and evaluation of the current physical condition of the site, building (s) and other real estate features, in conjunction with the applicant’s proposed rehabilitation scope of work. Based on a comparison of the applicant’s proposed work scope and the actual physical condition of the property, HHC may elect to require the applicant to increase or otherwise modify their proposed scope of work to include repair, replacement or reconstruction of physical elements that have failed or are in danger of failing. In lieu of immediate repair or replacement, HHC may elect to require the applicant to escrow; at loan closing, sufficient funds to cover anticipated future repair or replacement costs. Depending on the scale of the project, HHC may require two or three acceptable competitive bids for the proposed work. Projects involving 12 or more HOME assisted units shall abide by the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act and the other Federal laws and regulations that pertain to labor standards and HUD Handbook 1344.1 (Federal Law Standard Compliance in Housing and Community Development Programs), as applicable. Bids for projects of 12 or more units must be secured from General Contractors and not from individual trades. HHC reserves the right to extend this requirement to any project. Each existing development shall be evaluated and underwritten on an individual, case-by- case basis to achieve these two equally fundamental goals after rehabilitation. 1. The property shall provide affordable safe, secure, sanitary and functional housing, where its residents can reasonable expect to peacefully reside with dignity and pride. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 7 2. The property shall have a high likelihood of remaining safe, viable and affordable housing by employing prudent management of the property and its resources for the full term of the HHC’s loan. Property owners are encouraged to secure advice and assistance on issues pertaining to codes, regulations and standards from HHC, local building officials, architects, engineers, contractors or other qualified parties or individuals. VI. Material Standards and Installation For homeownership and homeowner rehabilitation projects, all installed materials shall be new and of medium grade and quality. Colors, patterns, fixtures or as specified in th e work write-up shall be furnished by the contractor from the supplier’s available selection. The applicant shall be responsible for costs that exceed a specified cost allowance. The quality of installation shall be in compliance with manufacturer’s specifications and trade standards. All operational manuals for newly installed equipment shall be given to the applicant/owner. All surplus materials delivered to the job site and all materials, fixtures and equipment removed and not reused shall remain or become the property of the contractor and its subcontractors and shall be removed from the job site promptly after completion as well as all rubbish and debris resulting from the contractor’s operations. The premises shall be left in broom-clean condition. For rental projects, HHC has adopted the minimum design construction and material standards included in the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Multi-family Technical Handbook. This handbook is available on-line or by request from the MHFA. VII. Asbestos, Radon and Other Environmental Hazards Asbestos is a mineral fiber that separates into strong, very fine fibers. Until1970, asbestos was found in a variety of products. The asbestos fibers were added to strengthen and provide heat insulation and fire fibers were added to strengthen and provide heat insulation and fire resistance to materials. The asbestos material, when disturbed (can be crushed by hand pressure or the surface if not sealed), may release fibers, which can be inhaled into the lungs and may create a health hazard. The risk of lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma increases with the number of fibers inhaled. Common products that might have contained asbestos and could release fibers include:  Steam pipes, boilers and furnace ducts insulated with an asbestos blanket or paper tape.  Resilient floor tiles (vinyl asbestos, asphalt, and rubber), the backing on vinyl sheet flooring, and adhesives used for installing floor tile.  Cement sheet, millboard and paper used as insulation around furnaces and wood burning stoves.  Door gaskets in furnaces, wood stoves and coal stoves.  Soundproofing or decorative material sprayed on walls and ceilings.  Patching and joint compounds for walls and ceilings, and textured paints. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 8  Asbestos cement roofing, shingles, and siding.  Artificial ashes and embers sold for use in gas-fired fireplaces. When asbestos is positively identified by testing and is endangering the occupant, the asbestos shall be repaired, encapsulated or removed as determined by a qualified and licensed asbestos abatement professional. Radon is an invisible, odorless, radioactive gas produced by the decay of uranium in rock and soil. Radon decays into radioactive particles, which inhaled, may cause damage to lung tissues and increase the risk of lung cancer. If the results of the testing, made under closed-house conditions in the lowest livable area are greater than 4 pCi/L then mitigation should be made. The two most common radon measurements devised are the charcoal canister and the alpha track detector. In detached houses and existing structures, the following approaches can be used for mitigation: (per EPA recommendations)  Sealing off entry routes – can include covering exposed earth with concrete or gas-proof liners, sealing cracks and voids in concrete walls and floors, covering sumps and placing removable plugs in untrapped floor drains.  House ventilation – involves increasing a house’s airexchange rate (the rate at which incoming fresh air replaces existing indoor air) either naturally by opening windows or vents, or mechanically through use of fans or heat recovery ventilators.  Soil Ventilation – prevents radon from entering a house be drawing the gas away from the foundation before it can enter. Active ventilation techniques include hollow black wall ventilation and sub-slab ventilation. For funding an environmentally hazardous condition that constitutes a danger or threatens the health and safety of the occupants or neighboring area the condition shall be properly identified and documented for the type of hazard, the degree of health or environmental risk involved and the process for remedial action with a detailed plan. All work shall comply with governing regulations and codes. HHC reserves the right to determine the scope of work and to deny funding should the corrective/abatement cost exceed the HOME funds available after the rehabilitation work. References:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1988: “Asbestos in the Home: A Homeowner’s Guide”  MN Department of Health, February 1992: “Guidelines for Developing an Effective Asbestos Control Plan”  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1986; “Radon Reduction Techniques for Detached Houses” (Technical Guidance)  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1987:“Radon Reduction Methods: A Homeowner’s Guide:  MN Indoor Air Quality Task Force, May 1987: “MN Homeowner’s Guide to Radon” Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 9 VIII. Lead Hazard Evaluation and Reduction This section of the manual provides a detailed description of the lead hazard evaluation and lead hazard reduction requirements for rehabilitation using HOME funding. This section does not describe requirements for Lead Hazard Evaluation and Reduction if a “lead order” has been issued by an assessing agency or if work is considered “regulated lead work”, as defined by the Minnesota Department of Health. While this description is comprehensive, project owners should consult the regulation itself for the exact requirements. In 1978, the Federal government banned the use of lead in paint. Paint produced before 1950 typically had the highest lead content. It is, therefore, a reasonable assumption that housing constructed prior to 1978 has a high probability of having lead-based paint. Housing built prior to 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Deteriorated lead based paint (chalking, flaking, peeling, cracked or loose) poses the greatest hazard, as lead particles and dust can be released to the surrounding environment, and thus may be inhaled or eaten by a building’s occupants. Intact lead-based paint on chewable surfaces (window sills, doors, handrails, etc.) also poses a health risk, as young children and infants may ingest lead by chewing on these surfaces. On September 15, 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a new regulation to protect young children from lead-based paint hazards in housing that is financially assisted by the Federal government or being sold by the government. It went into effect on September 15, 2000. The regulation, “Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing Receiving Federal Assistance,” appears within title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as part 35 (24 CFR 35). It contains lead hazard evaluation and reduction requirements for properties receiving HUD funding. Since the HOME Program is a federally funded program provided by HUD, the HUD lead- based paint regulation shall apply to housing developments receiving HOME funds. However, not all housing developments are covered by the HUD lead-based paint regulation. Types of Housing Covered by the new HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulation  Federally owned housing being sold  Housing receiving a Federal subsidy that is associated with the property, rather than with the occupants (project-based assistance)  Public housing  Housing occupied by a family (with a young child) receiving a tenant-based subsidy (such as a voucher or certificate)  Multifamily housing for which mortgage insurance is being sought  Housing receiving Federal assistance for rehabilitation, reducing homelessness, and other special needs (e.g.: HOME Program) Types of Housing Not Covered by HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulation  Housing built since January 1, 1978, when lead paint was banned for residential use Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 10  Housing exclusively for the elderly or people with disabilities, unless a child under age 6 is expected to reside there  Zero-bedroom dwellings, including efficiency apartments, single room occupancy housing, dormitories, or military barracks  Property that has been found to be free of lead-based paint by a certified lead- based paint inspector  Property where all lead-based paint has been removed  Unoccupied housing that will remain vacant until it is demolished  Non-residential property  Any rehabilitation or housing improvement that does not disturb a painted surface. Other Federal Lead Regulations In addition to the HUD lead regulations there are other Federal regulations that deal with lead based paint safety. They are:  OSHA’s Lead Regulations. (29 CFR 1926.62 and 29 CFR 1910.1025) These regulations cover Federal worker protection requirements for workers in industry, construction, remodeling, and renovation.  EPA’s Lead Regulations (40 CFR 745 and 40 CFR 745.80) These regulations cover Federal regulations for disposal of lead waste and contractor notification requirements. Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) The State of Minnesota also has requirements for lead-based paint hazard surveillance, prevention, evaluation, and reduction. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is in charge of licensing and certification of the lead worker, lead supervisor, lead inspector, lead risk assessor, lead project designer, and lead firm. If an assessing agency has issued a “lead order” or if work is considered “regulated lead work” the requirements for lead hazard evaluation and lead hazard reduction shall comply with Minnesota Statutes 144.9501 to 144.9509. Visual Assessment Every HOME assisted housing unit shall have a Visual Assessment conducted by a person trained to identify deteriorated paint (e.g., HQS inspector, rehab specialist). The visual assessment is a surface-by-surface inspection for deteriorated paint consisting of a visual search for cracking, scaling, chalking, peeling, or chipping paint. HUD also recommends that the visual assessment should also include a search for dust and debris, including paint chips. Any deteriorated paint shall be documented in an inspection report. The person(s) conducting the visual assessment for deteriorated paint must be trained using the Visual Assessment Training Module that is available at the HUD website. This visual assessment is normally Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 11 conducted at time of initial inspection and for rental properties on an annual basis as part of the post rehabilitation activities and ongoing maintenance. Rehabilitation Assistance Lead-based paint requirements for rehabilitation developments using HOME funds fall into three categories, which are dependent on the average per unit amount of Federal rehabilitation assistance provided. The three categories are:  Assistance of up to and including $5,000 per unit  Assistance of more that $5,000 per unit up to and including $25,000 per unit  Assistance of more than $25,000 per unit Calculating Rehabilitation Assistance HUD has established a “dual threshold” method of calculating the level of rehabilitation assistance that applies to a rehabilitation development. The level of rehabilitation assistance is determined by taking the lower of: Per unit rehabilitation hard costs  Rehabilitation hard costs are the actual costs, regardless of funding source, associated with the physical development of a unit. It excludes: Soft costs, acquisition of property, program administration, relocation, lead-based paint hazard evaluation costs, and lead based paint hazard reduction costs.  If all the units in a multi-unit development are Federally assisted, the average rehabilitation is calculated by dividing the total rehab hard costs for the development by the total number of units.  If there are both Federally assisted units and non-assisted units in a multi- unit development use the following formula: a/c + b/d Where: a=Rehabilitation hard costs, as defined above, for all assisted dwelling units (not including common areas and exterior surfaces); b=Rehabilitation hard costs, as defined above, for common areas and exterior surfaces; c=Number of Federally assisted dwelling units in the development; d=Total number of dwelling units in the development. -OR- Per unit Federal assistance  Includes: All Federal funds provided to the development including funds from program income, typically HOME and CDBG. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 12  Excludes: Funding such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits and funds provided under the US Department of Energy’s Weatherization Program. The per unit Federal assistance is the total Federal assistance divided by the total number of Federally assisted dwelling units in the development. Example: A 10-unit property is receiving $140,000 in HOME Rental Rehab funds for rehabilitation. All units (10) are HOME-assisted. The total applicable rehabilitation hard costs for the development are $300,000. What category of rehabilitation assistance would apply? The per unit rehabilitation hard cost is: $300,000/10 units = $30,000 The per unit Federal assistance is: $140,000/10 units = $14,000 The lesser of the two. The category into which a rehabilitation job falls is determined by the lesser of the two threshold numbers. In this example per unit Federal assistance ($14,000) is the lesser number, so the applicable requirements would be those for the $5,001 - $25,000 category. Major Rehabilitation Requirements of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Regulation The new HUD regulations will require Projects to make moderate adjustments to their rehabilitation procedures. These adjustments will include providing notice to occupants, obtaining a risk assessment or presuming the presence of lead, focusing on lead-safe work practices and repairing paint deterioration, conducting interim controls or standard treatments, and obtaining a clearance examination. Projects involved in HOME rehabilitation activities must meet the requirements in the following areas:  Notification  Lead Hazard Evaluation  Lead Hazard Reduction  On-going Maintenance  Record Keeping Notification Projects must meet three notification requirements: 1. Distribution of Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet (24 CFR 35.130). 2. Notice of Lead Hazard Evaluation or Presumption (24 CFR 35.125). 3. Notice of Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Activity (24 CFR 35.125) Evaluation and Lead Hazard Reduction There are three approaches to implementing lead hazard evaluation and reduction for rehabilitation developments. They are as follows: (See Summary of Four Basic Strategies for Lead Hazard Evaluation and Control, Exhibit “A”). Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 13  Strategy 1. Do no harm  Strategy 3. Assess and control lead-based paint hazards  Strategy 4. Assess and abate lead-based paint hazards NOTE: Not listed above is Strategy 2. “Identify and Stabilize Deteriorated Paint”, because it does not apply to rehabilitation. The amount of Federal rehabilitation assistance provided dictates which strategy is to be used and the appropriate method of lead hazard evaluation and lead hazard reduction. Lead Hazard Evaluation Methods 1. Paint Testing. Paint testing entails testing selected painted surfaces (usually those surfaces with paint deterioration and surfaces that will be disturbed during rehab) to determine if they contain lead-based paint, using methods such as portable XRF (X- ray fluorescence) lead-in-paint analyzer or laboratory analysis of paint chip samples. A certified lead inspector or Risk Assessor must complete paint testing. Option: The borrower may presume that lead-based paint is present or that lead based paint hazards exist or both. In such cases, evaluation is not required. 2. Risk Assessment (24 CFR 35.120-b). Risk Assessment involves the process of determining and then reporting the existence, nature, severity, and location of lead- based paint hazards in housing through an on-site investigation and the possible means of correcting any hazards identified. Risk Assessments must be completed by a certified Risk Assessor. Option: The borrower is permitted to conduct a Lead Hazard Screen (24 CFR 35.120-b and 35.1320-c) instead of a risk assessment. The lead hazard screen has more stringent requirements for dust lead and soil lead and is only advisable in units that are in good condition and built after 1970. If the lead hazard screen indicates that there is no lead contamination, no risk assessment or lead hazard reduction is required. If the lead hazard screen fails, the Projects must then conduct a full risk assessment. Lead Hazard Reduction Methods (24 CFR 35.1325 and 35.1330) Lead hazard reduction methods refer to specific types of treatments to control lead-based paint hazards. As described previously, the level of Federal assistance dictates what method(s) can be used for lead hazard reduction. They are as follows: 1. Paint Stabilization. (24 CFR 35.1330-b) This lead hazard reduction method reduces exposure to lead-based paint by repairing any physical defect in the substrate of a painted surface that is causing paint deterioration, removing loose paint and other material from the surface to be treated, and applying a new protective coating or paint. 2. Interim Controls. (24 CFR 35.1330) Interim controls temporarily reduce exposure to lead-based paint hazards through repairs, painting, maintenance, special cleaning, Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 14 occupant protection measures, clearance, and education programs. With continued maintenance, interim controls may last for many years. 3. Standard Treatments. (24 CFR 35.120-a and 35.1335) In some cases standard treatments may be conducted in lieu of interim controls on all applicable surfaces, including soil, to control lead-based paint hazards that may be present. All standard treatment methods must follow the same safe work practices and clearance requirements that apply to interim control activities. 4. Abatement. (24 CFR 35.1325) Abatement permanently eliminates lead-based paint and/or lead based paint hazards by removing lead-based paint or permanently encapsulating or enclosing the lead-based paint, replacing components with lead based paint, removing lead-contaminated dust and removing or permanently covering lead- contaminated soil. Encapsulation and enclosure require ongoing maintenance to check their effectiveness. Qualifications To Perform Lead Hazard Reduction Workers performing paint stabilization, standard treatment or interim controls must be trained in accordance with the OSHA requirements (29 CFR 1926.59) and either: 1. Be supervised by an individual certified as a lead-based paint abatement supervisor (40 CFR 745.225), or 2. Have successfully completed one of the following courses:  A lead-based paint abatement worker course accredited in accordance with 40 CFR 745.225;  The Lead-Based Paint Maintenance Training Program-Work Smart, Work Wet, and Work Clean to Work Lead Safe, prepared by the National Environmental Training Association for EPA and HUD;  The HUD/NARI Lead Remodeler’s Training Program, developed by HUD and the National Association of the Remodeling Industry; or  An equivalent course approved by HUD. Workers performing abatement must have completed a Lead-Based Paint Abatement Worker course accredited by EPA. A lead-based paint abatement supervisor certified under a state program authorized by EPA or by EPA itself, must supervise these workers. Safe Work Practices (24 CFR 35.1350) Regardless of what method of lead hazard reduction is used, safe work practices shall be followed. Safe work practices include occupant protection, worksite preparation, avoidance of prohibited practices and worksite clean up. Exception: Safe work practices are not required when maintenance or hazard reduction is less than the following “De Minimus Levels”:  20 s.f. on exterior surfaces  2 s.f. in any one interior room or space Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 15  10% of the total surface area on an interior or exterior component with small surface area. (e.g. windowsill, trim, baseboards, etc.) Relocation and Occupant Protection (24 CFR 35.1345) Appropriate actions must be taken to protect occupants from lead-based paint hazards associated with lead hazard reduction activities. Occupants may not enter the worksite during lead hazard reduction activities. Occupants may not enter the worksite during lead hazard reduction activities. Reentry is permitted only after lead hazard reduction activities are completed and the dwelling has passed a clearance examination. Occupants of the unit must be temporarily relocated to a suitable unit that is decent, safe, sanitary, and free of lead-based paint hazards during lead hazard reduction activities. Relocation must be done before lead hazard reduction activities begin. Borrower must protect occupants’ belongings from lead contamination during lead hazard reduction activities by relocating or covering and sealing them and ensure that the worksite is secured against entry during nonworking hours until the unit passes a clearance examination. Circumstances when Occupant Relocation is Not Required Renovation and intervention will not disturb lead-based paint or lead contaminated dust. Hazard reduction activities inside will be completed within one period in eight daytime hours, the site will be contained and the work will not create other safety, health or environmental hazards. Exterior-only treatment where the windows, doors, ventilation intakes and other openings near the worksite are sealed during hazard reduction activities and cleaned afterward, and a lead-free entry is maintained. Hazard reduction activities will be completed within five calendar days; the work area is sealed; at the end of each day, the area within 10 feet of the containment area is cleared of debris; occupants have safe access to sleeping areas, bathroom and kitchen facilities; and treatment does not create other safety, health or environmental hazards. At no time can occupants be permitted into the worksites, unless they are employed in the work, until after the work is complete and clearance, if required, has been achieved. HUD has advised that relocation of elderly occupants is not typically required, so long as complete disclosure of the nature of the work is provided and informed consent of the elderly occupant(s) is obtained before commencement of the work. (See “Interpretive Guidance—The HUD Regulation on Controlling Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing Receiving Federal Assistance and Federally Owned Housing Being Sold,” 6/22/00 edition.) Clearance (24 CFR 35.1340) A clearance examination involves a visual assessment and dust testing to determine if the unit is safe for re-occupancy following a lead hazard reduction activity. Clearance following abatement shall be performed by persons certified to perform risk assessments or lead-based paint inspections. A certified clearance technician may Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 16 perform clearance following activities, other than abatement. If the test results equal or exceed the designated standards (24 CFR 35.1320-b 2), the dwelling unit, worksite, or common area fails the clearance examination. Below are the thresholds for clearance: Floors Interior Window Sills Window Troughs Lead in Dust (as measured by a dust wipe sample) 40 250 800 Ongoing Maintenance (24 CFR 35.1355) All borrowers must institute ongoing maintenance of painted surfaces and safe work practices as part of regular building operations. This includes: A visual inspection of lead- based paint annually and at unit turn-over; repair of all unstable paint; and repair of encapsulated or enclosed areas that are damaged.  Ongoing Maintenance Records—Borrowers must keep ongoing maintenance records and records of relevant building operations for use during reevaluations.  Borrowers and their maintenance personnel must be trained in ongoing lead based paint maintenance. Documentation and Records (24 CFR 35.175) There are numerous records that Projects must keep to verify that they conducted the required lead hazard response activities. These records must be kept for at least three years after the five-year compliance period has elapsed. Projects are required to provide a copy of any of the following records to MHFA and HUD upon request:  Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet—A record of the distribution of the lead hazard information pamphlet.  Notification of Lead Hazard Evaluation and Reduction—The Projects must keep a copy of each notification of lead hazard evaluation report and lead hazard reduction.  Lead Hazard Evaluation Reports—A copy must be kept of each report of risk assessment, paint testing or lead-based inspection.  Clearance and Abatement Reports.  Lead-Based Pain Summary Sheet and Checklist (LBP-1) Requirements for Federal Assistance of $5,000 Per Unit or Less “Do No Harm” Lead Hazard Evaluation—Paint testing must be conducted to identify lead-based paint on painted surfaces that will be disturbed or replaced, or Projects may presume that these surfaces contain lead-based paint. If paint testing is conducted and no lead-based paint is found, no further requirements apply. Lead Hazard Reduction—Projects must repair all paint that is disturbed during Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 17 rehabilitation if such paint is found or presumed to be lead-based paint. If lead paint is detected or presumed, safe work practices must be used during rehabilitation unless no more than 2 square feet of paint is disturbed in any interior room, no more than 20 square feet of paint on exterior surfaces is disturbed, and/or 10% of a building component with a small surface area (such as a painted window frame) is disturbed. Clearance is required only for the worksite. Clearance is not required if it is known that no lead based paint has been disturbed or if no more than 2 square feet of paint is disturbed in any interior room, no more than 20 square feet of paint on exterior surfaces is disturbed, and/or 10% of a building component with a small surface area (such as a painted window frame) is disturbed. Requirements for Federal Assistance of $5,001 to $25,000 Per Unit “Assess and Control Lead Hazards” Lead Hazard Evaluation There are two requirements, as follows:  Paint testing must be conducted to identify lead-based paint on painted surfaces that will be disturbed or replaced, or Projects may presume that these surfaces contain lead-based paint.  A risk assessment must be conducted prior to rehabilitation to find lead-based paint hazards throughout assisted units, in common areas that service those units, and on exterior surfaces, or Projects may presume that lead-based paint hazards exist and use Standard Treatments option. Lead Hazard Reduction—If lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards are detected during the evaluation on interior surfaces in the dwelling units, common areas that service these units, or exterior surfaces, interim controls must be implemented to control lead- based paint hazards. If lead based paint is detected or presumed, safe work practices must be used during lead hazard reduction. Clearance conducted by a certified lead-based paint inspector, risk assessor or clearance/sampling technician is required after lead hazard reduction activities are completed in a unit, common areas serving the unit, and exterior areas where hazard reduction took place. A licensed lead risk assessor must sign Clearance/sampling technician reports. Options:  Standard Treatments in lieu of Evaluation  Lead Hazard Screen versus Risk Assessment (Recommended only on units that are in good condition.)  Abatement in lieu of interim control Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 18 Requirements for Federal Assistance Over $25,000 Per Unit “Assess and Abate Lead Hazards” Lead Hazard Evaluation The two requirements are as follows:  Paint testing must be conducted to identify lead-based paint on painted surfaces that will be disturbed or replaced, or Projects may presume that these surfaces contain lead-based paint.  A risk assessment must be conducted prior to rehabilitation to find lead-based paint hazards throughout assisted units, in common areas that service those units, and on exterior surfaces, or Projects may presume that lead-based paint hazards are present and abate all paint that is disturbed and all presumed lead-based paint hazards, including bare soil. Lead Hazard Reduction—If lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards are detected during the evaluation on interior surfaces in the dwelling units, common areas that service these units, or exterior surfaces, abatement must be implemented to control lead-based paint hazards. Exception: If lead-based paint hazards are identified on exterior surfaces that are not to be disturbed by rehabilitation, interim controls may be completed instead on these exterior hazards. Safe work practices must be used during lead hazard reduction. Clearance conducted by a certified lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor is required after lead hazard reduction activities are completed in a unit, common areas serving the unit, and exterior areas where hazard reduction took place. Options:  Presume Lead in lieu of Evaluation  Lead Hazard Screen versus Risk Assessment. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 19 EXHIBIT A FOUR APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTING LEAD HAZARD EVALUATION AND REDUCTION APPROACH 1. DO NO HARM Lead Hazard EVALUATION Lead Hazard REDUCTION OPTIONS Paint testing performed on surfaces to be disturbed. Repair paint surfaces disturbed during work. Safe work practices used when working on areas identified as lead based paint. Clearance performed. Forego paint testing and presume lead based paint is present and use safe work practices on all surfaces being disturbed. APPROACH 2. IDENTIFIY AND STABILIZE DETERIORATED PAINT Lead Hazard EVALUATION Lead Hazard REDUCTION OPTIONS Visual assessment performed to identify deteriorated paint. Paint stabilization of identified deteriorated paint. Safe work practices used. Clearance performed. Perform paint testing on deteriorated paint. Paint stabilization, safe work practices requirements, and clearance only apply if paint is lead based paint. APPROACH 3. IDENTIFY AND CONTROL LEAD HAZARDS Lead Hazard EVALUATION Lead Hazard REDUCTION OPTIONS Paint testing performed on surfaces to be disturbed. Interim controls performed on identified hazards. Safe work practices used. Clearance performed. Forego risk assessment and presume lead based paint and/or lead based paint hazards are present and perform standard treatments. APPROACH 4. IDENTIFY AND ABATE LEAD HAZARDS Lead Hazard EVALUATION Lead Hazard REDUCTION OPTIONS Paint testing performed on surfaces to be disturbed. Risk assessment performed on entire dwelling. Abatement performed on identified hazards. Interim controls performed on identified hazards on the exterior that are not disturbed by rehabilitation. Safe work practices used. Clearance performed. Forego paint testing and risk assessment presume lead based paint and/or lead based paint hazards are present and perform abatement on all applicable surfaces – deteriorated, impact, friction, chewable and surfaces to be disturbed. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 20 EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF LEAD BASED PAINT REQUIRMENTS BY ACTIVITY Rehabilitation (Subpart J) TBRA (Subpart M) A, L, SS, O) (Subpart K) ≤$5,000 $5001- 25,000 >$25,000 Homebuyer and Special Needs* Approach to Lead Hazard Evaluation and Reduction 1. Do No Harm 3. Identify and control lead hazards 4.Indentify and abate lead hazards 2. Identify and stabilize deteriorated paint 2. Identify and stabilize deteriorated paint Notification Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lead Hazard Evaluation Paint Testing Paint Testing and Risk Assessment Paint Testing and Risk Assessment Visual Assessment Visual Assessment Lead Hazard Reduction Repair surfaces disturbed during rehab Interim Controls Abatement (Interim Controls on exterior surfaces not disturbed by rehab) Paint Stabilization Paint Stabilization Safe work practices Clearance Safe work practices Clearance Safe work practices Clearance Safe work practices Clearance (only if lead) Safe work practices Clearance (only if lead) Ongoing Maintenance HOME rental only HOME rental only HOME rental only Yes Yes (if ongoing relationship) EIBLL Requirements No No No Yes No Options Presume lead based paint Use safe work practices Presume lead based paint and/or hazards Perform standard treatments Presume lead based paint and/or hazards Abatement on all applicable surfaces Paint testing on deteriorated paint. Paint stabilization Use safe work practices Paint testing on deteriorated paint. Paint stabilization Use safe work practices *Special Needs Housing may be subject to the requirements of Subpart J, M, or K depending on the nature of the assistance provided. However, since most special needs housing involves acquisition, leasing, support services, and operations, for the purposes of this table, it has been placed in this column. Construction & Rehabilitation Standards Page 21 EXHIBIT C NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM 3 (NSP3) REQUIRED STANDARDS ADDITIONS Hennepin County has added the following required by NSP, as follows: o All gut rehabilitation or new construction (i.e., general replacement of the interior of a building that may or may not include changes to structural elements such as flooring systems, columns or load bearing interior or exterior walls) of residential buildings up to three stories must be designed to meet the standard for Energy Star Qualified New Homes. o All gut rehabilitation or new construction of mid -or high-rise multifamily housing must be designed to meet American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2004, Appendix G plus 20 percent (which is the Energy Star standard for multifamily buildings piloted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy). o Other rehabilitation must meet these standards to the extent applicable to the rehabilitation work undertaken, e.g., replace older obsolete products and appliances (such as windows, doors, lighting, hot water heaters, furnaces, boilers, air conditioning units, refrigerators, clothes washers and dishwashers) with Energy Star-46 labeled products. o Water efficient toilets, showers, and faucets, such as those with the WaterSense label, must be installed. o Where relevant, the housing should be improved to mitigate the impact of disasters (e.g., earthquake, hurricane, flooding, fires). Hennepin County will also encourage inclusion of the following design features in all activities to help reduce energy expenditures, enhance the health, well-being and productivity of the building occupants in NSP assisted projects:  MINNESOTA HOUSING OVERLAY TO THE MN GREEN COMMUNITIES CRITERIA WWW.MNHOUSING.GOV  SUSTAINABLE DESIGN. WWW.SUSTAINABLEDESIGNGUIDE.UMN.EDU  ENERGY STAR PRODUCTS, STANDARDS AND BUILDING CERTIFICATION WWW.ENERGYSTAR.GOV  THE PRINCIPALS OF UNIVERSAL DESIGN; “THE DESIGN OF PRODUCTS AND ENVIRONMENTS TO BE USABLE BY ALL PEOPLE, TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ADAPTATION OR SPECIALIZED DESIGN.” MORE INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT THE CENTER FOR UNIVERSAL DESIGN. WWW.DESIGN.NCSU.EDU/CUD/ Hennepin Housing Consortium HOME Investment Partnership Program Construction Rehabilitation Standards City Council Agenda Item No. 6g COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Kevin Benner, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Agreement to Assist Brooklyn Park for Jail Service Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of a Cooperative Agreement with the City of Brooklyn Park regarding the use of the City of Brooklyn Center Police Department's Detention Center. Background: The City of Brooklyn Park Police Department is currently planning to remodel their building and has requested the shared use of the Brooklyn Center Police Department's detention facility during this construction period. The construction is anticipated to begin in later June 2014 and will include the temporary closure of their detention center for up to one year. During this shared use, the Brooklyn Park Police Department will provide 24-hour jailing staff at our detention center. Over the last three years, the number of prisoners held at our detention facility has decreased substantially. As a result, we no longer have staff assigned to it. When a prisoner is detained, our CSO staff is pulled from the street to staff the jail. A benefit to this shared use is that Brooklyn Park staff will relieve any need for our staff to be pulled from the street. The City of Brooklyn Park processes roughly 2,000 bookings per year, which can easily be accommodated at our eight cell detention center. The Brooklyn Center City Attorney has prepared the attached Cooperative Agreement. It formally defines responsibilities and provides Brooklyn Center with indemnification on matters relating to Brooklyn Park employees and arrestees that are housed at our detention center. The Cooperative Agreement has been reviewed by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and the Brooklyn Park City Attorney. The Brooldyn Park Police Department has temporarily used our detention center several times in the past without any concerns. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. All detention materials and staff will be provided by Brooklyn Park Police Department. Strategic Priorities: • Community Image Afission: 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 APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK REGARDING USE OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S DETENTION CENTER WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center received a request from the City of Brooklyn Park to use the City of Brooklyn Center's detention center for the detention of those arrested by the Brooklyn Park Police Department while its detention center is being remodeled; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Police Department and the Brooklyn Park Police Department work closely together and the Brooklyn Park Police Department has temporarily used the City of Brooklyn Center's detention center in the past; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines the requested temporary use of the City's detention center as provided in the proposed cooperative agreement is consistent with the continuing cooperative relationship between the cities and is in the best interests of the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, as follows: 1.The cooperative agreement entitled COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK is hereby approved. 2.The Mayor, City Manager, and Clerk are authorized to take, in cooperation with the Chief of Police, such actions as are needed to finalize the cooperative agreement and to execute it on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. June 9, 2014 Date ATTEST: Mayor 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. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this day of June, 2014 by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("Brooklyn Center") and the City of Brooklyn Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Brooklyn Park"). RECITALS A.Brooklyn Center owns and operates the Brooklyn Center Police Department Detention Center located at 6645 Humboldt Avenue in Brooklyn Center ("Detention Center") for the purposes of booking and, only occasionally and temporarily, housing those arrested by the Brooklyn Center Police Department ("Brooklyn Center PD"); B.Brooklyn Park is undertaking a remodel of its facilities, including its detention center which the Brooklyn Park Police Department ("Brooklyn Park PD") uses to book and provide for the extended detention of those it arrests; and C. Brooklyn Park desires to temporarily relocate its detention staff, its intake and booking activities, the housing and feeding of prisoners, and related activities (collectively referred to as Brooklyn Park's "detention activities") to Brooklyn Center's Detention Center during the remodel of its facility, and Brooklyn Center agrees to the relocation in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, Brooklyn Park's detention activities shall include those activities it agrees to perform on behalf of the Brooklyn Center PD as provided herein. AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions contained herein, Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park hereby agree as follows: 1.Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to allow Brooklyn Park to temporarily locate its detention activities to Brooklyn Center's Detention Center. The parties intend Brooklyn Center to be held harmless for agreeing to allow Brooklyn Park to temporarily use the Detention Center for Brooklyn Park PD's detention activities. Furthermore, the parties mutually agree that one of the purposes of this Agreement is to make it clear Brooklyn Park is solely responsible for its own detention activities, it will assist Brooklyn Center in the temporary housing of Brooklyn Center PD's prisoners, is required to clean and repair the Detention Center related to its activities, and will indemnify and defend Brooklyn Center against any claim or action arising from or related to Brooklyn Park PD's detention activities. The parties do not intend to exchange or borrow any employees. Each party shall be solely responsible for its own employees. 2.Use of Detention Center. Brooklyn Center agrees, for the term of this Agreement, to allow Brooklyn Park to use the Detention Center to house Brooklyn Park PD's detention activities in 443984v4 TJG BR291-343 1 accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The facilities and equipment available for use by Brooklyn Park shall include the following: (a)All portions of the Detention Center, including the front desk; and (b)The phones at the front desk. Brooklyn Park may elect to, at its own cost, reconnect and allow its prisoners to use the prisoner phones. 3. Detention Center Operations. The parties agree that during the term of this Agreement operations within the Detention Center shall be handled in accordance with the following: (a)Brooklyn Park will determine and set dispositions for arrests made by Brooklyn Park PD; (b)Brooklyn Center will determine and set dispositions for all arrests made by Brooklyn Center PD; (c)Brooklyn Park is responsible for meeting the needs of prisoners arrested by Brooklyn Park PD as well as the prisoners arrested by Brooklyn Center PD that are temporarily held in the Detention Center. The parties understand Brooklyn Center PD rarely holds its prisoners in the Detention Center and any such holds are for a limited period (not exceeding 8 hours). Instead, Brooklyn Center PD typically books its prisoners at the Detention Center and then immediately transfers them to the County for detention; (d)Brooklyn Park shall be responsible for cleaning the Detention Center and for making any repairs related to the detention activities for which it is responsible; (e) Brooklyn Park PD detention officers will assist Brooklyn Center PD in processing its arrests; (1) Brooklyn Park will ensure that the Detention Center is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by Brooklyn Park PD detention staff; (g)Brooklyn Park shall comply with Brooklyn Center PD's policies with respect to prisoners that may not be kept within the Detention Center and when prisoners need to be removed from the Detention Center and transferred to other facilities. Brooklyn Center retains the right to refuse to house any Brooklyn Park PD prisoner for any reason; (h)Brooklyn Center reserves the right to place limits on Brooklyn Park's use of the Detention Facility as needed to protect the Detention Center facilities and the processing and detention of Brooklyn Center PD's prisoners; and (i) The parties agree to have their respective police department supervisors promptly address any issues or conflicts that may arise in the use of the Detention Center or the implementation of the policies of the parties. 443984v4 TJG BR291-343 2 4. Brooklyn Park's Responsibilities. Brooklyn Park agrees that, for the purposes of this Agreement, it shall be responsible for the following: (a)It shall comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement in its use of the Detention Center; (b)It shall be responsible for all aspects of its detention activities, including the processing, feeding, and cleaning up after the prisoners; (c)It shall, in all respects, be responsible for its employees including, but not limited to, supervision, training, compensation, benefits, and liability; (d)It shall maintain insurance coverages for its employees and its detention activities for the entire term of this Agreement. The policy issued to Brooklyn Park by LMCIT shall be sufficient to satisfy this obligation; (e)It shall not interfere with the detention operations of Brooklyn Center PD; (f)It shall pay the invoices provided by Brooklyn Center for the "hard costs" for which Brooklyn Park is responsible under this Agreement; and (g) Comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations in carrying out detention activities and its obligations under this Agreement. 5. Brooklyn Center's Responsibilities. Brooklyn Center agrees that, for the purposes of this Agreement, it shall be responsible for the following: (a)It shall allow Brooklyn Park to use the Detention Center as provided in this Agreement; (b)It shall, as needed, prepare and send to Brooklyn Park invoices for the "hard costs" Brooklyn Park is responsible for paying under this Agreement. The invoice shall include a description of each cost item and amount; (c)It shall maintain insurance related to its operations, employees, and the Detention Center. The policy issued to Brooklyn Center by LMCIT shall be sufficient to satisfy this obligation; and (d)It shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations in carrying out detention operations and its obligations under this Agreement. 6. Costs. In furtherance of the cooperative relationship between Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, no rent shall be charged for Brooklyn Park's use of the Detention Center as provided in this Agreement. However, Brooklyn Park shall be responsible for reimbursing Brooklyn Center for any additional "hard costs" it may incur related to this arrangement including, but not limited to, any additional insurance premiums it may be required to pay, actual legal costs it incurs related to the preparation, negotiation, and execution of this Agreement, any costs it may incur to clean, repair, or to otherwise restore the Detention Center upon Brooklyn Park's 443984v4 TJG BR291-343 3 failure to complete such work within a reasonable time. Each such invoice for hard costs shall be due and payable within 30 days from the date of the invoice. 7.Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first written above and shall end on June 16, 2015, unless terminated earlier as provided herein. The parties may extend the term of this Agreement for up to an additional 90 days upon the execution of a written extension signed by the Police Chief and City Manager of both parties. 8.Termination. This Agreement may be terminated prior to the end of its scheduled term by the mutual written agreement of the parties, by either party upon giving at least 60 days' written notice of termination to the other party, or, if there is a material breach of any term of this Agreement, by the non-breaching party providing at least a 20-day written notice of breach and termination to the breaching party. By no later than the termination date of this Agreement, Brooklyn Park shall be responsible for removing its prisoners, personnel, and personal property from the Detention Center and for cleaning and otherwise restoring the Detention Center to substantially the same condition it was in prior to the term of this Agreement. 9.Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Brooklyn Park agrees to defend and indemnify Brooklyn Center, and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or related to the acts or omissions of Brooklyn Park, or its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, in carrying out, or failing to carry out, its obligations under this Agreement or its detention activities. The parties intend Brooklyn Park's indemnification obligation to be interpreted broadly so that Brooklyn Center is held harmless to the greatest extent possible for any claims brought or actions filed against Brooklyn Center arising from or in any way related to Brooklyn Park's detention activities including, but not limited to, claims for injury to, death of, or damage to the person or property of any third person. Brooklyn Center agrees to defend and indemnify Brooklyn Park, and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of or related to the acts or omissions of Brooklyn Center, or its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, in carrying out, or failing to carry out, its obligations under this Agreement. Under no circumstances, however, shall a party be required to pay on behalf of itself and another party, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, applicable to any one party. 10.Limitation on Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the activities of the parties undertaken pursuant to this Agreement shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the parties that they shall be deemed a single governmental unit for the purposes of determining total liability for damages as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, subdivision 1 a. Furthermore, for the purposes of that statute, each party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other party. This Agreement provides for Brooklyn Park to undertake certain activities on behalf of Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park is assuming responsibility for those activities and the claims, damages, losses, and expenses that may arise from those activities, but neither party is agreeing to be liable for the acts or omissions of the other party. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting or waiving any limitation on, or immunity from, liability to which either party, or any 443984v4 TJG BR291-343 4 of its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers are entitled to under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or otherwise. 11.Entire Agreement. This document, including the recitals which are incorporated herein, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties as to the temporary relocation of Brooklyn Park's detention activities to the Detention Center. Any amendment of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral and written agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement is valid only when signed by both parties. 12.Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 13.No Third Party Rights. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the signatories hereto. This Agreement shall not create or establish any rights in, or be construed as being for the benefit of, any third party. 14.Executed in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year first written above. BROOKLYN PARK Approved this day of , 2014. BY THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor City Manager Attest: Clerk 443984v4 TJG BR29I -343 5 BROOKLYN CENTER Approved this day of , 2014. BY THE CITY COUNCIL Mayor City Manager Attest: Clerk 443984v4 TJG BR291-343 6 City Council Agenda Item No. 8a COUNCH, ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 9, 2014 Curt Boganey, City Manager Nathan Reinhardt, Finance Director 184.4- Public Hearing for Host Approval of Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds by the Cities of Little Canada, Osseo, and North Oaks for Presbyterian Homes (Maranatha Care Center Project) Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider host approval to the issuance by the City of Little Canada, City of Osseo, and the City of North Oaks of revenue obligations, under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.1655, as amended, in order to refinance the Maranatha Care Center Project, located in the City. Background: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, proposes to finance a project consisting of refinancing outstanding taxable debt of Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, the proceeds of which were used for the acquisition, demolition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 83,960 square foot 97 bed skilled care center facility consisting of enhanced 13 double rooms and 71 single rooms, of which 32 beds are allocated for transitional care (the "Care Center"), located at 5409 69 th Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center. The project includes the addition of community space, consisting of a community room, activity room, food services, enlargement of therapy areas, and related amenities, with the construction of a new entrance to the Care Center, the expansion of parking facilities and construction of a "town center" connecting the Care Center to an existing assisted living facility located at 5415 69 th Avenue North in Brooklr Center, and the acquisition of an approximately 88,000 square foot 63 units located at 5415 69" Avenue North in Brooklyn Center. The project is owned by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, the Care Center is operated by Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, and the Assisted Living Facility is operated by Center Park Senior Apartments. The June 9 th , 2014 regular meeting will include a public hearing on this matter, notice of which was published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on May 22, 2014. Budget Issues: The Bonds will not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of Brooklyn Center. The issuance of the Bonds will not affect the City's credit rating. Strategic Priorities: 0 Financial Stability Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust BRIGGS EZ11211M.- MORGAN 2200 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis MN 55402-2157 tel 612.977.8400 fax 612.977.8650 June 2, 2014 BY E-MAIL Nate Reinhardt City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2113 Catherine J. Courtney (612) 977-8765 ccourtney@briggs.com Re: Host Approval of Issuance of Conduit Revenue Bonds by the Cities of Little Canada, Osseo, and North Oaks for Presbyterian Homes Dear Mr. Reinhardt and Councilmembers: This letter is to follow-up on discussions that we have had regarding consideration by the City of Brooklyn Center to granting consent to the City of Little Canada, the City of Osseo, and the City of North Oaks to act as issuers, in 2014, of 501(c)(3), bank-qualified revenue bonds (the "Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be loaned to Maranatha Conservative Baptist Homes, Inc. ("MCBH") and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc. ("CPSA"), affiliates of Presbyterian Homes and Services (jointly and severally, the "Borrower"), to be used to refinance a project located in Brooklyn Center. Briggs and Morgan, P.A. is acting as bond counsel on the issuance of such Bonds. It is anticipated that the Bonds will be directly purchased by Anchor Bank, N.A. The Bonds will be used for the purpose of refinancing, in part, outstanding taxable debt of the Borrower (the "Prior Obligations"), the proceeds of which were used for (i) the refinancing of the acquisition and demolition of an existing care center, (ii) the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 83,960 square foot 97 bed skilled care center facility consisting of 13 double rooms and 71 single rooms, of which 32 beds are allocated for transitional care (the "Care Center"), located at 5409 69th Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ("Brooklyn Center"), including the addition of community space, consisting of a community room, activity room, food services, enlargement of therapy areas, and related amenities, the construction of a new entrance to the Care Center, and the expansion of parking facilities, (iii) construction of a "town center" connecting the Care Center to an existing assisted living facility located at 5415 69th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center (the "Town Center"), and (iv) refinancing the acquisition of an approximately 88,000 square foot 63-unit assisted living facility consisting of 5 studio, 39 one bedroom and 19 two bedroom units located at 5415 69th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center (the "Assisted Living Facility" and, with the Care Center and the Town Center, the "Project"). The Project is owned by the Borrower, the Care Center is operated by MCBH, and the Assisted Living Facility is operated by CPSA. The purpose of the Briggs and Morgan, Professional Association Minneapolis I St. Paul I www.briggs.com Member - Lex Mundi, a Global Association of Independent Law Firms 6279922v1 BRIGGS AND MORGAN Nate Reinhardt June 2, 2014 Page 2 current refinancing is interest savings. There will be no additional improvements to the Project as a result of this transaction. The Bonds will be issued as bank-qualified bonds since none of the issuers currently reasonably expect to issue their own bonds or bonds on behalf of any other 501(c)(3) organization, and the Bonds issued by any one issuer will not be in an amount greater than $10,000,000 in 2014. Because the entire financing will be approximately $20,000,000, and because Brooklyn Center does not have sufficient bank qualification capacity on its own, it is proposed that the cities of Little Canada, Osseo, and North Oaks will issue the Bonds for the Project. Little Canada will issue bonds in the anticipated principal amount of $3,000,000. It is expected that Osseo will issue bonds in the principal amount of $7,000,000 and that North Oaks will issue bonds in the principal amount of $10,000,000. State and federal laws allow local government units to enter into arrangements to issue bonds and loan the proceeds to nonprofit corporations to finance or refinance capital expenditures. This assistance reduces borrowing costs for nonprofit corporations and enables them to provide their services more cost effectively. It is a fairly common means of obtaining necessary financing for all nonprofit entities, including health care and senior housing facilities. To accomplish this purpose, each of the issuing cities will enter into a Loan Agreement with the Borrower under which the Borrower will agree to pay all principal and interest on the Bonds. The issuing city will assign all of its rights to payments under the Loan Agreements to a lender, in this case, Anchor Bank, N.A. (the "Lender"), who will purchase the Bonds and loan the purchase price of the Bonds directly to the Borrower. The issuing city is merely a conduit and the money and obligations flow only between the Lender and the Borrower. The Bonds will not to be payable from or charged upon any of Brooklyn Center's or the issuing cities' funds, other than the revenues received under the Loan Agreement and pledged to the payment of the Bonds, and none of Brooklyn Center or the issuing cities is subject to any liability on the Bonds. No holder of the Bonds will ever have the right to compel any exercise by Brooklyn Center of its taxing powers to pay any of the principal of the Bonds or the interest or premium thereon, or to enforce payment of the Bonds against any property of Brooklyn Center. The Bonds will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of Brooklyn Center. The Bonds are not moral obligations on the part of the State or its political subdivisions, including Brooklyn Center, and the Bonds will not constitute a debt of Brooklyn Center within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. The issuance of the Bonds will not affect Brooklyn Center's credit rating on bonds it issues for municipal purposes. 6279922v1 BRIGGS AND MORGAN Nate Reinhardt June 2, 2014 Page 3 Under federal and State law, in order for the Bonds to be tax exempt obligations, they must be issued upon approval by Brooklyn Center, following a public hearing. This requires that Brooklyn Center hold a public hearing and consent to the issuance of the Bonds by the issuing cities, which will also hold public hearings. Little Canada held its public hearing and gave final approval to the actual issuance of the Bonds and approved all related documents on May 28th. The cities of Osseo and North Oaks will hold their public hearings on June 9 th and June 12 th , respectively. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or comments. The Borrower appreciates the consideration of the City of Brooklyn Center in this matter. Very truly yours, Catherine J. Courtney CJC 6279922v1 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GIVING HOST APPROVAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF HEALTH CARE FACILITY REVENUE NOTES (MARANATHA CARE CENTER PROJECT) BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "City") as follows: Section 1. General Recitals. The purpose of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.1655 (the "Act"), as found and determined by the legislature, is to promote the welfare of the state by the active attraction and encouragement and development of economically sound industry and commerce to prevent so far as possible the emergence of obligated and marginal lands and areas of chronic unemployment; Section 2. Description of the Project. (a)Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("MCBH"), and Center Park Senior Apartments, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("CPSA" and, with MCBH, the "Borrower"), proposes to finance a Project consisting of refinancing, in part, outstanding taxable debt of the Borrower, the proceeds of which were used for (i) the refinancing of the acquisition and demolition of an existing care center, (ii) the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 83,960 square foot 97 bed skilled care center facility consisting of 13 double rooms and 71 single rooms, of which 32 beds are allocated for transitional care (the "Care Center"), located at 5409 69th Avenue North in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota ("Brooklyn Center"), including the addition of community space, consisting of a community room, activity room, food services, enlargement of therapy areas, and related amenities, with the construction of a new entrance to the Care Center, and the expansion of parking facilities, (iii) construction of a "town center" connecting the Care Center to an existing assisted living facility located at 5415 69th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center (the "Town Center"), and (iv) refinancing the acquisition of an approximately 88,000 square foot 63- unit assisted living facility consisting of 5 studio, 39 one bedroom and 19 two bedroom units located at 5415 69th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center (the "Assisted Living Facility" and, with the Care Center and the Town Center, the "Project"). The Project is owned by the Borrower, the Care Center is operated by MCBH, and the Assisted Living Facility is operated by CPSA; and (b)The Borrower has proposed that the City of Little Canada, Minnesota ("Little Canada"), the City of Osseo, Minnesota ("Osseo"), and the City of North Oaks, Minnesota ("North Oaks", and together with Little Canada and Osseo, the "Issuers") issue revenue obligations, in one or more series (the "Notes"), under the Act, in order to finance the Project, in the approximate aggregate principal amount not to exceed $20,000,000; and RESOLUTION NO. (c) The City has been advised that the Notes or other obligations, as and when issued, will not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City or the Issuers, except the Project and the revenues to be derived from the Project or other financed facilities. Such Notes or obligations will not be a charge against the general credit or taxing powers of the City or the Issuers, but is payable from sums to be paid by the Borrower pursuant to a revenue agreement. Section 3. Recital of Representations Made by the Borrower. (a)The Borrower has agreed to pay any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the issuance of the Notes, whether or not such issuance is carried to completion. (b)The Borrower has represented to the City that no public official of the City has either a direct or indirect financial interest in the Project nor will any public official either directly or indirectly benefit financially from the Project. Section 4. Public Hearing. (a)As required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the City's official newspaper and newspaper of general circulation, for a public hearing on the proposed issuance of the Notes and the proposal to undertake and finance the Project. (b)As required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code the City Council has on this same date held a public hearing on the issuance of the Notes and the proposal to undertake and refinance the Project located within the jurisdictional limits of the City, at which all those appearing who desired to speak were heard and written comments were accepted. Section 5. Host Approval. The City hereby gives the host approval required under the Code and, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §471.656, Subd. 2(2), the City Council hereby consents to the issuance of the Notes by the Issuers. June 9, 2014 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as such minutes relate to a resolution granting host approval to the issuance of revenue notes for a project in the City. WITNESS my hand this day of June, 2014. City Clerk City Council Agenda Item No. 8b COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist pyr:THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain Land from R4 Multiple Family Residence to R1 One Family Residence District, Located at 7100 Camden Avenue North (Ref.: Planning Application No. 2014-001) Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council, following consideration of this item under Second Reading and after Public Hearing, adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain land from R4 Multiple Family Residence to RI One Family Residence District, located at 7100 Camden Avenue North. Background: On May 1, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed under separate public hearing Planning Application No. 2014 001, submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone the city-owned lands located at 7100 Camden Avenue North (also legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Thomas Construction 2 nd Addition). The City is requesting a change from R4 Multiple Family Residence to R1 One Family Residence District, in order to facilitate the development of the city's new $18.2 million water treatment facility at this location. The Planning Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation to approve this rezoning request. At the May 12, 2014 meeting, the City Council initiated the rezoning of the subject property by accepting the recommendation from the Planning Commission; conducted the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance; and adopted Resolution No. 2014-60, which gave preliminary approval of the rezoning. The Council subsequently set a public hearing date for June 9, 2014 to provide final consideration of this rezoning matter. Attached for the City Council's review and final action is the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding the zoning classification of certain land generally located at 7100 Camden Avenue North, from R4 Multiple Family Residence to R1 One Family Residence District Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Community Image Mission: Ensuring anattractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 9 6 day of June, 2014, 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 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning Classification of Certain lands, generally located in the Northeast Quadrant Section of the City of Brooklyn Center, and located at 7100 Camden Avenue North. 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 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN LAND GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT SECTION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, LOCATED AT 7100 CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35-1130. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R4). The following properties are hereby established as being within the (R4) Multiple Family Residence District zoning classification: Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lots 1 and Lot 2 of Block 2, Thomas Construction Company 2nd Addition. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 2014. Mayor 1 ATTEST: City Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Note: (Strikeout text indicates matter to be deleted, while underline indicates new matter.) 2 E02 . ZONING MAP EXHIBIT 0 E>2 2 002 2 , CURRENT ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 7208 7200 7124 Srk r-747118 ,=•• .1 •1•1 ,:11 ,50 i1 692646925 _4161. k■t4r.1641kaL 22 rr:17411k-M .W74;11! 1 7250.. 4 7242- 0 :fl 7237 1■ 40 94 7-,,,._1 •P1-.4.-•— 1:4t .!,•';'1 1-7,1 -44,17231P 73-0 IX te5. ',7.1. t7225 4,1e 7226i.r-_- LL1 _._ _ 722til ■,, ,::1,7218 Ct r'1! ' 7216 70311- 7028 ).._117018 1.....-12 '•. VA_ _ r I '...1 --F27-71(11.2 . 121.74 kr7 ,1t.., \_(.1 2 rilWCF‘06 '4 11.371027—,.. Z. '1'4-7006) 't. 4,1—_/111 : trP 1.71___410 1 1..-*,' 4_1. t eit a v- A ..§. . 1.441111-1 1' s' P r 147000V ..,........1,12R ni r•naL.,:-. . 7-0TH AV 315 — 307: 3 911. S.1215,20.7 A-'7C`4 •_; `,3-, =.4 ar9r-i V - 7113k 4701 •24. ;7/1itS;710,7 ,t,k1 7191 .11005 70'7: NJ RY L. 7020) EVERGREEN PARK .69 .69111014.4 •A 6857: „44.4 '6919 6911 14.691p - '6900G.. .W68548,:al ■c•l 6640 .' J6839i 4 6836 1 6831- 6832.-;t-Ii1 6831 717J 84 .7.P114P J,S701}1 44 .1 800 City of Brooklyn Center's Water Treatment Plant Property 7100 Camden Avenue North Feet City Council Agenda Item No. 9a COUNCIL EM MEMO NDUM DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005 Submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools — ISD No. 281 Requesting Site Plan Approval for Certain Parking Lot Improvements for Northport Elementary School (5421 Brooklyn Boulevard). Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this planning application item, adopt the resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005 submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools — ISD No. 281 requesting Site Plan approval for certain parking lot improvements for Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. Background: On May 29, 2014 the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005 submitted by Brent Boelter of Inspec, Inc. and on behalf of ISD No. 282, requesting Site Plan approval of a new parking and bus drop-off area for Northport Elementary School. The plans call for the replacement of the existing (main) parking area, along with the addition of a new bus parking/drop-off area to the north area of the school, with access off Northport Drive. Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-05, in which the Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation approving the Site Plan for a new parking and bus drop-off area for Northport Elementary. Excerpts from the May 29, 2014 Commission meeting minutes, as related to this consideration of this matter, are also attached. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: Focused Redevelopment Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life all people and preserves the public trust. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-005 SUBMITTED BY ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS — ISD NO. 281 REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS FOR NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (5421 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005, submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools-ISD No. 281 requesting approval of a new Site Plan to reconstruct an existing parking lot and construct a new parking lot for the Northport Elementary School property, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005, and reviewed and received a planning report and city engineer's report on the proposed new Site Plans for the proposed Northport Elementary School Parking Lot Improvement plans; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and 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 Plan of the Northport Elementary School Parking Lot Improvements, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-005, may be approved based upon the following considerations: A.The Site Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; B.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; C.The Site Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; D.The Site 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 RESOLUTION NO. E. 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. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-05, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council that the that the Site Plan of the Northport Elementary School Parking Lot Improvements, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-005 may be approved with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005, submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools-ISD No. 281 requesting approval of a new Site Plan to reconstruct an existing parking lot and construct a new parking lot for the Northport Elementary School property, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2014-005 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.Any new trash enclosure or new locations for existing dumpsters and/or trash receptacles stored on this school property site must be approved by city staff. 2.The Applicant will ensure that lighting is maintained or directed downward into their site, and immediate measures will be taken to address or respond to any complaints from neighboring property owners. 3.The Applicant must submit a legal description and exhibits for the new drive entrance off Northport Drive; and enter into and approve an access easement agreement or similar (approved by the City Attorney) for accessing across city owned lands. 4.All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 05/19/14) and all other subsequent or updated conditions and information required must be submitted and/or fulfilled to the approval and satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property improvements and utility service lines prior to release of any current or updated performance guarantee. RESOLUTION NO. June 9, 2014 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. Northport Elementary School - Neighborhood Area Map -2014 1 OOKL 770 BRYN CENTER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 29, 2014 •Application Filed: 05/02/14 •Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/01/14 •Extension Declared: N/A •Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2014-005 Applicant: Inspec, Inc. (on behalf of Robbinsdale Area Schools - ISD No. 281) Location: 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site Plan Approval of a New Parking and Bus Drop-Off Parking Area for Northport Elementary School INTRODUCTION Inspec, Inc., on behalf of ISD No. 281 (Robbinsdale Area Schools) is requesting consideration of a Site Plan to the Northport Elementary School, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. This site plan is for the reconstruction and expansion of the front parking lot area and constructing a new bus drop-off/parking area to the north of the school grounds. This item is being presented as a general Planning Commission review item; without official public hearing. The Commission may take public comments if you so choose. BACKGROUND Northport Elementary was constructed in 1960, and is currently operated by the Robbinsdale Area Schools (ISD No. 281) as a kindergarten through 5 th grade school. The school has an enrollment of 550-600 students, with 90-100 teachers and support staff The school is located in an R1 (One Family Residence) zoning district; and is surrounded by Northport Park to the north; and single family uses to the east, south and west. ISD 281 is wrapping up an $18 million, five-year phased redevelopment, and improvement plan to this school. Most of these improvements have been for interior remodeling, small additions, and mechanical upgrades. The remaining phase includes the parking area improvements and outdoor playground improvements. The current layout of the school is currently served by one, large oblong shaped parking lot. Currently, all bus traffic (both drop-off and pick-ups), parent drop-off/pick-ups and teacher/visitor parking are handled in this single parking lot area. Robbinsdale School officials expressed to city staff that this combined bus and personal vehicle traffic creates many conflicts during peak drop-off/pick-up hours, and wanted to improve the overall safety and convenience by separating the bus traffic from the personal vehicle traffic. This improvement begins by reconstructing the old parking area with new, expanded parking lanes and providing lane separators and islands. The newest improvement will be the new bus drop-off and excess parking lot to the north of the school. This purpose of this report is to provide a brief analysis (both planning and engineering) on these site improvements, along with staff findings on this development plan. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 05/29/14 Page 1 • Scope of Improvements The plans begin with the complete removal of the front parking lot area and entrance drive from Brooklyn Blvd. This area is to be replaced (new bituminous pavement) with a slightly wider parking area to the east. The current parking layout contains two, double rows of internal parking lanes of 58 spaces along with 22 single-car (head-in) parking spaces along the south parking area and along the front entrance area to the school building, for 88 total spaces. The new parking layout provides 108 new spaces, laid-out in three, double-rows of interior parking, and the similar number of single car spaces along the south and front entrance areas. The current parking does not contain any parking islands or lane separators. The new plans illustrate new islands and lane separators, which is part of the Northport's desire to separate the parent/student drop-offs, and those that wish to park inside the lot. The new parking will also provide a new concrete walkway along the north edge of the parking lot, from Brooklyn Blvd. entrance to the north edge of the parking, which ties in to a new concrete walkway leading over to the new north parking area. The preliminary plans we reviewed with Robbinsdale School officials included a plan to install a trash enclosure inside the front parking area. Northport School currently keeps or maintains their dumpsters and food/waste refuse areas near the front section of the school. Northport initially wanted to relocate these trash containers away from the front of the school due to smells and appearances, but have an enclosure readily accessible for maintenance staffs. Planning and Engineering staff were not very supportive of this idea or plan, and suggested they provide an alternative location and design. The submitted plans (under review) no longer show this trash enclosure, and we suspect the school may leave the trash containers/enclosures in the current location. If the school elects to provide an alternative enclosure during or nearing completion of the parking lot construction, city staff will work with the Applicant/Northport officials in providing a suitable and acceptable location and design. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 05/29/14 Page 2 5895027 °E 816.69tosr etssy pv.. 7. 71 51./..u4rAELE CU. 1. P10,0 At Sr crc.. Of 6US STAG,. 13%7INO PU1.10.0 PAVF tIEHT NOR THPORT DRIVE (f) v-r The new parking to the north is to be installed in an area the school currently uses for small playground space and open yard area. The new parking area includes a similar, oval/oblong shaped parking area, with a new, single entrance provided from Northport Drive. This new parking area is intended to serve bus drop-off and pick-ups only, and will be open for additional parking (approx. 38 spaces) during non-school hours or special events that do not involve any bus traffic. The new parking lot will also have a new concrete walkway system along its outer perimeter. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 05/29/14 Page 3 *I:* Access & Traffic The access for the front, main parking facility (from Brooklyn Blvd.) remains unchanged at this time. The new parking lot to the north of the school requires a new access onto Northport Drive to the north. This access will be located approximately 275-feet west of the Brooklyn Blvd. frontage road that serves this area. The open-space area between the school and the Northport Drive right-of-way is city owned land/park property. The City Engineer has included a requirement that Robbinsdale Schools must receive and enter into an access easement agreement between the City and ISD 281 to facilitate this access across city lands. As part of the review of this parking improvement, staff wanted to be sure that any new bus traffic expected to enter and exit at this location from Northport Drive, and a determination made if any other traffic issues would be created or affect the surrounding residential areas, we required the Applicants to provide a parking study and traffic impact statement. Attached to this report is a Memo Report from WSB & Associates concerning this study and traffic analysis. According to this report, the consultants concluded there is no significant impact to the operation of the 55 th Avenue and Brooklyn Blvd. service road intersection with the change in travel pattern of the buses. Drainage & Utilities Since there are no new buildings proposed in this parking area, only limited amount of utilities are being planned for these two new parking areas. The front parking includes small sections of new storm sewer pipes, which will divert storm water runoff into two new on-site storm water filtration systems to the east and south of the parking lot. The parking to the north will require a long section pipe to catch and divert runoff over to a new storm water filtration system on the far west edge of the playground/ball diamond area. Additional electrical service lines are also being re-routed and installed to provide electricity to the proposed new lights within both parking facilities. The City Engineers have provided a very comprehensive review memo (including a red- line/marked-up Site Plan set) for the Applicants to consider. This memo contains standard and typical responses by the city engineers related to these drainage and utility improvements, and we do not believe there are any comments or conditions that would preclude this parking lot improvements from proceeding. This Planning Report only contains the City Engineer's Review Memo (dated 05/19/14) and not the red-lined plans, which can be made available to the Commission if so requested. • Landscaping The proposed landscaping is noted on the "Layout, Landscaping and Striping Plan" sheets (C4.1 and C4.2). The new north parking lot is scheduled to receive 20 new Techny Arborvitae (evergreen) trees along the far east edge of the lot; and 6 new Norway spruce trees to the north and south of these arborvitae plantings. There appears to be no plantings scheduled for the reconstructed parking area in front of the school. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 05/29/14 Page 4 •:'• Lighting The lighting plan calls for 16 nee light pole fixtures, with 6 lights at the north parking area and 10 new lights for the newly reconstructed main parking lot. The lights around the outer edge (perimeter) areas of both parking lots are identified as 22-foot high, square steel posts with a single, LED luminaire head. The main parking area is scheduled to receive four additional 22-ft. double-headed LED lights. All new lights are noted as down-cast cut-off light standards, which is normally what he city requires with any new light plan submittals. The Applicants also submitted a very detailed photometric plan for this site (and new lights); and all new lights appear to meet (or exceed) the general lighting dispersion or overcast standards of 0.3 (not to exceed) at adjacent property lines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve this Planning Application No. 2014-005, a Site Plan to allow the reconstruction of an existing parking lot and construct a new bus parking and excess parking facility for Northport Elementary School, subject to the following conditions: 1.Any new trash enclosure or new locations for existing dumpsters and/or trash receptacles stored on this school property site must be approved by city staff. 2.The Applicant will ensure that lighting is maintained or directed downward into their site, and immediate measures will be taken to address or respond to any complaints from neighboring property owners. 3.The Applicant must submit a legal description and exhibits for the new drive entrance off Northport Drive; and enter into and approve an access easement agreement or similar (approved by the City Attorney) for accessing across city owned lands. 4.All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 05/19/14) and all other subsequent or updated conditions and information required must be submitted and/or fulfilled to the approval and satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of any current or updated performance guarantee. Northport Elem. Site Plan PC 05/29/14 Pages MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2014 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review —Northport Elementary School Public Works Department staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review on May 2, 2014, for the proposed Northport School Improvements: Civil plans Site Plans dated April 29, 2014 Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit: Title Sheet 1.Revise note to meet MPCA Construction Permit. C1.1-C1.2 —Demolition and Erosion Control Plan 2.Provide and list a SWPPP inspector/manager with contact information that must be available within 4-hrs notification to respond to and implement SWPPP related corrective measures. If the applicant is found to be non-responsive, the City may issue a stop work order and/or take other means necessary to correct SWPPP related issues. 3.Provide quantities of erosion control BMP's. 4.Provide sidewalk/trail closed signage as noted, along with advance signage for trail closures. C2.2-2.3 —Grading Plan 5.Show profile for northwest basin to storm sewer connection. 6.Provide pretreatment device and riprap only if needed for erosion protection at south treatment basin. 7.At west treatment basin location, only a shallow swale/Depression (18" max deep) allowed with no storm sewer. Only curb cut with pretreatment device. C3.1-C3.2 —Utility Plan 8.Do not connect drain tile into City storm sewer. Outlet drain tile into filtration basin. No drain tile connections that discharge directly into City storm sewer that is untreated (e.g. Northport Elementary School Page 2 of 4 Site Plan Review Memo, May 19, 2014 rate/volume) 9.Revise west basin outlet. C4.1-C4.2 - Layout, Landscaping, Striping Plan 10.Trash enclosure must be shown and include protection by curb and gutter, not within the parking area that would cause sight line obstructions. 11.Provide landscape details. 12.West basin overflows to stay with in school property. 13.Install bollards at trail connection at the end of Northport Drive. 14.Install raised concrete islands. 15.Remove stall as noted. 16.Add "Do not enter sign" as noted. 17.Provide landscaping within islands. C5.1 - C5.2 -Details 18.Add details for pedestrian curb ramps; use MN/Dot standard details and plans for pedestrian curb ramps. Miscellaneous 19.See redlines for additional site plan comments. 20.Provide photometric plan for proposed new light fixtures 21.All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities must conform to the City of Brooklyn Center standard specifications and details. The City's standard details must be included in the plans. 22.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 of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built 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. G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\Northport Elem Phase 4 - 2014 \Plan Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews \ 140519_Plan Review Memo.doc Northport Elementary School Page 3 of 4 Site Plan Review Memo, May 19, 2014 23.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 (which are separate from the as-built survey). 24.The total disturbed area exceeds one acre, an NPDES permit is required. In addition, the total disturb area exceeds 5 acres, applicant must submit plans to Shingle Creek Watershed Commission for project review. The applicant must also submit a site storm water submittal package to City prior to the Commission's review and obtain City of Brooklyn Center's approval before moving forward with the watershed. 25.Provide traffic memo highlighting the need for increased parking needs, bus re-routes, etc. of proposed improvements. 26.Applicant must apply for a land disturbance permit. 27.Applicant must submit legal descriptions and exhibits for the drive entrance and west filtration basin areas that require agreements with the City of Brooklyn Center for private structures on city property. 28.No construction or other related traffic or deliveries shall park, stand, stop or stage on the residential streets in any form or manner for any reason other than to open the gate to gain authorized access to the construction site. 29.No contractor traffic should be allowed on top of the new storm water facilities. Once installed, these improvements must be protected. Add note to protect filtration basin from construction traffic. 30.Utility facilities easement agreement required. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration. 31.Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended as required by the City Engineer. 32.A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 33. 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 G:\Engineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\Northport Elem Phase 4 - 2014 \Plan Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\ 140519_Plan Review Memo. doe Northport Elementary School Page 4 of 4 Site Plan Review Memo, May 19, 2014 administration and engineering inspection efforts. Please submit a deposit of $2,500 that the city can draw upon on a monthly basis. 34.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 $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting: 35.A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 36.Watershed plan review required. 37.A MPCA NPDES permit is required. 38.Conditions specified by the City to meet the requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed Commission must be met. 39.Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warranted. 40.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 41.A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined by the City. GAEngineering\Development & Planning\ACTIVE Development Projects\Northport Elem Phase 4 - 2014 \Plan Reviews & Applications\Preliminary Plan Reviews\ 140519plan Review Memo doe AWSB ANNE■engineering planning environmental. construction Memorandum 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 To: Jim Gerber, Robbinsdale Area Schools From: Tony Heppeltnann, P.E. Erik Seiberlich Date: May 20, 2014 Re: Northport Elementary School North Parking Lot Study 02687-000 Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to present the findings of the analysis of the impact on the local roadway network due to the proposed construction of a new bus pick-up and drop- off/parking lot on the north side of the Northport Elementary School. Background Northport Elementary School is a kindergarten through fifth grade school with an enrollment of 550-600 students and 90-100 staff members. It is located north and west of TH 100 and Brooklyn Boulevard with access from the Brooklyn Boulevard Service Road (the frontage road) and 55 th Avenue intersection. Presently, the parking lot east of the building is used for parking, student drop-off/pick-up and bus loading/unloading. This parking lot is the west terminus of 55 th Avenue as accessed from Brooklyn Boulevard. See Figure 1 for the study area. Proposed Improvements Robbinsdale Area Schools has proposed to construct a new parking lot on the north side of the school. This lot would be the new location for bus loading/unloading, and would provide vehicle parking during non-school hours (for use by those visiting the after-hours school activities or Northport Park, which lies to the west). This lot would be accessed from Northport Drive approximately 275 feet west of the frontage road. As part of this project, the existing parking lot east of the school would be expanded and reconfigured to better accommodate staff parking and student drop-off/pick-up. Methodology The primary focus of this study is the change in travel patterns for buses as they will now use the proposed north lot instead of the existing east lot. Analysis will look at the impact to the intersections of both 55 th Avenue and Northport Drive with the frontage road, including an operational analysis at the 55 th Avenue intersection. In addition the study will examine any St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com KA02687-000 \Traffic \ Northport Parking L. Study.docx Mr. Jim Gerber May 20, 2014 Page 2 queuing issues for vehicles using the west approach of the 55 th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard intersection. Data Many data were gathered for this study, including: •First Student bus routes to and from the school •Other bus routes to and from the school (e.g. special education) •Site plans for proposed north parking lot •Video of 55 th Avenue and the frontage road intersection o Turning movement counts for peak bus times •8:45 — 9:45 a.nn. •3:15 — 4:15 p.m. o Observation of queuing at 55 th Avenue intersections with Brooklyn Boulevard Service Road and Brooklyn Boulevard. Findings BUS ROUTES The school is presently being served by 19 buses in the morning and 15 buses in the afternoon (p.m.). There are also four activity buses which serve the school about one hour after the afternoon buses. Route information was provided by First Student (13 during the a.m. and 10 during the p.m.) and the school district (6 during the a.m. and 5 during the p.m.). The majority of the buses access the existing parking lot via Brooklyn Boulevard and 55 th Avenue. A few buses bring students to and from school via 53 rd Avenue and the frontage road, and via Admiral Drive (or Bass Lake Road), Northport Drive and the frontage road. The existing a.m. and p.m. bus routes are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Both First Student and the school district have indicated that when the buses pick-up and drop- off in the proposed north parking lot the routes will remain the same. Buses utilizing Brooklyn Boulevard will still get there from 55 th Avenue (by way of the frontage road) as opposed to changing their route to Northport Drive, Bass Lake Road, and then Brooklyn Boulevard. The future (with proposed north parking lot) a.m. and p.m. bus routes are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The primary traffic change due to the new parking lot will be some bus turning movements at the 55 th Avenue and Northport Drive intersections with the frontage road. Those changes are shown in Figure 6 (a.m. changes to bus trips) and Figure 7 (p.m. changes to bus trips). TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The intersection of 55 th Avenue and the frontage road is served by one shared left turn/through/right turn lane in each direction. The north, west and south approaches are stop- controlled, while the east approach, vehicles coming from the 55 th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard intersection has a free movement, which keeps a queue from forming into that intersection. Figure 8 presents the intersection volumes for the peak bus times (8:30 — 9:30 a.m. and 3:15 — 4:15 p.m.) K: \ 02687-000 t Traftio \Northport Parking Lot Study.dooN Mr. Jim Gerber May 20, 2014 Page 3 Presently, buses (as well as passenger vehicles) that are leaving Northport Elementary School bound for Brooklyn Boulevard, queue on eastbound 55th Avenue. When 55 th Avenue gets its green phase, they must yield to westbound left turning vehicles, and alternate with northbound and southbound frontage road vehicles. After observation of the intersection video, it appears that the intersection operates acceptably and the queues are manageable, with almost all vehicles making it through the Brooklyn Boulevard signal in one signal cycle. Part of this is due to the fact that the bus peak is later than (a.m.) and prior to (p.m.) the true peak hours of the roadway. When the buses pick-up and drop-off at the proposed north parking lot, the difference in operation of this intersection will be that the buses will queue on the north leg of the intersection, which is by far the lowest volume approach. Because the three stop-controlled approaches alternate, and only have to yield to the westbound approach, the change in travel pattern should not have significant impact to the operation of the intersection. In fact, there will be less bus trips through this intersection with the proposed north parking lot. NON NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY BUSES It is of note that turning movement counts indicate that other school buses operate in the area. Four buses in the a.m. and 12 buses during the p.m. passed through the 55 th Avenue and frontage road intersection that did not go to or come from the Northport Elementary School. Most of these buses turned right from the northbound frontage road, or left from westbound 55 th Avenue, but there were a small number on other approaches. AFTER HOURS USE OF THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT After school hours, the proposed north parking lot will be available for public parking, primarily for users of Northport Park. The proposed parking lot provides 40 spaces, and users would access the lot using Northport Drive via either the frontage road or Bass Lake Road. Currently there are several lots that serve the park's different areas. The proposed lot is not expected to increase use of the park and generate additional park related trips in the area. Robbinsdale Area Schools has indicated that Northport Elementary School has on average two or three after school special events per month. For these events, the proposed north parking lot would likely act as an overflow lot, as the existing lot is more convenient to access the school. Based on the types of special events, it is expected that eight to ten times per year vehicles traveling to the proposed north lot from the north would add a maximum of 20 vehicles per hour to Northport Road from Bass Lake Road. KA02687-000 \Tratlicallorthport Parking Lot Study.doc Mr. Jim Gerber May 20, 2014 Page 4 Summary The following is a summary of the findings of the analysis of the impact on the local roadway network due to the proposed construction of a new bus pick-up and drop-off/parking lot on the north side of the Northport Elementary School: •Presently 19 buses drop-off students during the morning and 15 buses drop of students during the afternoon. There are also four activity buses that pick-up students about an hour after school. •The proposed north parking lot will serve as the drop-off pick-up location for buses. o This will affect bus routing and turn movements at the intersections of Northport Drive and Brooklyn Boulevard Service Road and 55 th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard Service Road. o The bus company and Robbinsdale schools have stated that other than the change between the two parking lots, buses will maintain their current routes — buses will continue to access Brooklyn Boulevard via 55 th Avenue, and not Bass Lake Road. •There is expected to be no significant impact to the operation of the 55 th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard Service Road intersection with the change in travel pattern of the buses. K: W2687-000 \ Traffic \Northport Parking Lot Study.docx Northport Elementary North Parking Lot Traffic Study Robbinsdale Area Schools, MN Northport Elementary North Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 2 Robbinsdale Area Schools, MN Existing AM Bus Routes LEGEND =.=. Outbound Route Inbound Route ## Number of Buses Northport Elementary North Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 3 Robbinsdale Area Schools, MN Existing PM Bus Routes LEGEND Outbound Route .....> Inbound Route ## Number of Buses Northport Elementary North Parking Lo t Traffic Study Figure 4 Robbinsdale Area Schools, MN Future AM Bus Routes LEGEND Outbound Route Inbound Route ## Number of Buses '11111111 1 111 1 Northport Elementary North Parking Lot Traffic Study Figure 5 Robbinsdale Area Schools, MN Future PM Bus Routes II Co 0 LIcc co Ui 0 e >- `24'<;) g 0 0 0 Co z w COUi 0 Ui Ui Co 0 "O' g 0 12< .— LLI co 1Ce N 0 VI.<4 WWC',52.i. C2 1 ! 1 110 u, 0 15-w _,Z 0 ra- ZEa 0 Ex tlin 'LJ L'T'.5' 11co =0 0fs w 2(0 I I I (1)°' I111100 1 17,11-1 I .."L.4 --\ 7 /1 iF7.' \ \f . ',/ \ , \i i \/, ! ! ! 0E) !III 6 LT, h5.1 L'At3.70igEEc.je, 00 0 15- 1— 2 Z Ui tOce< <co coocar00c[(t) km./ 02-11Z Atrr.1003 -/ oral Azz,zaos kNY ■ /.i.,--,..--:-. -1- --,..1 ■;„, i / \ \.,i \\/. t.. I i I, I i. IY I''' i ! i, \ \ I 1 \ \ -,- - --.-- Ii i \ I .1 i it v \ \ 4 i /I / i /1/ i. ,i t•O' •1 1 ---------1 1 i ---,----= •-• ,rfe"..w sFeze ia,ISON r-- .___---- • ;1 Ern; Ps1,1-1 ,,,,,,,=,.....,16.7,40 p.,......,cto-5--,-,,,,,,,,,r-.01,■-........-W11,,,,,--gre,•1,,, -.`,11.,...,2,.,-....tecre,,, h 8 § - i 1 11 11 0 . I 1111 I F71, iLj 1 1 5 2, h .ce 0.,< . .c„w 0 , ,E' i" IV '6'A ,;) 0 , gu) _, 0- z2 0 2 w i !I i I ,13 oCO =00 0_i V''-' e:73,5 50IY 4) Z U.1 I E = 21 a osso ROAD 1 11 ! 0 ;wi 0Lii '.; ■•• ih111113111 9 ga.cmeaeS ED ;1E5f "u,f,q ° f 2 , 00aEn!Ig 10 0 ! kr!E ; cc <w co <W 0 < tf, Z 0For 0(11 I0 0Coo) 00 0 I—z I2 `41 1 ossEv R OAD T-T- ,A Iwt--6-11„ aruz _mcv T k k .1 4 l i111111$1011) I i H ; , '--:. \ii2 ' 211 liill H rI UI<00CC "<`."(2) '))z 44 0 0CC Cr, CNJ • 71- ., , i g ill Ha 01 h I°. I , -_,21:':SE e_d_k r7i :10 0J.... • g , I 2 I 1 . I - I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,07.5 r.-U'I...rh,,,-(1.-N,11..-,,..,,,=1.=,A.7..7 ,POF-I4•*1.I'Pr,-FAZ•KA,T.N.GP^--T,-..-,,,-IIeC.,VHA I h gi 2 0 m c\I 2 CID ril 0g i I0. Ohl1111 nil AM M:1•1; .01 ,,,, • E 0 11 NEg °i 6 ' i V I1 AN 'gg , 1 ' g 1 6v. 1 ,I 111 . E ' !iii . 211H . i i gi l'i , iT r i E4 mill loqi :i rr i ,IL N: 1 00 gg 5 1 3511 li !i g gig 19 1 11 16 .i 1 13 NhE ri EY; g 1 14; , I u 41%. PI ' pi i'i pl i ,g i l lgila Di11 q s! i i . Hi ii I, 1 g h . — ., . - .■ ; !i g l g ' . . E.,; ',' ). 8 6 ›—' % i g4 072 z `:4 Ma) PEE 81 G I E 0 - 61' I N . ELI I II5 ! 5 5 '. E, il l ,..,g ", q. I@51 0 i:911 eil hig. 13 U gi 5 ill Ili Hi , ., 5ii, tii .4 !It 1e 19 el 1Ng a iii i 5 i PI il iii; g '" q i:_ leh II 2- 1 /1 "2II IP 0 11 4'1 Id iiii h 1 . d AA ullb bb g g ggg W W EI WU 0 Cal 1 1 1 1 I lig i lil 11 1 1 '1 1 ' / i/ 11 al 15111] i i / 1 / glii 1 .!!ig 1/11 11111ii„g IIIII i i 'I MOO 0 MUMMEENIEZ109:10:111111111111111:(R1011.511Id 'dz p_.9 A .--1W-4rZI nernromummousum 05110110C.:E9Bootillog InemniNIONIIIIIIIII 11111111111111111i 1 1111111111 MIE1411::::000011011 1111111111111111111111111111111 nUEECCEINNIZOg,, 1. :, ,,g g a 5 1110 i I . i 1 ,..1 Mia i g1 I -1 ' I " 1 g li 1 .ii . gi i l 1 9 I i11 1 iiatIlBc]I NI N m pi..1.,,,,...—Oa IrUEE1 I ob.. ! ° 1 !IIg 1 11 11 . 5S 1 1 I hi lighzili All lilhifill iii ILI i 1 11 11111p; ael .i, galore ;AGA.; oP v. .. 0. - ' . ' 8 11gMll1111 N11111 glIgnIllIllin Agglh 111111 gill Ill 1 . 11 g 1 1 11. 1 LAI 11 1 12!ffil I 1, 1 I hq 5 . al -saallliaca aRa..1 cinagghghani --,Oehlegh hiAseg8 knEk.gm al ! .e.i ans 3.;nalgual.g.t; u..1 I 0 D i i .g I 9 ' .. E g 151 _1 .. 3i 2 E 2 2 2 00g gI 1 (4,11 4D 4D e , ; ; • 111i1 1 1' :„r • ',Pollr [111;' r iLl 5,722, 33; ii 3_.5, tl 1? 3 r g,i 6 3g 3 ni 1;q lfl Ei=_ . . PI !! 5 :55'5'i il .'.4 tu in 1 2 11,E 1 i . 533 333 . 5 :5- §.:3 51 , g i ,-.°X ,9 ;n 2:E , 2,dYg'4 . "3 !3 -5 6 ,5 H 'adNgt4'44R , Agi'a71,3;..1_ ,..,5 z-.-w ' J NI p :,_ P .,3 • 2 4 .5 .5 2 2 2 2 ' 2 2 2 4 4 ; 2 2 21 2 4 . 2, 2 .5 .5 4 .5 2 2 2 .1 2, .5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 23 4 4 4 2 3 "3" 3 43 ,5 2 4 , .4 2 '.5 '2 2 .2 4 2 2 4 .5 .5 :5 .5 .5 .5 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 45 2 2 2 -5 2 2 .5 ; 2 .5 4 .5 .5 4 2: 2 2 2 .5 2 2' 4 2 ; 2 .° ;1 2 4 2 2 , 2 .5 2 .5 2 4 2 ; .5 4 .5 2 .5 .5 .5 ; 2 .5 4 2 .1 .5 2 2 2 .5 .1 .1 2 ; :1 .5 ; ; 2 ; 2 .5 2 2 4 2 .1 21 2 .5 ; 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 .1 .5 .1°.!,;i .1 4 2, 2; .5 2 .5 2 4 21 2 .5 .5 2 1 2 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 .1 4 2 4 2 4' .1 2 .5 2, 1 , .5 2 4 .5 2 2 21 2 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 .5 4 .1 2 2 4 .5 .1 2 : 2 .5 .1 .5 2 .5 .5 .1 2 2 :5 2 .1 4 2 2,', 2 ; 4' 2 2 2 2 ; 4, 2 2 2 s 5 2 2 2. .5 :5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ; 2 .5 .5 ; .5 2 2 2: :5 .., .5 .5 2 2 :5 2 .5 :5 :5 5 .5 .5 .5 .5 '.5. 2 2, 2 2 .5 2 .1 2 2 .5 2 2 ; 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 45.21. .5 2 4 2. 2 2 2 .. 2 2 21 -1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .5 .5 4 2 2 2 2 25 2 2 4 ; 2 .5 2 2 :5 2 :5 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 25 4 2 2, ; 2 2 .1 2 2 .1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 :1 2 .5 552 4 4 - 2 , 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 .1 2 .5 2: .5 2 .5 2 .5 .5 2 2 2 25 2 .1 4 .5 2 2 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 2 2 2 .5 .5 5 .5 2 2 2 .5 .5 :2 2' .5, .5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 :5 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 « .5 .5 .5 ; 2 2 2 2 15 2 2 2 : .5 2 .5 .= .5 .5 .5 2 2 .5 .5 .5 2 , .5 2 2 2 2 55 2 2 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 :5 25 .5 .5 2 .5 2 .-, 25 2 2 ., 2 2 :5 2 2 2 .5 2 .5 2 .51 2 .5 2 4 2 ., 2 2 2 21- . 2 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 2_5 4:3'32 :- .3 .; .:_..3 .33 ; 2 2 .5 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 .3 2 2 .33 2 2 .5 2 .5 2 .5 2 4 .5 4 ;5 2 2 4 .5 .5 25 .2 .5 .5 .5 2 2 .5 4 -5 .5 .5 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 .2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 4 5.5. 2 2 .5 .- .- .. 2 2. .5 2 2 ;5 .5 25 .5 2 2 .2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 25 2 .5 .5 ; :5 2 .5 :5 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 5, 2 25 2 .5 2 ; ..5 ., 2. .5 2 , 4 2 2 .5 ; 2 2 2 2 :1 2 :5' ; 2 4 2 2 2 .1 2 4 2 2 .1 2 2 .,25 4 2 .1. .5 ; 4 4 2 - .5 :5 .5 -5 .5 .5 2 2 .5 2 2 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 2 .5 .5 .5 2 2 .5 .1 2 2 2 .5 .5 2 .5 2 4 2 .5 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 2 .5 .51 .5 2,5 4 .5 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 2 :5 3 3 3 .5 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3'5'3 .-' 4 .- 2 '.: 4. .5 :5 .3 2 2 2 2 2 25 .5 2 2 .5 2 -5 4 4 2 .5 2 .5 .5 2 2 2 .5 2 5 2 2 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 5 2 2 2 5 .5 .5 2 ; 5 2 ,.5 5 .5 2 ; .5 ; 2 2 .5 2 ., « ; 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 .5 2 ; .t.:72 2 2. 2 52 2 2 2 2 2- ; : 22 .5 2 ., .5 .5 .5 2 2 .5 2 , 2. 2 2 .5 .1 .5 2 2 .53 4 .5 2 4 .1 2 .53 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 2 .5 4 2 2 .5 .5 .5 .2 2 2 2 2 2 .5 .5 .5 3 3 3 3 .5 4 p 2 2 2 ; 2 5., 2 2 2 2 .%' 42 2 4 2 4 . 2 .1 4 2 . ' 5. - 2 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 2 .5 2 .552 .1 4 4 .5 .5 2 .5 2 2 .5 .5 2 .5 -2 ' 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .1 .5 2 2 2 4 .5 4 .5 2 4 .5 .5 -5 35 2 .5 3 2 3 2 .5 2 3 ..‘.5..32.353 4 3 3 .5 3 .4" 4 3125 2 3 3 4..3543 4 .51 : 2 : ; 4 .- .2 , ,:. , ..: .; 9 7 ' ,,''' n. 9 3-5. 5 5.. 5 5. 5 5 .5 55: 55: = = = = = =1 = =3 =3 = = = "3 = = = = = '3 =, = ,3'3, = = =3 = "3, , -.3 -3 = , , = 33 .3..33 , , 3 ....-; 7 ;.„ ..., ...-.:, ., 5... .,1 '', ..7...,,, '7,, ., ..7 , ;,-, , : .., ; , ; .5 ; ; ; ; ;'; ; ; ; ; ; ; .'',' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; .2 ; .5"; .5 :',.. ."4 :-; ;' ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; 2 2 2 2 ., .3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2,4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2,2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ; 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 233%3: .3 2 :5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .3 2 .5 .1 .5 2 .1 2- 2 2 2 :5 .5 2 2' 2 2 2 2 .1 2 ,,21 -2-2- i.:-.55 •,51,5,5,11--,,5.1 4 4 2'5 4 4 4 4 .';-, ,.,, ; ', , r ; ; ; ; ; 2:7 2 2 .5 .5 2 2 2 2 25. .5 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 25 . 2 .5 .5 .5 2 .1 2 4 2 .5 4 2 21 2 2 2 .1 .5 .5 .5 .5 2 2 2 25 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 -2 .1 . 2 :1 25 14 °. .° 2 , 22 :., 4 ...; 2 4 4 4 r ; 2 :, 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 .3 .331-2 .;' 4 ,2 2,2 2 .5 2'2 2 2,2 4 4 4. 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 2 2 4 .5 4 .5 .5 4 4 4 .5 2 .5 ; 3 3 .5 ; 3 .5 2 2 .7 ; ; 2. :„, ; ; 2 .7 .:`,,: 2 4 , .1 .51 3 3 2 .3 3 :5 4 3 :.' 4 :5 4 3 2 .5 2 .5 .5 2 2 .5 3553 2 2 2 C 2 2 4 2 .1 2 23 3 2 2 :1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 .5 .1 .5 2' 2 2 2 2 ; .5 2 2 :-' 2 r1 4 2 , 2 2 2-: .5 4 Ae 2 2 .1 2-: 2 2 2 2 2 4 ,T° :: :-' 2 4 ,5-i 4, 2 ;55 ,°,,°°,..,,,.:1.4.51 .411,, ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,°,,,,,,,...;, 7 7 .t._.:,,,,i, .7. , , , :1,.., 1 , ,4,1 -. , , , ',V. 7 1 'I ;1..4- 7 • ".. . « « « « « « 2 2 2;2 2 :, ).",. :,.7 .7 '. :-,;.', ■,,,,,-' i « « 2 « « « « « ; « « 2 - « ; 2- « 2 .: 2 ; 2 2 2 2 ; « :, ., .- :, .5 2 ; .5 ,`■:. 2 2 2.52 2 2. ; .5 2 2 .5 2 2 2 25 2 2 .5 ;.5 2 2 .5 2. .5 2 2 2:- 25 « 2 .5 55 2 2. 2 2 2 .5 .5.455.5 2 2 2 2.5,2 2 2 .5 .5 2 2 2: 55 :5 4 .1 4 2 4 2 2 21 .5 2 2 .5 ... ' ' 2 .5 21 4 " ' 2\,`,°;%5:. 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 .5 2 2 .5 2 .5 2 :2 2. 2 .- :-.5 2 .5 .5 .5 2: ; 4 2 ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' 3ii.,N2 .2 2 2 --2 2= 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 4 .5 .5 3' 2 .5 .5 3 3 3 "t:" 3 2 3,33 .5 2 3 3 3 \of! 2 .5 3 3.3 3' 4 .3 :- .5 : :3 :5 :3 2 t.,2-: 4 4 .5 ._ 2 4 : .5 2 2 3 .3.5 3 : .5 ; 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 :3 '53 ' ' .5 4 .2 .5 2 .5 .5 2 55 2 .5.2 2 .1 2 2 2 12 :. :4 2 .1 .1 .7. .1 :, .'' 2 2 .: .1 ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . , ., 4 2 2 :. 2 2. 2 2 . 2 -2 '.51: 4 ' 4 : '5_ : '' . ' ' 1 - ' - " " ' ' 4 2 .5 2 2 4 2 .5 , 2 2 2 2 2-2 2 2 2 :5 4 2 2 . 2 2 4 4 4 , ,,,, , , ,2 2 2 2. 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 , 2 ; ; .2 _5 .... 1 , , . .1, '-' • ^ , 7 , , , ^ • , , , : . '1 ° ' .. 1 .. , . ..' 9. 9 9 9. , 5 9 9 ; ; ; 2 4 2 ' 2 , .5 2 ' 4 2 2 A .5 :5 ; 2 2 4 2 25 2 2 2 2 2 .5 .5 2'.33 2 ; 23 2 2 2 .3: .3 .5i,73,...t g 2 2 2 2 2 .5 4 .4- 4 2 2 4 2 2 s; 4 2 : -' 2 2- 4 2 4 :5 2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 2 2 2 - 4 2 2 2 .25, 4 .1 .5 ..5".°2 2 ' ' 2 2 25 ' ' s .1 4 .- 5 ' ' , ' .7 --, '' ' 'a 5 , , , ' 3 .5 .5 , s s '5 2 2 .5 4 2 • 5 '..5 2 : 5 -, 3 ,,, ,.„.-:::.„,,--:•.,„..3.„,,,-.1.,,,,,,,,,„3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3 5 5 = = = « « 2 .5 2 .5- :-.V. .... 2;2 2 2 ..= .5 .5 2 .5 .5 2 2 2 .5 .5 2 2 2 = 5 " " 2 2 .5 «,. .. ,..;: « « « « .5 2 2 :5! .5 2 .1 2 2: :5 2 .5 .5 2 2' .5 2 '5 5 .5 .5 2 2 2 25 .1 .5 2 ' 5 = 5 2 ,5 5 = 5. 2 2 2 2 2 2 .5 .5 .5 « 2 2 55 .5 .5 .5 2 .5 25 .5 .5 .5 4 .5 2 2 2 .2 2 2 .5 2 2 2 .5 4 2 2 2 2 '.25, , 2 2 2 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 ; 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2' 2 2 2 2 := 4 2 2 2 2 2 .5 ; 2 4 2 2: 2 • 2 .5 2 2 4 25 2 5 -5 .5 : .5 .5 2 2 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 2 2 ; ; 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ; .5 ; 4 .5 .1 .5 .5 2 4 ; ; 2 25 .5 .1 .5 2 2 ; 2 2. 2 2 2 .5 .1 4 i 1 . A 2 .5. 4 = " 2 .5 2 2 3 .5 2 .5: : .5 .5 2 2 2 2 -2 2 2 .3 :5 2. 3 4 2 2 2 : .- 2 .5 ,5 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2,3 2 .5 2 3 ; 2 - 2 .5 2 .3 : 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 2 2 2: 2 :5 2 2 2,2.2 :5 2,'...:; 2 .3 2 2 2 a., 2 ; 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 :5 2 23 2 2 2.- 2 3 ,,,,,,2 , 2, 3 , .5 5 ,; 2 .5 .5 ; 2 .5 ; ; .5 ; 2:: ; 2 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 ; ; .5 .5 .5 « 2 '2=V; 2 ; ; .5 .5 ; ; 2 2 ; 5 .5 5, 2 2 5 ' .5 25 ; 2 .5 .5 .5 2 ; .5 .5 ., 55 2. ; 2 ; ; 2 ; .5 .5 2 '-.2 2 ; .2 '2, 2 ., ; .5 , - 2 2 .5 2' 2 4 .1 4 4 2' .5 2 ; .5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ; 2 2 .5 .5 2 2 .5 2 2 2 ; 2 , .1 ' 2 ; 2' 2 .5 ; p!! 5 -.2 25 , r.2. 2 '..... 2s\5'2. .5 .5.>:-, = .5 ; .5 2 2 2 .1 2 2 2 :2 2 3 .5 .5 .2 2. 2 .5 .5 2 .5 2 ' 5 = ' ' .5 2 .5 2- 2 .5 2 2 25 2 .5 .., 2.: ..55.. 55 .5 -5 2 3 3' .-5 4 gfp-55 .'5‘:'‘.3 3 .3 .3 5 ,:r .3 3 3 3 :" 3 3 3 2 :-' :5 , 3 .5 :-' ; .3 3 .5,-.5 .5".2 3 3 ;_ 2 .3 .2 3 3 : 3 4 3,2 4 - 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 -.5' 2 25 '''-' .5 .5 .5 3 .5 3 .:. 71.'3 3 :3 f+,:f- '3 :-' 3 3 3 3 3,2 3 :5 3 .3 3 :5 3 43 :3 .5 :5 2 3 2 ;. .5 3 2 35 3 .5 3 2 .5 .13 3' .5 .5 25 .5 4 4' 3 3' ; 3 2 555 2 4 3 .' 2 .' ' :5 .3 .5 3 3 3 .5 2 2 .3 3 3 3 3 4 .55. -3.2 23 ' 3 3 '2. 2 '3 3 4 53 3 4 ‘)?3,..5 4. t 3 t.54.4.5. 3 3 3 4 4 3 , - -- 3 3 - : .5 3 :5 ..53, 4 5:- -3,2„ 5a.3, \\.0., 3, 4, 3 .....,,,, ..5.,. 4, 3 ;:.,„, s ,,1 6:‘,3, 4, 4„4 4 4 3,„ 4,„ : 2, 3, «7 «7, . . ! ': . 7 ., ; 21 .74.1.,-..;. , -, , , , 7 1 ^ 7 7 i 7 , , 7 , , 1 , 7 7 7 1 ., 1 7 9 , 5 ,,,, , 9 -.1`,..t.„‘Z.I.,",,,,, 7 7 7 7 7 5. 7 , , 7 ' ,Ar_.,.., I ;.. ' , r 7. • ,..., .,., ....it , ,,,, , , v ......... « ..-.. .5 , « « , , « ..,....5 ,.■., ; ., 65 , ; .., ; ; .5 .5 ;:,' 2 2 2 .7 .7 .2 ; 4 3 .5 3 .5 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 :5 2 3 2;4 , • .- , .3 ._ ..- 23,.. , ,,,,, . . , . , , 7 7 7 7 . 4-7F .:: ., .:, =3 '- = '.1 ; ; .5 ; ; .5 .7 .7 .7 , ; ; :, ..7 , .. .7, .2 .5 ; .5 ; ; 4 .1 2 .5 4 25 :5 .5 .5 ; 2 .5 2 2 2 .5 2 , 5 .1 .5 2 2 .5 .5 .5 2 2 :1 .5 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 ; 2 .5 .1 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 5 2 2 .1 2 .5 2 , 2 2 .5 ; '5 .5 2 2 .5 5 2 2 25 .5 2 3 :5 2 3 3 2 .5 .5 2 .5 2 .5 2 2 .5 .5 2 .5 .5 .5 .1 3' .5 4 5 .5 .5 5 5 , : 2 .5 25 55 2 2 ., .5 2 , 2 2 2 .5 .5 ; 2 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 .5 5 5 2 .5 5, ; 2 5 2 .5 .5 .5 .5 :5 2 .5= :5 .5 2.2 :5 .5 .5 2 2 2. 2 .5 .2 2 35 .5 5 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2 .2 2 .5 2 , :: ..= ..= .2 .2 .2 .,,, 5 2' : .5 ; .5 .5 2 .5 2 .5 i',, 2 ., 25 2 ., 2 2 2 2 2 .5 2 2 .5 .5 2 2 ., 5 55 2 2 .5 2 2 ., 2 2. / ..1' 3 4 2 2- 4.,2 2 2. 4 :2' 4 4 4 ; 4 4 .°-.1 2 ,...i-12 -.2 ' 4 2 2 4 .° 4 4 55.2 -:---.-2,:1-,e..-_- .7-7.;1;.3 .._,..L:3r,.:-....: 4 ; 4'5;. 4 : 2 :, 2 2- .5 4 _,,, , ,« «, « 4' ,. , :42 2. 1 ..: , 54,.:1_ , 53 . 53. . .4 , ,.-' ...9 2.-,; . 5 3 Commissioner Schorming introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-005 SUBMITTED BY ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS — ISD NO. 281 REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS FOR NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (5421 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005, submitted by Robbinsdale Area Schools-ISD No. 281 requesting approval of a new Site Plan to reconstruct an existing parking lot and construct a new parking lot for the Northport Elementary School property, located at 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-005, and reviewed and received a planning report and city engineer's report on the proposed new Site Plans for the proposed Northport Elementary School Parking Lot Improvement plans; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and 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 Plan of the Northport Elementary School Parking Lot Improvements, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-005, may be approved based upon the following considerations: A.The Site Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; B.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; C.The Site Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; D.The Site 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 Chair May 29, 2014 Date - ATTEST: Secretary PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05 E. 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 does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2014-005 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.Any new trash enclosure or new locations for existing dumpsters and/or trash receptacles stored on this school property site must be approved by city staff. 2.The Applicant will ensure that lighting is maintained or directed downward into their site, and immediate measures will be taken to address or respond to any complaints from neighboring property owners. 3.The Applicant must submit a legal description and exhibits for the new drive entrance off Northport Drive; and enter into and approve an access easement agreement or similar (approved by the City Attorney) for accessing across city owned lands. 4.All conditions noted in the City Engineer's Review Memorandum (dated 05/19/14) and all other subsequent or updated conditions and information required must be submitted and/or fulfilled to the approval and satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property improvements and utility service lines prior to release of any current or updated performance guarantee. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05 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 Pro Tern Christensen, Commissioners Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning and the following voted against the same: None. whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 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 29, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Pro Tern Christensen at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Ben Freedman arrived at 7:10 p.m. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Benetti administered Oath of Office to the newest Commissioner Ms. Katy Harstad. APPROVE AGENDA AS AMENDED There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to accept the agenda as amended. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tern Christensen, Commissioners Freedman, Harstad, and S chonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. ROLL CALL Chair Pro Tern Randall Christensen, Commissioners Benjamin Freedman, Katy Harstad, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmember Dan Ryan, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Scott Burfeind was absent and excused. Carlos Morgan was absent and unexcused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 15, 2014 There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2014 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Pro Tem Christensen 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. 2014-005 ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 281 Chair Pro Tern Christensen introduced Application No. 2014-005, consideration of site plan approval for new parking and bus turn-around areas for Northport Elementary School, located at EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 5421 Brooklyn Boulevard. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-29-14 for Application No. 2014-005). Mr. Benetti provided background information on the property and stated the Robbinsdale School District is wrapping up an $18 million, five-year phased redevelopment and improvement plan to the school. He added the remaining phase is for parking area and playground improvements that will improve overall safety and convenience by separating the bus traffic from personal vehicle traffic. Mr. Benetti stated the front parking area and entrance drive will be removed and replaced with a slightly wider parking area to the east. He added the new parking will provide a new concrete walkway. He pointed out preliminary plans indicated relocation of the trash dumpsters to the front parking area; however, staff was not supportive of the idea and the current plans under review do not show the relocation of the dumpsters. Mr. Benetti described the proposed layout of the parking area, playground space, access points and open space. He added the open-space area between the school and the Northport Drive right-of-way is city owned land/park property and the City Engineer may require Robbinsdale Schools enter into an access easement agreement between the City and ISD 281 to facilitate access across city land. Mr. Benetti provided information regarding a parking/bus travel study and explained how traffic will flow on and off the site, specifically the buses. He also reviewed after school hour's use of the proposed parking lot and said they do not expect an increased use of the parking lot nor any significant impact to traffic. He added the City Engineer was comfortable with the findings of the study. Mr. Benetti provided an overview of drainage, utilities, landscaping and lighting proposed on the site. Commissioner Schorming asked if there is a gate on the north end of the site. Brent Belter with Inspec, Inc. responded it is a barricade gate and the plan is to have it in the closed position during the school day. Commissioner Freedman asked if there were any concerns by the residents. Mr. Benetti replied there was a written concern by David Johnson who resides at Northport Drive and Admiral Lane, his concern specifically is with cars cutting through on Northport Drive to avoid lights on Brooklyn Boulevard and he feels the traffic will increase with this new access point. Commissioner Freedman stated he feels there doesn't appear to be any additional impact on the neighborhood street. Commissioner Christensen stated it looks like Mr. Johnson also is concerned with off-site parking on the street. Page 2 5-29-14 EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 Mr. Eitel stated the city has been working in a cooperative effort with Northport Elementary to improve the school/park playfield area and it is anticipated the parking area would be used by the school in the morning and afternoon and available to the public for the Northport park usage. Commissioner Schonning stated it looks like the off-street parking issue is being resolved by creating the new parking area for the park and school. There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to open the meeting for comments from the public. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Christensen, Commissioners Freedman, Harstad, and S chorming And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Shawn Rockwell, 5355 Northport Drive, stated when there are a lot of activities at school, people do park on the street and cut through the yards and she feels adding parking on the school site would be a good idea. She also asked for a time line for construction. Mr. Benetti responded the school district plans to start work as soon as school is out, after receiving City Council approval. Ms. Rockwell asked if the other three remaining houses on the frontage road will be acquired by the City. Mr. Eitel replied if the owners wish to willingly sell their properties, the city would be interested in purchasing them. Ms. Rockwell stated there is little activity now at the ice rink that the warming house has been removed. Councilmember Dan Ryan, 6442 Indiana Ave, stated he is not here to represent any position he was just asked to make sure Mr. David Johnson's comments were entered into the record. He added the Council appreciates the efforts of the Planning Commission. There was a motion by Commissioner Freedman, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to accept and make part of the official record the written comments by Mr. David Johnson. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Christensen, Commissioners Freedman, Harstad, and S chorming And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-005 SUBMITTED BY ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS — ISD NO. 281 REQUESTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN Page 3 5-29-14 EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS FOR NORTHPORT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (5421 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD). There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Freedman, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-05. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tern Christensen, Commissioners Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 9, 2014 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 4 5-29-14 5/29/2014 Site Plan Approval for Northport School u u il fey' Glortri]vzEt SchocIE eagleboy1964@comcast.net Sent:Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:11 AM To: scott burfeind [scott_burfeind@yahoo.com] Cc: Tim Willson; Lin Myszkowski; Carol Kleven; Kris Lawrence-Anderson; Dan Ryan; makendmeet@aol.com ; www 2cor521dan [www. 2cor521da n@g mail. corn]; sbrown@coinstar. corn; ma rg a ret decoteau [ma rgaret. decoteau@ge . corn]; klpeifer@comcast. net ; rmtext@comcast. net ; nancy mcvey [nancy. mcvey @gma il. corn]; ma rkl@enterpriseservices. corn; Ha rned Mcdona IdJa @qwest. net ; finlissy1@msn. corn; bobbiefern@visi. corn; da ndrury@wa ns. corn; Countrykd@comcast. net ; s croissant [s.croissant@comcast. net ]; nancy moot [na ncy. moot@gmail. corn]; corya ndcherie@gmail. corn Scott I writing to you as Chair of the Planning Commission concerning the proposed site plan for school bus parking at Northport School. While I understand the need of the school to manage bus traffic I along with a number of my neighbors are very concerned about the impact of having the entrance-exit for the proposed lot located on Northport Ave. As you know the entrance would be right at the curve and already has a somewhat obstructed view due to the location of the Girl Scout headquarters. We already suffer from traffic issues because drivers use Northport as a speedy short cut to avoid the signal lights at Bass Lake Road (BLR) and Brooklyn Blvd. Sometimes cars and buses are backed up on Northport waiting to get onto BLR. I assume that the majority of buses will head North to BLR to avoid the present school entrance tangle on Osseo Rd. and Brooklyn Blvd. I also feel that that this arrangement represents a safety hazard for users of Northport Park which as you may know is busy with team sports and also the lot may draw unauthorized parking due to its proximity and the shortage of off street parking at Northport Park. Will the city and school district consider locating the proposed parking expansion to the front (east) area of the school since an open area has been created by recent home removals? I am unable to attend the meeting tonight (Thursday) but wanted to let you know neighbor concerns about increasing traffic and safety issues in a residential area. I forgot to add that my home is on the corner of Northport and Admiral Lane and I enter my garage on Northport Ave. Thank you Scott for hearing my concerns I look forward to discussing them with you and others. Dave Johnson Telephone: 763-533-1819 Cell: 612-396-0644 email: eagleboy1964@comcast.net https://mai I .ci .brooldyn-center.mn.us/owa/?ae= Item&t= IPM .Note&id=Rg AAAABBZ%21EPAX%2ICRKbMXfJPbfWeBwAq GjIL7t%2f9SJIRhqSZWF85AAABQRjz... 1/1 City Council Agenda Item No. 9b COUNCIL I EMORA1N UM DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist _ THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development — SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-006 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company Requesting Approval For a Planned Unit Development Amendment No. 6. to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Recommendation: Recommended the City Council adopt the resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-006 submitted by Gatlin Development Company requesting approval for a Planned Unit Development Amendment No. 6. to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. Background: On May 29, 2014, the City Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. 2014-006, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment No. 6. to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. This amendment contains four new components, which provide additional changes, and reconfiguration of certain buildings and lot line layouts within the PUD site. Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-06, in which the Planning Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of approval regarding this proposed plat. Excerpts minutes from the May 29, 2014 Planning Commission meeting as related to this matter are attached for the Council's review. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: o Focused Redevelopment Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life fir people and preserves the public trust Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-006 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT (No. 6) TO THE 2011 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Brooklyn Center adopted Resolution No. 2011-85, dated June 13, 2011, which is considered the first amendment to the previously approved 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development, whereby this amendment approved the establishment of the new Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an approved Development/Master Plan and certain allowances and development standards that would govern over the PUD; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2011-127, dated September 12, 2011, which approved the first amendment to the original Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2012-106, dated August 13, 2012, which approved the second amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2012-129, dated September 24, 2012, which approved the third amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2013-124, dated October 14, 2013, which approved the fourth amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2013-72, dated July 8, 2013, which approved the fifth amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, Gatlin Development Company submitted Planning Application No. 2014-006, which is considered the sixth amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, by allowing certain changes to the approved 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned RESOLUTION NO. Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends additional adjustments not approved under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development and the related 2011 PUD Agreement, specifically the proposed amendments to be comprehended under this application includes four components as described below, and illustrated in the Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan (dated May 2014) and the PUD Amendment No. 6 Conceptual Plans (dated May 19, 2014): Component No. 1: approval of the revised layout of Bldgs. 9 and 10 within the former Brookdale Mall Food Court replacement plans, and allowing the building sizes to be revised to 8,352 sq. ft. and 10,800 sq. ft., respectively, and provide a set-time deferral to the Developer in installing a temporary physical screen for the loading dock areas behind said buildings; Component No. 2: approval of the revised layout of Buildings R, a new 5,400 sq. ft. restaurant pad site; and Building T, a new 5,500 sq. ft. restaurant pad site; Component No. 3: approval of the revised size and layout of Building B from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,673 sq. ft.; and allowing a new (and yet to be determined) drive- thru service lane for a proposed end-cap user; Component No. 4: approval of the replatting of land surrounding the Food Court area, which is identified under separate Preliminary Plat and proposed Final Plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 5 th Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 29, 2014, whereby a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development Amendments were received and considered by the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development Amendment request in light of all testimony received, including the guidelines for evaluating such amendments as contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did determine that Planning Application No. 2014-006, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, may be approved based upon the following considerations: a) The the revised layout of Bldgs. 9 and 10, along with the revised size of Bldg. 9 to 13,332 sq. ft. and Bldg. 10 reduced to 6,000 sq. ft., can all be considered a reasonable request made under this PUD Amendment application; and said changes do not negatively affect the overall redevelopment plans of the Food Court redevelopment area; and RESOLUTION NO. b)the revised layouts of Buildings R and T, proposed as a new restaurant pad site and multi-tenant/restaurant pad site (respectively) appear to be a more reasonable and acceptable layout than illustrated in PUD Amendment No. 4, as this eliminates the planned drive-thru for Bldg. T; and the new building locations increase the walkability and lends support to the active living principles adopted by the City; and c)the revised size and layout of Bldg. B from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,673 sq. ft.; and the new drive-tluu service lane for a proposed end-cap user, can be considered a reasonable and supportable improvement on this pad site, contingent upon the full acceptance by city staff of the new drive-thru service lane; and d)the new buildings will promote and enhance the general welfare and continued success of this PUD, as it maintains and keeps the redevelopment of this site active and ongoing; and reflects a reasonable need or benefit to the PUD Site as requested by the Developer; and e)the replatting of the lots comprehended under Shingle Creek Crossing 5th Addition, and as noted on these updated PUD Plans appear to be a reasonable realignment of lot boundaries and building pad sites. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did determine that Planning Application No. 2014-006, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, may be approved based on the belief that the guidelines for evaluating Planned Unit Development Amendment as contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. AND WHEREAS, upon full review and consideration of this item, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-06, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation of approval to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2014-006 may be approved subject to certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2014-006 submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a sixth amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff requests the Developer work with the City to avoid future "gerrymandering" or unique and unusual lot configurations. RESOLUTION NO. 2.Unless amended otherwise or under separate agreement, all existing provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and its subsequent amendments, shall remain in effect for the entire Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. 3.Any future PUD amendment or application requests will require the submittal and adoption (acceptance) of an updated master plan, which plan shall govern the planned and future redevelopment areas of this site. June 9, 2014 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. lO Kit; id BROL YN CEN7ER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 29, 2014 •Application Filed: 04/03/14 •Application Deemed Complete: 05/20/14 •Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/19/14 •Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2014-006 Applicant: Gatlin Development Company Location: Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Project Site Request: Planned Unit Development — Amendment No. 6 INTRODUCTION Gatlin Development Company is requesting a planned unit development amendment (Number 6) to the previously approved Shingle Creek Crossing PUD redevelopment plans. This updated PUD plan provides a revised layout to Buildings No. 9 and 10 in the Brookdale Food Court reconstruction area; the layouts of new Buildings R and T; the layout of Building B with a new drive-thru service lane; and the readjustment of certain lot lines. The final development plans for these areas will be made under individual Site and Building Plan applications, which are being presented under separate applications. The updated PUD Plan is illustrated on the attached "Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan" dated May 2014. This matter is being presented as a public hearing item; and notices have been mailed to all surrounding property owners within 350-feet of the affected site. BACKGROUND The original Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was approved on May 23, 2011 (which is considered the 1 st Amendment to the original Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development of 1999) and provided for the overall redevelopment of the Brookdale Mall properties. This mall originally consisted of over 1.1 million square feet of retail space, which was reduced by the demolition of approximately 760,000 sf1 of old mall space, followed by the planned renovation of approximately 123,242 sf1 of the Food Court mall located next to the Sears store; the development of approximately 402,489 sf1 of new retail commercial and restaurant uses; and approval of the Single Creek day lighting features. PUD Amendment No. 2 was approved a short time later on September 12, 2011, which provided for the physical separation of the food court building from the Sears store; the renovation/conversion of the Food Court's "common area" into additional retail space, whereby the net leasable retail area was increased from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; the removal of planned Building N between Sears and Wal-Mart; and the addition of a new 6,000 sf1 commercial pad site located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue/56 th Avenue entrance. PUD Amendment No. 3, adopted September 24, 2012, provided for the replotting of certain lots and revisions to new certain building pad sites (Building D, Building Q, and Building 0 restaurant pad site). EXISTING SEARS mil-, int e•nrorn PUD Amendment No. 4 approved the removal and replacement of the former Brookdale Mall Food Court and replacement plan with ten (10) new retail/service buildings. PUD Amendment No. 5 was related to various sign allowances granted throughout the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. PU I AMENDMENT ANALYSIS The proposed amendments to be comprehended under this application include four components, which are analyzed and addressed separately in the following section: Component No. 1: the revised layout of Bldgs. 9 and 10 within the former Brookdale Mall Food Court replacement plans. The November 2013 PUD approval included the layout of all ten new buildings in the Brookdale Food Court area, along with a provisional approval of Buildings R and T. The 2013 PUD consideration was followed-up by a new Site and Building Plan for Bldgs. 1-10. Resolution No. 2013-139, adopted by the City Council on November 25, 2013, accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation and established conditions for the site plan approval of Buildings 1-10. Buildings 1-7 were identified as the first phase construction to commence immediately after the demolition of the former Food Court Building in the Spring of 2014; while Buildings 8-10 were identified as a second phase to be built at a future date when the market conditions improved. The uncertainty of the construction Buildings 8-10 and the completion of this four sided commercial project, necessitated the need to address the western exposure of the buildings and views from Xerxes Ave. which resulted in an exhibit to the site plan illustrating the use of a landscaped berm to serves as an interim screen vs. the options of either a temporary fence with a fabric cover or masonry screening wall. These two buildings were originally planned to be 8,352 sq. ft. and 10,800 sq. ft. respectively. This amendment essentially requests to swap the building's locations, with Bldg. 9 increased to 13,332 sq. ft. and Bldg. 10 reduced to 6,000 sq. ft. On March 24, 2014, the EDA approved the Second Amendment to the Tax Increment Development Agreement for the Shingle Creek Crossing Project. This agreement established a construction schedule for Buildings 8-10 that requires construction to commence in 2015 and to be completed no later than June 28, 2016. The developer is completing the demolition of the former Food Court and has applied for a building permit for the first phase construction which included building 8. On May 11, 2014, the City Council approved the inclusion of building 8 as a minor amendment to the prior site plan approval granted in November, 2013. As part of the amended site plan review for Buildings 9 & 10, staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the interim screening requirement of the previous site plan approval. Component No. 2: the revised layout of Buildings R and T, which are proposed as two new restaurant pad sites. These two buildings were originally shown on PUD No. 4 as 5,400 sq. ft. and 2,800 sq. ft., respectively. Building T also included a new wrap-around drive-thru service lane for its own use. The new layout shows the buildings located closer to the Xerxes Avenue right-of-way, with Bldg. R remaining at 5,400 sq. ft. and T increased to 5,500 sq. ft. The idea of relocating these two pad sites closer to the Xerxes Ave. ROW is due in part to encouraging a more walkable development site, along with supporting our new Active Living Policies, which call for more accessible building sites for pedestrians and bicyclists in this area. The new locations also provide additional green-space areas, and includes a direct walkway from Xerxes Ave./Bldg. T to the new separated walkway corridor between the Sears building and new buildings in the Food Court redevelopment. Bldg. T is also absent of any drive-thru lane, which would not be supported by this building relocation. The layout as proposed by this PUD Plan appears to be a more reasonable use of this area and land; and Staff has no objections to the new building layouts as proposed. Component No. 3: the revised size and layout of Bldg. B from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,673 sq. ft.; and the new tear-drop shaped drive-thru service lane for a proposed end-cap user (identified previously as Jimmy-John's Restaurant). The building is being reduced from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,670 sq. ft., which represents an approximate 27.5% decrease. The Shingle Creek PUD Agreement allows for buildings illustrated on the PUD Master Plan to be increased by no more than 5% (after approval), and buildings may be reduced (reasonably) by the Developer if requested under the follow-up site plan considerations. The new building layout shifts the building away from the most northwesterly corner of the SCC- PUD site, which is somewhat isolated and sandwiched between the new LA Fitness and Discount Tire store to the east and south of the subject site. This relocated pad now moves the building closer to the interior edge of the PUD, and lines up more with the front edge of Discount Tire. The rear portions will be green-space and landscaped, with a new pedestrian walkway connection from the Xerxes Ave trail/sidewalk system to the interior SCC-PUD walkways. All drive-thru lanes must be noted or illustrated on the plans; otherwise, a special use permit would be needed or approved to allow said feature. This drive-thru lane is somewhat unique in shape and design, and resembles the designs planning staff discovered in the Brighton Village and Wedgewood Village developments. Wedgewood Village - Plymouth This new Bldg. B and its related drive-thru is scheduled for full consideration and review under a separate site plan application at the upcoming June 12 th Planning Commission meeting. The City Engineers have currently expressed reservations and doubts on the design/layout of this drive- thru, and has requested the Developer to revise or alter this design. The engineers feel the combined entrance and exit points to this drive-thru lane are much too close and will cause a lot of conflict for vehicles entering or exiting this area. The Developer's consultants were notified late of these concerns raised by the engineers, and have agreed to submit alternatives, which may include a wrap-around drive-thru lane. This alternative may involve the relocation or adjustment of the building on this pad site, and staff is deferring full review and comments until the upcoming Site and Building Plan review, scheduled for the June 12, 2014 PC meeting. Staff still holds to the belief that this building layout and approved drive-thru on this site is still considered a reasonable use of this area and land; and Staff has no immediate objections to the new building layouts as proposed. Depending upon the final review or recommendations made by the city engineers on the design/layout of the proposed drive-thru lane, and the potential impact this may have upon the overall site design of this building, this PUD Plan layout may not necessarily correspond to the expected Site Plan submittal and review in a few weeks, and may be subject to change. Planning staff suggests the Planning Commission accept this general layout design for now (both the building and drive-thru), with the stipulation that any drive-thru must be accepted or approved by the City Engineer at time of Site Plan considerations. By accepting the general layout of this drive-thru lane on these plans, the Developer of this site will not be required to submit a separate special use permit application to approve such improvement. The building and drive-thru can all be approved under the future site and building plan application. Component No. 4: This part includes the replatting of the land surrounding the Food Court area. Although the preliminary plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 5 th Addition has already been considered, Staff indicated in the related Planning Report that all new lot layouts had to be acknowledged or confirmed under the future PUD Amendment No. 6 plans. This plat is intended to create new lots in order for Gatlin Co. to secure and provide separate financing for construction of the new retail building sites, and provide an opportunity to market, construct and sell the sites as individual spec sites, similar to what they did with Discount Tire and Panda Express sites. For the most part, this replatting is reflective of the new general layout designs of the building pad sites, with each lot encumbering the required amount or number of parking required under the original Shingle Creek PUD Agreement. Since the plat correctly corresponds to the new PUD Plan and building payouts as presented, Planning Staff does not have any other concerns or objections to the reconfiguration of lot lines noted on the PUD Plans or the soon to be approved final plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 5th Addition. One issue of continuous concern in plat the reviews by city engineering is the somewhat unusual, non-symmetrical and confusing lot layouts or lot boundary patterns proposed under this Shingle Creek 5 th Addition and previously approved plats within this PUD (refer to different colored lot separation diagram below). Some of these lot lines and patterns take on a "gerrymandered" appearance, which is due to the PUD requirement that each building PUD to make sure each lot for a building pad site meet the minimum required parking standards of the PUD: •4.5 stalls for each 1,000 sq. ft. of retail/service space •10 stalls for each 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space •20% of a multi-tenant retail building could be used as a restaurant using the retail/service parking ratio. This PUD requirement was also included in the Developer's agreements with Walmart and Sears. EAS9k1,1 t`.. 1,./.;; • I I - , LOT 5, BLOCK 1 LOT 1, BLOCK 1 rt A SCMAC \ - LOT 4! BLOCK LOT 3, BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 It is the preference of staff that all lot lines and new lots are more symmetrical and consistent with a typical plat map layout, without the need to encumber the required number of parking spaces on each lot. The use of shared parking is allowed by the City's zoning code and occurs within Shingle Creek Crossing Development through the shared parking agreement provided for under the Easements, Covenants and Restrictions Agreement approved under the Shingle Creek Crossing Agreement and the 1999 Brookdale Mall PUD, which we understand also included the Sears site. Staff suggest the Developer work with the City and the stakeholders in this Shingle Creek Crossing PUD (including Sears) in revising the SCC-PUD Agreement and/or ECR Agreements as necessary. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff is providing for the Planning Commission's consideration certain findings which may assist in supporting the recommendations to approve this PUD Amendment No. 6 as presented on the attached PUD Plans and as outlined in this report, noted as follows: a) The the revised layout of Bldgs. 9 and 10, along with the revised size of Bldg. 9 to 13,332 sq. ft. and Bldg. 10 reduced to 6,000 sq. ft., can all be considered a reasonable request made under this PUD Amendment application. Said changes do not negatively affect the overall redevelopment plans of the Brookdale Food Court redevelopment area; and the new buildings will promote and enhance the general welfare and continued success of this PUD, as it maintains and keeps the redevelopment of this site active and ongoing; and reflects a reasonable need or benefit to the PUD Site as requested by the Developer, b)the revised layouts of Buildings R and T, proposed as two new restaurant pad sites, appear to be a more reasonable and acceptable layout than illustrated in PUD Amendment No. 4, as this eliminates the planned drive-thru for Bldg. T; and the new building locations increase the walkability and lends support to the active living principles adopted by the City. c)the revised size and layout of Bldg. B from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,673 sq. ft.; and the new drive- thru service lane for a proposed end-cap user, can be considered a reasonable and supportable improvement on this pad site, contingent upon the full acceptance by city staff of the new drive-thru service lane. d) The replatting of the lots comprehended under Shingle Creek Crossing 5 th Addition, and as noted on these updated PUD Plans appear to be a reasonable realignment of lot boundaries and building pad sites. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2014-06, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2014-006, a planned unit development amendment (No. 6) to the previously approved Shingle Creek Crossing PUD redevelopment plans, which would allow certain revisions to the original 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development and to the 2013 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan and Planned Unit Development Plans, dated September 2013, and subject to the following conditions and allowances: 1.Staff requests the Developer work with the City and stakeholders in this Shingle Creek Crossing PUD (including Sears) in revising the SCC-PUD Agreement or ECR Agreement to avoid future "gerrymandering" or unique and unusual lot configurations. 2.Unless amended otherwise or under separate agreement, all existing provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and its subsequent amendments, shall remain in effect for the entire Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. 3. Any future PUD amendment or application requests will require the submittal and adoption (acceptance) of an updated master plan, which plan shall govern the planned and future redevelopment areas of this site. Attachments •Planning Commission Res. No. 2014-06 •New Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan (May 2014) •Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Plans (May 2014) MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2014 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works - PUD Amendment No. 6 Review Memo — Shingle Creek Crossing Public Works Department staff has reviewed the 11 sheet set of plans entitled Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Amendment 6 which were prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and are dated May 19, 2014. PUD Amendment 6 applies only to building sites 9, 10, R, T and B. The major effects of the proposed revisions as part of PUD Amendment 6 over the currently approved PUD Amendment No. 4 are as follows: •Moving Buildings R and T towards Xerxes Ave N. and modification of the parking layout. •Reconfiguration of Buildings 9 and 10. •Addition of drive-thru lane on Building B in Lot 2, Block. •Decreasing the size of Building B by 3,200 square feet and modification of the parking layout. The following comments are offered relative to the above-referenced submittals. They are contingent upon preliminary and final plat approval, final site plan and land alteration/building permit submittal and approval. Additionally, this review only includes a review of the items pertaining to Buildings 9-10, R, T and B. PUD Items: I. Provide locations of trash enclosures for Buildings R and T. Provide truck turning and access movements to demonstrate adequacy for garbage pickup. 2.Revise site plan to provide accessible stalls and accessible routes, as necessary for all buildings, including Buildings 9 and 10. 3.Provide building loading dock and delivery locations for Buildings R, T and B. 4.All proposed truck turning/backing areas must be fully separated from public customer parking areas, must not direct or invite public parking ingress/egress routes through loading dock and turning/backing areas, and must not encroach on main drive aisles. Detailed truck turning and access movements must be provided to demonstrate adequacy. Final access routes and turning movements for all loading dock areas will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary and Final Plans. 5.A drive-thru is not part of the original PUD approval for this lot; however, if approved, revisions must be made to address the following: a)The drive-thru entrance/exit is at the same access point but entrance and exit lanes are on reverse sides. This may cause driver confusion and contribute to safety issues, therefore should be revised to eliminate this issue. b)Provide drive-thru study based on comparable use business, addressing typical queues and available stacking/storage areas. c) Provide location of ordering kiosk and drive-thru window area. PUD Amendment No. 6 Plan Review —Shingle Creek Page 2 May 22, 2014 d)Provide vehicle path and turning movements' diagrams. Note that the current drive- thru radius is extremely tight as vehicles approach the building, which may contribute to issues. e)Recommend revising site layout pertaining to the drive-thru to address the above comments. 6.Sheet 05, shows proposed storm sewer under proposed Building B trash enclosure. Relocate trash enclosure. 7.The existing City lighting, trees and landscaping along Xerxes must be protected. Maintain and re-establish landscaping as needed to preserve the original landscaping along Xerxes Boulevard, incorporating all landscaping and irrigation behind the trail into the site's and developments landscaping. General Items: 8.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 Shingle Creek Crossing; Shingle Creek Crossing 2 nd Addition; Shingle Creek Crossing 3 1-d Addition, Shingle Creek Crossing 4 th Addition and/or portions thereof are withstanding and must be incorporated into the final plans. 9.Provide an update of the original and amended traffic impact study to reflect the current site and building revisions for PUD Amendment 6 and prior outstanding revisions. 10.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 plans. 11.The final plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota and forwarded to the City Engineer for approval. Preliminary Plat and Final Plat: 12.The revisions to the property line requires replatting and vacating easements. 13.Rededicating and terminating certain easements are required as part of the required replatting. Formal vacation documents are required and must contain easement vacation descriptions and depiction exhibits signed by a professional surveyor. A separate application is required for the easement vacation actions. 14.No portion of building or appurtenant structures may encroach on the City drainage and utility easement. 15.An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Engineer and City Attorney for review within 30 days of preliminary plat application. Additionally, this will need to stay current and be updated throughout the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of release of the final plat. Easements and Agreements: 16.A Performance Agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 17.Subdivision/Development and Declaration of Covenants and Rights Agreements are required that include all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 18. A temporary agreement between property owners is required for all work located outside of the applicant's property. PUD Amendment No. 6 Plan Review —Shingle Creek Page 3 May 22, 2014 Anticipated Permitting: 19.A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 20.A City of Brooklyn Center building permit is required. 21.A City of Brooklyn Center water and sewer permit is required. 22.An MPCA NPDES permit is required. 23.An MPCA sanitary sewer permit may be required. 24.A MN Department of Health water main extension permit may be required. 25.Other permits not listed may be required and are the responsibility of the developer to obtain as warranted. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration and Building Permit: 26.Submit recorded copies of all required agreements. 27.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 28.Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. 29.A letter of credit or cash escrow shall be deposited with the City in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost in the amount estimated by the developer and determined by the City to comply with land alteration requirement, site improvement, and restoration of the site. The City may incrementally reduce the amount of the surety if work is completed and accepted. 30.A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, haul routes, 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. The plan must be in a City approved format and must outline minimum site management practices and penalties for non-compliance. A $5,000 cash deposit is required as part of the non-compliance provision. Through this document, the developer and property owner will acknowledge: a)The property will be brought into compliance within 24 hours of notification of a violation of the construction management plan, other conditions of approval or City code standards. b)If compliance is not achieved, the City will use any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any deficiency and/or issue. 31.Submit a $5,000 cash escrow for the costs associated with the City performing inspections and SWPPP reviews 32.A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The PUD amendment and site plan must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plan may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. LL1 0 0z 10‘. 4 r :1'4114°' 4 5t, $14 41`. 1 •••• %,•.1 • =att_- a a• A tilt .4t1,4' 530_q),-C;,-,:177)t, r -....___ = . '' :•-• 41 ---...-.--.7,--,-----,, 4 - T .4,. " - f 4 .;414111-1,‘,1---- '-r-'.----- - 7.-A.__ , r i...* (.‘,. _ -- .1!rec:6-0 1.1. JO L. !HS arOSTINIs rod,Nws 1101HX9 NINfld 911S '2I311\130 NA1>1001E1 CDSNVid Trad93N00 91\IISS02:10 >i3HO 319NIHS1.160 3 55:51 9 1N91A101\1915IV andwoH q(ADIwD1 4 F'. ( 'Ill;10, li y',, s-„ I V 1 .2 II .•- :.../s ' r I \-\\ `r: i„, : 'r"-3‘rr, r '•,;`,i i,\\\\\ , I ' ' \\,:m.., [ 1,.. I 96 '54 a r:tri 2 66:6, 1 h (1. "tin! ri ' 8r=AH 1- t,:6-11TL „22 •8 \ \ ?)-\'•\ •\‘' 14-14-1 -Slie9A:1110 X09 ..s-o ,, ,.--,',-„, , z/ ,'''-, \ •'••-•... -. \ ..„--7d..- •,..,',\ .<1"o \.e4-ie ''''N\ *•,,,,,,,,,- ,...--,.. .,-..-..\ \•'•-•:-` 0-7'•-•--' .. '\\*7" .'."-- .5 6 `...,‘,1.\\‘,6•0,,,,,,••••••••'........,,,,..,,, ‘"`'.6.1,.'s4‘.7s.,,,s:r,,,,) 7- \ -7••• \ .- 9 E \ s , \ \ , ‘,:k..'::\., .41 : Gi.,,,,:, , ''LOS 5505 SI 10 555:55551 air - toV66,,::6 35,111A5053 \ .1/133 seesvoses\vondolssas ■duve\ees-reve\ 'ILI." 1-a IWe :al a 1,91, 1.1. JO Z 131HS 119IHX3 ONISVHd SNVld lVflid30N00 9 1NDIAJONAVIV and■Fl3 sv.anluJoHo artoi 1 111 136 CIII >106 'II (In ZO 6..1/10.1 0..SVP4 — 20 \ CCVO Bu•o.o '10S2NNIel rIld3111.13HS.SA,AG H31N30 NKINO02 DNISS02:10 >032:10 3191\IIHS V1053ZWIN rt1d3ttrtitH I 9 ,I-I99K9 3d 3LW0 S 5-535-1woHootaium 1.1, JO E 133FIS 119IHX3 ONIGNMO ONLLSIX3 SNVld 1Villd3ONOO 9 INI3VIGN3INV and ava NV1 13.1_1\10 NA-NOM ONISS0:10 N23z10 310NIHS \ , y \ ..-7 -,.-:---=- \----.7r1 r-'i,--- „7i/7 ;j, s-tlt tit , ‘i u-.506 616660 CO 3V1,9 - 20\ 51.1g4 ,3 £ 3600.1d \ C.070 21311133 3750500B \,13.3033130 \ \ , • 7 , \ e \ \ \ -' . N % ,,,-,j ' •\,<§' .'& ''',,S',. - — - \ •.',•,t, _.„ \\\ ,c).,"%. \, Oge— , \ •';',, -,-,0 , / ' \ ‘., ..,,, , \ k, \. 's \' ' •''''''.i•, / t... • ,• \ ,,'A' ''''V -, ' -\•,\....: 50, , \ _..... „, • ., — , , - 2' ',••,"z, - 0S2 - \\,:\ \'V---. '.1.1 1.,-3:;..1:',---"•c''''''is ,'...„, ,; ;c4';'' \\ -- -.2 9 Ve.'r,--7:: --, -i•'---2', ;- 7-7- '• .., , ,,,, , . k,O. ,A. "U -'-',--, , "7 ' ,,, - -‘ •' ' \ ' ' A ' ' .• ._. -- - ‘ ) ,P OF- •,.': ,.$ , \, \k\ .\ , , oo .. 1 b \-- I.\ \ V.,: k \ '5, \ ' 9,- -,.. \ '‘ • s l'es,oz, . " • \'N.:s‘k s \ \\ \ \ \ , \ Ei . P, P, LS\ ' A l• JO 4 132HS 118IHX9 ONIMRJO O9S0d0?Jd SNYld 1Vfl1d33NOO 9 IN9INCIN3WV and V .LOS 1,11,1 -uioH q(AaiwN •••3., ,LVO NV'J '191N130 NA1NOM8 9N1SS010 >I3310 81eNIHS 3c11 ,iw I57317 -own, Fes. 1.0 .70 ENOS W01-1 (0 DIM] ■la .2'10, 0 55/51 pen. 1.1. JO 9 113HS .1.181HX3 )111M99 MOIS SNIVidlVflicIAONOO 9 INAMONANIV and 00535510 tI1d3r0,2,1 NW `131.NDO N■l1NOOHEI ONISSCM0 )1990 310NIHS w 'Er2 A —>u Er> Lij > SS 0,,zt Tina 3.LvAwa • ‘zr (.7 -:-.4 \ - \ -- ...,,,c2 V1003,1.■1 or a3r.31-1 =Ho( arm I. JO 9 131HS 1191HX3 ,u_nan 1311,21/V1 SNVId1V1-11cOON00 9 INglAION3 4 IVd sro:ni v _ 0 NLP `?,EIN130 NIA1>L0018 ONISS010 >I32:10 3191\11HS 1a 0.E 0 7, 010Z d0 gn /:13.1VPA nun - m\s114.,r.'sI 3(nIod\O0I3\InnrD 3, 0 n049 \ 1,00,73,30 1.711,0 A201-3.1.1 1,10: .St 00 CO — to\ 3SVI, CGCS a21,S3 317 0,00. \ 1,11V0 A30-1,,L\ aL 6 .6 E.....66-0 N3Z1Vri '0 YOM,Y, - „— U1 0 I-1 00 W JO L 133HS 1181HX9 :13/■AAS A?=IVIINVS SI\Iti1d1VnidA0N00 9 11\131AICIN31/1V and NW 'HAINED NA1>10018 DNISSM0 N33e10 AleNINS ,<2 S 5 22 22 Ta svon, L s109 133HS 119IHX3 ONI11-1011 SNVld 1VOld13N00 9 INAIARAN1WV Ond vios3rwru 1,1d11,1314 'HaIN30 NA-IN00&3 ONISSOHO }1322:10 DiONIHS;RNMHO( uou.,pins 55,5 A, -qve,L oq IN 5, 6sp,sss, — £a \ \ Commissioner Schonning introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-06 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-006 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT (No. 6) TO THE 2011 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of Brooklyn Center adopted Resolution No. 2011-85, dated June 13, 2011, which is considered the first amendment to the previously approved 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development, whereby this amendment approved the establishment of the new Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an approved Development/Master Plan and certain allowances and development standards that would govern over the PUD; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2011-127, dated September 12, 2011, which approved the first amendment to the original Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2012-106, dated August 13, 2012, which approved the second amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2012-129, dated September 24, 2012, which approved the third amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2013-124, dated October 14, 2013, which approved the fourth amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted City Resolution No. 2013-72, dated July 8, 2013, which approved the fifth amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and which included an updated Development/Master Plan and provided additional allowances and development standards; and WHEREAS, Gatlin Development Company submitted Planning Application No. 2014-006, which is now considered the sixth amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, by allowing certain changes to the approved 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-06 Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the proposal comprehends additional adjustments not approved under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development and the related 2011 PUD Agreement, specifically the proposed amendments to be comprehended under this application includes four components as described below, and illustrated in the Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan (dated May 2014) and the PUD Amendment No. 6 Conceptual Plans (dated May 19, 2014): Component No. 1: approval of the revised layout of Bldgs. 9 and 10 within the former Brookdale Mall Food Court replacement plans, and allowing the building sizes to be revised to 8,352 sq. ft. and 10,800 sq. ft., respectively, and provide a set-time deferral to the Developer in installing a temporary physical screen for the loading dock areas behind said buildings; Component No. 2: approval of the revised layout of Buildings R, a new 5,400 sq. ft. restaurant pad site; and Building T, a new 5,500 sq. ft. restaurant pad site; Component No. 3: approval of the revised size and layout of Building B from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,673 sq. ft.; and allowing a new (and yet to be determined) drive- thru service lane for a proposed end-cap user; Component No. 4: approval of the replatting of land surrounding the Food Court area, which is identified under separate Preliminary Plat and proposed Final Plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 5 th Addition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on May 29, 2014, whereby a staff report and public testimony regarding the Planned Unit Development Amendment were received and considered by the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission considered the Planned Unit Development Amendment request in light of all testimony received, including the guidelines for evaluating such amendments as contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did determine that Planning Application No. 2014-006, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, may be approved based upon the following considerations: a) The the revised layout of Bldgs. 9 and 10, along with the revised size of Bldg. 9 to 13,332 sq. ft. and Bldg. 10 reduced to 6,000 sq. ft., can all be considered a reasonable request made under this PUD Amendment application. Said changes do not negatively affect the overall redevelopment plans of the Brookdale Food Court redevelopment area; PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-06 and the new buildings will promote and enhance the general welfare and continued success of this PUD, as it maintains and keeps the redevelopment of this site active and ongoing; and reflects a reasonable need or benefit to the PUD Site as requested by the Developer, b)the revised layouts of Buildings R and T, proposed as two new restaurant pad sites, appear to be a more reasonable and acceptable layout than illustrated in PUD Amendment No. 4, as this eliminates the planned drive- thru for Bldg. T; and the new building locations increase the walkability and lends support to the active living principles adopted by the City. c)the revised size and layout of Bldg. B from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,673 sq. ft.; and the new drive-thru service lane for a proposed end-cap user, can be considered a reasonable and supportable improvement on this pad site, contingent upon the full acceptance by city staff of the new drive-thru service lane. d) The replatting of the lots comprehended under Shingle Creek Crossing 5th Addition, and as noted on these updated PUD Plans appear to be a reasonable realignment of lot boundaries and building pad sites. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center did determine that Planning Application No. 2014-006, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, may be approved based on the belief that the guidelines for evaluating Planned Unit Development Amendment as contained in Section 35-355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and the proposal is, therefore, in the best interest of the community. 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. 2014-006 may approved, subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.Staff requests the Developer work with the City to avoid future "gerrymandering" or unique and unusual lot configurations. 2.Unless amended otherwise or under separate agreement, all existing provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and its subsequent amendments, shall remain in effect for the entire Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-06 3. Any future PUD amendment or application requests will require the submittal and adoption (acceptance) of an updated master plan, which plan shall govern the planned and future redevelopment areas of • ite. May 29, 2014 Date ATTEST:? Secretary Chair The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Harstad. and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Pro Tem Christensen, Commissioners Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning . and the following voted against the same: None. whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 APPLICATION NO. 2014-006 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Chair Pro Tern Christensen introduced Application No. 2014-006, consideration of Amendment No. 6 to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, to allow the reconfiguration of certain buildings and lot lines, and allow future drive-thru lane for new building, for the property located at 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5- 29-14 for Application No. 2014-006). Mr. Benetti provided a background to the Commission regarding the history of previous amendments to the originally approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Shingle Creek Crossing. He stated Amendment No. 6 involves the following components: •The revised layout of Bldgs. 9 and 10 within the former Brookdale Mall Food Court replacement plans. •The revised layout of Buildings R and T, which are proposed as two new restaurant pad sites. These two buildings were originally shown on PUD No. 4 as 5,400 sq. ft. and 2,800 sq. ft., respectively. Building T also included a new wrap-around drive-thru service lane for its own use. The new layout shows the buildings located closer to the Xerxes Avenue right-of-way, with Bldg. R remaining at 5,400 sq. ft. and T increased to 5,500 sq. ft. •The revised size and layout of Bldg. B from 8,500 sq. ft. to 6,673 sq. ft.; and the new tear-drop shaped drive-thru service lane for a proposed end-cap user (identified previously as Jimmy-John's Restaurant). •This part includes the replotting of the land surrounding the Food Court area. Although the preliminary plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 5 th Addition has already been considered, Staff indicated in the related Planning Report that all new lot layouts had to be acknowledged or confirmed under the future PUD Amendment No. 6 plans. Mr. Benetti stated Staff is concerned with the somewhat unusual, non-symmetrical and confusing lot layouts or lot boundary patterns proposed under this Shingle Creek 5 th Addition and previously approved plats within this PUD. He added some of these lot lines and patterns take on a "gerrymandered" appearance, which is due to the PUD requirement that each building pad site meet the minimum required parking standards of the PUD: •4.5 stalls for each 1,000 sq. ft. of retail/service space •10 stalls for each 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant space •20% of a multi-tenant retail building could be used as a restaurant using the retail/service parking ratio. Mr. Benetti further stated Staff prefers a more typical plat map layout without the need to encumber the required number of parking spaces on each lot and suggests the Developer work to revise the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD agreement and/or Easements, Covenants and Restrictions Agreement approved under the Shingle Creek Crossing Agreement and the 1999 Brookdale Mall PUD. Mr. Benetti explained staffs recommendations to approve the Amendment which would allow certain revisions to the original 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development and to Page 5 5-29-14 EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 the 2013 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan and Planned Unit Development Plans, dated September 2013, subject to the following conditions and allowances: 1.Staff requests the Developer work with the City and stakeholders in this Shingle Creek Crossing PUD (including Sears) in revising the SCC-PUD Agreement or ECR Agreement to avoid future "gerrymandering" or unique and unusual lot configurations. 2.Unless amended otherwise or under separate agreement, all existing provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and its subsequent amendments, shall remain in effect for the entire Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. 3. Any future PUD amendment or application requests will require the submittal and adoption (acceptance) of an updated master plan, which plan shall govern the planned and future redevelopment areas of this site. Commissioner Freedman stated he appreciates all the hard work by staff on this development. He asked for clarification regarding approval of a drive thru. Mr. Benetti explained the process for a special use permit which is required for a drive thru. He added a future plan will require approval of the drive thru. He added this application simply approves the building footprint. Commissioner Freedman stated he agrees with making the lines straighter but he understands the needs to meet parking requirements. Commissioner Christensen stated the location of the drive thru looks like it changes traffic patterns. Mr. Benetti replied engineering staff has reviewed the plan and they are discussing if there is enough room for stacking and movement on the site. He added the revised plan for the drive thru service, provides better pedestrian access/safety. Commissioner Christensen stated the back side of a building along a main thoroughfare doesn't show the building is occupied and open and he has concerns with that. He suggested having a false window on the back side would make the building look more inviting from both sides. Mr. Eitel responded he has worked with the architect to create attractive four sided buildings with pedestrian friendly routes around the site and as they go forward they will continue to work with them regarding the design of the buildings. Commissioner Freedman asked if the properties will be leased or sold? Mr. Benetti replied the sites are being platted separately by the developer so he can secure proper financing as the buildings are constructed. This also allows him to maintain ownership of the entire site and lease or sell any parcels to interested parties. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2014-006 There was a motion by Commissioner Schorming, seconded by Commissioner Harstad, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2014-006, at 8:27 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Pro Tern Christensen called for comments from the public. Page 6 5-29-14 EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 Luke Payne, Kimley Horn, Civil Engineer, stated he is open and willing to answer questions. Mr. Payne addressed Condition No. 1, which states the Developer work with staff and other stake holders to amend the PUD and ECR agreement. He stated he spoke to Gatlin and staff regarding parking and he provided a history of the research done regarding parking needs on the site. He added through the process it was determined that each individual would have to contribute towards the maintenance of the shared parking and at this point it creates a challenge to eliminate the criteria. He continued in order to obtain approvals for development, they had very stout rejections from Sears, and the Developer was forced to enter in certain agreements with Sears whereby they invoked ECR's on the entire site. He added amending the ECR with Sears would be nearly impossible since they have not been a very willing partner in this development. He continued by stating it creates significant problems for the overall development since the developer is not interested in amending the ECR at this point. Mr. Payne explained the reason for the unusual layouts of the lot lines in the plat. He added there are a lot of forces that come into play when laying out lot lines and he provided other examples of odd shaped parcels in Hennepin County which are usually drive by parking and is not unusual or atypical. Mr. Payne continued by stating it is in the best interest of everyone to be somewhat flexible to get desired tenants included in the development. He added that this was originally planned to be one lot and it was impossible to get financing without separating the lots this way. Mr. Benetti stated it is not out of the ordinary to lay out unusual lot configurations and staff is simply encouraging a nice pattern to a lot layout and the continued changes has caused angst among certain staff. Commissioner Christensen responded that he understands how this works and appreciates the efforts by the Developer to achieve completion of the site and would encourage staff to work with others to understand. Mr. Payne stated by objecting to the condition in no way means he is not willing to work with staff to see what makes the most sense and creates the cleanest subdivisions. Commissioner Freedman stated he feels the city staff does a great job working with developers and he doesn't have a problem leaving the ECR agreement in place. Mr. Benetti suggested a change to Condition No. 1 to remove the requirement to revise the ECR agreement. Mr. Payne stated they will continue to work with staff and would like to remove the portion of the condition that requires revisions to the ECR. He also addressed the Commission's concerns with the look and layout of the future buildings and assured the Commission they will take their comments into consideration. He added the drive thru is the most important thing to secure the tenant on the site and he understands staff has some concerns but the proposed layout should not cause issues with access. Page 7 5-29-14 EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 No one else appeared at the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Harstad, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2014-006 . 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-06 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-006 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTE (NO. 6) TO THE 2011 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Freedman, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-06. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Christensen, Commissioners, Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 9, 2014 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 8 5-29-14 City Council Agenda Item No. 9c MUNCH, ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: GaryGary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007 Submitted by Gatlin Development Company Requesting the Approval of an Amendment to the Approved Site and Building Plan to Allow the Reconfiguration of Proposed Buildings 9 and 10 Within the Brookdale Mall Food Court Reconstruction Area and Which is Part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1300 Shingle Creek Crossing) Recommendation: Recommended the City Council adopt the Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007 submitted by Gatlin Development Company requesting the approval of an Amendment to the Approved Site and Building Plan to allow the reconfiguration of proposed Buildings 9 and 10 within the Brookdale Mall Food Court Reconstruction Area and which is part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1300 Shingle Creek Crossing). Background: On May 29, 2014, the City Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. 2014-007, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of an Amendment to the Approved Site and Building Plan to Allow the Reconfiguration of Proposed Buildings 9 and 10 Within the Brookdale Mall Food Court Reconstruction Area and Which is Part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (1300 Shingle Creek Crossing). Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-07, in which the Planning Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of approval regarding this proposed plat. Excerpts minutes from the May 29, 2014 Planning Commission meeting as related to this matter are attached for the Council's review. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: • Focused Redevelopment 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 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-007 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED SITE AND BUILDING PLAN TO ALLOW THE RECONFIGURATION OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS 9 AND 10 WITHIN THE BROOKDALE MALL FOOD COURT RECONSTRUCTION AREA AND WHICH IS PART OF THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1300 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-139, which approved Planning Application No. 2013-020, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, of a new comprehensive Site and Building Plan for the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, and which is part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and is located at 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing, and; WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007, also submitted by Gatlin Development Company, is requesting approval of an Amendment to this previously approved Site and Building Plan of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, which includes the reconfiguration of Buildings 9 and 10 in said plans; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the reconfiguration and layout of new Buildings 9 and 10, all in conjunction with the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; 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; and that the Site and Building Plans for Buildings 9 and 10, as comprehended under the Planning Application No. 2014-007, may be approved based upon the following considerations: A. The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; RESOLUTION NO. B.The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the 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; C.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; D.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; E.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 F. 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. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-07, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council that the Amendment to the Site and Building Plan allowing the reconfiguration of future Buildings 9 and 10, and which changes were officially submitted under Planning Application No. 2014-007, and said plans are made part of the planned redevelopment and reconstruction of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, may be approved with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of an Amendment to the Site and Building Plan, allowing the reconfiguration of future Buildings 9 and 10, and which changes were officially submitted under Planning Application No. 2014-007, with said plans being part of the planned redevelopment and reconstruction of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area and is made part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. RESOLUTION NO. 2.Developer is allowed to forgo the installation of the landscape berm as a temporary screening measure approved under the previous Planned Unit Development Amendment No. 4, nor the partial (rear) walls to Building Nos. 9 and 10 as proposed. The Developer shall have until October 1, 2015 to either complete the build-out of Buildings 9 and 10, or submit a new PUD Amendment that must include an alternative screen for this loading area. 3.The two new stand-alone building sites labeled "R" and "T" respectively, which were included in the overall Site Plan Amendment plans labeled "Site Improvement Plans Buildings 9, 10, R, T for Shingle Creek Crossing" and those made part of any approvals granted under separate consideration of Shingle Creek Crossing 6tn Amendment, are not approved under this site plan amendment consideration. These two building are subject to separate site and building plan considerations. 4.All new buildings proposed under this new Site Plan must incorporate 4- sided architectural and the Class 1 and 2 building materials specified under the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. 5.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6.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. 7.An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 9.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. RESOLUTION NO. 10.The Developer shall submit an as built survey or record drawing of the subject property, identifying all underground and above ground improvements, including but not limited to all utilities and service lines. 11.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. 12.All other provisions and conditions approved under Planning Application No. 2013-020 (dated November 25, 2013) shall remain binding and in effect. 13.All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and subsequent amendments to this PUD shall remain binding and in effect. 14. Developer shall work with city staff to provide an effective transitional screening for the loading areas behind Buildings 1 — 8 in this area. June 9, 2014 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. BROOKLIN CENTER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 29, 2014 •Application Filed: 04/03/14 •Application Deemed Complete: 05/19/14 •Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/18/14 •Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2014-007 Applicant: Gatlin Development Company Location: 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing (PUD Project Site) Request: Site and Building Plan Amendment for Bldgs. 9 & 10 INTRODUCTION Gatlin Development Company is requesting an amendment to an approved Site and Building Plan on the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall Food Court area. The original site plans provided for the removal of the entire 123,200 sf food court mall area, to be replaced with ten (10) new retail/service buildings. This amendment is to allow the reconfiguration of both building pad sites, with smaller or larger buildings than what was approved under the previous PUD Amendment No. 4, planning application No. 2013-018 and the follow-up Site and Building Plan approvals under planning application No. 2013-020. This matter is being presented as a general public meeting item and without an official public hearing. The Planning Commission may elect to take public comments if necessary or requested. BACKGROUND The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was approved on May 23, 2011, which provided for the overall redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall properties. The redevelopment would phase in approximately 403,000 sf of new retail commercial and restaurant uses, and included the new daylighting and waterway features of Single Creek running through the site. The 2 nd Amendment (approved September 12, 2011) provided the physical separation of the Food Court building from the Sears store; the renovation/conversion of the Food Court's "common area" into additional retail space, the removal of Building N between Sears and Wal- Mart; and the addition of a new 6,000 sf. commercial pad site. The 3 rd Amendment (approved September 24, 2012) provided the replatting of certain lots; revised original Building Site D to a new 8,400 sq. ft. mixed retail/restaurant use with a drive dim service lane; the elimination of a 35,660 sf. Building Q (Best Buy store) site, which was replaced with a reduced 6,000 sf1 restaurant pad site and a new 7,500 sf. Building 0 restaurant pad site. The 4th Amendment (approved October 14, 2013) provided for the removal and redevelopment of the Food Court area; lot line readjustments between Bldg. Sites A and B; and the adjustment to the Bldg. D pad site. The planned configuration of the food court site is illustrated in the App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 1 / #4114- 1\) .1)) EXISTING SEARS (NOT IN CONTRACT)Sears diagram below. Please note the Buildings 9 and 10 layout. The approvals granted to the Applicant in November 2013 essentially allowed for the immediate construction of Building Nos. 1 through 7, while Building Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were scheduled to be delayed until tenants or users were secured for this easterly section of the reconstructed mall. In lieu of constructing Bldgs. 8-10, the Developer requested to build a large landscape berm to serve as a physical screen for the interior loading dock area. At the May 1, 2014 Planning Commission meeting, planning staff presented for the Commission's review a proposal to allow a minor amendment to the approved Food Court Site and Building Plans approved the previous November 2013. This minor amendment allowed Gatlin to continue with the build-out of Building No. 8 with the recently submitted building permit plans to the City. At the May 12 th City Council meeting, this minor amendment was approved and the building permit for the reconstruction of Buildings 1 — 8 are nearing completion and issuance of a permit. Due to the changes and reconfiguration of building layouts proposed under Planning Application No. 2014-006, the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Amendment No. 6, and specifically the changes comprehended under the submitted Site and Improvement Plans Buildings 9, 10, R and T (dated 05/19/14), staff felt it was prudent to resubmit these changes to Bldgs. 9 and 10 to be sure the Planning Commission accepted these changes and made a recommendation to the city council accordingly. App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 2 SITE DATA TABLE LOT BUILDINGS LOT AREA BUILDING PARKING PROVIDED RATIO LOT 1, BLOCK 1 1,2,3,4,5 7.65 ACRES 79,526 SQ. FT.386 SPACES 4.85 LOT 2, BLOCK 1 10 0.93 ACRES 6,000 SQ. FT.33 SPACES 5.50 LOT 3, BLOCK 1 T 1.54 ACRES 5,500 SQ. FT.55 SPACES 10 LOT 4, BLOCK 1 R 1.03 ACRES 5,400 SQ. FT.56 SPACES 10.37 LOT 5, BLOCK 1 9 1.42 ACRES 13,332 SQ. FT.60 SPACES 4.50 LOT 6, BLOCK 1 6,7,8 2.03 ACRES 12,141 SQ. FT.56 SPACES 4.61 •. SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS Under the approved PUD No. 4 and Food Court Site Improvement Plans of 2013, Bldg. 9 was originally planned to be 8,352 sq. ft. size while Bldg. 10 was scheduled to be 10,800 sq. ft. The amendment noted that these two buildings are essentially swapping places with each other, with Bldg. 9 increased to 13,332 sq. ft. and Bldg. 10 reduced to 6,000 sq. ft. The table below provides the breakdown of each bulling size, parking spaces provide and ratios. Building 9 is scheduled to be a multi-tenant (11 spaced) retail service store, while Bldg. 10 is scheduled to be a smaller multi-tenant (5 spaced) retail service building. According to this table, both Bldgs. 9 and 10 will be parked at 60 and 33 spaces respectively. The number of spaces allocated to each new building pad site meets the minimum required 4.5 spaces/1,000 sf. of floor area. The PUD was approved with an overall architectural [elevation] plan as part of the original approvals. All new buildings must incorporate 4-sided architecture in their designs, meaning all App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 3 BUILDING '10' four elevations must provide a nice, consistent use of material on all four sides of the buildings, including rear elevations. The facades of these new retail store spaces are scheduled to receive a nice mix of stone veneers, EIFS, concrete brick veneers, integrally colored rock face block, spandrel glass and other materials. Most of these architectural materials are consistent with the previously approved Architectural Standards (including Class 1 and Class 2 materials) the City called for under the original PUD Agreement. Staff will also point out that the exposed southerly building wall for Bldg. No. 7 (illustrated above) will need to be completed with approved Class 1 and Class 2 materials. App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 4 GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The finished grades and drainage grades in and around this redevelopment site will not change much, as they will need to match in with the previously approved (and completed) graded and improved surrounding areas. Slight grade changes are being proposed in the parking lot areas to accommodate positive drainage around this site. The rear loading dock (pavement) area is shown with proposed grades towards the central portion, with new storm sewer systems to catch and carry run-off from this area. All necessary utilities, such as water, gas, electric and phone lines have been provided or installed throughout this PUD site, and connections for these new buildings can easily be made to the previously installed utility lines, stubs or mains that traverse this site. The final grading and drainage plans will be thoroughly reviewed later by the City Engineer under the required land disturbance permit process. This site and all other disturbed areas of this PUD site have been or will be reviewed by the City Engineer for full compliance and acceptance. Since some of the overall PUD development site infrastructure has already been installed, there is not much room or need to depart from the original and approved grading/drainage plans. All other areas of this site appear to drain properly or do not require any special drainage structures or modification prior to building approvals. LANDSCAPING The Applicant has submitted an updated landscape plan, which reflects the slight changes made with the two buildings. Plans remain for the installation of various deciduous trees, such as elms, maples, hackbenies, honey locusts and white oaks inside the parking islands of this site, with a scattering of smaller, ornamental trees such as prairie fire crabs in front planting areas of the buildings. App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 5 • ACCESS & PARKING All main access points into this specified area will remain the same or without any changes as part of this redevelopment. The Developer has provided an updated truck access route maps for the Commission to review, along with an updated Major Route Plan. These maps provide an illustration of how delivery trucks will come in off Xerxes Avenue at the 56 th Avenue intersection; turn into the site along the south side; enter into the loading area; maneuver or reverse course into the respective loading bays, and exit through the same corridor. No truck traffic is projected to come in at the 55 th Avenue/Xerxes Ave. (Sears Automotive) intersection. The parking to be provided under this Site Plan will take place within new parking areas to the east of the buildings, and the large existing surface parking area to the west along Xerxes Avenue. A small number of parking is also provided to the north (installed under the Phase I construction of this PUD project). The plan identifies 712 parking spaces will be created or reserved to these ten buildings. The overall (average) parking ratio is 6.58 spaces, which exceeds the 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sf of gross floor area needed for retail/service uses. These parking numbers and ratios will more than likely be adjusted once proposed Bldgs. R and T take place. The original 2013 Site Plan included a small number of parking within the entrance into the rear loading dock areas. This parking was not supported by city staff and recommendation was made to remove it due to the potential conflicts between passenger vehicles and large trucks entering exiting this area. The updated site pal n does not include or illustrate any parking within this entrance area. App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 6 LIGHTING/TRASH The site plans also include an updated and detailed photometric and light plan, which calls for a number of large overhead lighting, primarily to light the new parking areas to be completed under this site plan, and the loading dock area. Pedestrian style lighting is also being provided along the central walkway corridor, which complies with the City's conditions under the PUD Amendment No. 2 approvals. The original 2013 Site Plans illustrated three new trash enclosure areas located along the back- side of Bldgs. 3, 7 and 10. These three enclosures are shown with two trash dumpsters for each area. With the projected sizes of these buildings, Staff does not believe these trash enclosures will be adequate to handle all garbage and refuse produced by this development. Staff assumes that some trash containers may be contained inside the buildings and interior loading/storage spaces, or provisions will be made to accommodate all trash services for these new buildings. Staff also assumes the enclosure behind No. 10 will come later, once this area is built-out. CITY ENGINEER REVIEW The city engineers have provided their review and comments regarding this site plan amendment in the May 22, 2014 memorandum to city planning staff, attached hereto. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2014-07, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2014-007, the Minor Amendment to the Approved Site and Building Plan for the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, which is part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and made subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 7 Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 2.Developer is allowed to forgo the installation of the landscape berm as a temporary screening measure approved under the previous Planned Unit Development Amendment No. 4, nor the partial (rear) walls to Building Nos. 9 and 10 as proposed. The Developer shall have until October 1, 2015 to either complete the build-out of Buildings 9 and 10, or submit a new PUD Amendment that must include an alternative screen for this loading area. 3.The two new stand-alone building sites labeled "R" and "T" respectively, which were included in the overall Site Plan Amendment plans labeled "Site Improvement Plans Buildings 9, 10, R, T for Shingle Creek Crossing" and those made part of any approvals granted under separate consideration of Shingle Creek Crossing 6 th Amendment, are not approved under this site plan amendment consideration. These two building are subject to separate site and building plan considerations. 4.All new buildings proposed under this new Site Plan must incorporate 4-sided architectural and the Class 1 and 2 building materials specified under the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. The exposed southerly wall of Building No. 7 must also be improved with the same Class 1 and/or Class 2 materials. 5.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6.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. 7.An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 9.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 10. The Developer shall submit an as built survey or record drawing of the subject property, identifying all underground and above ground improvements, including but not limited to all utilities and service lines. App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 8 11.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. 12.All other provisions and conditions approved under Planning Application No. 2013-020 (dated November 25, 2013) shall remain binding and in effect. 13. All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and subsequent amendments to this PUD shall remain binding and in effect. Attachments E Planning Commission Res. No. 2014-07 E City Engineer's Review Memo- May 22, 2014 11 Shingle Creek Crossing Master Plan (May 2014) .Site Improvement Plans Buildings 9, 10, R, T for Shingle Creek Crossing App. No. 2014-007 PC 05/29/14 Page 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2014 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works - Site Plan Memo — Shingle Creek Crossing Phase 4 Public Works Department staff has reviewed the 18 sheet set of plans entitled Shingle Creek Crossing Phase 4 which were prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and are dated May 2, 2014. The site plan reviews applies only to sites 9, 10, R, and T. The following comments are offered relative to the above referenced submittals. They are contingent upon PUD Amendment 6 approval, preliminary and final plat approval, and final site plan and land alteration/building permit submittal and approval. Additionally, this review only includes a review of the revisions contained within sites 9, 10, R, and T. Other sites outside of these sites have not been included as part of this review. Site Plan Exhibit Items: I. Provide details on delivery access for Buildings R and T. 2.Provide details on trash enclosures for Building R and T. 3.Revise site plan to provide better pedestrian connectivity/assessable route from accessible stalls to Building 9, including a pedestrian ramp in front of Building 9 near crosswalk. 4.Revise site plan to provide accessible stalls for Building 10, including accessible route. 5.Provide accessible ramps/route for drive aisle crossing between Building 9 and 10. 6.Install storm sewer manhole on existing stormsewer line running NE between Building R and Building 9. Connect proposed stormsewer line running SE from parking area in front of Building R into newly constructed stormwater structure. 7.Clarify whether Buildings 9, 10, R, and T will have stormwater roof leader connections. 8.Provide details on how storm runoff from parking area north of Building R drains to proposed storm sewer. 9.All proposed loading dock and truck turning/backing areas must be fully separated from public customer parking areas, must not direct or invite public parking ingress/egress routes through loading dock and turning/backing areas, and must not encroach on main drive aisles. Detailed truck turning and access movements must be provided to demonstrate adequacy. Final access routes and turning movements for all loading dock areas will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary and Final Plans. 10.The existing City lighting, trees and landscaping along Xerxes must be protected. Maintain and re-establish landscaping as needed to preserve the original landscaping along Xerxes Boulevard, incorporating all landscaping and irrigation behind the trail into the site's and developments landscaping. General Items: 11.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 Shingle Creek Crossing; Shingle Creek Crossing 2 1a Addition; Site Plan Building 9, 10, R and T / Shingle Creek Crossing Page 2 May 22, 2014 12.Shingle Creek Crossing 3 r1 Addition, Shingle Creek Crossing 4 th Addition and/or portions thereof are withstanding and must be incorporated into the final plans. 13.Distinguish between Phase 4 proposed features and other phases. 14.An update of the original and amended traffic impact study must be made to reflect the current site and building revisions for PUD Amendment 6 and prior outstanding revisions. 15.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 plans. 16.The final plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota and forwarded to the City Engineer for approval. 17.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 of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built 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. 18.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 (which are separate from the as-built survey). 19.The applicant is responsible for coordinating site demolition plans with all private utility companies (Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications, etc.). Preliminary Plat and Final Plat: 20.The revisions to the property lines requires replatting and vacating easements. 21.Rededicating and terminating certain easements are required as part of this PUD Amendment. Formal vacation documents are required and must contain easement vacation descriptions and depiction exhibits signed by a professional surveyor. A separate application is required for the easement vacation actions. 22.No portion of building or appurtenant structures may encroach on the City drainage and utility easement. 23.An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Engineer and City Attorney for review within 30 days of preliminary plat application. Additionally, this will need to stay current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of release of the final plat. Easements and Agreements: 24.A Performance Agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 25.Subdivision/Development and Declaration of Covenants and Rights Agreements are required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 26. A temporary agreement between property owners is required for all work located outside of the applicant's property. Site Plan Building 9, 10, R and T / Shingle Creek Crossing Page 3 May 22, 2014 Anticipated Permitting: 27.A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 28.A City of Brooklyn Center building permit is required. 29.A City of Brooklyn Center water and sewer permit is required. 30.An MPCA NPDES permit is required. 31.An MPCA sanitary sewer permit may be required. 32.A MN Department of Health water main extension permit may be required. 33.Other permits not listed may be required and are the responsibility of the developer to obtain as warranted. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration and Building Permit: 34.Submit recorded copies of all required agreements. 35.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 36.Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. 37.A letter of credit or cash escrow shall be deposited with the City in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost in the amount estimated by the developer and determined by the City to comply with land alteration requirement, site improvement, and restoration of the site. The City may incrementally reduce the amount of the surety if work is completed and accepted. 38.A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, haul routes, 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. The plan must be in a City approved format and must outline minimum site management practices and penalties for non-compliance. A $5,000 cash deposit is required as part of the non-compliance provision. Through this document, the developer and property owner will acknowledge: a)The property will be brought into compliance within 24 hours of notification of a violation of the construction management plan, other conditions of approval or City code standards. b)If compliance is not achieved, the City will use any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any deficiency and/or issue. 39.Submit a $5,000 cash escrow for the costs associated with the City performing inspections and SWPPP reviews 40.A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The site plan must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plan may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. ,(8 210 V022q0/00 .3, 7,4. 7 5 .0.._ u;o110(AalulDI -)711.61/ 2__Cc ±DRHS ?=0A°3 10STINIVi 5,161103 tlId3Nt13 L OV6 °maims 2,131N39 NA1)I0MHI ONISSOT,10 >131?L10 310NIHS 20 SD 5)! b4,_'' 9,4P,'",1`16E t9 Hz8,6 Essior.:,,,,g1. zo . LI`%'[7,=,`2,:2'c'.?? '1Kg 2 ',q n-ztF,M..L102 t0;6`03F-14 s, r3,i Ed c9co <H th rV ci) 01; 16 Lil w en 0 LU > çLLI o0 Z6 zinn (-7). —a 0 < 1_ 0z w W 0 coD z z c,0 zC) —2 z —a c;1 ‘‘c_I F— (T)H zwo o 0 _11miZ z _CV IVL.11D < LLJZ 0 uji5>0< 12° 2 r2a_ 8 E- • c.9 co. f), - „u_ g r E(7)zLol n . • .. . . ,%: . .. M 8, , 22. .._ 56 2s25'#Ss . . . 5 . .• 5 55 5550 . . . 62222" . — 55 2 . . 5 .• 'n -.J2 ss2 -2s -252 1 6055 5550 A c w • ss < (1)0- ■.• W ED- o,,„„000,09 2.0 13007 2320 20 0 133,7.2 0000 "021,0 222,,, 0000d\ 2,020`,,,,, 010.052,300-0yA04 20•02 0 E3-J 0 co g bD w -±(9) UZPI 0<0 CO 1 -2 cc z00F-w <F- >X WW St:OSIA321 SC 31,0 5.2[95, atOZ/20/50.3.0.Vd SV3.111 2113 CM,Cs-Ra 03101.1 5‘, • 0. 331- -.7,72-1 : woH<ohilluN 3SVHd NY1c110aLN00 NOLLVINMAIIMS CINV NOIS0219 11V3A0 V10S3511111 A15007 U1,13100 6 oNicrune 1,131N30 NA1>100E8 ONISS0219 )032:10 919NII-ISWir.vil ,N4 =1=1=..'="'/Zr71 F3. 212— '-f3- '\'\ \ 2\ '\.!..-.... -.5 ...:5-:.5,,:. • .- .-- ....•,,,,....,,,,,...,.. ,• ,,,, \ \ . '''''. . ' z/Z-•' ,•‘.:2' ,,,- ' / ' ,ek '''' ''' • .%W:,;.. • /I , ,e-,-,,,,,,..-7,->'..,,,•.;i„,,../' ,,,,.-0- — — .7, \ • ----_,....- 4, _,..... „,-/„..,-,....-,/ \ \ ,_,,..,,i,.....-- ...„....,,,, ...... . ., \ , \ ..= / ' 8 h, .2)2:5 Aro \ .,,,,,k. \/rs-C --1 \ A,' CN – — \ 1 \ . I 1111 k A _.--/, k 0sk ‘ k ..2,--, A ' 6 P5, 11Vg `,.:- --- , p , \ , / v 5 'V\\ rk : `k,F,1 1 N\ :./;,-:-/<- ' ® ::::--• —I's ---- !, a U '-' ' k ;1" -=1 1 6 - - , . E ' k \ k4,,j --;:-. A ' 6 - , \ , 1 ■ '-.•-•"': !1 ..' .\ Atck 6 ‘‘s 0 , c \.\_ \-o , 4\ -\ \„, a \ 3 S\,, V g- ' '22 5 g \/./•-•.2•, --;SY OP\ 5( ./[<\ , , \ \ \ , - k5;113._ . / Mu,G t le, 'ea ,kr, ens 1 001 0111100, 13 naSC,O 0209 P',"> \ \ ao,3 \ 52 22 5 V.LOSWJIN A1tl000 tIld3.1H 101-'6 ON1011118 NAl>100iEl ONISS01,10 )133UO 31ONIHS , 0it: 0 gat. I FL: I Cn og g.g.5--,65'-') - . ,<\ /,. __--,..„.... - ----•-"---: ' - .0.— 530,----, _ -.:-... 4180 ___— ,g, - - t_-- , _, A8j 31V0 SI0IS113. 5:54 8 WOHOCaiWiN 07,03-0 SOP Ae wrcg .vis ggit ig NILS. gal Sr IMO mr,crn r131,1 A 11 1,1C,51 trY1 grg.0,071 &Vnravgt40.regl 1.-.7-1 I 3-1,s = !_t1 2 6'F, tii L$. !gi gg:t-FN Z 3SVHd NVld 10211N00 NOIIVINAINIGAS CINV NOISCMI3 11V2,13A0 5 ,u,g,0q Egg, g ggO, ■,0,1 3EVgd•10..3 .311,013a,ggs ,09 NY, 1001:03 NouvpIlmals OM' 11400.3 110 0,0 1,09 \1 Co r ar,Ag 3100000gE g,gg :atgog 5,21.311 037 CV("•10tz'. 0 .0533 021.5VDr. viosTagri kuno3 Uld3M0-1 fa'N's oNia -uns 2131N39 NA1>100U£1 ONISS080 NAAIJO 319NIHS SlIVIDO102:11N00 NOI1VIN3INIODS ONV NOIS083 ""' d 27„t2=-=-1rg4-g-P4z= - 1-,2277:7744,4 0 H h cr■ 1111111111111111111.111 14•11111=111111111•11111311E1111111111111111111111 1111111111111111MIIIIM 1311111M1M111111111 8111.111111111111M1111111InfillIM11111111 1311111111111MEMMIE 'III 4 "t uopq LL),C ,zpos, ,t..0 003 3009\11 P'3 8 333, \ 3E00d\ 0.03,3,30 313.008E\ 1,107.013,31 tifILVD\ 3300 -041V3 ,wou 6,3320, VIOSTilttl tuunco Ntd3NNV i...a'ocs owing HaLNAO NAl>10CMEI ONISS0239 N3A210 210NIHS a s 11—_ oil . 111111 lioli,„„ i 1 u ii , III 1 Tifts" *(s.:4,0 l 'I'll.ildi, I 4t ■ VI0S3MIVI AINISOD tlId31IS3H 1:21 .016 ommina '831N10 NA1>100H9 ONISSOHO >13480 310NIHS LO,NAJNALA,A, sqN,A,{A q{. ,Nog pLA y A■AAN VIOS2NNIVI 5.555503 Md3.21-1emaiin9 H2J5N30 NA1>1002:18 ONISSO>10 )133>,i0 319NIHS fo5, 3 •zroco AS I 3150 I 5,4,641321 AN °2 NV1c1311S 0310.74 Stlrpra,- WOH (Aa lW1,)]" e4,•- 2` VW , 72fg: ,7= w rovro.2,2,-s s. 1,21 xur.2 59595 9102/20/401,1lVd syorn 03,0 03"7 .01.4531 .41.0 ! fq3=XREi'3!tY 0 00H CCM c)66(!)c)(!)(7)G 664666 ,3 ,56cgc) é 1 5 t , ttt;i i ar,1 AS ILVO 5.64138 WIN SaY 031011 St/TLC, <PLLSIO 03.0.0 LarLO SlIV_L3C1 31IS ° vtos]rmiri Al0f100 tlk13,11<3H ONicnina 2:131/\130 NA1NOCY88 ONISS01:10 >13343 310NIHS " 7,17Vdq V1g1/1""' 31LL. 3,1 30 5.1 hi !Intl 1 : ',,7,1 - ! 1N :!1, -ii, mil ,, , .0p IF pq41 44 IN,eq, nnuni 1 faitu 4 IEtg.T. i¢.'" I'lPie 1 i ;I x 1 ri I,i 1 X ----;.F1 i 011 manna 1 1ZAIMI111111011.,=d ,.I q !il9,. i 6 ,.i &mama _VI C I.`,-)2..,f5-=I ?'I ram mum.=11111611111 Lt10 I Itil ee IIIIIII .,0.=... ta P 11- 11 • lill HUM g,,,,,,,Ar-Fin :}61110 manininidI, 1= nr. 4 , — = 5,11E -`,45:-LJ 1 ,1 ' ; MENmos 4i illiifillillaNI mom 1 ma eardcw111 gLT.ce ,,..,= .e, =1.- 1 .-----F 1g ._2 ts.,-1-- aII 1 -11-1.. 2‘6' "C 11= FE-, I A l '-'_-= (DOa... 3c' I I —1— i Ri C2) 1.1:1<>' $4 li 6b ' ' ) 6 4......rj 1 .,,i ' 0 '# 1° 'L•I g :9 51 ,,, .ot,..y47—---In i 1, I !I ,i - g1 ' al) 're GiT11:541 , Ii 1FA. , ---, ' -1 -1.........gI I 1 ' L4711_ 6 Itri I'd , Ini,' -- 0-0-- -0 0005. 0000"050"0°"--"--""---"\---- —"`""r'"'" ,8905 33,3 8,71. 3SSt-53 35,133 Sirs .33\3 35VHd 00, 611,437 3,0),X,E9 \ 11.1,71,20 %3155'r 5301 335\r5 5r35 ,.3.,3 2 g tc: VILM .AB altle SUSS,. ...AV. DIY CON,Saa SlIV.L3C1 3.11s 0310:4 SY 22 I., g•1 1!3 2 0 •1 iii'11 I ii \\A \ , \ 7.^Z.- ,...y.,-` g 11 1 i!'''2',leli 751:1 giggilEIMIT-f=Ea or.. ngi....zb412M.,--. •L.---'A '0 4 , ...v:. i s0 , . \ -.% wiz her., irg ...- adU 2 Atalt..laOmar "`"3d SScYdSSSDflS 3015.1. Wel OC,11 cmsa. AV. MY I NOS.V.,■15 2tIgt-gZrrea 17,11'..tr= 810832812 Anrtoo 1,11d80030emcnine 131N39 NA1>10023E1 ONISSOIO >13a19 310NIHS 2?„ VIOS3t4NIA AltifIDD uld3Ntl3H 1'21'016 oNimina Ha1N130 NA1>10018 ONISS089 >13g219 310NIHS AS 31,1 Su0S,3,ACA A 0.030 inowoAaRum atoz/zo/so"3,1,11,1 '3 Sv7,1 2.7,1,=.Z711 =IV uogr:g STV1,2 3,5 9.5 • .• .•.•.•.• .• .• .•.•.•.••.•••.•••••.• ••••••••••• ••••••••••• •••••• •••• • .•.•.• .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•• .•.•.• •••••••••••••••••• • •••••• •• .• •.•.•.•.•••• .• •.•.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •.••••••• ••• 3,5 9,09', p.,7 .7•50,,V 03V 01015V A I:0,1 Slle130 311s •4- 2,:05232 Y1-2"%ecost t5 8i88/Z8/cO Afl ApV/.1 UJOH<OhillID1 VIOS3t4N21 Ammo r2d3PM3H emalina i131N30 NA1N002,18 ONISS0230)433219 310NIHS 22` Ntrld OVNIV2:1C1 C1NV emavas12 .493'"' UN, xEirt arrIEL=031.0,1 .37:sa §78 . ... . .4-.1.,-,',.•1,1. .4 .i .71,N. .E.,N ti N .4 .4 N .4 h p,,;,., -0.,0 ! ;;; 7,8:4502:2 ;:I ; H .Fl ....H E n.IN =.4., HL'' :-6 4:1'4:!.!s .= :FS;'i;',E,!,'f.,,='.4:1;;11 5n ;1;: :'a ,7::- -a a a a ,,e,f4b-58.2,,,C-3:7,,:6'7 1L'..-.E?,2 2 E-;2 a ',',r, .`„2 .; ;2 2 ; t:',2 ; .2=,t, 5 7,2 2 5 ,,'5'r,2 1q 131 k A AEE E.i1 ,2 ..: ''; a'7. - .11 ..'•g'?' a- - 2:`,- g52 Bz J, 4-1 5,11"72.5 ! 21 4 ,=,2''l SI 5 2 5il2R2F.:1" "" "1',9, s : tl N R i 5 5 5 SlIV130 BOVNIVdCI ONV SNICINMD OS3tAIN kLt11100 Iltd3NN3Hemcnina HA1N33 NA1N002:18 ONISSGE10 >133210 310NIHS .0IS O t U.101-1 a lW --4Wiliamil!...•ms I i 1 E aE 1 diog . a a a i 1' ..--g!.p.4.4ungl '"------- a il Ai hi s i v) hi N.0 1 L 5,1 5 f— ,a0 307,17,0 ONV ,011OOLD 7O09 OttPO -1 S PS vPPPS, P . P ';PsdS , PP ,,HdV10 ,7 3stsP00.\,..fisk.n.zo \ ..uou ROAr-4,rei l g6 tlra% 8..2 E -a AE 3110131333 0391 .3E1.'1E1 flo2/20/20 .30 311.1,1 10 sv888 558 121. AZ CO301313 10 no:re, AG 3E30.1 VIT.= -1, g'.,`03/011 EV 011 WO H O.MWD1 VIOS3F8524 .8no8 ti133 ,8438 1'INI'01:6 owning ,111N39 W.1)100218 DNISS02:10 NATNIO NVld unan 'LiE N8P,- Z`' N' N 1.11=, 8 l',8.';88.88z;,28-48sEv8 8 -5 N.' r, r,t5- "..; ',-,8 EN - 8c IN2 t t; ° : 2 F 21 N V z W K'I'8 18 :V 1 N 8 ; ;; IN NNY 1 ,-, ;N, :t '' z •'' tra 5 8888E8888881 i 1 1 1 wi5S,f, c, .z 5 :5 N386 25 2,i 2, 25 2, 25 5 ... 2 2; 5,5; .15 5 :6::'5 N R R 5 1 1 1 § \ ,- -Vg...----,,,..-- \ ,Y,',•\, , ( \.- - , \ ' c•.,-•,a •' ' \ 5--;\gt-• ,t,e"•:.-, s 30 - - ,33-3 3 ,33 3,1 1,3 3,3E8 3103 't0 00 0v, "Ilan L909 2.0 EV, A13113 1909 \-1 rc0 3 2 3130 0\2 2,0dacla ,ca 2.850 2,0,00 0a005 0,8 ,2,22 08,0AA 322-2,,al 0 s A0 31..g0 en0s5go "'-OTO !P,- LI .11 OH O ika l WDI st czggi co V1053NNIVI Attlif0D tOof3NN5H 2 I: 6 9N1011118 glE1N30 NA1>100HEI ONISS089 )13380 310NIHS AB sitviaa uniin fa45 ,3 0310,1 SY 1 Mg 5;c1 ,yz •;;- 5 iF Mg uagg-9 gtoz 5o ,on 51,130 gin511 9909 9 90909100 A,Igun 9009\11 g ygga;\ ocgo ogiago 01009009N10301013 ,clivD \Agcri-o,Agd 9909 tal L 33-3,3 .'u3,1 '43 tlOt .Z0 ADel 3;010 ,gog 3.p puy y 3syyd,,y7N,l33 1,PYCOY9 ,LYny 034.0 3>f NVld SON131A1010Hd (.3C3.13 03101.1 Stl33,5 VIOST.01 AillflOD Hid 034 JO6 oNimino 2131NAO NA1>10M:18 9NISS010 >1332,10 319NIHS ,i1Ore3 33, Afi 3.0 SNOSN331 =4""" sv,a3A. 1.31r11,, SI:0611.2B -°°" Z.;,1v7,171,'"" 0.3Y CM.4...a 010030091 kumoo 010314030 .1&016 omcnine H31120 NKNOOHEI ONISSCM0 N3a10 alONIHS NVld acIVOSCINW1 90 2 1E 1.3 UI L-3 5 a 2 5 US t 5 CC 5 g Ce g a g a 2 2 St 1 rk! 1 •, -27 - -0N -30j S -3°-3)( • , •••.. •- 0.1:8 = 101 S 1 1 1 1 :'• 05(0.5 001 0 ) 9,0 .9 ,o,sv y 1000 wz, ,0900 095ThOUC 22909,,,01 90L9 \ pu, y ,VHd 041,0,,311130 \ .u40 ,4 VIOS3NNIII A111003 1,41d3573H fa .oce omaiina H31N30 NA1>100HEI ONISS0219 >133UO AlONIHS 51,06,31d31,3 ce43,0 03/ 034H cdka 0310t7 SY .i i li I 111111111111111111111111 Hi I II ill1111111111111 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 9 ■—) 04 . , ' ' .I 8 8 o255 q 0g5 r i ... 1 g ;i g.g.211 . 0 . l0 14E4100,0 In ..-6 SlIVI3C1 2cIVOSONV1 MVO SNOS ..,13 - 0310,1 SV ■SAV.1 VIOSDINIfi A11,11103 NIcONUGH .L'&01:6 onflaiina 2:131N30 NA1N00 .813 ONISS01:10 NA3UO 319NIFIS SlIV1.30 3dVOSCINV1 tOI SO9,0 5,71. 1:1,...,1 90 L9 \ 3svHd \ \ d01,13 Commissioner Schonning introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-007 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED SITE AND BUILDING PLAN TO ALLOW THE RECONFIGURATION OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS 9 AND 10 WITHIN THE BROOKDALE MALL FOOD COURT RECONSTRUCTION AREA AND WHICH IS PART OF THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1300 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, on November 25, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-139, which approved Planning Application No. 2013-020, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, of a new comprehensive Site and Building Plan for the redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, and which is part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, and is located at 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing, and; WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007, also submitted by Gatlin Development Company, is requesting approval of an Amendment to this previously approved Site and Building Plan of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, and which includes the reconfiguration of Buildings 9 and 10 in said plans; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-007, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the reconfiguration and layout of new Buildings 9 and 10, all in conjunction with the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; 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; and that the Site and Building Plans for Buildings 9 and 10 and made part of the redevelopment/reconstruction of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2013-020, may be approved based upon the following considerations: i. The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 . The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the 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; 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; iv.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; v.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 vi. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council that an Amendment to the Site and Building Plan as originally comprehended under Planning Application No. 2013-020, allowing the reconfiguration of future Buildings 9 and 10, and which changes were officially submitted under Planning Application No. 2014-007, and said plans are made part of the planned redevelopment and reconstruction of the former Brookdale Mall's Food Court area, be approved based upon the following conditions: 1.Developer agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 2.Developer is allowed to forgo the installation of the landscape berm as a temporary screening measure approved under the previous Planned Unit Development Amendment No. 4, nor the partial (rear) walls to Building Nos. 9 and 10 as proposed. The Developer shall have until October 1, 2015 to either complete the build-out of Buildings 9 and 10, or submit a new PUD Amendment that must include an alternative screen for this PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 loading area. 3.The two new stand-alone building sites labeled "R" and "T" respectively, which were included in the overall Site Plan Amendment plans labeled "Site Improvement Plans Buildings 9, 10, R, T for Shingle Creek Crossing" and those made part of any approvals granted under separate consideration of Shingle Creek Crossing 6 tn Amendment, are not approved under this site plan amendment consideration. These two building are subject to separate site and building plan considerations. 4.All new buildings proposed under this new Site Plan must incorporate 4- sided architectural and the Class 1 and 2 building materials specified under the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreement. The exposed southerly wall of Building No. 7 must also be improved with the same Class 1 and/or Class 2 materials. 5.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6.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. 7.An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 8.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 9.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 10.The Developer shall submit an as built survey or record drawing of the subject property, identifying all underground and above ground improvements, including but not limited to all utilities and service lines. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 11.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. 12.All other provisions and conditions approved under Planning Application No. 2013-020 (dated November 25, 2013) shall remain binding and in effect. 13. All other provisions, standards and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and subsequent amendments to this PUD shall remain binding and in effect. May 29, 2014 Date Chair ATTEST: Cd&C Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Harstad. and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Pro TemChristensen, Commissioners, Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None. whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 APPLICATION NO. 2014-007 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Chair Pro Tem Christensen introduced Application No. 2014-007, consideration of Site and Building Plan Amendment for Buildings No. 9 and 10, originally approved under Planning Application No. 2013-020, in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, for the property located at 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-29-14 for Application No. 2014-007). Mr. Benetti stated this amendment is to allow the reconfiguration of both building pad sites, with smaller or larger buildings than what was approved under the previous PUD Amendment No. 4, (Planning Application Nos. 2013-018 and 2013-020). He also provided a history of previous approvals and amendments to the site and explained due to the changes and reconfiguration of building layouts proposed under Planning Application No. 2014-006, the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Amendment No. 6, and specifically the changes submitted for Buildings 9, 10, R and T (dated 05-19-14), staff felt it was prudent to resubmit these changes to Bldgs. 9 and 10 to the Planning Commission for consideration. Mr. Benetti further explained Building 9 was originally planned to be 8,352 sq. ft. size while Building 10 was scheduled to be 10,800 sq. ft. The amendment noted that these two buildings are essentially swapping places with each other, with Building 9 increased to 13,332 sq. ft. and Building 10 reduced to 6,000 sq. ft. He also provided information on grading, utilities, landscaping, access, parking, lighting and trash enclosure details. Commissioner Christensen stated he does not want the look of the wall to be on the site for another year and a half. Mr. Benetti responded staff is okay with the minimal screening until the buildings are complete rather than installing a decorative fence for a brief period of time. He added staff understands it will get filled in along with landscaping and berming once the buildings are complete. Commissioner Christensen stated he would like to see some advertising in the area that this is Shingle Creek Crossing and not Brookdale Center. He would also like to see the green screen go away. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-07 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-007 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED SITE AND BUILDING PLAN TO ALLOW THE RECONFIGURATION OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS 9 AND 10 WITHIN THE BROOKDALE MALL FOOD COURT RECONSTRUCTION AREA AND WHICH IS PART OF THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (1300 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Harstad, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-07. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tern Christensen, Commissioners, Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None Page 9 5-29-14 EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 9, 2014 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 10 5-29-14 City Council Agenda Item No. 9d COUNCIIL ITEM MEW -DRAM:0W DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008 Submitted by Gatlin Development Approving the Site and Building Plan for Proposed Building R within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (Future Address 1390 Shingle Creek Crossing) Recommendation: Recommended the City Council adopt the resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008 submitted by Gatlin Development approving the Site and Building Plan for proposed Building R within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (Future Address 1390 Shingle Creek Crossing). Background: On May 29, 2014, the City Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. 2014-008, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of the Site and Building Plan for Proposed Building R within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. This new parcel will be made available as a 5,400 sq. ft. stand-alone restaurant building pad site. Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-08, in which the Planning Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of approval regarding this proposed plat. Excerpts minutes from the May 29, 2014 Planning Commission meeting as related to this matter are attached for the Council's review. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: o Focused Redevelopment 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 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-008 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPROVING THE SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR PROPOSED BUILDING R WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FUTURE ADDRESS 1390 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008, submitted by Gatlin Development Company requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan for a proposed Building R, a new 5,400 sq. ft. restaurant pad site, to be addressed as 1390 Shingle Creek Crossing, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements made under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed Building R development and other related improvements in conjunction with the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the Site and Building plans for this Building R to be consistent with the General Development Plans of the overall Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development; and that the Site and Building Plan of proposed Building R, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-008, may be approved based upon the following considerations: A.The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; B.The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the 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; RESOLUTION NO. C.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; D.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; E.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 F.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. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-08, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of the Proposed Building R of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-008, may be approved with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a Site and Building Plan for a proposed Building R, a new 5,400 sq. ft. restaurant pad site, to be addressed as 1390 Shingle Creek Crossing, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements made under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1.Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 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. Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. Screening measures RESOLUTION NO. shall also include approved architectural screens or devices for the outer electric meters, gas meters, and water meters (as necessary). 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, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 7.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 8.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. 9.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10.All other provisions, standards, and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. June 9, 2014 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. Iv of 111?0OKLIN CENTER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 29, 2014 •Application Filed: 04/03/14 •Application Deemed Complete: 05/19/14 •Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/18/14 •Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2014-008 Applicant: Gatlin Development Company Location: 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing (PUD Project Site) Request: Site and Building Plan Amendment for Building R INTRODUCTION Gatlin Development Company is requesting review and consideration of a Site and Building Plan approval for the proposed stand-alone restaurant pad site labeled Building R and located within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD). This site plan item 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 The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was approved on May 23, 2011, which provided for the overall redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall properties. The redevelopment would phase in approximately 403,000 sf1 of new retail commercial and restaurant uses, and included the new daylighting and waterway features of Single Creek running through the site. The 2 nd Amendment (approved September 12, 2011) provided the physical separation of the Food Court building from the Sears store; the renovation/conversion of the Food Court's "common area" into additional retail space, the removal of Building N between Sears and Wal- Mart; and the addition of a new 6,000 sf1 commercial pad site. The 3' Amendment (approved September 24, 2012) provided the replatting of certain lots; revised original Building Site D to a new 8,400 sq. ft. mixed retail/restaurant use with a drive thru service lane; the elimination of a 35,660 sf. Building Q (Best Buy store) site, which was replaced with a reduced 6,000 sf1 restaurant pad site and a new 7,500 sf. Building 0 restaurant pad site. PUD Amendment No. 4 approved the removal and replacement of the former Brookdale Mall Food Court and replacement plan with ten (10) new retail/service buildings. PUD Amendment No. 5 was related to various sign allowances granted throughout the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. App. No. 2014-008 PC 05/29/14 Page 1 + SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS The original Bldg. R on the approved PUD Amendment No. 4 plans included a 5,400 sf. restaurant building, with 58 spaces. The location of the original Bldg. R site was located in the middle of the westerly parking lot. Because the layouts of Bldgs. R and T were not meeting planning staff standards, we encouraged the Developer to relocate these two building pad sites closer to the Xerxes Avenue right-of-way. The updated PUD Plan No. 6 and Site Plans for Bldg. R now reflect a much better location, and the building pad site remains as a 5,400 sq. ft. stand-alone restaurant pad site. This pad site also includes its own lot of 1.03 acres, and contains 56 spaces on the lot, which are allocated to the specific restaurant uses. App. No. 2014-008 PC 05/29/14 Page 2 EAST ELEVATION 1 /16 " The PUD was approved with an overall architectural [elevation] plan as part of the original approvals. All new buildings plan to incorporate 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 same architectural elevation plans approved for original Bldg. L will be used on this same Bldg. D site. The building is scheduled to receive a nice mix of stone veneers, EIFS, concrete brick veneers, integrally colored rock face block, spandrel glass and other materials. Most of these architectural materials are consistent with the previously approved Architectural Standards (including materials) the City called for under the original PUD Agreement. •PARKING & ACCESS Bldg. R site is scheduled to contain 56 spaces. As part of the PUD Agreements, all restaurant pads sites must provide up to 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA • A 5,400 sq. ft. building would need 54 under this ratio; but the updated site plan calls for two extra on-site spaces. Access to this restaurant site will be from Xerxes Avenue and 56 th Avenue intersection to the north, and the Xerxes and 55 th Avenue intersection to the south. App. No. 2014-008 PC 05/29/14 Page 3 The plans also call for two sidewalk connectors leading into the site from the regional trail/walkway system inside Xerxes Ave. ROW. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The finished grades and drainage grades for this this site and adjacent building sites have been partially constructed under recently completed land disturbance permit. The site plans and related attachment plans included separate grading and drainage plans for this and other sites. Most of these sites (and primarily the entire PUD site last year) have been or will be reviewed by the City Engineer for full compliance and acceptance. Since some of the overall PUD development site infrastructure has already been installed, there is not much room or need to depart from the original and approved grading/drainage plans. All areas of this site appear to drain properly or do not require any special drainage structures or modification prior to building approvals. • 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, such as Ginkgo biloba and sky-line honey locusts around the parking islands of this building site, and three relocated crabapples trees along the west side of the building. The rear parking area and trash enclosures are planned to be heavily planted with large number of shrubs and perennials. All trees and landscaped areas will be irrigated. LIGHTING/TRASH The site plans contained a detailed photometric and light plan, which calls for calls for typical 39-ft. single or dual headed light standards near the corners of the parking lot area. The photometric plan illustrates the main front area of the building will be provided with suitable and adequate light coverage, with pedestrian lighting along the outer walkways. App. No. 2014-008 PC 05/29/14 Page 4 The plans are absent of any trash enclosures. We can easily assume that this future restaurant site will require the need of some type of trash and food waste containers, typically found in most restaurant sites. As par to f this overall review and approvals, we will require the Applicant to provide city planners and city engineers full details of the location(s), style, and materials of the enclosures. CITY ENGINEER REVIEW The City Engineer has provided a review and comments regarding this application in the May 22, 2014 memorandum, which is included as part of this report. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2014-08, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2014-008, the Site and Building Plan for the proposed Building R restaurant pad site, and which is part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1.Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 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.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4.Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 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, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 7. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. App. No. 2014-008 PC 05/29/14 Page 5 8.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. 9.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. All other provisions, standards, and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. Attachments •Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-08 •City Engineer's Review Memo — dated 05/22/14 •Site and Building Plans for Bldg. R - Shingle Creek Crossing App. No. 2014-008 PC 05/29/14 Page 6 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2014 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works - Site Plan Memo — Shingle Creek Crossing Phase 4 Public Works Department staff has reviewed the 18 sheet set of plans entitled Shingle Creek Crossing Phase 4 which were prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and are dated May 2, 2014. The site plan reviews applies only to sites 9, 10, R, and T. The following comments are offered relative to the above referenced submittals. They are contingent upon PUD Amendment 6 approval, preliminary and final plat approval, and final site plan and land alteration/building permit submittal and approval. Additionally, this review only includes a review of the revisions contained within sites 9, 10, R, and T. Other sites outside of these sites have not been included as part of this review. Site Plan Exhibit Items: 1.Provide details on delivery access for Buildings R and T. 2.Provide details on trash enclosures for Building R and T. 3.Revise site plan to provide better pedestrian connectivity/assessable route from accessible stalls to Building 9, including a pedestrian ramp in front of Building 9 near crosswalk. 4.Revise site plan to provide accessible stalls for Building 10, including accessible route. 5.Provide accessible ramps/route for drive aisle crossing between Building 9 and 10. 6.Install storm sewer manhole on existing stormsewer line running NE between Building R and Building 9. Connect proposed stormsewer line running SE from parking area in front of Building R into newly constructed stormwater structure. 7.Clarify whether Buildings 9, 10, R, and T will have stormwater roof leader connections. 8.Provide details on how storm runoff from parking area north of Building R drains to proposed storm sewer. 9.All proposed loading dock and truck turning/backing areas must be fully separated from public customer parking areas, must not direct or invite public parking ingress/egress routes through loading dock and turning/backing areas, and must not encroach on main drive aisles. Detailed truck turning and access movements must be provided to demonstrate adequacy. Final access routes and turning movements for all loading dock areas will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary and Final Plans. 10.The existing City lighting, trees and landscaping along Xerxes must be protected. Maintain and re-establish landscaping as needed to preserve the original landscaping along Xerxes Boulevard, incorporating all landscaping and irrigation behind the trail into the site's and developments landscaping. General Items: 11. 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 Shingle Creek Crossing; Shingle Creek Crossing 2 nd Addition; Site Plan Building 9, 10, R and T / Shingle Creek Crossing Page 2 May 22, 2014 12.Shingle Creek Crossing 3 rd Addition, Shingle Creek Crossing 4 th Addition and/or portions thereof are withstanding and must be incorporated into the final plans. 13.Distinguish between Phase 4 proposed features and other phases. 14.An update of the original and amended traffic impact study must be made to reflect the current site and building revisions for PUD Amendment 6 and prior outstanding revisions. 15.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 plans. 16.The final plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota and forwarded to the City Engineer for approval. 17.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 of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built 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. 18.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 (which are separate from the as-built survey). 19.The applicant is responsible for coordinating site demolition plans with all private utility companies (Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications, etc.). Preliminary Plat and Final Plat: 20.The revisions to the property lines requires replatting and vacating easements. 21.Rededicating and terminating certain easements are required as part of this PUD Amendment. Formal vacation documents are required and must contain easement vacation descriptions and depiction exhibits signed by a professional surveyor. A separate application is required for the easement vacation actions. 22.No portion of building or appurtenant structures may encroach on the City drainage and utility easement. 23.An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Engineer and City Attorney for review within 30 days of preliminary plat application. Additionally, this will need to stay current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of release of the final plat. Easements and Agreements: 24.A Performance Agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 25.Subdivision/Development and Declaration of Covenants and Rights Agreements are required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 26. A temporary agreement between property owners is required for all work located outside of the applicant's property. Site Plan Building 9, 10, R and T / Shingle Creek Crossing Page 3 May 22, 2014 Anticipated Permitting: 27.A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 28.A City of Brooklyn Center building permit is required. 29.A City of Brooklyn Center water and sewer permit is required. 30.An MPCA NPDES permit is required. 31.An MPCA sanitary sewer permit may be required. 32.A MN Department of Health water main extension permit may be required. 33.Other permits not listed may be required and are the responsibility of the developer to obtain as warranted. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration and Building Permit: 34.Submit recorded copies of all required agreements. 35.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 36.Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. 37.A letter of credit or cash escrow shall be deposited with the City in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost in the amount estimated by the developer and determined by the City to comply with land alteration requirement, site improvement, and restoration of the site. The City may incrementally reduce the amount of the surety if work is completed and accepted. 38.A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, haul routes, 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. The plan must be in a City approved format and must outline minimum site management practices and penalties for non-compliance. A $5,000 cash deposit is required as part of the non-compliance provision. Through this document, the developer and property owner will acknowledge: a)The property will be brought into compliance within 24 hours of notification of a violation of the construction management plan, other conditions of approval or City code standards. b)If compliance is not achieved, the City will use any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any deficiency and/or issue. 39.Submit a $5,000 cash escrow for the costs associated with the City performing inspections and SWPPP reviews 40.A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The site plan must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plan may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. Commissioner Schonning introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-08 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-008 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPROVING THE SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR PROPOSED BUILDING R WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FUTURE ADDRESS 1390 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008, submitted by Gatlin Development Company requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan for a proposed Building R, which is to be addressed as 1390 Shingle Creek Crossing, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements made under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-008, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed Building R development and other related improvements in conjunction with the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Site and Building plans for this Building R is 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 proposed Building R, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-008, may be approved based upon the following considerations: i. The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the 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 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-08 intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; 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; iv.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; v.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 vi. 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 does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2014-008 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 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.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4.Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 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, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. May 29, 2014 Date PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-08 7.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 8.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. 9.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10.All other provisions, standards, and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. ATTEST:_ --Z-- Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Freeddman and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Pro Tem Christensen, Commissioners, Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning. and the following voted against the same: None. whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 APPLICATION NO. 2014-008 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Chair Pro Tern Christensen introduced Application No. 2014-008, consideration of Site and Building Plan approval for Building R, a new 5,400 sq. ft. restaurant building pad site in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, for the property located at 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-29-14 for Application No. 2014-008). Mr. Benetti stated the original Building R on the approved PUD Amendment No. 4 plans included a 5,400 sq. ft. restaurant building, with 58 spaces. He added the location of the original Building R site was located in the middle of the westerly parking lot and because the layouts of Buildings R and T were not meeting planning staff standards, staff encouraged the Developer to relocate these two building pad sites closer to the Xerxes Avenue right-of-way. He added the updated PUD Plan No. 6 now reflects a much better location and the building pad site remains a 5,400 sq. ft. stand-alone restaurant pad site which also includes a lot of 1.03 acres, and contains 56 spaces on the lot, which are allocated to the specific restaurant uses. Mr. Benetti described the layout of the building and explained proposed grading, utilities, landscaping, lighting, and trash enclosures. Commissioner Christensen stated his concerns with the buildings looking inviting to the public from all sides and suggested utility boxes be screened from view. He reinforced that he would like to see additional signs announcing the entrance to Shingle Creek Crossing. Commissioner Harstad asked if it is required to locate an opening to the enclosed patio for the restaurant site. Mr. Benetti responded it is common to have a gate to get out in case of an emergency. Mr. Payne added it was a conceptual design on the plan. Mr. Eitel added often times the customers can only get to the patio area through the restaurant. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-08 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-008 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPROVING THE SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR PROPOSED BUILDING R WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FUTURE ADDRESS 1390 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Freedman , to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-08. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tern Christensen, Commissioners, Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 9, 2014 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 11 5-29-14 City Council Agenda Item No. 9e COUNCIL ITEM M ORANDUIV DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist THROUGH: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development** SUBJECT: Resolution Regarding the Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009 Submitted by Gatlin Development Approving the Site and Building Plan for Proposed Building T within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (Future Address 1380 Shingle Creek Crossing) Recommendation: Recommended the City Council adopt the resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009 submitted by Gatlin Development approving the Site and Building Plan for proposed Building T within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (Future Address 1380 Shingle Creek Crossing). Background: On May 29, 2014, the City Planning Commission reviewed Planning Application No. 2014-009, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of the Site and Building Plan for Proposed Building T within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. This new parcel will be made available as a 5,500 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail/restaurant building pad site. Attached for review is Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-09, in which the Planning Commission provided a favorable and unanimous recommendation of approval regarding this proposed plat. Excerpts minutes from the May 29, 2014 Planning Commission meeting as related to this matter are attached for the Council's review. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Strategic Priorities: o Focused Redevelopment 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 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-009 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPROVING THE SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR PROPOSED BUILDING T WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FUTURE ADDRESS 1380 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009, submitted by Gatlin Development Company requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan for Building T, a new 5,500 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail and restaurant pad site, to be addressed as 1380 Shingle Creek Crossing, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements made under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed Building T development and other related improvements in conjunction with the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Site and Building plans for this Building R is 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 Building T, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-009, may be approved based upon the following considerations: A.The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; B.The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the 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 RESOLUTION NO. comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; C.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; D.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; E.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 F.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. AND WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-09, which provides a favorable and unanimous recommendation to the City Council that the Site and Building Plan of Building T in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-009, may be approved with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009, submitted by Gatlin Development Company, requesting approval of a Site and Building Plan for Building T, a new 5,500 sq. ft. multi-tenant retail and restaurant pad site, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements made under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1.Developer shall provide an additional walkway along the south side of the proposed Bldg. T to serve as a more direct walkway to the longer internal walkway in the PUD site. 2.Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 3. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. RESOLUTION NO. 4.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 5.Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. Screening measures shall also include approved architectural screens or devices for the outer electric meters, gas meters, and water meters (as necessary). 6.An underground inigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance 7.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 8.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 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.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 11.All other provisions, standards, and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. June 9, 2014 Date Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 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. riv 14 BROOKLIW CLWTER Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: May 29, 2014 •Application Filed: 04/03/14 •Application Deemed Complete: 05/19/14 •Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 07/18/14 •Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2014-009 Applicant: Gatlin Development Company Location: 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing (PUD Project Site) Request: Site and Building Plan Amendment for Building T INTRODUCTION Gatlin Development Company is requesting review and consideration of a Site and Building Plan approval for the proposed stand-alone restaurant pad site labeled Building T and located within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD). This site plan item 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 The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was approved on May 23, 2011, which provided for the overall redevelopment of the former Brookdale Mall properties. The redevelopment would phase in approximately 403,000 sf of new retail commercial and restaurant uses, and included the new daylighting and waterway features of Single Creek running through the site. The 2 nd Amendment (approved September 12, 2011) provided the physical separation of the Food Court building from the Sears store; the renovation/conversion of the Food Court's "common area" into additional retail space, the removal of Building N between Sears and Wal- Mart; and the addition of a new 6,000 sf1 commercial pad site. The 3 1-d Amendment (approved September 24, 2012) provided the replatting of certain lots; revised original Building Site D to a new 8,400 sq. ft. mixed retail/restaurant use with a drive thru service lane; the elimination of a 35,660 sf. Building Q (Best Buy store) site, which was replaced with a reduced 6,000 sf. restaurant pad site and a new 7,500 sf. Building 0 restaurant pad site. PUD Amendment No. 4 approved the removal and replacement of the former Brookdale Mall Food Court and replacement plan with ten (10) new retail/service buildings. PUD Amendment No. 5 was related to various sign allowances granted throughout the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. App. No. 2014-009 PC 05/29/14 Page 1 • SITE & BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS The original Bldg. T on the approved PUD Amendment No. 4 plans included a 2,800 sf. restaurant building, with 32 spaces. The location of the original Bldg. T site was located in the middle of the westerly parking lot. Because the layouts of Bldgs. R and T were not meeting planning staff standards, we encouraged the Developer to relocate these two building pad sites closer to the Xerxes Avenue right-of-way. The updated PUD Plan No. 6 and Site Plans for Bldg. T now reflect a much better location, and the building pad site is increased from 2,800 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. multi-tenant buildings pad site. This pad site also includes its own lot of 1.54 acres, and contains 55 parking on the lot. App. No. 2014-009 PC 05/29/14 Page 2 SPANDREL CLASS z---CONCRETE BRICK VENEER -CULTURED STONE VENEER --ANOD. ALUM. STOREFRONT ;41 CLEAR GLASS cfriu AS E. EVAT ON I/16" = (HO' (7_, SOUTH ELEVATION I/16" = The PUD was approved with an overall architectural [elevation] plan as part of the original approvals. All new buildings plan to incorporate 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 same architectural elevation plans approved for original Bldg. L will be used on this same Bldg. D site. The building is scheduled to receive a nice mix of stone veneers, EIFS, concrete brick veneers, integrally colored rock face block, spandrel glass and other materials. Most of these architectural materials are consistent with the previously approved Architectural Standards (including materials) the City called for under the original PUD Agreement. • PARKING & ACCESS Bldg. T site is scheduled to contain 55 spaces. As part of the PUD Agreements, all retail building pads must provide 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GFA. The 55 spaces allocated to this proposed building site meets the PUD required parking ratio standards. Access to this restaurant site will be from Xerxes Avenue and 56 th Avenue intersection to the north, and the Xerxes and 55 th Avenue intersection to the south. App. No. 2014-009 PC 05/29/14 Page 3 The plans also call for one sidewalk connector leading into the site from the regional trail/walkway system inside Xerxes Ave. ROW. Staff suggests the Developers provide another walkway (red bold line in diagram below) to the south of the building, which would make an easier and more direct connection to the longer walkway system into the PUD site. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The finished grades and drainage grades for this this site and adjacent building sites have been partially constructed under recently completed land disturbance permit. The site plans and related attachment plans included separate grading and drainage plans for this and other sites. Most of these sites (and primarily the entire PUD site last year) have been or will be reviewed by the City Engineer for full compliance and acceptance. Since some of the overall PUD development site infrastructure has already been installed, there is not much room or need to depart from the original and approved grading/drainage plans. All areas of this site appear to drain properly or do not require any special drainage structures or modification prior to building approvals. 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, such as Ginkgo biloba and sky-line honey locusts around the parking islands of this building site, and three relocated crabapples trees along the west side of the building. The rear parking area and trash enclosures are planned to be heavily planted with large number of shrubs and perennials. All trees and landscaped areas will be irrigated. App. No. 2014-009 PC 05/29/14 Page 4 LIGHTING/TRASH The site plans contained a detailed photometric and light plan, which calls for calls for typical 39-ft. single or dual headed light standards near the corners of the parking lot area. The photometric plan illustrates the main front area of the building will be provided with suitable and adequate light coverage, with pedestrian lighting along the outer walkways. The plans are absent of any trash enclosures. We can easily assume that this future restaurant site will require the need of some type of trash and food waste containers, typically found in most restaurant sites. As part of this overall review and approvals, we will require the Applicant to provide city planners and city engineers full details of the location(s), style, and materials of the enclosures. CITY ENGINEER REVIEW The City Engineer has provided a review and comments regarding this application in the May 22, 2014 memorandum, which is included as part of this report. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 2014-09, which comprehends the approval of Planning Application No. 2014-009, the Site and Building Plan for the proposed Building T restaurant pad site, and which is part of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, subject to the following conditions: 1.Developer shall provide an additional walkway along the south side of the proposed Bldg. T to serve as a more direct walkway to the longer internal walkway in the PUD site. 2.Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 3.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 5.Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6.An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. App. No. 2014-009 PC 05/29/14 Page 5 7.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 8.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 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.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 11. All other provisions, standards, and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. Attachments •Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-09 •City Engineer's Review Memo — dated 05/22/14 •Site and Building Plans for Bldg. T - Shingle Creek Crossing App. No. 2014-009 PC 05/29/14 Page 6 MEMORANDUM DATE: May22, 2014 TO: Tim Benetti, Planning and Zoning Specialist FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Public Works - Site Plan Memo - Shingle Creek Crossing Phase 4 Public Works Department staff has reviewed the 18 sheet set of plans entitled Shingle Creek Crossing Phase 4 which were prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., and are dated May 2, 2014. The site plan reviews applies only to sites 9, 10, R, and T. The following comments are offered relative to the above referenced submittals. They are contingent upon PUD Amendment 6 approval, preliminary and final plat approval, and final site plan and land alteration/building permit submittal and approval. Additionally, this review only includes a review of the revisions contained within sites 9, 10, R, and T. Other sites outside of these sites have not been included as part of this review. Site Plan Exhibit liems: 1.Provide details on delivery access for Buildings R and T. 2.Provide details on trash enclosures for Building R and T. 3.Revise site plan to provide better pedestrian connectivity/assessable route from accessible stalls to Building 9, including a pedestrian ramp in front of Building 9 near crosswalk. 4.Revise site plan to provide accessible stalls for Building 10, including accessible route. 5.Provide accessible ramps/route for drive aisle crossing between Building 9 and 10. 6.Install storm sewer manhole on existing stormsewer line running NE between Building R and Building 9. Connect proposed stormsewer line running SE from parking area in front of Building R into newly constructed stormwater structure. 7.Clarify whether Buildings 9, 10, R, and T will have stormwater roof leader connections. 8.Provide details on how storm runoff from parking area north of Building R drains to proposed storm sewer. 9.All proposed loading dock and truck turning/backing areas must be fully separated from public customer parking areas, must not direct or invite public parking ingress/egress routes through loading dock and turning/backing areas, and must not encroach on main drive aisles. Detailed truck turning and access movements must be provided to demonstrate adequacy. Final access routes and turning movements for all loading dock areas will be subject to final City review and approval conditions of the Preliminary and Final Plans. 10.The existing City lighting, trees and landscaping along Xerxes must be protected. Maintain and re-establish landscaping as needed to preserve the original landscaping along Xerxes Boulevard, incorporating all landscaping and irrigation behind the trail into the site's and developments landscaping. General Items: 11. 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 Shingle Creek Crossing; Shingle Creek Crossing 2' Addition; Site Plan Building 9, 10, R and T/ Shingle Creek Crossing Page 2 May 22, 2014 12.Shingle Creek Crossing 3' Addition, Shingle Creek Crossing 4 th Addition and/or portions thereof are withstanding and must be incorporated into the final plans. 13.Distinguish between Phase 4 proposed features and other phases. 14.An update of the original and amended traffic impact study must be made to reflect the current site and building revisions for PUD Amendment 6 and prior outstanding revisions. 15.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 plans. 16.The final plans must be certified by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota and forwarded to the City Engineer for approval. 17.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 of all project plan sheets depicting any associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built 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. 18.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 (which are separate from the as-built survey). 19.The applicant is responsible for coordinating site demolition plans with all private utility companies (Xcel Energy, CenterPoint Energy, Qwest Communications, etc.). Preliminary Plat and Final Plat: 20.The revisions to the property lines requires replatting and vacating easements. 21.Rededicating and terminating certain easements are required as part of this PUD Amendment. Formal vacation documents are required and must contain easement vacation descriptions and depiction exhibits signed by a professional surveyor. A separate application is required for the easement vacation actions. 22.No portion of building or appurtenant structures may encroach on the City drainage and utility easement. 23.An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the City Engineer and City Attorney for review within 30 days of preliminary plat application. Additionally, this will need to stay current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be current within 30 days of release of the final plat. Easements and Agreements: 24.A Performance Agreement is required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 25.Subdivision/Development and Declaration of Covenants and Rights Agreements are required that includes all conditions of the project approval, subject to the final site plan approval by the City Engineer. 26. A temporary agreement between property owners is required for all work located outside of the applicant's property. Site Plan Building 9, 10, R and T / Shingle Creek Crossing Page 3 May 22, 2014 Anticipated Permitting: 27.A City of Brooklyn Center land disturbance permit is required. 28.A City of Brooklyn Center building permit is required. 29.A City of Brooklyn Center water and sewer permit is required. 30.An MPCA NPDES permit is required. 31.An MPCA sanitary sewer permit may be required. 32.A MN Department of Health water main extension permit may be required. 33.Other permits not listed may be required and are the responsibility of the developer to obtain as warranted. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration and Building Permit: 34.Submit recorded copies of all required agreements. 35.Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 36.Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan. 37.A letter of credit or cash escrow shall be deposited with the City in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost in the amount estimated by the developer and determined by the City to comply with land alteration requirement, site improvement, and restoration of the site. The City may incrementally reduce the amount of the surety if work is completed and accepted. 38.A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, haul routes, 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. The plan must be in a City approved format and must outline minimum site management practices and penalties for non-compliance. A $5,000 cash deposit is required as part of the non-compliance provision. Through this document, the developer and property owner will acknowledge: a)The property will be brought into compliance within 24 hours of notification of a violation of the construction management plan, other conditions of approval or City code standards. b)If compliance is not achieved, the City will use any or all of the escrow dollars to correct any deficiency and/or issue. 39.Submit a $5,000 cash escrow for the costs associated with the City performing inspections and SWPPP reviews 40.A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The site plan must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans, unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final plan may require additional modifications based on engineering requirements associated with final design of the water supply, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, final grading, geometric design and other design elements as established by the City Engineer and other public officials having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans. Commissioner Schonning introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-009 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPROVING THE SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR PROPOSED BUILDING T WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FUTURE ADDRESS 1380 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009, submitted by Gatlin Development Company requesting approval of a new Site and Building Plan for a proposed Building T, which is to be addressed as 1380 Shingle Creek Crossing, and which approval is in conjunction with the ongoing improvements made under the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on May 29, 2014, to fully consider Planning Commission Application No. 2014-009, and reviewed and received a planning report on the proposed new Site and Building Plans for the proposed Building T development and other related improvements in conjunction with the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development Project; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission considers this site and building plan an appropriate and reasonable development of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Site and Building plans for this Building R is 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 proposed Building R, as comprehended under Planning Application No. 2014-009, may be approved based upon the following considerations: i. The Site and Building Plan is compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance; The Site and Building Plan, in relation to the 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 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land; 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; iv.The Site and Building Plan proposal is considered consistent with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the city; v.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 vi. 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 does hereby recommend to the City Council that Planning Application No. 2014-009 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.Developer shall provide an additional walkway along the south side of the proposed Bldg. T to serve as a more direct walkway to the longer internal walkway in the PUD site. 2.Developer/Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memo, dated May 22, 2014. 3.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4.Final grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans and any other site engineering elated issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on-ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. Chair PC RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 7.Site Plan approval is exclusive of all final signs on this site, including new wall (building) signs, which shall remain subject to Chapter 34 of the city ordinances, and subject to the approved Signage Plan of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Agreements. 8.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department and applicant shall obtain an NPDES construction site erosion permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency prior to disturbing the site. 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.The Developer shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements, and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 11. All other provisions, standards, and variations provided under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD shall remain in effect. May 29, 2014 Date 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 Pro Tern Christensen, Commissioners, Freedman, Harstad, and Schonning and the following voted against the same: None. whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. EXCERPTS MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 2014 APPLICATION NO. 2014-009 GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Chair Pro Tem Christensen introduced Application No. 2014-009, consideration of Site and Building Plan approval for Building T, a new 5,500 sq. ft. restaurant building pad site in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, for the property located at 1300 Shingle Creek Crossing. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5-29-14 for Application No. 2014-009). Mr. Benetti explained the original Building T on the approved PUD Amendment No. 4 plans included a 2,800 sq. ft. restaurant building with 32 parking spaces. He added the location of the original Building T site was located in the middle of the westerly parking lot and because the layouts of Buildings R and T were not meeting planning staff standards, staff encouraged the Developer to relocate these two building pad sites closer to the Xerxes Avenue right-of-way. He further stated the updated PUD Plan No. 6 and Site Plans for Building T now reflect a much better location, and the building pad site is increased from 2,800 sq. ft. to 5,500 sq. ft. multi- tenant buildings pad site and this pad site also includes its a lot of 1.54 acres with 55 parking spaces. Mr. Benetti provided details on building and explained proposed grading, utilities, landscaping, lighting, and trash enclosures. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2014-09 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2014-009 SUBMITTED BY GATLIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, APPROVING THE SITE AND BUILDING PLAN FOR PROPOSED BUILDING T WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (FUTURE ADDRESS 1380 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Freedman , to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2014-09. Voting in favor: Chair Pro Tem Christensen, Commissioners, Freedman, Harstad, and S chonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its June 9, 2014 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 12 5-29-14 Work Session Agenda AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION June 9, 2014 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. Review of Civil Legal Services PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later/Ongoing 1.BC University 2.Consideration of Modifying Setback Requirements for Front Porches 3.Citywide Environmental and Sustainability Efforts Update 4.Sister City Voinjama Visit Update Parking Lot Issues 1. Joint Meeting with Charter Commission Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION DATE: June 9, 2014 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building & Community Standards SUBJECT: Review of Civil Legal Services Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff regarding whether the Council wishes to go forward with requests for proposal for civil legal services as part of a four-year cycle or to defer the process. Background In accordance with City Council Policy 2.81, legal services will be periodically reviewed to ensure the proper balance between cost and quality of services for both civil and criminal services, alternating on a four-year cycle. The solicitation of requests for proposal for civil legal services is being considered at this time. In the past, the City Council has deferred the request for proposal process for legal services if the internal review indicated that the quality of services is satisfactory and cost-competitive. Civil legal services are currently provided by Kennedy & Graven. Since March of 1987, Charlie LeFevere has been the City of Brooklyn Center's City Attorney. In addition to general counsel, Mr. LeFevere along with the firm's staff, provide a variety of consult and services in the areas of local government law, development, public finances and specialty areas. As part of the services assessment process, input was requested from staff from each department regarding the quality of services received from Kennedy & Graven Chartered. Some of the factors considered in the internal review included results/outcome of cases, efficiencies of operations/systems, working relationship and cooperation, and capacity to pursue continuous improvement. Feedback was received from Administration, Building &Community Standards, Finance, Police Department, and Public Works. City staff continues to be very satisfied with the services provided by Mr. LeFevere and Kennedy &Graven Chartered. Staff noted excellent working relationships, reliable service, open communications, and the capacity to pursue continuous improvement and creative options to issues. Some notable measures the past few years include, but are not limited to: •Assistance in creation of unique ordinance and programs such as performance- based rental program, vacant building program, housing programs (ReNew, NSP, Housing Improvement Areas, etc.) •Providing legal counsel and documents for land/property/easement projects 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 •Attending and providing legal counsel at Council meetings •Providing legal counsel at dangerous dog hearings and matters •Providing general legal counsel for ordinances, data practices, and other city operations •Monitoring, communicating and adjusting operations as necessary in order to respond to changes in local, state and federal laws •Proving legal guidance for employment related issues •Preparation and review of contracts and contract implementation such as tree contractors, NSP developers, website, construction projects and more. A brief comparison of costs for Civil Attorney legal services for various cities is attached. Cities contract Civil Attorney legal services using an hourly rate, a retainer rate, in-house attorney, or combination thereof. Information for cities with in-house City Attorney is not included in the comparison. While it is difficult to show a direct comparison of legal costs due to the different methods in which cities contract for civil legal services, it appears the current costs for Kennedy & Graven is competitive with costs paid by other cities. Kennedy & Graven Chartered is a large firm that has a wide scope of areas of practice and extensive resources. A copy of their portfolio is attached. The experience and resources may contribute to a shorter processing time and lower project cost compared to a smaller firm. The current contract with the City Attorney legal services provides for termination for any cause. While this condition of contract is recommended for the future contracts, if the Council wishes to defer the solicitation for request for proposals, staff would recommend minor updates to the contract. Policy Issues •Will any financial or service benefits be achieved by soliciting requests for proposals for civil legal services at this time? •Would current or ongoing projects be negatively impacted by changing civil legal services? ▪What is the impact to the organization if the capacity of legal firm is reduced? I.e. type of services offered, rates of specialized services, turnaround time, etc. Strategic Priorities: •Financial Stability Attachments •I- City Council Code of Policies Section 2.81 •II- City Comparison of Civil Attorney (City Attorney) Legal Services •III- Overview of Services & Firm Capabilities 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 I- City Council Code of Policies Section 2.81 SECTION II— GENERAL POLICIES City Council Code ofPolicies 2.81 Schedule for Requests for Proposals for Legal Services The City Council wants to ensure that legal services will be periodically reviewed and that the proper balance will be maintained between cost and quality of services. The City Council resolves that requests for proposals for civil and criminal services be solicited on an alternating four-year basis, and the schedule should be adhered to unless there is a performance problem or other justification for an earlier request for proposal. The schedule for soliciting requests for proposals for legal services is as follows: •Criminal Law Services every four years beginning 1997 •Civil Law Services every four years beginning 1999 Reference: City Council Resolution No. 97-186 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe, inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust 1=4 r • I VIWU.—> 2...CU41)=wb.0CU....i a) C 04-,4-0 < >.}I t3•••--.>,a,Cs_04F,41■I < c) 41.... 0 0th•—s-CO Li-E 0t 1 >4..'•IOW ° 04-C — l'CU0.= ,9 ri-ure..... 1-(33 W ..°r-Cl. t MI.4. 4 'co(J 4-,Ca)EC2.0Tu L-:> =a) o0 -C-.......uL.,- -)= No HI *----- vlC) —h. c-I „ ,r-113in- '''I reC " (13a_74+ 0 (EstiO = .411 0=, _c.-._,s...' NJ7 N o r-i ..0 ifl•---. ,sr) v)k.D .. ‘--1 "CU •-(1)- _c1 0 4--,> Cn , 1_^ r, s- 00 -C -----4-, ---.. 0 4.,--w 00 0 --,. r--. 07- 4,-1 ,5 4/.. v-. 0 i1.... 1-cs3 _c a)L.. ..... C,a) .-c c(2) 43a) co (1..)CD 0- cC ,_-0o_a --.... , Lf) " 7 c-i 0-v -c--, )- Li,„ u.)c) v.). 4-, ,,, ca ,„ .- - U V) 0 (33 vs cu Lp) f._< u L.:" — M (1)0 U•-_C " 4-...... C. 1./.) „, v) •_.- r-1 4-, -V)- .. , - co 03 I- a) a) ›-a.., _c 1_ (..) CC) co a W> ,, , L'E = s- 00 ..0 4-, ---.-w 0< cr)I r- A- 5 , C) - .Q. 2r0 co Oa S... a)a) —c T. G.) roCD a_ a)•-, 20_ "0 ..--4- L:,aco a)a,_ ._a) ca4, 44,4-, a,CO s_E a).4_ 4-,co0 ,_ CU M0- 9;>. ,.4-• u) a) 0_c c4-, cmC •$0 a)0. a js_ _c-a Ha)5-sa wC(A 1-CU 0' E :V,co ca>.4-, -0r0 W_c c 4- • U p•a) (.7) (4 T4 ;Is_ >4 a)_C4,=-= -a0 c1 c a _c if")- .,-, (1)C,_ 04-•4...co ,4--o (I)EL--4-, co 730)v)co-0 L-co> V/,a) - ,.%s_ >4"Cc01 -0 0C •F-I..00+-1 °Co4-__27. ,a)C'as-.3-•a)L_-.- , 70 •s-.c_ ,.., „Lr) ,-,tia -c,-i ----m(r) r.4 I c-1›. .v).CUC 1C•r)0(0-w tsC)..t-,t w _ ro.- s_> co0 c:s. )- c-.)0.) s--1C -si-}CU ,CD vs •"o a.,vs —csj 0 R y.:'t• =VI 04-- -Co ----4-, C) ttO 7-I +-'0-0 ' oC 1 C_0 C s- o --.... TO :3= °0 OS C)c tla 0C .47-, s-i'< 11 tr)- C CO 1-ri‘ L.:= o..a-....„ r41c.0cci)s-c-I if). CDc'-04-'4..c..-..z-.'C.) 73coc 03I.-•_al0 +0.'Co4-c 75a)c CT3•+-I_ca0 444, 0Co.4--S L..=o_C......, 0 SD,4-• 41)C Ia) 0E 1-4— i.n.co4-, cVI a)a a)•-> .,.._c a)4-, _c)C0 a)4-,E res.-C >,._=a) ...— _, 4C2 0M ..0>-.as v)0_ a), 0 - -o o 0.)Lii ul•:1- (13 (i/- t:IZI, a)a) —a)4- ,_s_ 1-aj 0 C t73 - 0..., -0n,C‹.— 0CO= v)c hC cri< -v)- , C°ta 03 E s.2c0=...„.0.--1,-1-(1)- I>.LL)c,_o4-• 'WCU L)(1).-_ 00-- =0 -C>.._, "s-I-1/2 >.'a)Cs_ •s_0 M4-,4-, C)< _cr„C: Z").-- N0 -(4- = u s: 0_c•--...,..Lf)m,--1 a)4-•4-,COE 2 "...'=0..c.......0 0,--1-(1)- CAon s-a ='47, 0a) _CW -----0c L.r)c Hi0 V.).•- 1v)u.)•- 0E *-PE a0 *-U :L= 1_=o_c oCT)-VI-1si)+-•Cro4-, V/cor0 00a)--Is: =0-C---...0CAs..-1 -IA- ...0.)C"0 4-,< 7,7--C..) s_=0..0--...„tr)00-,./1- COtoa) COcoCLs_s7 0_C-....,L.r)NIs-Itrs a)Cs_ +-•;1,-:c >..4-,0 -C)WE.__, 4-`'-00 -8a ‘,2 0C,I U— a)v)—m CU' '$.....OU Ccu o3(1) L- m> 0....L.L. 06a)>--a.2 cuco C_C CU CCOoncoCcoLT_ as CUco Ca)>ms c( .9(1) ,.,'+-, "'-'(1) >j= 73._ a)..0E..= co ca) 4-, a) v., cu 1- >CU CO c(..9(CO CZ2>a3 -0,„v) a)C7;5 cCU' C(3)>CO . 9 CZ >.-13a)CcG.) 72 CaJ92 >,, 1 CO aj>(.9 1-j- oaia)-I >a) -0.- CU-C CCl3 C..= (1.)u -C(..) C vs 1- coa) ia,,,,(t ...4.4co s-to a)E c4.-•7 s-00on OA 43, E.3.40 CU (0v) co 0V)4 . • )zc -0 0-,- CC0u C0v)44,7C a) Cl.E3 iCocr,4-,=c Y L..0.1 bp0cc Ca)>1.1.2 C , . 1`-'0 064-•s->-.7., 0Z MI (1)CU C Ca) ._ a) _°CL76L. o6 -0 _C " Fio s.-L.) -0v) c _s 0114-. CI)c c > VICU C4..J a,v) -, <CL C 7=-..... vi ,(-) 06 CCI_LJ a)- =2 0 >•' I-1'E Wcrs -0 CO Lsi >a)-I a)cuOcc--lc_c oZi CC D73 F_c 0co-I s-... •E (1)0 -0 CO vi >, a)-) L.. 2 Cco Cal=0 -0 1: C °n3 73 , C13 C >o ajY -I -^a)co ov) .L)-,-14.1 C.-$ zca) ..c ,,..,tto ---0 e M(D ,....n3 ,... .Y CO (-),. cuCO C0..;.: fa[.... ' ,I.= 00., r-I0 c:5,'a. co LnV)(SDo'(-4 h.CO0,i5. CY) 00d'r-I4'c-I CNIIn4.0oi' e-4 LI)%-ir---,-,- N 1.0LI)N, s-1 NCO00Lri'f' 0INLC,oci'71" CY)1.0Cfes?N 1.0,c-ILO,z5- N 01Lf)NRN CO0Nc3-; Lf)CY)ef)O"NI 00L.r)0‘71-'rr) L.a)+-,ca)0 ■>._ >, 0 C) cla >.a) co> Ca)ZS o0 ZSa)1--Co2 a)al73V)c La-0or= _cbp.-cu2 (1:1:a E7 U3a) 4-,..ctIO•s7ca Z r0.Y <c ....$.-(13CI. V).-m0-J 4-;v) Oa -C3UJ CU) r04-,v) s-U 0 GJ0_0I a) Z >-a) -CS._i...U_ CO0- 4.3cr) 4-, COCL +:,V) aV) =---.->(1.)ii)0Ce Kennedy Offices in Minneapolis Saint Paul St. Cloud 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax wvAv.kennedy-graven.com Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer Gr;ven CHARTERED CHARLES L. LEFEVERE Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9215 email: clefevere@kennedy-graven.com June 3, 2014 Vickie Schleuning Assistant City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Legal Services Dear Vickie: You have advised me that the review of civil legal services has come up on your regular schedule and I offered to provide you with some additional information about our firm. The following is far less than a full-blown response to an RFP, but I thought it might be helpful to the City to have some general input on the nature and scope of legal services Kennedy & Graven can provide. The representation of cities and other local government units is the mainstay of our practice. Over 95% of the revenues of the firm come from the representation of local units of government in Minnesota. We have 29 attorneys in the firm, 28 of whom have practices that involve primarily, if not exclusively, the representation of local government units. We have also have eight paralegals who specialize in real estate, litigation and municipal finance. The work of the firm for these various units of government all have many common elements such as the open meeting law, data practices act, public employment law, public real estate, public contracting, and the like. However, the work that is most directly related the representation of Brooklyn Center is the work that we do for other cities as city attorney. Ten of the attorneys in the firm are designated as city attorney for one or more Minnesota cities. The firm represents 33 cities as city attorney. These cities, and various joint powers organizations that are made up of cities, include the following: 444841v1 CLL BR291-4 Vickie Schieuning Letter June 3, 2014 Page 2 City of Belle Plaine City of Biscay City of Brooklyn Center City of Brooklyn Park City of Cokato City of Crystal City of Faribault City of Franklin City of Independence City of Kenyon City of Lake City City of Lauderdale City of Medina City of Minnetrista City of Mound City of Mounds View City of Nerstrand City of New Brighton City of New Prague City of Oak Grove City of Oakdale City of Pine Island City of Rice City of Richfield City of Robbins dale City of Rosemount City of Sandstone City of Shakopee City of Victoria City of Wahkon City of Watson City of West Concord City of Wilton Arlington, Gaylord Cable Commission Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Lake Minnetonka Communication Commission Local Government Information Service (LOGIS) Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) Southern Minnesota Cable Commission Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Lower Rum River Watershed Management Commission Middle Mississippi River Watershed Management Commission Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Middle St. Croix Watershed Management Organization Vadnais Lakes Area Watershed Management Organization Kennedy & Graven is also one of very few firms in the state that provide a full range of municipal finance, bond, development and redevelopment attorney services. The firm represents a number of Economic Development Authorities, Port Authorities, and Housing and Redevelopment Authorities, and City Development Agencies as general counsel, including the following: 444841v1 CLL BR291-4 Vickie Schleuning Letter June 3, 2014 Page 3 Belle Plaine Medina Bloomington Meeker County Brainerd Minnetrista Brooklyn Center Monticello Brooklyn Park Mound Burnsville Mounds View Chanhassen New Prague Columbia Heights Pipestone Crystal Richfield Faribault Robbinsdale Grand Rapids Rosemount Kenyon Roseville Lake City St. Louis Park Lino Lakes Sandstone Marshall Shakopee In addition to the cities and development entities that we serve as general counsel, we also represent scores of others on special projects, such as land use litigation, construction litigation, financing, condemnation and a host of other municipal law areas. These clients include Bloomington, Burnsville, Duluth, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, the League of Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Association of Townships, and many others, including over 100 school districts and charter schools and over 190 townships. The firm has extensive experience in almost all areas of municipal law, including zoning and land use, public improvement projects, environmental and super fund law, employment law, land use litigation, real estate litigation, other complex litigation, condemnation, tax increment financing and general municipal finance, economic development and redevelopment, joint powers agreement, legislation, real estate, public housing, ordinance codification, public contracting, and charter commissions, among others. This broad experience often allows our attorneys to answer questions, give advice and complete assignments in a much shorter time and at much less cost to the client because we have answered the same questions, prepared similar documents or completed similar assignments for other clients. The attorneys in the firm collectively have hundreds of years of experience in representing municipal clients. However, cities are interested not only in ability, but also in efficiency, responsiveness, innovation and a cooperative work relationship. I can think of no better indicator of these qualities than the great success that the firm has had in the growth of its municipal practice. It is widely recognized in the municipal community and in the legal community for its effective representation of local government clients. We believe that Kennedy & Graven is the pre-eminent firm in Minnesota for the representation of local government units. We know of no other firm that has the depth and breadth of experience 444841v1 CLL BR291-4 Vickie Schleuning Letter June 3, 2014 Page 4 in this practice area in Minnesota, and we pride ourselves in providing quality service to our public clients. Our commitment to representing local government units represents not only an interest in such work but a firm belief that the work of local government units is important. I have represented the City of Brooklyn Center as legal counsel for 27 years. Speaking for myself and the firm, we greatly enjoy the personal and professional relationship that we have with the Council and staff at Brooklyn Center. We very much appreciate the opportunity to serve as legal counsel to the City of Brooklyn Center. If you have any questions about the firm, I would be happy to provide more information. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:peb 444841v1 CLL BR291-4